Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Simulating temperature-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement

at a landfill with waste lifts placed under frozen conditions
Courtney S. Berquist, Paul J. Van Geel ⇑
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Instrument bundles placed within the Ste. Sophie landfill (Quebec, Canada) have been collecting temper-
Received 30 January 2019 ature and settlement data since January 2010. Previous modelling efforts simulated settlement based on a
Revised 19 December 2019 three-component model to account for primary or instantaneous compression, secondary compression or
Accepted 2 January 2020
mechanical creep and time-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement. In northern climates where
Available online 18 January 2020
waste may be placed under frozen conditions, a time-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement
term is unable to simulate settlement due to biodegradation as waste temperatures transition from
Keywords:
below zero to optimal values for anaerobic degradation. This paper presents a temperature-dependent
Municipal solid waste
Settlement
biodegration-induced settlement model. The model simulates heat generation as a function of tempera-
Modelling ture and tracks the expended energy as the waste degrades. The ratio of the expended energy to the total
Temperature dependent potential expended energy is used in the proposed temperature-dependent biodegradation-induced set-
Biodegradation tlement term. The new term better accounts for the delayed biodegradation process observed in wastes
placed under frozen conditions. The model was able to simulate the settlement trends observed at the
Ste. Sophie landfill. The goal of developing and including a temperature-dependent biodegradation-
induced settlement term in the model was to study the effects of operating conditions on waste settle-
ment and stabilization. An optimized waste lift placement strategy could enhance waste stabilization
and improve the airspace utilization within a landfill, simultaneously bringing increased revenues to
landfill operators while decreasing the post closure environmental burden of landfills.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction development options at a closed landfill site are also limited by

Canada’s cold climate poses a significant challenge for the man-
agement of municipal solid waste (MSW). When MSW is placed at
the curbside during winter months, a portion of the liquid fraction
within the waste may freeze. As a result, a significant amount of
energy is needed to heat the waste to an optimum biodegradation
temperature of approximately 35 °C to enhance waste stabiliza-
tion. This may take several months to years to occur, depending
on the operating and climatic conditions at the site. The rate of
waste stabilization is an important consideration as it will impact
the settlement at the landfill. Increased settlement pre-closure will
provide more airspace in the landfill, which allows more waste to
be placed within the landfill without exceeding the approved max-
imum landfill elevation. Post-closure, waste settlement will affect
the integrity of the final cover system, the landfill gas collection
system, and the leachate collection and recirculation systems. Re-
⇑ Corresponding author at: Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton
University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa K1S 5B6, Canada.
E-mail address: paul.vangeel@carleton.ca (P.J. Van Geel).
the long-term settlement at the site.
Landfill settlement models generally fall into one or more of the
following categories: soil-mechanics based, rheological, empirical
and biodegradation-induced settlements (El-Fadel & Khoury,
2000). Most settlement models assume three components; instan-
taneous settlement, time-dependent mechanical creep and
biodegradation-induced settlement. A comprehensive survey of
proposed MSW settlement models can be found in Van Geel &
Murray (2015) and Reddy et al. (2018). Several research groups
have developed coupled hydro-bio-mechanical models that
address the coupling of these processes which impacts settlement
(Reddy et al., 2018). McDougall (2007) proposed a hydraulic,
biodegradation and mechanical (HBM) model. Biodegradation-
induced settlement was linked to the biodegradation model and
the loss of organic matter. A loss in organic solids leads to a corre-
sponding increase in void space which in turn impacts the
mechanical properties of the soil. McDougall (2007) introduced a
decomposition hardening multiplier which allows for strain-
softening as a function of the loss of solids due to biodegradation.
