why any construction can't be carried out for next 20 years on a landfill
Dear Student,
It is not safe to construct a building on the landfill or area around it since the breakdown of waste materials in landfills several types of gases are released which are very harmful. So human habitat should be away from landfills to avoid harmful gases, diseases and dirty condition of landfills.
Regards,
It is not safe to construct a building on the landfill or area around it since the breakdown of waste materials in landfills several types of gases are released which are very harmful. So human habitat should be away from landfills to avoid harmful gases, diseases and dirty condition of landfills.
Regards,
- 18
Abstract: Increasing demand for developable space in
urban areas has created increased interest in
construction on top of old landfills
. Landfill redevelopment projects can include hard uses such as
commercial, industrial, or infrastructure facilities a
nd soft uses such as athletic fields, golf courses,
and amphitheatres. Engineering challenges asso
ciated with landfill redevelopment include
foundation design and landfill gas migration control.
The large total and differential settlement
often associated with landfills is an integral part
of these challenges. Due to the large settlement
potential, landfill redevelopment using shallow f
oundations is generally restricted to low-rise
structures of one or two stories with raft foundati
ons. Construction of taller structures using pile
foundations is generally restricted to landfills w
ithout an engineered bottom liner system. Both
deep and shallow foundations systems must be
provided with protective measures against landfill
gas migration. Despite the significant challeng
es associated with post-closure development on top
of landfills, both hard and soft uses of old landfills are becoming increasingly common.
Keywords: Foundations, Gas, Landfills
, Redevelopment, Settlement,
1. INTRODUCTION
Until recently, it was general practice to avoid cl
osed and abandoned landfill sites. However, as
developable space becomes scarce in urban areas, development on top of and adjacent to old
landfills has become increasingly common. Sometim
es, such development is driven by economic
opportunity (cheap or well-located land), other times by necessity (the only available space or
suitable location). Development of old landfills
includes both hard and soft uses. Hard uses
include building, roadway, and infrastructure development. Figure 1 depicts a retail store built on
top of an old landfill south of San Francisco, Ca
lifornia. Soft uses include golf courses, other
recreational facilities (athletic fields), and amph
itheatres. Figure 2 shows a golf course built on top
of a landfill in Fullerton, California. The engin
eering challenges associated with development of
old landfills include structural challenges su
ch as foundation design and utility alignment and
environmental challenges such as mitigation of e
xplosion and health risks and air, soil, and
groundwater impacts.
2. BACKGROUND
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a landfill is defined as follows:
Landfill
,
n
.
1. waste material etc. used to landscape or reclaim areas of ground.
2. the process of disposing of rubbish in this way.
3. an area filled in by this process.
For the purposes of this paper, the third definition
is the operable one used herein. Landfills, in
various forms, have been used for many years. Th
e first recorded regulations to control municipal
Figure 4. Waste fill settling away from a building. Figure 5. Utilities hung from building slab.
direct shear results on the interface between domes
tic waste and concrete indicating an interface
friction strength value of 30 kPa. However, one h
as to be very cautious about the limitation of this
type of test since it does not reproduce the real behaviour of waste in a landfill. Dunn (1995)
recommended that field pullout tests be completed on a series of test piles to develop site specific
shear strength values which can then be used to re
fine the downdrag analyses. He also suggested
that it is desirable to instrument the piles dr
iven as part of the testing program to allow
measurement over time of the actual downdrag loads which develop in the piles.
There are several methods to mitigate the downdrag problem. Some of the methods that
have been suggested in the literature include the
use of friction reducing coatings on piles, use of
double pile system, or pre-drilling with an oversize
hole that is filled with bentonite slurry (Dunn,
1995). Coating piles with bitumen to reduce downdr
ag is often used in conventional soils. In
materials such as MSW, Rinne et al. (1994) reported that the reduction of downdrag for bitumen-
coated, pre-cast prestressed concrete piles was on th
e order of 30% to 40%. An important issue,
which should not be overlooked when the bitumen
option is used is the range of temperatures
existing in the landfill. High temperatures (50
o
to 70
o
C) are often reported in landfills. However,
landfill temperatures tend to decrease with time and,
in a mature landfill, typically range between
20
o
to 40
o
C, depending on the nature of the waste and la
ndfilling practice. If bitumen coating is to
be considered, waste temperatures should be inv
estigated thoroughly since the performance of the
bitumen coating can be adversely affected by high temperatures.
