2

nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
Construction on ld !andfills
A. "oua##a
Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia
E. $ava#an%ian &r.
GeoSyntec Consultants. Inc., Huntington Beach, California, USA
A'stract( )ncreasin* demand for develo+a'le s+ace in ur'an areas has created increased interest in
construction on to+ of old landfills. !andfill redevelo+ment +ro%ects can include hard uses such as
commercial, industrial, or infrastructure facilities and soft uses such as athletic fields, *olf courses,
and am+hitheatres. En*ineerin* challen*es associated with landfill redevelo+ment include
foundation desi*n and landfill *as mi*ration control. ,he lar*e total and differential settlement
often associated with landfills is an inte*ral +art of these challen*es. -ue to the lar*e settlement
+otential, landfill redevelo+ment usin* shallow foundations is *enerall. restricted to low/rise
structures of one or two stories with raft foundations. Construction of taller structures usin* +ile
foundations is *enerall. restricted to landfills without an en*ineered 'ottom liner s.stem. "oth
dee+ and shallow foundations s.stems must 'e +rovided with +rotective measures a*ainst landfill
*as mi*ration. -es+ite the si*nificant challen*es associated with +ost/closure develo+ment on to+
of landfills, 'oth hard and soft uses of old landfills are 'ecomin* increasin*l. common.
$e.words( 0oundations, Gas, !andfills, 1edevelo+ment, Settlement,
1. )N,1-2C,)N
2ntil recentl., it was *eneral +ractice to avoid closed and a'andoned landfill sites. 3owever, as
develo+a'le s+ace 'ecomes scarce in ur'an areas, develo+ment on to+ of and ad%acent to old
landfills has 'ecome increasin*l. common. Sometimes, such develo+ment is driven '. economic
o++ortunit. 4chea+ or well/located land5, other times '. necessit. 4the onl. availa'le s+ace or
suita'le location5. -evelo+ment of old landfills includes 'oth hard and soft uses. 3ard uses
include 'uildin*, roadwa., and infrastructure develo+ment. 0i*ure 1 de+icts a retail store 'uilt on
to+ of an old landfill south of San 0rancisco, California. Soft uses include *olf courses, other
recreational facilities 4athletic fields5, and am+hitheatres. 0i*ure 2 shows a *olf course 'uilt on to+
of a landfill in 0ullerton, California. ,he en*ineerin* challen*es associated with develo+ment of
old landfills include structural challen*es such as foundation desi*n and utilit. ali*nment and
environmental challen*es such as miti*ation of e6+losion and health ris7s and air, soil, and
*roundwater im+acts.
2. "AC$G12N-
Accordin* to the Concise 6ford -ictionar., a landfill is defined as follows(
Landfill, n.
1 waste material etc. used to landsca+e or reclaim areas of *round.
2 the +rocess of dis+osin* of ru''ish in this wa..
8 an area filled in '. this +rocess.
1
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
0i*ure1. 1etail store on to+ of a landfill. 0i*ure 2. Golf course on to+ of a landfill.
0or the +ur+oses of this +a+er, the third definition is the o+era'le one used herein. !andfills,
in various forms, have 'een used for man. .ears. ,he first recorded re*ulations to control
munici+al waste were im+lemented durin* the 9inoan civili#ation, which flourished in Crete
4Greece5 from 8000 to 1000 ".C. Solid wastes from the ca+ital, $nossos, were +laced in lar*e +its
and covered with la.ers of earth at intervals 4Wilson, 1:;;5. ,his 'asic method of landfillin* has
remained relativel. unchan*ed ri*ht u+ to the +resent da..
!andfill desi*n evolved as a series of res+onses to +ro'lems. nl. when a +ro'lem was
identified or reached a sufficient level of concern were corrective ste+s ta7en. ,hese im+rovements
were invaria'l. driven '. re*ulator. re<uirements. )n Athens 4Greece5, '. =00 ".C. it was re<uired
that *ar'a*e 'e dis+osed of at least 1.= 7ilometres from the cit. walls. Each household was
res+onsi'le for collectin* its own waste and ta7in* it to the dis+osal site. ,he first *ar'a*e
collection service was esta'lished in the 1oman Em+ire. >eo+le tossed their *ar'a*e into the
streets, and it was shovelled into a horse drawn wa*on '. a++ointed *ar'a*eman who then too7 the
*ar'a*e to an o+en +it, often centrall. located in the communit.. ,he semi/or*anised s.stem of
*ar'a*e collection lasted onl. as lon* as the 1oman Em+ire. As industrialisation of nations
occurred, man. containment facilities were constructed to retain various t.+es of raw materials
and?or waste +roducts. 9ost of these containment facilities were not desi*ned and almost none
were lined to +revent lea7a*e of wastes into the surroundin* environment.
2ntil the late 1:;0s there was little en*ineerin* in+ut into landfillin* +ractice and little
consideration *iven to the im+act of landfilled wastes on land and *roundwater. ". the end of the
1:;0@s, the +ro'lems in mana*in* landfill sites had arisen from the contamination of soil and
*roundwater 4with, for e6am+le, heav. metals, arsenic, +esticides, halo*enated or*anic com+ounds
and solvents5 and the +otential ris7s to e6+osed +o+ulations. 0rom the 1:;0@s throu*h the 1::0s
landfill desi*n +hiloso+h. moved towards the o'%ective of containment and isolation of wastes,
which resulted in a ma%or u+sur*e in the develo+ment of en*ineered waste dis+osal s.stems. )n the
2nited States and Euro+e, the evolution of munici+al landfill desi*n +hiloso+h. since the 1:;0@s
has 'een relativel. sim+le and has involved three si*nificant +hases throu*h the 1::0s and is
enterin* a fourth +hase as we enter the 21
st
centur.. ,hese +hases of munici+al landfill
develo+ment are summari#ed in ,a'le 1.
2
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
,a'le 1 Summar. of munici+al landfill evolution 4modified from ,ammema*i, 1:::5.
-ate -evelo+ment >ro'lems )m+rovements
1:;0s Sanitar. landfills 3ealth?nuisance, i.e
odour, fires, litter
-ail. cover, 'etter com+action,
en*ineered a++roach to containment
!ate 1:A0s/
earl. 1::0s
En*ineered
landfills, re/
c.clin*
Ground and *roundwater
contamination
En*ineered liners, covers, leachate and
*as collection s.stems, increasin*
re*ulation, financial assurance
!ate 1:A0@s,
1::0s
)m+roved sitin*
and containment,
waste diversion
and re/use
Sta'ilit., *as mi*ration )ncor+oration of technical, socio/+olitical
factors into sitin* +rocess, develo+ment
of new linin* materials, new cover
conce+ts, increased +ost/closure use
2000s )m+roved waste
treatment
B )ncreasin* em+hasis on mechanical and
'iolo*ical waste +re/treatment, leachate
recirculation and 'ioreactors

)n Australia this evolutionar. +rocess has followed the same ste+s with the e6ce+tion that the
develo+ment of +olic., re*ulation and *uidance for landfill desi*n was *iven more attention onl. in
the mid/1::0s 4"oua##a and >ar7er, 1::;5. ,he focus in this decade is antici+ated to 'e on
mechanical and 'iolo*ical waste treatment, either in *round or +rior to de+osition, includin*
increased use of leachate recirculation and 'ioreactor technolo*., as owners, re*ulators, and
en*ineers 'ecome more familiar with these conce+ts and their 'enefits with res+ect to decreasin*
lon* term costs and lia'ilities. While waste reduction and reuse efforts ma. diminish the +er ca+ita
<uantit. of waste *enerated in industriali#ed nations, there is no dou't that landfills will remain an
im+ortant method of waste dis+osal for the foreseea'le future due to their sim+licit. and cost/
effectiveness.
Construction on old landfills is a challen*in* tas7 as the 'ehaviour of waste is com+le6 and
difficult to characteri#e. 0urthermore, man. old landfills do not have en*ineered containment
s.stems, and a++ro+riate closure measures ma. not have 'een im+lemented. )n addition, little is
7nown a'out their content. )t has 'een customar. to avoid landfills whenever +ossi'le when
+lannin* the construction of hi*hwa.s, commercial, and residential and industrial facilities, and
this is still the +referred a++roach. 3owever, in recent .ears, as ur'an s+ace 'ecomes scarce, the
develo+ment of old landfills has 'ecome increasin*l. common.
As landfills will remain an im+ortant method of waste control and as develo+a'le land
'ecomes increasin* scarce in ur'an areas, it is antici+ated that construction on old landfills will
'ecome more and more common in the ne6t decade.
