FIELD PERFORMANCE OF GEOTEXTILE REINFORCED SLUDGE CAPS

FIELD PERFORMANCE OF GEOTEXTILE REINFORCED SLUDGE CAPS AHMET H. AYDILEK UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ABSTRACT Geosynthetic reinforced capping of highwater content waste materials is becoming an efficient and economic way of dealing with the confinement of the contaminants. To define the filtration performance of sludge-geotextile systems and investigate their durability, ten sludge lagoon test cells were constructed using of a lightweight fill, i.e. a wood chip/soil mixture over different geotextiles. Instrumentation of the cells included piezometers, settlement plates and surveying blocks. Various laboratory tests were performed on the field-exhumed geotextile samples to understand their filtration performance. The laboratory and field investigations showed that woven geotextiles could be effectively used in filtering contaminated wastewater treatment sludges. Considering the constructability, woven geotextiles should also be preferred due to their higher strength. Laboratory observations performed on the exhumed samples can provide valuable information about the performance of the geotextile. INTRODUCTION Considerable evidence has been provided by the recent studies (Grefe 989, Zeman 994) that containment of contaminated soft sediments and sludges by capping may provide efficient solution for wastewater treatment sludges. An example of these sludges is currently available in Madison, WI. The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) generates sludge as part of its water treatment process. This sludge has been disposed in lagoons and subsequently retrieved as fertilizer for application on farmlands. Some of the sludge contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are detrimental to human health, at concentrations above the allowable limit (50 mg/kg) and was banned from land applications. The MMSD 589

evaluated different remediation alternatives to treat its sludge and the U. S. EPA agreed to permit capping as the method of remediation. The design of such a cap would include a geosynthetic component, which would have three main functions: reinforcement, filtration and separation. While reinforcement is an important function of the geotextile for providing a good construction platform on soft sludge, filtration is another function that the geotextile should provide for long-term retention of the contaminated sludge solids during later movement. It becomes more important in case of sludge, since there is a common perception that sludge clogs geotextiles. In addition to an expected anti-clogging performance, openings of the geotextile should be small enough to prevent excessive piping and retain the contaminated sludge solids. Finally, the geotextile should separate sludge from the overlaying cap and should not allow intrusion of any sludge solids. To define the filtration performance of sludge-geotextile systems and investigate their durability, ten sludge lagoon test cells were capped. A light-weight fill, i.e. a wood chip/soil mixture was used as a cap material along with ten different woven and nonwoven geotextiles (Figure ). Piezometers installed at different depths in the sludge provided information about the pore pressure values therefore a measure of the clogging performance. Laboratory tests were performed on the field-exhumed geotextile samples to understand their field-clogging performance. Two of the cells used the same woven geotextile (Geotextile A), and were constructed in two different seasons, summer and winter to observe the seasonal effects on constructability. Detailed information about the construction, and field and laboratory investigations of the test cells can be found in Edil and Aydilek (997) and Aydilek et al. (2000). TEST CELLS Properties of the Cap Material, Sludge and Geosynthetics Field and laboratory tests were performed to assess the physical characteristics of the cap material. The field tests included determination of density of the cap material using sand cone tests (ASTM D556), and measurement of the cap thickness. Samples of the field material were compacted in a compaction mold in the laboratory and constant head hydraulic conductivity tests were performed. The tests showed that hydraulic conductivity of the cap material ranges from 2.2 x 0-4 to 2.0 x 0-7 cm/sec depending on the compaction level. Sampling of the sludge, conducted by taking continuous core samples provided information about water content and solids content of the material before construction. Solids content of the sludge ranged from 7% to 26%. Solids content is defined as a ratio of the weight of sludge solids to the total specimen weight. Six woven and four nonwoven geotextiles were used in the construction. The geotextiles were selected based on their polymer type, manufacture type, and mechanical and flow properties. The properties of the geotextiles are summarized in Table. 590

