Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

A finite-volume numerical model for temporal and spatial variability of T

methane oxidation in landfill covers
Shi-Jin Feng , Zhen-Bai Bai, Qi-Teng Zheng, Shi-Feng Lu, Xiao-Lei Zhang
⁎

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092,
China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A multi-field model is proposed to study methane oxidation in landfill covers, especially its temporal and spatial
Methane oxidation variability. The proposed model consists of water-gas two-phase flow, multi-component gas flow, heat transfer,
Landfill covers and biochemical reaction modules, and is solved using OpenFOAM based on the finite volume method. Applying
Temporal and spatial variability this model, the coupled effect of gas diffusion, temperature and oxidation rate is studied, and the influence of
Finite volume method
water content on oxidation efficiency and capacity is quantified. The temporal variability of oxidation efficiency
and capacity in landfill covers is illustrated by modelling a long-term field test. It is found that the CH4 removal
rate can reach 40 g d−1 m−2 in the summers and drop to less than 10 g d−1 m−2 in the winters. A 3-D landfill
cover cell with a cracked zone is applied to illustrate the spatial variability of oxidation, and a significant
preferential flow can be observed when the cracked zone depth of a 1 m thick soil cover exceeds 0.8 m. The
above studies demonstrate that the proposed model is able to predict temporal and spatial distributions of
methane oxidation efficiency and capacity, and some results contribute to a better understanding of methane
oxidation in landfill covers.

1. Introduction seasonal changes and soil heterogeneity [6–12]. A seasonal change

Degradation of organic waste disposed of landfills produces a large
amount of landfill gas (LFG) consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4), and LFG is a significant source for global warming
[1,2]. CH4 is a primary emissions reduction target of greenhouse gases
because it has a global warming potential (GWP100) 28 times greater
than CO2 [3]. One abatement strategy of CH4 emissions from landfills is
the microbial CH4 oxidation within landfill covers which can convert
CH4 and oxygen (O2) into CO2 by methanotrophic soil bacteria. Landfill
soil covers have proved to be an effective method of CH4 removal and
are widely used in landfills [4]. To set and monitor realistic reduction
targets at all levels, the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA)
stressed the need for accurate measurements and quantification of
greenhouse gas emissions [5]. Therefore, quantifying the oxidation ef-
ficiency and emissions of landfill CH4 is of great importance and value
for designing landfill covers and meeting a reduction target.
Characterization of landfill CH4 emissions is difficult since it is
impacted by a complex matrix formed by biological, physical, and en-
gineering factors. A review of the pertinent and recent literature on
landfill covers demonstrates that they are partially effective because the
CH4 oxidation efficiency significantly varies in space and time due to
would change the temperature and moisture in the atmosphere and
hence landfill covers. For example, the low temperature in winter could
inhibit the methanotrophic activity, giving a reduced efficiency of CH4
oxidation and more CH4 emissions [13]. Cover soils are spatially het-
erogeneous due to the existence of cracks and fissures mainly caused by
waste settlement, desiccation during dry periods, and rootage [14]. A
large amount of CH4 emission has been frequently observed in the
cracked zone of cover soils [7–8,10,12,15] where the methane load
rises to a value larger than the oxidation capacity of soils. For example,
Gonzalez-Valencia et al. [10] investigated methane emissions from
three landfills located in Mexico and found that 50% of the total CH4
emission were occurring in 0.4–5.6% of the total landfill area. Thus, the
effects of seasonal changes and soil heterogeneity on CH4 oxidation
efficiency and capacity of landfill covers should be better understood,
which can increase the quantification and prediction accuracy of CH4
emissions.
In the past two decades, a series of numerical models have been
used to evaluate methane oxidation efficiency. At first, several one di-
mensional (1-D) convection-diffusion transport gas models were pro-
posed [16–20] but they neglected water migration and/or heat transfer
in landfill covers. A more comprehensive coupled model involving

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Si Ping Road 1239, Shanghai 20092, China.
E-mail address: fsjgly@tongji.edu.cn (S.-J. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103510
Received 7 July 2019; Received in revised form 3 February 2020; Accepted 23 February 2020
Available online 28 February 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

water-gas-heat reactive transfer was developed by Ng et al. [21] in 1-D as an ideal gas and soil particles were assumed as rigid. The growth and
and it was extended to two dimensions (2-D) by Feng et al. [22] using decay of methanotrophic populations were neglected in this study
the software, COMSOL. These two models were used to study the effect giving a constant maximum CH4 consumption rate.
of heat/water generation and landfill cover angle on oxidation effi-
ciency, respectively. Nevertheless, in all the above models an intact soil 2.2. Water and gas transfer equations
cover was assumed which generally exists in theory but not in practice.
Under natural conditions, a landfill cover may crack to various extents, The mass conservation equation for water and gas are expressed as
forming channels for landfill gases and affecting the methane oxidation follows [23]:
reaction. A local cracked zone will seriously affect the function of the
landfill cover [8], so the influence of the cracks of soil on methane n n S 1 Q
+ + ·(nS v)= ( = w, g )
transport and oxidation needs further research. To the authors’ t S t S S (1)
knowledge, there is presently no quantitative study on the temporal and where n, Sα, ρα, vα, and ρα are the porosity, saturation degree, density,
spatial variability of methane oxidation within landfill covers, espe- and velocity of phase α (w for water and g for gas), respectively; and Qα
cially in a three-dimensional (3-D) condition. is the source term of phase α in the methane oxidation reaction.
To study CH4 oxidation in landfill covers, especially its temporal Assuming the density of water is constant and considering the
and spatial variability, this paper first develops a fully coupled model density of gas is affected by the molar mass and the temperature. For
consisting of water-gas two-phase flow, multi-component gas flow, heat the gas, the time derivative of density can be written as:
transfer, and biochemical reaction modules in three dimensions using
OpenFOAM based on the finite volume method. This model considers 1 g 1 pg 1 Mg 1 T
= +
the effect of cracks and fissures on the permeability and diffusion of g t pg t Mg t T t (2)
cover soils. It then studies the coupled effect of gas diffusion, tem-
perature, and oxidation rate, and quantifies the influence of water where pg is the gas pore pressure; Mg is the average molecular weight of
content on oxidation efficiency and capacity. Finally, it illustrates the gas phase; T is the absolute temperature. According to generalized
temporal variability of oxidation efficiency and capacity in landfill Darcy’s law, the Darcy velocities of water and gas phases can be sim-
covers by modelling a practical example, and the spatial variability of plified as follows:
oxidation using a 3-D landfill cover cell with a cracked zone that has v¯ r = Kkr / µ ·( p g) = v ·(nS ) (3)
different dimensions and permeabilities.
where tensor fields K is the intrinsic permeability of soil; krα and μα are
2. Methodology the relative permeability and dynamic viscosity of phase α, respec-
tively; and g denotes the gravitational acceleration. To simplify the
2.1. Conceptual model of landfill covers above equations, the phase mobility of water and gas (Mw and Mg) are
defined as:
Through microbial removal of CH4 in soils, a soil cover at the top of M = K kr /µ (4)
a landfill can help reduce CH4 emissions to the atmosphere. A con-
ceptual landfill cover typically consists of a basal “gas distribution Substituting Eqs. (2)–(4) into Eq. (1), and the mass conservation
layer” (GDL) with high gas permeability and an overlying “methane equation for water and gas yields to:
oxidation layer” (MOL) with methanotrophic populations (Fig. 1). A 1 Sw Q
GDL can homogenize the LFG flux from the underlying waste body into ·( w Mw ( pw + w g)) +n = w
w t w (5)
the overlying MOL that can oxidize CH4 to CO2. Methane oxidation of
MOL is affected by several environmental factors such as soil materials, nSg pg 1 Sw nSg Mg nSg T
temperature, water content, and CH4 and O2 supplies. To describe this + ·( g Mg ( pg + g g)) n +
pg t t Mg t T t
cover system, a fully coupled model consisting of water and gas flow,
g
Qg
multi-component gas flow, heat transfer, and microbial methane oxi- =
dation will be introduced in detail below. g (6)
In this study, the GDL below MOL can be neglected because it has
The relative permeabilities of water and gas are estimated by van
little effect on CH4 oxidation and mainly plays a role in homogenizing
Genuchten Mualem model as follows [24,25]:
the LFG flow into MOL. The inflow LFG was assumed as a CH4/CO2 gas
mixture (50/50% v/v) and advection and diffusion of CO2, O2, CH4, and krg = (1 Sw, eff )1/2 [1 (Sw, eff )1/ m]2m
N2 were considered within MOL. The gas phase was assumed to behave
krw = (Sw, eff )1/2 {1 [1 (Sw, eff )1/ m]m } 2 (7)

