Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A GEOTECHNICAL ASPECT
ABSTRACT: In recent years, the scarcity of land space available for new urban development has
prompted a renewed interest from local authorities in the end use of various landfills or in the extension of
the life of existing landfills. Rehabilitation of closed landfills for urban developments has received
considerable interest. Likewise, the extension of landfill life to allow for more waste storage is also
receiving equal attention. In both cases, ground improvement is required.
Dynamic consolidation (also known as dynamic compaction) is a ground improvement technique. The
process involves dropping heavy weights (15ton - 20tons) on to the surface of the fill from a considerable
height (15m - 20m) following a selected grid pattern. These high-energy impacts produce sufficient
compaction effort to reduce void space, increase density and reduce long-term settlement of the fill. By
increasing the density, it increases the storage capacity of the landfill. Beside, it also increases the bearing
capacity. Reducing the long-term settlement, roads, parking bays and lighter structures can be designed on
shallow foundations on closed landfills.
In this paper, the subject of settlement of waste fills is addressed. A case study concerning a housing
development over a landfill is also presented.
Figure 2(a)
Figure 1 Uncontrolled Landfill (No controlled placement
and no compaction)
Furthermore, settlement has increased since then, (DH)sw = H Ca log ( t2 / t1 ) ………. (1)
probably due to a change in the moisture
environment from leaking sewers in the fill. where
(DH)sw = self-weight settlement at time t2 (m)
There are two possible approaches to the H = thickness of waste fill (m)
assessment of settlement: t1 = time pseudo-primary settlement to occur
(a) Extrapolation of monitored data obtained after completion of fill (years)
specifically for the given fill t2 = time after completion of fill (years)
1) By graphical method Ca = coefficient of secondary compression
2) By analytical method
(b) Estimation from existing published data on Table 2 below suggests typical self-weight
similar type of fills settlements. According to Leach & Goodger
1) By graphical method (1991), a good compaction can reduce the self-
2) By analytical method weight settlement potential by between 50% and
75%.
Method (a) is the most reliable but requires time
for monitoring. This method relies on the Typical unit weights for municipal waste are
approximately linear relationship between summarized in Table 3.
settlement and logarithm of time elapsed since
placement of waste fill. Method (b) relies on Table 4 below shows the unit weights obtained
published data for other fills of similar type, and from various landfills sites.
gives approximate answers quickly. However,
the results are less dependable since the
published data are rarely likely to apply exactly 3.2 Settlement Under External Loads
to a specific given fill. Preliminary estimates The time-settlement behavior of an old waste
obtained by method (b) should be checked by fills under an applied load is analogous to the
monitoring. We shall address the different behavior of peat. As load is placed large primary
categories of settlement as follow: (mechanical) settlements occur rapidly with little
or no pore pressure build up. This is followed by
3.1 Settlement Under Self-Weight secondary compression, which occurs over a
One of the contributing factors to the overall long period of time.
settlement is caused by the self-weight of the fill.
The time-settlement relationship under self- The relation of the imposed stress to settlement
weight is analogous to the secondary can be expressed as follow:
compression of soils after a short period of
pseudo-primary settlement, typically, 1 to 4 (DH)p = H Cr log ( {s’o + Ds’}/ s’o ) ……. (2)
months long. Measurements taken from past
records indicate a coefficient of secondary where
compression ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 (NAVFAC, (DH)p = primary (or mechanical) settlement (m)
1983). Thus, settlement of the waste fills under H = thickness of waste fill (m)
its self-weight after completion of filling can be eo = initial void ratio
estimated by equation (1) below.
Table 3
Average Total Unit Weight
Description gT (kN/m3) Source
Sanitary Landfill
· Poor compaction 2.8 – 4.7 Tchobanoglous et.al.
