TermProjectCE558 g201552950 Final

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/306378961
LANDFILL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Technical Report · April 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16533.93925
CITATIONS READS
0 5,955
1 author:
Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
28 PUBLICATIONS 640 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi on 23 August 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & MINERALS
College of Engineering Sciences and Applied Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Master of Science in Geotechnical Engineering
CE558 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICS:
TERM PROJECT:
LANDFILL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

Revision No. Rev.0
Status Term Project
Date 30th April 2016
PREPARED FOR
DR. HABIB UR REHMAN
KFUPM – DHAHRAN
Revision History
Hamzah M. Al-Hashemi
Rev.0 30th April, 2016 Term Project
g201552950
Revision
Date Description Prepared By
No.
Landfill Settlement Analysis.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Rev.0-Term Project
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to pass my profound thankfulness to my term

project advisor, Dr. Habib Ur Rehman. I have comprehended
plentiful thingummies since I became Dr. Habib’s student. He
exerts exceedingly abundant time guiding me how to compose a
paper, how to scout about literature and how to compile data. My
thankfulness should be extended to include but not limited to; Dr.
Alaa Kourdey, Dr. Ahmed Dalqamouni, Dr. I. Thusyanthan,
ACES and KFUPM staff for their support.
Rev.0-Term Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 3
3.0 METHODOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 4
3.1 SOIL MECHANICS-BASED SETTLEMENT APPROACHES ................................................................ 4
3.1.1 (Sowers 1975) ............................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2 (Bjarngard and Edgers 1990) ........................................................................................... 5
3.1.3 (Hossain and Gabr 2005) ................................................................................................ 6
3.2 EMPIRICALLY-BASED SETTLEMENT APPROACHES ..................................................................... 7
3.2.1 (Gibson and Lo 1961) Rheological Model......................................................................... 7
3.2.2 (Yen and Scanlon 1975) Logarithmic Function .................................................................. 7
3.2.3 (Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990) Power Creep Model ................................................. 8
3.2.4 (Coumoulus and Koryalos 1997) Attenuation Equation ...................................................... 8
3.2.5 (Park and Lee 1997) First-Order Kinetics.......................................................................... 9
3.2.6 (Ling et al. 1998) Hyperbolic Function ............................................................................. 9
3.2.7 (Marques 2001) Rheological Model ............................................................................... 10
3.2.8 (Hettiarachchi, Meegoda, and Hettiaratchi 2009) First-Order Reaction Kinetics .................. 11
3.3 FEM/FEA BASED SETTLEMENT APPROACH ............................................................................ 12
3.3.1 About RS2 (Phase2) Software ....................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Model Geometry and Properties .................................................................................... 13
4.0 SUBSURFACE PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 30
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................................. 31
6.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 34
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 35
List of Tables
Table 1: Subsurface Profile Properties ............................................................................................... 30

Table 2: Comparison of Different Settlement Approaches .................................................................... 33
Rev.0-Term Project Page 1 of 36

List of Figures
Figure 1: FE Model Mesh ................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 2: FE Model Initial Stage (Natural Ground) .............................................................................. 13
Figure 3: FEM Project Settings ......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: FEM Stages Definition....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: FEM GWT Properties ........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 6: FEM Water Head Application ............................................................................................. 15
Figure 7: FEM Material Properties .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: FEM Hydraulic Properties ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 13: FEM Mesh Setup ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 14: FEM Assign Material ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 15: FEM Geometry ............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 19: FEM Project Summary ..................................................................................................... 22
Figure 20: FEM General Settings ...................................................................................................... 22
Figure 21: FEM Field Stress ............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 22: FEM Mesh Quality .......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 23: FEM GMA SAND Properties............................................................................................ 24
Figure 24: FEM Gray Till Clay (Long-Term) Properties ...................................................................... 25
Figure 25: FEM Brown Till Clay (Long-Term) Properties .................................................................... 26
Figure 26: FEM CCL (Long-Term) Properties .................................................................................... 27
Figure 27: FEM Waste (Long-Term) Properties .................................................................................. 28
Figure 28: FEM Cover Properties ...................................................................................................... 29
Figure 29: FEM Settlement Results after 1000 Years ........................................................................... 31
Figure 30: FEM Settlement Flow after 1000 Years .............................................................................. 31
Figure 31: FEM Settlement Results along Stages ................................................................................ 32
Figure 32: Comparison of Different Settlement Approaches ................................................................. 33