Sw, eff = (Sw Sw, r )/(Sw, m S w, r ) (8)

where Sw,eff is the effective water saturation; Sw,m and Sw,r are the
maximum and the residual water saturation, respectively; and m is a
dimensionless constant for the model. The capillary pressure pc can be
expressed as:

pg pw (pg > pw ) wg
pc = = [(Sw, eff ) 1/ m 1]1 m
0 (pg pw ) (9)

where pw is the water pressures and α is the van Genuchten constant.

2.3. Multi-component gas transfer equation

The mass conservation equation for each gas species is then ex-
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of a typical landfill cover. pressed as follows [23]:

2
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

(nSg k [( Cp)eff (T Tr )]
g) + ·[( w g
+ ·(nSg k
·(Jkg) + Qgk w Cp vw + g Cp vg)(T Tr )] ·( T)
g vg) = eff
t (10) t
= Qheat (20)
where k
g is the density of gas component k, i.e., CH4, CO2, O2, and N2
for k = 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively; and the diffusive flux and
Jkg Qgk are where Tr is the reference temperature and (ρCp)eff is the heat capacity of
source term of each component k in gas phase. The time derivative of a three-phase porous medium defined as:
gas component k can be written as:
( Cp)eff = (1 n) s Cps + nSw w
w Cp + n (1 Sw ) g Cpg (21)
k
1 g 1 (xgk g ) 1 xgk 1 g
k
= = + where Cps ,
and are the specific heat capacity of solid, liquid and
Cpw Cpg
t x gk t xgk t t
g g g
gas phases, respectively. The specific heat capacity of multi-component
gas is defined as:
k
1 xg 1 pg 1 Mg 1 T
= k
+ +
xg t pg t Mg t T t (11) 4
Cpg = ygk Cpk
where is the mass fraction of component k. Substituting Eq. (11) into
x gk k=1 (22)
Eq. (10) yields:
k
where Cpk is the specific heat capacity of each gas species k. The χeff in
n xg 1 1 nSg pg Eq. (20) is the effective thermal conductivity of soil matrix expressed as
+ k ·(nSg xgk g vg) ·(Jkg) +
k
xg t g
k
g
pg t [19]:
Sw nSg Mg nSg T 1 = + Sw (
n + = k Qgk eff dry wet dry ) (23)
t Mg t T t g (12)
where χdry and χwet are the thermal conductivities of dry soil and sa-
The average molecular weight of gas phase Mg is expressed as: turated soil, respectively. The Qheat in Eq. (20) is the heat generation
1 rate of methane oxidation.
x gk
Mg =
k Mgk (13)
2.5. Microbial methane oxidation equation
where is the molecular weight of component k.
Mgk
The diffusive flux of component k, Jkg , is governed by concentration The reaction kinetics associated with methane oxidation was
gradient as: written as [13]:

Jkg = k
g Deff ygk (14) CH 4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2 O + 780 kJ mol 1 (24)

where ygk is the volume (molar) fraction expressed as: The methane oxidation rate RCH4 in cover soils can be described by
the dual-substrate Michaelis-Menten kinetics as [28]:
Mg
ygk = ( ) x gk
Mgk (15) ygCH4 ygO2
RCH4 = fV,T fV,w Vmax ·
K CH4 + ygCH4 K O2 + ygO2 (25)
k
Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient of gas component k which
can be defined as:
where Vmax is the maximum CH4 consumption rate; fV,T and fV,w are the
k
Deff = Dgk (16) modified factors of temperature and water content, respectively, which
are expressed in detail in Appendix A; KCH4 and KO2 are the half-sa-
is the molecular diffusion coefficient of gas component k defined
Dgk turation rate constant of CH4 and O2, respectively. The consumption
as [26]: rate of O2 (termed as RO2) and the production rate of CO2 (termed as
RCO2) have the following relationships with RCH4:
(1 ygk )
Dgk =
4
yj RO2 = =2RCH4 (26)
j = 1 Dkj
j k (17)
RCO2 = =RCH4 (27)
where Dij is the diffusion coefficient of the binary mixture of gases i and
j. τ is the tortuosity factor affected by soil porosity and water saturation The heat generation rate of methane oxidation can be expressed as:
as [27]:
Qheat = RCH4 × 780 kJ mol 1
(28)
[(1 Sw ) n]10/3 (n )10/3 10/3
= = = 2 Two indexes of methane oxidation efficiency Effoxi and capacity
n2 n2 n (18)
Capoxi are used in the following to quantitatively evaluate the oxidation
where θ is the volumetric water content; and ε is the air-filled porosity performance of a landfill cover. The methane oxidation efficiency Effoxi
(AFP). is defined as the difference between CH4 influx (load) at the bottom and
The CH4 flux involving convection and diffusion can be expressed outflux (emissions) at the top, divided by CH4 influx as:
defined as:
(fluxin flux out)
flux CH4 = JCH 4 + CH 4 Eff oxi = × 100%
g g vg x g (19) flux in (29)

Carbon Farming Initiative [29] Regulatory Baselines for Legacy

2.4. Enthalpy balance equation Waste Landfill Methane suggested the allowable emissions of
60 g day−1 m−2, thus the CH4 load at this moment is defined as me-
To describe heat transfer and then the spatial and temporal dis- thane oxidation capacity Capoxi as:
tribution of temperature, the enthalpy balance equation for an un-
saturated porous medium can be expressed as [27]:
Capoxi = fluxin (load) when flux out (emissions) = 60 g day 1 m 2
(30)

