See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312938155

Design a leachate collection system for a small camp sanitary landfill

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 2,183

1 author:

Alaa Al-Fatlawi
University of Babylon
96 PUBLICATIONS 109 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alaa Al-Fatlawi on 11 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design a leachate collection system for a small camp
sanitary landfill
Asst. Prof. Dr. Alaa H. Wadie Al-Fatlawi
Head of Environmental Engineering Department
College of Engineering / Babylon University
Email: dr_ahw@yahoo.com, Alfatlawi.Alaa@uobabylon.edu.iq

ABSTRACT
Sanitary landfill is still the most cost-effective and appropriate method for waste
disposal in Iraq. Since most of the current landfills have a poor landfilling practice, it
is important for the authorities to improve the current state of landfilling practice. The
municipal solid waste composition in study area is mainly organic in nature and has
high moisture content of about 49.1% and density of 162.6 kg/m3. The organic fraction
reaches about 79%. The lack of leachate collection facilities coupled with the fact that
most landfills do not have impermeable liner system increases the risk that leachate will
contaminate nearby water resources. Based on the studies and reports of study area, the
average waste generation rate was 0.45 kg/capita/day.
The design of the base liner, leachate collection system, and final cover system for
the study area landfill is described in this paper. Since the landfill is located in an arid
environment, leachate generation is low and potential infiltration through the lining
system is minimal. A 250 mm diameter drainage pipes have longitudinal slope 1% to
reduce sedimentation and allow adequate flow capacity. Leachate will be collected
through 10mm pipe perforations in four rows, set 900 apart on the pipe circumference
and spaced 300mm center to center. A minimum 500mm thick high-permeability
granular drainage blanket (anticipated to be 25 to 100mm in size) placed across the
entire base of the landfill. A leachate collection system is extending over the entire base
of a landfill and, if below ground, extends up its sloping side walls. The drainage layer
is consisting of granular materials at least 300mm thick and has a hydraulic conductivity
of at least 1*10-3 m/s. HDPE liner in bottom liner systems will be exposed to
mechanical stress due to loading by the waste body and also thermal, chemical and
biochemical effects during the construction phase, the operating phase and the post
closure period.
Sumps were sized to handle a weekly flow from the maximum average monthly
drainage collected from the drainage layer. Two leachate collection and storage pit having

1
a capacity of 520 m3 with dimensions of 10m x 20m x 2.6m. A storm water management unit
within a space of 520 m3. This is meant to be a storage facility for the storm water collected
during the monsoon month and can be used for landfill operations and maintenance of green
belt during the dry months. Two evaporation pond of dimension 100m*100 m*2m with slope
(not limit to) 53o (2/1.5) at permanent landfill.
Key words: Leachate, collection, landfill, drainage layer, storage pit, sump.

1. INTRODUCTION
More modern landfills in the developed world have some form of membrane
separating the waste from the surrounding ground and in such sites there is often a
leachate collection series of pipes lay on the membrane to convey the leachate to a
collection or treatment location, [Rowe, et al., 1999].
Leachate is known as the liquid collected at the bottom of the landfill. It is a liquid
consisting of moisture generated from landfill during the waste degradation process.
When leachate is produced and moving inside the landfill, it dissolves and transports
soluble heavy metals and acids from the waste. Leachate has a high content of iron,
chlorides, organic nitrogen, phosphate and sulphate. When this highly contaminated
leachate leaves landfill and reaches water resources, it will cause surface water and
ground water pollution [Olsson et al, 2008; Abdulhussain et al., 2009; Lou et al.,
2009; Kängsepp and Mathiasson, 2010]. In general, leachate is a result of the
percolation of precipitation, uncontrolled runoff and irrigation water into the landfill,
the water initially contained in the waste and also infiltrating groundwater. It contains
a variety of chemical constituents derived from the solubilization of the materials
deposited in the landfill and from the products of the chemical and biochemical
reactions occurring within landfill. It varies widely in composition regarding the age of
the landfill and the type of waste that it contains. It can usually contain both dissolved
and suspended material, [Henry and Heinke, 1996]. As the liquid moves through the
landfill many organic and inorganic compounds, like heavy metals, are transported in
the leachate [Monroe, 2001].
The amount of leachate produced is directly linked to the amount of precipitation
around the landfill. The amount of liquid waste in the landfill also affects the quantity
of leachate produced. A large landfill site will produce greater amount of leachate than
a smaller site. [www.foe.org/site1/ptp/chapter3.html]
There have been several “generations” of leachate collection systems [Rowe et al.,
1999]. Prior to modern landfill engineering, it consisted only of perimeter drains around

2
the edge of the landfill. This was an improvement in that it reduced the potential for
lateral migration though the sidewalls of the landfill but was unable to significantly
reduce the leachate mound in the landfill and hence the vertical advective migration
(leakage) though the base of the landfill [Rowe and Cook, 2008]. The second
generation of leachate collection system involved installing what are commonly called
“French drains” or “finger drains” which involved gravel drains, often with perforated
drainage pipes (with or without a geotextile wrapping; Fig. 1).