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In General, Landfills (waste dump areas) endure from a major post-closure settlement that
takes place over a prolonged period of time. A huge differential settlement may deteriorate
structures, foundations, and other related facilities that constructed atop of a landfill. In addition, it
may lead to shattering of the geomembrane and wastage of the cover system in the landfills. The
refuse (waste) materials show diversified engineering properties that diverge over positions and
time within the landfill. Hence, with the conjunction of that the landfills behavior is not fully
understood; recognize a conventional soil mechanics approach less appealing to predict the
settlement. Instead, empirical and semi-empirical approaches of estimating the landfill settlement
are commonly used side by side with field observations. (Ling et al. 1998)
2.0 OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
As declared before, the deformation (Settlement) of a landfill will behave in a different way
than conventional earth structures due to heterogeneous material exist in the landfills (e.g.
different type of waste, liners, covers, layers, etc), the deformation behavior and interaction effects
for each of these materials. Comprehensive modeling (physical and numerical) of a landfill
settlement will lead to a more realistic analysis that can enhance the meager knowledge about the
landfill deformation and hence to prevent any expected hazards/risks could be resulted from such
deformation.
Data of an existing landfill is collected and employed in landfill settlement modeling. The
analysis is launched by utilizing site-specific parameters and/or default parameters provided in the
literature. Upon the analysis accomplishment; outcomes is presented and discussed for further
application.
The existing landfill is called OSDF; on-site disposal facility, and located in Fernald, Ohio,
USA. OSDF consists of 8 cells, with a total area of each cell of 6.5 acres (26,305.0 sq. m). The
impacted (waste) material placed in the OSDF consists of on-site contaminated soil (85 %), fly ash,

demolition debris, municipal solid wastes (MSW), and lime sludge. Comprehensive design and
analysis of OSDF were reported and produced by GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec 1997), and
consists of required volume calculation, static and seismic slope stability analysis, settlement
analysis, leachate management (generation, collection, detection and transmissions systems), final
cover system, surface water management, support facility, borrow areas, waste management, and
monitoring wells design. Good to mention that; well-established research on the seismic behavior
of MSW landfill is conducted by (Thusyanthan, Madabhushi, and Singh 2006).
3.0 METHODOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The settlement of the ground is the sum of four parts; immediate/elastic settlement,
distortion settlement, consolidation settlement, and secondary compression settlement. Distortion
settlement is evolved from lateral movements of the soil due to changes in vertical effective
stresses, this mainly happened when a massive loading is applied over a small area which resulting
in a lateral deformation. The value of distortion settlement is much smaller than consolidation
settlement and is generally ignored. (Conduto 1999)
Different settlement approaches either soil mechanics based or empirically based are well
produced by (Pauzi et al. 2010) as shown below:
3.1 Soil Mechanics-Based Settlement Approaches
3.1.1 (Sowers 1975)
He used the basic soil mechanics-based model of consolidation to estimate the settlement of
MSW. The long-term compression associated with creep and biodegradation phenomena is
expressed in terms of the secondary compression index Cα in which a decrease in the void ratio
during the secondary compression is related to the time elapsed between the initial time (t 1) and the
final time (t2). The model can be expressed as in Eq. (1).