3
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

3. Numerical model implementation implicit

implicit implicit implicit
x gk
[Agk · ] dV [d S·(Bkg xgk )] + [d S·Ckg xgk ] + [Dgk · ygk ] dV
3.1. Sequential solving method and modified Picard iteration
VP t VP VP VP
explicit

= Rgk dV
The fully coupled model established in this study contains seven VP

partial differential equations and seven independent unknown vari- (k = 1, 2, 3, 4)

ables: water pressure pg, gas pressure pw, gas mass fraction x gk (k = 1, 2, (38)
3, 4) and temperature T. To solve this model, sequentially iterative
implicit
solving method is adopted. The time derivative of saturation Sw can be implicit implicit explicit
T
reformulated in terms of time derivatives of water pressure and gas [AT · ] dV [d S·(BT T )] + [d S ·(CT T )] = RT dV
VP t VP VP VP
pressure to guarantee good mass conservation and solution con-
vergence, as [30]: (39)
Based on finite volume method, the implicit integral terms can be
t + 1, i + 1 t
t + 1, i + (
Sw
Sw t + 1, i t + 1, i + 1
) (pc pct + 1, i ) t
Sw converted into a matrix of unknown variables; and all the explicit in-
Sw t + 1, i + 1 Sw Sw pc
( t
) = t
= t tegral terms, including coefficients and source terms, can be calculated
t + 1, i + 1
Sw t + 1, i (pc pct + 1, i ) t + 1, i S t
Sw w
using the known results obtained from previous iteration step or pre-
=( ) +
pc t t vious time step.
t + 1, i + 1 pgt+ 1, i ) t + 1, i + 1 t + 1, i )
Sw t + 1, i (pg Sw t + 1, i (pw pw t + 1, i
Sw t
Sw
=( ) ( ) +
pc t pc t t (31) 3.3. Solution procedure

where the superscripts t and i denote the time level and iteration level, Following the above steps, the governing equations for each cell
respectively centroid M can be rearranged into seven linear algebraic equations:
In a specific iteration step, the governing equations can be finally (p w ) (p w ) (p )
discretized as follows: M (pw )M + N (pw )N = rM w
N (40)
pwt+ 1, i + 1 pwt pgt + 1, i + 1 pgt (pg ) (pg ) (p )
Aw ·(B w pw )t + 1, i + 1 + Cw = Rw M (pg )M + N (pg )N = rM g
t t (32) N (41)

(x gk ) k (xgk ) k (x k )
pgt+ 1, i + 1 pgt M (x g )M + N (x g )N = rM g (k = 1, 2, 3, 4)
pwt+ 1, i + 1 pwt (42)
Ag ·(Bg pg )t + 1, i + 1 + Cg = Rg N
t t (33)
(T ) (T ) (T )
M (T )M + N (T )N = rM
t N (43)
(x k )t + 1, i + 1 (x gk )
Agk g ·(Bkg xgk )t + 1, i + 1 + ·(Cgk xgk )t + 1, i + 1 + Dgk (xgk )t + 1, i + 1 where αM, αN and rM are the diagonal coefficients, neighbor coefficients,
t

= Rgk and source terms, respectively, obtained from discretization in time and
space.
(k = 1, 2, 3, 4)
For a specific iteration at a time step, the water and gas flow
(34) equations (5) and (6), microbial methane oxidation equation Eq. (25),
multi-component gas flow equation Eq. (12) and enthalpy balance
T t + 1, i + 1 Tt equation Eq. (20) are solved in sequence, with the variables associated
AT ·(BT T t + 1, i + 1) + ·(CT T t + 1, i + 1) = RT
t (35) with each equation being updated (Fig. 2) such as water content and
gas density for the water and gas transfer equation. Afterward, check
where the coefficients A, B, C, D, and R are the nonlinear terms ex- whether the convergence criteria are satisfied: if yes, end this iteration
plicitly calculated from the results of the previous iteration or time and start the next time step; otherwise, start the next iteration and solve
level. The definitions of all these coefficients are illustrated in Appendix the above four equations in sequence again. The convergence criteria
B. are based on the maximum differences between absolute and relative
errors expressed as follows:

3.2. Finite volume discretization max|pwt+ 1, i + 1 pwt+ 1, i | p

max|pgt+ 1, i + 1 pgt + 1, i | p
The discretization process in this study is implemented into (k = 1, 2, 3, 4)
OpenFOAM. Cell-centered finite volume method is introduced to dis- max|(xgk )t + 1, i + 1 (xgk )t + 1, i| k

cretize the coupled model derived in the previous section and the de- max|T t + 1, i + 1 T t + 1, i| T (44)
tailed information is enclosed in Refs. [31–34]. The volume integrals of
Eqs. (32)–(35) over a specific VP at each time step can be converted into t + 1, i + 1
pw t + 1, i
pw
max| |
surface integrals using generalized Gauss’ theorem: pwt+ 1, i p

pgt+ 1, i + 1 pgt+ 1, i
implicit explicit,pressure coupling max| | p
implicit explicit pgt+ 1, i
pw pg (k = 1, 2, 3, 4)
[Aw · ] dV [dS·(B w pw )] + [Cw· ] dV = Rw dV (xgk )t + 1, i + 1 (x gk )t + 1, i
VP t VP VP t VP max| | k
(x gk )t + 1, i
(36) T t + 1, i + 1 T t + 1, i
max| |
T t + 1, i T (45)
implicit explicit,pressure coupling
pg
implicit explicit
where εp, εk and εT indicate the absolute convergence tolerances for
pw
[Ag · ] dV [d S·(Bg pg )] + [Cg · ] dV = Rg dV pressure, gas mass fraction and temperature, respectively; and ξp, ξk,
VP t VP VP t VP
and ξT indicate the relative convergence tolerances for pressure, gas
(37)
mass fraction and temperature increments, respectively. The absolute

4
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

Fig. 2. Solution procedures of the proposed model.

and relative convergence tolerances are set as 1 × 10−6 and 1 × 10−3,

respectively.