8. !AN-0)!! C9>S),)N
!andfilled wastes include inert, munici+al, and ha#ardous wastes. )nert waste includes
construction and demolition de'ris, some t.+es of contaminated soil, whole and shredded tires, and
as'estos. )nert waste landfills are +erha+s the easiest t.+e of landfill to redevelo+ as environmental
+ro'lems are minimal and the. can 'e im+roved and?or sta'ili#ed usin* conventional *eotechnical
*round im+rovement techni<ues. ,herefore, we will not address inert waste landfills an. further in
this +a+er. 3a#ardous waste ma. include some t.+es of contaminated soil, chemical +rocess and
refiner. wastes, and other './+roducts of commercial and industrial +rocesses. 3a#ardous waste
landfills are +erha+s the least common t.+e of landfill su'%ect to redevelo+ment 'ecause of
environmental and health and safet. concerns. ,he en*ineerin* challen*es associated with
redevelo+ment ha#ardous waste landfills are in some cases sim+ler than those associated with
munici+al landfills, as ha#ardous waste landfills ma. not 'e su'%ect to the same de*ree of
de*radation/induced settlement or *as *eneration as munici+al landfills. While there is a hi*her
8
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
de*ree of to6icit. associated with ha#ardous waste com+ared to munici+al waste, with +ro+erl.
en*ineered containment s.stems ha#ardous waste landfills can 'e redevelo+ed even for recreational
+ur+oses 4Collins, et al., 1::A5. As munici+al solid waste landfills are the most common t.+e of
landfill, and as redevelo+ment of munici+al solid waste landfill includes all of the en*ineerin*
challen*es associated with redevelo+ment of 'oth inert and ha#ardous waste landfills, the 'alance
of this +a+er will focus +rimaril. on redevelo+ment of munici+al solid waste landfills.
9unici+al solid waste 49SW5 is com+rised of household and commercial refuse and
includes +a+er, card'oard, *lass, metal, +lastics, te6tiles, *reen waste, food waste, and other
+utresci'le or*anic waste. 9SW is the most common t.+e of waste and 9SW landfills are the
most common t.+e of landfills. 9SW t.+icall. com+rises a ver. hetero*eneous mass of material
that varies widel. 'etween *eo*ra+hical locations, as shown in ,a'le 2, reflectin* different
consum+tion +atterns and social ha'its. 0urthermore, as wastes are +ro*ressivel. minimi#ed,
rec.cled, re/used, +rocessed, and recovered, the characteristics of 9SW arrivin* at modern landfill
chan*es over time. )n addition to chan*es over time in the waste stream arrivin* at the landfill,
9SW de+osited in landfills chan*e with time due to decom+osition '. a com'ination of chemical,
+h.sical, and 'iolo*ical +rocesses. ,hese +rocesses are well documented in the literature
4Christensen et al., 1::2, "arla# C 3am, 1::85 and it is not intended to e6+and on this in the
+resent +a+er. 3owever, it is worth notin* that these +rocesses will +roduce li<uid 4leachate5 and
*aseous './+roducts 4landfill *as5. ,he com+osition and <uantit. of 'oth leachate and landfill *as
will var. with de*radation sta*e. "oth leachate and *as +roduction ma. 'e im+ortant +arameters, in
addition to waste mechanical +ro+erties, to ta7e into account in the redevelo+ment of landfill sites.
,a'le 2. Waste com+onents as wei*ht +ercenta*e for different cities.
Com+onents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9etals =.= 8 = D 2 2.= 8 E / 8.=
>a+er, card'oard 2; 12 80 8= 10 81 : 1: 12 2E
>lastics 11.= = 10 A 8 :.= E ; / 8
!eather,wood, ru''er ; / / E D E / E / 88
,e6tiles / / / / 8 = = / /
>utresci'le materials 82 ;E EA E0 D1 2A E= =: =: 8E
Glass E.= E / D.= 1 : 1 2 / 2
thers 12.= 2 ; / 1E 11 88 = / /
1-"a7ersfield, Southern California 42SA5, 2/ Nairo'i 4$en.a5, 3/$uala !um+ur 49ala.sia5, 4/ Caracas
4Fene#uela5, 5/ )stan'ul 4,ur7e.5 6/ Geneva 4Swit#erland5, 7/ -a7ar 4Sene*al5, 8/ Athens 4Greece5, 9/9oscow
41ussia5, 10/ !ima 4>eru5.
E. !AN-0)!! C!S21E AN- 1E-EFE!>9EN,
nce the +ermitted ca+acit. of a landfill site has 'een reached, it is closed. 0ormal closure of a
landfill often includes a +ost/closure +lan to +rovide for the environmental monitorin* and
maintenance necessar. to +rotect +u'lic health and the environment. ,he +ost closure +lan
*enerall. also addresses +ost closure use of the site, thou*h restricted access o+en s+ace remains
the most common t.+e of site use s+ecified in +ost closure +lans. 3owever, there is increasin*
awareness amon* owners, +u'lic officials, and the communit. that closed landfills are a +otential
resource 'ecause, due to their o+en land area, the. ma. 'e +ut to 'eneficial use. )ndeed one of the
advanta*es of a landfill site is that, once it is com+leted, a si#a'le area of land 'ecomes availa'le
for other +ur+oses. 3owever, +ost closure develo+ment of a landfill re<uires careful consideration
of +otential en*ineerin* and environmental +ro'lems. ,he ma%or en*ineerin* limitations
associated with redevelo+ment of closed landfills are the +otential for lar*e total and differential
settlement, which can result in structural dama*e to 'uildin*s on the landfill and dama*e to the
E
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
landfill ca+, and low 'earin* ca+acit., which either limits +ost closure develo+ment to li*ht wei*ht
low rise structures or re<uires the use of dee+ foundations. )f dee+ foundations are used, there are
additional en*ineerin* challen*es associated with downdra* due to waste settlement.
Environmental challen*es related to +ost closure develo+ment are associated +rimaril. with dealin*
with the ha#ards of landfill *as. ,he other environmental challen*e associated with +ost closure
develo+ment is the ris7 of e6acer'ation waste and waste './+roduct mi*ration, either in soil,
*roundwater, or the atmos+here, due to +ost/closure develo+ment activities.
!andfill *as mi*ration re+resents a ma%or concern for the redevelo+ment of 9SW landfills due
to the ris7 of fire and e6+losion associated with methane and the health ris7s associated with some
of the non/methano*enic or*anic constituents. 9ethods of controllin* *as in modern landfills
include the creation of +h.sical and +neumatic 'arriers, +assive ventin* s.stems, and active *as
collection and treatment s.stems, 'oth within the waste and under structures. ,he +resence of
these *as collection s.stems and en*ineered covers in a modern closed landfill can miti*ate +ost
closure develo+ment ha#ards due to landfill *as to some e6tent. 3owever, additional +rotective
measures ma. 'e re<uired for +ost closure develo+ment, even for a modern landfill with a
*eomem'rane ca+ and an active *as control s.stem.
,he e6tent of the limitations that the a'ove en*ineerin* and environmental challen*es +lace on
+ost closure landfill develo+ment will de+end on a variet. of factors, includin* the com+osition of
the waste, the a*e of the waste, the de*ree of waste com+action, the climate, and en*ineered
containment s.stems at the landfill. )n *eneral, landfills with relativel. .oun* waste that have onl.
recentl. 'een closed will show su'stantiall. more methane *eneration and continuin* settlement
than older, more mature landfills and thus will have su'stantiall. *reater challen*es associated with
immediate reuse. While redevelo+ment for soft use 4i.e. +ar7s, *olf courses, landsca+in*, etc.5 ma.
miti*ate to some e6tent the challen*es associated with foundation desi*n and *as control, soft use
is often associated with the introduction of additional moisture to the landfill 4e.*., throu*h
irri*ation s.stems5. Addition of moisture can si*nificantl. enhance landfill *as *eneration and
settlement rates, Greactivatin*H de*radation in dormant or mature landfills, +articularl. in arid
climates. 3owever, for 'oth soft and hard use 4i.e., infrastructure, 'uildin*s, 'rid*e a'utments,
etc.5 uses, redevelo+ment of 'oth .oun* and mature landfills is feasi'le +rovided that enou*h
'ac7*round information has 'een *athered a'out the site, that a +ro+er assessment of the +otential
+ro'lems has 'een made, and that redevelo+ment is mana*ed +ro+erl..