Equation 1
Where
ΔH: settlement due to primary and secondary consolidation.
H: initial thickness of the layer.
Cc*: primary compression ratio.
σ0: existing overburden pressure acting at midlevel of the layer.
Δσ: increment of overburden pressure acting at midlevel of the layer from the construction of an
additional layer.
Cα: secondary compression index.
t1: time for completion of initial compression.
t2: ending time period for which long term settlement of layer is desired.
The values of compression indices Cc* and Cα for MSW are reported to range from 0.163
to 0.205 and 0.015 to 0.350, respectively.
3.1.2 (Bjarngard and Edgers 1990)
They subdivided the secondary compression into two sub-phases, through the adjustment of
two straight lines, and introduced the intermediate coefficient of secondary compression (Cα1) and
a final coefficient of secondary compression (Cα2). The settlement model can be expressed as in
Eq. (2).
Equation 2
Where

Cα1: intermediate secondary compression ratio.
Cα2: long–term/final secondary compression ratio.
t2: time for intermediate secondary compression.
t3: time for total period of time considered in modeling.
Typical parameter values are reported to be Cc* =0.205, Cα1=0.035; Cα2=0.215; t1=1 to 25
days; and t2=200 days.
3.1.3 (Hossain and Gabr 2005)
They modeled long-term settlement with three terms as given in Eq. (3).
Equation 3
Where
Cα1: compression index, which is a function of stress level and degree of decomposition (~0.03).
t1: time for completion of initial compression (~10-15 days).
t2: time duration for which compression is to be evaluated (~100 to 2,000 days).
Cβ: biodegradation index (~0.19).
t3: time for completion of biological compression (~3,500 days).
Cαf: creep index.
t4: time for the creep at the end of biological degradation.
The mechanical compression under applied stress and/or the pressure due to self-weight
were not included. As biodegradation occurs, the organic solid mass is converted to gas and the
void ratio increases with a subsequent increase in waste settlement. The model developed was
based on the results of experimental program. The degree of decomposition was characterized from
gas generation rates and the cellulose plus hemicelluloses to lignin ratio. The time factor t1, t2, t3
and t4 for compressibility were determined from the gas production curve and utilized for model
development.

3.2 Empirically-Based Settlement Approaches
3.2.1 (Gibson and Lo 1961) Rheological Model
They proposed a model that is applicable to peaty soils. This model is used by (Edil,
Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990) to predict long-term total settlement of MSW. The model uses an
analogy that represents primary compression and secondary compression in which a compression
of a spring expresses immediate compression and a combination of piston and spring expresses the
slow deformation. The model can be expressed as in Eq. (4).
Equation 4
Where
Δσ: compressive stress depending upon waste height, density, and external loading.
a: primary compressibility parameter (=1.0 x 10-4 to 8.0 x 10-5 /kPa).
b: secondary compressibility parameter (=2.0 x 10-3 to 1.6 x 10-2 /kPa).
λ/b: rate of secondary compression (=1.4 x 10-4 to 9.0 x 10-4 /day).
t: time since load application. (El-Fadel et al. 1999)
3.2.2 (Yen and Scanlon 1975) Logarithmic Function
The logarithmic function is expressed as in Eq. (5).
Equation 5
Where
Hf: initial height of the landfill.
α: fitting parameter (=0.00095Hf +0.00969).
β: fitting parameter (=0.00035Hf +0.00501).
t: time since beginning of filling.

tc: construction period.
3.2.3 (Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990) Power Creep Model
The power creep model is a simple relation for time-dependent deformation under constant
stress and expressed as following in Eq. (6)
Equation 6
Where
M’: reference compressibility (=1.6 x 10-5 to 5.8 x 10-5 /kPa).
N’: rate of compression (=0.50–0.67).
t: time since load application.
tr: reference time is typically introduced to make time dimensionless,
usually taken as 1 day (El-Fadel et al. 1999).
The parameter M’ is site specific and N’ is the rate of compression, which varies with
respect to age and placement conditions of the waste. However, the variability of N’ is less than
that of M’ (Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990).
3.2.4 (Coumoulus and Koryalos 1997) Attenuation Equation
They proposed an attenuation equation, which was based on the proposition that landfill settlements
can be approximated by a straight line, as a function of the logarithm of time. The main advantage
of this model is that data from different points on the landfill with different characteristics can be
grouped and compared. The model can be expressed as in Eq. (7).
Equation 7
Where