N 4-5 m 4-5 m 9 m 20 m 4.7 m Geotextile X Geotextile B 3 2 GeotextileA Test Cell 24 m 3 2 GeotextileA Test Cell 2 4.7 m 3 m 3.2 m 3.6 m GeotextileC Geotextile N Geotextile L Geotextile P 3. m 3. m 4 2 3 Geotextile G Sample Pizometer Configuration used in Third Group Test Cells 3.6 m Geotextile I 4 2 3 3.6 m Geotextile D 2 3 Peat Mid-depth of sludge Sludge-geotextile interface NOT TO SCALE 4 GW fluctuations Figure. Layout of test cells. Table. Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Geotextiles Used in the Study. Geotextile name Structure, polymer type Mass/unit area (gr/m 2 ) Thickness (mm) AOS 2 (mm) POA 2 or porosity (%) Permittivity (sec - ) A W-SF, PP 263 0.462 0.6 0.6 0.05 B W-MU, PP 257 0.864 0.43 3.3.50 C W-MF, PP 207 0.670 0.26 8.2.36 D W-SF, PP 29 0.603 0.425 2.0 0.0 G W-MF, PP 204 0.660 0.33 25 2.4 I NW-STF, NP, PP 278 2.30 0.8 86.6.20 L NW-STF, NP, PP 492 3.80 0.5 85.6 0.70 N NW-CF, HB, PP 36 NA 0.22 NA 0.70 P NW-STF, NP, PP 387 0.3 0.5 85.7 0.80 X W-MU/SF, PP 225 NA 0.30 5.0 0.5 W: woven, SF: slit-film, MF: monofilament, MU: multifilament, STF: Staple fiber, CF: Continuous filament, HB: Heat-bonded, NP: Needle-punched, PP: polypropylene. 2 Apparent opening size (AOS) and percent open area (POA) values for wovens are determined using image analysis, except for Geotextile X reported value is used. Percent open area is applicable for wovens and porosity is for nonwovens. Porosity is determined using the method described by Wayne and Koerner (994). NA = Not analyzed. 59

Construction and Instrumentation of the Test Cells Construction of the first test cell was performed on an approximately 24 m long by 9 m wide section of the lagoons, on August 2, 996 (Figure 2). Before construction, the sludge had an average solids content of 25% corresponding to a water content of 300%, and an average depth of.2 m. The pre-sawn geotextile (Geotextile A) was spread on the sludge in the eastwest direction. The fill material, a mixture of 70% wood chip and 30% soil, was placed in three layers, resulting in an average total thickness of 0.6 m, by use of light construction equipment. The average wet unit weight of the material was 9 kn/m 3 and its initial water content 20%. The west section of the cap was generally compacted more than the east side due to higher number of equipment passes during construction. As a result, the cap thickness and the applied stress were not uniform over the sludge, being approximately kpa on the west section and 7.6 kpa on the east section. Information about the settlement of the sludge was obtained from two settlement plates installed on the geotextile. Ten open tube piezometers placed at different locations and depths were used to observe groundwater levels and excess pore pressures during consolidation. Instrumentation of the cell also included nine surface survey blocks to monitor settlement of the cap. East +46 9 m +46 +45 P0 P SP P9 P6 P4 P5 P7 P2 P3 SP2 P8 +45 Elevation (m) +44 Cover Geotextile +44 Sludge +43 +43 Peat Figure 2. Cross sectional view of Test Cell To investigate winter constructability of a cap on the sludge, a second test pad was constructed on an approximately 20 m long by 24 m wide section of the lagoons, on February 2, 997. It is confined on three sides with dikes and open on the fourth side bordering some vegetative growth. Construction of the cap was facilitated by a 60 mm thick layer of ice over a 0.3 m thick layer of frozen sludge. The frozen sludge was underlain by a m thick layer of soft sludge. Before construction, the sludge had an average solids content of 8%, corresponding to a water content of 470%. Test Cell 2 was constructed using the same reinforcement geotextile and the wood/chip soil mixture as in Test Cell. The wet unit weight of the cap material was 592

