IRRIGATION AUSTRALIA WEBSITE Channel Seepage Management Tool (Please click to return to home page)

About this website Contact us Site map

Home

Seepage risk, potential

Identification & measurement

Remediation

Approach

Techniques

Earthen Lining
Hard surface lining
Flexible membrane
lining
Groundwater
intervention

Remediation costs, benefits

Prioritisation of works

Project review

Case studies

Downloads

Glossary

References

High-density polyethylene (2mm exposed)

On this page go to
Description
Experience
Site preparation
Installation
Durability
Seepage reduction
Cost
Advantages and disadvantages
Related pages

Pages in this section include:

  Flexible membrane lining techniques
  Flexible membrane materials
  Covered liners
  High-density polyethylene (0.75mm)
  Geosynthetic clay liners
  Exposed liners
High-density polyethylene (2mm exposed)
  High-density polyethylene (1.5mm exposed)
  Linear low-density PE and very low-density PE
(1.5mm)
  DamSeal
  Unreinforced polypropylene (1mm)
  Unreinforced polypropylene (0.75mm)
  Reinforced polypropylene (1.1mm)
  Butyl rubber
  Asphalt

Description Top button

High-density polyethylene (HDPE), commonly used as a geomembrane and is similar to the material used in black polyethylene pipes. It has a broad chemical resistance and excellent UV resistance, but has a lack of flexibility and can develop brittle stress cracking at low stresses if not properly formulated.

Since HDPE is a very stiff material, it cannot be prefabricated into panels. Instead it is delivered to the site in rolls, usually up to 6m wide (9m widths are manufactured in the United States) and all the seaming is done on-site. The HDPE liner is rolled out and laid across the channel with overlapping pieces to enable weld joining.

Experience Top button

Sections of exposed HDPE of 1.5mm thickness were installed on the bottom of channel sections only as part of the United States Deschutes trials (Swihart and Haynes, 1999). This liner immediately encountered problems due to the formation of ‘whales’ where the material had lifted from the substrate due to the build-up of pressure underneath. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to repair the sections. Unfortunately the cause of the ‘whales’ was never resolved, although volcanic gases were suspected.

In Australia 2.0mm HDPE exposed liner has been used for channel remediation in Queensland by Sun Water but no formal literature covering performance is available.

The IAL project trialed 200m of 2.0mm exposed HDPE at the Finley Main Channel by Murray Irrigation Limited in 2003.

Site preparation Top button


Moderate subgrade preparation was required to reshape the channel profile and remove sharp stones, debris and vegetation.

Installation Top button

Method of installation

The HDPE was supplied in 6.5m wide rolls of approximately 200m in length. To allow easier installation, reduce labour requirements on site, and reduce the amount of joining in wet and dirty site conditions, some workshop prefabrication was undertaken. Approximately four water authority personnel and three from the supplier were required to install the material, which included welding sections together.

The 200m section was laid and welded in approximately two days. The liner was anchored in trenches along the channel bank and the end treatment utilised geosynthetic clay lining (GCL).

Figure 1 Laying the HDPE
Figure 1 Laying the HDPE

Figure 2 Completed channel section Figure 2 Completed channel section


Specialised equipment


A spool bar was used to lift the HDPE material and provide the means for laying it across the channel profile. A lifting frame was used to place the GCL for the end treatment. At the downstream end of the trial section the HDPE liner was joined to an existing membrane, and the upstream end was trenched into the channel profile.

Installation issues
  • Site conditions were less than ideal for the installation, with the channel bed being quite wet due to 50mm of rainfall in the preceding two weeks. In addition to this, groundwater intrusion necessitated regular pumping to dewater the channel. Water ponded in the bottom of the liner and caused difficulties during welding. Effort was required in order to keep joins clean for welding.
  • HDPE off-cuts were used as drop sheets under each join to keep mud and water from fouling the welding process. This meant that slightly less material was available for lining so only 160m (instead of the full 200m) was completed.
  • Access to the site was restricted due to wet conditions. A fence on one side of the channel also limited access. Only vehicles with tracks could access the site.
Weather considerations

Wind conditions during installation were calm. Windier conditions would cause significantly greater installation problems, particularly with large sections of material.

Durability Top button

The lifespan of exposed HDPE is estimated to be 20-40 years.

Seepage reduction Top button

The baseline seepage rate at the trial site was 5.2L/m2/day. A post-remediation pondage test is yet to be undertaken.

Cost Top button

A breakdown of costs is presented in the table below. The total lining cost of $43,632 (2003), or $12.12/m2, is based on supplied surface area of 3,600m2. Despite only 160m of liner being installed instead of 200m (due to site conditions requiring drop sets HDPE drop sheets beneath the liner to keep the joins clean), the cost per square metre is considered representative of the installation costs for the full 200m (3,600m2) long section. This is because MIL estimate that material and labour requirements for installing 200m in good conditions would be similar to installing 160m in poor conditions as experienced at this site.

Table 1 Breakdown of costs for HDPE (2mm)

Item

Cost ($)

Cost ($/m2)1

Site preparation (excavator, grader, etc.)

$3,322 $0.92

Materials (inc. delivery)

$20,000 $5.55

Installation (contractor joining)

$1,400 $0.39

Backfilling (excavator, etc.)

$12,000 $3.33

WMW staff wages, on-costs, etc.

$3,950 $1.10

Fencing

$1,710 $8.55/m

Miscellaneous

$1,250 $0.35

TOTAL

$43,632 $12.12
1. Cost per square metre based on 3,600m2 of material supplied.
2. Cost per metre of fencing based on 200m section of channel.


Cost for materials and installation are specific to this job. Costs for materials and transport would be less in larger applications. Other costs would be expected to reduce marginally as economies of scale in earth works, installation, utilisation of staff, and fencing are achieved. These costs are exclusive of GST.

Advantages and disadvantages Top button

Advantages
  • Despite some unfavourable conditions in the form of a wet subgrade, ease of installation of the HDPE was considered to be quite good.

Disadvantages

  • HDPE is difficult to install under windy conditions, as this makes it difficult to lay the material and can cause the sheets to move during welding.
  • Wet subgrade conditions can interfere with the welding process.
  • Exposed installations require fencing to prevent risk of damage by animals.
Related pages Top button

Flexible membrane lining techniques
Flexible membrane materials
Covered liners
High-density polyethylene (0.75mm)
Geosynthetic clay liners
Exposed liners
High-density polyethylene (1.5mm exposed)
Linear low-density PE and very low-density PE
(1.5mm)

DamSeal
Unreinforced polypropylene (1mm)
Unreinforced polypropylene (0.75mm)
Reinforced polypropylene (1.1mm)
Butyl rubber
Asphalt
   

Home

How to use this website

Copyright

Disclaimer

Privacy

Page last reviewed on 25/6/04