CAPSTONE Final Report Group 1

MSW LANDFILL IN MARICOPA, ARIZONA
Capstone Project 2
Bachelor of Science
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Yevgeniy Lukhmanov
Rustem Khalikhan
Aisulu Torezhan
Kazbek Iliyas
Rashid Gaitov
Azamat Zhalmuratov
2021
DECLARATION
We hereby declare that this report entitled “MSW Landfill in Maricopa, Arizona” is the
result of our own project work except for quotations and citations which have been duly
acknowledged. We also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently submitted
for any other degree at Nazarbayev University.
Yevgeniy Lukhmanov
Rustem Khalikhan
Aisulu Torezhan
Kazbek Iliyas
Rashid Gaitov
Azamat Zhalmuratov
Date: 14.04.2022
1
Table of contents
DECLARATION 1
List of tables 10
List of figures 12
List of abbreviations 14
1. Introduction 15
1.1. Problem statement 15
1.2. Project Scope 16
1.3. State selection 17
1.4. Site selection 18
2. Environmental Engineering 21
2.1. Waste Quantification 23
2.1.1. Waste characterization 23
2.1.2. Site Sizing 24
2.2. Site Design 27
2.2.1. Landfill Liner 27
2
2.2.2. Run-on Control System 29
2.3. Operational Plan 31
2.3.1. Waste Processing 31
2.3.2. Waste Disposal 35
2.3.2.1. Equipment 35
2.3.2.2. Cells for daily waste disposal 37
2.3.2.3. Daily cover 41
2.3.2.4. Intermediate cover 42
2.3.3. Landfill Operation 43
2.3.3.1 LFG 43
2.3.3.2 Leachate Generation 47
2.3.3.2.1 Water Balance Method 47
2.3.3.3 Leachate Collection System 53
2.3.3.4 Leachate Treatment System 54
2.3.3.4.1 Local Climate Data 54
2.3.3.4.2 Leachate Generation Modelling 58
3
2.3.3.4.3 Landfill design 59
2.3.3.4.3 Results 61
2.3.3.4.4 Operational Management and Monitoring 62
2.3.3.4. Litter Control 63
2.3.3.5. Dust Control 64
2.3.3.6. Disease Vector Control 65
2.3.3.7. Subterranean Fire Control 66
2.3.3.8. Recordkeeping 67
2.3.3.9. Groundwater Monitoring 68
2.4. Closure Plans 72
2.5. Post-Closure Plans 76
3. Architectural Design 77
3.1. Design Statement 77
3.2. Design Requirements 3.2.1. State selection 83
3.2.2. Site location 83
3.2.3. Structural Layout 84
4
3.2.3.1. Footprints 84
3.2.3.2. Elevations & Facade 85
3.2.3.3. Interior Arrangement 86
3.2.3.4. Transportation & Fire Safety 88
3.3. Construction Materials 88
3.3.1. Concrete grade 88
3.3.2. Reinforcement grade 89
3.3.3. Non-structural materials 90
3.3.4. PEB structure for the industrial part. 91
3.4. LEED certification 94
3.5. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Using Life-365 software 95
4. Structural Design 97
4.1. Load calculations 97
4.1.1 Dead Loads 97
4.1.2. Live Loads 98
4.1.3. Wind Load 98
5
4.1.4. Snow Load 102
4.1.5. Seismic Loads 102
4.1.6. Load Combination 103
4.2. Preliminary Design 104
4.2.1. Slab sizing 106
4.2.2. Column sizing 107
4.2.3. Beam sizing 107
4.2.4. Rafter sizing 107
4.3. Internal Forces Analysis 108
4.3.1. Analysis Using software 108
4.3.2. Hand Calculations 111
4.3.3. Hand Calculations vs Software Comparison 112
4.4. Structural Member Design 112
4.4.1 Design Using Software 112
4.4.2. Hand Calculations 113
4.4.2.1. Column Design 113
6
4.4.2.2. Beam Design 117
4.4.2.3. Bracing Design 120
4.5. Connections 123
4.5.1 Column-to-beam Connection 123
4.5.1.1 Software Optimisation 123
4.5.2 Column-to-rafter Connection 125
4.5.3 Column-to-foundation Connection 127
4.5.4 Beam-to-beam Connection 129
5. Geotechnical Design 131
5.1. Soil Profile 131
5.1.1. Seismic Analysis 135
5.1.2. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation and Analysis 138
5.1.2.1. Cyclic Resistance Ratio of soil from SPT blowcounts 139
5.1.2.2. Cyclic Stress Ratio induced by earthquakes 142
5.1.2.3 Factor of Safety against liquefaction 142
5.1.2.4 LiqIT software 143
7
5.2. Shallow Foundation Calculations 145
5.2.1 General Bearing Capacity 145
5.2.2 Settlement 148
5.3. Pile Foundation Calculations 150
5.3.1. Bearing Capacity 150
5.3.2 Settlement 153
6. Construction management 155
6.1. Project Charter 155
6.2. Feasibility Study 159
6.3. Cost-benefit analysis 167
6.4 Work breakdown structure 181
6.5 Schedule 188
6.7. Risk and Safety Management 204
7. Conclusion 216
7.1. General notes 216
7.2. Limitations 216
8
References: 217
Appendix A 229
Appendix B 233
9
List of tables
Table 2.1. MSW Landfill Complex Design’s Environmental Engineering Outline

Table 2.2. Amounts of waste to be disposed of at the designed landfill
Table 2.3. Phase I design characteristics
Table 2.4. Phase II design characteristics
Table 2.5. Phase III design characteristics
Table 2.6: Daily cell parameters
Table 2.7. Water balance table for South Maricopa, Arizona
Table 3.1. ASM outline
Table 3.2. Area values of the landfill site facilities.
Table 3.3. Area values of all rooms and spaces of the main administrative building
Table 4.1. Floor finishing on the ground floor
Table 4.2. Floor finishing and ceiling on the 1st floor
Table 4.3. Roof and ceiling on the 2nd floor.
Table 4.4. External wall composition
Table 4.5. Internal wall composition.
Table 4.6. Dead load of two-story office building
Table 4.7. Dead load of equipment maintenance and waste inspection area.
Table 4.8. Live load of two-story office building
Table 4.9. Live load of equipment maintenance and waste inspection area.
Table 4.10. Wind load calculation constants (ASCE 7-10, 26 (6-9))
Table 4.11. Wind load on two-story office building
Table 4.12. Wind load on equipment maintenance and waste inspection area.
Table 4.13. Load combination values
Table 4.14. Summary of load values
Table 4.15. Values for constants
Table 5.1. Soil engineering properties of borehole 402 (1 out of 9)
Table 5.2. Soil profile type classification for seismic amplification
10
Table 5.3. Energy ratio and correction factor estimations for selected hammer types
Table 5.4. Recommended CB for selected borehole diameters
Table 5.5. Linear approximation of CR for selected length of drill rod
Table 5.6. Correction factor (N1)60for different fines content (%)
Table 5.7. N60 values for similar soils in Maricopa County
Table 6.1. Project charter
Table 6.2. Technical feasibility criteria
Table 6.3. Economic feasibility criteria
Table 6.4. Legal feasibility criteria
Table 6.5. Operational feasibility criteria
Table 6.6. Scheduling feasibility criteria
Table 6.7. Cost-benefit analysis
Table 6.8. Financial costs analysis summary
Table 6.9. Site preparation costs analysis
Table 6.10. Office building costs analysis
Table 6.11. Waste processing unit costs analysis
Table 6.12. Landfill gas management unit costs analysis
Table 6.13. Disposal site costs analysis
Table 6.14. Leachate pond costs analysis
Table 6.15. WBS dictionary based on the final design
Table 6.16. Construction schedule
Table 6.17. Labor and Materials Schedule
Table 6.18. Storage space requirements calculation
Table 6.19. Expanded Risk Register
11
List of figures
Figure 1.1. USA maps for different criteria.

Figure 1.2. Site selection according to 14 criteria
Figure 2.1. Landfill Gas Generation by time
Figure 2.2. The volume generation predicted by LandGEM ver 3.03
Figure 2.3. Groundwater monitoring wells’ location on-site
Figure 3.1. Layout of the MSW landfill site.
Figure 3.2. 3D model of the main administrative building

Figure 3.3. The plan view of the first floor
Figure 3.4. The plan view of the second floor
Figure 3.5. The elevation view#1
Figure 3.7. The office rooms
Figure 3.8. ACI committee guidelines related to concrete durability
Figure 3.9. Floor finishing (ground floor)
Figure 3.10. Floor finishing (1st, 2nd floors)
Figure 3.11. External wall composition
Figure 3.12. Internal wall composition
Figure 4.1. Howe roof truss structure for operational building
Figure 4.2. Wind speed map (Arizona state) for risk categories III and IV buildings
Figure 5.1. Location of the current MSW landfill project
Figure 5.2. Sample soil profile and blowcount variation of borehole 402 (1 out of 9)
Figure 5.3. Location of nine neutron probe boreholes (units: meters)
Figure 5.4. Seismic hazard map of Arizona State
Figure 5.5. Soil average shear wave velocity (left plot) and shear wave velocity profile
computed by three inversion methods (right plot)
Figure 5.6. Location of SPT and CPT tests and distance to the selected landfill area
Figure 5.7. Table of standard values
12
Figure 5.8. Bearing Capacity Factors found by the table
Figure 5.9. Table for Interpolated Values of Nq based on Meyerhof’s Theory
Figure 6.1. Feasibility study dimensions and criteria
Figure 6.2. Cost benefit analysis results
Figure 6.3. Excavation needed for the half of the cell (Kubla Cubed)
Figure 6.4. Structural fill needed for the first cell (Kubla Cubed)
Figure 6.5. Detailed WBS for the municipal solid waste landfill
Figure 6.6. Gantt Chart
Figure 6.7. Construction site layout
Figure 6.8. Risk Index Matrix
Figure A.1. Top view of a daily waste cell with waste (red) and daily cover (brown)
Figure A.2. Front view of a daily waste cell with waste (red) and daily cover (brown)
Figure A.3. Right view of a daily waste cell with waste (red) and daily cover (brown)
Figure A.4. Front view of Phase 3 with the liner and the final cap
Figure A.5: The effect of climate change on monthly rainfall in 30 years
Figure A.6: The effect of climate change on maximum daily rainfall in 100 years
13
List of abbreviations
HDPE High-density polyethylene
LCS Leachate collection system
LFG Landfill gas
LLDPE Linear low-density polyethylene
MSW Municipal solid waste
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
14
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem statement
Solid waste generation has been significantly accelerated with increasing world
population, rapid urbanization and many other reasons. Currently, solid waste has become
one of the critical global environmental problems (Song et al., 2014). In particular, the
rate of municipal solid waste generation consisting of daily waste and everyday items is
rising very rapidly. Although landfilling is the least favourable method in the solid waste
management hierarchy, engineered landfills with high regulations and newly emerging
monitoring systems can save humanity and be used as a sustainable management method.
In this regard, the design team decided to design a municipal solid waste landfill site in
the USA. The purpose of the team was to construct a modern landfill site with treatment
facilities and monitoring stations. The USA is a country with a population of more than
300 million people and MSW (municipal solid waste) generation is increasing at a high
rate in this country. Moreover, the landfilling method is common in the USA. According
to data presented by the U.S. EPA (2021), almost half of MSW generated in 2018 were
landfilled. Therefore the USA was chosen as the country where the project will be
launched and where the design team can get financial support from the government to
realize the project. The main aim of this project is to design a MSW landfill site with a
leachate collection pond, methane treatment facility, monitoring stations and an
administrative building for workers and equipment maintenance. The following objective
are set: 1) collect a well-weighed data on waste generation in chosen state of the USA; 2)
estimate the waste amount that the landfill site can manage with and the landfill’s lifetime
3) identify the functional requirements for each facility to be designed: 4) prepare a
preliminary design of all facilities.
15
1.2. Project Scope
The design project encompasses a versatile work plan referring to the following
disciplines: environmental, arhitectural, structural, materials, geotechnical and
construction management. The members of the design team responsible for the
environmental part have been dealing with waste generation and collection data, design
of disposal sites, leachate collection pond, LFG (landfill gas) treatment facility.
Arhitectural part involves site selection, location and general connection between
facilities. Structural part is totally dedicated to the main administrative building that is to
be built for workers, waste inspection, and equipment maintenance. Construction
management part will consist of management and financial data analysis on construction
of the landfill area in general. The important thing to be mentioned is that the scope of
work of the construction management part differs from that of the environmental part in
a way that although there are three disposal sites to be designed, for the construction
management part, the disposal site works will be smaller. There is no need to develop the
entire landfill 15 years ahead of time since it will lead to unnecessary costs, such as
management of stormwater and undesired TVM effect. Therefore, the landfill
construction company will build only a half of a first cell (109 m x 66 m x 13 m, slope
1:3), which will be enough to operate the landfill for 2.5 years. This is a normal practice
in industry. Afterwards, additional earthworks will be performed by the landfill operation
company.
The weight division of each part is the presented below:
- Architectural and structural design - 19%

- Geotechnical design - 21%
- Environmental design - 45%
- Construction management - 15%.
16
1.3. State selection
It was decided to have a separate section on site selection placed before technical design
solution parts of main disciplines so that each discipline can refer to it regardless of its
order in the report.
Although the country for the project has been chosen, the state selection and exact site
location choice required a profound environmental research on the topic. The main
criteria for the state selection were the following:
1) Seismicity
2) Flooding risk
3) Wind
4) Soil type
5) Recycling rate and waste generation
6) Already existing landfill amounts and their status.
Various maps from different credible sources have been used to identify the most suitable
state for the project (Fig.1.1). Seismic activity can facilitate the tension increase and
material tearing in a landfill. Flooding can cause unexpected waste spread and surface
water contamination. High wind speed can cause waste migration before covering it with
a cover layer. It is highly recommended to have a suitable soil type nearby to use as a
building material (daily cover, liner, final cover). Also, it is crucial to have a soil with low
swelling potential because it has erratic fluctuations in its behavior.
17
Figure 1.1. USA maps for different criteria.
As a result, the state of Arizona was chosen to be the most suitable region to construct a
MSW landfill site. It has medium to low seismicity (USGS, 2015), almost no flooding
risk (NOAA, 2010). Wind speed at 30 m is less than 4 m/s (EERE, 2012). Arizona state
is underlain by not expansive (with little to no swelling potential) clay soils
(Geology.com, n.d.). Waste generation rate is at a medium rate in comparison with other
states and recycling rate is very small meaning that landfilling is a waste management
method that can find support from the government (BioCycle, 2018). Number of already
existing landfills is relatively small and the majority of them are closed (Californians
Against Waste, 2017). This means that there is a need for a landfill with a huge disposal
area and modern monitoring system.
1.4. Site selection
The location of the current landfill project was selected considering the requirements for
MSW landfill location. The site selection procedure incorporates the 14 criteria
covering physical, environmental, social, infrastructure and economic aspects. Most
18
importantly, it was necessary to guarantee that unavoidable MSW landfill products such
as leachate and gaseous pollutants are generated far enough from surface water sources
(i.e. lakes, wetlands, ponds and rivers) to prevent water contamination cases in the
region. Maintaining the distance of 500-1000 m is sufficient to meet the safety
guidelines (Rezaeisabzevar et al., 2020). The flooding hazard in terms of precipitation
may cause the uncontrollable leachate generation rates, which creates a need to select an
area with low precipitation rates. Since Arizona is generally considered to be a state
with arid climate, the flooding does not pose a considerable risk to the construction and
operation of MSW landfill. In addition, earthquakes are one of the main reasons for
landfill accidents including leachate leakage that should be avoided at all costs.
Moreover, the US EPA criteria for solid waste disposal facilities, it is prohibited to
locate a municipal solid waste landfill in a seismic impact zone, where the probability of
horizontal acceleration of the lithified earth material exceeding 0.1×g (gravitational
acceleration) per 250 years is equal to or greater than 10% (US EPA, 1993). The
selected site complies with this requirement since, according to the relevant USGS map,
the landfill complex is located in the area where this probability ranges from 6% to
7.5% (Algermissen et al., 1990). Although there is a low to medium risk of seismic
hazards in Arizona state, the detailed seismicity analysis of the selected location is
provided in the geotechnical part of this report to make sure that the location is safe.
Furthermore, the high elevation levels can create additional transportation costs,
whereas places with low elevation are prone to flooding. It is suggested to choose the
elevation of 31-70 m above sea level (Rezaeisabzevar et al., 2020). Landfills should not
be constructed near settlements to avoid potential odor, noise issues, negative aesthetic
impact as well as agricultural sectors and forests
19
Figure 1.2. Site selection according to 14 criteria
According to soil permeability data, the soil should satisfy the requirements and act as a
good building material. The wind velocity should be low as odors and gases won’t spread
at greater distances. The water table is required to be at a low depth to ensure safety from
the leachate, which is a serious issue in considering landfill location. Landfill sites should
20
also be located far from the nearest main routes (optimally at 1000-2000 meters).
Railroads should be farther than 500 meters from landfill, while gas pipelines farther than
300-500 meters, according to the requirements (Rezaeisabzevar et al., 2020). This is done
to reduce the risk of the fire that can be caused by interaction with pipelines. The nearest
airport should have a minimum limit of 1.5 km to ensure that birds attracted by the landfill
won’t be harmed (Rezaeisabzevar et al., 2020). All 14 criteria show that Southern
Maricopa is an appropriate choice for the project.
2. Environmental Engineering
In the context of the environmental engineering part of the presented Capstone project, it
was decided that the first part will cover the analysis of waste expected to be disposed of
at the designed site, disposal area’s detailed design (liner system, final cap, site
dimensions) and landfill operation, which will include the proposal of operational plan,
waste processing and dealing with the landfilling by-products. The second part of the
Capstone project will cover more elaborated work on the above-mentioned elements of
the designed landfill complex, as well as on the details of landfill operation such as vector
control, liquid waste processing and post-closure plans. The detailed outline for the both
parts of the Capstone project are presented in the table below:
Table 2.1. MSW Landfill Complex Design’s Environmental Engineering Outline
Subparts Stat Subparts (Semester II) Status

Element (Semester I) us
Location Site selection ✅ Safety demonstration ✅

criteria Evaporative zone depth
investigation
21
Waste Site sizing ✅ Excavation step sizing ✅
quantifica Waste composition Shredded unit
tion characterization
Site Disposal site Control systems

design Facilities ✅ Equipment operation ✅
Equipment
Waste Waste collection ✅ Liquid waste control ✅

processin strategy Hazardous waste control
g On-site processing
Waste Daily cover (ADC) ✅ Detailed ADC ✅

disposal Intermediate cover composition
Intermediate cover supply
options
Landfill Byproduct ✅ Disease vector control ✅

Operation management Recordkeeping
Operational plan
Post- Final cover ✅ Closure and post-closure ✅

closure
plans
22
2.1. Waste Quantification
2.1.1. Waste characterization
In order to properly set the disposal site plan, it was necessary to determine the anticipated
volume of the waste to be disposed of on a daily basis. However, before proceeding to
the calculation of the daily waste volume, a thorough research of the data concerned with
waste generation and functioning MSW landfills in Phoenix AMA has been performed.
In 2015, Cascadia Consulting Group performed a waste characterization study in the city
of Phoenix and has determined the waste composition of the MSW generated (Cascadia
Consulting Group, 2015).
Taking into account the operation of seven more MSW landfills in Maricopa county, one
of which, namely the State Route 85 Landfill, receiving approximately 3500 tons of waste
every day, it was decided that the designed landfill is to be receiving approximately one-
tenth of the waste generated in the city of Phoenix (Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, 2016, Phoenix City Hall, n.d.). Additional assumptions include the source
separation at an RMF, which would enable the 60% of the recyclable and 40% of the
compostable waste to be separated from the commingled waste. Table 2.2 illustrated the
waste types and their respective amounts to be landfilled at the designed site.
Table 2.2. Amounts of waste to be disposed of at the designed landfill
Waste
Waste volume
Waste type weight
(m3/yr)
(tons/yr)
Recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal) 2,148 17,602
Compostable waste (paper, plastic, metal,

11,722 28,822
organics)
23
Waste exclusively for landfilling 4,665 11,086
Construction and Demolition waste 2,323 8,548
Total 20,858 66,058
2.1.2. Site Sizing
The waste collection is planned to consist of waste collection in the northern districts of
the city of Phoenix and Maricopa with the following disposal at the landfill. Daily rates
of disposal are estimated to be equal to 100 tons per day, which made it necessary to
design the landfill site to consist of three disposal phases and hence three disposal sites.
Given that the projected landfill lifetime is 15 years, each of the phases will be finished
in five years.
Taking into account the population and thus waste generation rate growth, the total waste
volume to be disposed during each phase was approximated. These values allowed to
determine the disposal site areas with the 25% of the landfill volume being designated for
the cover soils. Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 present the design characteristics of each disposal
site for the landfilling phases:
Number of years 5 (from year 0 to year 5)
Initial waste generation rate 20,858 tons/year
24
Estimated annual waste generation increase 2% (based on population increase)
Final waste generation rate 23,029 tons/year
Total generated waste 62,574 tons
Required site capacity 185,125 m3
Required area 12,342 m2
Estimated annual waste generation increase 1.85%
25
Estimated annual waste generation increase 1.7%
Taking into account the necessary site areas for all three areas, the disposal site was
designed to have three distinct territories with one having dimensions of 116x151 m (at
the ground level) giving an average area of 12350 m2, while the other two having
dimensions of 127x151 m (at the ground level) giving an average area of 13780 m2. The
main rationale behind designing disposal sites with different areas is the inevitable
increase in the amount of municipal waste to be collected in Phoenix and Maricopa. The
increase in the amounts of waste and the overall waste volume to be disposed of in each
of three phases were forecasted in accordance with general waste generation and
population growth rates for the cities of Phoenix and Maricopa. The CAD schematization
of the waste disposal site (front view) with the liner and final cap (Figures A.1, A.2, and
A.3) are presented in the Appendix.
26
As it may be observed from the disposal site schemes, all of the three phases are designed
to be 15 m in height with 9 m being underground. A slope of 3:1 was chosen in order to
provide slope stabilization as the conventional slopes for MSW landfills range from 2:1
to 4:1 slopes (US EPA, 1995).
2.2. Site Design
2.2.1. Landfill Liner
The landfill liners of the three separate disposal sites are to be composed of the following
materials:
● Protection gravel layer

● Sand filter
● Gravel for leachate to percolate to geopipes
● Drain pipes - Perforated geopipes (PVC or HDPE)
● Solmax LLDPE semicrystalline thermoplastic geomembrane
● Claymax BES GCL
● Protective gravel layer
● Sand filter
● Subgrade of sandy loam
● Structural fill of gravel loamy sand
● Natural clay layer
The bottom of the waste cell is going to consist of a 50 cm-thick protection layer of gravel,
which is going to protect the bottom liner elements (geomembranes and geotextiles in the
geosynthetic clay liner) from stress damage. Beneath the protective layer, a sand filter
layer, as a part of the leachate collection system, will be installed for the purposes of
27
preventing the clogging of the voids in the leachate collection system. That is, the sand
will hold solid particles that may pass through the gravel layer and therefore prevent the
required percolation of leachate to the leachate collection system.
According to the US EPA requirements, the proposed landfill’s leachate has to be

constructed of two more elements - gravel through which the leachate is to percolate and
leachate collecting pipes (Bonaparte, Daniel and Koerner, 2002, Tolaymat and Krause,
2020). Due to the convention, perforated HDPE or PVC pipes with a diameter of 300 mm
are to be installed. Plastic pipes were prioritized because of the risk of galvanic corrosion
occurring in case metallic pipes get in contact with acidic leachate and metal particles
present in soil (Van Zyl, 2014). Out of the pipes available on the US market, the
RD300X6PEP/1 pipes were chosen for the design (Polypipe, 2021). The selected pipes
are 300 mm in diameter, 6 m in length and are made of HDPE (Polypipe, 2021). Given
that the designed landfill is considered as a small sanitary facility, it was decided to install
four perforated plastic pipes along the longer sides of the phases. The pipes were installed
into the sumps in order to provide higher volumes of leachate collection.
Leachate that is not going to be collected by the perforated pipes must be prevented from
entering the groundwater. Therefore, an impermeable flexible geomembrane has to be
installed beneath the leachate collection system. A linear low density polyethylene
(LLDPE) semicrystalline thermoplastic was chosen as a desired material for the flexible
geomembrane for its decent chemical resistance and high friction surfaces
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). Moreover, LLDPE semicrystalline
thermoplastic is known for the fact that no cracks are developed on its surface when stress
is applied (Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). These geomembranes are to be
bonded using thermal extrusion methods, which are particularly beneficial for LLDPE
membranes (Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). A Solmax LLDPE liner with a
thickness of 3 mm was selected for the landfill design (Solmax, 2021).
28
Below the flexible membrane, the geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) is installed. For the
purposes of the design, a bentonite GCL with the thickness of 7.62 mm was chosen as it
may provide the “self-heal” property to the landfill liner. To be more specific, the
bentonite, which is bonded to a geomembrane or to two sheets of geotextile, has a
property of swelling in case it is in contact with liquid (US EPA, 2001). This is due to the
fact that bentonite is a clay that is granular and highly adsorbent since it is generated from
the volcanic ash, which makes it extremely efficient in lining applications as it both
prevents the leachate from percolating and repairs the cracks that may appear in its
structure due to stress (US EPA, 2001). A commonly used Claymax 200R bentonite GCL
was selected for the liner design since its above-mentioned properties are enhanced due
to the water-soluble adhesive that is added to the sodium bentonite and due to the fact that
the geotextiles (the upper and lower ones) are stitchbonded to this mix of bentonite (US
EPA, 2001). The thickness of 7.62 mm was chosen since it is the maximum thickness
available for GCLs, which typically range in thickness from 5.08 mm to 7.62 mm (US
EPA, 2001).
Layers of protective soil and sand filter are installed underneath the GCL, which are then
followed by the same flexible membrane as a secondary impermeable layer. Thereby,
greater safety against toxic leachate reaching the groundwater table is achieved. The
geomembrane is followed by a layer of subgrade, which, due to the soil availability in the
area, is sandy loam. Given that at the depth of 30 meters, there is a layer of natural clay,
it was concluded that there is no need in installing an additional artificial layer of
compacted clay underneath the subgrade layer (Wang, 2002).
2.2.2. Run-on Control System
In order to limit the amount of precipitation percolating through the disposed waste and
thus minimize the amount of generated leachate, it is necessary to design a run-on
29
control system, which will collect and transfer the collected precipitation (and any other
surface water that may enter the disposal site) to the local drainage network (US EPA,
1993, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., 2016).
According to the US EPA guidelines, a run-on control system has to be designed in

accordance with a 24-hour storm that has a period of recurrence of 25 years (US EPA,
1993). Information on the amount of precipitation resulting from such a storm may
gathered from local meteorological stations. For the purposes of given design, the
stormwater data was obtained from a meteorological station located in the vicinity of
the proposed landfill site (2-3 km to the West of the site) - Maricopa 4 N (Western
Regional Climate Center, 2013).
Currently, the maximum daily precipitation registered at the Maricopa 4 N station

throughout the period of rainfall monitoring between 1960 and 2006 is equal to 6.15 cm
(Western Regional Climate Center, 2013). The second highest daily precipitation
amount was reached on March 11th 2006 and was equal to 4.98 cm (Western Regional
Climate Center, 2013, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US
Department of Commerce, 2022). Taking into account climate change, the maximum
daily precipitation associated with a 24-hour storm with a recurrence of 25 years will be
considered as 8.61 cm since the 140% of the maximum recorded value of 6.15 cm was
determined.
According to the US EPA-designed National Stormwater Calculator, climate change