(d)

Fig. 1: Schematic Showing Examples of Finger Drain/French Drain Leachate Collection System
Designs (a) NoGeotextile Filter; (b) Geotextile Filter Wrapped around Collection Pipe, (c)
Geotextile Filter positioned between the Waste and Gravel; and (d) Blanket Leachate Collection
System Design Including a Geotextile Filter Layer and Uniform (>25 mm nominal particle
diameter) Drainage Gravel, [Rowe and Fleming, 2004].

For modern MSW landfills, the leachate head in leachate collection systems is
normally required to less than 0.3m, [Rowe and Fleming, 2004]. Thus the service life
of the leachate collection system could be defined as the time it takes before the design
head is exceeded.
2. COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE STUDY AREA
Organic material forms 50-90% of urban refuse in many cities. The organic fraction
in the study area reaches about 79% includes raw kitchen waste generated in the
preparation and consumption of food: food leftovers, rotten fruit, vegetables, leaves,
crop residues and animal excreta and bones. The bulk quantity of organic wastes is
commonly generated by households, restaurants and markets. Analysis of waste
composition of study area appears that the biodegradable organic content is very high
(table 1). The percentage distribution values for these components vary with location

3
(rural, urban, residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural zone), with season,
economic conditions and many other factors.
Table 1: MSW wastes composition of study area, [Wadie, et al., 2010]
% Moisture Dry mass* Density Volume**
Component % By mass
content kg kg/m3 m3
Food wastes 68 66.1 23.05 262.4 2.59
Paper 3.4 9.77 3.06 46.1 0.73
Glass 1.1 0.65 1.09 128 0.08
Plastics 4.7 1.79 4.61 42.67 1.10
Textiles 3.2 12.95 2.78 85.61 0.37
Leather 1.5 11.18 1.33 295.8 0.05
Garden trim 5.8 40.41 3.45 79.56 0.73
Dirt ashes, etc. 12.3 6.48 11.50 253.31 0.48
Total = 50.9 6.15

*Based on 100kg sample waste for moisture content.

** Based on 1000kg sample waste for density.

100 - 50.9
Moisturecontent  ( )100  49.1%
100
1000kg
Density  ( 3
)  162.6kg / m3
6.15m
3. EXISTING LANDFILL LEACHATE SYSTEM
The municipal solid waste composition in study area is mainly organic in nature and
has a moisture content at about 49.1% and density of 162.6 kg/m3. Due to lack of
impermeable capping system and runoff control, the storm water will percolate through
the landfill and reach the waste. A sanitary landfill should be constructed with proper
liner system and installed with leachate collection system in order to prevent or at least
to minimize the negative environmental impacts that caused by the current landfilling
practice.
Majority of the landfills in study area are without leachate collection facilities. The
lack of leachate collection facilities coupled with the fact that most landfills do not have
impermeable liner system increases the risk that leachate will contaminate nearby water
resources. In study area the contamination of ground water by landfill leachate have
been reported by several researchers [Qasir, 1978; Mohammad, 2006; Mahmood,
2006] reported that the landfill is an open dump that does not have a proper leachate
collection system and lacks base liner to contain the leachate within the landfill.
Leachate problem could be minimized by limiting the water getting into the landfill
through surface water diversion to ensure no water can enter the landfill and also to

4
ensure a low water table within the landfill by frequent pumping that should be coupled
with the daily soil cover.
4. ESTIMATION OF WASTE GENERATION RATE
The volume of waste generated in any given society, household or community
increases with population growth, urbanization, industrialization, economic activities
and household consumption levels. The mode of disposal of these wastes has a lot to
do with the cultural practices of the people who live within the society. Based on the
studies and reports of study area, [Qasir, 1978; Mohammad, 2006; Mahmood, 2006]
the average waste generation rate was 0.45 kg/capita/day.
5. RAINFALL PERCOLATION AND LEACHATE GENERATION
5.1 Rainfall Percolation Rates in Landfill Capping Systems
The rainfall percolation rate below the restoration layer on top of the drainage layer
in a landfill capping system depends next to the climatic conditions and the geometry
on three factors:
 plant cover.
 type of soil of restoration layer.
 thickness of restoration layer.
The design rate depends on the requirements of slope stability and the resulting
acceptable percolation rate. The standardized conditions of calculation were:
 plant cover: good stand of grass.
 restoration layer: thickness 1 m.
 drainage layer: 30 cm, k = 1*10-3m/s, slope 3 %.
 liner: HDPE liners, no percolation.
5.2 Leachate Generation at MSW
Under normal condition leachate is found in the bottom of landfills from there its
movement is through the underlying strata, although some lateral movement may also
occur, depending on the characteristics of the surrounding material. The rate of seepage
of leachate from the bottom of a landfill can be estimated by Darcy's law by assuming
that the material below the landfill to the top of water table is saturated and that a small
layer of leachate exists at the bottom of the fill. Under these condition the leachate
discharge rate per unit area is equal to the value of the coefficient of permeability K
expressed in meters per day. The computed value represents the maximum amount of
seepage that would be expected, and this value should be used for design purposes.