Closed landfill sites have 'een used for a variet. of +ost closure land uses. >ro%ects have
ran*ed from +ar7s, recreational facilities 4Coo+er et al., 1::;, Castelao et al. 1:::, $issida et al.,
20015, commercial or industrial develo+ments such as container stora*e facilities, office facilities,
sho++in* centres 43in7le et al., 1::0, Gifford et al., 1::0, "ote C Andersen, 1::;, 1ollin C
0ournier, 20015, motorwa. em'an7ments 4>erel'er* et al., 1:A;5, elevated hi*hwa.s, +iled
roadwa.s or e6+resswa.s 4teo C So+ena, 1::8, Shimi#u, 1::;, Ian* and Anandara%ah, 1::A5, to
hi*h rise 'uildin*s 43irata et al., 1::=5. ,he a'ove +ro%ects have re<uired en*ineered solutions for
the construction of dee+ and shallow foundations, landfill *as mi*ration control and +rotection
s.stems, access roadwa.s, and utilt. corridors. ,here are also e6am+les of construction on
medieval landfills 4"oua##a C Wo%narowic#, 20005 which re+resent another t.+e of challen*e.
2ntil recentl., ver. little consideration was *iven durin* desi*n to the +otential future use of
the land followin* landfill closure. 3owever, a'out 20 .ears a*o, landfill re*ulations 'e*an
re<uirin* landfill owners to +re+are +ost closure maintenance and monitorin* +lans that addressed,
amon* other thin*s, +ost closure use for the site. )nitiall., for sim+licit. in develo+in* these +lans,
man. owners would sim+l. desi*nate the site for use as secure o+en s+ace followin* closure.
3owever, as the financial 'enefits of +ost closure use 'ecome more a++arent and as +ressure from
the communit. increases to +ut landfill s+ace to +roductive use followin* closure, alternative +ost
closure use scenarios are 'ecomin* more and more common. )n &a+an, where availa'le s+ace is
ver. scarce, D;J of closed landfills have 'een reused for various +ro%ects 4Shimi#u, 1::;5,
=
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
whereas in 0inland, where there is less +ressure to find develo+a'le s+ace, A0J of the closed
landfills do not have a defined +ost closure use 4Saarela, 1::;5. wners are now reco*ni#in* that
some of the +ro'lems encountered in utilisin* closed landfills can 'e miti*ated if the +ost closure
use is ta7en into consideration durin* +lannin*, desi*n and o+eration of the landfill. )n some +arts
of the Euro+ean communit., mechanical and 'iolo*ical +re/+rocessin* of waste is now widel.
endorsed not onl. as a means of reducin* +ost closure environmental lia'ilities 'ut also as a means
of acceleratin* +ost closure develo+ment and enhancin* +ost closure develo+ment +otential.
=. WAS,E SE,,!E9EN,
Waste settlement is an im+ortant factor in 'oth hard and soft +ost/closure uses of landfills. 0or
hard uses, waste settlement directl. im+acts desi*n of shallow foundations and indirectl. im+acts
dee+ foundation desi*n throu*h the downdra* it ma. im+ose on them. 0or soft uses, settlement
affects draina*e *rades and *rade/sensitive uses 4e.*., athletic fields, *reens for *olf courses5.
Settlement also im+acts desi*n of site utilities, +avements, and other ancillar. features of hard and
soft site develo+ment. "oth total and differential settlements of the waste mass are of en*ineerin*
concern.
"oth short/term and lon*/term settlement +rocesses im+act landfilled wastes. Short/ term
settlement is +rimaril. attri'uta'le to mechanical settlement 4e.*, settlement due to waste
com+ression from over'urden effects5. -ue to the hi*h +ermea'ilit. and relativel. dr. nature of
most landfills, the +rimar. mechanical settlement of the waste is usuall. essentiall. com+lete
'efore site closure. 1eviews of landfill +erformance data indicate that +rimar. mechanical
com+ression t.+icall. ta7es 10 to 100 da.s to com+lete 43in7le, 1::0, Stul*is et al., 1::=,
Coumolos and $or.alos, 1:::5. 0or +ost/closure develo+ment, mechanical settlement is *enerall.
onl. of concern for shallow foundation s.stems +laced on the surface of the waste mass.
,he mechanical +hase of waste settlement is followed '. the so/called time de+endent
settlement +hase 4lon* term settlement5. )n landfills, time de+endent settlement ma. 'e
characteri#ed '. a su'stantial amount of settlement over an e6tended +eriod of time. While some of
this time de+endent settlement ma. 'e related to mechanical secondar. com+ression, most time
de+endent waste settlement is usuall. related to the 'iode*radation +rocess, which ma. ta7e .ears
to reach com+letion. S+ecific de*radation 4and hence settlement5 rates var. widel., de+endin*
u+on characteristics of the landfill site and the 9SW it contains, climate conditions, and
o+erational considerations. ,he factors affectin* the ma*nitude of lon*/term settlement are man.
and are influenced '. each other 4Edil et al., 1::05. Environmental factors, such as moisture
content and climatic conditions, a++ear to 'e a +rimar. factor influencin* the lon*/term settlement
rate.
!ar*e oedometer tests carried out '. $ava#an%ian et al. 41:::5 showed that moist waste
s+ecimens had more time de+endent deformation that the dr. s+ecimens. 9ore im+ortantl., the
mechanical secondar. com+ression settlement rate measured in these tests in even the moist
s+ecimen was an order of ma*nitude less than the 'ac7 calculated secondar. com+ression rate from
field measurements. "owders, et al. 420005 monitored surface settlements of two closed cells
4waste thic7ness a++ro6imatel.1A m5 in the cit. of Colum'ia, 9issouri 42SA5. No a++recia'le
settlement was recorded durin* 1A0 da.s, which coincided with an e6ce+tionall. dr. +eriod for the
re*ion. Fisual e6amination of the waste durin* drillin* for *as recover. well installation showed
the waste to 'e e6ce+tionall. dr.. -ia# et al. 41:A25 o'served that landfills 28 m and 1E m dee+,
res+ectivel., in an arid re*ion 4KDcm?.ear of rain5 e6+erienced ver. small settlements with
ma*nitudes as low as 8J of the ori*inal 9SW fill thic7ness three .ears after closure, whereas in a
re*ion of moderate rainfall a D/m dee+ landfill e6+erienced a settlement with ma*nitudes as lar*e
as 20J of the ori*inal 9SW fill thic7ness after the first .ear of com+letion. ,hese o'servations
D
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
reinforce the fact that it is necessar. that all factors *overnin* settlement 'ehaviour 'e assessed and
their influence understood 'efore an. +redictive model can 'e develo+ed.
)n the a'sence of a +redictive model for waste settlement, it is essential to ma7e field
o'servations of waste settlement 'efore construction if lon*/term waste settlement is an im+ortant
desi*n consideration. At the +resent time, site s+ecific field measurements re+resent the onl.
rational means of <uantif.in* the rate at which a landfill is under*oin* lon*/term settlement.
Cumulative lon*/term settlement can 'e related to the amount of decom+osa'le 4or*anic5 material
in the landfill. ftentimes, the amount of decom+osa'le material can 'e estimated 'ased u+on
waste recei+ts or waste dis+osal +ractices re+resentative of the time and +lace of landfillin*.
3owever, in an older landfill, estimation of the amount of decom+osa'le material is com+licated '.
uncertaint. as to how much de*radation has alread. ta7en +lace. )n the a'sence of <uantitative
information of the amount of decom+osa'le material in the landfill, it is often assumed the +ost/
closure lon*/term settlement will 'e 'etween 1= to 20 +ercent of the waste mass thic7ness, 'ased
u+on +ast e6+erience. 0or an older landfill, this +ercenta*e ma. 'e su'%ectivel. ad%usted 'ased
u+on %ud*ement as to how much de*radation has alread. ta7en +lace.
Also of concern to the desi*ner, in addition to total settlement, is the differential settlement
and its im+acts on foundations and utilities. Si*nificant differential settlement should alwa.s 'e
e6+ected, irres+ective of how uniform the refuse is initiall. +laced, due to non/uniformit. of waste
com+osition and chan*in* 'oundar. conditions. Chan*es in 'oundar. conditions can 'e caused '.
the to+o*ra+h. of the landfill 4e6am+le( side/slo+es, irre*ular landfill 'ottom5, com+osition and
a*e of the waste 4different 'iode*radation +rocesses5 and +revious use of the site 4if used for
stora*e or stoc7+ilin* for e6am+le5. As a +ractical matter, in man. instances, differential
settlement is often estimated as half the total settlement, or ;.= to 10 +ercent of waste thic7ness at
various +oints in the fill. ,he tolerance of the +ro+osed develo+ment to 'oth total and differential
settlements should 'e evaluated.
)f the total or differential settlements are too lar*e, then soil im+rovement techni<ues ma.