will seriously affect the amount of precipitation in the following 30 years (National
Stormwater Calculator | US EPA, 2022). The graphs representing the respective effect
for near term projections is given in the Appendix (Figures A.2 and A.3). In dry, hot and
arid regions like the Maricopa city area, where the maximum precipitation is attributed
to the month of July, the monthly rainfall in July will increase by approximately 40% in
the course of 30 years, while the maximum daily precipitation will reach 2.4 inches in
the course of the same period.
30
It is important to note, however, that this value itself is quite overestimated since,
according to the probability distribution function for precipitation amount of over 5.08
cm registered in the period between 1960 and 2013, the overall probability of such
rainfall is approximately zero (Western Regional Climate Center, 2013).
Given that in sanitary landfill facilities with much greater precipitation amount (>12.7
cm) the run-on control system and given that the US EPA requirements dictate the
construction of certain structures around the landfill site, the run-on control system at
the proposed landfill complex is to consist of berms and drainage channels constructed
around the disposal site and excavation zone, with the channels’ connection to the urban
drainage system (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., 2016).
The site geography allows such a measure since, according to the Master Drainage
Study and Plan, the location of the proposed landfill complex is not included in the
areas of Maricopa city that are subject to flooding (HDR One Company, 2010). In fact,
the complex location is approximately 15 kilometres to the north of the closest flood-
risk regions (areas affected by the Local Sacaton Flows and the Santa Cruz Wash), the
offsite flow direction of which is strictly westwards and thus the designed landfill is not
to be affected by a potential 100-year flooding event (HDR One Company, 2010).
2.3. Operational Plan
2.3.1. Waste Processing
The waste pickup is going to consist of the collection of the mixed waste after the
compostable and recyclable portions were separated at the respective facilities.
Additionally, the waste considered as a non-hazardous industrial waste is going to be
collected from the industrial facilities and transported to the landfill complex for
31
disposal. The traffic plan is going to consist of the following steps in order to ensure an
efficient manner of waste processing and disposal:
1. Waste, which is to be received two times a day through a door-to-door pickup, is

to be weighed upon entering the landfill complex for the purposes of:
a. The correction of the revenue rate (i.e. the fee imposed on the
municipalities for waste collection) based on waste amount received
b. Recordkeeping in order to keep track of how much landfill capacity is
available
c. Control of the daily waste disposal amounts in order to prevent an
excessive damage to the landfill infrastructure (roads, equipment and
disposal site structural parts, including the liner system) from exceeding
the designed waste operation loads
2. The non-hazardous industrial waste is to be inspected for radioactivity via
radiation control monitors located at the entrance
3. Waste trucks are to go through the main road to the waste dropoff point
4. Dropped waste is to be inspected for the presence of liquid-containing waste and
household hazardous waste via drommel separation and manual inspection on a
waste conveyor
5. Inspected waste is to be shredded
6. Shredded waste is to be stored at the waste storage facility
7. Waste is to be transported to the dumpsite near the disposal site via tractors
8. Scrapers are to start soil works near the disposal site
9. One waste cell is to be filled with waste, while another waste cell is to be
covered with soil. Hence tractors and scrapers are not to ride along the same
roads
10. Litter collection from the litter fences
The landfill complex was designed in such a way that the waste transporting vehicles
could enter the landfill site and unload the waste material at the main operating building
32
of the complex. It is important to note, however, that the vehicles will be weighed on their
way in and out of the landfill site. Once waste is received, it has to go through several
rounds of processing, which will include separation of liquid and hazardous wastes, and
shredding. Given that the US EPA requirements strictly prohibit intentional landfilling of
any amounts of liquid and hazardous waste in MSW landfills, it is compulsory to monitor
the types of wastes entering the complex and preventing the disposal of the wastes that
do not comply with the governmental requirements (US EPA, 1993).
According to the US EPA protocols, the operation plan of the landfill should include the
specific waste management and its retrieval (US EPA, 2012). It was decided that the
identification of the potentially hazardous waste will not be done precisely on the F-, K-
, P- or U-lists because most of the toxic and/or hazardous elements listed there mostly
characteristic to industrial wastes and thus it is logical to assume that such types of
waste like petroleum refinery sludge are unlikely to enter the municipal solid waste
stream (US EPA, 2012). Therefore, the main concern of the designed landfill complex
in term of unauthorized waste management would the retrieval of household hazardous
waste and universal waste, which may be any municipal solid waste that is toxic,
reactive, flammable and/or corrosive (US EPA, 2012). The designed landfill complex
personnel is to pay special attention to the following types of household hazardous
waste (US EPA, 1993; US EPA 2012):
● Common batteries, which contain toxic metals, including mercury, lithium and
cadmium
● Mercury-containg lamps, thermostats, gauges, thermometers and electrical
switches
● Aerosol cans that may be partially filled
● Electronic devices, which also contain toxic heavy metals
The measures for unauthorized waste separation include:
● Manual separation by the waste collecting personnel in the collection trucks
33
● Radiation monitoriting via portal monitors
● On-site Trommel separation
● On-site manual inspection on a waste conveyor
According to the US EPA protocols, the waste collecting staff has to be proficient in the
household hazardous waste separation in the waste collection trucks (US EPA, 1993).
Their main responsibility would be to separate obvious hazardous wastes from the
above-mentioned list: electronic devices (televisions, computers, phones, etc.), aerosol
cans and any other waste on which there is a label indicating toxicity or flammability.
Moreover, they would be trained to immediately separate mercury-containing waste like
bulbs, lamps and gauges since these types of waste are fragile and it is preferable to
separate them before they enter the Trommel separators, where they may crash and their
toxic content may cover the remaining mixed waste.
At the weighing point, the waste trucks with the non-hazardous industrial waste is to be
monitored for radioactivity with SaphyGATE G radiation portal monitors (Bertin
Instruments, n.d.). In case any radioactive waste is detected, it will be retrieved and sent
to a disposal facility for radioactive waste.
Once preliminarily inspected waste is dropped off at the drop-off location at the landfill
complex, it is to go through another manual inspection as it goes through the on-site
waste conveyor. Trained personnel will be occupied by the separation of the above-
mentioned wastes that passed though the first inspection in the collection vehicles due
to mixing with the municipal waste. Then a Trommel separation is to be employed in
order to separate the common batteries from the mixed waste. This method has been
proved to be efficient by research studies (Lau et al., 2005).
Shredding is another important aspect of waste preparation for landfilling operations since
it allows the landfill operators to save the necessary site space and decrease the volume
of daily cover soil (US EPA, 1995). Although shredding may be considered as a
34
complicated procedure and may take place at the landfill complex before the waste is to
be disposed of in a landfill, while the benefits it provides also includes the more uniform
landfill settlement and stabilization (US EPA, 1995). The above-mentioned difficulties of
the shredding process include high capital, operating and maintenance costs of the
shredding equipment, as well as the increased possibility of shredding machine operators
getting dangerous injuries (US EPA, 1995). For the purposes of the designed landfill,
Coparm TR150 Shredder was chosen as the shredding equipment that may be installed in
the main building corpus at the landfill complex (Shredder series TR150, 2021). The
inclusion of shredding into the waste processing operations of the proposed landfill
complex are still discussed since the nuances of shredder installation and operation have
to be analyzed in detail.
2.3.2. Waste Disposal
2.3.2.1. Equipment
Landfill equipment necessary for waste disposal performs either of two functions (US
EPA, 1995):
1. Waste movement and compaction

2. Earth cover transport and compaction
Additionally, equipment for supporting these two functions may be used at the disposal
site. While these functions have to be performed at all sanitary landfills, the type of the
equipment that has to be employed differs from one landfill to another depending on the
site size. Given that the designed MSW landfill is planned to dispose of 100 tons of waste
per day and thus falls under the category of small landfill, the following equipment, each
35
weighing in the range from 13608 to 27216 kg, will be used for waste disposal operations
(US EPA, 1995):
1. Caterpillar waste handling tractor D6R

2. Caterpillar 615 Scraper
3. Caterpillar MAC7 Water Truck
4. Coparm TR150 Shredder
A tractor or a dozer could have been selected for the waste handling operations on the
disposal site that is to receive 50 to 150 tons of municipal solid waste every day (US EPA,
1995). However, given that the landfill tractor can also be used as a waste compactor, the
Caterpillar waste handling tractor D6R was selected for waste handling operations on site
(US EPA, 1995). The operating weight of the selected tractor is 20600 kg, which complies
with the requirements (Kelly Tractor, 2021). According to the US EPA specifications, a
landfill tractor has to provide at least a compaction density of 593.3 kilograms per cubic
meter (US EPA, 1995). The waste handling tractor also has to employ a front-end loader,
a bullclaim and a trash blade in order to perform the necessary landfill operations (US
EPA, 1995). Although the necessary number of passes that is necessary to provide the
above-mentioned compaction density is heavily dependent on various factors, including
the pressure that the machine wheels can provide, waste characteristics and waste layer
thickness, the optimum compaction density is conventionally reached after three to five
machine masses. While additional passes may provide greater compaction density, it is
not advised to have more than six machine passes due to its economic inefficiency (US
EPA, 1995). Therefore, it is planned that a waste handling tractor due to its versatility in
terms of the functions it can perform will be used for earthmoving, waste handling and
compaction, road construction, site preparation and maintenance operations.
Similarly, according to the US EPA specifications, a landfill that is to receive a waste

amounts ranging from 50 to 150 tons per day can exploit either of two machines for
excavation and soil transportation operations - a scraper or a dragline (US EPA, 1995).
36
Although draglines are quite efficient for earthmoving operations, they are not fully
functional in the context of transporting soil materials (US EPA, 1995). Thus, it was
decided to employ a Caterpillar 615 scraper, weighing 23400kg, for the designed landfill
site (CEG, 2021).
Lastly, it is important to note that the US EPA requirements make it necessary for the
disposal site to have ready access to water that can be used for the purposes of dust control
and sanitary facilities for the employees (US EPA, 1995). Out of the equipment available
at the US market, Caterpillar MAC7 water truck with the capacity of 27000 L was chosen
for the designed landfill site’s purposes (MEGA Corp, 2021).
2.3.2.2. Cells for daily waste disposal
The objective of any landfill operator is to maximize the capacity of the disposal site in
order to be able to receive as much waste as possible. This is often achieved through the
minimization of the daily cover to the disposed waste ratio (Panagiotakopoulos and
Dokas, 2001, Milke, 1997). Although this may imply that the amount of soil used for
daily covering has to be reduced as much as possible, the governmental guidelines and
more efficient techniques for ratio minimization prevent the landfill operators from
uncontrolled daily cover reduction.
One such technique was proposed by Panagiotakopoulos and Dokas (2001) and required
the landfill operator to first determine such parameters as the compacted waste density
(d) and the weight of the waste received on the daily basis (T). In the context of the
proposed landfill complex, the latter of the two is equal to 100 tons of waste per day. In
order to calculate the former, the density fractions were first determined and then
summed up. Thus, the following formula was employed, as well as the typical average
37
compacted waste densities and the results of waste quantification performed in
Maricopa in 2015 (Cascadia Consulting Group, 2015, WRAP, 2009, US EPA, 2016):
𝑉𝑖
𝑑=∑ × 𝑑𝑖
𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒
This compacted density, which is equal to 0.620 tonnes/m3, is in compliance with the
US EPA requirement of waste compaction to reach a density of at least 0.593 tonnes/m3.
The following formulas are recommended for use in order to determine the necessary
dimensions of the daily cell to maximize the disposal site’s capacity (Panagiotakopoulos
and Dokas, 2001, Milke, 1997):
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 = 𝑇/𝑑 = ℎ × 𝐿 × 𝑀
𝑉𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤1 𝑤2 𝑤3
= + +
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 ℎ 𝑀 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙 𝐿 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙
This ratio can then be validated via theoretical formula for the ratio’s variance with the
weight of the waste disposed on a daily basis (Panagiotakopoulos and Dokas, 2001):
𝑉𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
( ) = 53.31 × 𝑇 −0.181
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛
In order to minimize the daily cover to the disposed waste ratio, it is recommended to
set the sloping angles to be equal and as high as possible. It is necessary to mention the
fact that an efficient daily cell is essentially a parallelepiped that is tilted from one
corner (Panagiotakopoulos and Dokas, 2001, Milke, 1997). For the purposes of the
proposed landfill complex, the sloping angles of 20° were selected, which is a value
conventional for landfill facilities and which is convenient for the proposed site since
the slope of the excavation is 18.5°, which makes it easier to apply the first cells of the
waste material (Panagiotakopoulos and Dokas, 2001, Milke, 1997). It is important to
38
note that the thickness of the daily cover to be applied to the disposed waste has to be
higher than 15.25 cm, according to the US EPA guidelines (US EPA, 1993). There are
three types of daily cover thicknesses, which all have to comply with the above-
mentioned guideline: cell top cover soil thickness (w1), cell side cover soil thickness
(w2) and working face cover soil thickness (w3). According to Panagiotakopoulos and
Dokas (2001), w1 has to be in the range of 0.15 to 0.7 metres, while w2 and w3 have to
be higher than 15 cm and lower than 30 cm. For the purposes of the proposed landfill
complex, w1 was chosen to be equal to 0.3 m, while w2 and w3 were set to 0.2 m. Since
the height of the daily cell has to be as high as possible in order to achieve the landfill
capacity maximization, the optimum height (hopt) of the cell was chosen to be 3 metres
in accordance with the recommendations of Panagiotakopoulos and Dokas (2001).
According to Panagiotakopoulos and Dokas (2001), the working face length (M), which
is essentially the daily cell width, has to be equal to or less than 30 metres, while, for
landfill sites with T of 100 tonnes per day and d of 0.5 tonnes/m3, M is equal to 9.4 m.
Given that d for the proposed landfil complex is slightly higher than that, M was set to
be equal to 10 m. The following calculations were then performed:
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 = 𝑇/𝑑 = 100/0.620 = 161.3 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 = 161.3 = ℎ × 𝐿 × 𝑀 = 3 × 𝐿 × 10
𝐿 = 161.3/30 = 5.40 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑉𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤1 𝑤2 𝑤3 0.3 0.2 0.2

= + + = + +
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 ℎ 𝑀 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙 𝐿 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙 3 10 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛20 5.40 × 𝑠𝑖𝑛20
= 0.267 = 26.7%
𝑉𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
( ) = 53.31 × 𝑇 −0.181 = 53.31 × 100−0.181 = 23.16%
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛
Therefore, the determined ratio of daily cover volume to waste volume is quite close to
the theoretically anticipated value. The values of the necessary parameters were either
39
set according to research recommendations or through the calculations via the above-
presented formulas. They are presented in Table 2.4:
Table 2.6: Daily cell parameters
Parameter Parameter name Value Unit
Waste received on
T 100 tonnes
a daily basis
Average compacted
d waste density of the 0.620 tonnes/m3
disposed waste
Volume of the
Vr waste disposed on a 161.3 m3
daily basis
Angle at which the

𝝋2 daily cell slopes 20 degrees
along its length
Angle at which the

𝝋3 daily cell slopes 20 degrees
along its width
Cell top cover soil

w1 0.30 meters
thickness
Cell side cover soil

w2 0.20 meters
thickness
Working face cover

w3 0.20 meters
soil thickness
Optimum cell
hopt 3 meters
height
Working face
M 10 meters
length
L Daily cell length 5.40 meters
Vsoil/Vwaste Daily cover to the 26.7 %
40
disposed waste
ratio
The CAD drawings of the daily cells are presented in the Appendix.
2.3.2.3. Daily cover
Owners or operators are required to cover disposed solid waste at the end of each
operating day, or more frequently if necessary, with six inches (15.24 cm) of earthen
material (US EPA, 1995). An application of daily covers is required to prevent the
undesired transfer of landfilled waste by wind and birds, as well as to prevent the vectors
from reaching around the disposal site (US EPA, 1993). According to the US EPA
specifications, loamy soils free of gravels, including the sandy loams that are abundant in
the designed site territory, are particularly efficient for daily cover functions since they
are not as sticky as clayey soils and are not susceptible to wind erosion as sands (US EPA,
1995). For the purposes of complying with the US EPA requirements that make
revegetation of the area possible, it will be controlled that there is enough soil material
over the bedrock after the necessary amounts of sandy loam are excavated (US EPA,
1993, US EPA, 1995).
It is quite recommended to use alternative daily covers (ADCs) as long as their use is
approved by the responsible governmental figure, which must confirm that the proposed
plan of ADC use will prevent the spread of disease vectors in the area, fire risks, odor
spread and waste blowing off by wind, which all impose human health risks for landfill
operators and local population (US EPA, 1993).
The US EPA-approved waste-based ADCs include ash coming from waste combustion
facilities, auto shredder fluff, construction and demolition (C&D) waste fines, compost,
sludge-based matter, grit coming from wastewater treatment plants and discarded carpets
(US EPA, 1993).
41
In order to define what ADC is most preferable, an analysis of accessible sources in the
cities of Phoenix and Maricopa had to be conducted. It was concluded that there are more
than 20 demolition contractors (Arizona Specialty Demolition, Dickens Quality
Demolition, Chickasaw Demolition, etc.), more than 10 automobile shredding facilities
(American Shredding, Iron Mountain, AAA DocuShred, etc.) and 8 wastewater treatment
plants (91st Avenue WWTP, Tolleson WWTP, etc.) in the vicinity of the proposed
landfill location (AMWUA, 2021, Hometown Demolition, 2021, Yelp, 2021). Therefore,
given that there are readily available sources of certain ADCs, it was decided to determine
the compositions of the daily covers by taking into consideration sandy loam’s mixing
with C&D waste fines, auto-shredder fluff and grit from wastewater treatment plants.
The auto-shredder fluff, including the automobile tires, will be mixed with the sandy loam
available at site at a ratio of 1:1 and the mix will be applied as an alternative daily cover,
which does not only allow excavating less soil and thus saving certain operating and
equipment maintenance costs but also provides a more sustainable and economic option
for automobile fluff and tires disposal.
In the case of the C&D waste that can be used as ADC, specifically the waste fines, which
are essentially the soil-like remains of C&D waste can and thus will be used as daily cover
materials. Just as the auto-shredder fluff, the C&D waste fines and grit received from
wastewater treatment plants will be mixed with sandy loam at a ratio of 1:1 before its
usage as ADC.
2.3.2.4. Intermediate cover
According to the US EPA specifications, an intermediate soil cover has to be applied to

the landfill sites, if additional layers of waste are not to be applied for periods of time
longer than 30 days (Bonaparte, Daniel and Koerner, 2002). However, given that the
42
average rate of waste disposal on each of the three phases is 100 tons/day, it is anticipated
that there will be no need for an application of an intermediate cover. That is, the phase
sizes allow waste to be uniformly distributed over the whole area without leaving any
areas of the waste lifts uncovered by another lift for more than 30 days. It is even more
reasonable to prevent the arousal of the necessity to apply such a cover due to the soil
types that are accessible in the landfill site proximity. According to the six boreholes in
the Maricopa Environmental Monitoring Center (MEMS), which is located at a distance
of one kilometer from the landfill complex, the dominant soil types in the region are
loams, gravels and sand. Although the US EPA highly recommends applying loamy soils
as an intermediate cover, these soils only include silty and clay loams, whereas the
dominant loam type in the vicinity of the MEMS is sandy loam (Tolaymat and Krause,
2020). Moreover, given that the precipitation level in Maricopa is not high, it is
anticipated that there will be no long delays due to certain climatic conditions. It is
important to note, however, that in case certain extenuating circumstances occur, the
necessary soil types (i.e. silty and clay loams) will be ordered and transported to the
landfill complex.
2.3.3. Landfill Operation
2.3.3.1 LFG
The Landfill Gas Energy facility was chosen for treatment of gases that will be generated
over the course of landfill lifetime.
43
Figure 2.1. Landfill Gas Generation by time
From Figure 2.1 it is seen that anaerobic phase, which will take the majority of landfill’s
lifetime, will promote methane generation. Carbon dioxide will also be generated in high
concentrations, with both gases accounting to almost 100% of the landfill gas. The
methane is especially dangerous, as its accumulation under the ground may result in
methane explosion. By installing wells and connecting it to the LFG facility, such
explosions can be prevented. Another advantage of the LFG facility is that it acts as a
displacement to non-renewable energy sources. By itself LFG facilities are a replacement
to coal-based power plants and reduce the rate of greenhouse gas generation. Studies
show that in 2009 in China, there was a 25000 tons decrease in CO2 gas due to LFG
facilities. The benefits are not only limited to environmental, but also economical factors.
The LFG facility gives sufficient revenue for landfill owners, as 550 facilities in the US
already generate approximately 12.3 billion kWh. Energy facilities will also give a local
economy boost, as it will create job vacancy and a demand in local goods.
44
The LFG facility is an active system of methane gas control. Gas treatment systems are
usually applied in case there is more than 111,000 tons of waste. Considering that the
designed landfill will generate around 20,000 tons per year, it will easily fit into the
standard py US EPA in five years (US EPA, 1993). The active system is costly; however,
its revenue should outweigh all costs. Odor will also be greatly reduced, as the H2S
formation will be controlled due to the presence of a gas system.
The landfill gas treatment will consist of gas extraction wells and a treatment facility. In
the landfill zone there will be a system of extraction wells installed to move methane and
carbon dioxide to the facility. The facility itself consists of several parts. Firstly, there is
a small flare that will burn excess gases. Another additional method to prevent waste
gases is a filter system. The gas will be connected to a system of electric generators, which
will be connected and controlled by electric paralleling switchgear. This powerhouse later
provides the energy to the substation, which will distribute it to industry.
Hand calculations were done to find COD of main components of waste and compare its
generation during the first 50 years. For COD, research data found that the MSW ratio of
carbohydrates, proteins and lipids is 0.57:0.16:0.19 respectively. Their COD in solid
waste are equal to 1.22, 1.14 and 2.92 respectively. Then, landfill gas generation was
calculated using the following equation:
𝑛 1
𝑀𝑖 −𝑘𝑡
𝑄𝐶𝐻4 = ∑ ∑ 𝑘𝐿0 [ ]𝑒 𝑖𝑗
10
𝑡=1 𝑗=0.1
Results for the first fifty years were calculated and summarized in a cumulative methane
generation graph.
45
Figure 2.2. Methane generation model for first 50 years
After examining LandGEM software, the prediction model was made for the landfill gas
and its behavior from operation until post-closure. The software was user-friendly and
constant values were provided according to the Clean Air Act. This was chosen and due
to low rainfall in Arizona aka less than 25 inches per year (to which Maricopa also fits),
Arid Area constant values were used for methane generation rate and potential methane
generation capacity. The assumption to landfill was that the waste will be transported
after different recycling and sorting processes were done, so that leads to a minimal or
unknown amount of toxic elements. For this Unknown Co-Disposal for NMOC value is
used. Methane content is chosen at a standard value of 50% from the total landfill gas.
46
Figure 2.3. The volume generation predicted by LandGEM ver 3.03
The resultant behavior is shown graphically in Figure X. As can be seen in the graph, the
volume of methane produced can reach up to 1,000,000 cubic meters per year, which is
more than what hand calculations predicted.
The most effective way to make the most of landfill gas is direct use. It is cost effective
as the process is much simpler: compression of raw LFG and its transmission by the
pipelines to the facility.
2.3.3.2 Leachate Generation
2.3.3.2.1 Water Balance Method
The leachate generation calculations were performed in accordance with the Water
Balance Method provided by the EPA guidelines. Parameters that were utilized in the
determination of leachate generation rates were precipitation, infiltration, potential
evapotranspiration, surface water runoff and soil moisture storage. Precipitation refers to
47
the amount of water added to the system. Infiltration is the movement of water that
infiltrates through cover layers. Evapotranspiration is a combined term that represents
both evaporation of water from plants or soil surfaces and transpiration from plants.
Surface runoff is the flow of excess water which does not percolate through the ground
and flows off the landfill area. The soil moisture storage capacity is the amount of water
held in the soil.
The water balance method is based on the concept of free water present in the soil. The
balance is maintained until the field capacity of the soil is reached, which means that some
portion of precipitated water that remains after evapotranspiration will no longer be kept
in the soil.
The critical factors that should be included in the water balance method are as follows:
1) Soil moisture storage
The final cover material can influence the percolation rates through its capacity to store
water. The capacity to store water depends on the soil type, its structure and field capacity.
Some portion of moisture stored in the soil, namely hydroscopic water, is always bound
to the soil particles and therefore is unavailable to transport. The term “available water”
refers to the amount of water between the wilting point and field capacity of the soil. It is
available to evapotranspiration due to the capillary movement. In the water balance
equation, it is necessary to identify the available part of the soil moisture storage to
estimate the evapotranspiration and infiltration rates. The final cover will serve as the
storage for available water. It was assumed that the depth of the root zone or final cover
is 80 cm with available water amount equal to 150 mm per m of soil, which corresponds
to sandy loam. The preliminary soil type was chosen in accordance with the soil
distribution across the U.S..
2) Evapotranspiration
The portion of available water that is evaporated back to the atmosphere depends on the
soil capacity to hold water and vegetation. The climate effect, including factors such as
temperature, humidity, and precipitation, is also one of the major factors affecting the
48
process of evapotranspiration. In case when the moisture stored in the soil is at or below
field capacity, evapotranspiration is considered to be at its maximum rate. The actual
evapotranspiration rates were estimated using the method developed by C. W.
Thornthwaite. This method is considered to be suitable for arid areas such as Arizona
state.
3) Surface water runoff
The amount of precipitation that does not infiltrate through the final cover and is lost to
overland flow is surface runoff. Intensity and duration of the rainfall, soil moisture level,
slope, permeability and infiltration capacity of the cover soil are the factors influencing
the surface runoff. For sandy soils with average slope ranging from 2 to 7%, the runoff
coefficient is taken as 0.10.
The following assumptions were made to simplify the water balance analysis:
1. The final cover thickness is 0.80 m and it is graded with a 2-7% slope over the
most surface area.
2. The construction process is finished within the month, so that percolation that
occurs prior to the placement of final cover is ignored.
3. The closure plans are to use the land for recreational purposes, where excavation
works are prohibited.
4. All groundwater infiltration is prevented.
5. The cover soil is uniform in terms of its hydraulic characteristics.
6. Movement of water is in vertical downward direction since the proportion
between the depth and horizontal extent of disposal area is insignificantly small.
Soil moisture is an important parameter that depends on the depth of root zone and soil
type. Table X illustrates the properties related to soil moisture for different soil types.
According to the geotechnical analysis, the soil type at the Site is sandy loam.
49
Table 2.7. Soil moisture properties for different types of soil
Field capacity, Wilting point, Available water,

Type of soil mm water/ m mm water/ m mm water/ m
soil soil soil
Fine sand 120 20 100
Sandy loam 200 50 150
Silty loam 300 100 200
Clay loam 375 125 250
Clay 450 150 300
The rationale behind the water balance method is to calculate the volume of water
percolating through the layers in the waste cells. The concept is directly associated with
leachate generation since percolation rate estimates the amount of leachate considering
potential precipitation and evapotranspiration. The following steps demonstrate the basic
calculation process:
1) Precipitation data: the wettest month from 1991 to 2020 were selected
following the conservative approach for the pond sizing estimations.
2) Potential evapotranspiration: the data was obtained from the Arizona
Meteorological Network (AZMET)
3) Soil moisture storage:
𝑆𝑇 = 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 = 150𝑚𝑚/𝑚 ∗ 0.8𝑚 = 120𝑚𝑚
4) Surface runoff coefficient: CR/O = 0.1 for all months