6.3 kn/m 3 on the northwest side and 0.5 kn/m 3 on the east side. The thickness of the cap ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 m, which corresponds to vertical stresses of 3 kpa to 9 kpa. These values are lower than those obtained for Test Cell. Instrumentation of the cell included four settlement plates, twelve piezometers and five surface survey blocks. A third group of test cells using eight different woven and nonwoven geotextiles were built north of Test Cell 2, on April 5, 999. The length of each cell is equal to the roll length of the geotextile, which ranged from 4 to 5 m as shown in Figure. The cap material was a 50% wood-chip and 50% soil mixture, being slightly less permeable than the material used in Test Cells and 2 (ranges between x 0-5 to x 0-7 cm/sec depending on the compaction level). The wet unit weight of the cap material ranged from 0 kn/m 3 to 3 kn/m 3. The thickness of the cap ranged from 0.3 to 0.7 m, which corresponds to vertical stresses of 4 kpa to 8 kpa. Field instrumentation included two concrete survey blocks (surface markers) on each cell to determine the settlement of the sludge. Four piezometers were used in each cell, one in the sludge, one at the bottom of the sludge (sludge-peat interface), one at the sludge-geotextile interface, to understand the pore water pressure regime. The last set of piezometers was inserted above the geotextile (at the base of cap) to observe the ambient water level. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND EXHUME OF GEOTEXTILES The field investigations were conducted to exhume samples of geotextile, sludge and cap material. Samples were exhumed 6 months and year after construction of Test Cells and 2, and year after construction of third group cells. An excavator was initially used, however, due to a light damage occurred in the geotextile, its use was discontinued. This method could also cause disturbance of the underlying sludge and piping of excessive material through the fabric. Instead a bucket auger and a hand shovel were used to dig the test holes. The excavations were approximately.2 m by.8 m in size, and when the excavation depth was within about 0.5 m of anticipated geotextile locations; cap materials were removed by hand to locate the geotextiles without much disturbance. Shelby tube sampling of sludge was conducted by inserting the tube with its sharpened end, into the sludge from the corner of the excavated hole. This method allowed collecting of the sludge samples from the geotextile-sludge interface and below the fabric. Two samples of the cap material were collected above (typically 20 mm) geotextile for future laboratory analysis. During the sampling, attempts were made to measure the thickness of zone of intermixing (sludge fines and cap material). This thickness was generally insignificant, being less than 0.05m in most cases. Therefore, it was concluded that no significant sludge intrusion into the overlying cap is occurring. After the cap material is removed from the geotextile surface, a utility knife was used to cut the perimeter of the exposed geotextile. The geotextiles were carefully removed, sealed in zip lock bags and transported to the laboratory for further evaluation. Some leachate was added to the bags and the samples were kept in the humidity room until they are tested, along with the suggestions of Corcoran and Bhatia (996). Sludge samples were also collected in zip lock bags 593

for laboratory tests, i.e., water content, solids content, and PCB determinations. Geotextile patches were placed over the areas before the test pits were backfilled. In addition to the geotextile exhume, pore water pressures are monitored during and after the construction. Excess pore pressures occurred due to loading of the sludge dissipated approximately.5 years after construction and followed the trend observed in the settlement data (Aydilek et al. 2000). No excess pore pressure build-up at the sludge-geotextile interface was observed. LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Clogging Behavior After the samples were carried to the laboratory, a digital image camera was used to assess the damage on geotextiles. No apparent damage was observed on the exhumed geotextile samples. Some of the wood chips intruded into the cap-geotextile interface; however no puncture or tears were visible. The excess material on the surface of the geotextile samples was removed by a wet brush and the micrographs of the samples were taken. The removal of the excess material was necessary to expose the portion of the geotextile, if blinding or clogging has occurred. Laboratory tests (i.e., permittivity tests, image analyses, filter press tests) performed on the field-exhumed geotextile samples provided valuable information about the clogging performance of the geotextiles. Image analyses were mainly performed to determine percent open area (POA)s of the woven geotextiles. Approximately 30-35 images of each woven geotextile specimen were taken and POAs were determined through a newly developed computer program named as PORE (Aydilek et al. 2000). POA R is defined as ratio of the fieldexhumed geotextile percent open area to the virgin geotextile percent open area, and any change in POA R would indicate a reduction in open area and therefore, flow capacity. For instance, POA R = 0.75 would indicate a 25% reduction in the open area of a woven geotextile. Permittivity tests were performed on the samples, in conformance with the ASTM 449, after determining their POAs. Permittivity ratio (Ψ R ), a ratio of the permitivity of the fieldexhumed geotextile to virgin geotextile permittivity is determined for each sample. This ratio gives an idea about the percent clogging/blinding performance of the geotextile. Three tests were conducted on each sample and the mean value was used. Practically, for an unclogged/unblinded geotextile this ratio should be equal to.0. Table 2 summarizes the permittivity and percent open area ratios for each geotextile, exhumed year after construction. As part of a laboratory research program at University of Wisconsin, the filtration performance of the same geotextiles was determined using gradient ratio testing procedure, and permittivity tests and image analyses were performed on the post-gradient ratio test specimens (Aydilek 2000). For comparison purposes, the permittivity and percent open area ratios determined from 594