5
Under normal condition, the actual rate would be less than this value because the soil
column below the landfill would not be saturated [peavey, 1986]. The mass balance for
municipal solid waste in landfill is expressed as [Qian, et al., 2002]:
Waste in → leachate + gas + transformed mass + waste remaining
Precipitation and ground-water inflow → leachate + moisture in waste
And the moisture adsorption by the waste is shown in table 2 below:
Table 2: Moisture adsorption by waste, [Bagchi, 1994]
Typical initial moisture content of waste 1.5 in/ft 12 cm/m
Field capacity of waste 4 in/ft 33 cm/m
Available moisture adsorption capacity of waste 2.5 in/ft 21 cm/m

Factors that influence leachate generation are:-

 Precipitation
 Ground-water intrusion
 Moisture content of waste
 Particularly if sludge or liquids are disposed
 Daily cover during filling period
 Final cover design
The generation of leachate is caused principally by precipitation percolating
through waste deposited in a landfill. Once in contact with decomposing solid waste,
the percolating water becomes contaminated and if it then flows out of the waste
material it is termed leachate, [Washington State Department of Ecology, 1987].
Additional leachate volume is produced during this decomposition of carbonaceous
material producing a wide range of other materials including methane, carbon dioxide
and a complex mixture of organic acids, aldehydes, alcohols and simple sugars.
Three cases are to distinguish for determination of leachate rates at landfill bottom:
 Begin of landfill operation – no cover with waste.
 Operating state of landfill – uncovered surface of waste
 End of landfill operation – landfill after restoration.
At the beginning of landfill operation the landfill has no or nearly no storage capacity
due the low thickness of waste. Precipitation enters the drainage system directly.
Intensity and frequency of precipitation can be estimated accordingly the methodology
of urban hydrology. Rainfalls with typical design intensities are short, and the resulting
height of leachate in the drainage layer does not exceed some centimeters. Therefore a

6
hydraulic calculation of the drainage layer seems not to be necessary, but other elements
of the leachate collection system like drainpipes, collection pipes, and detention
reservoirs have to be designed for this loading condition. After landfill restoration
leachate generation decreases, compared to the operating state of landfills with
uncovered waste. Landfill covers with earth and plants reduce leachate generation
caused by precipitation significantly. Other components of leachate generation like
consolidation, biochemical processes, and reduction of storage capacity by decay
processes are of less importance.
The leachate generated in such a landfill can be estimated by the following
equations and illustrated in schematic diagrams below:-
P ET
R R*
ΔUs top cover
Waste
S
ΔUw b

G
L

L = P + S + G + R* - R + DUs + DUw - ET +b …………. (1)

Where:
L = Leachate generated.
P = Precipitation (actually plus recirculated leachate and surface input).
S, G = infiltration from surface water or groundwater.
DUs = Change in moisture storage in top cover.
ET = Actual evapotranspiration.
R, R* = Surface runoff.
DUw = Change in moisture content of refuse.
b = biochemical water production or consumption.

P ET
R R*
ΔUs top cover
I

I
Waste
S
ΔUw b

G
L

7
 I= P + R* - R + DUs – ET ……………………….. (2)

 Surface runoff, R=C.P

Where:
R = surface runoff (mm/d)
C = runoff coefficient = a.bi
P = rainfall (mm/d)
a: depends on the presence of the final cover, on the kind of materials used
and on the slope.
b: depends on soil moisture content in the different months.
 Runoff coefficient, C = a.bi
Empirical value for "a"
Slope
Landfill Type of soil
<5% 5-10% >100%
Sandy 0.05-0.10 0.10-0.15 0.15-0.20
Closed
Clayey 0.13-0.17 0.18-0.22 0.25-0.35
Sandy 0.08-0.13 0.13-0.18 0.18-0.25
In operation
Clayey 0.16-0.20 0.21-0.25 0.27-0.38

Empirical value for "b"

Month Bi Month Bi
January 1.60 July 0.29
February 1.80 August 0.29
March 1.43 September 0.46
April 0.97 October 1.20
May 0.98 November 1.40
June 0.37 December 1.60

 Evapotranspiration (ET)
• Potential Evapotranspiration (ETp): Maximal ET from surface covered
with a homogeneous, green crop with optimal water supply.
Potential evapotranspiration is given by Thorntwaite formula, 1932:
ETp = 16(10Ti/IT)a ……………………… (3)

Where:
ETp = potential evapotranspiration of the i-month (mm/month)
Ti = monthly average temperature (°C)
IT = annual thermal index = ∑ (Ti/5)1.514
a = 6.75 x10-7 . IT3 – 7.71x 10-5 . IT2 + 1.79 x 10-2 . IT + 0.49239