It was noted that very little is known about this parameter and a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.01.002
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81
sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the value of the decompo-
sition hardening multiplier. White & Beaven (2013) developed a
multiphase landfill degradation and transport (LDAT) model. A
detailed biodegradation model based on Monod kinetics is used
to simulate the loss of organic mass. Biodegradation-induced set-
tlement was accounted for assuming a loss in organic mass corre-
sponds to a loss in volume assuming the waste density remains as
a function of stress. de Cortázar and Monzón (2007) developed a
coupled model (MODUELO) in which the biodegradation was
assumed to follow first-order kinetics and similar to LDAT,
biodegradation-induced settlement was a function of organic mass
loss due to biodegradation and a corresponding volume change
(strain). Hubert et al. (2016) developed a coupled thermo-hydro-
biochem-mechanical model based on a multi-phase model devel-
oped for unsaturated soils. They introduced a chemical hardening/-
softening to address the loss of organic matter over time and the
corresponding increase in settlement. Bente et al. (2017) adopted
a coupled thermal, hydraulic, mechanical and chemical model used
for porous media to simulate MSW processes. To include a
biodegradation-induced settlement term, Bente et al. (2017) also
argued that the settlement rate is a function of stress (creep) and
density, which is linked to biodegradation. It was also noted that
it is difficult to separate the creep and biodegradation induced set-
tlement terms to accurately assess the parameters used to support
these two processes. The difficulty in separating these two pro-
cesses is noted by several researchers (e.g. Chen et al., 2010).
In northern climates, biodegradation is delayed until favourable
temperatures are reached within the waste. However, previous
empirical biodegradation-induced settlement models do not
account for changing waste temperatures. A temperature-
dependent biodegradation-induced (TDBI) settlement model was
developed that accounts for the changing temperatures observed
in cold climate landfills and is presented here.
2. Ste. Sophie field site instrumentation
The Ste. Sophie landfill, owned and operated by Waste Manage-
ment Canada (WM), is located approximately 50 km north of Mon-
treal, Quebec, Canada, near the village of Ste. Sophie. The entire site
is 298 ha. Landfilling operations at the site started in 1964 and WM
acquired the site in 1997. The site is permitted to accept one mil-
lion tonnes per year. The landfill accepts municipal solid waste, as
well as industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste, con-
struction and demolition (C&D) waste, and contaminated soils.
The landfill gas (LFG) is collected and approximately half is trans-
ported via a 13 km pipeline to a pulp and paper mill. The remaining
LFG collected from the site is flared.
WM began filling the southern portion of the landfill cell,
labelled Zone 4 by WM (approximately 600 m by 400 m), with
MSW in 2009 (Fig. 1). Twelve instrument bundles were placed in
the southeast section of Zone 4 in two vertical columns within
the waste, in various waste lifts. Waste lift 1 was placed in January
2010 and contains bundles 1 through 6. Waste lift 2 was placed in
December 2010 and contains no bundles. Waste lift 3 was placed in
January 2011 and contains bundles 7 and 8. Waste lift 4 was placed
in August 2011 and contains bundles 9 and 10. Waste lift 5 was
placed in March 2012 and contains bundles 11 and 12. A total of
1,267,000 tonnes of material were landfilled over the period in
which the bundles were placed (corresponding to approximately
560,000 tonnes/year); 53% residential, 8% commercial, 10% sludge
and construction and demolition wastes and 29% soil used as daily
cover. The average density of waste placed over this period was
approximately 930 kg/m3. The vertical bundle arrangements and
initial waste lift heights are summarized in Fig. 2. The blue
coloured lifts correspond to those placed under cold ambient con-
75
ditions, and the red coloured lifts correspond to those placed under
warm ambient conditions. The waste lift heights have since
decreased from those noted in Fig. 2 due to settlement over time.
Quarterly elevation data in late 2013 indicated regrading in the
area of the instrument bundles which led to an additional 1 m of
cover. The placement of a final cover over the summer of 2014
led to another 1 m of cover. These two 1 m soil lifts will be referred
to as lifts 6 and 7 to simplify the discussion of settlement in
response to waste lifts 1 through 7.
Each instrument bundle is equipped with an oxygen sensor
(percent by volume), a moisture and electrical conductivity sensor,
a total earth pressure cell, a vibrating wire piezometer and a liquid
settlement system. Each of the instruments is mounted on a 60 cm
by 60 cm steel plate. Two hollow plastic lines run from each instru-
ment bundle to the nearby instrument shed which allow leachate
or landfill gas samples to be obtained, or for injection of air to the
bundles. For more information concerning the sensors, the reader
is referred to Van Geel & Murray (2015) and Megalla et al. (2016).