'e used to reduce settlements and im+rove +ost closure +erformance. )t should 'e reco*ni#ed that the
conventional mechanical *round im+rovement techni<ues 4e.*., surchar*in* or d.namic com+action5
ma. onl. dela. the onset of lon*/term settlements, as the. do not influence the amount of
decom+osa'le materials in the landfill. 3owever, des+ite limitations with res+ect to reducin* lon*/
term de*radation, *round im+rovement techni<ues have 'een used effectivel. to im+rove the waste
characteristics 'efore foundation desi*n on a landfill. lder unlined or cla./lined landfills have
'een successfull. densified '. tam+in*, d.namic com+action, and the use of waste columns 'efore
'uildin* on to+ of them. ,he use of these techni<ues in the redevelo+ment of several old landfills
is descri'ed '. Fan )m+e C "oua##a 41::D5 and "randl 41::;5. )n the case of d.namic
com+action, it has 'een shown that the enforced settlement de+ends on the a*e of the landfill.
Ioun* landfills show *enerall. hi*her enforced settlement 4an enforced settlement of 2.A m/8.A m,
corres+ondin* to =0J of landfill thic7ness, has 'een re+orted '. !ewis and !an*er, 1::E5, while older
landfills tend to reach settlements similar to those encountered with soilsL i.e 0.2m to 0.Dm 4Fan )m+e
C "oua##a, 1::D5.

D. 1E-EFE!>9EN, 01 3A1- 2SE
6.1 Har Use !eevelo"#ent Issues
1edevelo+ment of old landfills for hard use re<uires desi*nin* and constructin* foundations
either em'edded into or throu*h the waste 'od. or located at the landfill surface. Conse<uentl.,
there is the necessit. to <uantif. the settlement and 'earin* ca+acit. of the landfill and to ma7e
sure that *as emissions are +ro+erl. controlled so as to +ose no si*nificant ris7 of e6+losion or
ha#ard to human health and safet.. Eventuall., an old landfill will achieve 'iochemical and
structural sta'ilit.. 3owever, a su'stantial duration ma. 'e re<uired to reach a de*ree of sta'ilit.
;
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
that is necessar. to su'stantiall. miti*ate the en*ineerin* and health and safet. concerns associated
with waste de*radation. Some investi*ators have advocated dela.in* redevelo+ment until the
waste mass has sta'ili#ed. 0or instance, Em'erton and >ar7er 41:A;5 +ro+osed the followin* set of
criteria that should 'e met 'efore considerin* a landfill site for redevelo+ment +ur+oses.
the site should have 'een closed at least 10 .ears +rior to redevelo+mentL
the waste should 'e shallow with a de+th of less than 10 mL
the site should have a sta'le low water ta'leL
the landfill should not contain to6ic or ha#ardous materials, +articularl. li<uid wastesL and
the develo+ment should 'e a++ro+riate for the site conditions. ,hus, e6+ensive measures to
+revent in*ress of landfill *as ma. not 'e economicall. via'le for a low cost develo+ment.
While the a'ove criteria ma. 'e desira'le attri'utes of a redevelo+ment site, e6+erience has
shown the. are not e6clusionar.. ,he increasin* value of develo+a'le o+en s+ace in ur'an areas,
socio/economic and +olitical considerations, and im+roved en*ineerin* anal.sis and desi*n have
facilitated redevelo+ment of man. sites that do not meet these criteria. )n fact, e6+erience indicates
there are ver. few munici+al landfill sites that cannot 'e redevelo+ed if +ro+er consideration is
*iven to en*ineerin* and health and safet. ris7s.
6.$ %ounations
0oundation construction on reclaimed landfills is a challen*in* tas7 since it re<uires considerin*
unusual as+ects related to the mechanics of wastes. !ar*e total and differential settlements are
usuall. the *overnin* factors in the choice of the foundation t.+es. Shallow foundation s.stems are
*enerall. +referred to su++ort relativel. li*ht structures. 3eavier structures will re<uire dee+
foundations. 3owever, dee+ foundations are *enerall. restricted to older landfill without
en*ineered 'ottom liner s.stems. ,a'le 8 summari#es the relative advanta*es and disadvanta*es of
dee+ and shallow foundations on landfills. A detailed overview on foundations in landfills is *iven
'. >hilli+s et al. 41::85, -unn 41::=5 and "oua##a and Seidel 41:::5.
,a'le 8. 1elative advanta*es of foundation s.stems for +ost closure landfill redevelo+ment.
-EE> 02N-A,)NS S3A!!W 02N-A,)NS
"earin* Ca+acit. E6cellent !imited to ,wo Stories
1elative Settlement >oor Good
-ifferential Settlement E6cellent Acce+ta'le
"uildin* +rotection >oor E6cellent
9aintenance 3i*h !ow
)n assessin* the 'earin* ca+acit. of landfills, one has to 7ee+ in mind that the thic7ness and
the stren*th of the cover s.stem +la. a ver. im+ortant role in foundation su++ort. )f the soil cover
is relativel. thic7, then it ma. +rovide su'stantial 'earin* ca+acit. for shallow foundations.
3owever, the soil cover ma. often 'e thin com+ared to the foundation si#e. )n this case, the load
for the foundation will 'e transferred throu*h the cover and will develo+ its 'earin* resistance in
the waste. ,herefore, a 'earin* ca+acit. anal.sis will re<uire evaluation of the stren*th of the
waste. 3owever, e6+erience has shown that, 'ecause of the ductile characteristics of 9SW, lar*e
deformations are necessar. to activate the 'earin* ca+acit. of the waste, and it is difficult to desi*n
a structure that will allow such lar*e deformations. ,herefore, while total settlement must 'e
considered with res+ect to utilit. connections and 'uildin* access, differential settlement tends to
*overn the structural desi*n of shallow foundations on waste. 0or this reason, raft foundations are
A
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
t.+icall. em+lo.ed rather than isolated footin*s on waste. )n man. cases, if the soil cover is thin,
en*ineered fill is +rovided 'eneath the foundation to 'rid*e over non/uniform settlements.
0urthermore, as shown in 0i*ure 8, the fill can 'e com'ined with *eo*rids or hi*h/tensile
*eote6tiles to create a com+osite material with a hi*her ri*idit. to su++ort lar*er foundation loads.
Building
3% 3%
0i*ure 8 >otential foundation alternative.
-riven +iles are the t.+e of dee+ foundations most commonl. used to su++ort lar*e structures
constructed on old landfills. >iles are used to carr. the structural loads to the 'earin* strata 'elow
the waste materials, where the. are carried '. friction or end 'earin*. ,he waste itself t.+icall.
does not have enou*h stren*th and resistance to settlement to +rovide +ile ca+acit.. ,he most
t.+icall. used +ile t.+e is +recast?+restressed concrete +iles. Steel 3 +iles and steel +i+e +iles have
'een used, 'ut serious consideration must 'e *iven to +otential corrosion of the steel mem'ers.
Coatin* of 3/>iles and fillin* of +i+e +iles with concrete have 'een em+lo.ed to miti*ate corrosion
concerns. ne concern with driven +iles is that the. ma. drive waste 'eneath the 'ottom of the
landfill, +ossi'l. into the *roundwater. 0or this reason, conical or wed*e/sha+ed drivin* ti+s are
often used on the +iles. >re/drillin* throu*h the waste is *enerall. avoided due to +ro'lems
associated with handlin* and dis+osal of drill cuttin*s. As noted +reviousl., the use of dee+
foundations is *enerall. restricted to landfills without en*ineered 'ottom liners..
As discussed earlier, si*nificant lon*/term settlement of the waste fill can often 'e
e6+ected over the life of a structure 'uilt on to+ of the landfill, even if the structure is su++orted on
+iles. As the +ile/su++ortin* structure itself will not settle with the waste, waste settlement will
result in the waste fill settlin* awa. from the 'uildin*, as shown in 0i*ure E. ,o miti*ate the
im+act of the relative settlement on site utilities, the utilities are often Ghun*H from the 'uildin*
sla', as illustrated in 0i*ure =. Another effect of waste settlement on dee+ foundations is to induce
downdra* loads on the +iles. -owndra* or ne*ative s7in friction occurs when the settlement of the
material surroundin* the +ile e6ceeds the downward movement of the +ile shaft. )t is 7nown that
small 4K= mm5 movements of a soil around a +ile can full. mo'ilise the ne*ative s7in friction.
While it has 'een shown that hi*h strains are re<uired to mo'ilise 9SW stren*th 49anassero, et
al., 1::;5, lar*e deformations ma. 'e e6+ected in most landfills and there is am+le evidence of
downdra* on leachate risers in waste to indicate that downdra* on +iles will occur.
