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

net/publication/267223788

Landfill capping: Engineering and restoration. - Part 2. Engineering of landfill

capping systems

Article · January 1998

CITATIONS READS

2 469

3 authors, including:

Tamás Meggyes

33 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Site assessment and monitoring tools : 3. volume of a book series View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tamás Meggyes on 25 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Landfill capping: engineering and restoration – Part 2.
Engineering of landfill capping systems
T. Meggyes,1 E. Simmons2 and C. McDonald3

1. Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM), Berlin

2. Aspinwall and Company Limited, Leeds
3. Environment Centre, University of Leeds

Received December 1997; accepted January 1998

Abstract
Review of engineering aspects of landfill capping systems, setting German research and practice in a wider inter-
national context. Geomembranes are examined from the viewpoints of material options, structural issues and pro-
tective overlays. The requirements upon cohesive mineral sealers for capping are compared with those for basal
lining, with particular attention to mechanical and desiccation cracks. Hybrid materials (bentonite matting,
asphaltic liners), capillary barrier methods, and composite sealing solutions are all dealt with. The principles of
water transport and gas permeability in landfill cappings are outlined, and recent findings summarised. A growing
interest is noted in capping technologies for land reclamation and the disposal of wastes to land.

Key words: asphaltic liner, bentonite matting, capillary barrier, cohesive mineral, composite liner, cracking, desic-
cation, gas permeability, geomembrane, landfill capping, protective layer, water transport

INTRODUCTION TA1 Siedlungsabfall (1993) requires that preference be

The capping system is the final component in the construction
of a landfill. This is the second in a series of three articles
which attempts to bring together aspects of European
research and experience into an appreciation of the state-of-
the-art in landfill capping design.
The first article gave an overview of the purpose and struc-
ture of capping systems. This second article goes into greater
detail on engineering aspects, considering geomembranes,
cohesive mineral sealers, and other solutions in turn. The
third article will likewise elaborate on restoration aspects.
SEALING LAYER – GEOMEMBRANES
Material options
Certain types of high density polyethylene (HDPE) are the
most commonly-used materials for geomembranes. Although
not always an economical provision, a composite solution, of
at least 2.5 mm thick welded HDPE sheets in intimate contact
with a mineral layer, represents the most generally desirable
design standard in sealers for landfill cappings (August 1992;
August and Tatzky-Gerth 1991; August and Tatzky-Gerth
1992; August et al. 1992; Holzlöhner and Meggyes 1995;
Müller and Lüders 1995; Meggyes and McDonald 1995;
Müller 1993; Müller 1995; Müller et al. 1995.
given to using recycled materials in certified geomembranes
for landfill cappings. However, recycled materials have the
disadvantage that materials parameters can differ widely,
especially if the origin of the material is unclear; thus it is
almost impossible to forecast their behaviour.
Coextruded geomembranes with electrically-conductive
layers to locate leakage represent an interesting new develop-
ment in landfill cappings.
Structural considerations
Subsidence in landfill cappings is essentially greater than in
basal linings due to consolidation and degradation of the
waste. This can translate into substantial strains in the cap-
ping. Those HDPE geomembranes now certified in Germany
can cope with long-term deformations of up to 3% with no
subsequent damage even under extremely unfavourable con-
ditions (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing
1994). The systematic removal of organic material from the
waste dramatically reduces subsidence.
Stability and friction behaviour between geomembrane
and adjacent layers is critical on slopes. Geomembranes with
rough or textured surfaces have high coefficients of friction
and are especially suited for inclined areas. In special cases
the stability of the steepest possible slope has to be proved by
calculations.