3.4. Model boundary conditions

Fig. 3. Comparisons with Refs. [35–37]: (a) water saturation; (b) water pres-
To simulate rainfall on the top boundary and fixed gas flux in the sure head.
bottom boundary in water and gas fields, Neumann boundary condi-
tions for water and gas pressures are adopted in the solver. According to 23.3%, and 76.7% which were consistent with those of air, and they
Darcy’s law, the specified flux through unit area can be expressed as were 26.7%, 73.3%, 0%, and 0% at the bottom according to LFG
composition.
q (t ) = v¯ r · n = M p ·n + M g· n = M ,n p ·n + M g ·n
(46)
3.5. Model verification
where q (t)is the specified flux, which can be set as a constant or a
function of time t; n is the outward unit normal vector of the area; and α A famous sand-column seepage test was introduced here to test the
is the water (w) or gas (g); Mα,n is a component of Mα along the surface performance of the proposed model in simulating water and gas
normal direction. transfer. The parameters only applied to Fig. 3 are listed in Table 1
Then, Neumann boundary conditions of the water and gas pressure [35]. In this test, the gas pressure was atmospheric pressure at the in-
fields can be expressed as itial stage and at the top and bottom boundaries, while the water
M g·n pressure heads at the top and bottom boundaries are −0.75 m (a water
q (t )
p ·n =
M ,n M ,n (47)
Table 1
Eq. (47) defines a surface normal gradient of water pressure or gas Parameters of the sand-column seepage test.
pressure on the boundary. Parameter Values Source
In the following simulations, boundary conditions are set based on
Permeability (m2) 9.35 × 10−12 Chen and Wei. [35]
environmental and test conditions. Specified water pressure or specified
Density of water (kg/m3) 998.2
flux was applied at the top in accordance with the water content Gravity (m2/s) 9.807
measured in field tests, together with a zero gradient of water pressure Dynamic fluid viscosity of water (Pa/s) 1.00 × 10−3
at the bottom representing free drainage. For the gas pressure field, Dynamic fluid viscosity of gas (Pa/s) 1.80 × 10−5
atmospheric pressure was set at the top and a specified flux boundary at Porosity 0.368
Residual saturation 0.2772
the bottom. The temperatures at the top and bottom boundaries were
Van Genuchten model α (m−1) 3.34
set as a fixed value based on the ambient temperature. At the top the Van Genuchten model m 0.50
mass fractions of gas species (CH4, CO2, O2, and N2) were set as 0%, 0%,

5
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

Table 2
Basic parameters of the model.
Parameter Values Source

Water and gas transfer Porosity 0.52 Molins et al. [38]

Permeability (m2) 10−12
Van Genuchten model α (m−1) 3.5
Van Genuchten model m 0.231
Residual saturation 0.05
Soil dry density (kg/m3) 1300
Dynamic fluid viscosity of water (Pa/s) 1.8 × 10−3-4.95 × 10−5T + 5.4 × 10−7T2
Dynamic fluid viscosity of gas (Pa/s) 1.71 × 10−5 + 4.76 × 10−8T

Multi-component gas transfer Binary diffusion coefficient O2 and N2 2.083 Molins and Mayer [39]
(10−5 m2 s−1) CO2 and N2 1.649
CH4 and N2 2.137
CO2 and O2 1.635
O2 and CH4 2.263
CO2 and CH4 1.705

Heat generation and transfer Specific heat capacity (J kg−1 K−1) Soil particle 800 Hillel [40]
Water 4185 Reid et al. [26]
CO2 816
O2 1005
CH4 2160
N2 930
Thermal conductivity (J m−1 s−1 K−1) Dry soil 0.65 Woodside and Messmer [41]
Saturated soil 1.22

Microbial methane oxidation Half-saturation rate constant KO2 0.012 De Visscher et al. [42]
KCH4 0.0066

saturation of 0.54) and −10 m (a water saturation of 0.3), respectively,
with an initial value of −10 m along the column. Water would flow
downwards over time under gravity, and the temporal and spatial
distributions of water content and pressure head calculated by the
proposed model agree well with others [35–37] which proves the ac-
curacy of water and gas transfer module.
For CH4 oxidation within landfill cover soils studied in the fol-
lowing, the basic parameters are listed in Table 2 referring to
[26,38–42] and other parameters will be described in each simulation,
respectively. The multi-component gas flow was verified by a landfill
cover column test with an inlet flow of 4.09 m d−1, which tended to
simulate a new and active landfill with high gas production [38]. The
ambient temperature was controlled as 22 °C and the initial water
content θ was set as 0.15 with accordance to the test data. The max-
imum CH4 consumption rate Vmax was calibrated as 840 nmol kg−1 s−1.
The computed molar fractions of CH4, CO2, O2, and N2 agree reasonably
well with the experimental data (Fig. 4). A larger concentration of O2
and N2 can be observed in shallower depths due to the supply from the
atmosphere. Thus, the proposed model can accurately describe the
multi-component gas flow.
The performance of the proposed model in methane oxidation effi-
ciency was verified by a field test of methane oxidation conducted by
Chanton et al. [43] in landfill X located in Southeastern USA. Chanton
et al. [43] measured the methane emission rates in the south area of
landfill X where the gas collection system was under development and
30–45 cm thick sandy loam soil was adopted as an intermediate cover. In
the simulation, the ambient temperature was 30 °C, the water content of
cover soils was set as 0.13, the thickness of MOL was 0.45 m and the
maximum CH4 consumption rate Vmax was fitted as 513 nmol kg−1 s−1.
The CH4 oxidation efficiency and its relation with CH4 load estimated by
the proposed model essentially match those measured in the field test
(Fig. 5). A decrease in CH4 oxidation efficiency can also be observed with
an increase in CH4 load, that is, an efficiency of over 90% for a CH4 load
lower than 100 g d−1m−2, and less than 10% for a CH4 load over
800 g d−1 m−2. This comparison demonstrates the ability of the pro-
posed model to estimate the CH4 oxidation efficiency of a landfill cover.

Fig. 4. Comparison between measured and computed mole fractions of dif- Fig. 5. Comparison of CH4 oxidation efficiencies measured in a field test [43]
ferent gases. and computed by the proposed model.