Y: vertical strain rate (expressed in percent/month or percent/year).
C’α: coefficient of secondary compression (~0.02 to 0.25).
t: time elapsed in month or year.
tc*: filling time usually assumed as 1 month.
It must be noted, however, that the accuracy of Y depends on the accuracy of C’α.
3.2.5 (Park and Lee 1997) First-Order Kinetics
They proposed a settlement model that considers time-dependent biodegradation of waste.
The settlement rate is assumed to be the amount of subsidence that is directly proportional to the
amount of solids solubilized. Solubilization of organic materials is generally expressed using first-
order kinetics. However, the determination of the kinetic coefficients or the hydrolysis constants as
well as their variation with environmental conditions is difficult. The settlement model can be
expressed as in Eq. (8).
Equation 8
Where
K: first order decomposition strain rate constant/time (=2.37 to 1.35/year).
εtot_dec = total amount of compression that will occur due to decomposition of biodegradable
waste (=7.2–6.1%).
The summation of both the terms gives the total compressive strain.
3.2.6 (Ling et al. 1998) Hyperbolic Function
They proposed the following hyperbolic equation to compute settlement at a given time if
the ultimate settlement of the landfill is known as shown in Eq. (9).

Equation 9
Where
ρ0: initial rate of settlement (=0.001 m/day).
Sult=ultimate settlement.
t: time since load application.
3.2.7 (Marques 2001) Rheological Model
He developed a composite rheological model to account for primary and secondary
compression mechanisms, governed by rheological parameters that also accounts for waste
degradation. The primary compression formulation is introduced as an “immediate compression,”
which is independent of time, based on the observation that the respective process is linear for
curves of void ratio as a function of the logarithm of the applied stress. The model is represented by
Eq. (10).
Equation 10
Where
b: coefficient of secondary mechanical compression.
c: secondary mechanical compression rate.
Edg: total compression due to waste degradation.
d: secondary biological compression rate.
t’: time elapsed since loading application.
t”: time elapsed since waste disposal.

3.2.8 (Hettiarachchi, Meegoda, and Hettiaratchi 2009) First-Order Reaction Kinetics
They also developed a settlement model assuming that the settlement due to biodegradation
follows the first-order reaction kinetics. The total settlement is expressed as a combined process of
mechanical compression or (ΔH)m and biodegradation-induced settlement or (ΔH)b. The model is
expressed as in Eq. (11).
Equation 11
Where
C*: compressibility parameter (0.174–0.205).
fsj: initial solids fraction for each waste group (0.15–0.35).
ρw=density of water.
Gsj: specific gravity of jth group of waste solids (1–3).
λj =first-order kinetic constant for the jth group (0–0.001/day).