· Moderate to good compaction 4.7 – 7.1 (1977)
· Good to excellent compaction 7.1 – 9.4
· Baled waste 5.5 – 10.5
· Shredded and compacted 6.4 – 10.5
· In situ density 5.5 – 6.9
Sanitary Landfill
(a) Not shredded
· Poor compaction 3.1
· Good compaction 6.3
· Best compaction 9.4
Shredded 8.6
Sanitary Landfill
· In a landfill 6.9 – 7.5 NSWMA (1985)
After degradation and settlement 9.9 – 11.0
Table 4
Landfill Sites Waste Density (kN/m3)
Old Klang Road, Kuala Lumpur 7.0
Kelana Jaya, Kuala Lumpur 6.0
Merrylands, Sydney1 9.4
Thornleigh, Sydney1 8.4
Lucas Heights, Sydney1 11.3
Albany, New York2 7 – 16
Fayetteville, Arkansas3 4.8
Richmond, California4 7.2
Note: 1 – data obtained from Hausmann et.al (1993)
2 – data obtained from Gifford et.al. (1992)
Note: This is a construction and demolition debris landfill
3 – data obtained from Welsh (1983)
4 – data obtained from Sharma et.al. (1989)
Figure 4
Figure 3
where
D = depth of improvement (m)
W = weight of pounder (ton)
H = drop height (m) Fill with compaction
d = speed factor
(0.9 for cable drop and 1.2 for free fall)
a = soil structure factor Waste fill mixed with debris
(between 0.3 to 0.7 for different soil types)
where n = coefficient that accounts for soil type, Figure 8 shows the variation of the overall
type of pounder, falling mode etc. settlement against various compaction energies
(W*H). One can see that the age of the landfill
Table 5 lists the proposed values of “n” for is governing this variation.
different type of soils.
The effect of different sizes and shapes of the
In the case of waste fills, the “n” coefficient can pounder has also an influence on the settlement.
also be estimated from figure 6 (after Van Impe, A narrow or small cross-section pounder is used
1996). specifically to drive fill material down to depth
to form columns in soft clays, silts, peats or
Figure 7 shows the range of compression waste fill (Dynamic Replacement). A larger
(enforced settlement) caused by a compaction base area pounder will be more suitable for area
energy of 625 ton.m. using 25 tons pounder compaction.
falling from 25m.
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 12
Figure 11(a)
Ple = 3
Ö {Pl1 * Pl2 * Pl3} ………. (5)
where
Figure 17 Pl1 is the mean of the limit pressures measured
from 0 to 2m depth
Pl2 is the limit pressures measured from at 3m
6.6 Enforced Settlement depth
The enforced settlements obtained were: Pl3 is the limit pressures measured at 4m depth
Phase 1 : 0.29m
Phase 2 : 0.21m The bearing capacity (q) is then calculated using
Ironing phase : 0.10m equation (6) below with a bearing factor of K =
0.8 and a factor of safety of 2.5.
The total enforced settlement was about 0.6m
which represent about 13-14% of the total q = {Ple * 0.8}/2.5 ………. (6)
thickness of the remaining rubbish deposit after
excavation of the upper 2.5-3m.
The calculated safe bearing capacity before
compaction works varies from 90 kN/m² to 160
kN/m². After compaction works the calculated
6.7 Bearing Capacity
safe bearing capacity varies from 320 kN/m² to
The pressuremeter test is a type of load test
500 kN/m² with mean value of 410 kN/m². The
which in particular yields the limit pressure Pl bearing capacity is increased by a factor of 3.3.
that corresponds to the failure of the soil.
Experience and theory have shown that the
7.0 CONCLUSION
6.9 Surcharge From the various case histories cited in this
Surcharge was carried out after the compaction paper, the dynamic consolidation technique is
works to: - applicable for densifying landfill to allow for
additional storage space. Furthermore, it is also
(i) Consolidate the presence of any cohesive possible when it combines with dynamic
layer below the rubbish deposit. replacement technique to permit developments
(ii) Reduce the potential differential settlement. such as housing projects to be carried out over
(iii) Reduce future secondary compression. landfill sites As in any ground improvement
projects, instrumentation and monitoring still
It was however, primarily used as a simple load play a very important role in the success of the
test. A surcharge of 2m fill was placed for 6-7 works.
weeks until the time-settlement behavior reached
at least 70% degree of consolidation according to
field measurements of the settlement plate. The
settlement readings taken from 12 sets of REFERENCES
settlement plates vary from 4mm to 30mm. Out
of the 12 readings, 8 readings have settlement Aziz M. and Mohd. Raihan,T. (1992) “Ground
less than 15mm, 3 readings have settlement less Improvement of Rubbish Dump over
than 25mm and only 1 reading has exceeded Reclaimed Tin Mine” Proceedings, Conference
on Grouting, Soil Improvement and
25mm. The average value is 13mm. Geosynthetics, Vol. 2, ASCE.