6
S.-J. Feng, et al.
4. Results and discussion
Using the parameter values listed in Table 2, the proposed model is
adopted in this section to (1) investigate the oxidation efficiency and
capacity of landfill covers; (2) predict the temporal variability of CH4
oxidation; and (3) study the influence of a crack zone on the spatial
variability of CH4 oxidation.
4.1. Efficiency and capacity of methane oxidation
Since the field environment is much complex, CH4 oxidation effi-
ciency cannot be accurately estimated if considering an individual
factor alone such as water content, oxygen ingression, temperature and
CH4 loading [14]. Therefore, it is necessary to study the coupled effect
of all the above factors on oxidation efficiency and capacity of CH4. In
this section, the MOL thickness = 1.0 m with oxygen entry from the
atmosphere at the top (T = 20 °C) by diffusion and CH4 inflow from
GDL at the bottom (T = 15 °C) by convection and diffusion. The O2
molar fraction quickly decreases with depth of MOL approaching zero
at around 0.2–0.4 m deep from the top of MOL, while the CH4 molar
fraction gradually increases with depth (Fig. 6). According to the dual
Monod kinetic equation of Eq. (25), CH4 oxidation occurs at the depth
where O2 and CH4 are mixed, that is, the oxidation zone shown in
Fig. 6. For a CH4 load of 50 g d−1 m−2, the CH4 molar fraction ap-
proaches zero at a depth of 0.2 m above which there is essentially no
CH4, implying a complete removal of CH4 and a Effoxi value of 100%. As
the CH4 load increases, an increased O2 consumption reduces the depth
the O2 diffuses into the soil and hence the depth of the oxidation zone.
This is also related to the increased CH4 concentration in the vicinity of
the top boundary and the increased Darcy velocity of CH4 emitting to
the atmosphere which would impede the diffusive ingress of O2. Thus,
the higher the CH4 load, the harder to completely oxidize CH4 and
hence the more the CH4 emissions to the atmosphere.
The nanomoles (nmol) of oxidized methane per second and per unit
of dry soil mass is defined as CH4 oxidation rate and as the depth of
MOL increases it rises from zero to a maximum value and then rapidly
decreases to zero (Fig. 7). The maximum oxidation rate shows a sig-
nificant increase as the CH4 load increases in the range of 50 to
200 g d−1 m−2 beyond which the increase in the maximum oxidation
rate is negligible (e.g., from 200 to 250 g d−1 m−2) implying a limited
ability of CH4 oxidation in landfill covers. Accordingly, the internal
temperature in the MOL rises because of the heat generated during CH4
oxidation and the peak value occurs at the depth where the maximum
Fig. 6. Distributions of CH4 and O2 concentrations with depth of MOL for three
values of CH4 load (Vmax = 840 nmol kg−1 s−1, θ = 0.2).
7
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510
Fig. 7. Distributions of CH4 oxidation rate and temperature with depth of MOL
for four values of CH4 load.
oxidation rate lies, e.g., a depth of 0.22 m for CH4 load = 50 g d−1 m−2
(Fig. 7). It arises because generally the higher the oxidation rate, the
more the heat is released, but an opposite trend can be observed when
the CH4 load exceeds 100 g d−1 m−2, i.e., a decreased temperature for
an increased CH4 load. This phenomenon is due to two reasons: (i) a
shallower depth of oxidation zone and heat generation which would
induce a greater influence of the ambient temperature by heat transfer;
(ii) a larger CH4 flux passing through the MOL to the atmosphere which
would take away the generated heat by thermal convection.
The water content of cover soils is an important parameter for
achieving CH4 oxidation and reducing CH4 emissions, and it varies
depending on climatic conditions. As indicated in the modified factor of
water content fV,w (Eq. (A.2)), the rate of CH4 oxidation increases from
zero as the water content of soils increases from a wilting point θwilting
where the microbial activity for CH4 oxidation is negligible. However,
the computed data show that the oxidation efficiency of MOL decreases
with an increase in water content from 0.15 to 0.3 (Fig. 8a) mainly due
to the decreased gas diffusivity of soil. To further explain it, the CH4
oxidation capacity Capoxi (Eq. (30)) is selected (green solid circles in
Fig. 8a) and the relationship between CH4 oxidation efficiency Effoxi,
capacity Capoxi and emission limitation can be expressed as:
Emission limitation 1 m 2)
Capoxi =
(1 Eff oxi)
(Emission limitation (CFI) = 60 gCH 4 d
(48)
The CH4 oxidation capacity Capoxi is a sum of allowable emission
limitation, i.e., 60 g d−1m−2 in this study, and CH4 removal rate re-
presenting the amount of CH4 oxidation. A Capoxi value close to the
allowable emission limitation implies a stop of oxidation reaction in
MOL, e.g., the wilting point θwilting and saturation point θsaturated in
Fig. 8b. With an increase in water content of MOL, the oxidation ca-
pacity first increases to a peak value of 135 g d−1m−2 at water con-
tent = 0.15, and then gradually decrease to the allowable emission
limitation at the saturation point (Fig. 8b). A high water content would
inhibit the diffusion of O2 and once the soil is saturated, no O2 would
diffuse into the soils stopping the oxidation reaction even with high
microbial activity for CH4 oxidation. Thus, there exists an optimal
water content of soils (i.e., 0.15 in the case of Fig. 8b) where the effects
of water content on microbial activity and O2 diffusion can be balanced,
giving a maximum oxidation capacity.
4.2. Temporal variability of methane oxidation
Due to seasonal changes in an actual climate condition, the CH4
oxidation efficiency and capacity of landfill covers show a significant
variability over time. To model this variability in a long period, this
section adopts CH4 emissions, gas concentration, ambient temperature
S.-J. Feng, et al.
Fig. 8. Relationship between (a) CH4 oxidation efficiency and CH4 load for four
values of water content; and (b) CH4 oxidation capacity and water content.
and air-filled porosity (e.g., the difference between porosity n and water
content θ) measured in a long-term cover field test in Wieringermeer
landfill over 30 months conducted by Geck [44].
The computed oxidation efficiency in two representative months
(February 2014 and September 2014) show a good agreement with
those measured by Geck [44] (Fig. 9). In this simulation, the unknown
maximum CH4 consumption rate Vmax was calibrated as 103 nmol kg−1
s−1 in its typical range of 50 to 2000 nmol kg−1 s−1 proposed by
Abichou et al. [45]. Thus, the proposed model is able to simulate
variable CH4 oxidation efficiency caused by seasonal changes. Ad-
ditionally, the oxidation efficiency in September 2014 (e.g., over 90%
at CH4 load = 50 g d−1 m−2) is much higher than that in February
2014 (e.g., less than 10% at CH4 load = 50 g d−1 m−2). It arises due to
a higher temperature and a relatively low water content in September
than in February. The higher temperature could accelerate the CH4
oxidation rate (Eq. (A.1)), and the lower water content can maintain the
activity of oxidizing bacteria and meanwhile it is conducive to O2 dif-
fusion.
Using Vmax = 103 nmol kg−1 s−1, the predicted CH4 oxidation ef-
ficiency of the landfill cover subjected the actual climate condition from
August 2012 to July 2013 shows an appreciable seasonable variability
(Fig. 10). A much lower oxidation efficiency can be observed in winter
(from December to March) than in summer (from June to September),
giving a much larger amount of CH4 emissions in winter. Fig. 11 depicts
the oxidation capacity and removal rate of CH4 from August 2012 to
8
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510
Fig. 9. Verification of variable oxidation efficiency over season using field data
measured from Wieringermeer landfill (Feb 2014: ambient temperature
T = 4 °C and θ = 0.241; Sep 2014: ambient temperature T = 21 °C and
θ = 0.167) by Geck [44].
Fig. 10. Temporal distribution of methane oxidation efficiency in
Wieringermeer landfill.
February 2015 with allowable emissions of 60 g d−1 m−2. The CH4
removal rate can reach 100–60 = 40 g d−1 m−2 in the summers and
drop to less than 10 g d−1 m−2 in the winter, and its coefficient of
variation is as high as 0.64 indicating a significant temporal variabiliy.