3.3 FEM/FEA Based Settlement Approach
3.3.1 About RS2 (Phase2) Software
RS2 (Phase2 - v. 9.0) is a powerful 2D finite element program for soil and rock applications
(RS2 = Rock and Soil 2-dimensional analysis program). RS2 can be used for a wide range of
engineering projects and includes excavation design, slope stability, groundwater seepage,
probabilistic analysis, consolidation, and dynamic analysis capabilities.
Complex, multi-stage models can be easily created and quickly analyzed - tunnels in weak
or jointed rock, underground powerhouse caverns, open pit mines and slopes, embankments, MSE
stabilized earth structures, and much more. Progressive failure, support interaction and a variety of
other problems can be addressed.
RS2 offers a wide range of support modeling options. Liner elements can be applied in the
modeling of shotcrete, concrete, steel set systems, retaining walls, piles, multi-layer composite
liners, geotextiles, and more. Liner design tools include support capacity plots, which allow you to
determine the safety factor of reinforced liners. Bolt types include end anchored, fully bonded,
cable bolts, split sets, and grouted tiebacks.
One of the major features of RS2 is finite element slope stability analysis using the shear
strength reduction method. This option is fully automated and can be used with either Mohr-
Coulomb or Hoek-Brown strength parameters. Slope models can be imported or exported between
Slide and RS2 allowing easy comparison of limit equilibrium and finite element results.
RS2 includes steady-state, finite element groundwater seepage analysis built right into the
program. There is no need to use a separate groundwater program. Pore pressure is determined as
well as flow and gradient, based on user defined hydraulic boundary conditions and material
conductivity. Pore pressure results are automatically incorporated into the stress analysis.
Material models for rock and soil include Mohr-Coulomb, Generalized Hoek-Brown and
Cam-Clay. Powerful new analysis features for modeling jointed rock allow you to automatically
generate discrete joint or fracture networks according to a variety of statistical models. With new

64-bit and multi-core parallel processing options RS2 can solve larger and more complex models in
shorter times.
3.3.2 Model Geometry and Properties
Enclosed below the details of FE model:
Figure 1: FE Model Mesh
Figure 2: FE Model Initial Stage (Natural Ground)

Figure 3: FEM Project Settings
Figure 4: FEM Stages Definition

Figure 5: FEM GWT Properties
Figure 6: FEM Water Head Application

Figure 7: FEM Material Properties

Figure 10: FEM Hydraulic Properties


Figure 13: FEM Mesh Setup
Figure 14: FEM Assign Material

Figure 15: FEM Geometry


Figure 19: FEM Project Summary
Figure 20: FEM General Settings

Figure 21: FEM Field Stress
Figure 22: FEM Mesh Quality

Figure 23: FEM GMA SAND Properties

Figure 24: FEM Gray Till Clay (Long-Term) Properties

Figure 25: FEM Brown Till Clay (Long-Term) Properties

Figure 26: FEM CCL (Long-Term) Properties

Figure 27: FEM Waste (Long-Term) Properties

Figure 28: FEM Cover Properties

4.0 SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Subsurface profile as encountered and produced by (GeoSyntec 1997):
Table 1: Subsurface Profile Properties

Material
(Bottom to
GMA Gray Till Brown
Top) Bedrock CCL Waste Cover
SAND Clay Till Clay
Unit Weight
- 21.2 22.8 21.2 20.42 15.3 19.8
kN/m3
Saturation % - - 100 95 90 - -
Void ratio e0 - - 0.38 0.29 0.43 0.75 -
Compression
- - 0.074 0.075 0.13 0.2 -
Index Cc
Recompression
- - 0.014 0.015 0.035 0.035 -
Index Cr
Coefficient of
Compression - - 3.76E-07 6.45E-07 5.91E-07 5.37E-07 -
Cv (m2/sec)
Secondary
Compression - - 0.0013 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 -
Index Ca
OCR (or Pc) - - 1 1.7 48 kPa 45 kPa -
Poission’s
- 0.3 0.49 0.475 0.475 0.4 0.3
Ratio
Su kPa - 0 100 57 57 10 -
Friction Angle
- 35 0 0 0 25 25
(short)
Cohesion
- 0 95 60 25 10 0
(Short) kPa
Friction Angle
- 35 30 25 25 25 25
(Long)
Cohesion
- 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Long) kPa

* Wherever properties are missing; they were assumed.
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Results of FEA of post-closure settlement are shown up to 1000 years are shown below:
Figure 29: FEM Settlement Results after 1000 Years
Figure 30: FEM Settlement Flow after 1000 Years

Figure 31: FEM Settlement Results along Stages

Table 2: Comparison of Different Settlement Approaches
Maximum Post-Closure Settlement (m) Method
0.942 FEM
0.420 (GeoSyntec 1997)
0.480 (Sowers 1975)
0.998 (Yen and Scanlon 1975)
0.511 (Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990)
Maximum Post Closure Settlement (meters)