-ata to estimate the downdra* on +iles due to settlement of waste are ver. scarce. weis
C $hera 41::A5 su**ested that the downdra* force ma. 'e a'out 10J of the wei*ht of overl.in*
waste fills. Waste shear stren*th can 'e used to estimate downdra*. Gifford, et al. 41::05 evaluated
downdra* 'ased u+on waste stren*th considerations and su**ested that downdra* loads of 1= to
20J of the +ile desi*n ca+acit. should 'e included to account for the hi*h com+ressi'ilit. of the
landfill. $nowled*e of the lateral stress on the +ile is re<uired to evaluate downdra* usin* a
:
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
0i*ure E. Waste fill settlin* awa. from a 'uildin*, 0i*ure =. 2tilities hun* from 'uildin* sla'.
frictional shear stren*th. Fer. recentl., !andva et al 420005 +resented the results of a +reliminar.
investi*ation on the lateral earth +ressure at rest 4$
0
5 in waste materials. )t was found that the value
of $
0
decreased with an increasin* amount of fi'rous constituents 40.2D $
0
0.E05 and that the
critical condition for $
0
4when $
0
is ma6imum5 is the lon*/term state when decom+osa'le fi'res
were no lon*er +resent. ,his wor7 re+resents a first ste+ towards a 'etter <uantification of lateral
stresses in landfills and it is certainl. an area which needs further investi*ation. 1inne, et al.
41::E5 re+orted direct shear results on the interface 'etween domestic waste and concrete
indicatin* an interface friction stren*th value of 80 7>a. 3owever, one has to 'e ver. cautious
a'out the limitation of this t.+e of test since it does not re+roduce the real 'ehaviour of waste in a
landfill. -unn 41::=5 recommended that field +ullout tests 'e com+leted on a series of test +iles to
develo+ site s+ecific shear stren*th values which can then 'e used to refine the downdra* anal.ses.
3e also su**ested that it is desira'le to instrument the +iles driven as +art of the testin* +ro*ram to
allow measurement over time of the actual downdra* loads which develo+ in the +iles.
,here are several methods to miti*ate the downdra* +ro'lem. Some of the methods that
have 'een su**ested in the literature include the use of friction reducin* coatin*s on +iles, use of
dou'le +ile s.stem, or +re/drillin* with an oversi#e hole that is filled with 'entonite slurr. 4-unn,
1::=5. Coatin* +iles with 'itumen to reduce downdra* is often used in conventional soils. )n
materials such as 9SW, 1inne et al. 41::E5 re+orted that the reduction of downdra* for 'itumen/
coated, +re/cast +restressed concrete +iles was on the order of 80J to E0J. An im+ortant issue,
which should not 'e overloo7ed when the 'itumen o+tion is used is the ran*e of tem+eratures
e6istin* in the landfill. 3i*h tem+eratures 4=0
o
to ;0
o
C5 are often re+orted in landfills. 3owever,
landfill tem+eratures tend to decrease with time and, in a mature landfill, t.+icall. ran*e 'etween
20
o
to E0
o
C, de+endin* on the nature of the waste and landfillin* +ractice. )f 'itumen coatin* is to
'e considered, waste tem+eratures should 'e investi*ated thorou*hl. since the +erformance of the
'itumen coatin* can 'e adversel. affected '. hi*h tem+eratures.
,he decom+osition of the waste and the wa. it has 'een de+osited can also induce
hori#ontal movements inside the landfill. ,o date, ver. little attention has 'een *iven to the effect
of a lateral load 4inside the landfill5 on the overall +erformance of +ile foundations in landfills.
9aertens and "loemmen 41::=5 +resented a case histor. related to the installation of +recast
+restressed concrete +iles throu*h a landfill. ,he +ile len*th was around 1; m. ,he cross section of
the +iles ran*ed from 0.22 m 6 0.22 m to 0.8= m 6 0.8= m. -urin* the installation, 2=J of the +iles
'ro7e and had to 'e re+laced '. additional +iles. ,wo +ossi'le failure mechanisms were identified(
15 !ar*e 'endin* moment *enerated in the +ile shaft due to deflection from o'structions in the
wasteL 25 accumulation of wastes such as +lastic, metals, etc. at the ti+ inducin* an uneven stress
10
Concrete slab
Open for gas
monitoring
Potential
loading of
Non-cohesive
backfll
Hanger embedded
in slab non-corrosive
material!"
#efuse
pipe caused b$
settlement
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
distri'ution 'elow the +ile ti+. )t is also +ossi'le that +iles 'ro7e due to lar*e tension stresses
develo+ed durin* eas. drivin* conditions in low stren*th waste. ,his case histor. illustrates that a
landfill should 'e re*arded as a s.stem with a lar*e deformation +otential that can +roduce 'oth
hori#ontal and vertical loads.
6.& Gas 'rotection Measures to Builings
Gases such as methane 4C3
E
5 and car'on dio6ide 4C
2
5 are +roduced in most landfill sites. ,hese
*ases can mi*rate into 'uildin*s or confined s+aces and ma. accumulate to e6+losive
concentrations. 9ethane *as is e6+losive at concentrations a'ove = to 1= J '. volume in airL these
are the lower and u++er e6+losive limits res+ectivel.. )f methane concentrations are *reater than
1=J it is not e6+losive, however when it mi*rates it will, at some locations, 'ecome diluted into
the concentration ran*e where it can e6+lode. !andfill *ases also carr. low concentrations of non/
methano*enic or*anic com+ounds 4N9Cs5. Some of these N9Cs are 7nown to 'e
carcino*enic in trace concentrations 4e.*., 'en#ene, vin.l chloride5. 3ence, there are serious health
concerns associated with chronic e6+osure to even low levels of landfill *as.
,he movement of *ases in +orous media occurs '. two ma%or trans+ort mechanisms(
advective flow and diffusive flow. )n diffusive flow, *as moves in res+onse to a concentration
*radient. )n advective flow, the *as moves in res+onse to a *radient in total +ressure. ,o e<ualise
+ressure, a mass of *as travels from a re*ion of hi*her +ressure to a lower one. )n the conte6t of
landfills, the +rimar. drivin* force for *as mi*ration, es+eciall. throu*h cover s.stems, is
advective flow. Advective flow develo+s from +ressure differentials due to 'oth internal *as
*eneration and natural fluctuations in atmos+heric +ressure 4'arometric +um+in*5. )ndeed, fallin*
'arometric +ressures tend to draw *as out of the landfill, increasin* the *as concentration near the
surface la.ers.
A num'er of recent events have 'rou*ht the ha#ards associated with landfill *as ver. much
into +u'lic view. ,he 'est 7nown of these were the !oscoe, 2.$, 4Williams C Ait7enhead, 1::15L
S7ellin*sted, -enmar7, 4$%eldsen C 0isher, 1::=5 and 9asserano, )tal. 4&arre et al., 1::;5
incidents, which resulted in e6tensive +ro+ert. dama*e and loss of lives. ,he !oscoe e6+losion in
the 2nited $in*dom for e6am+le, too7 +lace after atmos+heric +ressure dro++ed '. 2: m'ars in
a++ro6imatel. ; hours. ,he same +henomenon caused the S7ellin*sted and 9asserano e6+losions.
Elevation of the leachate?water ta'le and tem+erature *radients can also *ive rise to +ressure
differences and lead to *as mi*ration.
,he +otential for a landfill to +roduce *as should not necessaril. 'e a restriction on
whether the site can 'e develo+ed. ,here is a wide ran*e of availa'le *as +rotection methods to
suit different t.+es of develo+ments, de+endin* on the level of ris7 that can 'e tolerated. )n
Australia, there are no *uidelines s+ecif.in* measures to 'e ta7en to +rotect 'uildin* structures in
or around landfills. 3owever, in California, re*ulations re<uire a 'uildin* +rotection s.stem that
includes a mem'rane 'arrier 'eneath the structure and an alarm s.stem within the structure for
facilities 'uilt within 800 m of a landfill. Elsewhere, and in the 2$ in +articular, *uidance
documents have 'een +roduced followin* landfill *as related incidents. ,a'le E +rovides a sco+e of
the +rotection measures that can 'e ta7en to miti*ate landfill *as +ro'lems in the 2$. 1eferrin* to
,a'le E, it is im+ortant to stress that the monitorin* of a *assin* site should 'e carried out over a
+eriod of time and under var.in* weather conditions. )n most of the cases +resented '. Wilson and
Card 41:::5, ventilation of the underfloor su's+ace is the +rimar. method of +rovidin* *as
+rotection, with secondar. +rotection +rovided '. a 'arrier to *as mi*ration a'ove the su's+ace.