Temperature data collected at the Ste. Sophie landfill are pre-
sented in Fig. 3. As noted in an earlier study by Bonany et al.
(2013), the temperatures at bundles 3 and 4, located at in the cen-
tre of the first waste lift, indicate the waste remained at a relatively
constant temperature below 0 °C for a period of 12–16 months
before rising above zero due to the heat flux from the underlying
soil below the landfill. Bonany et al. (2013) hypothesized, and
demonstrated via a numerical simulation, that during the 12–
16 month period a portion of the heat entering the base of the
landfill was converted to latent heat to thaw the frozen liquid frac-
tion of the waste. Megalla et al. (2016) subsequently developed a
thermal model to simulate the temperature profile in the waste
at Ste. Sophie through to October 2014 and demonstrated via the
calibrated model results that portions of the waste remained fro-
zen (below 0 °C) for up to two years. The impacts of placing waste
under frozen conditions can be observed in the temperatures
recorded at bundle 6 where the waste temperatures remain close
to 0 °C for almost two years.
3. Settlement equation
Van Geel & Murray (2015) assessed the settlement at the Ste.
Sophie landfill using the three-part model proposed by Marques
et al. (2003):


DH r 0 þ Dr  0
 00
¼ C 0 C log þ bðDrÞ 1  ect þ EDG ð1  edt Þ ð1Þ
H0 r0
where C 0 C is the compression ratio; r0 is the initial vertical stress;
Dr is the change in vertical stress; b is the coefficient of mechanical
0
creep; c is the rate constant for mechanical creep; t is the time
since load was applied; EDG is the total amount of strain that can
occur due to biological decomposition; d is the rate constant for bio-
00
logical decomposition; and t is the time since the waste was placed
in the landfill. The first term represents the instantaneous or pri-
mary settlement due to an applied load as a result of the placement
of an overlying waste lift. The second term represents the secondary
settlement due to mechanical creep, and the third term represents
the settlement due to biological decomposition.
Van Geel & Murray (2015) determined the parameters for these
settlement equations using regression analysis for the first four
years of data. The regressed parameters are shown in Table 1 for
the odd numbered bundles. The first waste lift uses regressed
parameters termed ‘fluff’ parameters. In the first waste lift, the first
waste layer was placed on top of the leachate collection system as
a single 1–1.5 m thick waste layer. Subsequent waste layers were
placed in approximately 0.3–0.4 m thick layers. Each of these sub-
sequent layers were compacted using a sheepsfoot waste com-
76 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81
Fig. 1. Aerial view of Zone 4 where the instrument bundles and instrument shed are located.
Fig. 2. Lift placement dates and heights.
pactor, until the first lift was complete. Van Geel & Murray (2015)
assumed that this placement sequence would impact the esti-
mated settlement parameters for the first waste lift, and therefore
different values of b and c were assigned, termed bfluff and cfluff.
One notable shortfall of the analyses conducted by Van Geel &
Murray (2015) was the assumption that the instantaneous and
creep settlement parameters in the Marques model were the same
for waste at temperatures above and below 0 °C, which is likely not
the case as the frozen waste is likely to be stiffer than waste at
temperatures above 0 °C.
To improve the simulation of the temperature data in the field,
Megalla et al. (2016) used the settlement parameters from Van
Geel & Murray (2015) to simulate settlement in their heat budget
model of the Ste. Sophie landfill. This allowed for a better compar-
ison between simulated and field data because the model could
account for settlement and the fact that the instrument bundles
are getting closer together over time, which impacts the thermal
gradients and corresponding heat flux. The model could also track
the location of the instrument bundle and compare the value sim-
ulated at this location to the value measured in the field. This was
difficult to do without properly accounting for settlement.
