i> APPENDIX H.3 FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT— Client: Clinton Landfill, Inc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit Proj. #: 128017, Shaw’ shaw Environmental, Ino. calculated By: PCT Date: 10/107 Checked By: SPV Date: 10/1107 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT Problem Statement Determine the consolidation settlement of the landfill foundation. The consolidation due to waste placement at critical locations is evaluated to determine the differential settlement between these locations. These calculations are performed to demonstrate that the leachate collection system will maintain a positive slope and the liner system will not be damaged due to differential settlement. These calculations demonstrate compliance with 329 IAC 10-15-8 (a)(9), Given Q Drawings of the “Proposed Excavation Grades,” the “Intermediate Top of Waste Grades,” and “Proposed Final Grades,” - Drawing Nos. D4, D11, and D12 contained in this appl Hydrogeologic Report, contained in this application. ‘Appendix H.1 “Summary of geotechnical parameters” contained in this application. Microsoft Excel settlement calculation spreadsheets. (Refer to attached pages). ocodnd Das, Braja M., Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Third Edition. (Refer to attached pages). Qa Coduto, Donald P., Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices. (Refer to attached pages). G Yen, Bing C. and Brian Scanlon, Sanitary Landfill Settlement Rates. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. May, 1975. (Refer to attached pages). Assumptions Locations Analyzed The greatest differential settlement of the bottom liner system is expected to occur between Points A and B which represent the location of the maximum and minimum waste height, respectively, over the highest gradient of the final contours and the lowest gradient of the leachate collection system in the Chemical Waste Unit. Point B is located near a leachate collection sump while point A is located approximately 333.6 feet east. The base elevation difference of these two points is controlled by the 0.60% gradient leachate pipe run. TaPrejecisi2007112807- Cinton TESA DesigniGeotechsetioment wpdPage: 2 of 9 Client: Clinton Landfill, Inc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit Proj.#t: 128017 Shaw Environmental, Inc. calculated By: PCT Date: 10/1/07 Checked By: upv Date: 1011/07 Shaw TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT To analyze the differential settlement of the final cover, it was assumed that the largest differential settlement of the waste will occur at the edge of the landfill where the waste height is zero (Point C) and the Chemical Waste Unit peak elevation (Point A). The distance between points C and B is approximately 204 feet. Refer to the attached figures for locations of Points A, B, and C, and Table 1 for the elevations of these Points. Table 1 - Elevations of Settlement Points Top of Top of | Topof Leachate |Top of | Chemical Chemical Cohesive Soll | Drainage Layer | _ MSW | Waste | msw | Waste [Layer Elevation} Elevation —_| Elevation | Elevation |Thickness| Thickness] Location (ft MSL) (temst) | ct mst) | cemst) | (ty 3) Point A, 662.8 663.8 eas | 7720 | 505 108.2 Point 8 6608 661.8 zi3_| 7708 | 105 108.0 Point 7285 730.0 7300 | 7300 | 00 00 Note: Refer to attached figure for elevations at Points A,B, and C. Top of MSW elevation was determined by subtracting ‘he final cover thokness, (4) rom the nal anorm elevation, This analysis will calculate the settlement in the compressible layers beneath the leachate collection layer. The compressible geological units under the proposed liner system is the compacted clay fillsub-base, and the Berry Clay / Radnor Till. The geologic units below the Berry Clay / Radnor Till Unit were assumed to be incompressible. Therefore itis assumed that settlement occurs only in these ‘wo units. Initial Conditions Table 2 summarizes the geology at the site prior to landfill construction. Unit weights were estimated from previous studies and laboratory testing performed on representative site soil materials. The potentiometric surface was conservatively assumed to occur at elevation 691.4 feet MSL, which espresents the highest water level measured on site (measured in Monitoring Well EX-4 on November 18, 2004). FiProjetsi20071128017 - Clinton TESA\DesigniGeotechisetioment wpa_ Client: Clinton Landfill, Inc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit Proj. #: 128017 Shaw?’ shaw Environmental nc. calculated By: Per Date: 10/1107 Checked By: = JPV Date: 10/1/07 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT Table 2 - Stratigraphy of Geology Before Landfill Average Top | Average Bottom Elevation Elevation | Thickness | Moist Unit |Saturatod Unit Material (ft. MSL) (ft. MSL) (ft) __ [Weight (pef) | Weight (nef) Point A Tiskilwa Formation 724.0 670.0 Roxana Silt Robein Member 670.0 660.0 Berry Clay / Radnor Ti 660.0 483.0 Point B Tiskitwa Formation 705.0 6700 Roxana Silt Robein Member 670.0 660.0 Beny Clay / Radnor Til 660.0 483.0 yal Conditions Table 3 summarizes the maximum waste height, the typical thickness of the final cover and landfill liner layers, and the average thickness of the geological units below the landfillliner. Also summarized are the assumed unit weights of each layer. Conservatively, the unit weight of in-place MSW is assumed to be 75 pcf, and the unit weight of in-place chemical waste is 90 pcf. The density of the compacted cohesive earth liner was based on results from previous studies and laboratory testing performed on sampled site soils. The compacted cohesive earth liner material will be constructed from the excavated TiskiWwa Formation and Berry Clay / Radnor Till soils. Conservatively, the potentiometric surface of the foundation soils is assumed to be at the top of the leachate collection system of the proposed Chemical Waste Unit and all geologic units below the groundwater table are assumed to be saturated. The compacted cohesive earth liner and soil layers beneath the landfill were also assumed to be saturated. ‘TAPrejects\20071128017 - Ginton TOSA\Design\Geotoch setlement wpdPage: 4 of 9 Client: — Clinton Landfill, Inc. y Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit a Proj. #: 128017 Shaw’ shaw Environmental, nc. catculated sy: Pot Date: 10/1107 Checked By: PV 10/1107 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT Table 3 - Stratigraphy of Geology After Landfill ‘Average Top | Average Bottom Elevation (f. | Elevation —_| Thickness | Moist Unit |Saturated Unit Material MSL) (ft. MSL) (ft) [Weight (pcf | Weight (pef) Point A Final Cover 835.5 8315 40 128.0 1940 Msw. 8315 720 595, 75.0 75.0 ‘Chemical Waste 7729 663.8 108.2 20.0 90.0 Leachate Collection Layer 663.8 6628 10 126.0 130.0 Compacted Cohesive Earth Liner 662.8 659.8 3.0 135.0 1400 Bony Clay / Radnor Til 659.8 483.0 1768 140.0 148.0 Point 8 Final Cover 7853 7813 49 128.0 134.0 MSW 781.3 7708 105 75.0. 