An alarm s.stem ma. also 'e +laced inside the structure to warn occu+ants of *as accumulation.
0i*ure D conce+tuall. illustrates an advanced landfill *as 'uildin* +rotection s.stem. >ro'a'l. the
most im+ortant as+ect in this t.+e of construction measures is the lon*/term maintenance strate*.
+lan +ut in +lace to *uarantee their +erformance over a lon* +eriod of time 4i.e, until the landfill
11
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
sto+s +roducin* *as5. )ndeed whatever measure is selected must 'e a'le to +rotect the 'uildin*
structure for the useful life of the facilit..
,a'le E( Sco+e of +rotection measures 4modified from Wilson and Card, 1:::5.
!imitin*
C3E con.
4J'. vol5
!imitin*
C2 con.
4J'. vol5
!imitin*
'orehole *as
volume of C3E
or C2 4l?h5
1esidential 'uildin* ffice?commercial?industrial
develo+ment
K 0.1 K 0.1 K0.0; No s+ecial +recautions No s+ecial +recautions
K1.0 K1.= K0.; Well constructed *round or
sus+ended floor sla',
*eomem'ranes sealed around
+enetrations, +assivel.
underfloor su'/s+ace and wall
cavities
1einforced cast in situ
*round sla'. All %oints and
+enetrations sealed. >ossi'l.
*eomem'rane. Granular
la.er 'elow sla' +assivel.
vented to atmos+here with
interleaved *eocom+osite
stri+s or +i+es
K=.0 K=.0 K8.= Well constructed sus+ended or
*round sla'. Gas resistant
*eomem'rane and +assivel.
ventilated underfloor su'/
s+ace
1einforced concrete cast in/
situ *round sla'. All %oints
and +enetrations sealed.
Water+roof?*as resistant
*eomem'rane and +assivel.
ventilated underfloor su'/
s+ace
K20 K20 K1= Well constructed sus+ended or
*round sla'. Gas resistant
*eomem'rane and +assivel.
ventilated underfloor su'/
s+ace, oversite ca++in* and in
*round ventin* la.er
1einforced concrete cast in/
situ *round sla'. All %oints
and +enetrations sealed. Gas
resistant *eomem'rane and
+assivel. ventilated
underfloor su'/s+ace.
K20 K20 K;0 S+ecific *as resistant
*eomem'rane and ventilated
underfloor void, oversite
ca++in* and in *round ventin*
la.er and in *round ventin*
wells
1einforced concrete cast in/
situ *round sla'. All %oints
and +enetrations sealed. Gas
resistant *eomem'rane and
+assivel. ventilated
underfloor su'/s+ace. )n
*round ventin* wells
K20 K20 M;0 Not suita'le unless *as re*ime
is reduced first and
<uantitative assessment
carried out to assess desi*n of
+rotection measures in
con%unction with foundation
desi*n
1einforced concrete cast in/
situ *round sla'. All %oints
and +enetrations sealed. Gas
resistant mem'rane and
activel. ventilated underfloor
su'/s+ace, with monitorin*.
)n *round ventin* wells
Con.Nconcentration
12
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
%ir
&ensor
&tructure
O'ner
(o )as
(reatment
if needed!
*aste
&ensor
%larm
&$stem
0i*ure D. >otential landfill *as alternative +rotection s.stem
;. 1E-EFE!>9EN, 01 S0, 2SE
,he en*ineerin* issues associated with redevelo+ment for soft use are to some e6tent less
challen*in* than those associated with hard use. Soft uses 4e.*., +ar7s, *olf courses5 *enerall.
involve outdoor o+en s+ace. 3ence, the +otential for accumulation of e6+losive levels of landfill
*ases is less for soft uses than for hard uses. 3owever, if *as is not +ro+erl. controlled, it can still
+resent e6+losion and health ris7s and ma. adversel. affect the ve*etation often associated with
soft uses 4e.*., turf *rass5. ,herefore, *as mi*ration control is still an im+ortant issue for soft use.
!andfill settlement also remains a si*nificant issue for soft use. Site utilities, +aved areas, and
foundations for ancillar. facilities are all sensitive to lar*e total and?or differential settlement.
0urthermore, some soft uses ma. 'e even less tolera'le of differential settlement than hard uses
4e.*., athletic fields5. ,herefore, as in hard use, the im+act of +ost/closure settlement must 'e
carefull. considered when +lannin* a soft use +ro%ect.
,he most si*nificant difference 'etween soft use and hard use is that soft use fre<uentl.
involves ve*etation and irri*ation. >articularl. in arid and semi/arid climates, +ost/closure uses
such as *olf courses and athletic fields can re<uire the addition of si*nificant amounts of water to
the to+ of the landfill for irri*ation +ur+oses. )f the landfill ca+ does not +rovide a++ro+riate
infiltration resistance, increased infiltration ma. occur, leadin* to increased *as *eneration,
settlement, and *roundwater im+acts. While a cover s.stem can *enerall. 'e en*ineered to +rovide
sufficient infiltration resistance, the construction of a low/+ermea'ilit. cover 4e.*., a
*eomem'rane5 on to+ of an inactive site can e6acer'ate 'oth landfill *as mi*ration at the +erimeter
of the ca+ and the landfill *as im+acts to *roundwater 'eneath the landfill. ,here are man.
instances where low/+ermea'ilit. cover construction has increased lateral *as mi*ration and?or *as
im+acts to *roundwater. ,herefore, +ost/closure develo+ment for soft use re<uires consideration
not onl. of infiltration and *as mi*ration control throu*h the to+ of the landfill, 'ut also *as
mi*ration control at the +erimeter of the ca+ and 'eneath the landfill.
As in +ost closure develo+ment for hard use, +ost/develo+ment maintenance and
monitorin* is an im+ortant consideration for soft uses. Annual ins+ections to detect and remediate
dama*e to the landfill cover s.stem, includin* the 'arrier la.er, the *as control s.stem, and the
surface water control s.stem, and to restore *rades and re+air utilities im+acted '. settlement must
'e +rovided for. Gas mi*ration and *roundwater monitorin* are also 7e. elements of the +ost/
closure +lan. 9onitorin* data and annual ins+ection re+orts should 'e reviewed '. <ualified
18
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
en*ineers to determine if the landfill cover is +erformin* as desi*ned and if +reventative or
corrective actions are re<uired.
A. CASE S,2-)ES
(.1 )ecno"arc e Montreal, Canaa *!ollin + %ournier, $,,1-
9ovies studios, stora*e facilities, and
administrative 'uildin*s were constructed
on a landfill site that was active from
1A;0s until the 1:D0s. ,he site has fairl.
sta'ilised, ver. low concentrations of
landfill *as was detected in E1 'oreholes(
C3
E
40 to M=0,000++m5L S
2
and 3
2
S
K0.2=/8.0 ++m5L and C K0.2=/111 ++m5.
0ive 'uildin*s coverin* a total area of
10,812 m
2
were 'uilt on +iles and a
*eomem'rane was installed on a
collection and evacuation *ranular la.er
consistin* of 1=0 mm diameter draina*e
+i+es em'edded in a =00 mm thic7
0i*ure ; 1emedial s.stem under a 'uildin*.
la.er of 20/E0 mm diameter material. A vacuum +um+ 4100 cfm5 was installed on the roofs of each
'uildin* to continuousl. vent 'io*as contaminated air 40i*ure ;5. A +refa'ricated 'ituminous
*eomem'rane was selected to act as *as 'arrier due to the fact that it was eas. to install 4a lar*e
num'er of +rotrudin* elements, 8D; +iles, 1A; +i+es, A8A structural steel rods, as well as man.
sum+ +its, needed to 'e safel. sealed5, and attach to concrete structures 4the *eomem'rane was
mechanicall. attached to 1,082 meters of +eri+heral concrete walls5. 0or safet. +ur+oses, 8;
methane detectors were also installed in different locations of the 'uildin*s. After one .ear of
monitorin*, no methane had 'een detected in the five 'uildin*s.
(.$ !e.oo City /ffice 'ar0, California
9iller and Fo*t 41:::5 discussed the construction of an office +ar7 in 1edwood Cit., California,
2SA, where the ma%or desi*n element was the installation of friction +iles to su++ort a 20/'uildin*
com+le6. E0 m lon* +re/cast concrete +iles were driven throu*h an old landfill into the underl.in*
soils over a one .ear construction +eriod. 110 +iles were installed for each 'uildin* foundation, a
total of 2,200 +iles were installed for the whole com+le6.
