Geomembrane Materials for Rehabilitation of Open Water Canals

P. Schaefer
Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Technische Universität München, Germany
[email protected]
Th. Strobl
Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Technische Universität München, Germany
[email protected]

ABSTRACT: In Europe numerous concrete-faced open water canals are being used for hydropower produc-
tion, of which some are as old as 80 years. As a result of ageing the concrete facing looses its water-tightness.
A modern approach for the rehabilitation of such canals is the installation of a geomembrane-based facing
onto the existing concrete. For aid in the design of a rehabilitation measure, loads onto geomembranes have
been studied in a canal in the Laboratory of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering of the Technische
Universität München, Germany. In this paper results of the tests in the canal in the Laboratory will be pre-
sented together with suggestions for the design of geomembrane-based sealing systems and case-studies of
previous rehabilitation measures with geomembranes in open water canals.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Existing Open Water Canals

Open water canals for hydropower production often have a trapezoidal cross-section and conduct water at a
mean velocity of 1 m/s to 3 m/s. The surface of the canal is usually sealed with 10 to 20 cm concrete slabs.
The ageing of concrete structures is inevitable. Depending on the environmental conditions a service life of
about 50 years can be assumed for concrete sealings of water canals after which the concrete eventually looses
its impermeability. For once this means a loss of water for the operator, however, more important, the
permanent moisture penetration results in a loss of slope stability. After a certain stage the rehabilitation is
crucial for safe operation.

1.2 Alternatives for Rehabilitating Open Water Canals

To rehabilitate aged concrete sealing systems today several alternatives are considered (Figure 1). To avoid a
reduction of the cross-section, the existing concrete can be removed and replaced by a new layer. This how-
ever is cost- and time-consuming. Often it is more efficient to place a new 10 to 20 cm layer of concrete or as-
phaltic concrete onto the existing one and to accept a loss in capacity. Geomembranes however join both ad-
vantages, being cost-efficient without the removal of the existing concrete and requiring less than 1 cm in
height, including a geotextile-drainage layer and the membrane.
The expected service life of concrete and asphaltic is 50 years if carried out appropriately. The experience
with geomembranes in open water canals is about 30 years, but the expected service life is considerably
higher.
An advantage of geomembranes not often considered is the equivalent sand roughness of the surface of less
than 0.01 mm. The roughness of concrete is 1 ÷ 6 mm, for asphaltic concrete it is 1.5 ÷ 2.2 mm. This results in
an increased potential for hydropower production. An example is given in Chapter0.

473
 Figure 1. Rehabilitation of canals with concrete and asphaltic concrete and geomembrane

2 DESIGN OF GEOMEMBRANES FOR OPEN WATER CANALS

2.1 General Design of Geomembranes in Open Water Canals

For rehabilitating a concrete faced canal with geomembranes approximately 2,5 mm thick membranes are
placed onto the surface of the canal and welded together. The membranes are clamped in place with a steel
profile-anchor system. The fixation is carried out linearly in parallel lines with the direction of flow. The sub-
grade must be in a state which allows the placement of anchors for the fixation and must provide sufficient
evenness to prevent damages of the membrane during impoundment. To reduce this risk a geotextile is placed
in between the concrete and the membrane. This textile also has a draining function, which prevents water
pressure from developing behind the membrane in case of a minor leakage. In addition it is advisable to install
a suitable drainage-water collection system or a leakage detection system (e.g. the distributed fibre-optical
temperature measurement; Strobl et. al. (2002)) to facilitate the location of possible leaks and enable repair.
After impoundment the hydrostatic water pressure presses the membrane onto the concrete, and as the
drained system does not allow pressure to develop underneath, in theory the fixations do not need to carry any
load.

2.2 Loads on Geomembranes in Open Water Canals

During draw down of an 8.7 km section of the Innkanal after 17 years, altogether 18 cars have been found
(Figure 2). Keeping this in mind, the loading condition “damage of the membrane with hydrodynamic water
pressure developing below the membrane” must be considered for the design of geomembranes in open water
canals. In this loading condition the fixation must in any case prevent the tearing out of the membrane and
blocking of intake structures.

Figure 2. Pair of cars found during draw-down of the Innkanal, Germany, 2003

474
 For a conservative design of the fixation of geomembranes the loading condition ’damage of a membrane
perpendicular to the direction of flow, from one fixation profile to the next’ (Figure 3) must be taken into ac-
count.

geomembrane fixation l0
profile
lp
α
existing
concrete
damaged pdyn N
membrane anchor

Figure 3. Example of damage of geomembrane in bottom area between two fixation profiles
and deformation of membrane due to hydrodynamic pressure

In this case the hydrodynamic water pressure, which develops below the membrane, can be calculated with
v2 1
p dyn = ρ ⋅ g ⋅ = ρ ⋅ v2 (1)
2g 2
where ρ = density and v = mean velocity of the water. According to the geometry the normal force N is:
N = p dyn ⋅ r (2)

with r = radius of the deformed membrane.