75.0 Chemical Waste 770.8 661.8 109.0 90.0 90.0 Leachate Collection Layer ‘Compacted Cohesive Earth Liner Berry Clay / Radnor Till Foundation Settlement Calculations Consolidation is divided into three categories: 1) immediate settlement, 2) primary consolidation settlement, and 3) secondary consolidation settlement. Immediate settlementis caused by the elastic deformation of soils without any change in the moisture content. However, immediate settlement is negligible for cohesive soils and therefore is not applicable. Primary consolidation in saturated cohesive soils occurs due to the expulsion of water in response to an increase in effective stress. Following primary consolidation under a constant effective stress is secondary consolidation. Itoccurs only in saturated cohesive soils and is the result of the plastic adjustment of soil fabrics. Primary and ‘secondary consolidations are calculated for both the compacted cohesive earth liner and the Berry Clay / Radnor Till. ‘TaPrejects\2007128017 - Clinton TCSADesign\Gectach watiement wdN Saw?’ shaw Environmental nc. cateutated By: Page: 5 of 9 Client: Clinton Landfill, Inc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit Proj.#: 128017 Pct Date: 10/1/07 Checked By: PV Date: 10/1/07 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT Primary Settlement: For overconsolidated clays, primary settlement is determined using the following equation. LEAP TOOL rimary Settlement, fest sompression Index Recompression Index ‘Thickness of the layer, feet Initial void ratio = n/(1-n) Preconsolidation stress, psf initial vertical effective stress, psf inal vertical effective stress, psf Values for void ratios, compression, and recompression indexes for all materials are summarized in ‘Appendix H.1 Secondary Settlement: I is conservatively assumed that primary consolidation is complete subsequent to final cover placement. Secondary consolidation is caiculated using the following equation. Where: c a & rated) ‘Secondary settlement, feet ‘Secondary compression index ‘Thickness of Layer, feet Void Ratio at end of primary consolidation «, (to be conservative) Time at start of secondary compression, years Time at end of observation period, years s Values of C, used in the settlement analyses are summarized in Appendix H.1. TTProjecs\2007\128077 - Ginfon TESA\Design\Geotechiseloment widPage: 6 of 9 Client: Clinton Landfill, nc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemi Proj.#: 128017 ° Shaw Environmental, Inc. calculated By: PCT Checked By: upv 10/1107 10/1107 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT Waste Settlement Calculations The waste settlement was calculated based on Terzaghi's theory of one-dimensional consolidation. ‘The primary settlement is calculated incrementally for nine fill lifts of one cell within the Chemical Waste Unit. It is assumed that each lift of waste is approximately 20-feet thick. The estimate for primary settlement assumes that as each lift (or load) is placed large settlements will occur rapidly with no pore pressure build up. The time of primary settlement was calculated to determine how much of the primary settlement would ‘occur following the construction of the final cover. The time of primary settlement was conservatively estimated for the final lift of MSW (Lift No. 9) following the placement of the final cover system. The primary settlement for the final lift was calculated to be 2.8 days. From this estimate we can conclude that the final cover will only be subjected to the primary settlement from the final lift of the landfill plus secondary settlement that will occur during post-construction. The waste settlement calculations therefore focus on the post-construction settlement to evaluate the potential for damage to the final cover system. ‘The secondary settlement was calculated based on Terzaghi's time-settlement relationship. Because it is assumed that secondary settlement occurs by the self-weight of each fill lift, the secondary settlement is calculated for each lift individually and summed up to provide a total value for secondary settlement. Calculations Foundation Settlement The equations listed above outline the method used to estimate the foundation settlement at Point A and B. The thickness of waste at Points A and B are 167.7 feet (MSW = 59.5 feet + Chemical Waste = 108.2 feet) and 119.5 feet (MSW = 10.5 feet + Chemical Waste = 109 feet), respectively. The final effective stress and settlement vary accordingly. Initial Effective Stress: The initial effective stress of the in-situ materials is the average effective stress prior to excavation and waste placement. The initial effective stress for the compacted cohesive earth liner was calculated as the weight of itself. The effective stress is calculated at the center of each geologic unit. Please see the attached spreadsheets for calculations. Final Effective Stress: The final effective stress is the effective stress following final cover placement and varies for Points and B. The effective stress is calculated at the center of each layer or geologic unit. Please see ‘TiPrejecis’007126017 - Cnton TOSADesign\Geotochisotioment wpdPage: 7 of 9 Client: Clinton Landfill, Inc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit & mapa Shaw?’ shaw Environmental, nc. Calculated By: = PCT Date: 10/1/07 Checked By: upy Date: 10/1/07 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT attached spreadsheets for calculations. The effective stress values for initial and final conditions, for each geologic unit are summarized below. Initial Effective Stress, pst Final Effective Stress, psf Geologic Unit Point A Point B Point A Point B Cohesive Earth Liner 116.4 116.4 14,896.5 11,2935 Berry Clay / Radnor Til 20,533.2 17,968.2 28,9914 25,2172 Primary Consolidation and Secondary Settlement: The following summary tables summarize calculations completed in spreadsheets attached at the end of the document. Settlement at Point A Secondary Total Geologic Unit Settlement (ft) | __ Settlement (ft) Cohesive Earth liner . 