The decomposition of the waste and the wa
y it has been deposited can also induce
horizontal movements inside the landfill. To date,
very little attention has been given to the effect
of a lateral load (inside the landfill) on the ove
rall performance of pile foundations in landfills.
Maertens and Bloemmen (1995) presented a case hist
ory related to the installation of precast
prestressed concrete piles through a landfill. The pile length was around 17 m. The cross section of
the piles ranged from 0.22 m x 0.22 m to 0.35 m x 0.35 m. During the installation, 25% of the piles
broke and had to be replaced by additional piles.
Two possible failure mechanisms were identified:
1) Large bending moment generated in the pile
shaft due to deflection from obstructions in the
waste; 2) accumulation of wastes such as plastic, metals, etc. at the tip inducing an uneven stress
distribution below the pile tip. It is also possi
ble that piles broke due to large tension stresses
developed during easy driving conditions in low strength waste. This case history illustrates that a
landfill should be regarded as a system with a large deformation potential that can produce both
horizontal and vertical loads.
6.3 Gas Protection Measures to Buildings
Gases such as methane (CH
4
) and carbon dioxide (CO
2
) are produced in most landfill sites. These
gases can migrate into buildings or confin
ed spaces and may accumulate to explosive
concentrations. Methane gas is explosive at con
centrations above 5 to 15 % by volume in air; these
are the lower and upper explosive limits respectively.
If methane concentrations are greater than
15% it is not explosive, however when it migrates
it will, at some locations, become diluted into
the concentration range where it can explode. La
ndfill gases also carry low concentrations of non-
methanogenic organic compounds (NMOCs). Some of these NMOCs are known to be
carcinogenic in trace concentrations (e.g., benzene, vi
nyl chloride). Hence, there is serious health
concerns associated with chronic exposur
e to even low levels of landfill gas.
The movement of gases in porous media occurs by two major transport mechanisms:
advective flow and diffusive flow. In diffusive
flow, gas moves in response to a concentration
gradient. In advective flow, the gas moves in res
ponse to a gradient in total pressure. To equalise
pressure, a mass of gas travels from a region of hi
gher pressure to a lower one. In the context of
landfills, the primary driving force for gas migration, especially through cover systems, is
advective flow. Advective flow develops from pr
essure differentials due to both internal gas
generation and natural fluctuati
ons in atmospheric pressure (barometric pumping). Indeed, falling
barometric pressures tend to draw gas out of the
landfill, increasing the gas concentration near the
surface layers.
A number of recent events have brought the h
azards associated with landfill gas very much
into public view.
The best known of these were the Losco
e, U.K, (Williams & Aitkenhead, 1991);
Skellingsted, Denmark, (Kjeldsen & Fisher,
1995) and Masserano, Italy (Jarre et al., 1997)
incidents, which resulted in extensive property damage and loss of lives.
The Loscoe explosion in
the United Kingdom for example, took place after atmospheric pressure dropped by 29 mbars in
approximately 7 hours. The same phenomenon caused the
Skellingsted and Masserano explosions.
Elevation of the leachate/water table and temper
ature gradients can also give rise to pressure
differences and lead to gas migration.
The potential for a landfill to produce gas should not necessarily be a restriction on
whether the site can be developed. There is a
wide range of available gas protection methods to
suit different types of developments, depending on th
e level of risk that can be tolerated. In
Australia, there are no guidelines specifying measures
to be taken to protect building structures in
or around landfills. However, in California, regula
tions require a building protection system that
includes a membrane barrier beneath the structure
and an alarm system within the structure for
facilities built within 300 m of a landfill. Elsew
here, and in the UK in particular, guidance
documents have been produced following landfill gas
related incidents. Table 4 provides a scope of
the protection measures that can be taken to m
itigate landfill gas problems in the UK. Referring to
Table 4, it is important to stress that the monitoring of a gassing site should be carried out over a
period of time and under varying weather conditions
. In most of the cases presented by Wilson and
Card (1999), ventilation of the underfloor subs
pace is the primary method of providing gas
protection, with secondary protection provided by a
barrier to gas migration above the subspace.