5) Infiltration:
𝐼 = 𝑃 − 𝑅/𝑂
Where P is precipitation, R/O is surface runoff
50
6) Actual evapotranspiration:
𝐴𝐸𝑇 = 𝑃𝐸𝑇 + ((𝐼 − 𝑃𝐸𝑇) − ∆𝑆𝑇)
Where PET is potential evapotranspiration, I is infiltration, ∆ST is change in soil moisture

storage
7) Percolation:
𝑃𝐸𝑅𝐶 = 𝑃 − 𝑅/𝑂 − ∆𝑆𝑇 − 𝐴𝐸𝑇
Where P is precipitation, R/O is surface runoff, ∆ST is change in soil moisture storage,
AET is actual evapotranspiration.
The results obtained from the water balance method are tabulated in Table 2.3.
Table 2.8. Water balance table for South Maricopa, Arizona
Parameter Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total
Precipitation, in
-> wettest 5 5 5 3 1 2 6 5 5 5 4 4 51
periods: 1991-
2020
Precipitation,
133 118 122 85 33 43 164 135 137 136 92 101 1 300
mm
Potential
Evapotranspirati
on Rates (ETos),
63 80 126 175 244 261 248 224 183 128 74 59 1 864
mm
Potential
Evapotranspirati
on Rates (EToa),
73 90 144 199 268 280 250 225 193 142 84 66 2 013
mm
PET (average),
68 85 135 187 256 271 249 224 188 135 79 63 1 939
mm
Surface Runoff
Coefficient
0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10
(Cr/o)
51
Surface Runoff
13 12 12 9 3 4 16 14 14 14 9 10 130
(R/O), mm
Infiltration (I),
119 106 110 77 30 39 148 122 124 122 83 91 1 170
mm
51 21 -25 -110 -226 -232 -101 -103 -64 -13 4 28 -768

I - PET, mm
Σ NEG (I -
-20 -45 -155 -381 -613 -713 -816 -880 -893
PET), mm
Soil Moisture
Storage (ST),
84 106 85 35 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 33
mm
Change in
Storage (ΔST),
51 21 -21 -50 -29 -5 0 0 0 0 4 28
mm
0 0 -4 -60 -197 -227 -101 -103 -64 -13 0 0

(I - PET) - ΔST
Actual
Evapotranspirati
68 85 131 127 59 44 148 122 124 122 79 63 1 170
on, mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percolation, mm
The main findings that will be subsequently used in the estimation of leachate treatment
method are:
● Annual precipitation is 1300.5 mm/year

● Annual evaporation is 1170.4 mm/year (conservative)
● Surface water run-off is 130 mm/year (conservative)
● Percolation is 0 mm/year
As can be seen from Table 2.3, leachate generation is calculated on a monthly basis
considering the extreme precipitation rates in the last 30 years. It is done to guarantee the
efficiency and safety of leachate treatment measures since actual leachate volumes will
always be less than calculated values. The dry region of Maricopa (AZ) is experiencing
an insignificant percolation rate as was expected.
52
Figure 2.4. Water balance for Maricopa, AZ
2.3.3.3 Leachate Collection System
The general principles of the leachate collection system that are considered in the design
(German Geotechnical Society, 1993):
1. The saturated thickness of leachate over the bottom liner must be less than a
certain threshold.
2. The drainage layer should cover the surface of a landfill's base and up its sloping
bottom dams.
3. The bottom liner must be profiled in order to enable effective drainage to the
drainage pipes. Drainage pipes should have enough longitudinal slope to prevent
sedimentation.
4. A network of perforated drainage pipes should be installed inside the drainage
layer with uninterrupted inclinations toward the leachate collecting spots and
should be capable of being monitored and maintained
5. Gravity drainage should be used to remove leachate from collecting points.
53
6. All materials must be durable enough to resist physical damage as well as resistant
to microbiological and chemical impacts in the landfill environment.
7. The LCS must be able to function in the presence of inevitable incrustation
processes both during and after the landfill's operational period.
8. Inspection and maintenance are required until the system is no longer needed.
9. The LCS should contain a sufficient amount of "backups" in its design to provide
alternative drainage paths to collection spots in case of failure.
2.3.3.4 Leachate Treatment System
2.3.3.4.1 Local Climate Data
The design of the leachate management system is based on the local and regional
climate data sources, which comprises the following weather parameters:
Main parameters: (1) precipitation, (2) temperature, and (3) pan evapotranspiration.
Additional parameters: (4) solar radiation, (5) relative humidity, and (6) wind speed.
1. Precipitation
Table 2.9. Average monthly precipitation in Maricopa, AZ
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average
precipitation, 22.03 11.00 9.63 3.13 1.43 0.43 21.00 20.80 8.90 7.80 13.97 23.30 143.43
mm
Recorded
maximum, 132.59 117.86 122.43 85.34 33.27 43.18 164.34 135.38 137.41 135.89 91.69 101.09 1300.48
mm*
* The highest records within the past 30 years (1991-2020)
54
Figure 2.5.. Average monthly precipitation in Maricopa, AZ
The mean annual rainfall for Maricopa is estimated as 143.43 mm. As can be seen from
Table X, the significant amount of rainfall is attributed to the cooler periods from
November to February. However, the abrupt increase in precipitation rate in July and
August is an exceptional case, which may be associated with tropical cyclones and low
atmospheric pressure systems during these months. The data was obtained from three
weather monitoring stations in the vicinity of Maricopa.
2. Temperature
Table 2.10.. Average monthly temperature in Maricopa, AZ

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average
temperature, 18.59 19.32 24.11 28.57 33.25 40.04 39.33 40.02 37.28 30.67 22.12 16.49
˚C
55
Figure 2.6.. Average monthly temperature in Maricopa, AZ
Average temperature values are following the general trend by reaching the peaks in
summer and the lowest minimums in winter months.
3. Pan Evapotranspiration
Since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration database does not provide
the pan evaporation data, the values were obtained from the scientific papers and
engineering reports. Table X demonstrated the evapotranspiration rates, where ETos is
the standardized evapotranspiration and EToa is the AZMET computed
evapotranspiration. For the water balance method, the average of two evapotranspiration
values were taken.
Table 2.11. Evapotranspiration rates (both standardized and adjusted) for Jan-Jun
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
63.3 72.5 0.87 80.0 89.7 0.89 126.0 143.6 0.88 175.0 199.1 0.88 244.0 267.5 0.91 261.3 280.4 0.93
56
Table 2.12. Evapotranspiration rates (both standardized and adjusted) for Jul-Dec
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
EToa, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
ETos, mm
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
247.6 249.7 0.99 223.6 225.1 0.99 182.8 192.9 0.95 128.1 141.9 0.90 73.6 84.4 0.87 58.9 66.1 0.89
4. Additional parameters
• Average wind speed = 10.686 kph
• Relative humidity
Table 2.13. Average relative humidity for each quarter of year
Quarter First Second Third Fourth

Average relative
39 20.33 31 35
humidity, %
• Solar radiation data was obtained from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. Daily solar radiation values (MJ/m2) for consecutive 5-year period
were utilized for the HELP model.
Due to the relatively low monthly precipitation rates and arid climate in the region,
evaporation pond will be built to regulate generated leachate. The design of leachate pond
is based on the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines to prevent leachate percolation into the
groundwater system. The pond will consist of the following layers:
• 2 mm HDPE Geomembrane
• Second layer of 2 mm HDPE Geomembrane
• 300 mm Engineered subgrade
57
The main function of the evaporation pond is to manage the maximum leachate rates that
can be generated considering the precipitation rates during the wettest periods. According
to the Best Practice Landfill Guidelines, a freeboard with the elevation of 0.5 m should
be included in the design. The pond crest is constructed 0.5 m above the ground level to
prevent surface runoff. To guarantee the safety and prevent unauthorized access, the
leachate pond will be surrounded with fence.
2.3.3.4.2 Leachate Generation Modelling
The volumes of generated leachate were determined by the Hydrologic Evaluation of

Landfill Performance (HELP 4.0) model developed by the US EPA. The operational area
of landfill is 13 hectares, which includes the area for the active generation of leachate.
• Input data
The HELP model requires the following meteorological parameters: precipitation,

temperature, solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity. The data was retrieved
from the different national weather monitoring sources. Other than that, the model
considers the additional weather-related parameters such as start and end of growing
season, maximum leaf area index, and evaporative zone depth. The HELP model manual
suggests the maximum leaf area index of 1.2 for Arizona state, and evaporative zone
depth is selected as 60 cm. For arid climate with absence of snow, growing season
continues throughout the whole year. Therefore, the start of growing season is day 0 of
year, and the end is day 367 of year according to the HELP format.
• Runoff Curve Number
The rainfall-runoff process is simulated based on the curve-number method. The HELP
provides three methods to determine the curve number. In the project, the Method 3,
namely HELP-computed curve number, was selected. This implies entering the landfill
surface slope (33.3%), slope length (36.7m), and vegetative cover (Poor Grass). The
vegetative cover type is selected considering the climatic conditions of the selected
region. As a result, the curve number of 82.2 was computed by the model.
58
2.3.3.4.3 Landfill design
The proposed lining system includes the following layers tabulated in Table 2.14.
Table 2.14. Soil materials and their characteristics
Field Wilting Hydraulic

Thickness Porosity
# Layer (material) capacity point conductivity
(cm) (vol./vol.)
(vol./vol.) (vol./vol.) (cm/s)
Topsoil layer
1 80 0.453 0.19 0.085 7.2E-04
(sandy loam)
Protection layer
2 60 0.397 0.032 0.013 0.3
(Gravel)
3 Filter layer (sand) 60 0.437 0.062 0.024 5.8E-03
Drainage layer
4 60 0.397 0.032 0.013 0.3
(gravel)
Geomembrane Drainage slope 3%, drainage length
5 0.3 4.0E-13
liner (LLDPE) 100m
Top barrier layer
6 0.762 0.75 0.747 0.4 3.0E-09
(bentonite GCL)
7 Compacted waste 1500* 0.671 0.292 0.077 1.0E-03
Protection layer
8 50 0.397 0.032 0.013 0.3
(Gravel)
Drainage blanket
10 50 0.397 0.032 0.013 0.3
layer (gravel)
Drainage net
11 (perforated 30 0.85 0.01 0.005 1.0
geopipes)
12 0.3 4.0E-13
liner (LLDPE) 100m
Barrier layer
13 0.762 0.75 0.747 0.4 3.0E-09
(bentonite GCL)
Protection layer
14 50 0.397 0.032 0.013 0.3
(Gravel)
16 0.3 4.0E-13
liner (LLDPE) 100m
17 Fill (sandy loam) 50 0.453 0.19 0.085 7.2E-04
Bottom barrier
18 layer (compacted 60 0.475 0.378 0.265 1.7E-05
clay)
*For simplicity, several waste layers are combined into one layer
59
Figure 2.7. System of soil layers generated in the HELP model
The model also includes the installation details, which are installation quality, pinhole
density, geomembrane placement quality, and installation defect density.
Table 2.15. Geomembrane installation properties for different conditions
Installation Quality Defect Density (number per acre) Frequency (%)
Excellent Up to 1 10
Good 1 to 4 40
Fair 4 to 10 40
Poor 10 to 20 10
The assumptions for geomembrane installation quality are as follows:
60
• Geomembrane pinhole density – 1 per acre (2.47 per hectare)
• Geomembrane installation defects – 10 per acre (24.71 per hectare)
• Geomembrane placement quality – good field placement, which assumes that soil
surface is smooth and well-prepared, the contact between the geomembrane and
soil is good
2.3.3.4.3 Results
The main assumption that is made by the HELP model is that gravity assisted Darcian
flow is formed through homogenous soil and waste layers. Furthermore, preferential flow
through channels, cracks, and root holes are not taken into account in the leachate design.
Leakages are occurring through holes formed in the liner. Aging of the liner is also
excluded from the analysis, which implies that number and size of holes are constant
throughout the time.
Table 2.16. Leachate generated in the period of observation (Years 1-3)

Average leachate parameters
Period
Leachate depth, mm Volume, m3
Year 1 (monthly) 7.45 969
Average Annual for Years 1-3 30.9 4020
The following assumptions were made in the design of leachate pond:
1) The freeboard of 0.5m is used in the design to calculate the available operational
volume of the pond.
2) No surface run-off is considered in the design since the pond surface will be
constructed above the ground surface.
3) No leachate recirculation occurs at the site, the leachate is extracted and treated
entirely in the pond.
61
4) The actual evaporation rate is 80% of the potential evaporation rate.
The volume of leachate pond is calculated based on the total annual volume of leachate.
The factor of safety of 2.67 is considered in the design. The design properties are tabulated
below.
Table 2.17. Characteristics of leachate pond
Length, m 80
Width at surface, m 56
Width at bottom, m 47
Height (including freeboard), m 1.5
Height (without freeboard), m 1.0
Catchment Area, m2 4240
Total Volume, m3 6180
Maximum Evaporation Area, m2 3392
Operational Volume, m3 4020
The detailed schematics of the leachate pond can be found in Appendices section.
2.3.3.4.4 Operational Management and Monitoring
The removal of excess leachate through leachate recirculation is the solution in case of
overflooding. Recirculation is achieved by circulating the portion of leachate from
leachate pond back to waste cells. There are several benefits of leachate recirculation such
as increased landfill gas generation, increased settlement of waste, enhanced waste
degradation and landfill stabilization processes. Despite the advantages of recirculation,
the design of leachate pond is conservative in a way that leachate recirculation rate is 0%.
This implies that the size of leachate pond is designed considering the total amount of
potentially generated leachate.
62
Moreover, it is necessary to regularly maintain and monitor the leachate collection
system. The leachate quality should be within the compliance limits proposed by the US
EPA. The facility should meet the licensing requirements that are stated in the Site’s
Operational and Environmental Management Plan.
2.3.3.4. Litter Control
As a part of the landfill operation plan, it is important to ensure that the local areas are
not polluted by the soil/mud and litter attached to the vehicles leaving the landfill area
(NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016). The primary conditions of litter leaving
the landfill area include the separation of litter from the main waste mass during waste
processing, transportation and disposal, its attachment to wheels of vehicles leaving the
landfill complex and its transfer to local municipalities by wind or vehicles (NSW
Environment Protection Authority, 2016). Therefore, three measures are to be employed:
1. Litter fences are to be located along the roads, dumpsite, and the disposal site in
order to ensure that the litter does not leave the landfill complex via wind
2. The wheels of the vehicles leaving the landfill complex are to be washed on-site
in order to ensure that the litter and mud attached to their vehicles does not
contaminate local municipalities
3. Daily litter collection from these nets and vehicle wheel wash-off
It is important to note that the litter fences are going to be located in the north-west, north
and north-east sides of the working sited of the disposal areas and roads through which
the waste and soil are to be transported. The primary reason for this is the fact that,
according to the research studies on the wind patterns in the University of Arizona campus
located at a distance of 1 km from the landfill complex, the predominant wind directions
during the daylight period are south-east, south and south-west (Brown, Machibya and
Russell, 1995).
63
2.3.3.5. Dust Control
Similarly, the control of the dust generated at the landfill complex and monitoring of the
air quality has to be included into the landfill operation plan (NSW Environment
Protection Authority, 2016). The primary sources of dust generation and consequent air
quality deterioration are the soil excavation works, on-site traffic and wind (NSW
Environment Protection Authority, 2016). Therefore, in order to minimise the dust
emissions coming from the landfil sitel, the following measures will be employed:
● The area of exposed soils will be minimized and revegetated

● Gravel roads will be constructed and occupy 2500 m2 of the landfill complex
● The waste disposal personnel will be advised to redure the waste drop heights
● Water will be sprayed near soil excavation areas and roads in order to ensure the
dust suppression and minimise the amount of dust generated by traffic
● On windy days, the soil excavation works will be done only after wind barriers
are installed nearby
● Speed limits will be imposed in order to reduce the amount of traffic-related dust
● The transported soil and waste loads will be covered during their movement on-
site
● Wheels of the vehicles leaving the landfill complex will be washed and hence
mud, litter and dust will be prevented from polluting the neighboring
municipalities
● Wind barriers will be installed near areas with eroded soils in order to ensure that
the wind does not contribute to the further erosion of the area
As it was already mentioned, the main wind directions in the region are the south, soth-
east and south-west (Brown, Machibya and Russell, 1995). Hence, the wind barriers are
to be located from these sides of the working areas of the disposal and excavation sites.
As a part of the operational plan, particulate matter monitoring is recommended for

implementation dust deposition gauges, high-volume air samplers, beta attenuation
64
monitors, or tapered element oscillating microbalance. Moreover, for the cases of PM2.5
and PM10 concentrations exceeding the US EPA-imposed maximum allowable daily
values of 35 and 150 μg/m3, it is recommended to include dust separation equipment use
into the landfill operation plan to decrease the particulate matter concentrations to the
allowable limits (Clean Air Act).
2.3.3.6. Disease Vector Control
According to the US EPA guidelines, it is necessary to prevent and control on-site

populations of disease vectors, which include various species of rodents, insects and any
other types of animals that transmit diseases related to unsanitary conditions (US EPA,
1993). It is important to note that the operations dedicated to disease vector control have
to comply with regulations on environmental and human health protection.
Given that these vectors are usually attracted by the organic matter-containing wastes, the
proposed landfill complex is at the risk of these organisms’ prevalence. However, the
preventive measures begin from the waste collection stage of landfill operation. To be
more precise, 40% of organic waste that can be composted is separated an MRF, thereby
preventing the excessive amount of putrescent waste such as food waste from entering
the complex.
Although this preventive measure, as well as the fact that the operational plan of the
landfill includes the cleaning of waste-transporting vehicles and covering the waste
transported to and in the complex, may seem efficient enough for a small sanitary facility,
the amount of organic waste that is not eventually composted is significant enough to
employ additional measures apart from proper daily covering procedures. According to
the waste analysis in Maricopa, this waste is approximately equal to 120 000 tons per
year. Although one of the recommendations of the US EPA is the reduction of the working
face at the disposal site, given that the facility is to receive only 100 tons of waste per
65
day, the working face is considered as small enough and thus its reduction is unnecessary
(US EPA, 1993). Hence, it was decided that the landfill complex is to employ disease
vector repellents such as insecticides, rodenticides and visual bird deterrents. This
decision is thought necessary specifically in the context of the leachate management
system employed on-site - leachate pond. Given that this open water may present an
attractive site for mosquitoes in their reproductive seasons, the control of their population
via on-site insecticide spraying is a measure that will satisfy the demands of disease vector
control (US EPA, 1993).
While many commercially available rodenticides and insecticides can be employed, it

may become important to focus on the visual bird deterrent to be used on-site. While the
implementation of this measure is not necessary at the first stages of the landfill operation,
the development of landfill phases, which will lead to the enormous quantities of waste
that can attract birds, may require the deterrence of birds from entering the landfill
complex in the future. Laser tower is a technique that is used to deter birds near airports
and industrial sites by scanning the area with laser beams or dots that are perceived by
birds as predators (Beniusis, 2018). As a result, the birds flee the zone (Beniusis, 2018).
For the purposes of the proposed landfill complex, it is recommended to use the
autonomic bird repellent AVIX Autonomic Mark II. The primary reasons include its high
efficiency (70%), ability to operate non-stop and commercial availability as there are
offices located in the USA (Bird Control Group, 2022).
2.3.3.7. Subterranean Fire Control
Subterranean fire is the fire that ignites within the landfilled waste masses and that is
particularly dangerous because of its polluting effect due to the hazardous decomposition-
related gases, excessively complicated extinguishing and detrimental effect on the
disposal site’s structural elements (NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016).
66
Therefore, it is particularly important to prevent its ignition at the designed landfill
complex. For this purposes, the following prevention measures will be employed on-site:
● A firewall will be installed at the disposal site in order to stop the subterranean
fire if it occurs
● The waste will be inspected for the signs of ignition in the process of waste
disposal
● The disposal site will be daily inspected for the presence of the smell of smoke,
presence of carbon monoxide and landfill collapse signs
2.3.3.8. Recordkeeping
Recordkeeping is an essential component of a plan for monitoring the landfill complex

performance. Proper recordkeeping and record analysis allows the landfill operator to
prevent failure of the equipment due to excessive exploitation, overuse of resources
necessary for landfill operation and any other undesirable event during landfill operation
(NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016). The following records have to be
collected on a daily basis:
● Amount of waste received through weighing the waste trucks on their entrance
and exit
● Presence of radioactive, toxic and/or household hazardous waste in the mixed
waste stream
● Amount of unauthorized waste shipped to appropriate disposal facilities
● Amount of waste disposed of at the landfill complex
● Amount of soil used for daily covering purposes
● Air quality monitoring data (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations)
● Amount of LFG generated through the pipe flow records
● Leachate pumping records
● Groundwater monitoring data
67
All the records related to the waste received has to contain the date, waste source, waste
truck that collected the waste and the inspection results (e.g. shipping to another disposal
site, further waste inspection) (US EPA, 1993). The records on soil use for daily covering
purposes is important in terms of preventing the soil overuse and excessive exploitation
of excavation, transport and compacting equipment (US EPA, 1993). Waste
decomposition by-products’ generation rates, including those of LFG and leachate, have
also to be recorded in order to properly mitigate the harmful effects of over-generation.
According to the NSW EPA, the leachate and LFG generation data is better to be obtained
from pipe flow or pumping rates (NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016). This
data is of utmost importance since it allows the assessment of various components of the
disposal facilities (e.g. final cap as a measure to prevent precipitation infiltration, waste
decomposition rates, pump wearing with time) and ensuring that the design characteristics
are valid (e.g. validation and, if necessary, correction of the leachate-related water balance
equation) (NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016).
2.3.3.9. Groundwater Monitoring
Since the proposed landfill complex is designed for the disposal of 100 tonnes of MSW
per day, the US EPA requires the landfill operator to perform groundwater monitoring
operations as only the facilities that dispose of up to 20 tonnes per day are exempted from
this requirement (US EPA, 2016). For this purposes, however, it is necessary to knoe the
groundwater level and flow direction in the area since this will be important for
groundwater monitoring well installation.
According to the data from the USGS wells, the distance from the ground surface to the
nearest aquifer is 16 m at the D-03-02 well, which is located 10 km to the west of the
designed landfill site, while the distance from the ground surface to the nearest aquifer is
115 m at D-03-09 well located 60 km to the east of the designed landfill site (USGS,
68
1997, USGS 2012). Using extrapolation, it was determined that the approximate distance
between the ground surface and groundwater surface in the nearest aquifer is equal to 30
m.
It is important to note that the groundwater depth measurements were taken 25 and 10
years ago for the D-03-02 and D-03-09 wells, respectively (USGS, 1997, USGS 2012).
Given that the water supply for the Phoenix Metropolitan Area is mainly derived from
groundwater pumping, it is reasonable to assume that the real distances between the
groundwater and ground surfaces are even greater due to aquifer reserves’ decrease with
time and human expenditure (Wang, 2002).
According to the data from the USGS wells, the groundwater level above the vertical
datums of NAVD88 and NGVD29 is about 316 and 372 m for the D-03-02 and D-03-09
wells, respectively (USGS, 1997, USGS 2012). The highlights the fact that, given these
groundwater levels, the groundwater flow’s direction in the region is from the East to the
West.
Thus, the up-gradient wells responsible for the determination of the background
groundwater content will be located to the East of the landfill complex, while the down-
gradient wells responsible for the determination of possible impacts of the landfill
operations on the groundwater content will be located to the West of the site (US EPA,
2016). Given that the proposed landfill complex is a small sanitary facility, a total of 6
groundwater monitoring wells (1 up-gradient, 3 down-gradient and 2 side wells) will be
installed for the purposes of the landfill operation. Taking into account the site-specific
hydraulic conductivity of the groundwater flowing soil, which is equal to 2.72E-3 cm/s
(8.92E-5 ft/s), the minimum spacing distance between the wells was determined (Wang,
2002). The formula provided by the USGS for the spacing determination for areally
extensive aquifers was used (Lang, 1962):
√𝑢1 𝑢2
𝑟 = 𝐾𝑠 𝑟𝑤
69
According to the US EPA provided guidance on groundwater monitoring well
installation, wells with diameter ranging from 1 to 4 inches are preferred (Striggow,
2018). Moreover, the same guidance emphasizes the benefits of groundwater monitoring
wells with a diameter of 2 inches, which would overall require a 6 inch-wide drilled well
(Striggow, 2018). Hence, for the purposes of the proposed landfill complex six
groundwater monitoring wells with diameters equal to 2 inches were selected. The radius
of the wells are then equal to 1 inch or 0.0833 feet. According to the USGS, the u values
should be equal to or less than 0.02, which was taken as a limiting value for the given
design (Lang, 1962). The above-presented formula then becomes:
√0.02×0.02
𝑟 = = 2691.66 𝑓𝑡 = 820.42 𝑚
8.92×10−5 ×0.0833
Thus, the groundwater quality will be checked for any impact from the landfill complex
operation through 6 groundwater monitoring wells spaced at a maximum distance of 820
meters from one another. They are to be installed at a depth of 35-40 meters at the
following locations:
Figure 2.10. Groundwater monitoring wells’ location on-site
70
The sampling of the groundwater as a part of the detection monitoring procedures is to be
performed four times a year on the first day of a new season (January 1st, March 1st, June
1st and September 1st). This sampling frequency complies with the US EPA regulation
that necessitates at least semi-annual groundwater sampling for the purposes of detection
monitoring (US EPA, 2016). The sampled groundwater is to be analyzed for the presence
of the 62 hazardous organic and inorganic contaminants such as arsenic and cadmium
mentioned in the US EPA guidelines for groundwater detection monitoring (US EPA,
2022). In case the concentration of any of these contaminants significantly exceeds the
background level, the landfill operator will have to either show that this event is not a
result of the landfill operation (i.e. to show that this rise in the contaminant concentration
is related to a sampling and/or analysis mistake, natural concentration fluctuation or to
the emissions from another source such as an industrial facility in the vicinity of the
landfill site) or to perform an assessment monitoring within 90 days after the detection of
an exceeding contaminant concentration (US EPA, 2016).
As a part of the assessment monitoring procedure, the landfill operator will need to sample
and analyze the groundwater for the presence of any of 214 hazardous organic and/or
inorganic contaminants such chlorobenzene and dibenzofurane listed in the US EPA list
of contaminants for assessment monitoring at the MSW landfills US EPA, 2022). In case
any of these substances exceed the background concentration levels and/or the
groundwater protection standards (GWPS) established by the landfill operator in
accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (SFDA
MCLs) or the site-specific background levels (whichever is higher), the nature of
contaminant emission has to be determined and corrective actions have to be prepared
(US EPA, 2016). If, however, the concentrations of the hazardous substances do not
exceed either the GWPS or the background levels for two consecutive sampling sessions,
which will be undertaken once in three months, thereby complying with the US EPA
requirement of at least semiannual resampling in the course of the assessment monitoring,
the groundwater monitoring procedures are to return to the detection monitoring phase
(US EPA, 2016).
71
The remedial actions within the corrective actions prepared by the operator are to have a
contaminant-specific nature and have to be performed in the course of 3 years after the
assessment monitoring procedures (US EPA, 2016).
These groundwater monitoring procedures have to be continued in the course of the

