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

Unreinforced polypropylene (0.75mm)

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

Refer Unreinforced Polypropylene (1mm).

Experience Top button

Common polypropylene applications include floating covers, landfill liners and caps, tank liners and sewage processing ponds. No literature reporting its effectiveness from this experience has been found, but the manufacturer estimates a useful life of 15 years (for areas south of 30° latitude).

Unreinforced polypropylene (PPU) (0.75mm) was trialed in 200m of the Finley Main Channel by Murray Irrigation Limited in July 2002.

Site preparation Top button


Subgrade preparation required:
  • Channel reprofiling to achieve consistent batter slopes and minimal protrusions.
  • Silt and clod removal.
Installation Top button

Method of installation

Installation occurred during July 2002. Approximately half a day was required for installation.

The PPU was prefabricated and came in 50m lengths approximately 20m wide. The material was laid in the channel and then folded out like a tarpaulin. A crew of 10 was required to unfold and manoeuvre the material into place. Two additional crew members were required to weld sections together.

The liner was anchored in trenches along the channel bank and the end treatment utilised geosynthetic clay lining (GCL).

Figure 1 Laying the PPU
Figure 1 Laying the PPU

Figure 2 Channel section near completion
Figure 2 Channel section near completion


Specialised equipment

Material spool and joining equipment.

Installation Issues

Despite a large labour requirement, the installation was straightforward.

Correct set-out of the material was required to ensure that the joins matched.

Weather considerations


Wind conditions during installation were ideal. Windy conditions could cause installation problems, particularly with such large sections of material.

Durability Top button

The manufacturer estimates a useful life of 15 years (for areas south of 30° latitude).

Seepage reduction Top button

The baseline seepage rate at the PPU Finley Main Channel site was 7.0L/m2/day. A pondage test in 2003 identified a seepage reduction of 71% (to 2.0L/m2/day).

Cost Top button

A breakdown of the costs is presented in the table below. The total lining cost of $43,673 (2002), or $11.93/m2, is based on a supplied surface area of 3,800m2.

Table 1 Breakdown of costs for PPU (1.0mm)


Item

Cost ($)

Cost ($/m2)1

Earth works (excavator, loader, etc.)

$4,223 $1.13
Materials $19,000 $5.07
Delivery $1,800 $0.48
Installation $12,508 $3.34
MIL staff wages, on-costs, etc. $2,080 $0.56
Fencing $5,000 $25.00/m
Misc. $62 $0.02
TOTAL $44,673 $11.93
1. Cost per square metre based on 3,800m2 of material supplied.
2. Cost per metre of fencing based on 200m section of channel.


Cost for materials and installation are indicative of a commercial application to a longer section of channel. Other costs would be expected to reduce marginally as economies of scale in earth works, delivery, utilisation of staff, and fencing are achieved. These costs are exclusive of GST.

Advantages and disadvantages Top button

Advantages
  • Under favourable weather conditions, the PPU was installed in half a day. This highlights the benefits of the technique, in that large sections can be done quickly, but the labour requirements are high.

Disadvantages

  • Windy conditions would cause significant installation problems, particularly with large sections of material.
  • The use of prefabricated material highlighted the need to accurately estimate the channel dimensions prior to manufacture. In this case, the width of the channel was over-estimated, which meant that there was a considerable amount of material left over.
  • 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 (2mm exposed)
High-density polyethylene (1.5mm exposed)
Linear low-density PE and very low-density PE
(1.5mm)

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

Home

How to use this website

Copyright

Disclaimer

Privacy

Page last reviewed on 25/6/04