Using CH4 load and the calculated oxidation removal rate, the CH4
emissions can be estimated as the difference between them. In a site
with obvious seasonal changes, the design of landfill covers should
consider the most unfavorable oxidation condition in winter to meet
CH4 emission regulations. The above study demonstrates the feasibility
of predicting temporal variability of CH4 oxidation efficiency and
emissions using the proposed model, soil properties and climatic con-
ditions.
4.3. Spatial variability of methane oxidation
Fig. 12 depicts the conceptual model of a 3-D landfill cover cell with
two types of cracked soil: uneven settlement of waste and desiccation of
the topsoil during dry periods. The proposed model can set a cracked
zone of any shape and position based on actual site conditions. This
section adopts a cover cell of 5 m × 5 m × 1 m with a rectangular
cracked zone in the middle as an example (Vmax = 200 nmol kg−1 s−1,
θ = 0.2, ambient temperature T = 15 °C).
A cracked zone defined in this model refers to a cover zone where
S.-J. Feng, et al.
Fig. 11. Prediction of methane oxidation capacity from August 12 to February 15 in Wieringermeer landfill.
many small cracks exist and methane hotspots will be formed due to
preferential flow. A surface probe method was used by Gonzalez-
Valencia et al. [10] to detect methane hotspots and the spatial variation
of CH4 emissions from three landfills. The results showed that a me-
thane hotspot can cover a large area up to dozens of square meters.
Rachor [46] conducted a more accurate field test of hotspot detection
and found that the areas of two hotspots accounted for 3.82 and
3.79 m2. Hence, a cracked zone with a width between 0.6 and 1.8 m
was assumed in the following (i.e., an area between 3 and 9 m2).
Cracked soil will form a double pore structure including fracture
pore and matrix pore, and to some extent, its porosity increases indu-
cing an increased permeability and diffusivity of gases. The increase in
gas permeability of unsaturated cracked soil can reach about two orders
of magnitude studied by Li et al. [47]. Using X-ray computed tomo-
graphy approach, Zhou et al. [48] established a relationship between
total porosity and gas permeability for a bimodal soil pore structure as:
n = 0.017ln(Ks (m/h)) + 0.592 (49)
Thus, in the proposed model the gas permeability of cracked soil is
defined as the original permeability multiplied by a pore expansion
factor (termed as EF), and the corresponding porosity is estimated using
in Eq. (49). An expanded porosity of cracked soil also changes the
tortuosity factor which can be calculated using Eq. (18).
The CH4 distribution in a cracked landfill cover shows an
Fig. 12. Conceptual model of a landfill cover cell with cracked soil.
9
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510
appreciable spatial variability, i.e., a higher CH4 concentration in the
cracked zone than the non-cracked zone at the same depth (Fig. 13a).
This phenomenon is due to multi-field interactions and the significant
influence of cracked soil on other variables, such as porosity and Darcy
velocities. The CH4 flux, oxidation rate and temperature in vertical
slices all show a spatial variability (Fig. 13b). The cracked zone forms a
significant preferential flow of CH4 with a flux of 800 g d−1 m−2 at the
bottom, while the base flux in the non-cracked zone is less than
50 g d−1 m−2. The cracked zone causes preferential flow of CH4, which
makes a large amount of CH4 discharged into the atmosphere without
oxidation. Because the gas convective velocity in the cracked zone is
relatively high, the diffusion of O2 to the inner part of the landfill cover
is impeded. Due to the lack of O2, the oxidation reaction becomes
slower, and the heat of reaction is therefore reduced. According to the
simulation results, the existence of cracked zones has an important ef-
fect on methane oxidation. (See Fig. 14.)
Types and development degrees of soil cracks are variable which
can be reflected in terms of cracked zone depth, width, and perme-
ability. As the cracked zone depth increases, more significant CH4
emissions from landfill cover to the atmosphere can be expected which
has a greenhouse effect and a risk of explosion in presence of O2
(Fig. 15). The worst situation occurs when the crack runs through the
cover layer, i.e., a cracked zone depth of 1 m in the present case. Under
a gas pressure of 30 Pa, the local preferential flow of methane emissions
S.-J. Feng, et al.
Fig. 13. (a) CH4 distribution of a landfill cover cell with a cracked zone; (b)
Vertical slices of CH4 flux, oxidation rate and temperature (EF = 50,
Depth = 1 m, Width = 0.6 m, bottom gas pressure = 30 Pa).
Fig. 14. Relationships of average CH4 emissions and average CH4 oxidation
efficiency with different values of cracked zone depth and EF (Width = 0.6 m,
bottom gas pressure = 30 Pa).
can reach about 1200 (g d−1 m−2), which is 20 times the Emission
limitation (CFI). When EF is set as 50, the average CH4 oxidation effi-
ciency is only 22%, and the average CH4 emissions of the landfill cover
cell reaches 150 (g d−1 m−2). The cracked zone can cause serious
failure of the landfill cover and CH4 discharge. The influence of cracked
zone depth can be quantitatively presented in terms of average CH4
emissions and oxidation efficiency and it can be classified into three
stages: relatively small for depth < 0.5 m, appreciable for
10
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510
Fig. 15. Relationships of average CH4 emissions and average CH4 oxidation
efficiency with different value of cracked zone width and gas pressure
(Depth = 1 m, EF = 50).
0.5 m < depth < 0.8 m and significant for depth > 0.8 m. This
phenomenon can be exacerbated by an increased value of EF, that is,
higher-permeability cracked soil.
For cracked zone width, its expansion not only causes increased CH4
emissions in the crack range but also increases the emissions in adjacent
areas due to the horizontal diffusion of CH4 in MOL (Map of methane
emissions Fig. 15). With the increase of the cracked zone width, the
maximum CH4 emission in the middle of the cracked zone also in-
creased. The average CH4 emissions show a linear relationship with
cracked zone width and it also increases with an increase in gas pres-
sure at the bottom (Fig. 15). At a cracked zone width of 1.6 m, CH4
emissions increases by 500 g d−1 m−2 for every 20 Pa increase in the
gas pressure, implying an essential linear relationship between them.
These results can help landfill engineers better understand the de-
creased CH4 efficiency and increased CH4 emissions caused by soil
cracks, and meanwhile illustrate the applicability of the proposed
model to this problem.
5. Summary and conclusions
In this study, a multi-field model was proposed to study the methane
oxidation of landfill covers, especially its temporal and spatial varia-
bility. The proposed model consists of water-gas two-phase flow, multi-
component gas flow, heat transfer, and biochemical reaction modules,
and it can quantitatively describe methane oxidation efficiency and
capacity in different methane load, and climatic and site conditions.
The model was solved using OpenFOAM with a comprehensive ver-
ification. It was then applied to investigate the effects of soil water
content on methane oxidation efficiency and capacity together with
multi-field coupled effect. The temporal and spatial variabilities of
methane oxidation were also predicted based on actual climatic and site
conditions. Through examining a range of cases, some main conclusions
were drawn as follows:
(1) Methane oxidation occurs at a depth of 0–0.2 m from the top of the
methane oxidation layer with a limited oxidation ability. A high
methane load would impede the diffusive ingress of oxygen, and
decrease the internal temperature due to the heat convection and
transfer.
(2) Increasing soil water content will increase methane-oxidizing bac-
teria activity but also reduce oxygen diffusion. There exists an op-
timal soil water content of 0.15 where these two effects on methane
oxidation can be balanced, giving a maximum oxidation capacity.
(3) Methane oxidation shows a significant spatial variability due to
seasonal changes, e.g., a methane removal rate of 40 g d−1 m−2 in
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

