Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 249

Waste Settlement Measurements Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles at a Municipal Solid

Waste Landfill in Michigan
Cassandra L. Champagne, S.M.ASCE1; Dimitrios Zekkos, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2;
Jerome P. Lynch, Ph.D., M.ASCE3; and Scott O’Laughlin4
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI. E-mail: casscham@umich.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Arbor, MI. E-mail: zekkos@geoengineer.org

3
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI. E-mail: jerlynch@umich.edu
4
Landfill Superintendent, City of Midland, Midland, MI. E-mail: solaughl@midland-mi.org

ABSTRACT
In situ assessment of waste settlements is a critical consideration for the operation, closure,
and post-closure development of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Settlement evolution is
influenced by the biodegradation processes underway in the waste mass. Presently, the
measurement of such settlements involves instrumentation at specific locations on a landfill, or
aerial surveys that are generally expensive and not conducted often. An alternative approach is
presented herein that involves the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to collect overlapping
imagery and create 3D models of landfills using the structure-from-motion technique. Repeated
surveys allow for differencing between 3D models to calculate settlement and compute
secondary compression indices that can be used in subsequent landfill development. Main
advantages of the technique include the generation of cm-level data resolution, the scalability of
the approach that allows assessments throughout the entire landfill, and the ability to execute
repeated flights for continuous, inexpensive monitoring of spatially resolved settlement. This
approach was tested at an MSW landfill in Midland, Michigan, from May 2018 to April 2019,
where spatial profiles of the modified secondary compression index were successfully derived
from UAV aerial imagery.

INTRODUCTION
Settlement at municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills is caused by a reduction in the volume
of waste and a weakening of its structure due to a combination of creep, raveling,
physicochemical change, and biochemical decay (waste degradation) (El-Fadel and Khoury
2000; Ivanova et al. 2008). Waste settlement is of particular interest due to its airspace
implications. Increased settlement of the waste mass allows landfills to dispose of additional
waste, yielding cost savings (Foye et al. 2007). Furthermore, understanding landfill settlement in
the field, particularly differential settlement, is crucial to ensure the resiliency and longevity of
the facility. Differential settlement refers to non-uniform settlement across the waste mass. This
type of settlement can cause cracks in the liner and cover systems (adversely affecting their
performance), ponding of water on the landfill, damage and potential backflow of leachate and
biogas collection systems, as well as environmental contamination. Differential settlement also
remains an issue after the landfill is closed by compromising the structural integrity of any post-
closure developments (Chen et al. 2009; Durmusoglu et al. 2005; Edelmann et al. 1999; El-Fadel
1999; El-Fadel and Khoury 2000; Sharma 2000).