8
 The above equation depend on hypothesis that the number of days in the month (30)
days, and the number of hours of sunrise until sunset (12) hours. So can correct potential
evapotranspiration by the following relationship:
Actual evapotranspiration
ET = ETp (DT/360) ……………………… (4)

Where:
ET: Actual evapotranspiration per month (mm/month)
D: Number of days in the month, (30)
T: the average number of hours of sunrise (h/day)
A rough estimation of leachate production may be given as a percentage of rainfall, as
a function of waste density in landfill: [http://www.cee.vt.edu/group10/leachate.htm]
Low compacted landfill: 25 - 50 % of rainfall
High compacted landfill: 15 - 25 % of rainfall
The weather conditions stated by study area are shown in table below:
Table 3: Weather conditions of the study area.
Parameter
Season
Temperature Relative Humidity Average Rainfall Intensity
Summer 35oC – 55oC 15 % – 35 % –
Winter 4oC – 16oC 50 % – 85 % 147 mm/year

As a consequence, for an average precipitation of 147 mm/year the leachate production

expected is:
• low compacted landfill : 1 - 2 m³ / (ha.d)
• high compacted landfill : 0.7 - 1 m³ / (ha.d)
6. LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
6.1.1 Design Features
In order to satisfy the general requirements, it is suggested that the following
features should offer minimum guidance for design purposes:
 A leachate collection system is extending over the entire base of a landfill and,
if below ground, extends up its sloping side walls.
 The drainage layer is consisting of granular materials at least 300 mm thick and

has a hydraulic conductivity of at least 1*10-3 m/s.

 The bottom liner has to be profiled to have sufficient gradient to promote

9
 efficient drainage to the drainage pipes. The drainage pipes have sufficient
longitudinal slope to reduce sedimentation. Due regard given to potential
settlement of the landfill base. Minimum values for slopes range from less than 1%
to 3%, depending on the topographical and hydrogeological setting of the landfill
and the design objectives.
 The granular material of the drainage layer prewashed to remove fines.
Limestone or other calcareous materials are not used.
 A network of perforated drainage pipes laid within the drainage layer with
continuous gradients towards the leachate collection point(s) and capable of
being inspected and maintained.
 Leachate removal from a common collection point capable of continuous and
automatic functioning. Gravity drainage and discharge is much better than
pumping.
 The system is inspected regularly and cleaned out accordingly.
Although the specific details may not be relevant in all cases, depending on national
regulations and/or site specific conditions, they indicate the general principles and
considerations for leachate drainage system design.
6.1.2 Hydraulic Calculation of Drainage Systems
A leachate drainage system performs two key functions: to allow the leachate to be
collected; and to minimize through-liner seepage by controlling head. Various solutions
are available in the literature for calculating the head above the liner, depending on the
geometry of the leachate drains. A simple, commonly used method is adapted from
Harr, 1962:
0.5
q ……………………………… (5)
hmax  0.5 L [ ]
k
Where
hmax is the maximum mound height above the drain (m);
k is the hydraulic conductivity of the drainage media (or waste) (m/year);
q is the percolation rate to the bottom of the landfill (m3/ m2.year); and
L is the spacing between drains (m).
A variety of other methods may be used to estimate the head on the liner, including
those presented by McBean et al., (1982); and McEnroe, (1993). All of these methods
are similar to equation (3) above in that the predicted mound height is increased by

10
increasing drain spacing and percolation rate and by decreasing drain hydraulic
conductivity.
The hydraulic design of drainage systems both in bottom liner systems and in
landfill capping systems requires the determination of the following elements:
 Hydraulic conductivity of the material of the drainage layer.
 Thickness of the drainage layer.
 Slope of the drainage layer.
 Drainage length or distance between drains.
The hydraulic calculation of drainage pipes, collection pipes, and detention
reservoirs can be done with standard methods of civil engineering.
The design criterion of drainage systems is the saturated thickness above the
liner. It results from general requirements on the efficiency of drainage systems:
o Drainage systems in bottom liner systems:
The saturated zone above the liner is not extending into the waste.
o Drainage systems in landfill capping systems:
The saturated zone above the liner is not exceeding its thickness.
In both cases the efficiency of the whole liner system is directly determined by the
hydraulic pressure of leachate or rainfall percolation above the liner. In addition
questions of leaching of waste (bottom) and slope stability (landfills on sloping
bottoms and landfill capping systems) have to be considered.
Flow of water in a drainage layer can be described like flow of fluids in porous
media. Hydraulic calculations of water flow in a sloping drainage layer normally are
performed in one dimension, using the following assumptions:
 Unconfined flow, assuming the drainage layer as a phreatic aquifer.
 Small saturated thickness compared to length of the layer.
 Homogeneous properties of drainage material.
 Uniform leakage rates.
 Parallel flow.
Hydraulic calculations can be performed with a leachate discharge rate of 1 mm/d,
because this value covers most of the cases of practical interest. Using this value for
steady state calculations longer periods of higher discharges are covered, too.
Mound model gives mounding height for “saw-tooth” is illustrated in Fig. (4) and
given in equation 6:

11
 L c tan2  tan
h max  [ 1 tan2   c ] ………… (6)
2 c c
Where:
hmax is height of mound [L]
L is drain spacing [L]
c = q/k
q = infiltration rate [L/T]
k = hydraulic conductivity of drainage layer [L/T]
α = slope of ground surface between pipes

Fig. 4: Definition of Terms for Mound Model Flow Rate Calculations, [Qian, et al., 2002 ]

McBean et al., (1982) used Darcy’s law in conjunction with the law of continuity to
develop an equation to predict the leachate head on the liner based on anticipated
infiltration rates, drainage material permeability, distance from the drain pipe, and slope
of the collection system. McBean’s equation is very cumbersome and requires an
iterative solution technique to determine the free surface profile.
Several EPA guidance documents have presented equation 7 [U.S. EPA, 1989] for
use in predicting the maximum saturated depth over the liner.

 r 2  r 2 
1 1

KS 2 KS  2 …..…………… (7)
y max  L   1 S   
K  
r r  K 


Where:
ymax = maximum saturated depth over the liner,
L = maximum distance of flow, L.
r = rate of vertical inflow to the drainage layer, LT-1.
K = hydraulic conductivity of the drainage layer, LT-1.
S = slope of the liner, dimensionless

12
 McEnroe, (1993) used the extended Dupuit assumptions for unconfined flow to
develop equations (8a, b, and c) for the steady state saturated depth over a liner.
1

 1  A  2 R 1  A  2 RS  2 A
Y max  R  RS  R S 
1
2 2 …..8a
 1  A  2 R 1  A  2 RS 
2

 
For R<1/4
R1  2 RS   2 RS  1  …….. 8 b
Y max  exp 
1  2R  1  2 RS 1  2 R 
For R = 1/4
1

1  2 RS  1  1 1  2 R  1  
Y max  R  RS  R S 
1 2A

exp tan1    tan   … 8 c

2 2
2

B  B  B  B 
For R>1/4
Where:
R = r/(Ksin2α) , unitless
A = (1-4R)1/2 , unitless
B = (4R -1)1/2 , unitless
S = tanα, slope of liner, unitless
Ymax = ymax/L, dimensionless maximum head on the linear
ymax = maximum head on the linear, L
L = horizontal drainage distance, L
α = inclination of liner from horizontal, degrees
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the drainage layer, LT-1
r = vertical inflow per unit horizontal area, LT-1
McEnroe developed in 1993 a dimensionless form of the equation recommended
by the US EPA, Equation 6 above. This dimensionless equation has the form shown
below in Equation 9. McEnroe compared Equation 9 to Equation 8 and found that for
values of R less than one the EPA equation significantly over-predicted Ymax .
 1  R 2  1  ………………… (9)
1
1

Y max  R 1 
2



R 


Where all variables were previously defined.

The equations for the calculation of the maximum head on the liner, presented
above, may be used by designers to calculate a maximum allowable pipe spacing
based on the maximum allowable design head, anticipated leachate loading rate,
slope of the liner, and permeability of the drainage materials.

13
6.1.3 Protective Layer
 HDPE liner in bottom liner systems will be exposed to mechanical stress due to
loading by the waste body and also thermal, chemical and biochemical effects
during the construction phase, the operating phase and the post closure period.
 In particular, the grain size and shape of the drainage material should not
damage the membrane. Therefore it is necessary to construct a durable and
effective protective layer between the HDPE liner and the drainage layer.
 The protective layer can comprise geotextiles, mineral materials (sand and/or
fine gravel) or a combination thereof.
 The permeability of the protective layer must not be considered as a drainage
function. If a mineral protective layer is used, its filter stability with the
drainage layer must be proved. If appropriate a geotextile with a separation
function must be chosen.
 In hydraulic terms, for a gravity system, the thickness of the protective layer
can influence the saturated thickness of leachate above the bottom liner.
Therefore the protective layer only is as thick as necessary to provide adequate
protection of the HDPE liner.
 The selected materials must be capable of withstanding all mechanical stresses
and the physical/chemical and biochemical influences.
 The quality of material has to be proved. The adequacy of any geotextiles or
sand layer, as appropriate, has to be proved in term of its protective function.
6.1.4 Drainage Pipes
Leachate collected and accumulated within the drainage layer is collected in
drainage pipes and discharged from the waste body. The drainage pipes are to be
installed in the lowest points of the bottom liner system.
All drainage pipes should be capable of being inspected, maintained and cleaned.
It is recommended that the internal diameter should be 250 mm or greater, although
smaller diameters may be acceptable depending on the proposed inspection and
cleaning methods/equipment. To encourage leachate access, the maximum possible
percentage open area and opening dimensions should be chosen, commensurate with
the grain size of the drainage materials. Considering the load requirements of pipes,
hole diameters should not be less than 10mm, wide slots are to prefer. To avoid peak
stresses, oblong holes are recommended.