0.00315 0.07978 Berry Clay / Radnor Til 0.18579 0.65238 Total 0.18894 0.73216 ‘Noe: vate shown above forthe Bory Cy Radnor TW Uni represen cumsive stern the ne 178.8 thick ut Settlement at Point B Primary Secondary Total Geologic Unit Settlement (ft) | Settlement (ft) Settlement (ft) Cohesive earth liner 0.07225 0.00315 0.07540 Berry Clay / Radnor Til 0.48767 0.18285 0.67052 Total 0.55992 0.18600 0.74592 Nate: value shaw above forthe erry Cy / anor Tl Unk reprsentcamulativeseterent nthe ene 748. Bick ni Total Settlement: TP rejects20071128077 - Ginton TOSAWDesign\Geotechisottoment wedPage: 8 of 9 chi Clinton Lanafil, inc. Project: Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit Proj.#: 128017 Shaw’ shaw Environmental, Inc. calculated By: oT Date: 10/107 Checked By: JV Date: 10/107 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT ‘The total settlement of the foundation soils is equal to the summation of the settlement of each layer ‘or geologic unit. The elevation of the top of the compacted cohesive earth liner after settlement will be approximately 662.07 feet (E1.662.8' - 0.73216’) at Point A and approximately 660.05 feet (E1.660.8' - 0.74592’) at Point B. Differential Settlement: ‘The differential settlement between Points A and B are calculated as follows: Bna- § ~ Distancen ams 0.73216 feet- 0.74592 feet|, 333.6 feet 100% Sars Sqq = 0.004% 100% ‘Slope of Leachate Collection System ‘The leachate collection system is designed with a slope of 0.60%. During waste placement and post- closure care, differential settlement will occur. The slope will be approximately 0.60% at the end of the post-closure care period. = Elev Elevng DislanGenann 652.07 feet 660.05 feet. 333.6 feet Slope ~ 0.605% ‘Slope 100% Slope 100% Wi ttlement At Point A, settlement is calculated to be approximately 10.8 feet 8 =( AS, due to Final Cover Placement on Lift No.9) + (ZS, following Post-Construction, 100 yrs.) S=(4.7 +48) feet = 9.5 feet. At Point A, settlement is calculated to be approximately 10.8 feet: 'S=( AS, due to Final Cover Placement on Lift No.8) + (ES, following Post-Construction, 100 yrs.) S= (6.3 +22) feet = 8.5 feet TiPrejects 2007128077 - Cinion TCSADesigniGeotechisetiement wedPage: 9 of 9 Client: Clinton Landfill, Inc. . Project: Clinton Landfil No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit \) Proj.#: 128017 Shaw’ shaw Environmental, Inc. catcutated ay: pcr Date: 10/1107 Checked By: JPV Date: 10/1/07 TITLE: FOUNDATION AND WASTE SETTLEMENT Differential settlement between Points A and B was calculated to be 2.85 percent: Sna- S, Syq = S24 Srey # Distancen con 00% 9.5 feet- Ofeet ag = en OE 4 3aaéfet — '% Sag = 2.85% Differential settlement between Points A and B was calculated to be 4.17 percent: Sana = Sno- Sac. 100% Distancen cro B.5feet- O feet = 100% i 204 feet Sen = 4.17% Results The estimated maximum differential settlement of the landfill foundation is approximately 0.004 fv. This value is negligible and will not cause or contribute to the failure of the liner or leachate collection system. The slope of the leachate system will be approximately 0.60 percent at the end of the post- closure care period, which will allow for proper leachate drainage and collection. TPrejects\20071128017 - Ginton TOSAIDesign\Geotechisetioment wedMSW UNIT BASIN B, Shaw’ shaw Environmental, Inc, CLINTON LF. NO. 3 CHEMICAL WASTE UNIT DEWITT COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ‘SETTLEMENT POINT LOCATIONS, SHOWN ON PROPOSED MASS LINER GRADES DRAWING APPROVED BY OAM | PROM. NO: 126017 [xTE: oot. 2007,popsdiwo] 689.809 cA PO 22QUAOND TESTA = PANE L-A aT = TES BUTI [oocare —[rrROTe —Jooeeree [pres Taro TH ay jpocavor —[rruiwar Joo cirec [po usar OISOrS Ta aD, loocecoc—[rrsoror Joo cove —[roszest sss a} loocisre pousecr SCORE! =) joo carer faeror OTT 7, oocescr locoer Deere | 1D oor locos soso ta | 1D loocere fear 9-009 a 301 loo cer eens Des w16s 1a | 1D foros jose Fiera | 19 ovo ooo. eo Tes ORE TISEG| Tae [wo co senomu TSS aT Tab SaaS ELA nica ypay 220J0q woRD2g $5039} L_ seg] ™ [ores areal fers soquiny ofa reefopeed wong am da TSR RTT OT ‘ue la 9 6) SHE 809 3a PURUATUT AS] uy Aedto9} TEypue] e Jo uonsas sso19 YSnorp suonreNuEdt09 ssonga ser TT, = josnaris —[aoorrur —losoeree —[aevaose [osx [ser Troe TW 7} loscives —[arserce —losztese [a pss [eer Ses > loszesce —[actseseloszucoe —areaete [osx er ‘OnS0Ls Ts 13 joszerec —|acearer —loscurve —ersirte osx er OST 75, yecirre ac teroc —loscer te —_|sccratst__ove ser OFS, 73 cise —[RcvosTeK Oc Lor bse ser Dero 12 Fears _—_foscirst Jos caver Taser | crv Joroacnt Jost Pow] as foscicer —joscicrr lorena Teves Ta locus Iscerce Tose Ta yzIs loose favo. TF ao CRE ST SSS. Tao TSS aT EAT Sa ToT [Iypue] e Jo uoNoas sso19 YSNoNN soneNuAdHOD sang Vv wrod] gpa say wons9g ss033} sa] mal quota ‘uty pala aun Ao)659-9799 “1A V8 posodoag Joury wea aus! papedu0D| (yr Xct 9 pong 494H900N) HGH = aN 4 aa ns SPAR RDPG| fame —_\posoree —rewesoe Jose lz Tavis 9 [OW oR freuirer —foouersc[rveaost [oes Ibe DISS 79 TEM wR RL an HUE Coa freon Joo —froscsst Jose lor Ors nas Ta 73 CEAt nog FADE UN Wu, SORTA PUTT ea foozesot parecer [oss lor STMT a} Em moO) HL OPEN PuEMey Kae oo froearor Jose 1 Seo a) CERRO OE-UD TEL OPER PH Te TRG prosors —Jowrecor—jorowwe Joss lye Tos os > TER ROE PE a TH OPER PHF Tey TPG isuisso—_joviiss —orvrro Joss zo woson9971a | 1D TEA ROT PRESET LUPE PUTA Ta porico lure rosea Jour for ooer09 770- TE ROP /paIERETD ROT foros looses leerers Jour lors [ric Torrie | 1. [eee foouors —Josoee —_orooee ser ser pee Pierre [1D TEA SOY / PHATE WON fooo — —foou foo foro i io rE 70. xa TSTMS] IS | ITS | MTL] TT | TeTRG] OT Ta aa eT Soup, TRE] SSSA | TOAST] sail ‘vamog| pur STURT wona9g ss03>} suv 299m pu oa Inypwe] x Jo uoNDas sso19 YBnosp suoHeNUEDHOD ssans|co bs Ee ms [score —_|ooerae —seTeoE Jose Tro 1D Iscsiede —loseicse —_|ecissoc Joss =ns 1 3 [sciscsc —_losearoe —farexowe —_[os8 orsous 73 fsrecvec —osarrvc —[wesiviz osx LEO TH 79 jscrerocloszeria—_[acerest [os 79 sceescr —Jocuorar [re wacor [oss 7 joszio'st —Josesosi—losserri [Zc 7 Bara aH joroRcwr —foscarer —lororcei [22 wooo a | as RET woh aE joscicer —loseras ——orcra's [ns WoocL SE | jortuse [scence [scence Tes ee BS) joo loose ps Shes se a a oo fo 0, su COSTS ROIS] SITE TROT Te SATA TIypueTe Jo uoNDas sso19 YBNoNp soneNUEdHOD ssang -2cuiny fg use Pato uy, Some489-7099 1H posodaag Jour MEA 2s1s9o9 porredun} as ojos won09 24 ue ato tn oq 30} sono sn19. re ans EH Beserse—pociesr pert pat Seo TES osares —fowrevt —Joreurie— [stare — oar a Ten a oe are pousrer —posurrt —[oreevut—iseerot — [ovr ce eae ae OT beers — fore oreenet — power — [oat So rae ee bosert —posort —Jonete arate — [ct aa SS pr = aimed wows TOF wops9s $029] an opie ao on T1ypury v Jo uonses sso19 YSnom suoNENUZDUOD ssongnse ae = lossesre —Jarecese —Joqtesse —_|arzrese [osx Taro TT a jostesee — [as too —ooerete bs OI oRe aD) lostanse fas verre oseasor pss a5. jostsorc ——[acscewr vse a5, losreoe ss 7, foseursr pss aD. foresor pz 13 lorsrcr bo as foro forse Isc TR foots T SRE aD, TROT au TR SaaS mer TRING] — OMT STEPH Oe Inpu61 BB wop295 5039 ee fs YjpULT] v JO UONDNS ssorD YBRONH stoNENUDDUOD ssang|Sn cceses Vaud 0 Tens [wre] one i oe exe! eau [ous | an [oor 08 [oor one [oors| aoe [oor ooe - em oor | oss esr 0s [sors | 08 se ze ele ese os Joowe | 08 ze ele ew | os [ore — eae sar tuts. i L neues [ora rs ae oc TENT BW SETA [RIUIBUD BU TORS OEGKEBIS MMSIO VOWOTTO OTT sve9k Zz 51 Yun 8188) [e9|WOUD UI HB OLD. ‘ayajduveo 1 (swuou 72) 129K z SaHe1 eISem feILIBUD sve9k Sp 51¢ ON IUPUET UowL uonewuoyu) s0H10) (0) sons annoy seseons isd) ssons enu2,u Tene (EUS CORSTATUGD STELIOS Oh SuUOU 9 SUITES pd yer = 2044 | senog eu (arz'2 92 wy seuy pue +02 Ye Sul) Syn @ OU: DORIA 51 IRD 180) 7801 = 14BIo4 sjsom jeonwoyo unuaxeyy | SHEAR EDIE woz = asem jour =H *9 ‘STS 6 SHUG p SHI TE msn Hse'0= °O. [0120+ 0) b0)°o+H]="s | vba weuomes ‘Acuna I) L002 ‘22 sequeides ¥ juiod ye sem jo weUOMeS Kew aun 286M FeORUOUD £ “ON TYPUET YORUHeer] [er [ino] ooe [ave] om [ooce] os [or] won [ors] om | wom =o a ze ce | oe | I =| = Tax [or [ovr ee Jere) om [oore |e [oer we [aro] ow ac os sort os [sore] os [sore ow er] oe = — ou ° oor # one foo! coe [oso oe ze ca | oe [oars 0 ao oar Ter PT ws. “ ca enoueona | i seuss | 10.8, i uous | ns |G] Ta a eee Usd) sessens wT PIN woneuuoyu) 0430, uauates user rns ng pe cure wou a sossang TarOB [JS UOTDTUNSUO j=FELICD O1 SYIVOU @ BUITSSY payer =mewad | senog jus eee araRTaIOS 8 THUS FP SENET TIDES ‘sepa reomsoy ‘SSR GF SHUG » SHEL ITT edgy = msn “wba wowiemnes rewna To) 2002 ‘12 s9quiados, a 1ulod ye ose Jo uOWOMES ALWIL un @}8eM IeamwOUD £ “ON UPYET YORU qClinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit ee ge Secondary Settlement of Waste at Point A ' ‘September 27, 2007 Chen: ‘Secondary Selllement Eqin: 8, =[(G,)1 (veaH + Wa) = (oa aT ED Chemical Tessie | Maximum height of chemical waste = 108.2. Cals civded into 6 its H,=20 (= 1 Ii; with exception of final it (8.2 8) Each it takes 44 months to complete ‘Secondary Settlement Eqin: — S,=[(C,)>(.)* (oo a7 OM MSW | Maximum height of MSW = 69.6 f. (waste) Cells cvided into 3 its Hy = 20 t= 1 i); with exception offal it (H=19.5 Each if takes 4 months to complete ‘Secondary Settlement Eqin: S, @, =0.32 Finat Gover | ©, = 0.004 Final Cover Is d-eet thick (Hy, = 4) Agsume 6 months to complete construction of final cover Tie of Ginton Landfill No. 3s 4 years Life of ell (chemical waste + MSW) is 23 years + 6 months fr final cover placement (23.5 ts) Post Closure monitoring period = 100 years {=e of pseudo-primary attlomient to occur after completion cf (years) {i= time after completion of fil (years) = (t+ 100) TET Fe Wy Woo TET other Information ‘# months + ie for filing previous its calay 12 (Eros. per it) x (1 ye./12mes.) 100+ 23.5. Col(8) ‘Secondary settlement equation for waste taken from reference below: \Values for "ee" and "Ca" determined from laboratory test data and published iterature (see Append H.1) Reference: ‘Yee, K, Menard Geoeysteme, Lumpur, K., Upgrading of Elsting Lanais by Dynamic Consolidation -A Geotechnical Aspoct, Technical Paper in Master Builders Journal, Sep.1999.Clinton Landfill No. 3 Chemical Waste Unit Secondary Sottloment of Waste at Point B September 27, 2007 SHAW" si trent re ‘Givens Secondary Settlement Eqin’ 8, =((6,)/ Greg = Wl» og Te \787 C,, = 0.0565, Maximum height of chemical weste = 109. Cells cvided into 6 tits Hi= 20 t(= 1 if; ith exception of final it Each if takes 44 months to complete chemical Waste ) ‘Secondary Seitlement Eqin: 8, =(C,) “(Mg (log al UI e = 0671 ©, = 00217 sw | Maximum neight of MSW = 105 (waste) Col has one it of MSW y= 105 1(= 1) Lift takes 4 months to complete jecondary Settioment Eqn: TESTO = He) oa Ge HT Final Cover Final Cover ft thick (He = 4) ‘Assume 6 mont to complete construction of final cover Life of Gnton Landi No. 3s 48 years other Inte on | Pest Closure monitering period = 100 years ime of pseudo-primary setlement to occur afer competion of fil (years) {= time after completion of il years) = (t+ 100) Life ef cal (chemical waste + MSW) is 22.38 years + 6 months for nal cover placement (total time = 22.88 ys.) ei CR Ea fier Glen fo : 2 “ rn 207 sor | ner] 3 2 0 a 738) ae | v16sof ae | a20e 2 20 rn 12 1100 o7_|_svs0a] st | oaae 2 0 17 47 er _| soa] 20 | a200 = 20 rn 2 ras ‘07 | rosso] 2 6 2 234 200 er _[ro0ea] 2 7 [s_ | _« | _= zs [os [| wo] se | Cor * n 7 om 050 | o0e0] 20 (A)= fhmonths + time for filing previous tts olay 12 (# mos.per it) x (1 yt/12mes.) (= 100+235-col(a) ‘Secondary seltlamont equation for waste taken from reference below. \Veluee for “éc" and "Ca "determined from laboratory test data and published Iiterature (see Appendix H.1) Reference: ‘Yee, K, Menard Geosystems, Lumpur, K., Upgrading of Existing Landis by Dynamic Consolidation - & Geotechnical Aspect, Techical Paper in Master Builders Jour, Sopt. 1900. D Settlement= 2.18Leszto neo uavones asemioacepuorsaNso1 vm LeeenusorsEAiaL Ze-revdd ‘9651 ‘seonverd pue saydoune Buueeubu3 leawy22}029 "4'a IND TE sunoy shep e8°Z = [((009exe2) hs OUI JO} QAJOS MOU LED OM ‘J04 PAAIOS "9 PUE*L UA S1s0010="9 <— "9 10) Buwiog 1ge'0 = xeput uotssaxdu0d = °5 11910 = 9182 J0 OF BlOA= °9 Jod 9°29 = J012m J0 Aysu 2087} ,.OF X 82'€ = e1SEM JO AywonpUED oUMeIPKY = sd 666 = [0072 +H) © 0 +(08% LE="L << %OO! = MM" 404 Burnjos {96004 X (icssorinsssvoy OF = (481° = eBeuresp aiqnop “y ¢°6) = eBeuIeup ojSuls) wed @Beuterp Jo Bue) = 7H 437990 0} juswiopjas KYewUd JO} = 3 LuoRep|}osuo> Jo yus!a4J900 = "2 soj08) au = “1 ‘aroun “oleh PH "(001 = .M, uonepliosuo9 jo saiSeq = ‘W'L.) @UuR pue (,/) UOYEPIIOSUOD Jo 82,69p uBaMjaq diysuoHte|a4 pue ‘suONenbe PajEjel “‘uoEpi]oSUoD [eUOISUEUAIp-2UO Jo Aloey) SYBEzZIEL = ‘GON 1740) .j. Btu B}eNIene B10}a204) ‘sndD0 0} JWOWENES ALEWIG 40) 9LUN SE6UO} 9Ly O4INOL [IM G “ON YT ZOUBUBOS @sEO ISIN BUINsSY = wOnD “ung00 0} (y-02) wil 8182M BuO Jo juaWOMEs AUeWd Jo} (2,) EUUR TEIO} SUL pu L002 ‘22 soquieides: \v 1ulod 18 (MSW) SSEM 10 UAT [eUld 40} uowenies AueWLid Jo UN eISeAA EOIWEYD € “ON IIUPUET UO} Vve129 269 waunpns oeeuonseDeonesOL wD LeeRURODROSEL, Zyrreyed“se6L “SeonDeAe pue seyiouny uveddnbu3 feauyDaI0~H “e'C."ONPCO OEY soynu g| sunoy "4 3 << eBeuresp aiqnop 10} } << aBeueip aj6urs 20} ‘dh BUR 10} @A\OS MOU UED OM ‘J0} POAIOS "9 PUB "L UM :980°0) /,(H'P) X(L" eeso0="0 <— *040j 6unjog 1°} = xepui uorssaiduioo = 29 95/4 , Ob X ¥°Z = B18eM [eOIwEYD J0 Ay 180 GLI = ss@qs anqooye [eani80 = 7,0 ‘aroun [0 1(°9 44) (14989 (OBZ) = "0 ZE="L —— %OOL = N HM"L 20, BuNIOS [9004 * (essorerssenar OF ~ (cy bp = 8B2uresp aignop “y z'e = eBeureip ej6uis) wed eBeuresp Jo yiBud] = 7H yuawemes Krewid 40} = 3 -%00} = uM. UONEpOSUCD Jo selBeq = ('1,) 2tun pue (,n,) Uonepyosuco jo seiSep usemyaq diysuoNele: pue ‘Suonenbe peieial ‘uORepI|osuCO JeUO|SUEUIIP-2UO Jo AloeUy S,UBEZ0, = ON WIT 40) J, 8H Bien|enS_ = -sn900 0} (4-28) 91SEM [e0lWUeYD [euy Jo jueWERIaS Kueuud JO} (4) BU FIO} UL, id 2002 ‘22 sequiaides Vv lulog 3 BISEM EDIWEUD 70 WIT feUld 40) jUsWaRIES AueUs|Id JO OUI HUN 2ISEM [eDIWEYD € “ON I1YPUET LOI!BRAJA M. DAS dts] le toyf Geotechnical Engineering Bi TT)8.7, Calelation of Setement from One Dimensional Primary Consolation 271 ‘where Vio and V,y are the initial and final void volumes, respectively. From the defini tion of void rato, AV, = AeV, 16) change of void ratio, But AH eis 617) @18) For nortially consolidated clays that exhibit a linear elog p (Figure &12) relation. ship, Be = C.Llog (Po + Ap) — lor Po} @19) where C. = slope of the elog p plot and is defined as the compression index. Substitu: tion of Eq. (8.19) in Eq. (818) gives +e 20) For a thicker clay layer, itis more accurate if the layer is divided into a number of ‘ublayers and calculations for settlement are made separately for each sublayer. ‘Ths, the total settlement for the entire layer can be given as safest Pou = initial average effective overburden pressure for sublayer i 4b.) = increase of vertical pressure for sublayer i In overconsolidated clays (Figure 8.13), for po + Ap 6% Hoy te, GH +p) Ig Be Hog 5 ) 62) However ifthe elog p curve is given, itis possible simply to pick Ae off the plot forthe appropriate range of pressures. This figure may be substituted into Eq. (8.18) for the Caloulation of settlement, S. 8&8 COMPRESSION INDEX (C,) “The compression index for the calculation of field settlement caused by consolidation ‘can be determined by graphic construction (as shown in Figure 812) after obtaining laboratory test results for void ratio and pressure. “Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested the following empirical expressions for com- pression index: For undisturbed clays: yOOKLL — 10) For remolded clays: OTL — 10) (625) ‘where LL = liquid limit, in percent. ‘in the absence of laboratory consolidation data, Eq. (8.24) is often used for an approximate calculation of primary consolidation in the field ‘Several other correlations for the compression index are also available now. They have been developed by tests on various clays. Some of these correlations are given in Section E.2 (Appendix E).8.10 Settement fom Secondary Conssiaton ‘The secondary compression index can be defined from Figure 822 as Tee = oa ~ log lt) ae where C, = secondary compression index ‘Ae = change of void ratio s.- cree (4) asy stew ~-G “Ts (8.32) 4, = void ratio at the end of primary consolidation (Figure 822) H = thickness of clay layer ‘The general magnitudes of C, as observed in various natural deposits are given in Figure 823. ‘Secondary consolidation settlement is more important than primary consolidation in organic and highly compressible inorganic soils. In overconsolidated inorganic clays, the secondary compression index is very small and of less practical significance. ‘There are several factors that might affect the magnitude of secondary consol dation, some of which are not very clearly understood (Mesri, 1973). The ratio of second: ary to primary compression for a given thickness of soil layer is dependent on the ratio of the stress increment (4) to the initial effective stress (p). For small Ap/p ratios, the ‘secondary-to-primary compression ratio is larger.¥ FIGURE 8.23 C; for natural el deposits after Mest, 3973) Vv EXAMPLE 86 Refer to Example 84. Assume that the primary consolidation will be complete in 35 years Bstimate the secondary consolidation that would occur from 35 years, to 10 years after the load application. Given C, = 0022, what isthe total consolidation settlement after 10 years?References 643, So, for a given overburde: _ __—, », wre vord ratio in the field can be estimated if the liquid limit and the specific gravity of the soil solid are known. E.2 CORRELATION FOR COMPRESSION INDEX ‘Several correlations for the compression index are available now. They have been devel- ‘oped by testing various clays. Some of these correlations are given in Table E.l It is important to realize that they are for estimation purposes only. Y TABLE E.l Correlations for Compression Index, Remoed cays Chicago cays Nishida 0956) AMleays Hough 1957) Tnorganicenbesve ec ilt, sty ey, clay Organic sis, peat, organic sit, and clay = 0755 — 05) Soils with low plasticity C= 0nnee, + 00088 Chicago clays C= 015g + 00107 ____Ailedays * Aer Rendon roo (80) Nesey it ag = nk water tet REFERENCES Hough, B.K. (1957). Basic Soils Engineering. New York: Ronald Press. Nagarai, T, and Murty, BR. S. (1985) “Prediction of the Preconsolidation Pressure and Recom- pression Index of Soil,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vo. 8, No.4, 199-202 (Nishida, Y. 01956). “A Brief Note on Compression Index of Soils," Journal of the Soit Mechanics ‘and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. SM3, 1027-1-1027-14 Rendon Herrero, 0. (1980) “Universal Compression Index Equation,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT11, 1179-1200. ‘Skempton, A. W. (1944). “Notes on the Compressiblity of Clays,” Quarterly Journal of the Geo- logical Society of London, Vol. 100, 