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 250

Landfill settlement can be divided into three main phases: immediate, primary, and
secondary compression (Fei and Zekkos 2013). To assess settlement behavior over the course of
the design lifespan of a landfill, secondary compression is of great interest. The secondary
compression phase, which represents a significant portion of total settlement, begins shortly after
the time of waste placement (following immediate and primary compression) and can extend for
many years after landfill closure (Durmusoglu et al. 2005; Landva et al. 2000). Secondary
compression of landfills is commonly expressed using the modified secondary compression
index, Cαε , first introduced by Sowers (1973):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cα ΔH εv
Cαε    (1)
1  e  H 0  Δlogt log  t2   log  t1 
where Cα  secondary compression index, e  void ratio, ΔH  settlement, H 0  initial
thickness of waste, ε v  vertical strain, and t1,2  time (in days) into the secondary compression
phase for each measurement. The secondary compression index, Cα , is modified to eliminate the
need to measure waste void ratio in the field, which is practically impossible to do (Wall and
Zeiss 1995; Zekkos et al. 2013). It is important to note that in contrast to the constant secondary
compression index observed in soils, the Cαε for municipal solid waste has been shown to vary
depending on the biodegradation stage (Fei and Zekkos 2018).
In Situ Settlement Monitoring: In practice, settlement is typically measured at landfills
using settlement plates (Abichou et al. 2013; Andersen et al. 2004; Bareither et al. 2012; Simões
and Catapreta 2013; Yuen and McDougall 2003), surface monuments (El-Fadel 1999; Sharma
2000; Spikula 1997), inclinometers (Foye et al. 2007; Sharma 2000), and vertical extensometers
(Andersen et al. 2004; Sharma 2000). A major drawback of these instrumentation methods is that
the data collected are point measurements and no information is collected regarding the spatial
variation of the settlement between these points. Many studies have only a few measurement
locations to represent the behavior of the entire landfill, but there is significant uncertainty in this
assumption. Furthermore, many of these instruments are embedded into the final cover system,
meaning settlement monitoring only begins once the cell is closed. There are, however, many
reasons why a landfill owner would be interested in monitoring settlement while the cell is
active: (1) early post-closure planning; (2) damaging differential settlements can occur during
waste placement, thus putting the liners and collection systems at risk; and (3) mitigation of
differential settlement before the installation of the final cover system. There are also challenges
in deploying instrumentation at an active landfill, primarily due to the impact on landfill
operations. In studies that involved settlement monitoring during active landfilling, there are
reports of instrumentation being damaged by landfill construction equipment (Abichou et al.
2013; Andersen et al. 2004).
As an alternative to spatially isolated physical instrumentation, optical imagery collected
autonomously by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be used to generate high resolution 3D
models. Models from subsequent surveys can be differenced to generate a continuous spatial
profile of settlement. The capability of measuring settlement spatially is particularly appealing
due to the significant variability and heterogeneity of waste composition, properties, and activity
at landfills (Durmusoglu et al. 2005; El-Fadel 1999; El-Fadel and Khoury 2000). Additionally,
collecting the data remotely from an aerial platform eliminates the risk of instrument damage by
landfilling equipment, and does not impede landfill operations.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 251

DATA ACQUISITION
Site Overview: UAV-captured optical imagery was used to compute landfill settlements at
an MSW landfill in Midland, Michigan. The city of Midland experiences about 80 cm of
precipitation annually, with typical temperature highs between -1 and 29°C and typical lows
between -9 and 16°C (Midland, Michigan Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 2016).
The landfill has three currently active cells (14, 15, and 16) spanning about 15 hectares that have
been operational since April 1998, December 2003, and March 2008, respectively. The eastern
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

side of the landfill (cell 14 and eastern half of cell 15) is operated as a conventional “dry-tomb”
landfill while the western side (western half of cell 15 and cell 16) is operated as a bioreactor
landfill, as illustrated in Figure 1. Prior to November 2018, about 45,000 liters per week of
treated sludge from the local wastewater digester was introduced into the waste on the bioreactor
side to enhance waste biodegradation, accelerate decomposition, and increase biogas production
for energy generation. This section of the landfill was permitted as a bioreactor until April 2019.

Figure 1. Orthophoto illustrating operational landfill cells at landfill in Midland, Michigan,

using UAV imagery (date: September 28, 2018)
This distinction between conventional and bioreactor landfilling is significant to this study
because the increased moisture content enhances biodegradation and softens the waste,
contributing to faster waste settlement (Bareither et al. 2010; El-Fadel 1999). This concept has
been demonstrated experimentally by a number of studies (El-Fadel 1999; Hossain et al. 2003;
Ivanova et al. 2008; Mehta et al. 2002; Sharma and De 2007; Yuen and McDougall 2003).
Equipment and Methods: A DJI Phantom 4 Professional UAV was used for optical data
acquisition. This relatively inexpensive quadcopter is equipped with a 20-megapixel camera,
with triaxial gimbal stabilization, capable of achieving a resolution on the order of 1 cm/pixel
from a flight altitude of 50 m. The Pix4D Capture flight control software was used to plan