landfill operations, including the post-closure period (US EPA, 2016).
2.4. Closure Plans
Once each of the three designed phases are filled with the anticipated amount of landfilled
waste, it is necessary to construct a cap over the top of the final lift (Tolaymat and Krause,
2020). Generally, this final cover is designed to consist of a liner system, liquid removal
system, barrier soil layer, drainage layer and a filter system similar to that in the liner
(Tolaymat and Krause, 2020). For the convenience of the design, the same materials that
were used for the liner system will be used for the construction of the final caps. It is
important to note that the US EPA also requires the landfill site to have a final soil cover
over the landfill cap, as well as a vegetation layer in order to protect the upper soil from
erosion (Tolaymat and Krause, 2020, US EPA 1995). Thus, the disposal site cap of the
proposed MSW landfill will consist of the following layers:
● Vegetation layer
● Final soil cover - sandy loam
● Protection soil layer - gravel
● Soil filter - sand
● Gravel drain layer
● Pipes at the edges of the final cap
● Claymax BES GCL
72
When the final lift of waste is covered with soil, a Claymax BES GCL is to be placed on
top of it in order to serve as the final protection layer against precipitation and other
possible liquid intrusion into the waste cells (US EPA 1993, US EPA 1995). For the final
cap design, GCL was chosen for the same reason it was selected for the landfill liner
design - high efficiency and bentonite’s ability to self-repair. On top of the geosynthetic
clay liner, a flexible geomembrane is to be planed, which, in the case of the designed
landfill, will be the Solmax LLDPE semicrystalline thermoplastic geomembrane. It shall
prevent any percolation of liquids to the GCL except at the holes, where its further flow
through the cap will be either prevented or significantly reduced by the GCL layer.
According to the US EPA regulations, a geomembrane and an HDPE geomembrane
installed in the final cap have to be at least 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm in thickness (US EPA,
1993). Thus, the geomembrane-related requirement is satisfied in the design of the final
cap of the proposed landfill complex. The precipitation’s intrusion into the landfill cells
will also be importantly minimized by the installation of the rainwater (and any other
liquid) collection system, which will consist from the same elements the leachate
collection system was constructed. The only difference is the location of the liquid-
collecting pipes. While, for the leachate collection system, they were located almost on
top (20-30 cm higher) of the geomembrane layer, for the rainwater collection system,
these pipes will be located on the edges of the final cap. Thereby, the rainwater that will
percolate through the upper layers of the final cap will move to the collection points by
the impermeable geomembrane surface.
All the upper layers of the final will consist of soil layers with slightly different functions.
The three lower layers perform the same functions as the similar soil layers in the landfill
liner.. That is, the drainage layer, composed of gravel, is necessary for allowing the
rainwater to percolate to the liquid collecting pipes. It is also important to note that the
drainage layer greatly assists in preventing ponding on the surface of the installed LLDPE
semicrystalline thermoplastic geomembrane by draining the water to the above-
mentioned pipes at the landfill toes. A 60 cm-thick sand filter installed above it is
73
necessary for the prevention of the drain layer’s clogging by fine soil particles that may
be transported there with water and hinder the drainage of water to the rainwater
collection pipes. The protection layer is essentially a 60 cm-thick biotic layer, which will
prevent the intrusion of vegetation cover’s root systems and burrowing animals, which
may also be disease vectors, into the deep layers of the final cap. A 80 cm-thick final soil
cover, composed of readily available sandy loam, is the soil layer on which the vegetation
cover will be grown. This vegetation cover is necessary for preventing soil erosion and
assistance in rainwater infiltration reduction. Less rainwater will be percolating through
the final cap’s soil layers due to the plants’ evapotranspiration processes. According to
the US EPA guidelines, for the purposes of soil erosion prevention, it is better to use
vegetation that is adapted to the landfill site region, perennial, able to grow in low-nutrient
soils and drought-resistant, which is even more desirable due to the Arizona climate (US
EPA, 1993). Vegetation cover should also have a shallow root system as a deeper one
may be detrimental to the liner system (US EPA, 1993). Among the locally-adapted
grasses and herbs, the deergrass was chosen as an appropriate plant for usage in the
vegetative cover of a closed disposal site. Deergrass suits the purpose well since it is an
evergreen perennial, Arizona-adapted and extremely drought-resistant grass that does not
require fertilizing, high maintenance and water usage, and any specific soil type (Arizona-
Sonora Desert Museum, n.d., California Native Plant Society, 2010, Town of Payson,
n.d.). Moreover, its flourishing on-site is provided by its preference of full sun exposure,
which is to be provided by the Arizona climate and its growth on an open surface of a
closed disposal site (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, n.d., California Native Plant
Society, 2010, Town of Payson, n.d.). The overall layout of Phase 3 with both the liner
and the final cap is presented in the Appendix (Figures A.1, A.2, and A.3).
The geomembrane and the GCL used in the final cap are the same as the ones used for
the liner, and the vegetation layer, as well as the precipitation collection system, pose a
serious complication for rainwater to permeate the final cap. Thus, it can be said that the
permeability of the final cap is less than that of the liner, which complies with the US
74
EPA regulation that is necessary for preventing the “bathtub effect’ resulting from the
precipitation infiltration and containment in the waste disposal site, thereby stressing the
liner’s structural elements and posing the risk of environmental damage from leachate
release (US EPA, 2016). Moreover, given the practical impermeability of the installed
LLDPE geomembrane, the US EPA requirement necessitating the installation of a final
cap with a hydraulic permeability less or equal to 10-5 cm/sec is also satisfied (US EPA,
1993, US EPA 2016).
As a part of the closure procedure, according to the US EPA guidelines, it is necessary to

determine the largest area of the disposal area that needs the final cap installation and the
largest amount of waste predicted to be disposed of on-site (US EPA 1993, US EPA
2002). For the designed landfill complex, the largest area of the landfill requiring a final
cover is estimated from the sum of the areas of the three disposal phases to which the
vegetation cover is to be applied (18876 m2, 20592 m2, 20592 m2), which is equal to
60060 m2.
The maximum inventory of waste disposed of on-site during the landfill’s active life is
calculated in the same manner and is estimated to be equal to 595000 m3, according waste
generation rates in Maricopa city with the consideration of the population increase rates
of 1.7-2% (Cascadia Consulting Group, 2015).
The final cap for each of the three disposal phases is to be installed a week after the daily
cover for the last waste cell is completed. This is necessary for the natural soil compaction
and consolidation in the first seven days, which is in compliance with the US EPA
requirement that necessitates the installation of the final cover within 30 days after the
waste disposal operation are over (US EPA, 1993, US EPA 2002). Given that the designed
final cap consists of an LLDPE geomembrane and a GCL, which require accurate and
careful installation, the time necessary for their installation is set to be 2 months. Another
month is set into the final cap installation schedule for the purpose of the precipitation
collection system’s installation. The final procedures mainly consist of soil excavation,
75
transfer onto the above-mentioned structural elements of the cap and the vegetation cover
development. Two months in the cap installation schedule are to be attributed to these
final installations. A significant extra time is included in these two months should any
unintended delays occur. Given that the overall final cap installation is to take place in
the period of 5 months or 150 days, the US EPA requirement that makes it necessary to
install the final cover within 180 days after the last waste disposal operation is compiled
at the proposed landfill complex (US EPA 1993, US EPA 2002).
2.5. Post-Closure Plans
As the final cover is completed, the operating process of the landfill isn’t considered as
done yet. Post-closure plan consists of several management decisions and operations that
should be done regularly. It is done to make sure that integrity and effectiveness of several
systems inside landfill is assured:
● Final cover system

● Leachate collection system
● Groundwater monitoring system
● Methane gas monitoring system
The usual period of post-closure is 30 years. This is true for the Maricopa Landfill as well.
Given that the LandGEM model is accurate to the truth and resultant LFG facility working
process, the monitoring system of methane gas might take a longer time period.
Final cover system should be regularly checked, according to the US EPA. Such events
as settlement, subsidence or erosion might lead to damages in final cover, so regular
inspection must be held. The same applied for the leachate collection system, until the
director can prove that it no longer poses a threat to the environment and human health.
For the Maricopa Landfill, a monthly routine inspection should be implemented at the
beginning of the post-closure stage, with the opportunity to make it less frequent in the
76
best possible scenario. Other points of interest for the inspector aside from the ones
mentioned earlier and concrete structures are eroded banks, patches of dead vegetation,
animal burrows, subsidence, and cracks along the cover. Other actions that should be
considered, according to US EPA are as follows:
● Topographic surveys of the landfill unit(s) may be used to determine whether

settlement has occurred. These should be repeated every few years.
● Certain types of vegetative cover (e.g., turf-type grasses) may require mowing at
least two times a year.
● Inspections on leachate system until proven that concentration is low enough to
not affect health of local residents and environment
For Maricopa Landfill inspection on the ground is preferable with photography, notes and
maps taken. For the Maricopa Landfill it was decided to make an annual inspection, with
photos and notes taken during the process. During the inspection, the following features
will be checked:
1. Visible waste, litter, etc.

2. Drainage ditches integrity
3. Roads, gates, fences integrity
4. Groundwater monitoring system
5. Landfill cap
If some damage or disturbance is found during the inspection, maintenance work will be
enabled. This is especially important for the cover. Also, safety protocols followed in the
US are implemented for cases of leachate breakout, fire, severe weather. Security guards
and cameras will be around the perimeter to prevent vandalism and unauthorized disposal.
3. Architectural Design
3.1. Design Statement
77
The MSW landfill site in Maricopa, Arizona declared in this project consists of several
facilities: disposal site with three phases, leachate collection pond, flare/LEG plant with
storage tanks and transformer, monitoring stations, dumpsite, car, and truck parking areas,
entrance and weighbridge, and the main administrative building. The total area of MSW
landfill area is 13.3 ha (Fig. 3.1). The outline of tasks referring to Architectural, Structural
and Materials disciplines (both Capstone I and II) is presented in the table below:
Table 3.1. ASM outline (Capstone I)
Discipline Stage Capstone I Status Capstone II
State and ✅ Profound literature review on the

Site region selection local regulations on design
selection (multi-criteria
approach)
Design and ✅ Life Cycle Cost Analysis Using

estimation of Life-365 Software
Architectural dimensions for
Design all site facilities
part
Concept
Architectural ✅
drawings
Use of sustainable and

LEED environmentally friendly
materials (literature review)
✅ Profound literature review on

Preliminar Structural regulations and codes on design
y Design layout and layout
Structural
part
✅ Profound literature review on
Construction regulations and codes on
Materials construction materials
78
✅ Member size estimations with
Structural strong reasoning
Types
✅ Structural Analysis and Structural

Detailed Design
Load Summary
Design
Table 3.2. ASM outline (Capstone II)
79
Since waste collection consists of municipal solid waste from northern districts of
Phoenix city and Maricopa itself the landfill lifetime is projected to be 15 years, so the
disposal site of the landfill comprises three phases (each will be finished in 5 years), two
having sizes of 19 177 m2, the area of the last is 17 516 m2. The total area of the leachate
collection pond is 1207 m2. The main administrative building is to be considered as an
industrial facility with a large span consisting of two major parts (Fig. 3.2). The first part
is the waste inspection and equipment maintenance area with a total area of 1 908m2 and
a height of 8m. The next part is two-story office rooms with a total area of 180 m2 and
4m height of each floor.
There is the main city road along with the landfill area. Entering the landfill area waste
loaded trucks will be weighted by weighbridges and will move to the main administrative
building. There are car parking areas where workers can leave their cars. Moreover, there
is a truck parking area that is designed for waste collection trucks only.
Overall, the equipment maintenance and waste inspection part of the administrative
building involves a waste dropoff and inspection area where the daily waste amount is to
be dropped by trucks and inspection is to be held via conveyors. Next, they move to the
next part of the building, named storage, where the the waste is to be loaded on trucks
back to transfer the shredded waste to the operating disposal site. Also, there are truck
cleaning, equipment fix, fuel storage, and materials rooms allocated for equipment
maintenance purposes.
The two-story part of the administrative building consists of change rooms, a medical
room, and a shower for workers on the first floor. Besides, there are two office rooms and
a common canteen area for workers on the second floor.
80
Figure 3.1. Layout of the MSW landfill site.
Figure 3.2. 3D model of the main administrative building.
81
Table 3.3. Area values of the landfill site facilities
Facility name Area (m2)
Disposal site #1 19 177
Leachate collection pond 1 207
Administrative building 2 088
Car parking area 1 939
Truck parking area 1 547
Table 3.4. Area values of all rooms and spaces of the main administrative building
Name Area (m2)
The equipment maintenance and waste inspection area
Waste Drop Off and Inspection area 575
Storage area 900
Truck Cleaning Room 127
Equipment Fix Room 102
Fuel Storage Room 102
Equipment and Materials Room 102
Two-Story Office rooms
82
Change Room (First floor) 68.4
Medical Room (First floor) 20.8
Shower (First floor) 27
Office Room #1 (Second floor) 31.35
Office Room #2 (Second floor) 33.55
Canteen (Second floor) 109.2
3.2. Design Requirements

3.2.1. State selection
Initially, according to the project scope and its purposes, it was firmly decided to choose
the USA as the country where the design group aimed to construct a landfill area. As the
particular state, the state of Arizona has been selected. All the reasoning is provided in
Section 1.3.
3.2.2. Site location
Following the multi-criteria selection approach, the Maricopa region was chosen to be
the exact region where the landfill site will be located. All the explanations and
reasoning are provided in Section 1.4.
83
3.2.3. Structural Layout
3.2.3.1. Footprints
Since the main administrative building is an industrial facility it has an unusual design:
the building has two parts with one having a height equal to that of a two-story office part.
The equipment maintenance and waste inspection part of the building provides a space
for daily truck movement and waste dropoff and loading operations. The office rooms
part has a usual design. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 are the plan views of the building.
Figure 3.3. The plan view of the first floor
84
Figure 3.4. The plan view of the second floor.
3.2.3.2. Elevations & Facade
The equipment maintenance and waste inspection area part of the building is quite large
and has a height of 8m. These dimensions are related to the functionality of the building.
Since the mentioned part of the administrative building is to be used for waste dropoff
and loading it should be suitable and convenient for free movement of trucks and for
placing shredding equipment inside with conveyors. As for the office rooms and other
rooms designed for workers’ general use have a standard office building floor height of 4
m. Therefore it was decided to design a two-story building to have the same height (each
of which is 4m) for the whole administrative building. The final elevation views are
shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.6.
85
3.2.3.3. Interior Arrangement
The main administrative building is not a multi-story building; rather it is a two-story

building with a large span. Therefore, it has a large area value of 1 908 m2 which is larger
than the minimum floor area requirement of 1500 m2. As for the interior arrangement
there are 2 operational areas and 4 equipment maintenance rooms. Besides, there are 7
rooms in the two-story office building which are arranged for landfill site workers.
Trucks loaded with wastes are to go to the waste inspection area first and the waste will
be moved to the shredding part via conveyor and truck movement. Therefore, the waste
inspection area and shredding area have an aperture in between with a width of 5m that
is designed for functional purposes. The waste inspection area has 4 doors, three of which
are for truck entrance and one is for entering the office building. The shredding area has
2 doors for trucks to exit and one door for workers. Doors designed for trucks have a
height of 4 m and width of 4 m. This is explained with the standard size of waste loading
truck which is 3-3.5 m. Overall, the waste inspection and shredding part has areas of 575
86
m2 and 900 m2, respectively. The space can maintain flexible movement of 3 trucks that
are involved in daily operation. Besides, the truck cleaning room has an area of 127 m2
and equipment fix, fuel storage, equipment and materials rooms have an area of 102 m2
each. These area values are sufficient for mentioned rooms to serve one truck at a time.
As for the two-story office building part (Fig. 3.7), each floor has an area of 180 m2 which
is decided according to the amount of workers that are employed for daily operation: 10-
15. The first floor consists of a medical room, shower and change room. They are on the
first floor because of regular normatives. There is a door with sizes of 2.5x2.5 (m) and
large windows are chosen for the second floor. The second floor comprises 2 office rooms
and a canteen. There are stairs placed next to the shower room. It takes up a space of
2.3x2.7 (m).
Car parking space has an area of 1939 m2 which is a regular size for around 20 cars of
corresponding number of workers. Truck parking area has a value of 1547 m2 which is
designed for 15-20 trucks for daily landfill operations.
Figure 3.7. The office rooms
87
3.2.3.4. Transportation & Fire Safety
There is a main city road that provides transportation of wastes from waste dropoff places
in the city to the landfill site. Besides, the landfill area has its own internal road network.
Roads are built so that trucks can turn to the landfill site from the main road, pass by the
weighbridge, enter the waste inspection and shredding area and exit it with shredded
waste towards either disposal site to unload the waste or towards the main road to transfer
the hazardous to recovery facilities in the city if hazardous waste is inspected.
The plan for the main administrative building should be carefully planned, since there are
certain rules and regulations provided by ASCE 7-10 that help to maintain fire safety.
There is a certain standard distance between structures and buildings to prevent fire
spread. Because the load-bearing structures of the main administrative building are made
of reinforced concrete and there is no building nearby there are less things to worry about.
However if additional buildings are to be built there should be at least 5-6 m distance.
3.3. Construction Materials
Concrete and steel reinforcement bars are chosen to be the construction materials for main
structural members of the administrative building. Steel and concrete are compared
according to criteria such as structural safety, cost, availability, environmental
sustainability, corrosion and labor cost. Finally, it was decided to use reinforced concrete
to build the main structural members of the building.
3.3.1. Concrete grade
Choosing the right concrete grade is one of the important steps to take toward building
strong and durable structures. Basically, structural concrete must be designed and
constructed according to the requirements of International Building Code (Chapter 19)
and ACI 318. The main factors that distinguish concretes are the strength values and
88
composition. For this project, the durability factor was the most important thus the
concrete grade has been chosen according to durability guidelines provided by ACI (Fig.
3.8).
Figure 3.8. ACI committee guidelines related to concrete durability
Since it was assumed that the structure of the main administrative building can be affected
by corrosion only due to carbonation in the environment and the environment, in the case
of our building, is dry and permanently wet. Also, the structure does not experience the
exposure condition of chloride-induced corrosion. As a result, the chosen grade for
concrete is XC1. The minimum strength class is identified to be C30/37.
3.3.2. Reinforcement grade
Since the reinforcement is to be used, it is crucial to choose the proper reinforcement

grade for the structural members. According to ACI 318 Building Code and Commentary
89
for normal weight concrete Grade 60 reinforcement should be chosen. Besides, yield
strength of the reinforcement should be other than 60,000 psi. So, for the preliminary
design, it was decided to select 500 MPa yielding strength of rebars. Moreover, according
to member size estimation rules, the minimum reinforcement ratio was chosen to be 1%.
However, the final value may vary up to 4% taking all possible loads into an account.
3.3.3. Non-structural materials
Apart from the structural materials of the main structural members, there are non-
structural materials that consist of floor finishing, ceiling, roof and wall finishing layers.
Floor finishing and ceiling non-structural materials are different for ground floor (Fig.
3.9), first floor, and the second floor (Fig. 3.10). Moreover, external wall composition
(Fig. 3.11) and internal wall composition (Fig. 3.12) are also considered. All required and
necessary materials chosen according to International Building Code.
Figure 3.9. Floor finishing (ground floor) Figure 3.10. Floor finishing (1st, 2nd floors)
90
Figure 3.11. External wall composition Figure 3.12. Internal wall composition
3.3.4. PEB structure for the industrial part.
Since the industrial part of the main administrative building had certain structural issues
with roofing it was decided to change primary structural frame of industry facility site
from reinforced concrete building to pre-engineered building structure (PEB) with
columns, rafters and purlins made of steel.
PEB structure is often used for one-or two-story building with a large floor area (e.g.,
warehouses, factories, hangars, etc.). All steel members are manufactured in special
factories following design data and brought to the construction site to be assembled and
built using special anchorage.
Product categories by PEB manufacturers are the following:
- Structural framing members (rafters, columns): built-up “I” member

- Secondary structural members (eave struts, wall girts, roof purlins): cold-formed
“Z” and “C” member
91
- Sheeting profiles (wall and roof cladding) - roll-formed members
Figure 3.12. Example of industrial facility made of PEB steel structure (Pebsteel.com)
PEB structure are often used as an alternative to normal steel structure. The major reason
is that PEB structures have bunch of advantages. All advantages reduce construction time
in total which is extremely important bonus. However, at the same time, there are certain
disadvantages that can stop one from using PEB structures for the frame. The following
table contains the main advantages and disadvantages of pre-engineered buildings:
92
Table 3.4. Advantages and disadvantages of PEB structure.
Advantages Disadvantages
It is a preidentified inventory of raw materials

If the maintenance is poor, it can be highly
that satisfy aesthetic and structural
affected by corrosion.
requirements.
Since PEB members are made of standard

connections and sections, design time is Good conducting material such as steel
reduced a lot. Flexible frames with low weight reduced the thermal comfort in the
can offer high resistance against seismic building.
forces.
Structural frames are usually designed so that

Since the conductivity is high, the PEB
they follow stress diagram and reduce the cost
buildings can be susceptible to fire
and load to foundation.
PEB has low weight compared to conventional

steel structure (30%-35%). That is why it is
easy to construct them.
If expansion of the building in width and

height is need it can easily be done.
Quality control is assured because it is done

while manufacturing.
PEB structures usually have high durability.
As it was presented in the table, although PEB structures have certain disadvantages,
advantages undoubtedly outweigh disadvantages. Thus, it was decided to choose this
primary structural frame for the industrial facility site of the building.
However, it is necessary to avoid possible disadvantages and damages to the building. In

case of low maintenance, the building can be subjected to corrosions issue. Therefore, it
is extremely important to avoid corrosion in rainy seasons. For this reason, carbon fiber
coating is used during manufacturing process of steel members. Also, they are well
93
painted to avoid possible corrosion issue. Therefore, Pre-Engineered Buildings are safe
in rainy season.
3.4. LEED certification
To check whether the main administrative building meet LEED certification minimum
requirements, it is crucial to identify the occupancy type of the building. Fuel Storage
relates to Group H-3 (Section 307.5, IBC 2015), Track Cleaning relates to Group B
(Section 304.1, IBC 2015), Equipment fix relates to Group S-1 (Section 311.2, IBC 2015),
Equipment and Materials relates to Group S-1 (Section 311.2, IBC 2015), Waste Drop-
off and Inspection and Bailing and Storage relate to Group F-1 (Section 306.2, IBC 2015),
Two-story office building relates to Group B (Section 304.1, IBC 2015). As a result, it
turns out that the building refers to the group of “Mixed Occupancy building”. Size of the
building and that of rooms can be justified by the number of workers. Landfill Site
Management Stuff consists of 5 workers, Equipment Operators are of 5, and there are 15
laborers for disposal operations. Totally, 25 workers are to be employed for MSW landfill
operations and its maintenance. Therefore, all floor area and floor height values meet
LEED Certification minimum requirements.
As for the cite and outdoor space in accordance with LEED requirement, the following
actions to be taken:
- According to LEED requirements and landscaping standards, one tree for every
four parking spaces.
- Use natural vegetation to restore 30% site portions disturbed by construction
- Vegetation reduced carbon dioxide emissions, improves storm water runoff, flood
protection, soil erosion (EPA, 2008).
- LEED for sensitive land protection: pedestrian path walks width will be only 2.4m
and only half of it is of impervious surface coverage.
94
Following the rating system of LEED BD+C: New Construction, 112 credit types such
as Integrative Process, LEED for Neighborhood Development Location, Sensitive Land
Protection, High Priority Site and Equitable Development, etc. were identified. As a result
of summing all the point, it was identified that the project refers to the category of Gold
with 74 points earned.
3.5. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Using Life-365 software
Life-365 software has been used to figure out the construction cost, barrier cost, repair
cost and life-cycle cost. The following are the results:
Life-Cycle Cost is 11.49$ per ft.
Figure 3.13. Life-Cycle Cost.
Construction Cost is 15.9 $ in general.
95
Figure 3.14. Construction Cost.
Repair cost is $15.9m in general.
Figure 3.15. Repair Cost
96
4. Structural Design
4.1. Load calculations

4.1.1 Dead Loads
Dead load is the load that comprises weights of fixed, not movable structural and non-
structural materials. This includes concrete amounts used for structural members such as
column and slab, also, the weight of floor and wall finishing, ceiling, and roof non-
structural materials. To calculate the dead load, dimensions and density of materials are
identified.
Table 4.1. Dead load of structural members
Table 4.2. Dead load of non-structural members
97
4.1.2. Live Loads
Live loads are the loads value of which depends on occupancy. According to ASCE 7-10
Table 4-1, the minimum distributed live loads can be taken. However, it is highly
recommended to modify this value using a reduction factor. ASCE 7-10, Chapter 4
specifies the following formula to use for reducing the initial live load:
Table 4.3. Live load of two-story office building
Table 4.4. Live load of equipment maintenance and waste inspection area.
4.1.3. Wind Load
One of the main sources of lateral load is wind. Wind load calculation is performed
according to ASCE 7-10, Chapters 26-27. Risk category of the building is III. ASCE 7-
98
10, Figure 26.5-1C specifies that the basic wind speed is V= 54 m/s. Wind speed map of
Arizona state for risk category III and IV buildings was used.
Table 4.5. Wind load calculation constants (ASCE 7-10, 26 (6-9))
99
Figure 4.1.1. Wind speed map (Arizona state) for risk categories III and IV buildings
According to ASCE 7-10, Section 26.9.4 Gust-effect factor for rigid buildings was
calculated. Following formulas have been used:
Gust-effect factor:
Intensity of turbulence:
Background response:
100
Integral length scale of turbulence:
Velocity pressure calculations were performed using the formula specified in ASCE 7-
10, Section 27.3.2:
Design wind pressure calculations were performed following ASCE 7-10, Section
27.4.1:
Table 4.6. Wind load on two-story office building
Table 4.7. Wind load on equipment maintenance and waste inspection area.
101
4.1.4. Snow Load
One of the significant forces that affect GLRS is the snow load. Snow load value for two
parts of the main administrative building was calculated applying the equation 7.3-1
specified in ASCE 7-10:
The following factors have been determined from tabular values provided by the code:
Exposure factor Ce = 0.9 (Table 7-2). Thermal factor Ct = 1 (Table 7-3). Importance
factor Is = 1.1 (Table 1.5-1). Ground snow load pg = 143.64 N/m2 (Table C7.2-1). Ground
snow load value is the maximum observed for 40 years (Tucson weather is assumed).
As a result, the final value was obtained:
pf = 99.54 N/m2
Total snow load on two-story office building roof: 17.92 kN
Total snow load on equipment maintenance and waste inspection area roof: 119.45 kN.
4.1.5. Seismic Loads
Procedure according to ASCE 7-10, Chapter 22:
1. Site Class – C (ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1)

2. Ground Motion Parameter is 0.155 (Figure 22-1)
3. S1 parameter is equal to 0.053
4. Fa = 1.2 (Table 11.4-1)
5. Fv = 1.7 (Table 11.4-2)
6. SMS = 0.186
102
7. SM1 = 0.0901
8. SDS = 0.125
9. SD1 = 0.06
10. T0 = 0.096
11. TS = 0.48
12. Sa = 0.425
According to Tables 11.6-(1-2), the seismic risk category is A. Buildings and other
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A need only to comply with the
requirements of Section 1.4 ASCE 7-10.
4.1.6. Load Combination
Seismic load was not included in calculations because of the region’s low seismisity.
After all possible loads have been calculated, load combination formulas provided by
ASCE 7-10 were used to totalize the load values affecting the structure of the main
administrative building. Five combinations of load summary have been taken into
consideration.
1) 1.4D
2) 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
103
3) 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (L or 0.5W)
4) 1.2D + 1.0W + L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
5) 0.9D + 1.0W
Final values are shown in Tables 4.(8-9)
Table 4.8. Load combination values
Table 4.9. Summary of load values
4.2. Preliminary Design
In order to provide a required strength for the building and provide architectural features
well, preliminary design of the main administrative building is to be planned. For this
project, it was decided to choose a portal frame structure since it is known as a common
practice for such types of buildings (Fig. 4.1). Portal frame is a structure usually used for
low-rise buildings with large spans. The frame members are steel columns, rafters, beams
and bracings. In addition, girts (side rails) between columns and purlins are used for
connecting sheeting panels. Waste drop-off and inspection and shredding and storage
104
zones have large span structures, since the waste operational vehicles are expected to
move inside the building. The load from the roof is transmitted through purlins to the
rafters, pitched beams connecting the frames (Fig. 4.2). After that, the load is distributed
by rafter to columns and then to the foundation.
Figure 4.1. Portal frame structure for operational building
105
Figure 4.2. Warehouse structural components
4.2.1. Slab sizing
ACI 318-05, Section 9.5.3.3 specifies that the slab thickness can be calculated in
following four ways:
a) a(fm) <= 0.2 (Section 9.5.3.2)

b) 0.2 < fm < 2.0, h <= [ln (0.5 + fy/1400]/[36 + 5B (a(fm) -0.2)]
c) 2.0 < a (fm), h <= [ln (0.8+fy/1400]/[36+9B]
d) “At discontinuous edges, an edge beam shall be provided with a stiffness ratio αf
not less than 0.80 or the minimum thickness required by Eq. (9-12) or (9-13) shall
be increased by at least 10 percent in the panel with a discontinuous edge.”
a(fm) was assumed to be 2.
Table 4.15. Values for constants
106
The third condition was applied and slab thickness values are to be rounded up to 250
mm.
4.2.2. Column sizing
Column sizing with the use of ACI 318 code and axial force demand and axial resistance
is to be done in the next semester. For the time being, three columns that can be seen on
the ground floor plan view have been taken with the side value of 0.610 m.
4.2.3. Beam sizing
According to AISC code, beam deflection for members under reduced live loads should
not exceed the 1/250 of beam length. For 5000 mm beam, the maximum deflection will
be 20 mm.
The equation (3-3) from AISC 2011 helps to find the required beam moment of inertia,
thus choosing suitable design for the beam.
Where loading constant C1 = 161 (Figure 3.2 AISC), moment M = wL2/8.
From here, Ix = 13770 mm4. The closest value with Ix = 13800 mm4 is the HE 300 AA
beam section.
4.2.4. Rafter sizing
For the roof members, according to AISC 2011, the deflection limit should not exceed
1/240 of member length. For the 15000 mm rafter, the deflection limit should be 42
mm.
According to Table 3-23 AISC, for beams fixed at one end and free to deflect at other
end, the deflection limit is calculated according to the following equation:
107
Δ = wL4/24EI
From here, I = 45300 mm4. According to HE beam sections table, the closest beam
section is HE 400 A.
4.3. Internal Forces Analysis