summer and less than 10 g d−1 m−2 in winter in a practical case. Declaration of Competing Interest
The most unfavorable oxidation condition in winter should be
considered for designing landfill covers to meet methane emission The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
regulations. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
(4) A preferential flow will occur when the cracked zone depth of a 1 m ence the work reported in this paper.
thick soil cover exceeds 0.8 m, and then the methane oxidation in
landfill covers will be significantly affected. The increased methane
concentration in soils could impede oxygen diffusion, giving a Acknowledgements
shallower oxidation zone, and a significantly decreased oxidation
rate and temperature in the cracked zone. Much of the work described in this paper was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.
CRediT authorship contribution statement 41725012 and 41931289, the Fundamental Research Funds for Central
Universities, and the Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation
Shi-Jin Feng: Conceptualization, Methodology. Zhen-Bai Bai: Action Plan under Grant No. 18DZ1204402. The writers would like to
Software, Writing - original draft. Qi-Teng Zheng: Writing - review & greatly acknowledge all these financial supports and express the sincere
editing. Shi-Feng Lu: Visualization, Formal analysis. Xiao-Lei Zhang: gratitude.
Investigation, Resources.

Appendix A

Abichou et al. [28] proposed a typical expression for the modified factors of temperature fV,T and fV,w on CH4 oxidation rate, respectively, as:

2.235 0.18(T 33) T 33 °C

fV , T = 0.112T 1.47 15°C T < 33 °C
0.0142T T < 15 °C (A.1)

0 w wilting

fV , w = ( w wilting )/( fc wilting ) wilting < w fc

1 fc < w saturated (A.2)
where θsaturated is the saturated volumetric water content; θwilting is the wilting point of soil, which is the water content where the microbial activity
for methane oxidation is negligible; and θfc is the field capacity of soil. The filed capacity θfc and wilting point θwilting of soil correspond to the water
contents at suction values of 33 kPa and 1500 kPa [49].

Appendix B

In a specific iteration step, by plugging Eq. (31) into Eqs. (5) and (6), the partial differential equations for water and gas can be reformulated as
follows:
t + 1, i p t + 1, i + 1 pwt
Sw
n pc
w
t
·(Mw pw )t + 1, i + 1
t + 1, i pt + 1, i + 1 pgt t + 1, i (p t + 1, i pwt )
Sw g Sw w
+ n pc t
+ n pc t
t + 1, i (pt + 1, i pgt ) t + 1, i t
Sw g Sw Sw
n pc t
+n t
t + 1, i
Qw
= ·(Mw g)
w
w
(B.1)
t + 1, i (pt + 1, i + 1 pgt )
n (1 Sw ) Sw g
pg
n pc t
·(Mg pg )t + 1, i + 1
t + 1, i (p t + 1, i + 1 pwt ) t + 1, i (p t + 1, i pwt )
Sw w Sw w
+ n pc t
n pc t
t + 1, i (pt + 1, i pt ) t + 1, i t
Sw g g Sw Sw
+ n pc t
n t
t + 1, i M t
n (1 Sw ) Mg g n (1 Sw ) T t + 1, i T t
+ Mg t T t
Qg
=[ ·(Mg g)]t + 1, i
g
g
(B.2)
The definitions of the coefficients are as follows:

11
S.-J. Feng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510

t + 1, i
Sw
Aw = n( pc
)
B w = Mw
t + 1, i
Sw
Cw = n pc
t + 1, i t + 1, i (p t + 1, i t)
pw
Qw Sw w
w ·(Mw g) n pc t
w
Rw = t + 1, i (pt + 1, i
Sw g pgt ) t + 1, i
Sw t
Sw
+ n n
pc t t
(B.3)
t + 1, i
n (1 Sw ) Sw
Ag = pg
n pc

B g = Mg
t + 1, i
Sw
Cg = n pc

Qg t + 1, i (p t + 1, i t)
pw
Sw
[ g ·(Mg g)]t + 1, i + n pc
w
t
g
t + 1, i (pt + 1, i pgt ) t + 1, i t
Sw g Sw Sw
Rg = n +n
pc t t
t + 1, i M t
n (1 Sw ) Mg g n (1 Sw ) T t + 1, i T t
+
Mg t T t
(B.4)

Agk = [n g ]t + 1, i
Bkg = [ g Deff
k t + 1, i
]
Cgk = [ g vg ]t + 1, i
t + 1, i t + 1, i
n (1 Sw ) (pg pgt )
( pg
) t
t + 1, i
Sw t
Sw
n
Dgk = g
t + 1, i t
t + 1, i M t )
n (1 S ) (Mg g
+ M w t
g

n (1 Sw ) (T t + 1, i T t )
T t

Rgk = (Qgk )t + 1, i
(k = 1, 2, 3, 4) (B.5)

AT = [( Cp)eff ]t + 1, i
BT = eff
p p t + 1, i
CT = [ w Cw vw + g Cg vg ]

[ (Cp)teff
+ 1, i (Cp)teff ]
[Tr T ]t + 1, i +
RT = t
w g t + 1, i
·[( w Cp vw + g Cp vg) Tr ] + Qheat t + 1, i
(B.6)

References
[1] Manfredi S, Tonini D, Christensen TH, Scharff H. Landfilling of waste: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage Res
2009;27(8):825–36.
[2] Zheng QT, Rowe RK, Feng SJ. Recovery response of vertical gas wells in non-
homogeneous landfills. Waste Manage 2019;83:33–45.
[3] Knoblauch C, Beer C, Liebner S, Grigoriev MN, Pfeiffer EM. Methane production as
key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost. Nat Clim Change
2018;8(4):309–12.
[4] Scheutz C, Samuelsson J, Fredenslund AM, Kjeldsen P. Quantification of multiple
methane emission sources at landfills using a double tracer technique. Waste
Manage 2011;31(5):1009–17.
[5] ISWA (International Solid Waste Association). Waste and climate change. ISWA
White paper; 2009. http://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_/Small_
GHG_white _paper_01.pdf.
[6] Klusman RW, Dick CJ. Seasonal variability in CH4 emissions from a landfill in a
cool, semiarid climate. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2000;50(9):1632–6.
[7] Giani L, Bredenkamp J, Eden I. Temporal and spatial variability of the CH4 dy-
namics of landfill cover soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 2002;165(2):205–10.
[8] Röwer IU, Geck C, Gebert J, Pfeiffer EM. Spatial variability of soil gas concentration
and methane oxidation capacity in landfill covers. Waste Manage
2011;31(5):926–34.
[9] Rachor IM, Gebert J, Gröngröft A, Pfeiffer EM. Variability of methane emissions
from an old landfill over different time-scales. Eur J Soil Sci 2013;64(1):16–26.
[10] Gonzalez-Valencia R, Magana-Rodriguez F, Cristóbal J, Thalasso F. Hotspot detec-
tion and spatial distribution of methane emissions from landfills by a surface probe
method. Waste Manage 2016;55:299–305.
[11] Yesiller N, Hanson JL, Sohn AH, Bogner J, Blake DR. Spatial and temporal varia-
bility in emissions of fluorinated gases from a California landfill. Environ Sci
Technol 2018;52(12):6789–97.
[12] Shen S, Chen Y, Zhan L, Xie H, Bouazza A, He F, et al. Methane hotspot localization
and visualization at a large-scale Xi'an landfill in China: Effective tool for landfill
gas management. J Environ Manage 2018;225:232–41.
[13] Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P, Bogner JE, De Visscher A, Gebert J, Hilger HA, et al.
Microbial methane oxidation processes and technologies for mitigation of landfill
gas emissions. Waste Manage Res 2009;27(5):409–55.
[14] Sadasivam BY, Reddy KR. Landfill methane oxidation in soil and bio-based cover
systems: a review. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol 2014;13(1):79–107.
[15] Xie H, Wang Q, Wu J, Chen Y. Analytical model for methane migration through
fractured unsaturated landfill cover soil. Eng Geol 2019;255:69–79.
[16] Guan C, Xie HJ, Qiu ZH, Chen YM, Chen PX. One-dimensional coupled model for
landfill gas and water transport in layered unsaturated soil cover systems. J
Zhejiang Univ-Sci A 2016;17(8):667–76.
[17] Yuan L, Abichou T, Chanton J, Powelson DK, De Visscher A. Long-term numerical
simulation of methane transport and oxidation in compost biofilter. Pract Period
Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manage 2009;13(3):196–202.