this testing program are also given in Table 2. Attempts were made to determine the porosity of exhumed and laboratory tested geotextiles using the procedure described by Wayne and Koerner (994); however, due to a nonuniform clogging of the geotextile specimens, accurate thickness measurements were not possible. Permittivity ratios are in an excellent agreement with the calculated percent open area ratios for most of the test cells, and both of the values are within the limits, 0.8 to.2, set based on the laboratory tests (Aydilek 2000). The values are also comparable with the ones determined from previous laboratory testing program, which might indicate that a successful laboratory testing can predict the field filtration performance of geotextiles. It could be observed from the table that woven geotextiles performed better than the nonwoven geotextiles. Two of the nonwoven geotextiles (L and N) clogged more due to their relatively low permitivity values. It should also be remembered that Geotextile N is a heat-bonded nonwoven geotextile, which is usually not preferred in filtration applications (Haliburton et al. 982). Considering the constructability issues, it could be concluded that woven geotextiles should be preferred for capping of sludges. Table 2. Clogging Performance of Geotextiles Used in the Study Percent Geotextile open area, name POA 2 or porosity (%) Permittivity (sec - ) Permittivity ratio (Ψ R ) Field exhumed geotextiles After laboratory testing Percent open area ratio (POA R) Field After exhumed laboratory geotextiles testing A 0.6 0.05 0.9.0 0.92.0 B 3.3.50 0.97.0 0.92 0.97 C 8.2.36 0.83 0.80 0.85 0.90 D 2.0 0.0 0.95 0.53 0.87 0.53 G 25 2.4.0 0.93 0.8 0.88 I 86.6.20 0.86 0.82 NAP NAP L 85.6 0.70 0.70 0.73 NAP NAP N NA 0.70 0.43 0.52 NAP NAP P 85.7 0.80 0.89 0.80 NAP NAP X 5.0 0.5 0.98 NA 0.90 NA NA = Not analyzed, NAP: Not applicable. An analysis is made to observe the effects of varying cap stresses on the sludge. Figure 3 shows the permittivity and percent open ratios obtained for samples of Geotextile A exhumed from Test Cells and 2. The ratios obtained in the laboratory tests for this geotextile are also included in the same figure. The values obtained for Test Cell is slightly lower than those obtained for Cell 2. This might be due to higher vertical stresses exerted on the sludge in Cell. The ratios calculated for samples exhumed after 6 months and year of construction are nearly the same indicating that the geotextiles were successful in terms of their long-term anticlogging performance. 595

2 Permittivity ratio or percent open area ratio.5 0.5 POAR from the laboratory test Test Cell Permittivity ratio, Ψ R Percent open area ratio, POA R POA R from laboratory test Test Cell 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 Time after construction of the test cell (months) Figure 3. Change in the permittivity ratios and percent open area ratios of the geotextiles exhumed from Test Cells and 2. Retention and Separation Behavior Observations during the exhuming showed no significant piping of the sludge through the geotextile. The supernatant collected at the top of the geotextile was sampled in zip lock bags and transferred to the laboratory. Samples of the cap material on the surface of the geotextile were also collected to investigate any intrusion of the sludge into the cap. The supernatant samples were sedimented in glass graduate cylinders for 48 hours, however no measurable amount of material (sludge solids) was visible. Samples of the cap material collected on the geotextile interface were dried and wood chip, soil and sludge particles were separated. Sludge solids were black in color and could be easily identified among the soil particles. The weight of the solids intruded was insignificant, in each case being less than 0 grams for 2,000 to 4,000 grams of collected cap material. This corresponded to a piping rate of less than,200 g/m 2, lower than a limit of 2,500 g/m 2 set by Lafleur et al. (989) for laboratory tests. Field piping rates were higher than the ones observed in the laboratory tests (e.g.,,200 g/m 2 versus00 g/m 2 ); however, this is most likely due to additional dynamic loads exerted on the sludge due to passages of trucks during the construction. Therefore, it is concluded that all of the geotextiles performed satisfactorily both in terms of separation of the sludge from the overlaying cap and retention of the sludge solids by means of preventing their excessive piping. Filter press test, a widely used test by the petroleum industry to determine the flowability of the liquids, is slightly modified and was conducted on the samples of exhumed geotextiles. One 596