4.3.1. Analysis Using software
The internal forces are calculated using the SAP2000 software.The summary of the
internal forces and moments for structural members is shown in Table 4.3.1. The
detailed results for moments, shear forces and axial forces are provided in Appendix
B.(1-5).
Table 4.3.1. Maximum values for internal forces and moments for columns
calculated in SAP2000
№ Moment (kN*m) Shear (kN) Axial (kN)
A-2 98.63 12.33 108.30
A-3 - A-11 153 8.2 104.40
A-12 97.35 12.33 107.13
B-2 116.46 13.40 95.60
B-6 132.88 13.40 121.73
B-12 116.46 13.40 95.60
C-2 116.46 13.40 95.60
C-6 132.88 13.80 121.73
108
C-12 116.46 13.40 95.60
F-2 98.63 12.33 108.3
F-(3-11) 153 8.4 104.40
F-12 97.35 12.33 107.13
Table 4.3.2. Maximum values for internal forces and moments for rafters calculated
in SAP2000
AB-2 116.46 54.53 184.34
CF-2 155.45 85.43 165.77
AB-3 - AB-11 149.70 64.80 135.56
CF-3 - CF-11 131.57 91.20 129.44
AB-12 116.46 54.55 184.34
CF-12 155.45 85.41 165.77
Table 4.3.3. Maximum values for internal forces and moments for beams calculated
in SAP2000
AB-2 54.68 25.60 86.54
CF-2 72.98 40.11 77.83
109
AB-3 - AB-11 70.28 30.42 63.64
CF-3 - CF-11 61.77 42.82 60.77
AB-12 54.68 25.61 86.54
CF-12 72.98 40.10 77.83
Table 4.3.3. Axial forces in bracings calculated in SAP2000
№ Max compression (kN) Max tension (kN)
Wall 2-3 15.59 13.62
Wall 7-8 8.91 6.44
Wall 11-12 15.59 3.62
Roof 2-3 66.79 67.16
Roof 7-8 35.60 37.81
Roof 11-12 66.79 67.16
110
4.3.2. Hand Calculations
Hand calculations of the internal forces for portal frame are made under wind load
according to the matrix calculation method. The results are obtained for two different
load cases shown on Fig. 4.3.1. All the calculations are provided in Appendix B.8.
Figure 4.3.1. Hand calculation of internal forces
Table 4.3.4. Maximum Member forces (hand calculation)
Main Column Main Column

Rafter (AB-3) Rafter (CF-3)
(A-3) (F-3)
Maximum Positive
7.9 52 87.7 -
shear (kN)
Maximum Negative
- 87.7 52 9.1
shear (kN)
Maximum Positive 159 159 132 118
111
moment (kN*m)
Maximum Negative
129 113 121 133
moment (kN)
Maximum Tensile
105 95 92 106
force (kN)
4.3.3. Hand Calculations vs Software Comparison
The comparison between hand and software calculations verifies the accuracy of both.
However, the difference between calculation is up to 7.9%. For the later calculations,
the software calculated values are used.
Table 4.3.5. Hand calculations vs Software results comparison for internal forces
and moments
Main Column Main Column

Rafter (AB-2) Rafter (CF-2)
(A-2) (F-2)
Shear force
7.9 1.51 1.32 3.45
difference (%)
Moment difference
3.34 6.46 4.9 1.9
(%)
Axial force
3.59 1.12 6.7 2.8
difference (%)
4.4. Structural Member Design

4.4.1 Design Using Software
For member design, MasterSeries 2021 software combining with loads on each element
taken from SAP2000 analysis Tables 4.3.1-4.3.4. The choice of beam and column section
112
is according to the lightest weight. The sections are chosen from European wide flange
section catalogue. The summary of the section designs is shown in Table 4.4.1. The
results from MasterSeries 2021 software are provided in Appendix B.
Table 4.4.1. Member design results
Member type Section design
Main column HE 800 AA
Interior column HE 400 AA
Rafter HE 450 A
Beam HE 280 AA
Bracing SHS 70x70
4.4.2. Hand Calculations

4.4.2.1. Column Design
Step 1: Column classification.
Table 4.4.2. Major column characteristics
Section name HE 800 AA Unit
h 770 mm
b 300 mm
tw 14 mm
tf 18 mm
113
r 30 mm
A 218 500 mm2
L 8000 mm
fy 275 MPa
E 210 GPa
Step 2: Elastic buckling load Ncr is calculated according to the following formula:
(4.4.2.1)
Step 3: Calculation of the 𝛼 stiffness is made according to the following formula:
(4.4.2.2)
𝛼beam = 8.54 * 109
𝛼column = - 3.12 * 109
Step 4: Calculation of the end elastic restraint k1 and k2:
(4.4.2.3)
k1 = 0.45 k2 = 0.56
Step 6: Coefficient of critical length Kcr is estimated from the Fig. 4.4.1:
114
Kcr = 0.680
Figure 4.4.1 Sway and non-sway graphs
Step 7: Lcr is calculated by the following equation:
Lcr = Kcr x L (4.4.2.4)
Step 8: Local buckling check:
(4.4.2.5)
HE 800 AA beam flange and web both have 1 - 3 classification.
Step 9: Calculating the reduction factor value from the following equations:
(4.4.2.6)
115
(4.4.2.7)
Step 10: Calculating the Nb,Rd value from the following equation:
(4.4.2.8)
Step 10: Compare the Nb,Rd value and the design load NEd as a combination of dead,
live, wind and snow loads:
Nb,Rd = 3139.81 kN > NEd = 1928.1 kN
Where NEd is calculated by dividing the total load combination applied on the building
by number of columns.
116
4.4.2.2. Beam Design
Figure #. Flow chart for the design of beams.
Step 1: Classification of the section
Table 4.4.3. Trial section for the exterior beam
Section name HE 300 A -
h 290 mm
117
b 300 mm
tw 8.5 mm
tf 14 mm
r 27 mm
A 112530 mm2
fy 275 MPa
E 210 GPa
Step 2: Check moment resistance
(4.4.2.9)
(4.4.2.10)
Mc,Rd = 182.33 kN*m (4.4.2.11)
Step 3: Check the lateral bracing
(4.4.2.12)
Step 4: check the shear resistance
118
(4.4.2.13)
(4.4.2.14)
Step 5: checking for bending and shear
(4.4.2.15)
MEd = 54.68 kN*m ≤ 176.71 kN*m (4.4.2.16)
Step 6: checking the bearing resistance
(4.4.2.17)
Step 7: Modification
According to the calculations above, the HE 300 A section gives factor of safety 3.2,
which is unnecessary for the given conditions. Hence, for the economical purposes, the
section was reduced down to HE 280 A, providing factor of safety 1.85:
MEd = 54.68 kN*m ≤ 101.71 kN*m
Table 4.4.4. Final section of the exterior beam
Section name HE 280 AA -
h 264 mm
b 280 mm
119
tw 7 mm
tf 10 mm
r 24 mm
A 78030 mm2
fy 275 MPa
E 210 GPa
4.4.2.3. Bracing Design
Step 2: Elastic buckling and effective length
According to Fig. #, the effective length of the column will be equal to L.
Lcr = 6400 mm
Table 4.4.5. Roof bracing section properties
Section name SHS 70x70 -
h 90 mm
b 90 mm
t 6.3 mm
A 16700 mm2
fy 275 MPa
E 210 GPa
120
Figure #. Effective length and elastic buckling of the bracing
Step 3: Effective Area Aeff:
Aeff = 16700 mm2
Step 3: Generalised slenderness should be calculated using the following equation:
(4.4.2.18)
λ = 1.745
Step 4: Imperfection factor for a rolled UB section that will overcome buckling about
the z axis, can be taken as 0.34.
Step 5: The reduction factor value χ is obtained from the Fig. #, curve (b) with
imperfection factor (alpha) - 0.34
121
Figure #. Reduction factor values chart (EC3)
χ = 0.45
Step 6: Compression Resistance
(4.4.2.19)
Nb, Rd = 118.30 kN
Step 7: Check the design load
(4.4.2.20)
NEd = 67.16 kN ≤ 118.30 kN
Step 8: The bracing trial section is safe and no modification is required.
Similarly, for the wall bracings the required section is SHS 40x40, the dimensions are
shown in Table 4.4.#.
122
Table 4.4.6. Wall bracing section properties
Section name SHS 40x40 -
h 40 mm
b 40 mm
t 5 mm
A 6730 mm2
fy 275 MPa
E 210 GPa
4.5. Connections
4.5.1 Column-to-beam Connection
4.5.1.1 Software Optimisation
Column and beam are connected to resist shear force, axial force and internal moment.
The connections were designed and simulated in IDEA StatiCa software. The summary
of the results is provided in Table 4.5.1. The detailed analysis is shown in Appendix B.9.
123
Figure 4.5.1 Column and beam connection
124
Table 4.5.1 Beam-to-beam connection plates
Table 4.5.2 Beam-to-beam connection bolts
4.5.2 Column-to-rafter Connection
Column and rafter are connected via plates, bolts and welds.
125
Figure 4.5.2 Column and rafter connection
Table 4.5.3 Column-to-rafter connection plates
126
Table 4.5.4 Column-to-rafter connection bolts
4.5.3 Column-to-foundation Connection
The column and foundation connection is shown on Figure 4.5.3. During the design
oprimisation, the anchors tend to failure due to high load. For more strength, they were
strengthened on the bottom with circular plates. The results of the optimisation are
provided in Tables 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. The detailed design is provided in Appendix B 12.
127
Figure 4.5.3 Column and foundation connection
128
Table 4.5.4 Column-to-foundation connection plates
Table 4.5.5 Column-to-foundation connection bolts
4.5.4 Beam-to-beam Connection
The beam-to-beam connection is shown on Figure 4.5.4. The results of the design for
bolts and plates are are shown in Tables 4.5.6 and 4.5.57 The detailed design is provided
in Appendix B.13.
129
Figure 4.5.4 Beam to beam connection
Table 4.5.6 Beam-to-beam connection plates
Table 4.5.7 Beam-to-beam connection bolts
130
5. Geotechnical Design
5.1. Soil Profile

Soil profile is defined as the vertical section of the soil demonstrating soil layers and their
thicknesses from ground surface and below. It is an essential part of the preliminary
foundation design stage that requires a thorough consideration. Soil profiles allow us to
identify the types and geotechnical properties of underlying soil layers needed for the
design of the foundation and for assessment of its sustainability. The information about
soil profiles in Maricopa region was obtained by the literature review.
131
As a result of the extensive literature review, the database including the soil profiles and
parameters from 9 boreholes was utilized as the main source of information. The location
of a landfill project is therefore based on this database. After the investigation of suitable
locations in the vicinity of boreholes, the following area in South Maricopa was chosen
as the location of our project shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1. Location of the current MSW landfill project
The soil profile of borehole 402 is presented below in Figure 5.2:
132
Figure 5.2. Sample soil profile and blowcount variation of borehole 402 (1 out of 9)
The location of all 9 boreholes with respect to each other are illustrated in Figure 5.3.
133
Figure 5.3. Location of nine neutron probe boreholes (units: meters)
The main soil parameters are tabulated below. Soil type is an important factor that is
connected to water infiltration and flow. The upper levels of soil at the selected location
can be generally classified as sandy loam according to the State Soil Geographic Data
Base (STATSGO).
Table 5.1. Soil engineering properties of borehole 402 (1 out of 9)
Cumulative Depth Depth Soil Type Bulk c', kPa φ, deg ca,
Depth, m from to (m) density, kPa
(m) g/cm3
0
0.305 0 0.305 Sandy Loam 1.344 10 28
0
0.610 0.305 0.610 Sandy Loam 1.421 10 28
0
0.814 0.610 0.814 Sandy Loam 1.493 10 28
0
0.119 0.814 1.119 Sandy Loam 1.519 10 28
134
0
1.423 1.119 1.423 Sandy Loam 1.538 10 28
0
1.728 1.423 1.728 Sandy Loam 1.541 10 28
0
2.033 1.728 2.033 Sandy Loam 1.474 10 28
Gravel Loamy 0
2.338 2.033 2.338 Sand 1.568 0 35
Gravel Loamy 0
2.643 2.338 2.643 Sand 1.541 0 35
Gravel Loamy 0
2.947 2.643 2.947 Sand 1.596 0 35
Gravel Loamy 0
3.252 2.947 3.252 Sand 1.494 0 35
Gravel Loamy 0
3.557 3.252 3.557 Sand 1.547 0 35
Gravel Loamy 0
3.862 3.557 3.862 Sand 2.113 0 35
0
4.167 3.862 4.167 Sandy Loam 1.673 10 28
The soil parameters presented above provide a clear picture regarding the soil layers at
the depth up to 4 m. It can be noted that the sandy loam has higher cohesion values than
gravelly loam sand, whereas the friction angle is lower for sandy loam soils. Soil adhesion
is zero for both soil types.
5.1.1. Seismic Analysis
Several approaches have been developed for categorizing soils and rocks based on their
site-dependent amplification features. For example, the average shear wave velocity
(SWV) at a depth equal to one-quarter of the wavelength of the dominant frequency of
interest can be used to describe site amplification. This strategy, however, has not been
135
frequently used due to its difficulty in implementation. The simplified method is
proposed, which is based on a correlation between ground motion amplification and the
average SWV of the top 30 m of sediments and/or rocks, which has now been
implemented into the NEHRP program. Soils are classified into six classes (A–F) based
on their vertical SWV profile, thickness, and liquefaction potential, according to the
current NEHRP methodology (Thitimakorn and Raenak, 2016).
Although the soil shear wave profile was obtained from the other borehole, it is located
within 1 km from the current project location and the soil profile shares the comparable
soil types and parameters, so that the consistency of data is guaranteed. Furthermore, the
seismicity hazards are usually similar for large geographic areas as can be seen from
Figure 5.4, where the whole Maricopa and Phoenix city regions share the same seismic
hazard index between 6-10% from U.S. Geological Survey.
136
Figure 5.4. Seismic hazard map of Arizona State
It is critical to consider the potential soil amplifications induced by earthquakes in order

to satisfy the requirements for earthquake-resistant design of structures and foundation.
Softer soils induce the seismic energy and are responsible for a significant amount of
earthquake damage. The SWV profile of the selected site was then utilized to determine
the average Vs(30) value and NEHRP classification.
According to the NEHRP recommendations, the SWV of the sub-surface must be

estimated up to a depth of 30 m for seismic hazards investigations. The following is
used to compute the NEHRP SWV (Vs) allocated to the subsurface at a certain site:
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖
𝑉𝑠 =
𝑑𝑖
∑𝑛𝑖=1
𝑣𝑠𝑖
Where Vs is the NEHRP SWV, vsi is the SWV of any layer in m/s, and di is the
thickness of any layer (ranging from 0 m to 30 m).
In Figure 5.5 the shear wave profile is presented.
Figure 5.5. Soil average shear wave velocity (left plot) and shear wave velocity profile
computed by three inversion methods (right plot) ()
137
For the selected location, the average SWM value is 406.6 m/s, which implies that the
soil is classified as “Class C” or “very dense soil and soft rock” as can be seen from Table
5.2 (Kayen et al., 2017).
Table 5.2. Soil profile type classification for seismic amplification (Thitimakorn and
Raenak, 2016)
NEHRP General Description Average SWV to 30

Soil Type m (m/s)
A Hard rock > 1500
B Rock 760 < Vs ≥ 1500
C Very dense soil and soft rock 360 < Vs ≥ 760
D Stiff soil: 15 ≥ N ≥ 50 or 50 kPa ≥ Su ≥ 100 kPa 180 ≥ Vs ≥ 360
E Soil or any profile with more than 3 m of soft clay ≥ 180

defined as soil with PI > 20, w > 40% and Su < 25
kPa
F Soils requiring site-specific evaluations -
According to the site classification in South Maricopa, namely class C soils, the location
is at low to medium risk of soil amplification induced by earthquakes.
5.1.2. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation and Analysis
It is known that soil liquefaction occurs in loose, saturated and cohesionless soils and
sensitive clays under the sudden loss of strength and stiffness resulting in soil
displacements. The liquefaction effect is analyzed utilizing the data obtained from site
specification as well as field test results.
Generally, the assessment of liquefaction potential based on laboratory tests is a less

accurate method due to the limited ability to reproduce field conditions of soils as well as
unavoidable disturbance of samples. It is therefore suggested to make an evaluation of
liquefaction based on the in-situ tests. In this report, the method used to determine the
138
factor of safety against liquefaction is based on the field penetration test results. The
location of the penetration tests in South Maricopa can be seen from Figure 5.6. The tests
are located within 1 km from the selected MSW landfill location.
Figure 5.6. Location of SPT and CPT tests and distance to the selected landfill area
5.1.2.1. Cyclic Resistance Ratio of soil from SPT blowcounts
To determine the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the measured SPT blowcount of NSPT
number should be correlated to a standardized value of (N1)60 by using the equation
estimated by Robertson and Fear (1996):
(𝑁1 )60 = 𝑁𝑆𝑃𝑇 ⋅ 𝐶𝑁 ⋅ 𝐶𝐸 ⋅ 𝐶𝐵 ⋅ 𝐶𝑆 ⋅ 𝐶𝑅
The correction factors are calculated in the following way.
139
CN is used to normalize the measured blowcount to an equivalent of one atmosphere
unit of effective overburden stress:
𝑃𝑎
𝐶𝑁 = √ ′
≤ 2.0
𝜎𝑣𝑜
Where σ’vo is the vertical stress at the selected depth and Pa is 1 atm (101.325 kPa).
CE is the measured SPT correction factor for the level of energy delivered by the
hammer:
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝐸𝑅

𝐶𝐸 = =
0.60 ∗ 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑆𝑃𝑇 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 60
Table 5.3. Energy ratio and correction factor estimations for selected hammer types
Country: Hammer Type: Hammer Release: ER 𝐶𝐸
United Safety Rope and pulley 60 1.00

States
United Donut Rope and pulley 45 0.75

States
Japan Donut Rope and pulley, special throw release 67 1.12
Japan Donut Free fall 78 1.30
CB corrects the borehole diameter outside the recommended range:
Table 5.4. Recommended CB for selected borehole diameters
Diameter of Borehole: 𝐶𝐵
140
65 to 115 mm (2.5 to 4.5 inch) 1.00
150 mm (6 inch) 1.05
200 mm (8 inch) 1.15
CS is for SPT used without a sampler liner. CS is 1.0 for a standard sampler.
CR is utilized to standardize the SPT blowcount for the energy loss through the reflection
throughout the reflection in short lengths of drill rod:
Table 5.5. Linear approximation of CR for selected length of drill rod
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑧 ≤ 3 𝑚 𝐶𝑅 = 0.75
𝐹𝑜𝑟 3 < 𝑧 𝐶𝑅
<9𝑚 = (15 + 𝑧) / 24
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑧 ≥ 9 𝑚 𝐶𝑅 = 1.0
Next, it is necessary to identify a clean-sand equivalent value based on the fines content
(FC) of the soil:
𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 − 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑁1 )60 = (𝑁1 )60 + 𝛥(𝑁1 )60
Table 5.6. Correction factor 𝛥(𝑁1 )60for different fines content (%)
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐹𝐶 ≤ 5 % 𝛥(𝑁1 )60 = 0.0
𝐹𝑜𝑟 5 < 𝐹𝐶 𝛥(𝑁1 )60 = 7 ∗ (𝐹𝐶

< 35 % − 5) / 30
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐹𝐶 ≥ 35 % 𝛥(𝑁1 )60 = 7.0
And the final step is to determine CRR value utilizing the following formula:
141
95 (𝑁1 )60 1
100 𝐶𝑅𝑅 = + −
34 − (𝑁1 )60 1.3 2
The calculated CRR is equal to 0.303.
5.1.2.2. Cyclic Stress Ratio induced by earthquakes
For the calculation of CSR, the following equation is used:
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎𝑣𝑜
𝐶𝑆𝑅 = 0.65 𝑟
𝑔 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 𝑑
Where amax is the peak horizontal acceleration, g is the gravitational acceleration of 9.81
m/s2, σvo is the total vertical overburden stress, σ’vo is the effective vertical overburden
stress, rd is the stress reduction factor.
The stress reduction factor (rd) is estimated in the following way:
𝑟𝑑 = 1.0 + 1.6 ∗ 10−6 (𝑧 4 − 42𝑧 3 + 105𝑧 2 − 4200𝑧)
The peak horizontal acceleration is a site-specific parameter, which is obtained from the
“Development of seismic acceleration contour maps for Arizona” report (Euge et al.,
1992). From the peak acceleration map, the amax of 0.03g is obtained.
The obtained CSR value is equal to 0.019.
5.1.2.3 Factor of Safety against liquefaction

The factor of safety against liquefaction is computed using the equation:
𝐶𝑅𝑅
𝐹𝑆𝑙𝑖𝑞 =
𝐶𝑆𝑅
142
In case of FS < 1.0, soil is predicted to undergo liquefaction, whereas no liquefaction is
expected for soils with FS > 1.0. The obtained value of FSliq is 15.6 at the depth of 0.762
m, implying that the liquefaction is not expected. Furthermore, the clean-sand equivalent
is greater than 30 at the depth of 2.896 m, so the soil is unliquefiable. The CRR is therefore
assumed to be infinite and FSliq is -1.0 according to the code (Rauch, 1997). The estimated
FSliq values imply that the liquefaction effect will not pose any substantial risk to the
structure.
5.1.2.4 LiqIT software
To estimate the liquefaction potential at the selected location, the LiqIT software was
implemented. As shown in Figure 5.7, the program required the SPT test results to
calculate the cyclic stress ratio. Added to that, other parameters, such as peak ground
acceleration and depth of water table were obtained from the geotechnical reports
covering the state of Arizona.
143
Figure 5.7. Screenshot of the input parameters, namely SPT test results
144
Figure 5.8. Results demonstrating the liquefaction potential
As a result, the soil indicated that no liquefaction is expected at the location of MSW.
This implies that our hand calculations are verified with the results obtained from the
software.
5.2. Shallow Foundation Calculations

5.2.1 General Bearing Capacity
For the shallow foundation, a general bearing capacity equation is used (Braja Das, 2019).
The preliminary calculations were done for a square foundation of 1x1 square meters.
The 𝐷𝑓 value is equal to 0.3m.
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐′𝑁𝑐 𝐹𝑐𝑠 𝐹𝑐𝑑 𝐹𝑐𝑖 + 𝑞𝑁𝑞 𝐹𝑞𝑠 𝐹𝑞𝑑 𝐹𝑞𝑖 + 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝐹𝛾𝑠 𝐹𝛾𝑑 𝐹𝛾𝑖
𝑞 = 𝛾𝐷𝑓 = 15 × 0.3 = 4.5
145
The data for the soil is unknown, however the soil profile provides that most of the soil
is sandy loam. The clay layer starts only at the depth of 90 ft (around 30 meters), so we
can assume for shallow foundation that the targeted soil layer is sandy loam. If no
information is given about the soil in reports, there are universal values that can be applied
in order to proceed with calculations.
Figure 5.9. Table of standard values
According to Figure 5.7, those values were used to determine N factors:
146
Figure 5.8. Bearing Capacity Factors found by the table
These values are later used to calculate F factors by following equations (Braja Das,
2019):
𝐵 𝑁𝑞 1 33.3
𝐹𝑐𝑠 = 1 + ( )( ) = 1 + ( ) × ( ) = 1.722
𝐿 𝑁𝑐 1 46.12
𝐵 1
𝐹𝑞𝑠 = 1 + ( )𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′ = 1 + ( ) × 𝑡𝑎𝑛35 = 1.7
𝐿 1
𝐵 1
𝐹𝛾𝑠 = 1 − 0.4( ) = 1 − 0.4 × ( ) = 0.6
𝐿 1
𝛽 2 0
𝐹𝛾𝑖 = (1 − ) = (1 − )2 = 1
𝜙′ 35
𝛽 2 0
𝐹𝑐𝑖 = 𝐹𝑞𝑖 = (1 − ) = (1 − )2 = 1
90 ∘ 90
Depth (𝐷𝑓 ) of foundation is smaller than its width and friction angle is more than zero,
so for depth following equations are used to find values (Braja Das, 2019):
𝐹𝛾𝑑 = 1
𝐷𝑓 0.3
𝐹𝑞𝑑 = 1 + 2𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′(1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙′)2 ( ) = 1 + 2 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛35 × (1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛35)2 × ( )
𝐵 1
= 1.179
1 − 𝐹𝑞𝑑 1 − 1.179
𝐹𝑐𝑑 = 𝐹𝑞𝑑 − = 1.179 − = 1.182
𝑁𝑐 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′ 46.12 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛35
147
𝑞𝑢 = 10 × 46.12 × 1.722 × 1 × 1.182 + 4.5 × 33.3 × 1.179 × 1 × 1.7
+ 0.5 × 15 × 1 × 48.03 × 0.6 × 1 × 1 = 1243.56
𝑞𝑢 − 𝑞 1243.56 − 4.5
𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙(𝑛𝑒𝑡) = = = 413.02 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝐹𝑆 3
Calculations can be repeated for smaller square foundations with length of 0.4, 0.6 and
0.8 m. These will give net allowable bearing capacity of 507.16, 454.66 and 428.56
𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 respectively. From architectural part, dead and live loads can be summed up as
40.515𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 and 11.02𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 for the office building and 52.217𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 and
53.88𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 for the operating part of the building. Load combinations are used to find
uniform load.
𝑅 = 1.2 × 40.515 + 1.6 × 11.02 = 66.25 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 ≤ 𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙(𝑛𝑒𝑡) = 413.02 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑅 = 1.2 × 52.217 + 1.6 × 53.88 = 148.76 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 ≤ 𝑞𝑎𝑙𝑙(𝑛𝑒𝑡) = 413.02 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
Therefore, the shallow foundation bearing capacity seems optimal and therefore, a small
settlement is expected.
5.2.2 Settlement
According to the soil reports from Maricopa County, there were some SPT results for
some sites (Ninyo & Moore, 2002). It was decided to find soil profiles that have similar
composition for the following formula of settlement (Braja Das, 2019):
1.25𝑞𝑛𝑒𝑡 (𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )
𝑆𝑒 (𝑚𝑚) = (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐵 ≤ 1.22 𝑚)
𝑁60 𝐹𝑑
𝐹𝑑 = 1 + 0.33(𝐷𝑓 /𝐵) = 1 + 0.33 × (0.3/1) = 1.099
148
Blows were also found to be rather small than average, which makes our estimation
quite conservative. The conservative maximum limit for settlement as 25 mm was taken
for comparison.
Table 5.7. 𝑁60 values for similar soils in Maricopa County
𝑁60 values
1 15 10
2 17 20
3 22 11
4 39 61
5 - 12
6 - 26
Average 23.25 23.33
From the results, it can be roughly estimated that 𝑁60 is 23. Now, calculations for both
office and operating units can be done:
1.25 × (40.515 + 11.02)(𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )

𝑆𝑒 (𝑚𝑚) = = 2.55 𝑚𝑚 ≤ 25 𝑚𝑚
23 × 1.099
1.25 × (52.127 + 53.88)(𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 )