14
 It must be ensured that the drainage pipes do not damage the bottom liner system,
particularly the HDPE liner, under loaded conditions. Vertical penetration of the
bottom liner system (e. g. through pipe tunnels) is not acceptable. Horizontal
penetrations (e.g. through bottom dams) have to be capable for inspection. The pipe
material chosen must be suitable to withstand all chemical and biochemical attacks by
organic or inorganic leachate components. In addition, the expected post-closure
physical, chemical and biochemical stresses have to be considered.
Pipe size is designed based on Manning’s equation. Following design chart gives
flow versus slope for range of pipe diameters assuming n = 0.010.

Fig. 5: Leachate Collection Pipe Sizing Chart, [U.S. EPA, 1988].

The method of sanitary landfill used in the study area is a Trench Method because:-
• This method is employed in situations where the groundwater table is deep and the
soil stratigraphy permits excavation to the required depth
• Must be applied to flat or gently rolling terrain
• Generally for small landfills.
• Wastes are spread and compacted in an excavated trench.
• Cover material, from the excavation, is spread and compacted over the wastes to form
basic cell structure.
• Cover material is readily available.
And the Structure of the Landfill is accomplished as:-

15
• In MSW landfills, the solid wastes are spread and compacted in layers within a defined
“cell” – often not segregated from other cells, may be just a definition of convenience
to define location and age of waste in the landfill.
• Deposited wastes covered at end of each working day & may be compacted.
• The compacted wastes and soil cover constitute a cell.
• A series of adjoining cells, at the same elevation, makes up a lift.
• The compacted fill consists of one or more lifts.
6.2 Design calculations:
 Runoff coefficient,
a = (0.13 + 0.17)/2 = 0.15
baverage = 1.0325
C = a.bi = 0.15 * 1.0325 = 0.155
 Surface runoff, R=C.P
= 0.155 * 147/365 = 0.4 mm/d
 Evapotranspiration (ET)
ETp = 16 (10Ti/IT)a

IT = ∑ (Ti/5)1.514 = 135.7
a = 6.75 x10-7 . IT3 – 7.71x 10-5 . IT2 + 1.79 x 10-2 . IT + 0.49239
= 6.75 *10-7 * 135.73 – 7.71* 10-5 * 135.72 + 1.79 * 10-2 * 135.7 + 0.49239
= 3.19
ETp = 16 (10*28/135.7)3.19 = 162 mm/month
 Actual evapotranspiration
ET = ETp (DT/360)
= 162 (30*12/360) = 162 mm/month

I = P + R* - R + DUs – ET
I = 147/365 + 0 - 0 + 5.1 – 162/30 = 0.1
L = P + S + G + R* - R + DUs + DUw - ET +b
L = I + S + G + DUw +b
L = 0.1 + 0 + 0+ 0.02 +0.01=0.13mm/d
A rough estimation of leachate production may be given as a percentage of rainfall, as
a function of waste density in landfill:
= 0.25 * 147/365 = 0.1 mm/d
As a consequence, for an average precipitation of 147 mm/year the leachate production
expected is:

16
 = 0.1 mm/d
from Harr, 1962: hmax = 18 mm
Qian, et al., 2002: hmax = 21 mm
U.S. EPA, 1989: ymax = 11mm
Dupuit R< 1/4 Ymax =14 mm
Dupuit R= 1/4 Ymax =13 mm
Dupuit R> 1/4 Ymax =11 mm
McEnroe ymax = 17 mm
D = 300 mm from Figure 5.
The proposed design comprises eight landfill units as per following dimensions:
• The first four cells will be connected with leachate collection and storage tank, etc.
• Construct a storage facility in an area of 1000m2 to facilitate segregation, process and
temporary storage for waste during the monsoon months. (This could also be used to
house a stationary compactor which will be useful to compact the waste before actually
spreading it on the landfill unit.)
• Construct two leachate collection and storage pit having a capacity of 520m 3 with
dimensions of 10m x 20m x 2.6m. The leachate header pipe of 12" diameter would run
along the boundary of the landfill units to reach the Leachate collection pit.
• Construct a storm water management unit on the southern west side of the site within
a space of 520m3. This is meant to be a storage facility for the storm water collected
during the monsoon month and can be used for landfill operations and maintenance of
green belt during the dry months.
6.3 Inspection and Cleaning manholes
Where man-access is required, in principle, leachate inspection and cleaning
manholes should be located outside the waste body. They must be resistant to leachate
and completely waterproof. The manhole cover should be sufficiently large to allow
adequate ventilation. Furthermore, comprehensive measurement and examination of
the drainage pipes should be possible from the manholes. Therefore, the inner
diameter of the manholes should be at least 1.5 m and the manhole should have a
diameter of at least 1.0m. No stirrups or similar aids should be placed in the manhole
(danger of corrosion and consequently danger of falling). In the case of purpose-
designed, non-vented manholes the whole pipe system must be sealed to avoid gas
and odor emissions. Furthermore, the outlets of the drainage pipes have to be designed