An alarm system may also be placed inside the st
ructure to warn occupants of gas accumulation.
Figure 6 conceptually illustrates an advanced la
ndfill gas building protection system. Probably the
most important aspect in this type of constructi
on measures is the long-term maintenance strategy
plan put in place to guarantee their performance over a long period of time (i.e, until the landfill
stops producing gas). Indeed whatever measure is
selected must be able to protect the building
structure for the useful life of the facility.
Air
Sensor
Structure
Owner
To Gas
Treatment
(if needed)
Waste
Sensor
Alarm
System
Figure 6. Potential landfill gas
alternative protection system
(Geosyntec Consultants patent pending).
Table 4: Scope of protection measures (modified from Wilson and Card, 1999).
Limiting
CH
4
con.
(%by vol)
Limiting
CO
2
con.
(%by vol)
Limiting
borehole gas
volume of CH
4
or CO
2
(l/h)
Residential building Office/commercial/industrial
development
< 0.1 < 0.1 <0.07 No special pr
ecautions No special precautions
<1.0 <1.5 <0.7 Well constructed ground or
suspended floor slab,
geomembranes sealed
around penetrations,
passively underfloor sub-
space and wall cavities
Reinforced cast in situ ground
slab. All joints and penetrations
sealed. Possibly geomembrane.
Granular layer below slab
passively vented to atmosphere
with interleaved geocomposite
strips or pipes
<5.0 <5.0 <3.5 Well constructed suspended
or ground slab. Gas resistant
geomembrane and passively
ventilated underfloor sub-
space
Reinforced concrete cast in-situ
ground slab. All joints and
penetrations sealed.
Waterproof/gas resistant
geomembrane and passively
ventilated underfloor sub-space
<20 <20 <15 Well cons
tructed suspended
or ground slab. Gas resistant
geomembrane and passively
ventilated underfloor sub-
space, oversite capping and
in ground venting layer
Reinforced concrete cast in-situ
ground slab. All joints and
penetrations sealed. Gas
resistant geomembrane and
passively ventilated underfloor
sub-space.
<20 <20 <70 Specific gas resistant
geomembrane and
ventilated underfloor void,
oversite capping and in
ground venting layer and in
ground venting wells
Reinforced concrete cast in-situ
ground slab. All joints and
penetrations sealed. Gas
resistant geomembrane and
passively ventilated underfloor
sub-space. In ground venting
wells
<20 <20 >70 Not suitable unless gas
regime is reduced first and
quantitative assessment
carried out to assess design
of protection measures in
conjunction with foundation
design
Reinforced concrete cast in-situ
ground slab. All joints and
penetrations sealed. Gas
resistant membrane and
actively ventilated underfloor
sub-space, with monitoring. In
ground venting wells
Con.=concentration
7. REDEVELOPMENT FOR SOFT USE
The engineering issues associated with redevel
opment for soft use are to some extent less
challenging than those associated with hard use.
Soft uses (e.g., parks, golf courses) generally
involve outdoor open space. Hence, the potential
for accumulation of explosive levels of landfill
gases is less for soft uses than for
hard uses. However, if gas is not properly controlled, it can still
present explosion and health risks and may adver
sely affect the vegetation often associated with
soft uses (e.g., turf grass). Therefore, gas migration
control is still an important issue for soft use.
Landfill settlement also remains a significant issue
for soft use. Site utilities, paved areas, and
foundations for ancillary facilities are all sensitive
to large total and/or differential settlement.
Furthermore, some soft uses may be even less to
lerable of differential settlement than hard uses
(e.g., athletic fields). Therefore, as in hard u
se, the impact of post-closure settlement must be
carefully considered when planning a soft use project.
The most significant difference between soft u
se and hard use is that soft use frequently
involves vegetation and irrigation. Particularly
in arid and semi-arid climates, post-closure uses
such as golf courses and athletic fields can require the addition of significant amounts of water to
the top of the landfill for irrigation purposes.