𝑆𝑒 (𝑚𝑚) = = 5.24 𝑚𝑚 ≤ 25 𝑚𝑚
23 × 1.099
This shows that settlement from the shallow foundation is satisfying an allowable limit
of 25 mm and therefore, it is safe to use it. The limit is given by Eurocode, as the
International Building Code that is used in the US does not specify the maximum limit
value for settlement. The clay layer is located deep down, so primary and secondary
settlement calculations were assumed to be negligible.
149
5.3. Pile Foundation Calculations
5.3.1. Bearing Capacity
As for pile foundation, values for pile bearing capacity are estimated to hold about 3x3
square meter area for office buildings and 2.5x2.5 square meter area for operating area.
The pile is estimated to have a length of 15 m. This means that the pile is present in the
sandy layer only. For point bearing capacity several methods were done and compared:
Meyerhof’s, Vesic’s and SPT. The equations used are listed down below (Braja Das,
2019).
𝑄𝑝 = 𝐴𝑝 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 ≤ 𝐴𝑝 𝑞𝑡
𝑞𝑡 = 0.5𝑝𝑎 𝑁𝑞 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙′
Where 𝑝𝑎 is atmospheric pressure (100 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 ). 𝑁𝑞 is equal to 143 according to the

table by the soil friction angle.
150
Figure 5.10. Table for Interpolated Values of 𝑁𝑞 based on Meyerhof’s Theory
𝑄𝑝 = (0.5 × 0.5) × 15 × 15 × 143 = 8043.75

≤ (0.5 × 0.5) × 0.5 × 100 × 143 × 𝑡𝑎𝑛35 = 5006.48 𝑘𝑁
According to Vesic’s theory (Braja Das, 2019):
𝑄𝑝 = 𝐴𝑝 𝜎𝑜 𝑁𝜎
𝐾𝑜 = 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙′ = 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛 35 = 0.426
151
1 + 2𝐾𝑜 1 + 2 × 0.426
𝜎𝑜 = ( )𝑞′ = ( ) × 15 × 15 = 138.96 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
3 3
3𝑁𝑞 3 × 143
𝑁𝜎 = = = 429
1 + 2𝐾𝑜 1 + 2 × 0.426
𝑄𝑝 = (0.5 × 0.5) × 138.96 × 429 = 14903.85 𝑘𝑁
For SPT Briaud correlated equation is used (Braja Das, 2019):
𝑞𝑝 = 0.5𝑝𝑎 (𝑁60 )0.36 = 0.5 × 100 × 429 × 230.36 = 6091 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
For frictional resistance again Briaud’s suggested equation is used (Braja Das, 2019):
𝑓𝑎𝑣 = 0.224𝑝𝑎 (𝑁60 )0.29 = 0.224 × 100 × 230.29 = 55.61 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
𝑄𝑠 = 𝑝𝐿𝑓𝑎𝑣 = (4 × 0.5) × 15 × 55.61 = 1668.3 𝑘𝑁
For conservative approach, Meyerhof’s results are chosen for point bearing capacity:
𝑄𝑝 +𝑄𝑠 5006.48+1668.3
𝑄𝑎𝑙𝑙 = = = 2224.92 𝑘𝑁
𝐹𝑆 3
Negative skin friction isn’t calculated for the following reasons: there is no overlapping
of sandy and clayey layers in the site and the water table is too low to create a friction.
Therefore, the allowable load can be compared with our ultimate loads:
𝑄𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 = 𝐴𝑅 = (3 × 3) × 66.25 = 596.25 𝑘𝑁
𝑄𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝐴𝑅 = (2.5 × 2.5) × 148.76 = 929.75𝑘𝑁
152
5.3.2 Settlement
The working load at the pile point and along the pile shaft can be roughly taken as equal
to values found by load combinations. Modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio values were
taken from the previous reports of soil analysis in Arizona (Beckwith & Crossley, 1978),
while average modulus of elasticity was taken for concrete. Therefore, according to the
Vesic’s method (Braja Das, 2019):
𝑄𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐿 596.25
𝑠𝑒(1) = = = 0.006 𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝑝 𝐸𝑝 (0.5 × 0.5) × 40 × 106
𝑄𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿 929.75
𝑠𝑒(1) = = = 0.009 𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝑝 𝐸𝑝 (0.5 × 0.5) × 40 × 106
𝑞𝑤𝑝 𝐷 66.25 × 0.5

𝑠𝑒(2) = (1 − 𝜇𝑠 2 )𝐼𝑤𝑝 = × (1 − 0.392 ) × 0.85 = 0.019 𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝑠 124 × 103
𝑞𝑤𝑝 𝐷 148.76 × 0.5

𝑠𝑒(2) = (1 − 𝜇𝑠 2 )𝐼𝑤𝑝 = × (1 − 0.392 ) × 0.85 = 0.043 𝑚𝑚
𝐸𝑠 124 × 103
𝐿 15
𝐼𝑤𝑠 = 2 + 0.35( )0.5 = 2 + 0.35( )0.5 = 3.917
𝐷 0.5
𝑄𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐷
𝑠𝑒(3) = ( ) (1 − 𝜇𝑠 2 )𝐼𝑤𝑠
𝑝𝐿 𝐸𝑠
596.25 0.5
=( )× × (1 − 0.392 ) × 3.917 = 0.027 𝑚𝑚
(4 × 0.5) × 15 124 × 103
𝑄𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐷
𝑠𝑒(3) = ( ) (1 − 𝜇𝑠 2 )𝐼𝑤𝑠
𝑝𝐿 𝐸𝑠
929.75 0.5
=( )× 3
× (1 − 0.392 ) × 3.917 = 0.042 𝑚𝑚
(4 × 0.5) × 15 124 × 10
153
𝑠𝑒 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒) = 0.006 + 0.019 + 0.027 = 0.052 𝑚𝑚
𝑠𝑒 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔) = 0.009 + 0.043 + 0.042 = 0.094 𝑚𝑚
As it can be seen, the settlement for pile foundation is very small (almost negligible), so
it is safe to use pile foundation. However, shallow foundation also fits criteria and is
considered as cheaper and less complicated. Therefore, there should be a review on
situations when pile foundation is recommended. First of all, it is used in weak soils,
however results regarding strength of site soil show that our site has a strong soil type.
Next, is the presence of huge lateral loads, which doesn’t deeply affect our site, as it is
not a tall building and wind and seismic loads as well as earth pressure have a smaller
effect. The soil didn’t show expansive or collapse behaviour as well. Therefore, it is
logical to consider a shallow foundation instead of a pile one for this site.
154
6. Construction management
6.1. Project Charter

Table 6.1. Project charter
Project Charter
Project Name Start Date End Date
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill in Maricopa, 17-Jan-2023 11-Sep-2024

Arizona
Need in the Project Scope
• Recently, 2 of 7 Maricopa's landfills were In scope Out of scope

exhausted and closed earlier than planned.
A new substitute landfill is needed to handle
high waste generation rates. • Office, operation and • Bidding, contracting
• The proposed landfill will be the ultimate treatment units details
disposal for 370,000 tons of non-recyclable
and non-recoverable municipal solid waste. • Site and disposal area • Operation
development management
155
• The landfill design and operation will follow • Operation equipment • Details for
the world's best practices regarding leachate-, choice and procurement Mechanical,
gas-, Electrical, Roads
odor-, stormwater-, and post-closure
management to negate the environmental impact.
Key Deliverables
• Energy recovered from the landfill gas will be
equivalent to the burning of 21,600 tons of coal.
• The project will alleviate the load on waste • Developed Site (12.5 ha) • Operation Unit
management logistics of the county (1763 m2)
and thus reduce government expenditures on
waste disposal.
• Disposal Site (0.5 of 3 • Leachate
cells) Management System
• Office Building (369 • Landfill Gas

m2) Management System
Targets and Goals Key Milestones
• Architectural, Structural, Geotechnical Milestone Date

drawings with LOD 300
• Site Development, Construction of Landfill and Site preparation finish 24-Oct-2023

Supporting Buildings
• Detailed Operation and Post-Closure Plan Office building start 18-Sep-2023
• Detailed Justification on Design Decisions Disposal site finish 20-Aug-2024
156
Table 6.1. Project charter (cont)
Team Members Financials
Name Function Investments
Gosha Zhukov Project Manager • Materials ($13.9 m) • Equipment ($1.1)
Sasha Suvorov Chief Architect
Misha Kutuzov Chief Structural • Labor ($1.8 m) total: $16.9m

Engineer
Vasya Chuikov Chief Geotechnical Income

Engineer
Dima Donskoy Chief Environmental 13% overhead total: $2.18m

Engineer
Construction Assumptions and Constraints Construction Risks and Issues
Assumptions Constraints Risks Issues
Having Sufficiently Funding Sufficiency Seismic Hazard, Floods, Air Contamination

Skilled Team Tornado
Complete Site Construction and Cells Slippage Urban Ecosystems

Information Operation Permits Deterioration
Equipment, Labour, Permit to Sell Gas or Disobeying Safety Rules Inadequate

Materials Sufficiency Electricity Construction
Drawings
Cover Material National Landfilling Contract Mistakes Supply Chain Issues

Availability Legislation
Little or no Laws Informal Approval by Materials Cost Increase Worker's Health

Violation Locals (NYMBY) Hazard
Constract Schedule Air, Groundwater, Soil Lack of Labor or Noise, Dust, Odour
Adequacy Parameters Equipment
157
158
6.2. Feasibility Study
The feasibility of the project was assessed by five major dimensions and 24 criteria
(Heralova, 2017).
Figure 6.1. Feasibility study dimensions and criteria
159
Technical feasibility checks the criteria that make the construction realizable. Studied
criteria are listed in the table below (SB Lee, 2004).
Table 6.2. Technical feasibility criteria
Criteria Minimum Met? Analysis

requirement
Size of the site >12 ha ✅ A site was selected near the Arizona
agricultural institute (lat: 33.0970327
deg.; long: -111.9717857; available
empty area is a rectangle of 9 km2.
However, the needed area is just 0.125
km2. Hence, size is sufficient
Surface waters >500m from ✅ The site is 73 km away from nearest

surface waters surface waters (Gila River)
Precipitation <40 cm/ year ✅ The selected city has a precipitation of

10-30 cm / year
Earthquake <30 per 10,000 ✅ The selected city has low rate of
risk years earthquakes:
only 4-10 per 10,000 years.
Groundwater >30 m deep ✅ The region has 60-100 m deep

level groundwater level
Airport >1.5 km away ✅ The nearest airport (Ak-Chin regional

distance from airport airport) is located 15 km away from the
site
Wind speed <6.0 m/s is ✅ The selected site has an average wind
required to speed of <4.0 m/s. So, it meets the
prevent odor requirements.
distribution
160
Distance to >2 km, but <5 km ✅ The site is 3.5 km from the nearest
urban area urban
161
Economic feasibility covers all major financial aspects of the projects (Jain, Townsend,
and Johnson, 2013).
Table 6.3. Economic feasibility criteria
Criteria Met? Analysis
Market value of the ✅ Landfill is an essential civil unit of a region. Proper

project and market landfill prevents the soil, air, and groundwater
trends contamination. Without the landfill, the health of
citizens is at risk. Two of nine local landfills were
recently closed ahead of time. So, a new landfill is
needed to manage the waste generated by the city.
Availability of ✅ Company resources can be utilized to perform the

investments construction, since the cost of construction is
relatively small (less than <$5 m).
Alternatively, local Maricopa governments offer a

special 0% interest loan for critical civic projects,
such as landfill construction.
Availability of ✅ Local Maricopa government is willing to purchase

purchasers the landfill. Alternatively, landfill operation
companies, such as Clean Harbors and Stericycle
Inc. can buy the landfill. From the perspective of
an operating company, the landfill can generate
$20-30 m of revenue over 15 years, while the
capital cost is just $5m.
The revenue can be generated for tipping fees

($38/tonne) and gas to electricity conversion ($15/
tonne of waste). The landfill will be able to take
390,000 tonnes, meaning $20m revenues.
Additional cells may be developed to accept even
more waste.
162
Financial-cost benefit ✅ The construction cost is $16.9m:
analysis
General overhead profit is set to 13%. So, the net
profit for the contractor is $2.18m earned in 432
days. Deal is guaranteed since local government is
willing to fund the construction due to urgency
163
Legal feasibility guarantees construction approval by governmental bodies.
Table 6.4. Legal feasibility criteria
Technical ✅ All technical feasibility criteria are met

feasibility
Leachate ✅ Leachate will be managed. Special liner will be

management constructed. Leachate collection pipe will be joined to
the sump pump. Leachate will be treated in pond
Gas management ✅ Gas will be converted to electricity via electric power

generators. Extras will be burned via gas flare
Time frame to ✅ Landfill permits require on average 16-32 months of

obtain permit revision. It is assumed that the permit is already
granted.
Operational feasibility ensures that the project fulfills its functional goals. Such targets
of the landfill are listed in the table below:
Table 6.5. Operational feasibility criteria
Waste collection ✅ Gates and roads are to be constructed to enable

and inspection access by trucks. Waste processing unit is
constructed and can handle 150 tons/day with a
conveyor, compactor and waste inspection
cameras.
164
Waste disposal ✅ The waste can now be disposed into an excavated
cell
Leachate ✅ Leachate will be managed. Special liner will be

management constructed. Leachate collection pipe will be
joined to the sump pump. Leachate will be treated
in pond
Gas management ✅ Gas will be converted to electricity via electric

power generators. Extras will be burned via gas
flare
Vehicle ✅ A maintenance shop is constructed near the waste

maintenance treatment area. It can manage 4 vehicles at a time.
Office buildings ✅ a 2 storey office building is constructed for

workers and managers.
Scheduling feasibility investigates whether a construction project can be accomplished

in due time.
Table 6.6. Scheduling feasibility criteria
Permits ✅ Landfill permits require on average 16-32 months of

revision. It is assumed that the permit is already
granted.
165
Meeting the ✅ The landfill is company owned. It will be sold only
deadline after a full completion. Therefore, no strict deadlines
exist. Project delays will not incur significant
additional costs
166
6.3. Cost-benefit analysis
The landfill project has a huge social and economic impact on the area. Both non-
marketable and financial aspects are considered in Table 6.7. Despite the significant
capital costs ($16.8m), the project is highly demanded by local authorities and
community. For the local government, a new municipal solid waste landfill will cut costs
on waste transportation by $3.3m. Hence, they are highly incentivized to fund the project.
Also, modern leachate and gas management systems guarantee the safety of the landfill
for people and nearby natural resources. For these reasons, social and environmental
advantages of the project compensate well for the economic burden.
Figure 6.2. Cost benefit analysis results
167
Table 6.7. Cost-benefit analysis
Cost Benefit
Total costs are $16.8m (see details in the Overhead profits are 13% (i.e .$2.18
next section). earned in 237 days).
Equipment deteriorated Skill of workers improved
Utilizes lots of the valuable land near the Prevention of the contamination of soil,
state capital. The land will be accessible groundwater and air
for heavy and residential constructions
Job opportunities for locals
over the next 150 years. (Al-Jarrah, and
Abu-Qdais, 2006) Salaries paid to employed people
(economic development)
Discontent among locals due to false Recycling of energy

perceptions
Political power expenditures Quick construction (237 days)
Requires long aftercare (30 years) Goodwill
Increased odor and noise pollution Network
168
Detailed cost estimate is presented in the following set of tables (6.11-6.15). In total, 58
items were identified. They were clustered into 6 working areas (Table 6.8. Costs were
computed via RS Means database (2014). Volumes were computed via Revit, Kubla
Cubed. Some of the input data were taken from environmental, geotechnical,
architectural-structural-materials parts. Assumption is that all equipment is rented.
Table 6.8. Financial costs analysis summary
Area Total costs, thousands USD
Material Labor Equipment Sum
Site works 3,225 455 43 3,723
Office building 334 133 4 471
Waste processing unit 3,974 604 66 4,644
Landfill gas management unit 4,058 151 216 4,425
Disposal site 419 396 608 1,423
Leachate pond 1,877 108 207 2,192
Sum 13,887 1,847 1,144 16,878
169
Table 6.9. Site preparation costs analysis
Item Decision Implication Total Cost
Land acquisition In Maricopa City, 12.5 ha area is Material: $1,892k
AZ, near monitoring needed Labor: $34k
centers, but away Equipment: $0k
from urban Sum: $1,926k
Topographical Topographical 12.5 ha should be Material: $3k
Surveys surveying, surveyed by 4 Labor: $114k
conventional, experts in 53 days. Equipment: $7k
maximum Sum: $125k
Boundary and Few items, detailed 12.5 ha will be Material: $4k
survey markers populated with signs Labor: $69k
in 32 days. The cost Equipment: $4k
of material is Sum: $77k
$334/ha
Clearing and Cut and chip d=150 12.5 ha area should Material: $111k
Grubbing mm trees be cleared. For this 3 Labor: $79k
C.Y. a loader is Equipment: $0k
needed. It requires Sum: $191k
32 days.
Fence Steel fence 1.8 m Fence will be Material: $170k
installed around the Labor: $36k
perimeter (1500 m), Equipment: $7k
including Sum: $213k
excavation, &
concrete. Total
material cost is
$112/m. It requires 4
workers and one
truck. The job will
be finished in 21
days.
Mobile office 3 large trailers (12m Provide offices, Material: $170k
trailers x 23m) and 8 catering, and resting Labor: $36k
medium trailers (3.7 areas for workers Equipment: $7k
m x 18m); and managers. Rent Sum: $213k
for the duration of
construction.
Truck scales Scales, electronic, Truck scales to Material: $70k
with steel deck, for measure waste Labor: $14k
89.2 tons received. 3 Equipment: $0k
Carpenters can Sum: $84k
install it in 9 days.
170
Wheelwash Wheelwash A wheelwash Material: $400k
Ecoramp costing $400,000 is Labor: $26k
(22 m long) needed. 3 Carpenters Equipment: $0k
can finish the job in Sum: $426k
16 days.
Security gates Scissors type, 2 gates will cost Material: $3k

folding, 2.3 m x 4.3 $1260 each. 2 Labor: $1k
m structural steel Equipment: $0k
workers can install Sum: $4k
them in 1 day.
Asphalt roads Asphalt Paving, Asphalt roads (5m Material: $261k

bituminous concrete, wide x 800m long) Labor: $12k
200 mm thick are to be Equipment: $8k
constructed. Asphalt Sum: $280k
paver with 200 hp is
needed. The job can
be finished in 2
days. Material cost
is $66/m2.
Gravel roads Gravel roads by, 200 Backhoe loader, 48 Material: $141k
mm thick hp is needed. The Labor: $33k
job can be finished Equipment: $9k
in 5 days. Material Sum: $184k
cost is $18/m2. The
TOTAL for SITE Material: $3225k

PREPARATION Labor: $455k
Equipment: $43k
Sum: $3723k
Table 6.10. Office building costs analysis

Item Decision Volume Total Cost
Excavating, 0.76 m3 excavator (1.2 54 BCM Material: $0
Continuous Trench to 1.8 m deep) Labor: $228
Equipment: $257
Sum: $485
171
Foundation Strip Footing, 15 CM Material: $4914
Reinforced (914x300 Labor: $592
mm) Equipment: $70
Sum: $5576
Slab on grade C.I.P. concrete forms, 54 M Material: $305

formwork slab on grade, bulkhead Labor: $1350
with keyway, wood, Equipment: $0
150 mm high, 1 use, Sum: $1655
includes erecting,
bracing, stripping and
cleaning
Slab on grade Slab on grade, 150mm 180 CM Material: $7740

thick, 21 Mpa Labor: $3204
Equipment: $36
Sum: $10,980
Concrete walls C.I.P. concrete forms, 324 SM Material: $14,256

formwork wall, brick shelf, add to Labor: $16,200
wall form, 100 mm Equipment: $0
wide, 1 use, includes Sum: $30,456
erecting, bracing,
stripping and cleaning,
use wall area above
shelf
Concrete walls Concrete wall 32 CM Material: $16,064

freestanding, 4m 10 cm Labor: $26,240
thick Equipment: $2304
Sum: $44,608
Brick wall Brick walls, alternate 150 SM Material: $10800

method of estimating Labor: $21450
by square foot, Equipment: $0
common brick, 73 brick Sum: $32,250
per square meter, 100
mm thick wall, includes
mortar, 3% brick waste
and 25% mortar waste,
excludes scaffolding,
horizontal reinforcing,
vertical reinforcing and
grout
172
Elevated slab C.I.P. concrete forms, 180 SM Material: $12240
formwork elevated slab, flat plate, Labor: $16560
plywood, to 4.6 m high, Equipment: $0
1 use, includes shoring, Sum: $28,800
erecting, bracing,
stripping and cleaning
Elevated slab Elevated slab, flat slab 180 SM Material: $7560

with drops, 9m span. Labor: $3204
Structural concrete, in Equipment: $1112
place, elevated slab (28 Sum: $11,876
MPa), 150 mm slab,
includes finishing, excl
forms, reinforcing
Stairs Shop fabricated steel 1 Ea Material: $840

stairs (1050 mm) Labor: $72
Equipment: $6
Sum: $918
Interior walls Gypsum partition walls 240 SM Material: $6480

(20cm wide) with wood Labor: $11,760
studs, Partition Wall, Equipment: $0
interior, water resistant, Sum: $18,240
taped both
sides,installed on &
incl. 50mm x 100mm
wood studs, 400mm
O.C., 2.4 m to 3.6 m
high, 16 mm gypsum
drywall
Floor 2 Exterior Glass glazings, 1 cm 168 SM Material: $117,600

walls thick, clear, plain, Labor: $19,488
Glass, beveled, with Equipment: $0
design patterns Sum: $137,088
Roof Concrete roof tiles 190 SM Material: $106,400

(shakes) nailed to wood Labor: $7980
deck Equipment: $0
Sum: $114,380
173
Doors Aluminum commercial 5 units Material: $5330
single doors (914 mm x Labor: $1740
2134 mm) Equipment: $0
Sum: $7070
Floor 1 windows Windows, aluminum, 6 units Material: $3960

940 mm x 965 mm, Labor: $684
frame, glazing Equipment: $0
Sum: $4644
Furniture Desks, chairs, drawers, 30 units Material: $19,800

storage cabinets Labor: $1800
Equipment: $240
Sum: $21,840
TOTAL for Material: $334k

OFFICE Labor: $133k
BUILDING Equipment: $4k
Sum: $471k
Table 6.11. Waste processing unit costs analysis

Excavation 0.76 m3 excavator (1.2 to 980 BCM Material: $0k
1.8 m deep) Labor: $4k
Equipment: $5k
Sum: $9k
Formwork Form in place, job built 1960 SM Material: $104k

plywood, 300mm wide, Labor: $118k
C.I.P. concrete forms, Equipment: $0k
equipment foundations, 1 Sum: $221k
use, includes erecting,
cleaning
Mat slab Cast-in place concrete 529 CM Material: $41k

slab (300 mm), no Labor: $9k
formwork Equipment: $0k
174
Sum: $50k
Columns Column, structural, 300 40 Ea Material: $106k

mm dia x 5.4 m H, extra Labor: $5k
strong pipe, incl shop Equipment: $3k
primer, cap & base plate, Sum: $114k
excludes bolts
Exteriror walls Concrete wall, 10 cm 400 CM Material: $159k

thick Labor: $208k
Equipment: $17k
Sum: $384k
PEB rafters roof Cellular metal roof 1763 SM Material: $233k

decking, galvanized steel Labor: $33k
Equipment: $3k
Sum: $269k
PEB rafters Boxed roof ridge beam, 50 units Material: $21k

fabrication for CF metal rafters, w/ Labor: $21k
galv joist & track, double, Equipment: $0k
18 ga x 150 mm D Sum: $43k
PEB rafters Erection of roof truss 50 units Material: $0k

installation Labor: $5k
Equipment: $8k
Sum: $13k
Waste processing Pretreatment equipment, 1 set Material: $2920k

Equipment including conveyors, Labor: $136k
cameras, containers, and Equipment: $30k
others Sum: $3086k
Doors Aluminum commercial 20 units Material: $21k

single doors (914 mm x Labor: $7k
2134 mm) Equipment: $0k
Sum: $28k
Sectional lift doors Telescoping steel door (6 9 units Material: $342k

m x 5 m) Labor: $56k
Equipment: $0k
Sum: $398k
175
Furniture Desks, chairs, drawers, 40 units Material: $26k
storage cabinets Labor: $2k
Equipment: $0k
Sum: $29k

WASTE Labor: $604k
PROCESSING Equipment: $66k
UNIT Sum: $4643k
Table 6.12. Landfill gas management unit costs analysis

Excavation 0.76 m3 excavator (1.2 to 1.8 84 BCM Material: $0
m deep). Labor: $354
Half of a first cell (109 m x Equipment: $400
66 m x 13 m, slope 1:3) Sum: $754
computed via Kubla Cubed
(Figure 6.3)
Formwork Form in place, job built 100 SM Material: $5300

plywood, 300mm wide, Labor: $6000
C.I.P. concrete forms, Equipment: $0
equipment foundations, 1 Sum: $11,300
use, includes erecting,
cleaning
Mat slab Cast-in place concrete slab 30 CM Material: $2318

(300 mm), no formwork Labor: $505
Equipment: $5
Sum: $2828
Biogas Cleanup Skid Includes BIO-CNG 200 and 1 set Material: $1800k
winterization Labor: $92k
Equipment: $138k
Sum: $2030k
Fast Fueling Station Includes compressors, 1 set Material: $2250k

containers, storage tubes, and Labor: $52k
trailers Equipment: $78k
176
Sum: $2380k

WASTE Labor: $151k
UNIT Sum: $4,425k
Table 6.13. Disposal site costs analysis

Excavating, Bulk Excavator, hydraulic, crawler 73349 BCM Material: $0k
Bank Measure mid., 2 C .Y. cop. = 195 Labor: $86k
C.Y./hr Equipment: $144k
Sum: $230k
Hauling 4x 18 C.Y. trucks, 8 91686 LCM Material: $0k

wheels,15 min. Labor: $144k
wait/ld./Uld.,15 MPH, cycle Equipment: $413k
0.5 mil Sum: $556k
Clay liner Sheepsfoot or wobbly wheel 1702 CCM Material: $32k

compaction roller, 8" lifts, common fill Labor: $2k
Equipment: $4k
Sum: $38k
Structural fill bern Grading ot dump, or 9264 LCM Material: $0k

embankment if required, by Labor: $13k
dozer Equipment: $32k
Sum: $45k
Geomembrane Solmax LLDPE semi 11345 SM Material: $81k

crystalline thermoplastic Labor: $44k
geomembrane Equipment: $0k
Sum: $125k
Geotextile Geotextile installation 11345 SM Material: $95k

Labor: $44k
Equipment: $0k
Sum: $139k
Leachate pipes Installation of leachate pipes 398 LM Material: $32k
177
Labor: $56k
Equipment: $0k
Sum: $88k
Sump pump Sump pump, Single stage 25 1 unit Material: $7k

GPM, 1 HP, 1-1/2" discharge Labor: $1k
Equipment: $0k
Sum: $8k
Gravel fill Gravel fill, spread by dozer, 4390 LCM Material: $172k
no compaction, 50 cm thick Labor: $6k
Equipment: $15k
Sum: $194k

WASTE Labor: $396k
UNIT Sum: $1424k
Figure 6.3. Excavation needed for the half of the cell (Kubla Cubed)
178
Figure 6.4. Structural fill needed for the first cell (Kubla Cubed)
Table 6.14. Leachate pond costs analysis