17
to prevent all gas emissions and the intrusion of air into the drainage system (e.g. by
use of siphons). The manholes can be made of reinforced concrete (especially
designed for resistance against leachate and landfill gas), synthetic materials or a
combination thereof (concrete with a synthetic inliner). Where leachate
monitoring/pumping manholes are located within the waste body, special
consideration must be given to their structural stability, particularly in terms of
deformation of the surrounding waste body, and excessive foundation loading on the
bottom liner caused by negative skin friction.
6.4 Leachate sump design
Leachate generally does not leave a landfill by gravity flow-not a recommended
design configuration due to difficulty in capturing and controlling leachate. Sumps are
depressions in liner filled with gravel to accommodate collected leachate. Sumps can
be accessed by: Side slope riser pipes that follow the landfill side slope. Access ways
(manholes) or vertical risers But HDPE or special concrete is required due to high
sulfates in leachate are extracted by pumps-often cycled intermittently using level-
sensing switches. Pump must be sized for lift and anticipated flow.
6.5 Leachate Collection System
The proposed design as shown inFigure 6 comprises five landfill units as per following
dimensions:
I. First landfill unit of dimension 90m * 45m*2m for domestic waste disposal
II. Second landfill unit of dimension 90m * 45m *2m for domestic waste disposal
III. Third landfill unit of dimension 90m * 45m * 2m for domestic waste disposal
IV. Fourth landfill unit of dimension 90m * 45m * 2m for plastic material disposal
V. Fifth landfill unit of dimension 90m * 45m *2m for papers & metals disposal
• The first three cells will be connected with leachate collection and storage tank, etc.
• A storage facility in an area of 400m2 to facilitate segregation, process and temporary
storage for waste during the monsoon months. (This could also be used to house a
stationary compactor which will be useful to compact the waste before actually
spreading it on the landfill unit.)
• A leachate collection and storage pit on the south-west corner of the site having a
capacity of 520 m3 with dimensions of 10m * 20m * 2.6m. The leachate header pipe of
300mm diameter would run along the southern-boundary of the landfill units to reach
the Leachate collection pit.

18
• A storm water management unit on the southern west side of the site within a space
of 520 m3. This is meant to be a storage facility for the storm water collected during the
monsoon month and can be used for landfill operations and maintenance of green belt
during the dry months.
The evaporation ponds with aerator at permanent landfill are as follows:
I. Two evaporation pond of dimension 100m*100*2m with slope (not limit to) 53o
(2/1.5) at Permanent Landfill.
• HDPE liner: HDPE with specification (1mm) to cover the exaction of the pond.

19
20
Figure 6: Leachate Collection System Design Details.

21
7. CONCLUSIONS
The municipal solid waste composition in study area is mainly organic in nature and
has high moisture content at about 49.1% and density of 162.6 kg/m3. The organic
fraction reaches about 79%. This waste has a high leachate production. In study area
the landfill is an open dump that does not have a proper leachate collection system and
lacks base liner to contain the leachate within the landfill. The lack of leachate
collection facilities coupled with the fact that most landfills do not have impermeable
liner system increases the risk that leachate will contaminate nearby water resources.
The proposed method of sanitary landfill used in the study area is a trench method
because this method is employed in situations where the groundwater table is deep and
the soil stratigraphy permits excavation to the required depth. Based on the studies and
reports of study area, the average waste generation rate was 0.45 kg/capita/day. A
leachate collection system should be installed across the landfill base and operated to
minimize the leachate head within the landfill.
Based on the available data it is concluded that:-
 Leachate collection systems should be operated under unsaturated conditions as long
as possible to extend the service life of leachate collection systems.
 A filter-separator layer between the waste material and drainage layer minimizes the
physical intrusion of waste material into the upper zone of drainage layer.
 Management of surface water runoff into the pit by using drainage infrastructure
along in pit hauls roads and a temporary holding facility on the waste surface.
 Minimum 500mm thick high-permeability granular drainage blanket (anticipated to
be 25 to 100mm in size) placed across the entire base of the landfill.
 A leachate collection system is extending over the entire base of a landfill and, if
below ground, extends up its sloping side walls.
 The drainage layer is consisting of granular materials at least 300 mm thick and has
a hydraulic conductivity of at least 1*10-3 m/s.
 The bottom liner has to be profiled to have sufficient gradient to promote efficient
drainage to the drainage pipes. A 250mm diameter drainage pipes have longitudinal
slope 1% to reduce sedimentation and allow adequate flow capacity.
 Leachate will be collected through 10mm pipe perforations in four rows, set 900
apart on the pipe circumference and spaced 300mm center to center.
 Gravity drainage and discharge is much better than pumping and system is inspected