118-136.GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ad de eta hacadeaeed3 Sec. 11.6 — Compressibilty of Sands and Gravels 393 TABLE (11.3 TYPICAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SATURATED NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED SANDY SOILS AT VARIOUS RELATIVE DENSITIES (Adapted fvort Burren, Citi) Fine to couse sand (SW) Fine to medium sand Table 113, Another characteristic of sands and gravels is their high hytirnlic conductivity, which ‘means any exoées pore water drains very quickly. Thus, the rae of consolidation is very fast, snd typically occurs nearly as fst a the lod i applied. Thus, if the load is doe to « fl the consolidation ofthese soils may have tle pactical significance. However, there are atleast two cases where coosolidation of coarse-grained soils can ‘be very important and needs moe careful consideration: 1. Loose sandy sols subjected to dymamic loads, such as those from an earthquake. ‘They can experience very large and inegular sot ements that ean cause sctious damage. Kramer (1996) discusses methods of evaluating ths problem, die s‘Sec. 11.10 Secondary Compression Settlement aw secondary compression and occurs under a constant effective stress. We don’t fully ‘understand the physical basis for secondary compression, but it appears to be duc to particle rearrangement, creep, and the decomposition of organics. Highly plastic clays, organic soils, and sanitary landfills are most likely to have significant secondary compression. However, scoondary compression is negligible in sands and gravels. “The secondary compression index, C,, defines the rate of secondary compression. 1t can be defined either in terms of either void ratio or strain: (11.26) om azn void ratio at end of consolidation settlement (can ase ¢, = 4 without {introducing much exror) €,= vertical sain t=time Design values are normally determined while conducting a laboratory consolidation test. ‘The consolidition setiement occurs very rapidly in the lab (because of the short drainage istance), £0 i is not difficult to maintain ove oc more ofthe load increments beyond the ‘completion of consolidation settlement. The change in void ratio after this point can be plotted against log time to determine C, ‘Another way of developing design valucs of C, is to rely on exmpiical data that reites itto the compression index, C_. This data is sammsarized in Table 11.4. ‘TABLE 11.4 EMPIRICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN C,, AND G,(Teciaghl, Peck, and Masrt, 1996) Material CK, ‘Geamalar sols, lctoding rock 0022001 ‘Shale and mdetone 0032001 noxganic clays and ets 004001 (Ong clays and aes 05 2001 Peatand musts 0962001‘UPGRADING OF EXISTING LANDFILLS BY DYNAMIC CONSOLIDATION A GEOTECHNICAL ASPECT Kenny Yee, Menard Geosystems Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur ABSTRACT: In recent years, the scarcity of land space available for new urban development has prompted a renewed interest from local authorities in the end use of various landfills or in the extension ofthe life of existing landfills. Rehabilitation of closed landfills for urban developments has received considerable interest. Likewise, the extension of landfill life to allow for more ‘waste storage is also receiving equal attention. In both cases, ground improvement is required. ‘Dynamic consolidation (also known as dynamic compaction is 9 ground improvement tecnique. The process involves dropping heavy weights (15ton - 20tons) on to the surface of the fill fiom a considerable height (15m - 20m) following. a selected grid pattern. These high-energy impacts produce ficient compaction effort to reduce void space, increase density and reduce long ‘term settlement of the fill. By increasing the density, it increases the storage capacity of the Landfill. Beside, it also increases the ‘bearing capacity. Reducing the long-term: settlement, roads, parking bays and lighter structures can be designed on shallow foundations on closed landfills. Jn this paper, the subject of setlement of waste fills is addressed. A case study concerning a housing development over a landfill is. also presented. 1.9 INTRODUCTION Landing is one of the most economic and feasible means of disposing municipal solid waste in Malaysia and other counties in ‘Southeast Asia. In the past, the disposal of waste fills was carried out by uncontrolled dumping ito ex-mining ponds and low- lying areas close to-housing estates. With i scarcity of land in urban area, itis increasingly difficlt to find new landfill sites for figure dumping. This bas prompted the local authorities and privatized companics (operators of landfill} to find solution to extend the life of the landfill 20 allow for more waste storage. “Typical lanfills may occupy an area: froin several acres to bundreds of acres. Settlement estimation is atopic of concern. Yen ee cerns’ vcopesas Inula pny al be ceased Wr movi sasoneet eccet fidap tis vdge of ig, fafortunately, the lanfil settlement continues over an extended period of time witha final settlement that ean be as large as 303%- 40% of the initial fl height (H.LLing, etal. 1998). Hence, itis imperative that a solution is needed to increase the rate of settlement to recover the additional space. Dynamic consolidation is a good method of compacting refuse and waste fill. This technique involves dropping heavy weighis (15 ~ 20 tons) on to the surface of the fill from a height of 10 to 20m following a selected grid pattern. The high-energy impacts produce shock waves that propagate to great depths (figure 1). As a result, the density ofthe waste fill is increased and hence, the ‘Storage capacity ofthe landfill is also increased, With the increase inthe density of the waste fil, the everall bearing capacity is improved. The long-term setlement is redveed and hence, the differential setdemet is also reduced which is important forthe intpsty of the cover system when the landfil ix closed. Inthe past soch landfills ave been considered suitable only for grecn areas. With the increasing scarcity of land in urban areas, itis making it necessary to build structures above such fills. Charles etal. (1981) report several case histories. of Construction on old refuse ips, which inclade construction of a 2-storey hospital, roads and highways. Welsh (1983) cites a roadway ste with 6m to 12m of waste fils. MAnard (1984) cites a ease fora warchowse