Van Geel & Murray (2015) and Megalla et al. (2016) only con-
sidered time-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement for
the fourth and fifth waste lifts of their Ste. Sophie landfill models
because the temperatures of the first, second, and third waste lifts
were not initially warm enough for anaerobic biodegradation to
occur. However, over time it can be noted that waste lifts one
through three do increase to temperatures favourable for anaero-
bic biodegradation to take place. Therefore, not including
biodegradation-induced settlement for waste lifts one, two and
three does not provide an accurate representation of the overall
settlement occurring. Instead of the time-dependent
biodegradation-induced settlement term proposed by Marques
et al. (2003), a temperature-dependent biodegradation-induced
settlement term was proposed and developed and is presented in
this paper.
It is widely recognized that biodegradation rates are
temperature-dependent, as are corresponding heat and gas gener-
ation rates. Hanson et al. (2013) proposed temperature-dependent
heat generation rates. It was proposed herein that the
temperature-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement could
be linked to the heat generation model.
The temperature-dependent heat generation term proposed by
Hanson et al. (2013) reflects a typical landfill gas generation curve.
As the temperature of the waste increases, the heat generation rate
increases (Fig. 4). By integrating the heat generation vs. time plot,
the heat generation can be expressed as a function of expended
 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81 77

Fig. 3. Temperatures collected from the Ste. Sophie landfill from all bundles (ambient air temperature shown as ‘Air Temp’).

Table 1 occurs as the temperature of the waste is changing. For the model
Best fit Marques et al. (2003) parameters for odd proposed herein, it was assumed that the total biodegradation
numbered bundles determined by Van Geel & Murray
(2015).
induced settlement (EDG ) is achieved when the total expended
energy is exhausted and biodegradation is complete. Likewise, it
Parameter Value was assumed that if 50% of the expended energy was expended
b(fluff) 0.00432 or released, then 50% of the biodegradation-induced settlement
c(fluff) 0.0142 had occurred.
C0C 0.0376
The proposed TDBI settlement model replaces the time-
b (kPa1) 0.00119
c (day1) 0.0208 dependent biodegradation-induced settlement term proposed by
EDG 0.112 Park and Lee (1997), and used by Marques et al. (2003), with a
d (day1) 0.00406 temperature-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement term
P 2
s 2.08 as follows:
R2 0.990

  
DH r 0 þ Dr 0
¼ C 0 C log þ bðDrÞ 1  ect
H0 r0
Expended Energy
energy rather than time. Hanson et al. (2013) then developed a þ EDG ð Þ ð2Þ
family of curves for temperatures between 0 and 80 °C, expressed
Total Expended Energy
as a function of expended energy (Fig. 4). It then becomes possible Hanson et al. (2013) determined the heat generation parame-
to track the position on each curve as the temperature of the waste ters, including the total expended energy, for two waste cells at a
is changing. This effectively allows the simulation of waste degra- landfill in Michigan, USA, by best-fit nonlinear regression analysis
dation as the waste temperature changes. It also makes it possible of temperature data collected at the site. Cell D contained predom-
to estimate the amount of biodegradation-induced settlement that inantly residential waste, did not include leachate recycle and the

Fig. 4. Typical gas and heat generation curve expressed as a function of time (left) and total expended energy as proposed by Hanson et al. (2013) (right).
78 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81
temperature sensors were placed in horizontal arrays at four eleva-
tions during waste placement. The heat generation parameters
were optimized using the first 5 years of data after the cell was
complete. In contrast, Cell B contained a higher ratio of construc-
tion and demolition waste, included leachate recycle and a 13 m
vertical array of temperature sensors was placed in the waste
5 years after initial waste placement. The heat generation parame-
ters were optimized using 4 years of data corresponding to years
5–9 since initial waste placement. Megalla et al. (2016) and the
research presented herein incorporated the heat generation model
developed in Hanson et al. (2013) and found that the parameters
from Cell D resulted in the best fit to the Ste. Sophie temperature
data. In addition, the waste characteristics of Cell D, without lea-
chate recycle, and the timeframe over which the heat generation
parameters were optimized (0–5 years after initial placement)
more closely reflect the conditions at Ste. Sophie for this study.