12
S.-J. Feng, et al.
[18] Abichou T, Mahieu K, Yuan L, Chanton J, Hater G. Effects of compost biocovers on
gas flow and methane oxidation in a landfill cover. Waste Manage
2009;29(5):1595–601.
[19] Garg A, Achari G. A comprehensive numerical model simulating gas, heat, and
moisture transport in sanitary landfills and methane oxidation in final covers.
Environ Model Assess 2010;15:397–410.
[20] Bian R, Xin D, Chai X. A Simulation model for estimating methane oxidation and
emission from landfill cover soils. Waste Manage 2018;77:426–34.
[21] Ng CWW, Feng S, Liu HW. A fully coupled model for water-gas-heat reactive
transport with methane oxidation in landfill covers. Sci Total Environ
2015;508:307–19.
[22] Feng S, Ng CWW, Leung AK, Liu HW. Numerical modelling of methane oxidation
efficiency and coupled water-gas-heat reactive transfer in a sloping landfill cover.
Waste Manage 2017;68:355–68.
[23] Lewis RW, Schrefler BA. The finite element method in the static and dynamic de-
formation and consolidation of porous media. New York: Wiley; 2000.
[24] van Genuchten MT. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic con-
ductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1980;44(5):892–8.
[25] Mualem Y. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated
porous media. Water Resour Res 1976;12(3):513–22.
[26] Reid RC, Prausnitz JM, Poling BE. The properties of gases and liquids. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1987.
[27] Thomas HR, Ferguson WJ. A fully coupled heat and mass transfer model in-
corporating contaminant gas transfer in an unsaturated porous medium. Comput
Geotech 1999;24:65–87.
[28] Abichou T, Mahieu K, Chanton J, Romdhane M, Mansouri I. Scaling methane oxi-
dation: from laboratory incubation experiments to landfill cover field conditions.
Waste Manage 2011;31:978–86.
[29] Carbon Farming Initiative. Guidelines for calculating regulatory baselines for legacy
waste landfill methane projects. Australian Government. 2013.
[30] Feng SJ, Lu SF, Chen HX, Fu WD, Lu F. Three-dimensional modelling of coupled
leachate and gas flow in bioreactor landfills. Comput Geotech 2017;84:138–51.
[31] Jasak H. Error analysis and estimation for the finite volume method with applica-
tions to fluid flows. London (UK): Imperial College London (University of London);
1996.
[32] Weller HG, Tabor G, Jasak H, Fureby C. A tensorial approach to computational
continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques. Comput Phys
1998;12(6):620–31.
[33] Feng SJ, Bai ZB, Chen HX, Cao BY, Lu SF, Chen YM. A dual-permeability hydro-
biodegradation model for leachate recirculation and settlement in bioreactor
13
Computers and Geotechnics 122 (2020) 103510
landfills. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2018;25(15):14614–25.
[34] Lu SF, Xiong JH, Feng SJ, Chen HX, Bai ZB, Fu WD, et al. A finite-volume numerical
model for bio-hydro-mechanical behaviors of municipal solid waste in landfills.
Comput Geotech 2019;109:204–19.
[35] Chen P, Wei C. Numerical procedure for simulating the two-phase flow in un-
saturated soils with hydraulic hysteresis. Int J Geomech 2015;16(1):04015030.
[36] Jang W. Unsteady multiphase flow modeling of in-situ air sparging system in a
variably saturated subsurface environment PhD. Thesis Atlanta (USA): Georgia
Institute of Technology; 2005.
[37] Philip JR. The theory of infiltration: 7. Soil Sci 1958;85(6):333–7.
[38] Molins S, Mayer KU, Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P. Transport and reaction processes af-
fecting the attenuation of landfill gas in cover soils. J Environ Qual
2008;37(2):459–68.
[39] Molins S, Mayer KU. Coupling between geochemical reactions and multicomponent
gas and solute transport in unsaturated media: A reactive transport modeling study.
Water Resour Res 2007;43(5).
[40] Hillel D. Introduction to soil physics vol. 364. New York: Academic Press; 1982.
[41] Woodside WT, Messmer JH. Thermal conductivity of porous media. I.
Unconsolidated sands. J Appl Phys 1961;32:1688–99.
[42] De Visscher A, Thomas D, Boeckx P, Van Cleemput O. Methane oxidation in si-
mulated landfill cover soil environments. Environ Sci Technol 1999;33:1854–9.
[43] Chanton J, Abichou T, Langford C, Spokas K, Hater G, Green R. Observations on the
methane oxidation capacity of landfill soils. Waste Manage 2011;31:914–25.
[44] Geck C. Temporal and spatial variability of soil gas transport parameters, soil gas
composition and gas fluxes in methane oxidation systems PhD. thesis Germany:
Universität Hamburg; 2017.
[45] Abichou T, Kormi T, Yuan L, Johnson T, Francisco E. Modeling the effects of ve-
getation on methane oxidation and emissions through soil landfill final covers
across different climates. Waste Manage 2015;36:230–40.
[46] Rachor IM. Spatial and temporal patterns of methane fluxes on old landfills:
Processes and emission reduction potential PhD. thesis Germany: Universität
Hamburg; 2017.
[47] Li JH, Zhang LM, Li X. Soil-water characteristic curve and permeability function for
unsaturated cracked soil. Can Geotech J 2011;48(7):1010–31.
[48] Zhou H, Mooney SJ, Peng X. Bimodal soil pore structure investigated by a combined
soil water retention curve and x-ray computed tomography approach. Soil Sci Soc
Am J 2017;81(6).
[49] Spokas K, Bogner J. Limits and dynamics of methane oxidation in landfill cover
soils. Waste Manage 2011;31(5):823–32.