FEM GeoSyntec Sowers Yen and Scanlon Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner
0.998
0.942
0.480 0.511
0.420
Figure 32: Comparison of Different Settlement Approaches

6.0 CONCLUSION
Based on: FEA and conventional analysis that performed in this project, following may be
concluded:
 It was noted that the post-closure settlement of a landfill is time dependent.
 FEA matched well with (Yen and Scanlon 1975) method.
 Mainly (GeoSyntec 1997) differ than FEA slightly due to that the Geosynthetic material
was not considered in the FE model to facilitate the analysis.
 (Sowers 1975) and (Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990) results are shown well matching
with (GeoSyntec 1997) results.
 The nature of impacted (waste) material is close to being soil-like material and that mainly
due to (85% of contaminated soil, fly ash, construction debris, and lime sludge.
 However, field observations will play a key role to calibrate any of the above-listed
methods, which can consider many factors same as but not limit to; gas generation, leachate
generation and flow, hydrology, weather, etc.

LIST OF REFERENCES
Bjarngard, A., and L. Edgers. 1990. ―‗Settlement of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.‘‖ In Proc.
13th Annual Madison Waste Conf., 192–205. University of Wisconsin, Madison Wis.
Conduto, D. 1999. Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices. Prenctice Hall.
Coumoulus, D. G., and T. P. Koryalos. 1997. ―‗Prediction of Attenuation of Landfill Settlement

Rates with Time.‘‖ In Proc 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
edited by ISSMFE, 1807–11. Hamburg, Germany.
Edil, T. B., V. J. Ranguette, and W. W. Wuellner. 1990. ―Settlement of Municipal Refuse. In:
Geotechnics of Waste Fills – Theory and Practice: ASTM STP 1070.‖ American Society of
Testing and Materials, ASTM, 225–39.
El-Fadel, M., S. Shazbak, E. Saliby, and J. Leckie. 1999. ―Comparative Assessment of Settlement
Models for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Applications.‖ Waste Management & Research 17
(5): 347–68. doi:10.1177/0734242X9901700504.
GeoSyntec. 1997. ―Final Design: Calculation Package of On-Site Disposal Facility.‖ Fernald,
Ohio.
Gibson, R. E., and K. Y. Lo. 1961. ―A Theory for Soils Exhibiting Secondary Compression.‖ Acta.
Polytech. Scand. 296: 1–16.
Hettiarachchi, Hiroshan, Jay Meegoda, and Patrick Hettiaratchi. 2009. ―Effects of Gas and
Moisture on Modeling of Bioreactor Landfill Settlement.‖ Waste Management (New York,
N.Y.) 29 (3): 1018–25. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.018.
Hossain, S.M., and M.A. Gabr. 2005. ―‗Prediction of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Settlement
with Leachate Recirculation‘, Vol. 168.‖ In Proc. Geo. Frontier, 50. Austin Tex.: ASCE.
Ling, Hoe I., Dov Leshchinsky, Yoshiyuki Mohri, and Toshinori Kawabata. 1998. ―Estimation of
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Settlement.‖ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 124 (1): 21–28. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:1(21).

Marques, A. C. M. 2001. ―‗Compaction and Compressibility of Municipal Solid Waste.‘‖ Sao