The inclusion of the TDBI settlement model should improve the
predicted biodegradation-induced settlement that occur as the
temperatures of the waste lifts increase. This is especially true
for waste lifts 1 through 3. Settlement was modelled using the
commercially available finite element program COMSOL Multi-
physics. Results are presented and discussed in the following
sections.
4. Results- Ste. Sophie settlement predictions
Settlement at the Ste. Sophie landfill was modelled for each of
the odd numbered bundles with both the time-dependent
biodegradation-induced settlement presented by Van Geel &
Murray (2015) and Megalla et al. (2016), which assumes zero
biodegradation-induced settlement in lifts 1 through 3, and the
TDBI model proposed herein. Fig. 5 presents the field data in com-
parison to the Megalla et al. (2016) model and the TDBI model for
the settlement of bundles 3, 5 and 7 which were located in the first
three waste lifts placed under frozen conditions. These waste lifts
experienced temperature changes from near zero to above 30 °C.
Timing of the 7 waste lift placements are shown by vertical grey
bars on each of the plots. The segments of time between each
waste lift placement are referred to as simulation periods 1
through 7. The lengths of each of these simulation periods are:
331, 45, 207, 204, 594, 334 and 827 days for a total simulation time
of 2542 days or approximately 7 years. It is important to note that
Van Geel & Murray (2015) used field data only up to November
2013 (1384 days or 3 years and 9.5 months) to determine the
regressed Marques et al. (2003) parameters. While the parameters
from Van Geel & Murray (2015) are used here, the settlement is
calculated through to December 2016. Recalibration of the
Marques et al. (2003) parameters for the longer period of time
would have provided a better fit. However, the model still would
not be able to account for the impact of changing temperatures
on biodegradation-induced settlement.
5. Discussion
Fig. 5 compares the predicted TDBI settlement with the
Marques et al. (2003) model without biodegradation-induced set-
tlement for bundles 3, 5 and 7, respectively. Bundles 3 and 5 are
located in waste lift 1, and bundle 7 is located in waste lift 3. Recall
that for Megalla et al. (2016), waste lifts 1, 2 and 3 did not include
the time-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement term from
the Marques et al. (2003) model because temperatures were not
initially warm enough to have anaerobic biodegradation occurring.
Similarly for this comparison, the time-dependent biodegradation-
induced settlement term was not included for the Marques et al.
(2003) model.
For bundle 3, both models predict similar settlements for peri-
ods 1 through 4 as these were the periods used by Van Geel &
Murray (2015) to estimate the Marques et al. (2003) parameters.
Just before the placement of lift 6, around October 2013, the TDBI
model begins to predict an increased rate of settlement in compar-
ison to the Marques et al. (2003) model. Referring back to the Ste.
Sophie temperature data (Fig. 3), it can be noted that the temper-
atures start to exceed 10 °C around that time. As the temperatures
rise at bundle 3, the rate of anaerobic biodegradation is increasing,
and therefore TDBI settlement also starts to occur, which is why
the two models begin to differ in their predictions at this point
in time. Between October 2013 and October 2016, the field data
indicate an increase in the rate of settlement. The TDBI model is
able to simulate this rate of increase in settlement as temperatures
increase. A similar trend is noted for the simulated data for bundles
5 and 7.
Bundles 3, 5 and 7 all over predict settlement in the fifth, sixth
and seventh periods because Van Geel & Murray (2015) only used
data up to October 2013 to determine the regressed Marques et al.
(2003) parameters. The TDBI settlement model produces a similar
trend and is able to simulate the delayed temperature-dependent
biodegradation-induced settlement which is occurring at these
bundles.
Waste lifts 4 and 5, which contain bundles 9 and 11, were placed
under conditions warm enough for anaerobic biodegradation to
occur from the outset and therefore the Marques et al. (2003) model
with time-dependent biodegradation-induced settlement term may
be applicable to these waste lifts. However, the overall settlements
of these waste lifts, and corresponding bundles, are a function of the
settlement of the waste lifts below and hence similar trends were
observed at bundles 9 and 11 at later times due to the warming
and increased rates of settlement in waste lifts 1 through 3.