designed with flor loads of 20 KN/m? and spread footing with 145 kN/m? with 6m to 17m of refuse waste, There arc many other recorded and published case studies on such developments (eg. Aziz. & Mohd. Raihan (992), Downie & Trehame (1979), Faisal, K.Yee & Varaksn (1997), Fryman & Baker (1987), Lewis & Langer (1994), Mapplcback & Fraser (1993), Stenberg & Lukas (1984), ele). In this paper, the subject of settlement of waste fills and rchabilitation of landfill for housing development is presented. Only the _2cotechnical aspect is covered. The related environmental issue has been intentionally leR out due to space constraint.Figure | 9 COMPOSITION OF LANDFILL ‘Most landfills are heterogencous and they exhibit anisotropic material properties that are difficult to characterize. ‘Typically, a Jandfill consists of food and garden wastes, paper products, plastics and rubber, textiles, wood, ashes and the sols used as cover material Table 1 shows the various components of waste fills with their range of unit weights. ‘The unit weight and void ratio vary with the types of waste, composition, depth, method of compaction and the rate of decomposition, among other factors. ‘The rate of decomposition is further complicated by several factors including the effects of time, temperature and environmental conditions. In short, itis a combination of all of the problems of soft clay, uncompacted fill, organic consolidation and decomposition ad even collapse of cavities andFérosion of soil ino eavitics. I is as heteropencous asthe modern industizbusbh complex that produces it. Mens, te composition varies fiom community to community and from nation to nation. is, the waste ‘properties can be considered as site-specific. ‘Two different forms of Ianil can be defined. The uncontrolled dump is of random composition, dumped loosely from teks, accumulated without control or compaction, and sometimes covered with a thin Iyer of sol when it reached it eapanity (eee figure 2a). At the other end, itis the welkmanaged sanitary landfill. The materials are spread in layers and conmpaced by bulldozers and compactors In sone casts, certain wastes such as tres ae segregated ftom others (se figure 20), Most oF th od Janis are the uncontrolled domps. Until reecatly, through privatization scheme the landfill operation follows the engineered tandfilt scheme. ‘Thus, it is expected that developments over old landfills will require more engineering cffort. Figure 20) Controtied Sanitary Landfill (Spread and compacted in layers of 2-3m thick; encapsulated with soil in cells of 2-6mn thick) 30 SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS Settlement is the major problem with landfills. Sowers (1972) cites a case of a small shopping center built over a landfill. The ‘buildings are on piles driven tough the waste fills. The building walls and roof have temained intact. However, floor slabs grade beams, but was not connected tothe interior columns. As a result, the floor drapes downward from the exterror walls toward ‘the interior of the building. Small interior partitions resting directly on the floor have cracked badly and doorframes have been ‘wrecked out of shape. ‘le 1 (Cource: After Tehobanoglous etal. 197) Waste ncompace Unit Water ato of Compcted to Uncompaced Unit Weight Component Weigh Nim?) Content Normal Compection ‘Well Compact Food waste 13-47 50-20 29 30 Paper pope bad O13 0 6 a Pints 0313, 1 a 10 ‘Tents 03-09 ois 56 o ‘Robber and leather 09-25 in 33 3Yard waste Wood Gites Metals Ash, brick, dit Furthermore, setleinent as increased since then, probably dic to a change in the moisture environment from leaking sewers in the si “There are two possible approaches to the assessment of settlement: (2) Extrapolation of monitored data obtained specifically forthe given fl 1), By graphical method 2) By analytical method (8) Estimation from existing published data on similar type of fills 1) By graphical method 2) By analytical method ‘Method (a) is the most reliable but rogutes time for monitoring. This method relies on the approximately linear relationship Dees ett ahi is ep pce BE. Met i fn fe ee of sil gi ‘easwers quickly. However, the results ae less dependable since ita sre cucly Icy anf cnc w'tapsiic tives Pry cate: Snes tym (0) sho be ached monitoring. We shall adress the different categories of setlement 3s follow: 3. Settlement Under Setr-Weight ‘One of the contributing factors to the overall setlement is caused by the sel-weight ofthe fill. The time-setlement relationship under sel weight is analogous tothe socondary compression of soils after a short period of pseudo primary setlement, typically. to 4 months long. Measurements taken from past records indicate a inca cape sagopa eres (NAVEAC, 1983). Thus, setilement ofthe waste fills under is sel weight afer cosipletion of filing can be estimated by equation G)betow. Jog ty/%,) here (a8), ~ scf-weight settlement atime t (an) = thickness of waste fill (m) 1, = time pseudo-primary settlement to occur after completion of fil (years) 1, = time after completion of fil (years) C, = coefficient of secondary compression ‘Table 2 below suggests typical self-weight settlements. According to Leach & Goodger (1991), 2 good compaction can reduce the selF-weight setilement potential by between 50% and 75%, “Typical unit weights for municipal waste are summarized in Table 3. ‘Table 4 below shows the unit weights obtained from various landfill sites. 32 _ Settlement Under External Loads ‘The time-settlement bchavior of an old waste fills under an applied load is analogous to the behavior of peat. As load is placed large primary (mechanical) setleipents occur rapidly with litle or no pore pressure build up. This is followed by scoondary ‘compression, which occurs over a long, period of time. ‘The relation of the imposed stress to settlement can be expressed as follow: (AM, = HC, og (107, #80") 2) ‘where (20), = primary (or mechanical) settlement (a) |= thickness of waste fill (m) initial void ratio ‘able 2 (Source: Leach & Goodger (1991) —CIRIA Special Publication 78) ‘Potential Self Weight Setlement (expressed 25 % of depth of fl)‘ightly compacted cay placed in deep layers Nominally compacted openeast backfill ‘Uncompacted sand ‘Uncompacted (pumped) clay ‘Wel-compacted mixed refuse (waste fill) ‘Well controlled domestic refiase (waste ft) ‘placed in ayers and well compacted Table 3 Moderate good compaction E i Inst densiy Active abil with eackate mound Heigl Trach Can Delivery Tk Table Lanai Sites (Old Kiang Road, Keals Lumpur ‘Kelana Jaya, Kula Lampor Merrylands, Sydney! “Thorneigh, Sydocy' Lucas Heights, Sydey? ‘Albany, New York? Fayetteville, Arkansas? Richmond. California’ Nott data tamed em Howsmany et (1993) 2 data bein fom Gtr 0992) os 12 2 35 2 30 10 ‘Average Total Unit Weight ye Source 2B-A7 47-71 71-94 55-105 64-105 35-69, ‘Tebotemoglous etal (1977) ua NAVEAC (1983) 34 9A 56 NSWMA (1985) 99-110 Waste Densiv Ni) 70 60 34 sa m3 7-16 48 72 ‘Nets costo apd demolition dts Ini 23 data ohtamel fom Welsh (1983). 