22
 regularly and cleaned out accordingly.
 HDPE liner in bottom liner systems will be exposed to mechanical stress due to
loading by the waste body and also thermal, chemical and biochemical effects
during the construction phase, the operating phase and the post closure period.
 In particular, the grain size and shape of the drainage material should not damage
the membrane. Therefore it is necessary to construct a durable and effective
protective layer between the HDPE liner and the drainage layer.
 In hydraulic terms, for a gravity system, the thickness of the protective layer can
influence the saturated thickness of leachate above the bottom liner. Therefore the
protective layer only is as thick as necessary to provide adequate protection of the
HDPE liner.
 Pipe size is designed based on Manning’s equation. Following design chart gives
flow versus slope for range of pipe diameters assuming n = 0.010.

References
1. Abdulhussain A. Abbas, G.J., Liu Zhi Ping, Pan Ying Ya, Wisaam S. Al-Rekabi,
2009, "Review on Landfill Leachate Treatments", Journal of Applied Sciences
Research, 5(5): p. 534-545.
2. Anwar Jamil Buni Qasir, 1978, "Refuse Disposal of Baghdad City", M.Sc. Thesis
Submitted to College of Engineering, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq.
3. Bagchi, A., 1994,"Design, Construction, and Monitoring of Sanitary Landfill,
Second Edition", John Wiley & Sons, New York.
4. Harr, M.E., 1962, "Groundwater and seepage", McGraw Hill, Toronto,Ont.
5. Henry, J. ; Heinke, G. ,1996,''Environmental Science and Engineering'', Prentice
Hall, ISBN 0-13-120650-8.
6. Isam Issa Omran Mohammad, 2006, "An Investigation Into Corrosion Problem of
Baghdad Sewer Networks", Ph. D. Thesis Submitted to Building and Construction
Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
7. Kängsepp, P. and L. Mathiasson, 2010,"Performance of a full-scale biofilter with
peat and ash as a medium for treating industrial landfill leachate: a 3-year", J. Appl.
Sci. Res., 6(11): 1880-1884, 2010 1884 .
8. Leachate. www.foe.org/site1/ptp/chapter3.html [Accessed 05.12.02]
9. Lou, Z., et al., 2009,"Size-fractionation and characterization of landfill leachate
and the improvement of Cu+2 adsorption capacity in soil and aged refuse", Waste
Management, 29(1): p. 143-152.
10. McBean, E.A., Mosher, F.R., and Rovers, F.A.,1993,"Reliability-Based Design for
Leachate Collection Systems", Proceedings Sardinia 93,3rd International Landfill
Symposium, Santa Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, Vol.3. pp.433-441.
11. McEnroe, B.M.,1993,"Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Liner", Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 119(2): 262-270.

23
 12. Mohammed Mustafa Mahmood, 2006, "Digital Geotechnical Map of Bagdad City
Al-Rasafah Side Using GIS and Remote Sensing Technology", Ph. D. Thesis
Submitted to Building and Construction Department, University of Technology,
Baghdad, Iraq
13. Monroe, M., 2001," Landfill leachate treatment: VSEP offers a revolutionary
solution", www.vsep.com/company/articles/2.html [Accessed 19.12.02]
14. Olsson, S., et al., 2008,"Metal leaching from MSWI bottom ash as affected by salt
or dissolved organic matter", Waste Management, In Press, Corrected Proof.
15. Qian, X., R. M. Koerner, and D. H. Gray., 2002,"Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill
Design and Construction", Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
16. Rowe, R.K., and Cooke, A.J.,2008,"2DModelling of Clogging in Landfill Leachate
Collection Systems", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(10): 1393-1409.
17. Rowe, R.K., Cooke, A.J., Rittmann, B.E., and Fleming, I.R.,1999,"Modelling
Biochemically Driven Mineral Precipitation in Anaerobic Biofilms", Water
Science & Technology, 39(7):57-64.
18. Rowe, R.K., and Fleming, I.R., 2004,"Laboratory Studies of Clogging of Landfill
Leachate Collection & Drainage Systems", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(1):
134-153.
19. U.S. EPA, 1988,"Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual", EPA/540/1-88/001,
Washington, DC. NTIS No. PB89-135859. 157 pp.
20. U.S. EPA, 1989,"Seminar Publication: Requirements for Hazardous Waste
Landfill Design, Construction, and Closure", Report Number EPA/625/4-89/022,
Center for Environmental Research Information, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
21. Wadie, Alaa Husaeen, Abbood, Jawad Kadhim, Hadi, Riyadh Hassan,
2012,"Residential Solid Wastes Characteristics And Energy Content In Al-
Mussaib City In The Middle Of Iraq", International Conference on Eco-systems
and Biological Sciences (ICEBSS'2012), Penangn (Malaysia)
22. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1987,"Solid Waste Landfill Design
Manual". Washington, USA.

24

View publication stats