Finally, it should be noted that the settlement is over predicted at
bundles 3, 5 and 7 (Fig. 5) in response to the placement of waste lift
5. There are two reasons for this. First, the Marques et al. (2003)
model parameters were fit to the settlement data early in the settle-
ment history of the waste (up to October 2013). Second, the instan-
taneous primary settlement term of Marques et al. (2003) (Eq. (1))
may not properly account for the stress history of the waste.
One limitation of the modelling results presented in this study
is that the settlement characteristics and thermal properties of
the waste were assumed to be constant and not a function of
whether the waste temperature was above or below 0 °C. As noted
earlier in the text, the settlement parameters provided in Van Geel
& Murray (2015) and used in this study did not account for a
potentially stiffer waste under frozen conditions. Likewise, given
that ice has a greater thermal conductivity and lower specific heat
capacity than water, the thermal properties of the waste below and
above 0 °C would also vary.
6. Simulation of strategic waste lift placement sequence
At the Ste. Sophie landfill, waste remained frozen for two years
as a result of waste placement temperatures. Waste lifts 1, 2 and 3
were all placed under cold, winter conditions. Waste acts as an
insulator, due to its low thermal conductivity and high latent heat
of fusion. As such, each successive cold waste layer makes it more
difficult for heat to be transferred throughout the waste profile.
Frozen waste upon placement means biodegradation is delayed
until the waste thaws and temperatures rise to those favorable
for anaerobic biodegradation, and therefore biodegradation-
induced settlement is also delayed, and waste stabilization takes
longer to achieve. In order to study the effects of optimally placing
waste lifts throughout the year to maximize airspace utilization, a
simulation was completed whereby waste lift 2 was placed in July
 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81 79

Fig. 5. Simulated temperature-dependent biodegradation induced settlement at bundles 3, 5 and 7 which were located in the first three waste lifts placed under frozen
conditions.

2010, rather than in December 2010. The implementation of
expended energy and the TDBI settlement model allows this com-
parison to be made. Placing waste lift 2 during the summer instead
of the winter resulted in increased temperatures across the entire
domain.
Fig. 6 compares the expended energies at each of the individual
bundles for the actual waste lift sequence and the warm lift 2
sequence. From these comparison plots, it can be seen that the
results at bundles 3, 5 and 7 differ to varying degrees, but that
the results at bundles 9 and 11 are very similar. As such, the differ-
ence in settlement at bundles 9 and 11 will be governed by the
lower waste lifts, and will not differ due to biological decomposi-
tion in the upper waste lifts as these lifts were placed under warm
conditions. The expended energy with time at bundles 3, 5 and 7,
however, do differ due to biological decomposition. The expended
energies for the warm lift 2 simulation impact the temperatures
and hence, expended energies of the waste lifts above and below.
Greater expended energies are attributed to greater temperatures
at placement, which support anaerobic heat generation, due to
the placement of waste lift 2 during the summer months rather
than the winter. The greatest difference in settlement, as reflected
by the expended energy, occurs in June 2013. At bundle 11, the dif-
80 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81
Fig. 6. Comparison of simulated expended energies for the actual waste lift sequence with waste lift 2 placed in December 2010 (Regular) versus a scenario with waste lift 2
placed July 2010 (Warm lift 2) for all bundles (B3, B5, B7, B9 and B11).
ference in settlement between the regular waste lift sequence and
the warm lift 2 waste lift sequence is 0.337 m. This means that by
placing waste lift 2 during the summer rather than the winter
could have resulted in 33.7 cm of additional settlement by June
2013. Waste Management began placing the final cover on Zone
4 at the Ste. Sophie landfill in 2014.
Zone 4 at the Ste. Sophie landfill is approximately 600 m by
400 m. Assuming that, through an optimal placement strategy,
0.337 m of airspace was gained over the entire landfill footprint
and assuming an average waste density of 1 tonne/m3, approxi-
mately 80 000 tonnes of additional waste could have been placed
in Zone 4 before the final cover was placed. Assuming tipping fees
of $50 per tonne, this would generate an additional $4 million in
revenue. More importantly, however, are the environmental bene-
fit and potential post closure or post final cover savings. This is a
significant amount of waste, and if more waste can be placed into
existing landfills, then fewer new landfills need to be opened. In
addition, a more stabilized waste at the time of placement of the
final cover should reduce maintenance costs for the final cover.