Under the use of the material’s law the following equation can be applied
lp − l0
N = σ ⋅ A = ε ⋅ EA = ⋅ EA (3)
l0
with σ = stress, ε = elongation, E = modulus of elasticity, A = cross-sectional area and lp, l0 = length of the
membrane (Figure 3). With the simplification of assuming a constant modulus of elasticity, the load onto the
fixation is calculated by iteration.

2.3 Fixation
With the above calculation the possible loads, which must be transferred by the fixation system can be deter-
mined. The load which can be transferred by the mechanical or preferably chemical anchors is defined by the
manufacturer. The amount of load which can be carried by the aged concrete however must be determined in-
dividually for each subgrade and situation.

3 INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT AT THE TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN

3.1 Tests on loads onto geomembranes in Open Water Canals

So far the theoretical loads onto geomembranes in the case of a damage of the membrane and dynamic water
pressure developing below had not been confirmed. If the actual loads onto the fixation were smaller than
predicted, fixation material and thus money could be saved. If however, for instance dynamic effects in-
creased the strain, the stability under load would be at risk.

475
 For the purpose of studying these loads a canal in the Laboratory of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engi-
neering with a 4 m wide bottom and a maximum discharge of 4 m³/s was used. It was lined with three differ-
ent geomembrane systems (HDPE, PVC-geocomposite and FPP) and the loading condition of “a membrane
damaged perpendicular to the direction of flow, from one fixation line to the next” was simulated by preparing
a cut in the bottom, which was opened during operation of the canal. The basic question, whether the mem-
brane behaves in the presumed way, was answered positively; the membrane lifted and allowed water to flow
underneath (Figure 4), only minor dynamic effects were observed

Figure 4. Opening of prepared cut of the geomembrane (PVC geocomposite)

An example for a reading of the strains for the HDPE membrane is given in Figure 5. During the maximum
discharge of 2 m³/s during the test a mean water velocity of 1 m/s was measured. After the opening of the 4 m-
cut the membrane inflated and the force meter in the vicinity displayed about 11 kN/m.
16
1,0 m/s
14

12
~ 11 kN/m
load [kN/m]

10

0
08:00 08:05 08:10 08:15 08:20
time

Figure 5. Reading of anchor-load (HDPE membrane)

The calculation according to chapter 2.2 and presuming a modulus of elasticity of 670 MN/m² and taking
into account the difference of water level in front and behind the cut of 8 cm results into a load of 10.6 kN/m,
which matches the measured value of 11 kN/m very well so the proposed calculation in chapter 2.2 meets
reality well. The measurement for HDPE complies exactly with the calculation, in the case of PVC 14 % less
has been calculated, for FPP 20 % less.

3.2 Tests on the fixation of membranes

Only after the design loads are known the fixation can be designed. As there are no design criteria defined for
the fastening of geomembranes with an anchor-steel bar system, a testing unit has been designed and built in
the laboratory in Obernach. The stand can load geomembrane-probes of 1 or 2 meters in width with up to 31
kN. The concrete bedding can be replaced, so that different subgrades with a variable roughness and diverse
anchor diameters and spacings can be used. The load is applied via a steel cable and deflection roller system
by weights. The weights are placed on a lifting table which is lowered in order to hang up each weight sepa-
rately – attaining a force controlled loading close to reality.

476
 Tests were carried out up to a point beyond serviceability (Figure 6, right). The aim was to determine the
portion of the load being carried by friction between the membrane and the concrete and the steel profile, and
the part carried by the contact between the membrane and the anchor directly. For this reason each test was
carried out once with a membrane with slits in it (friction only, Figure 7, left), once with untightened screws
(anchors only, Figure 7, center) and once with regular fixation (Figure 7, right).

Figure 6. Picture of testing stand; probe

Figure 7. Membrane after test: friction only, anchor only, anchor + friction

Figure 8 shows the diagrams with two fixation types. The results are very similar, except that a closer spac-
ing of the anchors (Figure 8, left) improves the part of the load carried by the “anchor only”. Apparently the
load carried by a proper fixation cannot be defined as the superposition of “anchors only” and “friction only”.
250 standard fixation 250
friction only
friction only (anchor + friction)
200 200
anchor only
pull-out [mm]

pull-out [mm]

standard fixation
(anchor + friction) 150 150
anchor only
100 100

50 50

0 0
0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30
load [kN/m] load [kN/m]

Figure 8. Pull-out test with HDPE, anchor Ø = 8 mm, d = 20 mm (left); Ø = 12 mm, d = 25 mm (right)

This shows that for a reliable transmission of the strains to the concrete the contact of the anchors with the
membrane and the friction are both important. As sufficient concentration of anchors must be warranted as
well as sufficient clamping torque, which should be controlled also some time after installation.