4A dts btn fram Shon (989) (0°, = effective overburden pressure (kim?) NAVFAC (1983) reports that the primary compression ratio (C,) ranges fiom 0.1 10 OA. Sowers (1972) reports that the mpression index (C,) is related tothe initial void ratio as shown in figure 3. The relation can be expressed as follow: For fills low in organic matters For fill high in organic matters. C,= 0.158, 0550, 11s interesting to note thatthe maximum Ce for peat is about one-third greater than the maximum observed for waste fills.Environmental conditions as wells the composition ofthe waste fils determine the amount of long-term settlement. This omg- ‘term settlement is a combination of mechanical sceondary compression, physico-chemical action, and bio-chemical decay. When there is no drastic change itr the environment the settlement-log time relaGeidhiip is more or less Tinear, similar to secondary “mpression of soils. The setlesnent can be expressed by the same equation (1) above. NAVEAC(ISES) reported the conflict {secondary compression (C,) rine fom 0.02 to O07. ‘These vals ar fer il, which have undergone dcotmpeston for ‘thout 10-15 years. Higher compressibility is usually associated with high organic content. It is also true for advanced degree of “Gecompostion. ‘Sowers (1972) introdhices a eter “a” forthe Tong-term seitlement. He suggested “a” asa function ofthe initial void rao (e,). “This “0 value is high i the organic content subject to decay is large and dhe environments favorable (jc, warm and mle, with fluctuating water table that pumps fresh air into the fill). This value is low for more inert materials and under non-favorable cavironments. Nonetheless, for any given void ratio there isa large range of values for “a” (sce figure 4). The relation can be expressed a fallow: For favorable condition to decay « =0.03e, For unfavorable condition to decay a = 0.09, ‘This “a” Value can be translated tothe classical C, by dividing “a” by {1+e,) ie. C,=a/{I+eq)Be #6 Be OR We WORD RATIO OF FILL. Figure 4 Other calculation methods include the use of a theological model as presented in the Gibson and Lo theory or the power creep law. The power creep law provides a better representation of the field measured settlement data than the rheological model. However, the theological model has parameters that can be assigned physical meaning and reflect the effects of certain refuse placement conditions. ‘The details are not presented in this paper. 40 _ DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT & DESIGN MEASURES There ate too many uncertainties for accurate prediction of differential setlement on waste fills. In this case, recourse should be made to the gencrally accepted rule in engineering practice tha, in uniform ground, differential movement will not exoced 75% of ‘the total overall settlements. Thus, once the potential overall settlement has been estimated the Tkely order of differential ‘movement can be assessed Defensive design for buildings demand either the transfer of loading to sound ground through pling or the acceptance of some residual setlement, even after ground improvement, with the load supported directly on the fil. Foundations bearing on Il should be designed to permit settlement without subjecting the supersincture to damaging dffeential movements oc unacceptable ‘it, ‘According to Padtfeld and Sbarrock (1983), most fiamed buildings can tolerate a differential sttlement of sbout 20mm between ‘columns. “Tis sets the limits for flexible floating supports with individual footings. If this acceptable setlement is likely to be exceeded, 2 raft foundation for low-rise structures or piling for higher-rise structure shall be considered, ‘The piles are then ‘designed against all adverse features ofa refuse waste fills site. ‘While piling will obviate settlement of the structure, problems may arise from setement of the fit outside the building area. Sarvice connections and discontinity of level at the building periphery are particular problems. These problems can be ‘iniized by improving the settlement characteristics ofthe fill. The treated fill should be sufficiently improved that the looded reas settle unifotaily without imparting sipnificant tlt tothe superstructores. Between loaded areas, or between a loaded area‘and service mua, the differential settlement should be reduced 10 within a tolerable limits and the service fines should be designed _seording tothe likely settlement profiles. Dynamic consolidation is a good method of compacting refuse and waste fills. Because void ratio or initial density i related to the initial primary settlement as well as secondary compression, compaction (densification) of Bills offers an element of control over potential settlement. However, this method will not eliminate biodegradation and, instead, may provoke or accelerate migration: and/or emission of gas (Leach and Goodger, 1991), 5.0 DYNAMIC CONSOLIDATION ‘The basic concepts of dynamic consolidation (also known as dynamic compaction) as itis used today were presented by Menard and Broise (1975). The method consists of dropping heavy weight (“pounder”) weighing 15tons to 20tons from a drop heights of 10m to 20m. using a crawler crane of minimum 100-ton. (Figure 5)zg SQ wee Oz zee Fo z9zZ uw 205 ov w CZ o Zz w Sanrrary LANDFILL SETTLEMENT RATES snd Brian Seanlon,* Members, ASCE. By Bing C. Yen! a sanitary landfil fs difficult to formotate, "The Committee on Sanktary Landf fl Practice Py ted by the etizens (0. ‘Abundant literature s available for solld waste: ae inctuding 4 = 2201220 'x 100k Sm oF as: 2 ag i B a 3 g z i : i i 2 3 ig fod g 2 t al 3 #2 & z 3 i i i 3 q 5 2 3 & es . g: B28 ) ug: i | H B df tet GIR ep aR Pal We sel iti a in at i ave eee 7 me i ae tha ied that H, between ne hus hat 2. wit ret ee