Excavating, Bulk Excavator, hydraulic, crawler 6180 BCM Material: $0k
Bank Measure mid., 2 C .Y. cop. = 195 Labor: $7k
C.Y./hr Equipment: $12k
Sum: $19k
Hauling 4x 18 C.Y. truck, 8 7725 LCM Material: $0k

wheels,15 min. Labor: $12k
wait/ld./Uld.,15 MPH, cycle Equipment: $35k
0.5 mil Sum: $47k
Clay liner Compaction of engineering 1236 CCM Material: $23k

compaction subgrade, 300 mm Labor: $1k
Equipment: $3k
Sum: $28k
179
Structural fill bern Grading ot dump, or 350 LCM Material: $0k
embankment if required, by Labor: $0k
dozer Equipment: $1k
Sum: $2k
Geomembrane Solmax LLDPE semi 3760 SM Material: $53k

crystalline thermoplastic Labor: $15k
geomembrane Equipment: $0k
Sum: $68k
Equipment Leachate management 1 set Material: $1800k

equipment, blowers, Labor: $72k
containers, aeration tools, Equipment: $156k
pumps, valves, dewatering Sum: $2028k
system

WASTE Labor: $108k
UNIT Sum: $2192k
Compared to the preliminary estimate ($4.8m), the detailed cost estimate is 4 times larger
($16.8m). Preliminary estimate omitted a number of nuances, such as the costs of waste
processing systems, landfill gas management systems, and leachate pond equipment,
which increased the cost by more than $9m. Furthermore, the detailed cost is well
approximated by the US EPA manual, which predicted the cost for such a landfill (100
tpd, 15 years) to be $11.4m.
180
6.4 Work breakdown structure
The detailed WBS is presented in Figure 6.5. It contains 58 activities categorized by six
working areas.
Figure 6.4. Detailed WBS for the municipal solid waste landfill
Work breakdown dictionary is presented in the following table
Table 6.15. WBS dictionary based on the final design

Area Task Description Responsible
Site Land Buy 12.5 hectares of land near Project Manager
acquisition University of Arizona Maricopa
Agricultural Center
Site Topographic Perform the surveying of the land, Surveying crew

al Surveys collect maximum data, including soil
samples
181
Site Boundary Every 25 meters of future fence, install Surveying crew
and survey signs and tapes indicating the
markers boundaries. Install 40 elevation
measurement points.
Site Clearing and Cut all existing trees of diameter less Clearing and
Grubbing than 15 cm. Remove all plants and grubbing crew
trach
Site Fence Assemble and install 1.8 meter high Structural steel
fences. The task requires using cast in workers
place concrete for foundation and
excavation
Site Mobile Rent and install mobile trailers. Three Project Manager
office large (12m x 23m) and 8 medium (3.7
trailers m x 18m). Install trailers providing
offices, allowing catering and rest
Site Truck scales Install electronic weight measurement Structural steel

system for vehicles entering and workers
exiting the site. The scales have steel
deck for 89.2 tons
Site Wheelwash Install Ecoramp wheel cleaning system Structural steel

for vehicles entering and exiting the workers
site
Site Security Install two scissor type folding 2x4m Structural steel
gates security gates workers
Site Asphalt Build 4000 sq.m of asphalt paving Asphalt roads

roads with bituminous concrete of 200 mm building crew
thickness. Locations are defined on the
site layout plan.
Site Gravel roads Construct 75,000 sq.m of gravel filled Gravel roads crew
roads with thickness of 200 mm.
Locations are defined on the site
layout plan.
182
Office Excavating, Excavate 54 BCM. Use 0.76 m3 Smaller
Building Continuous excavator able to excavate from 1.2 to excavation crew
Trench 1.8 m deep
Office Foundation Mix and pour 14.8 CM of cast in place Concrete crew
Building concrete to make strip footing
(914x300 mm). Reinforcements,
curing, and finishing is needed
Office Slab on Build and install 54 meters of forms Formwork

Building grade for cast in place concrete forms. builders
formwork Purpose is for slabs on grade.
Formwork should be made of wood
and have 150 mm height.
Office Slab on Mix and pour 180 CM of concrete to Concrete crew

Building grade make slab on grade. Its thickness
should be 150mm, and strength - 21
Mpa
Office Concrete Build formworks for walls, which Formwork

Building walls requires 324 sq. meters of forms. The builders
formwork wall will have 100 mm width. Bracing
is needed
Office Concrete Mix and pour 32 CM of concrete to Concrete crew

Building walls make freestanding walls of 4m height
and 10 cm thickness.
Office Brick wall Build 150 sq.meters of walls with Bricklayers crew
Building thickness of 100 mm. Use 73 bricks
per square meter. Requires making of
mortar and scaffolding.
Office Elevated 180 sq. meters of .P. concrete forms, Formwork

Building slab elevated slab, flat plate, plywood, to builders
formwork 4.6 m high, 1 use, includes shoring,
erecting, bracing, stripping and
cleaning
Office Elevated Mix and pour 180 sq. meters of Concrete crew
Building slab concrete to make an elevated slab. Its
thickness is 150 mm, flat slab with
183
drops. Slab should have a strength of
28 MPa. Requires finishing and
reinforcing
Office Stairs Install 1 set of stairs, made of shop Carpenters

Building fabricated steel. Width is 1050 mm
Office Interior Build 240 sq.meter of gypsum Carpenters

Building walls partition walls, having a width of
20cm wide. Use 50mm x 100mm
wood studs.
Office Floor 2 Install 168 sq.meters of beveled glass Glazers

Building Exterior glazings, having 1 cm thickness.
walls Follow the with design patterns
Office Roof Cover 190 sq.meters of roof with Roof layers crew
Building concrete roof tiles (shakes) nailed to
wood deck
Office Doors Install 5 single doors made of Carpenters

Building aluminum (914 mm x 2134 mm)
Office Floor 1 Install 6 aluminum windows (940x965 Structural steel

Building windows mm) with glazing workers
Office Furniture Assemble and install 30 pieces of Carpenters

Building furniture, including desks, chairs,
drawers, storage cabinets
Waste Excavation Excavate and haul 980 BCM of soil Smaller

Processing for a shallow foundation. Use. 0.76 m3 excavation crew
Unit excavator
Waste Formwork Build 1960 sq.meters of firework for a Formwork crew

Processing cast in place mat slab with thickness of
Unit 300mm wide. Use plywoods and
bracing
Waste Mat slab Mix and pour 529 cubic meters of Larger concrete
Processing concrete to make a mat slab (300 mm crew
Unit thickness). Requires reinforcement,
curing, and finishing. .
184
Waste Columns Install 40 concrete columns square Larger concrete
Processing shape 300 mm side. Should be crew
Unit reinforced by seel pipes. Heigh is 8
meters. Requires primer, cap, bolts
Waste Exterior Build 400 CM of concrete wall of 10 Larger concrete

Processing walls cm thickness for the entire perimeter. crew
Unit Follow columns position as indicated
in ASM section
Waste PEB rafters Acquire and prepare parts for PEB Structural steel
Processing roof rafters to cover 1763 sq.meters of roof. workers
Unit
Waste PEB rafters Assemble PEB rafter roof, Use Boxed Structural steel
Processing fabrication roof ridge beam, and galvanized joist workers
Unit & track. Referrer to ASM part
Waste PEB rafters Erect and install all PEB rafters Structural steel
Processing installation components. Requires welding workers
Unit
Waste Waste Install pretreatment equipment, Structural steel

Processing processing including conveyors, cameras, workers
Unit Equipment containers, and others
Waste Doors Install 20 aluminum commercial single Carpenters

Processing doors, 914 mm x 2134 mm each
Unit
Waste Sectional lift Install 9 telescoping steel doors (6 m x Carpenters

Processing doors 5 m)
Unit
Waste Furniture Install 40 pieces of furniture, including Carpenters

Processing desks, chairs, drawers, storage cabinets
Unit
Landfill Gas Excavation Excavate 84 BCM for a mat slab. Use Smaller
Management 0.76 m3 excavator excavation crew
Unit
185
Landfill Gas Formwork Construct and install 100 sq.meters of Formwork
Management plywood forms in place to build builders
Unit 300mm wide cast in place mat
foundation , equipment foundations
Landfill Gas Mat slab Mix and pour 30 CM of concrete t o Smaller concrete
Management make 300 mm concrete slab crew
Unit
Landfill Gas Biogas Install BIO-CNG 200 and Structural steel

Management Cleanup winterization equipment workers
Unit Skid
Landfill Gas Fast Fueling Install compressors, containers, Structural steel

Management Station storage tubes, and trailers workers
Unit
Disposal Site Excavating, Excavate 73,500 BCM for a disposal Larger excavation
Bulk Bank site. Use a crawler mounted hydraulic crew
Measure excavator with 2 C .Y container,
capable of excavating 195 C.Y./hr
Disposal Site Hauling Haul 91,700 LCM of soil. Use 4 tricks, Hauling crew
each 18 C.Y., on 8 wheels, and circle
time is 15 min.
Disposal Site Clay liner Distribute and compress 1701 CCM of Compaction crew
compaction clay liner. Use sheepsfoot roller and 8"
lifts
Disposal Site Structural Create a fill burn around the excavated Compaction crew
fill bern zone. Its volume should be 9264 LCM.
Disposal Site Geomembra Install 11,345 sq, meters of solmax Roofers crew
ne LLDPE semi crystalline thermoplastic
geomembrane
Disposal Site Geotextile Install 11,345 sq.meters of geotextile. Roofers crew

Details are in the env.section
Disposal Site Leachate Install 398 meters of pipes for leachate Plumbing crew
pipes pipes
186
Disposal Site Sump pump Install a sump pump for leachate. It Plumbing crew
should be single staged 25 GPM and 1
HP
Disposal Site Gravel fill Construct 4,390 LCM gravel fill using Dozer crew
dozer. 50 cm thickness is needed, but
no compacation
Leachate Excavating, Excavate 6,180 BCM for a disposal Larger excavation

Pond Bulk Bank site. Use a crawler mounted hydraulic crew
Measure excavator with 2 C .Y container,
capable of excavating 195 C.Y./hr
Leachate Hauling Haul 7,700 LCM of soil. Use 4 tricks, Hauling crew
Pond each 18 C.Y., on 8 wheels, and circle
time is 15 mi
Leachate Clay liner Distribute and compress 1226 CCM of Compaction crew
Pond compaction clay liner. Use sheepsfoot roller and 8"
lifts
Leachate Structural Create a fill burn around the excavated Compaction crew
Pond fill bern zone. Its volume should be 350 LCM.
Leachate Geomembra Install 3,760 sq, meters of solmax Roofers crew

Pond ne LLDPE semi crystalline thermoplastic
geomembrane
Leachate Equipment Install leachate management Structural steel

Pond equipment, blowers, containers, worker
aeration tools, pumps, valves,
dewatering system t
187
6.5 Schedule
Table 6.16. Construction schedule
Task Task Name Duration Start Finish Predeces

ID (days) sors
0 Start 432 17-Jan-2023 11-Sep-2024
1 Site works 201 17-Jan-2023 24-Oct-2023
2 Land acquisition 13 17-Jan-2023 2-Feb-2023
3 Topographical Surveys 57 3-Feb-2023 24-Apr-2023 2
4 Boundary and survey 32 25-Apr-2023 7-Jun-2023 3

markers
5 Clearing and Grubbing 32 8-Jun-2023 21-Jul-2023 4
6 Fence 22 24-Jul-2023 22-Aug-2023 5
7 Asphalt roads 2 23-Aug-2023 24-Aug-2023 6
8 Gravel roads 15 25-Aug-2023 14-Sep-2023 7
9 Security gates 1 15-Sep-2023 15-Sep-2023 7,8
10 Truck scales 10 18-Sep-2023 29-Sep-2023 7,8,9
11 Wheelwash 17 2-Oct-2023 24-Oct-2023 10
12 Office building 131 18-Sep-2023 18-Mar-2024
188
ID (days) sors
13 Excavating, Continuous 1 18-Sep-2023 18-Sep-2023 9

Trench
14 Foundation 1 19-Sep-2023 19-Sep-2023 13
15 Slab on grade formwork 1 10-Oct-2023 10-Oct-2023 14FS+14

days
16 Slab on grade 2 11-Oct-2023 12-Oct-2023 15
17 Concrete walls formwork 15 2-Nov-2023 22-Nov-2023 16FS+14

days
18 Concrete walls 2 23-Nov-2023 24-Nov-2023 17
19 Brick wall 7 15-Dec-2023 25-Dec-2023 18FS+14

days
20 Elevated slab formwork 5 26-Dec-2023 1-Jan-2024 19
21 Elevated slab 1 2-Jan-2024 2-Jan-2024 20
22 Stairs 1 23-Jan-2024 23-Jan-2024 21FS+14

days
23 Interior walls 8 24-Jan-2024 2-Feb-2024 22
24 Floor 2 Exterior walls 12 5-Feb-2024 20-Feb-2024 23
25 Roof 14 21-Feb-2024 11-Mar-2024 24
26 Doors 1 12-Mar-2024 12-Mar-2024 25
27 Floor 1 windows 1 13-Mar-2024 13-Mar-2024 26
28 Furniture 3 14-Mar-2024 18-Mar-2024 27
189
ID (days) sors
29 Waste processing unit 148 19-Sep-2023 11-Apr-2024
30 Excavation for shallow 4 19-Sep-2023 22-Sep-2023 13

foundation
31 Formwork 21 11-Oct-2023 8-Nov-2023 30,15
32 Mat slab 4 27-Nov-2023 30-Nov-2023 31,17,18
33 Columns 3 21-Dec-2023 25-Dec-2023 32FS+14

days
34 Exteriror walls 8 24-Jan-2024 2-Feb-2024 33FS+14

days,22
35 PEB rafters roof 9 23-Feb-2024 6-Mar-2024 34FS+14

days
36 PEB rafters fabrication 5 7-Mar-2024 13-Mar-2024 35
37 PEB rafters installation 3 14-Mar-2024 18-Mar-2024 36
38 Waste processing 10 19-Mar-2024 1-Apr-2024 37

Equipment
39 Doors 1 2-Apr-2024 2-Apr-2024 38
40 Sectional lift doors 3 3-Apr-2024 5-Apr-2024 39,34,38

SS
190
ID (days) sors
41 Furniture 4 8-Apr-2024 11-Apr-2024 40
42 Landfill gas management 45 25-Sep-2023 24-Nov-2024

unit
43 Excavation 1 25-Sep-2023 25-Sep-2023 13,30
44 Formwork 4 26-Sep-2023 29-Sep-2023 43
45 Mat slab 1 2-Oct-2023 2-Oct-2023 44
46 Biogas Cleanup Skid 10 25-Oct-2023 7-Nov-2023 45FS+14

days,1
47 Fast Fueling Station 13 8-Nov-2023 24-Nov-2023 46
48 Disposal site 236 26-Sep-2023 20-Aug-2024
49 Excavating, Bulk Bank 63 26-Sep-2023 21-Dec-2023 9,43

Measure
50 Hauling 63 26-Sep-2023 21-Dec-2023 49FF
51 Clay liner compaction 3 22-Dec-2023 26-Dec-2023 50
52 Structural fill bern 14 27-Dec-2023 15-Jan-2024 51
53 Geomembrane 32 12-Mar-2024 24-Apr-2024 52,25
54 Geotextile 46 25-Apr-2024 27-Jun-2024 53
55 Leachate pipes 30 28-Jun-2024 8-Aug-2024 54
56 Sump pump 1 9-Aug-2024 9-Aug-2024 55
191
ID (days) sors
57 Gravel fill 7 12-Aug-2024 20-Aug-2024 56
58 Leachate pond 189 22-Dec-2023 11-Sep-2024
59 Excavating, Bulk Bank 6 22-Dec-2023 29-Dec-2023 49

Measure
60 Hauling 6 22-Dec-2023 29-Dec-2023 59FF
61 Clay liner compaction 2 16-Jan-2024 17-Jan-2024 60,51,52
62 Structural fill bern 1 18-Jan-2024 18-Jan-2024 61,52
63 Geomembrane 11 28-Jun-2024 12-Jul-2024 61,53,54
64 Equipment installation 23 12-Aug-2024 11-Sep-2024 63,56
65 Finish 11-Sep-2024
192
Figure 6.6. Gantt Chart
193
194
Table 6.17. Labor and Materials Schedule
Resource Name Start Finish Amount Unit
Carpenters 24-Jan-2023 11-Apr-2024
Interior walls for Office 24-Jan-2023 2-Feb-2024 240 SM

Doors for Office 12-Mar-2024 12-Mar-2024 5 units
Windows for Office 13-Mar-2024 13-Mar-2024 6 units

Furniture for Office 14-Mar-2024 18-Mar-2024 30 units
Doors for WP unit 2-Apr-2024 2-Apr-2024 20 units
Furniture for WP unit 8-Apr-2024 11-Apr-2024 40 units
Concrete crew 19-Sep-2023 2-Feb-2024

Foundation for office 19-Sep-2023 19-Sep-2023 15 CM
Slab on grade for office 11-Oct-2023 12-Oct-2023 180 CM

Concrete walls for office 23-Nov-2023 24-Nov-2023 32 CM
Elevated slab for office 2-Jan-2024 2-Jan-2024 180 SM
Mat slab for WP unit 27-Nov-2023 30-Nov-2023 529 CM
Columns for WP unit 21-Dec-2023 25-Dec-2023 40 units
Exteriror walls for WP unit 24-Jan-2024 2-Feb-2024 400 CM

Mat slab of LFG unit 2-Oct-2023 2-Oct-2023 30 CM
Formwork builders 26-Sep-2023 1-Jan-2024

Formwork for Office, slab on 10-Oct-2023 10-Oct-2023 54 M
grade
195
Formwork for Office, concrete 2-Nov-2023 22-Nov-2023 SM

walls 32
4
Formwork for Office, elevated 26-Dec-2023 1-Jan-2024 SM
slab 18
0
Formwork for WP unit, mat 11-Oct-2023 8-Nov-2023 1,960 SM
slab
Formwork for LFG unit, mat 26-Sep-2023 29-Sep-2023 SM

slab 10
0
Structural steel workers 24-Jul-2023 11-Sep-2024
Fence 24-Jul-2023 22-Aug-2023 1500 m

Security gates 15-Sep-2023 15-Sep-2023 2 units
Truck scales 18-Sep-2023 29-Sep-2023 1 set
Wheelwash 2-Oct-2023 24-Oct-2023 1 set
Stairs 23-Jan-2023 23-Jan-2023 1 set
PEB rafters roof for WP unit 23-Feb-2024 6-Mar-2024 1763 SM
PEB rafters fabrication for WP 7-Mar-2024 13-Mar-2024 50 units
unit
PEB rafters installation for WP 14-Mar-2024 18-Mar-2024 50 units

unit
Waste processing equipment 19-Mar-2024 1-Apr-2024 1 set

for WP unit
196
Sectional lift doors for WP unit 3-Apr-2024 5-Apr-2024 9 units
Biogas Cleanup Skid for LFG 25-Oct-2023 7-Nov-2023 1 set

unit
Fast Fueling Station for LFG 8-Nov-2023 24-Nov-2023 1 set

unit
Equipment installation for 12-Aug-2024 11-Sep-2024 1 set

Leachate pond
Excavation crew 18-Sep-2023 29-Dec-2023
Trench excavation for Office 18-Sep-2023 18-Sep-2023 54 BCM

foundation
Excavation forWP unit 19-Sep-2023 22-Sep-2023 BCM

foundation 98
0
Excavation for LFG unit 25-Sep-2023 25-Sep-2023 84 BCM
foundation
Excavation for Disposal site 26-Sep-2023 21-Dec-2023 73,349 BCM
Excavation for Leachate pond 22-Dec-2023 29-Dec-2023 6,180 BCM
Compaction crew 22-Dec-2023 18-Jan-2024
Clay liner compaction for 22-Dec-2023 26-Dec-2023 1,702 CCM

Disposal Site
Structural fill bern for Disposal 27-Dec-2023 15-Jan-2024 9,264 LCM

Site
197
Clay liner compaction for 16-Jan-2024 17-Jan-2024 1,236 CCM

Leachate Pond
Structural fill bern 18-Jan-2024 18-Jan-2024 350 LCM

Hauling crew 26-Sep-2023 29-Dec-2023
Hauling from Disposal site 26-Sep-2023 21-Dec-2023 91686 LCM
Hauling from Leachate pond 22-Dec-2023 29-Dec-2023 7725 LCM

Roofers crew 21-Feb-2023 12-Jul-2024
Roof for Office 21-Feb-2023 11-Mar-2023 190.0 SM
Geomembrane for Disposal 12-Mar-2024 24-Apr-2024 11345 SM

Site
Geotextile for Disposal Site 25-Apr-2024 27-Jun-2024 11345 SM
Geomembrane for Leachate 28-Jun-2024 12-Jul-2024 3760 SM

Pond
Plumbing crew 28-Jun-2024 11-Sep-2024

Leachate pipes for Disposal 28-Jun-2024 8-Aug-2024 398 LM
Site
Sump pump for Disposal Site 9-Aug-2024 9-Aug-2024 1 unit

Equipment installation for 12-Aug-2024 11-Sep-2024 1 unit
Leachate Pond
Road builders 23-Aug-2023 14-Sep-2023
Asphalt roads 23-Aug-2023 24-Aug-2023 4000 SM
Gravel roads 25-Aug-2023 14-Sep-2023 7500 SM
Clear and grub crew 8-Jun-2023 21-Jul-2023
198
Clearing and Grubbing 8-Jun-2023 21-Jul-2023 12.5 ha

Surveying crew 3-Feb-2023 7-Jun-2023
Topographical Surveys 3-Feb-2023 24-Apr-2023 12.5 ha
Boundary and survey markers 25-Apr-2023 7-Jun-2023 12.5 ha
Brick layers 15-Dec-2023 25-Dec-2023
Brick wall for Office 15-Dec-2023 25-Dec-2023 150 SM
Glazers crew 5-Feb-2024 20-Feb-2024
Exterior walls for Office 5-Feb-2024 20-Feb-2024 168 SM
Dozer crew 12-Aug-2023 20-Aug-2024
Gravel fill for Disposal Site 12-Aug-2024 20-Aug-2024 4390 LCM
199
6.6. Construction site planning
Figure 6.7 presents the resultant construction site layout and roads for vehicle movement.
The design of a site includes a combined office+waste processing unit (main building),
landfill gas management unit, disposal area, and leachate pond. The design of the site
revolves around a crane, needed to construct the main building and landfill gas
management unit. The crane is 40 meters tall and has a 50 meters span. Considering that
the highest lifting object is a column for the waste processing unit (8 meters), the
computed safety zone is 72 meters around the crane. Since the crane is on the rails, the
safety zone area is elliptical.
Figure 6.7. Construction site layout
No road is intersecting the crane safety zone. However, gravel roads reach all essential
regions of the construction site, including mobile offices, storage areas, assembly zones,
and the disposal site. The vehicle movement trajectory has no dead ends, to mitigate
congestion.
200
Mobile office trailers were located near the entrance and main construction. However,
they are hidden away from major earthworks at disposal sites, to prevent dust pollution.
Mobile offices consist of 1 large trailer for catering (12m x 23m), 3 large office trailers
(12m x 23m), each for 20 people. Furthermore, 8 smaller trailers were provided for rest
and housing of workers. Smaller trailers (3.7m x 18m) can locate a total upto 40 people.
In total, trailers can host up to 100 people. Such a sizing was done to ensure that in
December 2023, the period when active workers count is the largest (67). In addition to
these 67 people, there will be administrative personnel, inspection engineers, medical,
cooking, and cleaning staff. In total, the expected number of people counted is 85-95.
Trailers will be sufficient offices to host all of the employees.
Similarly, storage is computed by maximum daily consumption material consumption.

Considering the safety factor of 1.4, total space needed is 3,707 square meters. This
storage space is allocated in Figure 6.21. Storage space located adjacent to the assembly
area to simplify the transportation.
Table 6.18. Storage space requirements calculation
Crew Work package requiring the most Daily Daily storage

materials/day consumption space needed
(m2)
Carpenters Furniture for WP unit 10 units 50
Concrete crew Mat slab for WP unit 132 CM 265
Formwork for Formwork for WP unit, mat slab 68 SM 101

WP unit, mat
Structural steel PEB rafters roof for WP unit 147 SM 220
201
Compaction Clay liner compaction for Leachate 618 CCM 618
Pond
Roofers Geomembrane for Disposal Site 258 SM 387
Plumbing Equipment installation for Leachate 1 unit 140