If the landfill cap does not provide appropriate
infiltration resistance, increased infiltration ma
y occur, leading to increased gas generation,
settlement, and groundwater impacts. While a cover
system can generally be engineered to provide
sufficient infiltration resistance, the construction of a low-permeability cover (e.g., a
geomembrane) on top of an inactive site can exacer
bate both landfill gas migration at the perimeter
of the cap and the landfill gas impacts to groundwater beneath the landfill. There are many
instances where low-permeability cover construction
has increased lateral gas migration and/or gas
impacts to groundwater. Therefore, post-closure
development for soft use requires consideration
not only of infiltration and gas migration contro
l through the top of the landfill, but also gas
migration control at the perimeter of the cap and beneath the landfill.
As in post closure development for hard
use, post-development maintenance and
monitoring is an important consideration for soft
uses. Annual inspections to detect and remediate
damage to the landfill cover system, including the barrier layer, the gas control system, and the
surface water control system, and to restore grades and repair utilities impacted by settlement must
be provided for. Gas migration and groundwater
monitoring are also key elements of the post-
closure plan. Monitoring data and annual insp
ection reports should be
reviewed by qualified
engineers to determine if the landfill cover is
performing as designed and if preventative or
corrective actions are required.
8. CASE STUDIES
8.1 Tecnoparc de Montreal, Canada (Rollin & Fournier, 2001)
Movies studios, storage facilities, and administrativ
e buildings were constr
ucted on a landfill site
that was active from 1870s until the 1960s. The site
has fairly stabilised, very low concentrations
of landfill gas were detected in 41 boreholes: CH
4
(0 to >50,000ppm); SO
2
and H
2
S <0.25-3.0
ppm); and CO <0.25-111 ppm). Five build
ings covering a total area of 10,312 m
2
were built on
piles and a geomembrane was installed on a collec
tion and evacuation granular layer consisting of
150 mm diameter drainage pipes embedded in a 500 mm thick layer of 20-40 mm diameter
material. A vacuum pump (100 cfm) was installe
d on the roofs of each building to continuously
vent biogas contaminated air (Figure 7). A pref
abricated bituminous geomembrane was selected to
act as gas barrier due to the fact that it was easy
to install (a large number of protruding elements,
367 piles, 187 pipes, 838 structural steel rods, as well as many sump pits, needed to be safely
sealed), and attach to concrete structures (the
geomembrane was mechanically attached to 1,032
metres of peripheral concrete walls). For safety pur
poses, 37 methane detectors were also installed
in different locations of the buildings. After one
year of monitoring, no methane had been detected
in the five buildings.
Figure 7 Remedial system under a building.
8.2 Redwood City Office Park, California
Miller and Vogt (1999) discussed the construction of
an office park in Redwood City, California,
USA, where the major design element was the inst
allation of friction piles to support a 20-building
complex. 40 m long pre-cast concrete piles were
driven through an old landfill into the underlying
soils over a one year construction period. 110 pil
es were installed for each building foundation, a
total of 2,200 piles were installed for the whole complex.
8.3 Gaffey Street Landfill, Wilmington, California
Evans, et al. (2000) describe redevelopment of an
inactive landfill in the Wilmington section of the
City of Los Angeles, USA, as athletic fields. One of the primary redevelopment concerns was that
the irrigation associated with post closure use woul
d significantly increase infiltration to the waste,
resulting in increased gas production, settlement, and groundwater impacts. The combined
irrigation and rainfall necessary to sustain healthy tu
rf grass in the semi-arid Los Angeles climate is
approximately 140 cm per year compared to the
mean annual rainfall of approximately 32 cm.
Detailed water balance analyses were conducted us
ing an unsaturated flow model to design an
appropriate soil cover for the site. Results of th
e water balance analyses indicated that a monolithic
evapotranspirative cover could not
provide adequate resistance to infiltration. However, a capillary
break cover could provide sufficient infiltration resistance provided that the irrigation system was
properly controlled (i.e., the turf was not over-watered
). In addition to inhibiting infiltration, the
capillary break also provided a means for collecting and venting or treating (as necessary) landfill
gas. To mitigate the potential for overwatering, landfill redevelopment included a “smart”
irrigation system in which the irrigation controller was connected to a flow meter, a self tipping
rain bucket, and an evapotranspi
ration gauge. Daily irrigation values are automatically calculated
based upon precipitation and evapotranspiration over
the previous 24 hours. The flow meter also
has the capability of sensing line br
eaks in the irrigation system. Post-closure monitoring also
includes neutron probe soil moisture sensors w
ithin and beneath the cap to evaluate the
effectiveness of the smart irrigation system.