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 252

lawnmower-type UAV flights. For all surveys executed in this study, the following parameters
were used: 45 m flight altitude, moderate flight speed, 90° camera angle (nadir), 80% front
overlap, and 75% side overlap. The application is designed to remotely connect to the UAV and
command it to execute the pre-planned flight autonomously, while simultaneously capturing
photographs at the target intervals.
In addition, two high precision Septentrio Altus APS3G GNSS receivers (a base and a rover)
were used to collect ground control points (GCPs) on the ground surface within the area to be
mapped by the UAV. Twelve GCP locations were carefully selected throughout the landfill to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ensure a consistent distribution in both the horizontal and vertical planes and minimize geo-
referencing errors (Incekara et al. 2019). The base receiver was used to set a stationary GNSS
reference position, while the rover receiver was used to store the positions of each GCP with
respect to the base receiver using the real-time kinematic (RTK)-GNSS technique.

ANALYSIS
In this paper, the analysis is based on data collected from three separate field expeditions
conducted over a period of nearly a year: May 29, 2018 (988 images collected), September 28,
2018 (1439 images collected), and April 10, 2019 (1204 images collected). This allowed for two
settlement estimations: one between the first two surveys, and another between the last two
surveys. More frequent surveys could be conducted, if necessary, to measure settlements at
smaller time intervals.
3D Model Generation: The Structure-from-Motion (SfM) technique was used to create 3D
models from the UAV optical imagery using Pix4D Mapper. SfM is a technique that generates
3D models by identifying common features from overlapping imagery and computing 3D data
(Greenwood et al. 2019). The resulting 3D model is first a sparse point cloud (collection of
points in 3D space). The model is then refined using the GCPs and the camera positions from
every image to generate a dense point cloud (Incekara et al. 2019; Zekkos et al. 2018). LiDAR
(light detection and ranging) and TLS (terrain laser scanning) also produce point clouds, but both
methods are more expensive while yielding very similar results to SfM when used with high
resolution UAV imagery (Greenwood et al. 2019). The SfM technique has been used extensively
in a diverse range of applications in geotechnical engineering (Zekkos et al. 2018).
For georeferencing, eight GPS survey measurements were selected to be used as GCPs in the
SfM model, while the remaining were set as Check Points (CPs). The CPs were used after
processing to assess the accuracy of the model. Points were carefully assigned as GCPs or CPs to
ensure adequate distribution throughout the landfill.
Point cloud analyses were conducted using the open-source point cloud processing software
CloudCompare. CloudCompare was used to finely align the point clouds to each other and to
classify vegetated areas. Although the 3D point clouds were already georeferenced using the
camera positions and GCPs in Pix4D, fine tuning is still needed. The CloudCompare Align tool
was used to align the point clouds to one another by selecting four corresponding points on each
cloud and applying a transformation. For this application, it was imperative that the four points
were selected outside the active landfill area so that they were not affected by waste settlement.
Using this technique, the September point cloud was transformed to align with the May point
cloud. Similarly, the April point cloud was transformed to align to the (already transformed)
September point cloud.
The presence of vegetation can be an issue for this type of settlement analysis because
cutting grass or trimming shrubs could be falsely characterized as volume reduction due to waste

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 253

settlement. The CANUPO point cloud classification routine in CloudCompare was used to
identify and remove vegetation. First, two training datasets were generated to represent
vegetation and soil/waste. These datasets were generated by extracting subsets of the full point
cloud as examples of the types of surfaces that belong to each class. It is crucial to include
different types, colors, and textures of vegetation in the training dataset to ensure comprehensive
classification.
Different training datasets were needed for different point clouds (i.e. May, September, and
April) because the vegetation had a significantly different appearance after the summer months
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

versus after the winter months, as shown in Figure 2. The classifier did not perform well in
classifying all surveys using the same training dataset. Once the training datasets were
developed, the classifiers were trained and implemented for each point cloud.