Paulo Univ.
Park, H. I., and S. R. Lee. 1997. ―‗Long-Term Settlement Behavior of Landfills with Refuse
Decomposition.‘‖ Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 24 (4): 159–65.
Pauzi, Nur Irfah Mohd, Omar Husaini, Bujang Kim Huat, and Halina Misran. 2010. ―Settlement
Model of Waste Soil for Dumping Area in Malaysia.‖ EJGE, Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 15: 1917–29.
Sowers, G.F. 1975. ―Settlement of Waste Disposal Fills.‖ International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 12 (4). Moscow: 57–58. doi:10.1016/0148-
9062(75)90051-0.
Thusyanthan, Indrasenan N., Gopal S. P. Madabhushi, and S. Singh. 2006. ―Centrifuge Modeling
of Solid Waste Landfill Systems—Part 2: Centrifuge Testing of Model Waste.‖ Geotechnical
Testing Journal 29 (3): 14314. doi:10.1520/GTJ14314.
Yen, B. C., and B. S. Scanlon. 1975. ―Sanitary Landfill Settlement Rates. 7F, 2T, 8R.‖ International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 12 (10): 140.
doi:10.1016/0148-9062(75)92394-3.
View publication stats

TermProjectCE558 g201552950 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TermProjectCE558 g201552950 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

LANDFILL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

Technical Report · April 2016

Hamzah M. Beakawi Al-Hashemi

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CE558 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICS:

LANDFILL SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

I would like to pass my profound thankfulness to my term

Table 1: Subsurface Profile Properties ............................................................................................... 30

Rev.0-Term Project Page 1 of 36

Figure 1: FE Model Mesh ................................................................................................................ 13

Rev.0-Term Project Page 2 of 36

2.0 OBJECTIVE AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Rev.0-Term Project Page 3 of 36

of MSW landfill is conducted by (Thusyanthan, Madabhushi, and Singh 2006).

3.0 METHODOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW

distortion settlement, consolidation settlement, and secondary compression settlement. Distortion

settlement and is generally ignored. (Conduto 1999)

produced by (Pauzi et al. 2010) as shown below:

3.1 Soil Mechanics-Based Settlement Approaches

3.1.1 (Sowers 1975)

final time (t2). The model can be expressed as in Eq. (1).

Rev.0-Term Project Page 4 of 36

ΔH: settlement due to primary and secondary consolidation.

H: initial thickness of the layer.

Cc*: primary compression ratio.

σ0: existing overburden pressure acting at midlevel of the layer.

Cα: secondary compression index.

t1: time for completion of initial compression.

to 0.205 and 0.015 to 0.350, respectively.

3.1.2 (Bjarngard and Edgers 1990)

Rev.0-Term Project Page 5 of 36

Cα1: intermediate secondary compression ratio.

Cα2: long–term/final secondary compression ratio.

t2: time for intermediate secondary compression.

t3: time for total period of time considered in modeling.

days; and t2=200 days.

3.1.3 (Hossain and Gabr 2005)

t1: time for completion of initial compression (~10-15 days).

Cβ: biodegradation index (~0.19).

t3: time for completion of biological compression (~3,500 days).

Cαf: creep index.

t4: time for the creep at the end of biological degradation.

Rev.0-Term Project Page 6 of 36

3.2 Empirically-Based Settlement Approaches

3.2.1 (Gibson and Lo 1961) Rheological Model

slow deformation. The model can be expressed as in Eq. (4).

a: primary compressibility parameter (=1.0 x 10-4 to 8.0 x 10-5 /kPa).

b: secondary compressibility parameter (=2.0 x 10-3 to 1.6 x 10-2 /kPa).

λ/b: rate of secondary compression (=1.4 x 10-4 to 9.0 x 10-4 /day).

t: time since load application. (El-Fadel et al. 1999)

3.2.2 (Yen and Scanlon 1975) Logarithmic Function

The logarithmic function is expressed as in Eq. (5).

Hf: initial height of the landfill.

α: fitting parameter (=0.00095Hf +0.00969).

β: fitting parameter (=0.00035Hf +0.00501).

t: time since beginning of filling.

Rev.0-Term Project Page 7 of 36

tc: construction period.

3.2.3 (Edil, Ranguette, and Wuellner 1990) Power Creep Model

stress and expressed as following in Eq. (6)

M’: reference compressibility (=1.6 x 10-5 to 5.8 x 10-5 /kPa).