Field Evaluation of Alternative Earthen Final Covers

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Five methods to assess percolation rate from alternative earthen final covers (AEFCs) are described in the context of the precision with which the percolation rate can be estimated: trend analysis, tracer methods, water balance method, Darcy's Law calculations, and lysimetry. Trend evaluation of water content data is the least precise method because it cannot be used alone to assess the percolation rate. The precision of percolation rates estimated using tracer methods depends on the tracer concentration, percolation rate, and the sensitivity of the chemical extraction and analysis methods. Percolation rates determined using the water balance method have a precision of approximately 100 mm/yr in humid climates and 50 mm/yr in semiarid and drier climates, which is too large to demonstrate that an AEFC is meeting typical equivalency criterion (30 mm/yr or less). In most cases, the precision will be much poorer. Percolation rates computed using Darcy's Law with measured profiles of water content and matric suction typically have a precision that is about two orders of magnitude (or more) greater than the computed percolation rate. The Darcy's Law method can only be used for performance assessment if the estimated percolation rate is much smaller than the equivalency criterion and preferential flow is not present. Lysimetry provides the most precise estimates of percolation rate, but the precision depends on the method used to measure the collected water. The lysimeter used in the Alternative Cover Assessment Program (ACAP), which is described in this paper, can be used to estimate percolation rates with a precision between 0.00004 to 0.5 mm/yr, depending on the measurement method and the flow rates.