Figure 2. Comparison of orthomosaic photos from UAV imagery

Spatial Analysis: For the final analysis, two successive point clouds, their corresponding
classification rasters, and a digital elevation model (DEM) of the landfill base grades obtained
from the landfill superintendent were imported into ArcGIS Pro. First, the two point clouds (for
example, May and September) were converted into 0.03 m cell rasters of the elevation attribute
using the LAS Dataset to Raster tool. A binning approach was applied utilizing inverse distance
weighted (IDW) interpolation for cell assignment and linear triangulation interpolation for void
filling.
Next, the spatial resolutions and grid alignments of the second survey, the classification
rasters, and the base grades were edited to match that of the first survey using the Resample tool.
The first survey was used to define the output cell size and the snap raster environment
parameter. This step is crucial to ensure that the grids of all the datasets align, thus making it
possible to execute pixel-wise computations amongst them.
The initial waste thickness, H 0 , was evaluated by subtracting the elevations of the original
base grades from the corresponding elevations of the first survey. Note that in this study all areas
where the waste thickness is less than 10 m were ignored in order to focus the analysis on the
center of the landfill and reduce edge effects.
To calculate settlement, ΔH , the second survey was subtracted from the first survey. Note
that the ordering of this differencing enforces a positive sign convention for settlement, for
convenience, despite representing a reduction in volume. Areas with negative values
(representing areas of waste placement where settlement cannot be measured) and areas with

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 254

values greater than 1 m (representing large volume reductions not associated with settlements
such as a stockpile or construction vehicle being moved between surveys) were identified and
excluded from the analysis. The classification rasters were also used to exclude vegetated regions
from subsequent settlement estimation.
Strain, ε v , was computed by dividing the settlement raster by the thickness raster, and Cαε
was computed by dividing the strain raster by the change in the logarithm of time (shown in the
denominator of Eq. 1) for each landfill location. To determine the t0 from which to calculate t1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and t2 , the average of (1) the date of initial waste placement per cell, and (2) the midpoint of the
two survey dates was used as the date corresponding to the mean age of waste in each cell. This
approach assumes a constant and uniform rate of waste placement per cell. Provided detailed
waste placement data, a more robust approach may be to use a weighted average to derive t0 ,
dependent on when the majority of waste was placed in each cell. Note that t0 does not
correspond to the date of initial waste placement because new waste is continuously being added.

RESULTS
Model Resolution and Accuracy: The georeferencing error for each 3D model was
calculated and is shown in Table 1, by comparing the final computed positions of the check
points against their actual positions from marked images. All three models were able to
accurately position the check points within centimeters (or less) of their markers. Additionally,
the ground sample distance (GSD) of the May 2018, September 2018 and April 2019 models are
1.61 cm/pixel (0.63 in/pixel), 1.28 cm/pixel (0.50 in/pixel), and 1.34 cm/pixel (0.53 in/pixel),
respectively.

Table 1. Computed error for each 3D model

May 29, 2018 September 28, 2018 April 10, 2019

Error Error Error Z Error Error Error Z Error Error Error Z

X (m) Y (m) (m) X (m) Y (m) (m) X (m) Y (m) (m)

Mean
-0.013 -0.024 -0.049 0.015 -0.020 0.028 -0.002 0.003 0.035
(m)

Sigma
0.012 0.014 0.105 0.012 0.024 0.045 0.008 0.012 0.017
(m)

RMS
0.018 0.027 0.116 0.019 0.031 0.053 0.008 0.012 0.038
(m)

When the point clouds were aligned in CloudCompare, the transformation of the September
2018 cloud produced an RMS (root-mean-square) error of 0.076 m, and the transformation of the
April 2019 cloud produced an RMS error of 0.086 m.
Vegetation Classification: The CANUPO classifier in CloudCompare was used to
accurately classify vegetation in the point clouds using a user-defined training dataset. Figure 3
displays the orthomosaic image from the May survey, for example, with its corresponding
classification output to demonstrate the achieved agreement.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 255
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. Results of CANUPO classification routine for May survey

Estimation of Modified Secondary Compression Index: A summary of the relevant
statistics regarding the variation of Cαε is shown in Table 2. The mean Cαε values computed
using this technique range from 0.31 – 0.36 for the conventional section, which aligns well with
the upper bounds of Cαε values reported by Sharma and De 2007 and Park et al. 2002. The
bioreactor section yielded results ranging from 0.43 – 0.60, which agrees with values presented
by Abichou et al. 2013 for an as-built bioreactor landfill cell. Table 2 also shows the spatial
variation of Cαε for each section of the landfill (conventional or bioreactor).