(.& Gaffey Street 1anfill, 2il#ington, California
Evans, et al. 420005 descri'e redevelo+ment of an inactive landfill in the Wilmin*ton section of the
Cit. of !os An*eles, 2SA, as athletic fields. ne of the +rimar. redevelo+ment concerns was that
the irri*ation associated with +ost closure use would si*nificantl. increase infiltration to the waste,
resultin* in increased *as +roduction, settlement, and *roundwater im+acts. ,he com'ined
irri*ation and rainfall necessar. to sustain health. turf *rass in the semi/arid !os An*eles climate is
a++ro6imatel. 1E0 cm +er .ear com+ared to the mean annual rainfall of a++ro6imatel. 82 cm.
-etailed water 'alance anal.ses were conducted usin* an unsaturated flow model to desi*n an
1E
+acuum pump or turbine
,ethane detector
,ethane detector
+enting s$stem
Biogas
)ranular la$er
)eomembrane
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
a++ro+riate soil cover for the site. 1esults of the water 'alance anal.ses indicated that a monolithic
eva+otrans+irative cover could not +rovide ade<uate resistance to infiltration. 3owever, a ca+illar.
'rea7 cover could +rovide sufficient infiltration resistance +rovided that the irri*ation s.stem was
+ro+erl. controlled 4i.e., the turf was not over/watered5. )n addition to inhi'itin* infiltration, the
ca+illar. 'rea7 also +rovided a means for collectin* and ventin* or treatin* 4as necessar.5 landfill
*as. ,o miti*ate the +otential for overwaterin*, landfill redevelo+ment included a GsmartH
irri*ation s.stem in which the irri*ation controller was connected to a flow meter, a self ti++in*
rain 'uc7et, and an eva+otrans+iration *au*e. -ail. irri*ation values are automaticall. calculated
'ased u+on +reci+itation and eva+otrans+iration over the +revious 2E hours. ,he flow meter also
has the ca+a'ilit. of sensin* line 'rea7s in the irri*ation s.stem. >ost/closure monitorin* also
includes neutron +ro'e soil moisture sensors within and 'eneath the ca+ to evaluate the
effectiveness of the smart irri*ation s.stem.
Non/ve*etated areas of the landfill 4e.*., roadwa.s, +ar7in* lots, 'as7et'all courts5 were
ca++ed with an as+haltic concrete low/+ermea'ilit. 'arrier la.er. ,he as+haltic concrete included a
resin/im+re*nated fa'ric interla.er to inhi'it crac7in*. ,he +ost/closure maintenance +lan includes
annual sealin* of crac7s in the as+haltic concrete and <uarterl. evaluation of the soil moisture
+ro'e data.
(.3 McColl Su"erfun Site, %ullerton, California *Collins, et al., 144(-
,he 9cColl Su+erfund Site in 0ullerton, California, +rovides an e6am+le of a ha#ardous waste
landfill redevelo+ed for +roductive use 40i*ure A and :5 . ,his A.A/ha site contained 12 unlined +its
containin* hi*hl. acidic +etroleum waste slud*e 4+3 less than 1.05. While some +arts of the site
were closed as ve*etated o+en s+ace, some areas were redevelo+ed as a *olf course. ,he ca+ in
'oth the o+en s+ace and *olf course areas included a com+osite *eomem'rane?*eos.nthetic cla.
liner infiltration 'arrier. -ue to the low 'earin* ca+acit. of the waste, the foundation la.er 'eneath
the ca+ in the *olf course areas included two la.ers of *eo*rid reinforcement 43endric7er, et al.,
1::A5. ,he foundation la.er also included *as e6traction +i+es connected to a 'lower and an
activated car'on treatment unit. ,he ca+ was tied into a soil /'entonite slurr. wall that com+letel.
encircled the site.
0i*ure. A 9cColl Site 4Circa 1::=5 with Sum+ 0i*ure :. 9cColl Site in 1::AAs >art of !os
"oundaries. Co.otes Countr. Clu'.
1=
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
=. CNC!2S)NS
>ost/closure develo+ment of landfills includes 'oth hard uses such as commercial, industrial, and
infrastructure facilities and soft uses such as *olf courses and athletic fields. >ost/closure
develo+ment of old landfills includes a variet. of en*ineerin* challen*es. ,hese challen*es include
accommodatin* the lar*e total and differential settlements t.+icall. associated with landfills and
controllin* the mi*ration of landfill *as. >ost/closure total settlement can a++roach 20 +ercent of
the waste thic7ness, with differential settlement u+ to half that value. Shallow foundation s.stems
for construction on to+ of landfills are t.+icall. limited to relativel. li*ht structures one or two
stories tall, due to settlement considerations. -ee+ foundations 'earin* on firm strata 'eneath the
waste ma. 'e used to su++ort heavier structures. 3owever, dee+ foundation s.stems are *enerall.
limited to landfills that do not have en*ineered 'ottom liner s.stems. Even thou*h 'uildin*s on
dee+ foundations ma. not settle si*nificantl., the desi*n en*ineer must still accommodate the
relative settlement 'etween the landfill and the structure. "oth dee+ and shallow foundation
s.stems re<uire en*ineered s.stems to control landfill *as mi*ration. ,hese 'uildin* +rotection
s.stems t.+icall. include a mem'rane 'arrier 'eneath the sla', a ventin* s.stem 'eneath the 'arrier
to minimi#e the 'uild/u+ of *ases 'eneath the 'arrier, and an alarm s.stem within the structure.
-es+ite the su'stantial en*ineerin* challen*es associated with 'uildin* on old landfills, an
increasin* num'er of such +ro%ects have 'een successfull. com+leted. Case histories descri'e the
successful a++lication of en*ineerin* +rinci+les to accommodate these challen*es for 'oth hard and
soft +ost closure uses.
1E0E1ENCES
"arla# 9.A. and 3am, 1.$. 41::85. !eachate and *as *eneration. Geotechnical 'ractice for 2aste
5is"osal. -aniel, -.E. 4ed.5, Cha+man C 3all, !ondon 42.$5, ++. 118/18D.
"oua##a, A. C >ar7er, 1. 41::;5. A++lications of containment technolo*ies for contamination
remediation?control( status C e6+eriences. 'roc. Int. Conf. Contain#ent )echnology, St/
>eters'ur*, 42SA5, ++. 88/E2.
"oua##a, A. and Seidel, &.> 41:::5. 0oundation desi*n on munici+al solid waste. 'roc. (
th
A67
Conf. on Geo#echanics, 3o'art, Australia, vol.1, ++.28=/2E2.
"oua##a, A. and Wo%narowic#, 9. 420005. Sta'ilit. assessment of an old domestic waste slo+e in
Warsaw 4>oland5. Slo"e Stability $,,,. American Societ. of Civil En*ineerin*, Geotechnical
S+ecialit. >u'lication No 101, ++. EA/=;.
"owders, &., "oua##a, A., !oehr, E. and 1ussell, 9. 420005. Settlement of munici+al solid waste
landfills. 8ansai International Geotechnical %oru#, $.oto, &a+an, 9a., ++. 101/10D.
"ote, ,.F. and Andersen, !. 41::;5. Construction of a sho++in* center on a former landfill. 'roc.
6
th
Int. Sy#" on 1anfill, Ca*liari, C)SA, Ca*liari,
"randl, 3. 41::;5. Waste columns for in/situ im+rovements of waste de+osits. 'roc. 1
st
A67 Conf.
on 9nv. Geotech., 9el'ourne, "al7ema, 1otterdam, ++.EA:/E:;.
Em'erton, &.1. and >ar7er, A. 41:A;5. ,he +ro'lems associated with 'uildin* on landfill sites.
:ournal of .aste Manage#ent + !esearch, vol.=, ++.E;8/EA2.
Castelao, 9., 1odri*ues, !.9., Zun*ailia, E. and 1ocha, &. 41:::5. "eirolas sanitar. landfill
closure and +ost closure use as a +ar7. 'roceeings ;
th
Int. 2aste Manage#ent an 1anfill
Sy#"osiu#, Ca*liari, ++.ED:/E;D.
Christensen, ,.3, Cossu, 1. and Ste*mann, 1. 41::25. 1anfilling of 2aste< 1eachate. Elsevier,
1otterdam.
Collins, >, N*, A.S., and 1amanu%am, 1. 41::A5 GSu+erfund Success, Su+erfast,H Civil
9ngineering, -ecem'er, ++.E2/E=.
1D
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
Coo+er, G.1., Cannin*, 1.&. and Iau, G. 41::;5. 1estorin* 3on* $on*@s closed landfills for active
+u'lic recreation use. 'roceeings 6
th
Int. 1anfill Sy#"osiu#, Ca*liari, ++.8D:/8;:.