Non-vegetated areas of the landfill (e.g., roadwa
ys, parking lots, basketball courts) were
capped with an asphaltic concrete
low-permeability barrier layer.
The asphaltic concrete included a
Vacuum pump or turbine
Methane detector
Methane detector
Venting system
Biogas
Granular layer
Geomembrane
resin-impregnated fabric interlayer to inhibit cr
acking. The post-closure maintenance plan includes
annual sealing of cracks in the asphaltic concrete
and quarterly evaluation of the soil moisture
probe data.
8.4 McColl Superfund Site, Fullerton, California (Collins, et al., 1998)
The McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton, California, provides an example of a hazardous waste
landfill redeveloped for productive use (Figure 8 and 9)
. This 8.8-ha site c
ontained 12 unlined pits
containing highly acidic petroleum waste sludge (pH less than 1.0). While some parts of the site
were closed as vegetated open space, some areas we
re redeveloped as a golf course. The cap in
both the open space and golf course areas included a
composite geomembrane/geosynthetic clay
liner infiltration barrier. Due to the low bearing
capacity of the waste, the foundation layer beneath
the cap in the golf course areas included two layers
of geogrid reinforcement (Hendricker, et al.,
1998). The foundation layer also included gas extraction pipes connected to a blower and an
activated carbon treatment unit. The cap was tied into
a soil -bentonite slurry wall that completely
encircled the site.
Figure. 8 McColl Site (Circa 1995) with Sump Figure 9. McColl Site in 1998As Part of Los
Boundaries. Coyotes Country Club.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Post-closure development of landfills includes bot
h hard uses such as commercial, industrial, and
infrastructure facilities and soft uses such as gol
f courses and athletic fields. Post-closure
development of old landfills includes a variety of
engineering challenges. These challenges include
accommodating the large total and differential settle
ments typically associated with landfills and
controlling the migration of landfill gas. Post-clo
sure total settlement can approach 20 percent of
the waste thickness, with differential settlement up
to half that value. Shallow foundation systems
for construction on top of landfills are typically
limited to relatively light structures one or two
stories tall, due to settlement considerations. D
eep foundations bearing on firm strata beneath the
waste may be used to support heavier structures.
However, deep foundation systems are generally
limited to landfills that do not have engineered
bottom liner systems. Even though buildings on
deep foundations may not settle significantly, the design engineer must still accommodate the
relative settlement between the landfill and the st
ructure. Both deep and shallow foundation
systems require engineered systems to control landfill gas migration. These building protection
systems typically include a membrane barrier beneat
h the slab, a venting system beneath the barrier
to minimize the build-up of gases beneath the barrier,
and an alarm system within the structure.
Despite the substantial engineering challeng
es associated with building on old landfills, an
increasing number of such projects have been successf
ully completed. Case histories describe the
successful application of engineering principles
to accommodate these challenges for both hard and
soft post closure uses.
REFERENCES
Barlaz M.A. and Ham, R.K. (1993). Leachate and gas generation.
Geotechnical Practice for Waste
Disposal
. Daniel, D.E. (ed.), Chapman & Hall, London (U.K), pp. 113-136.
Bouazza, A. and Parker, R. (1997). Applications
of containment technologies for contamination
remediation/control: status & experiences.
Proc. Int. Conf. Containment Technology
, St-
Petersburg, (USA), pp. 33-42.
Bouazza, A. and Van Impe, W. (1998). Liner design for waste disposal sites.
Environmental
Geology
, Vol. 35, No1, pp.41-54.
Bouazza, A. and Seidel, J.P (1999).
Foundation design on municipal solid waste.
Proc. 8
th
ANZ
Conf. on Geomechanics
, Hobart, Australia, vol.1, pp.235-242.
Bouazza, A. and Wojnarowicz, M. (2000).
Stability assessment of an old domestic waste slope in
Warsaw (Poland).
Slope Stability 2000
. American Society of Civil Engineering, Geotechnical
Speciality Publication No 101, pp. 48-57.