Table 2. Modified secondary compression index ( Cαε ) statistics

May to September 2018 September 2018 to April 2019

Spatial Spatial
Mean Mean
Variation (σ) Variation (σ)

Conventional 0.36 0.46 0.31 0.22

Bioreactor 0.60 0.38 0.43 0.22

Figure 4 shows an example of the spatially resolved settlement and Cαε outputs which allow
for the identification of areas that are settling faster than others. Areas without data correspond to
locations where vegetation was present (and thus not analyzed) or waste was added, and
therefore settlement could not be computed. Figure 5 displays the mean Cαε values for the
conventional and bioreactor cells. The Cαε in the bioreactor side is higher than that in the
conventional side, which is expected due to the enhanced biodegradation occuring in the

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 256

bioreactor by design. Additionally, a decrease in Cαε was observed in the bioreactor side in the
second survey period, compared to the conventional side, and may be due to the fact that sludge
was no longer pumped into the landfill from November 2018 onward.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Spatially resolved settlement and Cαε values for September 2018 to April 2019

Figure 5. Comparison of average Cαε values

CONCLUSIONS
UAVs with optical cameras are a powerful data acquisition approach for monitoring long-
term landfill settlement by developing 3D models using the Structure-from-Motion technique.
The results obtained from this new remote sensing approach are spatially resolved and able to
achieve cm-level resolution and high accuracy. Additionally, data collection causes minimal
disruption to landfill operations, and eliminates the risk of damage to the instrumentation. In
agreement with most of the literature, this study has shown that the rate of long-term landfill

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 257

settlement is higher for bioreactor landfills than for conventional “dry tomb” landfills.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of
Computer and Communication Foundations under Grant no. 1442773. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. The authors would also like to thank the Environmental
Research & Education Foundation and the Dow Sustainability Fellows Program for their support
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to Cassandra Champagne, City of Midland Landfill for allowing access to their facility, John
Manousakis of Elxis Group for his expertise and support in geomatics, and Gabriel Draughon,
Chenghang Liu, Sampurna Datta, Michelle Basham, and William Greenwood for their assistance
with field testing.

REFERENCES
Abichou, T., Barlaz, M. A., Green, R., and Hater, G. (2013). “The Outer Loop bioreactor: A case
study of settlement monitoring and solids decomposition.” Waste Management, Elsevier Ltd,
33(10), 2035–2047.
Andersen, E. O., Balanko, L. A., Lem, J. M., and Davis, D. H. (2004). “Field Monitoring of the
Compressibility of Municipal Solid Waste and Soft Alluvium.” International Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, 6.
Bareither, C. A., Benson, C. H., Barlaz, M. A., Edil, T. B., and Tolaymat, T. M. (2010).
“Performance of North American Bioreactor Landfills. I: Leachate Hydrology and Waste
Settlement.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136(8), 824–838.
Bareither, C. A., Breitmeyer, R. J., Benson, C. H., Barlaz, M. A., and Edil, T. B. (2012). “Deer
Track Bioreactor Experiment : Field-Scale Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Bioreactor
Performance.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(6), 658–
670.
Chen, Y. M., Zhan, T. L. T., Wei, H. Y., and Ke, H. (2009). “Aging and compressibility of
municipal solid wastes.” Waste Management, Elsevier Ltd, 29(1), 86–95.
Durmusoglu, E., Corapcioglu, M. Y., and Tuncay, K. (2005). “Landfill Settlement with
Decomposition and Gas Generation.” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131(9), 1311–
1321.
Edelmann, L., Hertweck, M., and Amann, P. (1999). “Mechanical behaviour of landfill barrier
systems.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering,
137(4), 215–224.
El-Fadel, M. (1999). “Leachate Recirculation Effects on Settlement and Biodegradation Rates in
MSW Landfills.” Environmental Technology (United Kingdom), 20(2), 121–133.
El-Fadel, M., and Khoury, R. (2000). “Modeling Settlement in MSW Landfills: A Critical
Review.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 30(3), 327–361.
Fei, X., and Zekkos, D. (2013). “Factors Influencing Long-Term Settlement of Municipal Solid
Waste in Laboratory Bioreactor Landfill Simulators.” Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste, 17(4), 259–271.
Fei, X., and Zekkos, D. (2018). “Coupled experimental assessment of physico-biochemical
characteristics of municipal solid waste undergoing enhanced biodegradation.”
Geotechnique, 68(12), 1031–1043.
Foye, K. C., Zhao, X., Voice, T. C., and Hashsham, S. A. (2007). “Settlement Monitoring for