477
4 IMPACT OF DIFFERENT GEOMEMBRANE PROPERTIES

The design of a lining with geomembranes tries to achieve several aims. From the hydraulic point of view,
in case of a damage of the membrane and its deformation due to the hydrodynamic water pressure underneath,
the reduction of the cross section of the canal must be limited to avoid backwater or even a change of flow. To
attain this goal either a stiff membrane must be chosen, or the distance between the lines of fixation must be
reduced. On the other hand, up to half of the expenses for such a rehabilitation measure can be accounted for
the fixation alone. So with regard to cost effectiveness the amount of required anchors should be kept to a
minimum. This can be reached by using a soft membrane, which according to equations (2) and (3) produces
reduced strains to the fixation. The following gives two examples for two different geomembrane materials
with otherwise same boundary conditions. The reduction of the cross-section of the canal and the developing
strains in the fixation are compared.

1
v = 1.5 m/s A = 56 m² 1

4m
∆A

F F
10 m

Figure 9. Example trapezoidal canal

In this example the stronger HDPE membrane allows a satisfactory 8% reduction of the area of flow, how-
ever requires a supporting force of 20.9 kN/m (Table 1). The softer PVC membrane would require roughly
only half the supporting force, however would lead to more than twice the reduction of the area of flow, thus
possibly requiring an additional line of fixation in the middle of the bottom. This shows that the design must
be made individually according to the geometry, the hydraulic situation and the state of the concrete.

Table 1. comparison HDPE and PVC membrane

material HDPE PVC
modulus of elasticity 670 MN/m² 50 MN/m²
velocity (example) 1,5 m/s
area of flow (example) 56 m²
reduction area of flow ∆A 4.6 m² (8 %) 11.5 m (21 %)
strain F 20.9 kN/m 9.3 kN/m

5 REFERENCE PROJECTS

5.1 Zogno, Italy

The technology had already proven to be reliable and efficient
in various dam projects. The first applications in open water
canals were carried out in 1973. In 1987 near San Pellegrino,
Italy, a section of the Zogno Canal was rehabilitated with a
PVC-geocomposite liner. The geomembrane sealing system
still is in satisfactory condition today (Figure 10.).

Figure 10. Zogno, Italy, 1978

478
5.2 Isarkanal, Germany

The rehabilitation of the Isarkanal near Munich, Germany in

2000 included a 900 m section of a concrete faced open canal. It
was the first application of a geomembrane as a liner for a canal
in Germany. A high standard for the water tightness was required
because of an underpass, which has to be kept free of seepage
water, especially in winter (ice). The PVC-geocomposite is regu-
larly monitored for water-tightness by distributed fibre-optical
temperature measurement (Strobl et. al., 2002) which proves suc-
cessful operation (Figure 11). The first readings located some
seepage in the beginning of the rehabilitated area, which gradu-
ally disappeared. Figure 11: Isarkanal, Germany, 2000

5.3 Alzkanal, Germany

The rehabilitation of the Alzkanal near Trostberg, Germany in 2001 included a 700 m section with a rec-
tangular cross-section. This section of the canal lies in a town with narrow space. The membrane was the only
economical alternative to a removal of the old structure and the building of a new one. A soft membrane made
of 2.5 mm flexible polypropylene (FPP) was chosen to be the only feasible alternative (Figure 12, left).
In a further 5.5 km trapezoidal cross-section the right embankment surmounts the ground level and the loss
of water tightness threatened the slope stability. The rehabilitation measure included the placement of a layer
of asphaltic concretre onto the bottom and the lining of the right slope with an HDPE geomembrane.
The rehabilitation measure was carried out successfully within 4 months. The reduction of the roughness of
the surface resulted in a considerable increase in hydropower production. The above mentioned lining of areas
of the canal resulted in a decreased roughness of the canal, which led to an increase of water level at the
powerhouse intake of about 20 cm. With a mean flow of 60 m³/s this means an additional power production of
600,000 kWh per year (Figure 12).
Both sections of the Alzkanal are monitored by fibre-optical temperature measurement which verifies the
water-tightness (Strobl et. al., 2002).

Figure 12. Alzkanal, Germany, 2001; rectangular and trapezoidal cross-section

REFERENCES

Strobl, Th.; Schmautz, M.; Perzlmaier, S.; Schäfer, P.: “Geomembranebased facings of existing open canals -
application, monitoring and comparison with conventional sealing systems”, Proceedings of the Seventh In-
ternational Conference on Geosynthetics 7 ICG, Nice, Vol. 2, S. 723-728 (2002)
Koerner, R.M., Designing with Geosynthetics, Fourth Edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, (1998).

479