Bowders, J.,
Bouazza, A., Loehr, E. and Russell, M. (2000). Settlement of municipal solid waste
landfills.
Kansai International Geotechnical Forum
, Kyoto, Japan, May, pp. 101-106.
Bote, T.V. and Andersen, L. (
1997). Construction of a shoppi
ng center on a former landfill.
Proc.
6
th
Int. Symp on Landfill
, Cagliari, CISA, Cagliari,
Brandl, H. (1997). Waste columns for in-situ improvements of waste deposits.
Proc. 1
st
ANZ
Conf. on Env. Geotech
., Melbourne, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.489-497.
Castelao, M., Rodrigues, L.M., Zungailia, E. and Rocha, J. (1999). Beirolas sanitary landfill
closure and post closure use as a park.
Proceedings 7
th
Int. Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium
, Cagliari, pp.469-476.
Christensen, T.H, Cossu, R. and Stegmann, R. (1992).
Landfilling of Waste: Leachate
. Elsevier,
Rotterdam.
Collins, P, Ng, A.S., and Ramanujam, R. (1998) “Superfund Success, Superfast,”
Civil
Engineering,
December, pp.42-45.
Cooper, G.R., Canning, R.J. and Yau, G. (1997)
. Restoring Hong Kong’s closed landfills for
active public recreation use.
Proceedings 6
th
Int. Landfill Symposium
, Cagliari, pp.369-379.
Coumoulos, D.G., and Koryalos, T.P. Prediction
of long term settlement behaviour of landfill
covers after closure.
Proceedings 7
th
Int. Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
, Cagliari,
pp.505-512.
Diaz, L.F., Savage, G.M. and Golueke, C.G. (1982).
Resource recovery from municipal soil
wastes, vol.II, final processing
, CRC press.
Dunn, R.J. (1995). Design and construction of
foundation compatible with solid wastes.
Landfill
Closures, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No 53
, ASCE, pp.139-159.
Emberton, J.R. and Parker, A. (1987). The problems associated with building on landfill sites.
Journal of waste Management & Research
, vol.5, pp.473-482.
Edil, T.B., Ranguette, V.J. and Wuellner, W.W.
(1990). Settlement of Municipal refuse. .
Geotechnics of Waste Fills - Theory and Practice
. ASTM STP1070, pp. 225-239.
Evans, T.M., Meyers, D.K., Gharios, K.M., Hadj-Hamou, T., and Kavazanjian, E., Jr. (2000) “The
Use of a Capillary Barrier Final Cover for Reclamation of a Closed Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill,” Proc.
3rd Annual Arid Climate Symposium
, Solid Waste Association of North
America, New Mexico Chapter, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 12-14 April.
Gifford,G.P., Landva, A.O. and Hoffman, V.C.
(1990). Geotechnical considerations when
planning construction on a landfill.
Geotechnics of Waste Fills - Theory and Practice
. ASTM
STP1070, pp. 41-56.
Hendricker, A.T., Fredianelli, K.H., Kavazan
jian, E., Jr., and McKelvey, J.A., III (1998),
“Reinforcement Requirements at a Hazardous Waste Site,” Proc.
Sixth International Conference
on Geosynthetics,
Atlanta, Georgia, Vol. I, pp. 465-468.
Hinkle, R.D. (1990). Landfill site reclaimed for commercial use as container storage facility.
Geotechnics of Waste Fills - Theory and Practice
. ASTM STP1070, pp. 331-344..
Hirata, t., Hanashima, M., Matufuji, Y., Yanase,
R. and Maeno, Y. (1995). Construction of
facilities on the closed landfills.
Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Landfills
, vol.3, pp. 717-728.
Jarre, P, Mezzalama, R., and Luridiana A. (1997),
Lessons to be learned from a fatal landfill gas
explosion,
Proceedings 6
th
International Landfill Symposium
, vol. 1, pp.497-506.
Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Matasovic, N., and Bachus, R.
C. (1999). Large diameter static and cyclic
laboratory testing of municipal solid waste.
Proceedings 7
th
Int. Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium
, Cagliari (Italy), pp.437-444
Kissida, J., Spieler, R., and Casazza, J. (2001). Co
st effective landfill closure: Boston’s “Menino
Project”.
Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management
, Vol.5,
No1, pp.33-39.