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020
 Geo-Congress 2020 GSP 319 258

Bioreactor Landfill Airspace Management.” Field Measurements in Geomechanics, 1–12.

Greenwood, W. W., Lynch, J. P., and Zekkos, D. (2019). “Applications of UAVs in Civil
Infrastructure.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 25(2), 04019002.
Hossain, M. S., Gabr, M. A., and Barlaz, M. A. (2003). “Relationship of Compressibility
Parameters to Municipal Solid Waste Decomposition.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(12), 1151–1158.
Incekara, A., Delen, A., Seker, D., and Goksel, C. (2019). “Investigating the Utility Potential of
Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Temporal Monitoring of a Landfill.” ISPRS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 02/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(22).

Ivanova, L. K., Richards, D. J., and Smallman, D. J. (2008). “The long-term settlement of
landfill waste.” Waste and Resource Management, 161(WR3), 121–133.
Landva, A. O., Valsangkar, A. J., and Pelkey, S. G. (2000). “Lateral earth pressure at rest and
compressibility of municipal solid waste.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(6), 1157–
1165.
Mehta, R., Barlaz, M. A., Yazdani, R., Augenstein, D., Bryars, M., and Sinderson, L. (2002).
“Refuse Decomposition in the Presence and Absence of Leachate Recirculation.” Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 128(3), 228–236.
Park, H. I., Lee, S. R., and Do, N. Y. (2002). “Evaluation of Decomposition Effect on Long-
Term Settlement Prediction for Fresh Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(2), 107–118.
Sharma, H. D. (2000). “Solid Waste Landfills Settlements and Post-closure Perspectives.”
Environmental and Pipeline Engineering, 447–455.
Sharma, H. D., and De, A. (2007). “Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Settlement: Postclosure
Perspectives.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(6), 619–
629.
Simões, G. F., and Catapreta, C. A. A. (2013). “Monitoring and modeling of long-term
settlements of an experimental landfill in Brazil.” Waste Management, 33(2), 420–430.
Spikula, D. R. (1997). “Subsidence Performance of Landfills.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
15(4–6), 395–402.
Wall, D. K., and Zeiss, C. (1995). “Municipal Landfill Biodegradation and Settlement.” Journal
of Environmental Engineering, 121(3), 214–224.
Yuen, S. T. S., and McDougall, J. R. (2003). “Effect of Enhanced Biodegradation on Settlement
of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Australian Geomechanics, 38(2), 17–27.
Zekkos, D., Greenwood, W. W., Lynch, J. P., Manousakis, J., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A.,
Clark, M., Cook, K. L., and Saroglou, C. (2018). “Lessons Learned from The Application of
UAV-Enabled Structure-From-Motion Photogrammetry in Geotechnical Engineering.”
International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories, 4(4), 254–274.
Zekkos, D., Kabalan, M., and Flanagan, M. (2013). “Lessons Learned from Case Histories of
Dynamic Compaction at Municipal Solid Waste Sites.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(5), 738–751.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2020