Coumoulos, -.G., and $or.alos, ,.>. >rediction of lon* term settlement 'ehaviour of landfill
covers after closure. 'roceeings ;
th
Int. 2aste Manage#ent an 1anfill Sy#"osiu#, Ca*liari,
++.=0=/=12.
-ia#, !.0., Sava*e, G.9. and Golue7e, C.G. 41:A25. !esource recovery fro# #unici"al soil
.astes, vol.II, final "rocessing, C1C +ress.
-unn, 1.&. 41::=5. -esi*n and construction of foundation com+ati'le with solid wastes. 1anfill
Closures, Geotech. S"ec. 'ubl. 6o =&, ASCE, ++.18:/1=:.
Edil, ,."., 1an*uette, F.&. and Wuellner, W.W. 41::05. Settlement of 9unici+al refuse. .
Geotechnics of 2aste %ills > )heory an 'ractice. AS,9 S,>10;0, ++. 22=/28:.
Evans, ,.9., 9e.ers, -.$., Gharios, $.9., 3ad%/3amou, ,., and $ava#an%ian, E., &r. 420005 G,he
2se of a Ca+illar. "arrier 0inal Cover for 1eclamation of a Closed 9unici+al Solid Waste
!andfill,H >roc. &r Annual Ari Cli#ate Sy#"osiu#, Solid Waste Association of North
America, New 9e6ico Cha+ter, Al'u<uer<ue, New 9e6ico, 12/1E A+ril.
3endric7er, A.,., 0redianelli, $.3., $ava#an%ian, E., &r., and 9c$elve., &.A., ))) 41::A5,
G1einforcement 1e<uirements at a 3a#ardous Waste Site,H >roc. Si?th International Conference
on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, Geor*ia, Fol. ), ++. ED=/EDA.
3in7le, 1.-. 41::05. !andfill site reclaimed for commercial use as container stora*e facilit..
Geotechnics of 2aste %ills > )heory an 'ractice. AS,9 S,>10;0, ++. 881/8EE..
3irata, t., 3anashima, 9., 9atufu%i, I., Ianase, 1. and 9aeno, I. 41::=5. Construction of facilities
on the closed landfills. 'roc. =th Int. Sy#". on 1anfills, vol.8, ++. ;1;/;2A.
!andva, A.., Falsan*7ar, A.&. and >el7e., S.G. 420005. !ateral earth +ressure at rest and
com+ressi'ilit. of munici+al solid waste. Canaian Geotechnical :ournal, vol. 8;, ++. 11=;/
11D=.
!ewis, >.&. and !an*er, &.A. 41::E5. -.namic com+action of landfill 'eneath em'an7ment.
Settle#ent 43, ASC9, Geotech. S"ec. 'ubl. 6o 3,, vol.1, ++. E=1/ED1.
!in*, 3.), !eshchins7., -, 9ohri, I. and $awa'ata, ,. 41::A5. Estimation of munici+al waste
landfill settlement. :ournal of Geotech. + Geoenv. 9ngrg, ASCE, vol. 12E, No 1, ++. 21/2A.
Gifford,G.>., !andva, A.. and 3offman, F.C. 41::05. Geotechnical considerations when +lannin*
construction on a landfill. Geotechnics of 2aste %ills > )heory an 'ractice. AS,9 S,>10;0,
++. E1/=D.
&arre, >, 9e##alama, 1., and !uridiana A. 41::;5, !essons to 'e learned from a fatal landfill *as
e6+losion, 'roceeings 6
th
International 1anfill Sy#"osiu#, vol. 1, ++.E:;/=0D.
$ava#an%ian, E. &r., 9atasovic, N., and "achus, 1.C. 41:::5. !ar*e diameter static and c.clic
la'orator. testin* of munici+al solid waste. 'roceeings ;
th
Int. 2aste Manage#ent an
1anfill Sy#"osiu#, Ca*liari 4)tal.5, ++.E8;/EEE
$issida, &., S+ieler, 1., and Casa##a, &. 420015. Cost effective landfill closure( "oston@s G9enino
>ro%ectH. 'ractice 'erioical of Ha@arous, )o?ic, an !aioactive 2aste Manage#ent, Fol.=,
No1, ++.88/8:.
$%eldsen, >., C 0isher, E.F, 41::=5, !andfill *as mi*ration/0ield investi*ations at S7ellin*sted
landfill, -enmar7, :ournal of 2aste Manage#ent an !esearch, vol.18, ++.ED;/EAE.
9aertens, &. and "loemmen, 1. 41::=5. Installation of "refab "iles through a .aste is"osal
4un+u'lished +a+er5.
9anassero, 9., Fan )m+e, W.0. and "oua##a, A. 41::D5. Waste dis+osal and containment. 'roc.
$n. Int. Congress on 9nv. Geotech., sa7a, "al7ema, 1otterdam, Fol. 8, ++.1E2=/1E;E.
9iller, &.&. and Fo*t, W.G. 41:::5. Case stud.(lar*e scale commercial develo+ment a'ove a closed
landfill, west+ort office +ar7, 1edwood cit., California 42SA5. 'roceeings ;th Int. 2aste
Manage#ent an 1anfill Sy#"osiu#, Ca*liari, )tal., ++. E==/ED0.
1;
2
nd
ANZ Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, Nov.2001
teo, C. and So+ena, !. 41::85. -ee+ treatment of uncontrolled ur'an fills for the construction of a
hi*h ca+acit. road s.stem. 'roceeings International. Sy#"osiu# on Geotechnics !elate to the
9nviron#ent, "olton, ++. =D8/=;2.
weis, ).S, and $hera, 1.>. 41::A5. Geotechnology of .aste #anage#ent. "utterworths
>erel'er*, S., "o.d, >.&.3., 9onta*ue, $.N. and Greenwood, &.1. 41:A;5. 92= "ell !ane +it( *round
im+rovement '. d.namic com+action. 'roc. Int. Conf. on Builing on Marginal an 5erelict
1an, Glas*ow, ++. 2D;/2A0.
>hilli+s, A."., Wallace, $., and Chan, $.0. 41::85. 0oundations for reclaimed landfill sites.
'roceeings Conf. Geotechnical Manage#ent of 2aste an Conta#ination, S.dne., ++. 1A=/
20A.
1inne, E.E., -unn, 1.&. and 9a%chr#a7, 9. 41::E5. -esi*n and construction considerations for
+iles in landfills. 'roc. =
th
Int. Conf. on 'iling + 5ee" %ounations, "ru*es, -0), ++. 2.2.1/
2.2.=.
1ollin, A. and 0ournier, &.0. 420015. "io*as 'arrier 'eneath 'uildin*s( Case studies usin*
*eomem'ranes. 'roceeings Geosynthetics $,,1, >ortland, 2SA, ++.208/21D.
Saarela, &. 41::;5. Hyraulic a""ro?i#ation of infiltration characteristics of surface structures on
close lanfills. 9ono*ra+hs of the "oreal Environment 1esearch, N08, 18:+.
Shimi#u, $. 41::;5. Geotechnics of waste landfills. 'roc. $n. Int. Congress on 9nv. Geotech., ,
sa7a, "al7ema, 1otterdam, Fol. 8, ++.1E;=/1E:1.
Stul*is, 1.>, So.demir, C. and ,el*ener, 1.&. 41::=5. >redictin* landfill settlement.
Geoenviron#ent $,,,, Geotech. S"ec. 'ubl. 6o 36, ASCE, Fol.2, ++.:A0/::1.
,ammema*i, 3. 41:::5. )he .aste crisis. 6ford 2niversit. >ress.
Fan )m+e, W.0., and "oua##a, A. 41::D5. -ensification of waste fills '. d.namic com+action.
Canaian Geotech. :ournal, Fol. 88, No D, ++. A;:/AA;.
Williams, G.9., and Ait7enhead N. 41::15, !essons from !oscoe(,he uncontrolled mi*ration of
landfill *as. Auarterly :ournal. 9ngineering Geology, vol. 2E, ++.1:1/20;.
Wilson, S.A. and Card, G.". 41:::5. 1elia'ilit. and ris7 in *as +rotection desi*n. Groun
9ngineering. 0e'ruar., ++.88/8D.
Ian*, $.S. and Anandara%ah, A. 41::A5. -esi*n and construction of an e6+resswa. interchan*e on
a waste landfill site in Sin*a+ore. 'roceeings Conta#inate an erelict lan, G1EEN 2,
$ra7ow, >oland, ++. E81/E8D.
1A