Kjeldsen, P., & Fisher, E.V, (1995), Landfill gas mi
gration-Field investigations at Skellingsted
landfill, Denmark,
Journal of Waste Management and Research
, vol.13, pp.467-484.
Landva, A.O., Valsangkar, A.J. and Pelkey, S.G.
(2000). Lateral earth pressure at rest and
compressibility of municipal solid waste.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal
, vol. 37, pp. 1157-
1165.
Lewis, P.J. and Langer, J.A. (1994). Dynami
c compaction of landfill beneath embankment.
Settlement 94, ASCE, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No 40
, vol.1, pp. 451-461.
Ling, H.I, Leshchinsky, D, Mohri, Y. and Kawa
bata, T. (1998). Estimation of municipal waste
landfill settlement.
Journal of Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg
, ASCE, vol. 124, No 1, pp. 21-28.
Maertens, J. and Bloemmen, R. (1995).
Installation of prefab piles through a waste disposal
(unpublished paper).
Manassero, M., Van Impe, W.F. and Bouazza, A. (1996). Waste disposal and containment.
Proc.
2nd. Int. Congress on Env. Geotech.
, Osaka, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 3, pp.1425-1474.
Miller, J.J. and Vogt, W.G. (1999). Case st
udy:large scale commercial development above a
closed landfill, westport office park, Redwood city, California (USA).
Proceedings 7th Int.
Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
, Cagliari, Italy, pp. 455-460.
Oteo, C. and Sopena, L. (1993). Deep treatment of
uncontrolled urban fills for the construction of a
high capacity road system.
Proceedings International. Sympos
ium on Geotechnics Related to the
Environment
, Bolton, pp. 563-572.
Oweis, I.S, and Khera, R.P. (1998).
Geotechnology of waste management
. Butterworths
Perelberg, S., Boyd, P.J.H., Montague, K.N. a
nd Greenwood, J.R. (1987). M25 Bell Lane pit: ground
improvement by dynamic compaction.
Proc. Int. Conf. on Building on Marginal and Derelict
Land
, Glasgow, pp. 267-280.
Phillips, A.B., Wallace, K., and Chan, K.F. (1993). Foundations for reclaimed landfill sites.
Proceedings Conf. Geotechnical Manage
ment of Waste and Contamination
, Sydney, pp. 185-
208.
Rinne, E.E., Dunn, R.J. and Majchrzak, M. (1994)
. Design and constructi
on considerations for
piles in landfills.
Proc. 5
th
Int. Conf. on Piling & Deep Foundations
, Bruges, DFI, pp. 2.2.1-
2.2.5.
Rollin, A. and Fournier, J.F. (2001). Biogas barrier beneath buildings: Case studies using
geomembranes.
Proceedings Geosynthetics 2001
, Portland, USA, pp.203-216.
Saarela, J. (1997).
Hydraulic approximation of infiltration c
haracteristics of surface structures on
closed landfills.
Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research, N03, 139p.
Shimizu, K. (1997). Geotechnics of waste landfills.
Proc.
2nd. Int. Congress on Env. Geotech.
, ,
Osaka, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 3, pp.1475-1491.
Stulgis, R.P, Soydemir, C. and Telgener, R.J. (1995). Predicting landfill settlement.
Geoenvironment 2000
,
Geotech. Spec. Publ. No 46
, ASCE, Vol.2, pp.980-991.
Tammemagi, H. (1999).
The waste crisis
. Oxford University Press.
Van Impe, W.F., and Bouazza, A.
(1996). Densification of waste fills by dynamic compaction.
Canadian Geotech. Journal
, Vol. 33, No 6, pp. 879-887.
Williams, G.M., and Aitkenhead N. (1991), Less
ons from Loscoe:The uncontrolled migration of
landfill gas.
Quarterly Journal. Engineering Geology
, vol. 24, pp.191-207.
Wilson, S.A. and Card, G.B. (1999). Reliability and risk in gas protection design.
Ground
Engineering
. February, pp.33-36.
Yang, K.S. and Anandarajah, A. (1998). Design
and construction of an
expressway interchange on
a waste landfill site in Singapore.
Proceedings Contaminated and derelict land
, GREEN 2,
Krakow, Poland, pp. 431-436.
- -5