test was conducted on each exhumed geotextile sample, and average value is reported. Control tests were also conducted on the virgin samples of the geotextile with the sludge procured from the lagoon and percent changes in the filtrate loss of the field-exhumed geotextiles were reported. Details of the testing program can be found in Aydilek (2000). The filtrate loss values for the samples exhumed after year of construction shown in Figure 4 are consistent with the findings obtained from the permittivity tests (Table 2). For instance, a 52% decrease in the filtrate loss is obtained for Geotextile N, which is comparable to a 57% decrease in the flow capacity of the same geotextile (Ψ R = 0.43 would indicate a 57% decrease in flow capacity). 0 Change in filtrate loss (%) 0-0 -20-30 -40-50 After 6 months of exhume After year of exhume -60 Geotextile G Geotextile X Geotextile B Geotextile D Geotextile I Geotextile P Geotextile A Geotextile L Geotextile C Geotextile N Figure 4. Change in the retention performance of field-exhumed geotextiles CONCLUSIONS The filtration performance of a wastewater treatment sludge was evaluated with ten different woven and nonwoven geotextiles in the field. Piezometers installed at different depths in the sludge provided information about the pore pressure regime in the cells. Permittivity tests, filter press tests and image analysis were conducted on the exhumed geotextile samples to understand the long-term filtration performance of these geotextiles. The results showed that woven geotextiles perform satisfactorily, and, considering the constructability of the cap, they should be preferred due their higher tensile strength. The following conclusions can be made based on the observations: 597

Permittivity tests and image analyses performed on the field-exhumed geotextile samples showed that filtration capacity of a geotextile is related to its manufacturing type and percent open area/porosity. Piping rates were determined by measuring the sludge solids in the collected cap material samples. The rate was around,200 g/cm 2, being insignificant for field samples. The value was also less than the limit of 2,500 g/m 2 set by Lafleur et al. (989) for the laboratory tests. Change in the retention performance and flow capacity of the exhumed fabrics was investigated by conducting filter press tests. The tests reflected the behavior observed in the permittivity tests. Field and laboratory observations showed no indication of sludge intrusion into the cap material and no apparent damage was visible. Therefore, the geotextile acted as an efficient separation layer between the sludge and the cap. REFERENCES Aydilek, A.H., Edil, T.B., and Fox, P.J., 2000, Consolidation Characteristics of Wastewater Treatment Sludge, Geotechnics of High-Water Content Materials, ASTM STP 374, T.B. Edil and P.J. Fox., Eds., Philadelphia, PA, pp.309-323. Aydilek, A. H., 2000, Filtration Performance of Geotextile-Wastewater Sludge Systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Corcoran, B.W. and Bhatia, S. K, 996, Evaluation of Geotextile Filter in a Collection System at Fresh Kills Landfill, Recent Developments in Geotextile Filters and Prefabricated Drainage Geocomposites, ASTM STP 28, S.K. Bhatia and L.D. Suits, Eds., Philadelphia, PA, pp.82-95. Edil, T.B. and Aydilek, A.H., 997, Winter Construction and Performance Analysis of Sludge Lagoon Test Cell Cover, A Report Submitted to the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District. Grefe, R.P., 989, Closure of Papermill Sludge Lagoons Using Geosynthetics and Subsequent Performance, Proceedings of the 2 th Annual Madison Waste Conference, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, pp.2-62. Haliburton, T.A. and Wood, P.D., 982, Evaluation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gradient Ratio Test for Geotextile Performance, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol., pp.97-0. Wayne, M.H. and Koerner, R.M., 994, Correlation Between Long-Term Flow Testing and Current Geotextile Filtration Design Practice, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 93, Vol., pp. 50-57. Zeman, A.J., 994, Subaqeous Capping of Very Soft Contaminated Sediments, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.3, pp.570-577. 598