Pond
Road builders Asphalt roads 1000 SM 800
Brick layers Brick wall for Office 13.6 SM 41
Glazers crew Exterior walls for Office floor 2 10.5 SM 26
Total 2648
Total*FoS 3707
Several vehicles are needed for this construction project. Accordingly, site layout plan
has parking zone and maintenance areas for these equipments:
● Crawler Loader, 3 CY
● Flatbed Truck, 1.5 Ton
● Asphalt Paver, 130 hp
● Hydraulic Excavator, 1 CY
● Backhoe Loader, 48 hp
● Hydraulic Excavator, 2 CY
● 4x Dump Truck, 18 CY 450 hp
● Sheepsfoot Roller, 240 hp
● Dozer, 200 hp
● Hydraulic crane, 24 tons
● Gas Engine Vibrator for Concrete
202
● Concrete Pump
● Welder, Gas Engine, 300 amp
Excavation plan is presented in Geotechnical Section of this report
203
6.7. Risk and Safety Management
This section synthesizes Risk Management and Construction Safety parts since both are
highly related and have similar control measures. Compared to other construction
projects, municipal solid waste landfill requires much more attention due to the following
factors.This section is written according to OSHA safety standards for construction
(2016)..
● Due to the relative rarity of landfill construction, employees will not have enough
experience to handle unique features and problems.
● Due to the uniqueness of each landfill project, there is a lack of safety standards
and regulations.
● Due to the parallel construction, many equipment and crews will simultaneously
operate on the constrained area.
● Due to the large volume of earthworks and large industrial facilities, many
vehicles are needed. For similar reasons, numerous relocations of scaffoldings and
mixers will be needed.
● Jobs are diverse (building, excavations, pipes). For this reason, crews will not be
able to communicate with others in a proper manner. Many misunderstandings are
expected.
For the above reasons, the construction procedure may lead to numerous unwanted
consequences, including deaths, injuries, long-term health impacts, increased costs, and
delays. The management consists of identification and reaction steps. The identification
(assessment and monitoring) helps to understand what incidents can happen.
Furthermore, reaction (control and mitigation) guides how to handle immediate
consequences, or prevent them completely.
Assessment and Monitoring Methods
204
The following well established assessment and monitoring measures should be employed
in the project:
1. Preconstruction conference.
2. Worksite hazard analysis
3. Accident analysis
4. Job safety analysis
A preconstruction conference should be held to clarify the health and safety

responsibilities. The project manager should invite the representatives of each crew from
each subcontractor. The main objective of the preconstruction conference is to establish
a communication and collaboration framework for all stakeholders. For this, incidents
should be categorized. Each type of incident should have an assigned in-charge person.
All these people will be managed by risk, health and safety officers.
Moreover, during the preconstruction conference, crews should develop individual

safety activities plans. This plan must include the risk identification and mitigation
measures, as well as, employee training for emergencies. The risk, health and safety
officer should obtain the authority to inspect sub-contractors and perform independent
investigations. Other responsibilities of risk, health and safety officers include informing
all stakeholders about changes in safety policies, ensuring safety awareness,
implementing assessment and monitoring measures, and organization of meetings.
Responsible person of each crew should perform regular worksite hazard analysis. For
this analysis to work well, risk, health and safety officers should develop a rigorous list
of hazards. The list should be converted to survey/checklist. This improves
standardization, and reduces the number of human errors. Moreover, the survey should
collect the information regarding sufficiency of safety related procurement, such as
masks, helmets, and clean water.
205
The responsible employees should perform worksite hazard analysis before, during and
after their shift. Moreover, worksite hazard analysis should be done after each natural and
man-made incident. Moreover, a feedback system should be developed and implemented.
Such feedback systems should be quick, accessible, not punishing but rewarding.
Feedback systems will collect insights regarding the hazards from regular workers.
Accident analysis should be done for their prediction and prevention. For this, landfill
construction projects should be analyzed. OSHA can be contacted to get the necessary
data. The retrieved information about accidents should be examined for two objectives.
The first is cause analysis, needed for identification of the reasons why hazards has
happened and were not predicted and prevented. The second is effect analysis,
demonstrating best practices in mitigation and possible mistakes. In both analysis types,
key factors should be identified and ranked by importance. For this, experts should
employ multiple criteria decision-making algorithms, such as analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) or TOPSIS. Prioritization is essential for focusing the efforts on the most critical
problems.
To establish accident analysis, the nature of accidents should be understood properly. On

the construction site, workers perform activities according to their standard methodology
(e.g. established way to build formwork). However, their execution of a task may deviate
from the standard method for various reasons (e.g. miscommunication, tiredness, family
problems, poor weather). In turn, this deviation can cause a chain of events leading to the
ultimate safety incident with severe consequences. Hence, the analysis should be
performed to identify all activities preceding the accidents which were performed not in
an established way. Such tracing back might lead to causes, such as energy/hazardous
material leak, which are the direct cause of accidents. Other causes might be related to
poor management and environment, or inadequate behavior of employees. Such analysis
should be performed on each accident happening on the construction site.
206
Job safety analysis should be performed as it is a well established methodology to
identify hazards and prevent safety accidents. It consists of defining the activity and
dividing it into small components. Then, for each component, related hazards and their
control techniques should develop. Finally, after application of control measures, they
should be evaluated. Scope of activities should be carefully discussed since it will
significantly impact the overall efficiency of the analysis. Activities examined in job
safety analysis should consist of a few connected steps. Too broad (e.g. building a
disposal site) or too narrow definitions (e.g. hammer a nail) will result in misdirection of
safety efforts since they will not unveil meaningful threats.
To further improve the efficiency of job safety analysis, all activities should be sorted by
the following order. Activities causing high-frequency and high-impact accidents should
be prioritized. Also, activities where new methods were recently implemented should be
examined due to the fragility of innovations. The activities that were chosen for full
analysis should be divided into small components, a very fundamental task that could be
performed by a single worker in under 20-minutes. For each such task, possible hazards
should be written. Common hazards include physical interaction of human workers with
equipment or materials.
During the job safety analysis, not only managers and safety officers, but also common
workers should have an active role. The reason for that is the human factor involved in
each type of hazard. Psychology has a significant influence on the behavior of workers.
For example, workers will usually prefer a shorter path to the target position, even if it
may be more dangerous. Such factors must be the subject of consideration while
developing and implementing the safety policies.
Control and Mitigation Measures
The following well established incident reaction methods should be employed in the
project.
207
1. Safe Operating Procedures
2. Preventive Maintenance Program
3. Fleet Safety Program
4. Accident Investigation
5. Job Safety Observations
Safe operations procedures are a guide helping to accomplish a task safely. It is highly
useful for workers who forget or do not know how to perform a task, or are not familiar
with materials or equipment. Many employees are too scared to admit the lack of
confidence in their competence. Many workers believe that they know how to do a job.
However, their perception does not guarantee the safe execution manner.
Safe operations procedures have a detailed list of steps and with safety related comments
on each of those steps. Such a comment may reduce the number of mistakes of equipment
operators, preventing incidents due to human errors. Safe operations procedures should
be implemented as an easy-to-follow flow chart and a checklist.
Moreover, such safe operations procedures should include written and visualized
suggestions for cases when things get wrong. The correction measures should be included
to mitigate amplification of property/equipment damage. It is important, since in an
emergency or under stress, the operator may act intuitively rather than correctly.
Preventive maintenance is fixing the equipment issues before they happen. All vehicles
and construction devices should be monitored regularly. The inspection should be done
before every shift, followed by a major examination every week. Moreover, monitoring
is needed after every instance of unusual behavior. A more advanced approach would be
installation of sensors tracking and reporting the status of a vehicle. During such
inspections, fatigued components should be identified and replaced. A checklist should
be developed. All static parts, such as tires, oil, mirrors, should be inspected first. Next,
working capacity (engine, lights, emergency toolkit, etc.) should be examined.
208
Preventive maintenance may seem to be resource demanding and time-consuming.
However, the return on investment is incredible. For example, a crane which is broken
during operation can pose a severe hazard for the crew. The aim of preventive
maintenance is to completely eliminate such cases. Another reason to employ preventive
maintenance, is a reduction of unplanned downtime, which blocks the entire construction
flow. Instead, vehicles should be maintained when it is not needed, e.g. night and early
morning.
Fleet safety program complements the preventive maintenance program by emphasizing

the human resources. People who drive vehicles, manipulate equipment, and assist
operators should be well qualified and responsible. To ensure this, several measures
should be done. First, safe operations training should be conducted. Secondly, skill tests
should be performed before the employee starts working on the project. Workers should
learn not only the operational aspects, but also reporting, and basics of maintenance.
Fleet safety program improves the way the expensive equipment is handled. Careful
operations extend the lifetime, reduces crash rate and maintenance costs. Instead, the
absence of such a program implies potential waste of construction material due to physical
impacts, and safety incidents. However, the program requires not only technical
knowledge, but also improvement of work culture. A decent leadership may be needed to
give operators a sense of ownership, responsibility and care about others.
Accident investigation is a difficult, yet highly important practice. It allows learning

from incidents, assessing the effectiveness of control measures. Moreover, it stimulates
workers to accomplish their jobs safely, since their misbehavior will be tracked and
punished. However, there are many barriers for accident investigation. Workers might be
scared of punishment, not willing to get medical treatment, not willing to disrupt the
workflow. Furthermore, conflict of interests is another strong obstacle for case
examination.
209
For an effective accident investigation, multiple prerequisites must be achieved. First,
the reporting system should be simple with clear indication of whom to contact.
Moreover, no incident should be ignored. All cases require honest examination to
establish truth. Evidence from cameras and impacted equipment and materials should be
collected first. The second priority should be given to people's reports, since humans are
subject to cognitive bias. To handle this properly, and investigating person should have
training in interviewing.
Job safety observation is seeing how workers accomplish their tasks. Their actual
activities are assessed against safa operations procedures guide. All cases when a worker
deviates from the plan should be noted. This way, several measures could be taken to
improve site safety level and reduce risks. The employee could be sent for further training
or disqualified completely. The major limitation of the job safety observation method is
the lack of observers. This is handled by prioritizing workers doing the task for the first
time, repeatedly misbehaving workers and operators doing high risk jobs.
Expanded Risk Register
Preliminary list of possible hazards is presented below (Unal, Cilek, Guner, 2020). They
are assessed by Impact Rank (1-3 scale) and Likelihood Rank (1-3). The Risk rating (1-
6) is a multiplication of Impact and Likelihood.
· 1-2 risk rating is safe, but it needs regular inspections

· 3-4 risk is acceptable, but requires frequent inspections
· 6-9 risk is unacceptable, it should be reduced to acceptable
Risk matrix is presented in the following figure.
Figure 6.6. Risk Index Matrix
210
The detailed list of control measures is presented below.
211
Table 6.19. Expanded Risk Register
Hazard Likelihood Impact Risk Control measures

index
Many vehicles will be operating on the construction

Traffic High Medium 6 site. Hence, transport rules should be developed and
accident enforced. These include allowed and expected
speed, as well as signs, and path. Drivers and
passengers should remain in their seats with
seatbelts, without any exits during the movement or
exposure of body parts outside the vehicle.
Moreover, pedestrian workers should be aware of
potential blind areas of moving equipment. Also, all
workers should have personal protective equipment
such as safety helmets to reduce the impact of
impact by a vehicle. Furthermore, the entire fleet
should have regular inspections to verify the status
of brakes, tires, lights, oil and other components.
Stopped vehicles should have active warning signs.
Monitoring and strength equipment should be

The Medium High 6 provided for safety engineers. Every activity should
collapse of be permitted by structural engineers, guaranteeing
structures that the installation is safe. All formwork shoring
should be inspected regularly and replaced or
enforced after the detection of defects. A limited
access zone should be established around the
masonry walls. Only essential workers and
equipment can be placed in this area.
All equipment, transport, power tools, and vehicles

Impact of Medium Medium 4 staying on maintenance and not working properly
malfunctio should have a clear label preventing usage of this
ning equipment by employees. All power tools should
have an accessible mechanical switch off the
equipment
trigger. Furthermore, all machinery should have a
sticker describing acceptable operating conditions,
e.g., rotations rate for woodcutting electric saw. If
possible, labor should be automated. Otherwise,
good coordination is needed. If applicable, tools
should have protective covers, preventing
accidental touching of moving/hot/toxic parts. Also,
212
index
workers should wear headphones, glasses and

gloves.
Use protective equipment when installing objects

Fall from Medium Medium 4 on heights larger than 1.8m. If large horizontal
height displacements are needed, guardrails can be
employed. During the installation of steel
formwork, safety nets should be provided. Workers
should have personal anchoring systems, which
connect their belts with the platform. All the
components should be checked before every shift.
Moreover, before climbing, all equipment
components should be tested for whether they are
locked (hooks, anchors). Furthermore, roof
boundaries should be indicated using coloured
tapes. To minimize the risk of failing during
climbing, workers should wear gloves. Also, glasses
are essential to prevent temporary blindness while
welding or cutting.
Crane should operate only within the allowed range

Crane Low High 3 of loads and jib length. Professional engineers
failure should estimate the capacity of a crane based on
manufacturer data and the fatigue limit of ropes.
The hook should be navigated by a worker using
gestures. Before the shift, all parts, including
balancing load, ropes, hook, fix supports, and rails
should be chosen. When the crane starts working,
workers should receive a sound notification and
escape the danger area if possible.
213
index
Relevant firefighting equipment and sirens should

Fire Low High 3 be placed near all construction facilities and inside
all vehicles. Buildings, storage areas, and assembly
sites should have automatic fire fighting foam
springles. Welding and cutting activities should be
performed only after a flammability assessment by
an engineer. If possible, an object should be
relocated to a designated welding/cutting area. All
flammable materials (e.g., oil, paper, wood) should
be removed from the area of welding and cutting.
Flammable liquids should have tightly closed
containers, preventing spilling and vaporization.
Any engine operating near flammable materials
potentiates a high risk of fire.
When erecting steel frames or concrete blocks,

Falling High Low 3 workers should be at a sufficient distance from
objects elevating equipment. All non-essential workers
should leave the footprint area of the erected object.
For this, the supervisor must consider using tapes
and moveable signs. Moreover, safety helmets,
boots, and gloves can protect smaller objects, hence
should be mandatory. Erected steel structures
should be fixed by at least four strong cables. No
unauthorized activities, even maintenance, are
permitted while erecting structures. When erecting
steel frame parts, they should be attached one by
one. Suspension of multiple unfixed steel parts may
easily lead to collapse. All tools should be fixed by
ropes to prevent them from falling from height.
Power lines should be carefully investigated upon

Electric Low Medium 2 arrival at the construction site. These should be
shock attached near flammable materials storage. Also,
power cables should be grounded to reduce the risks
of damaging the humans and equipment. Erected
structures should be covered by a temporal surface
coating which prevents electric shock. Underground
lines can be used to reduce the risks of their
touching by high equipment. For this, clear labels
are needed.
214
index
Cave, excavation areas, trenches and pits should be

Cave-in Medium Low 2 labeled with tape. Means of egress should be
distributed frequently, every 10 meters. Gas
concentration and water level in caves should be
measured every hour. These can be accumulating
due to fuel-powered equipment operating nearby.
Moreover, all unnecessary materials and equipment
should be removed away from the trench to avoid
their rolling inside. Also, work in the trench
requires high coordination to avoid congestion.
Furthermore, a professional geotechnical engineer
should determine the appropriate slope level based
on the field test. This slope should be maintained.
For deeper excavations, a shield is needed to hold
loose walls.
Concrete mixers and buckets should have protective

Spill of Medium Low 2 measures. First, gates should have a safety check to
concrete prevent the accidental release of concrete. Second,
the shape of the bucket should support concrete
from exiting the bucket easily, without sticking to
its surface.
Fences should be installed around all excavation

Confined Low Medium 2 works for foundations and disposal sites. Fences
space should be alerting workers and drivers even during
low visibility events, such as rains and dusty winds.
Entrances to confined spaces and egress should be
comfortable and frequently distributed.
Furthermore, gas concentration in a pit should be
measured before and during the shift.
Food and drinks should not be stored or consumed

Poisoning Low Low 1 near sanitation areas and materials storage. All dish
ingredients should follow strict health standards for
the purity of toxins. Workers should wear masks
when working with materials emitting gas,
combustion processes, or particulate matters, e.g.
dust. Furthermore, some chemical processes, such
as concrete drying may emit pollutants. Also,
workers cleaning the site should have specialized
215
index
protective equipment and tools to safely destroy

plants.
7. Conclusion
7.1. General notes
The municipal solid waste landfill is a large complex project. It was divided into several
parts to facilitate the design and calculations. These parts are: office building, operational
unit, disposal site, landfill leachate management unit, landfill gas management unit and
general site development. Each of these, to various degrees, was preliminary designed
according to well-established guidelines, such as US EPA regulations, IBC, and RSMeans
guidelines for building cost estimates. Some specific conclusions are presented below.
7.2. Limitations
Due to time, skill and budget constraints the project can not be designed at the level of
details acceptable for real construction. The targeted level of details (LoD) of in-scope
elements is 300. However, it may vary in the range of 200-350 from discipline to
discipline. Moreover, the level of details will be low for engineering fields other than civil
engineering. These include the design of electrical, communication, plumbing and fire
fighting systems. Even some civil engineering systems will have only limited design.
These are roads, utilities, gates and fences. Nevertheless, the expected value of the project
is high because of its literature review, analysis, preliminary, yet detailed design, and
estimates. The methodology applied is systematized and can be used for design of real-
world municipal solid waste landfill.
216
References:
Algermissen, S., Perkins, D., Thenhaus, P., Hanson, S. and Bender, B., 1990.
Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States
and Puerto Rico. US Geological Survey.
Al-Jarrah, O., & Abu-Qdais, H. (2006). Municipal solid waste landfill siting using
intelligent system. Waste Management, 26(3), 299–306.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2016. Active Arizona solid waste
landfills. Phoenix AMA, Arizona: Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality.
Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. 2021. AMWUA. [online] Available at:
<https://www.amwua.org/who-we-are>.
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, n.d. Deer Grass (Muhlenbergia rigens). Plant Care
Information. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum.
Beckwith G., Crossley R (1978). SUBGRADE ELASTIC MODULUS FOR ARIZONA
PAVEMENTS.
Beniusis, A., 2018. The Environmental Impact of Birds in Landfills. Waste Advantage,
[online] Available at:
<https://wasteadvantagemag.com/the-environmental-impact-of-birds-in-landfills
217
/>
Bertin Instruments, n.d. SaphyGATE G Radiation Portal Monitor | Bertin Instruments.
[online] Bertin-instruments.com. Available at: <https://www.bertin-

instruments.com/product/radiation-portal-monitors/saphygate-g-portal-
monitor/>
BioCycle (2018). BioCycle World. In BioCycle Website Retrieved from
https://www.biocycle.net/biocycle-world-173/
Bird Control Group, 2022. Automated laser bird repellent system - AVIX Autonomic.
[online] Bird Control Group. Available at:
<https://www.birdcontrolgroup.com/automated-laser-bird-repellent/>
Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D. and Koerner, R., 2002. Assessment and Recommendations for
Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems. Cincinnati, Ohio:
US EPA.
Brown, P., Machibya, T. and Russell, B., 1995. Wind flow patterns at the University of
Arizona Agricultural centers. Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., 2016. Run-On and Run-Off Control
218
System Plan Neal North Energy Center Monofill. Kansas city, Missouri: Burns
& McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Californians Against Waste (2017). A Map of America’s Landfills…All of
them. In Californians Against Waste Website. Retrieved from
https://www.cawrecycles.org/recycling-news/7fefbkt4fje5f23h5k8c58xdt68e9r
California Native Plant Society, 2010. Deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens). [online]
California Native Plant Society. Available at:
<https://calscape.org/Muhlenbergia-rigens-(Deergrass)>
Cascadia Consulting Group, 2015. City of Phoenix Waste Characterization Study.
Phoenix AMA, Arizona: Cascadia Consulting Group, p.24.
Clean Air Act, 6
Constructionequipmentguide.com. 2021. Caterpillar 615 Scraper Specs, Dimensions,
Comparisons : CEG. [online] Available at:
<https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/charts/scrapers/caterpillar/615/3
0604678>
Coparm Srl. 2021. Shredder series TR150. [online] Available at:
<http://coparm.net/shredders/shredder-series-tr150/>.
Das, B. M. (2019). Principles of foundation engineering. 9th edition. Pacific Grove,
219
Calif: PWS Pub.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Landfill Manuals: Landfill Site Design.
Wexford, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency.

Euge, K. M., Schell, B. A., & Lam, I. P. (1992, September). Development of seismic
acceleration contour maps for Arizona. Arizona Department of Transportation.
https://apps.azdot.gov/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ344.p
df
Geology.com (n.d.). Expansive soil: The hidden force behind basement and
foundation problems. Retrieved from https://geology.com/articles/soil/
Heralova, R. S. (2017). Life cycle costing as an important contribution to feasibility
study in construction projects. Procedia Engineering, 196, 565–570.
Hibbeler R., C., 2017. Structural Analysis. 8th Edition.
HDR One Company, 2010. Master Drainage Study and Plan. Maricopa, Arizona: HDR
One Company.
Hometown Demolition, 2021. Top Demolition Contractors in Phoenix, AZ. [online]
Hometowndemolitioncontractors.com. Available at:
<https://www.hometowndemolitioncontractors.com/Arizona/phoenix-
demolition.html>.
220
Jain, P., Townsend, T. G., & Johnson, P. (2013). Case study of landfill reclamation
at a Florida landfill site. Waste Management, 33(1), 109–116.
Kayen, R. E., Carkin, B. A., & Corbett, S. C. (2017). Seismic velocity site
characterization of 10 Arizona strong-motion recording stations by spectral analysis
of surface wave dispersion. U.S. Geological Survey Publications Warehouse; U.S.
Geological Survey. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20161208
Kellytractor.com. 2021. Cat Waste Handling Tractors, waste handling tractors – Kelly
Tractor. [online] Available at:
<https://www.kellytractor.com/eng/products/landfill/wastehandling_tractors.asp
x>.
Lang, S., 1962. Methods for Determining the Proper Spacing of Wells in Artesian
Aquifers. Methods of Aquifer Tests. Albany, NY: United States Geological
Survey.
Lau, S., Cheung, W., Kwong, C., Wan, C., Choy, K., Leung, C., Porter, J., Hui, C. and
Mc Kay, G., 2005. Removal of batteries from solid waste using trommel
separation. Waste Management, 25(10), pp.1004-1012.
Lee, S.-B. (2004). A study of feasibility study on construction a public library.
Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 35(4), 491–516.
221
MEGA Corp. 2021. Articulated Truck Tanks - Caterpillar. [online] Available at:
<https://www.megacorpinc.com/equipment/water-artic-cat.asp>.
Milke, M., 1997. Design of landfill daily cells to reduce cover soil use. Waste
Management & Research, 15(6), pp.585-592.
Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants (2002).
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION EAST MARICOPA FLOODWAY
CHANDLER HEIGHTS DETENTION BASIN MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA. For Flood Control District of Maricopa County.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2010). Above-average flood
risk is forecast for one-third of U.S.. In the NOAA Climate.gov Website.
Retrieved from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/above-
average-flood-risk-forecast-one-third-us
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce,
2022. Record of Climatological Observations. Asheville, North Carolina: US
Department of Commerce.
NSW Environment Protection Authority, 2016. Environmental Guidelines: Solid waste
landfills. Sydney, New South Wales: NSW EPA.
222
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2012). U.S. Average
Annual Wind Speed at 30 Meters. In the EERE Website. Retrieved from
https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/325
Panagiotakopoulos, D. and Dokas, I., 2001. Design of landfill daily cells. Waste
Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy,
19(4), pp.332-341.
Phoenix City Hall, n.d. State Route 85 Landfill. Phoenix AMA, Arizona: Phoenix City
Hall.
Polypipe. 2021. Civils Ridgidrain 300mm 6m Perforated Pipe Plain Ended. [online]
Available at: <https://www.polypipe.com/civils/300mm-ridgidrain-plain-ended-
perforated-pipe>].
R.S. Means Company. (2013). RSMeans building construction cost data 2014.
RSMeans.
Rauch, A. F. (1997). Analysis of Soil Borings for Liquefaction Resistance.
Semantic Scholar|AI-Powered Research Tool.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chapter-7-Analysis-of-Soil-Borings-for-
Liquefaction-Rauch/1c3c9987408585475e230267063e6e0d90299674
223
Reese, Charles D., and James Vernon Eidson. Handbook of OSHA construction
safety and health. crc press, 2006.
Rezaeisabzevar, Y., Bazargan, A., & Zohourian, B. (2020). Landfill site selection
using multi criteria decision making: Influential factors for comparing locations.
Journal of Environmental Sciences, 170–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2020.02.030
Song, Q., Li, J., Zeng, X. (2014). Minimizing the increasing solid waste through
zero waste strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095965261400849X
Striggow, B., 2018. Design and Installation of Monitoring. Athens, Georgia: United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Town of Payson, n.d.. Low Water Use Plant List. [online] Payson, Arizona: Town of
Payson. Available at:
<https://www.paysonaz.gov/Departments/water/Conservation/plant-list.html>
Thitimakorn, T. & Raenak, T. (2016). NEHRP Site Classification and Preliminary Soil
Amplification Maps of Lamphun City, Northern Thailand. Open Geosciences,
8(1), 538-547. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2016-0046
224
Unal, M., Cilek, A., & Guner, E. D. (2020). Implementation of fuzzy, Simos and
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis for municipal solid waste
landfill site selection: Adana City case study. Waste Management & Research,
38(1_suppl), 45–64.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Constituents for Detection
Monitoring. Cincinatti, Ohio: US EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. List of Hazardous Inorganic and
Organic Constituents. Cincinatti, Ohio: US EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Hazardous Waste Listings. US
EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Household Hazardous Waste
Management: A Manual for One-Day Community Collection Programs. US
EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2018). National Overview:
Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling. On the US EPA Website.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-
and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#NationalPicture
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Solid Waste Disposal Facility
225
Criteria: Technical Manual. Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Washington D.C.: US EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Requirements for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs). Cincinatti, Ohio: US EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Decision-Makers' Guide to Solid

Waste Management. Washington D.C.: National Environmental Publications
Internet Site.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Geosynthetic Clay Liners Used
in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Cincinatti, Ohio: US EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. National Stormwater Calculator

|
US EPA. [online] Available at:
<https://www.epa.gov/water-research/national-stormwater-calculator>
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Volume-to-Weight Conversion
Factors. Cincinatti, Ohio: US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery.
United States Geological Survey (2015). Nearly Half of Americans Exposed to
Potentially Damaging Earthquakes. On the USGS Website. Retrieved from
226
https://www.usgs.gov/news/nearly-half-americans-exposed-potentially-
damaging-earthquakes
United States Geological Survey, 2012. USGS 330916111262001 D-03-09 20DAA1.
[online] USGS. Available at:
<https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/az/nwis/gwlevels?site_no=330916111262001
&
agency_cd=USGS&format=html>
United States Geological Survey, 1997. USGS 330914112065801 D-03-02 23ADD.
[online] USGS. Available at:
<https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/az/nwis/gwlevels/?site_no=330914112065801
>
Van Zyl, J., 2014. Introduction to operation and maintenance of water distribution
systems.
Wang, W., 2002. Uncertainty Analysis of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport in
Unsaturated-Saturated Porous Medium: Maricopa Case. PhD in Hydrology.
The University of Arizona.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2013. Period of Record General Climate Summary -
Precipitation. Maricopa 4 N, Arizona (025270). [online] Reno, Nevada: Western
227
Regional Climate Center. Available at:
<https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azmari>.
WRAP, 2009, Summary Report – Material Bulk Densities, Report prepared by

Resource
Futures
Yelp.com. 2021. The Best 10 Shredding Services in Phoenix, AZ. [online] Available at:
<https://www.yelp.com/search?cflt=shredding&find_loc=Phoenix%2C+AZ>.
228
Appendix A
Figure A.1. Top view of a daily waste cell with waste (red) and daily cover (brown)
229
Figure A.2. Front view of a daily waste cell with waste (red) and daily cover (brown)
Figure A.3. Right view of a daily waste cell with waste (red) and daily cover (brown)
Figure A.4. Front view of Phase 3 with the liner and the final cap
230
Figure A.5: The effect of climate change on monthly rainfall in 30 years
231
Figure A.6: The effect of climate change on maximum daily rainfall in 100 years
232
Appendix B
Appendix B.1. Moment diagram of portal frame
233
Appendix B.2. Shear force diagram of portal frame
234
Appendix B.3. Axial forces diagram of side bracings
235
Appendix B.4. Axial forces diagram of top bracings
236
Appendix B.5. Shear force diagram of portal frame
237
Appendix B.6. HE beams: section properties
238
Appendix B.7 MasterSeries section design diagrams
Figure #. MasterSeries analysis for the main column
Figure #. MasterSeries analysis for the rafter
239
Appendix B.7 MasterSeries section design diagrams
MasterSeries analysis for the minor column
MasterSeries analysis for the beam
240
Appendix B.8 Hand calculations for portal frame
241
Matrix displacement method used to analyze the frame
242
Conversion from pressure to force/length
Load cases with pressure values
Conversion from force/length to concentrated loads on purlins
243
244
245
Appendix B.9 Beam to rafter connection design
246
247
248
249
250
251

CAPSTONE Final Report Group 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAPSTONE Final Report Group 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSW LANDFILL IN MARICOPA, ARIZONA

Civil and Environmental Engineering

1.1. Problem statement 15

1.2. Project Scope 16

1.3. State selection 17

1.4. Site selection 18

2.1. Waste Quantification 23

2.1.1. Waste characterization 23

2.1.2. Site Sizing 24

2.2. Site Design 27

2.2.1. Landfill Liner 27

2.3. Operational Plan 31

2.3.1. Waste Processing 31

2.3.2. Waste Disposal 35

2.3.2.2. Cells for daily waste disposal 37

2.3.2.3. Daily cover 41

2.3.2.4. Intermediate cover 42

2.3.3. Landfill Operation 43

2.3.3.2 Leachate Generation 47

2.3.3.2.1 Water Balance Method 47

2.3.3.3 Leachate Collection System 53

2.3.3.4 Leachate Treatment System 54

2.3.3.4.1 Local Climate Data 54

2.3.3.4.2 Leachate Generation Modelling 58

2.3.3.4.4 Operational Management and Monitoring 62

2.3.3.4. Litter Control 63

2.3.3.5. Dust Control 64

2.3.3.6. Disease Vector Control 65

2.3.3.7. Subterranean Fire Control 66

2.3.3.9. Groundwater Monitoring 68

2.4. Closure Plans 72

2.5. Post-Closure Plans 76

3.1. Design Statement 77

3.2. Design Requirements 3.2.1. State selection 83

3.2.2. Site location 83

3.2.3. Structural Layout 84

3.2.3.2. Elevations & Facade 85

3.2.3.3. Interior Arrangement 86

3.2.3.4. Transportation & Fire Safety 88

3.3. Construction Materials 88

3.3.1. Concrete grade 88

3.3.2. Reinforcement grade 89

3.3.3. Non-structural materials 90

3.3.4. PEB structure for the industrial part. 91

3.4. LEED certification 94

3.5. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Using Life-365 software 95

4.1. Load calculations 97

4.1.1 Dead Loads 97

4.1.2. Live Loads 98

4.1.3. Wind Load 98

4.1.5. Seismic Loads 102

4.1.6. Load Combination 103

4.2. Preliminary Design 104

4.2.1. Slab sizing 106

4.2.2. Column sizing 107

4.2.3. Beam sizing 107

4.2.4. Rafter sizing 107

4.3. Internal Forces Analysis 108

4.3.1. Analysis Using software 108

4.3.2. Hand Calculations 111

4.3.3. Hand Calculations vs Software Comparison 112

4.4. Structural Member Design 112

4.4.1 Design Using Software 112

4.4.2. Hand Calculations 113