7. Conclusions
A temperature-dependent, biodegradation-induced (TDBI) set-
tlement model, linked to heat generation and expended energy,
was developed, and was found to be an effective way to incorpo-
rate the impacts of temperature on the simulation of
biodegradation-induced settlement. The TDBI settlement model
was able to simulate the trends in settlement observed in the field.
This is the only proposed landfill settlement model which links
biodegradation-induced settlement to waste temperatures and
the corresponding heat generation rate, which tracks the expended
energy with time relative to the total energy within the waste. A
TDBI settlement model is critical when simulating settlement in
landfills in northern climates as waste temperatures can take sev-
eral months to years to reach temperatures supportive of anaerobic
degradation. Linking the biodegradation-induced settlement term
to the expended energy term proposed by Hanson et al. (2013)
allows for the simulation of biodegration-induced settlement as
temperatures transition from below 0 °C (frozen) through to opti-
mal conditions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
Primary author would like to acknowledge scholarship support
from SWANA Ontario and SWANA.
 C.S. Berquist, P.J. Van Geel / Waste Management 104 (2020) 74–81
Funding
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) grant (CRDPJ
441761), Waste Management of Canada, Golder Associates, WSP
Global, and BluMetric Environmental.
References
Bente, S., Krase, V., Kowalsky, U., Dinkler, D., 2017. Model for degradation-induced
settlements as part of a coupled landfill model. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. 41, 1390–1410.
Bonany, J., Geel, P.V., Gunay, B., Isgor, B., 2013. Heat budget for a waste lift placed
under freezing conditions at a landfill operated in a northern climate. Waste
Manage. 33 (5), 1215–1228.
Chen, Y., Ke, H., Fredlund, D.G., Zhan, L., Xie, Y., 2010. Secondary compression of
municipal solid wastes and a compression model for predicting settlement of
municipal solid waste landfills. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (5), 706–717.
de Cortázar, A.L.G., Monzón, I.T., 2007. MODUELO 2: a new version of an integrated
simulation model for municipal solid waste landfills. Environ. Modell. Software
22 (1), 59–72.
El-Fadel, M., Khoury, R., 2000. Modeling settlement in MSW landfills: a critical
review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30 (3), 327–361.
81
Hanson, J.L., Yesiller, N., Onnen, M.T., Liu, W.-L., Oettle, N.K., Marinos, J.A.,
2013. Development of numerical model for predicting heat generation
and temperatures in MSW landfills. Waste Manage. 33 (10), 1967–
2144.
Hubert, J., Liu, X.F., Collin, F., 2016. Numerical modeling of the long term
behavior of Municipal Solid Waste in a bioreactor landfill. Comput. Geotech
72, 152–170.
Marques, A.C.M., Filz, G.M., Vilar, O.M., 2003. Composite compressibility model for
municipal solid waste. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 129 (4), 372–378.
McDougall, J., 2007. A hydro-bio-mechanical model for settlement and other
behaviour in landfilled waste. Comput. Geotech. 34 (4), 229–246.
Megalla, D., Van Geel, P.J., Doyle, J.T., 2016. Simulating the heat budget for waste as
it is placed within a landfill operating in a northern climate. Waste Manage. 55,
108–117.
Park, H.I., Lee, S.R., 1997. Long-term settlement behavior of landfills with refuse
decomposition. J. Res. Manage. Technol. 24 (4), 159–165.
Reddy, K.R., Kumar, G., Giri, R.K., 2018. Modeling coupled hydro-bio-mechanical
processes in bioreactor landfills: framework and validation. Int. J. Geomech. 18
(9).
Van Geel, P.J., Murray, K.E., 2015. Simulating settlement during waste placement at
a landfill with waste lifts placed under frozen conditions. Waste Manage. 46,
352–361.
White, J., Beaven, R., 2013. Developments to a landfill processes model following its
application to two landfill modelling challenges. Waste Manage. 33, 1969–
1981.