The 1st phase of the project was completed in Charles, J.A., Burford, D. and Watts, K.S. (1981)
1990. Occupation of the houses was almost “Field Studies of the Effectiveness of Dynamic
immediate and until today (1999) there is no Consolidation” Proceedings, 10th International
structural defect reported. Figure 18 shows the Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
completed structure after 7 years upon Engineering, Stockholm Vol.3
completion.
Fryman, S. and Baker, R. (1987) “Construction of a Mayne, P.W., Jones, J.S. and Dumas, J.C. (1984)
Bus Parking Station on a Waste Deposit Site” “Ground Response to Dynamic Compaction”
Proceedings, International Conference on Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Vol.
Building on Marginal and Derelict Land, 110(6), USA.
Glasgow, UK.
MÀnard, L. and Broise, Y. (1975) “Theoretical and
Gifford, G.P., Landva, A.O. and Hoffman, V.C. Practical Aspects of Dynamic Consolidation”
(1992) “Improvement of a Demolition Debris Geotechnique, Vol.25 (1), UK.
Landfill by Compaction” Proceedings,
Conference on Environmental Geotechnology, NAVFAC DM 7.3M (1983) “Soil Dynamics, Deep
A.A.Balkema. Stabilization and Special Geotechnical
Construction” United States Navy, Naval
Hausmann, M.R., Thom, M. and Marley, M. (1983) Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual
“Ground Modification Techniques in Waste 7.3, April 1983.
Management” Proceedings, Conference on
Geotechnical Management of Waste and NSWMA (1985) “Basic Data : Solid Waste Amounts,
Contamination, Sydney. Composition and Management Systems”
National Solid Waste Management Association,
Kenny Yee, Setiawan, R.A. and Baxter, R (1998) Technical Bulletin No:85-6, October 1985.
“Anti-liquefaction Treatment of Coralline Soil by
Dynamic Consolidation” 13th Southeast Asian Padfield, C.J. and Sharrock, M.J. (1983) “Settlement
Geotechnical Conference, Vol.1, Taipeh. of Structures on Clay Soils” CIRIA Special
Publication No.27, UK.
Landva, A and Clark, J. (1986) “Geotechnical Testing
of Waste Fill” 39th Canadian Geotechnical Qian, J.H. (1987) “Dynamic Consolidation : From
Conference, Ottawa, Canada. Practice to Theory” Proceedings, 8 th Asian
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Leach,B.A. and Goodger,H.K. (1991) “Building on Foundation Engineering, Kyoto, Vol. 1, Japan.
Derelict Land” CIRIA Special Publication No.78,
UK. Sharma, H.D., Dukes, M.T. and Olsen, D.M. (1989)
“Field Measurements of Dynamic Moduli and
Leonards, G.A., Cutter, W.A. and Holtz, R.D. (1980) Poisson’s Ratios of Refuse and Underlying Soils
“Dynamic Compaction of Granular Soils” at Landfill Site” Proceedings, Conference on
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Geotechnics of Waste Fills – Theory and
ASCE, Vol. 106 (GT1). Practice, ASTM STP 1070.
Lewis, P.J. and Langer, J.A. (1994) “Dynamic Sowers, G.F. (1968) “Foundation Problems in
Compaction of Landfill Beneath Embankment” Sanitary Landfill” Journal of the Sanitary
Proceedings, Settlement 94, ASCE Engineering Div. ASCE, Vol.94, SA1, Feb.,
Geotechnical Special Publication, No.40 Vol. 1 1968.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Mohri, Y. and Sowers, G.F. (1972) Lecture Notes on Innovations in
Kawabata,T. (1998) “Estimation of Municipal Foundation Construction, Georgia Institute of
Solid Waste Landfill Settlement” Journal of Technology.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, January 1998. Steinberg, S.B. and Lukas, R.G. (1984) “Densifying
landfill for a Commercial Development”
Lucas, R.G. (1980) “Densification of Loose Deposit Proceedings, International Conference on Case
by Pounding” Journal of the Geotechnical Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis,
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.106 (GT4), Vol.3
USA.
____________________________________________