27
 Land Contamination & Reclamation / Volume 6 / Number 1 / 1998
Protection
Experience has shown that capping geomembranes require a
purpose-made protective overlay, principally against physical
damage. Three types of protective layer can be differentiated
(Seeger 1995; Seeger et al. 1995; Seeger and Müller 1996;
Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing 1997):
Type 1. This system comprises a non-woven fabric with a
mass per unit area of at least 1200 g/m2 or other suit-
able geotextile protective layer plus an additional
load-distributing mineral layer. Durable mineral
building materials and even recycled building mate-
rials whose grain size distribution corresponds to the
requirement for a non-penetrative structure can be
used.
Type 2. A protective layer system with encapsulated sand.
This system can be partly or wholly pre-fabricated.
Included in this group can be the structure using a
400 g/m2 non-woven fabric and a sand layer at least
10 cm thick on top of the geomembrane overlain by
a separation fleece, an ‘essential geotextile compo-
nent’, as protection against erosion.
Type 3. A simple geotextile protective layer utilising non-
woven fabrics, fleece, geogrids and other geosyn-
thetics.
It is important for the protective layer to exhibit compara-
ble life-time to that of the geomembrane. Testing methods of
protective geotextiles have been greatly improved by the
development of standardised load plate tests (Brummermann
1997; Witte 1997; Shercliff 1996). Tests applying simultane-
ous mechanical and chemical loading found that swelling was
the only type of deterioration that reduced the protective effi-
cacy, strength and oxidation stability of non-woven fabrics
(Lüders et al. 1995; August and Lüders 1997).
SEALING LAYER – COHESIVE MINERALS
Comparative requirements
Cohesive mineral materials have to satisfy different require-
ments in capping seals from those in basal liners (Meggyes
and McDonald 1995):
Basal Liners: • Watertightness to convective transport of
pollutants
• Retardation of the spread of the pollutant
plume by diffusion
• Material retention from below (empty),
above (full)
Capping Seals: • Watertightness to convective rainwater
transport
• Low risk of cracking through desicca-
tion
• Resistance to root penetration
28
• Low risk of subsidence failure due to
consolidation of waste
• Material retention from below (landrais-
ing situation)
Mixed-grained, less-plastic materials with reduced ten-
dency to shrinkage (Fuller curve) are therefore required,
rather than ‘fat’ clays with a high sorption capacity.
Material options
Fine-grained soils, viz. silt and clay with or without a ben-
tonite additive, are some of the cohesive mineral materials
used. Mixed-grained soils with additives can also achieve a
high degree of watertightness and are less sensitive to desic-
cation and cracking (Engelmann 1997).
Soils excavated for cut-off wall construction may be con-
verted into materials suitable for landfill capping if ade-
quately processed (intensive homogenisation and bentonite
addition). Müller-Kirchenbauer et al. (1989 and 1990a) have
obtained in-situ permeabilities of between 1 x 10-10 and 9 x
10-10 m/s using soils excavated for cut-off purposes. Certain
waste and recycled materials (e.g. construction debris, waste
incineration slag and ash, used foundry sand and foundry
slags) can be used in the regulating layer between the capping
system and the waste body when defined technical safety
measures are adhered to (Egloffstein and Burkhardt 1997).
Although cohesive mineral materials are widely used as
sealers both by themselves and in composites, there is some
concern about the function of the mineral layers. Placement
technique and quality assurance of layers of cohesive mineral
material is difficult (Melchior et al. 1992).
Certain components of landfill gas can also react chemi-
cally with fine-leafed silicateous clay minerals in the sealer
(Kohler 1988): the leaves of mineral are opened up, and
organic molecules are absorbed; this can influence swelling
and shrinkage properties.
Mechanical and desiccation cracks
Two types of cracking mechanism in cohesive sealing materi-
als must be recognised; those due to drying out and shrinkage,
and those due to mechanical settlement. In addition to crack-
ing by desiccation and settlement, Fang et al. (1997) identify
failure mechanisms caused by weathering, floral and faunal
attack and bacterial and chemical decomposition.
Shrinkage of mineral layers due to desiccation is a major
risk in landfill cappings; thus the investigation of water bal-
ance and temperature is of great importance. Overburden
pressure can suppress desiccation cracking to a certain extent
and, on the basis of laboratory tests and calculations, Hol-
zlöhner (1993, 1994, 1996) suggests that no cracks occur as
long as suction is less than or equal to the overburden pres-
sure (see also in Holzlöhner and Ziegler 1995; August et al.
1997).
The efficiency of a cohesive mineral sealer without
geomembrane has been found to be greatly reduced by
shrinkage due to desiccation within a few years (Melchior et
al. 1992; Melchior 1993). The tendency to summer desicca-
tion has also been observed in the mineral layer of composite
sealers. The desiccation risk also applies to bentonite matting.
 Landfill capping: engineering and restoration – Part 2. Engineering of landfill capping systems
Melchior et al. (1992) draw the conclusion, on the basis of
their long-term observations, that coarse water-conducting
paths (macropores) tend to be formed in mineral layers within
a few years of operation due to deficiencies at placement and
to desiccation. The landfill capping system described in TA
Abfall (1991), and especially the one for landfill class I in TA
Siedlungsabfall (1993), are criticised by Melchior et al.
(1992) on such grounds. It is however noteworthy that exten-
sive investigations using trial pittings, flame ionisation detec-
tors and leachate balance on nine landfill cappings in
operation for five to six years in Bavaria failed to discover
any desiccation in the mineral sealant (Hämmerle and Lottner
1997).
Self-healing of cohesive minerals
Self-healing of cohesive materials is now better understood.
However, investigations indicate that the conditions neces-
sary for self-healing cannot be systematically expected in
landfill cappings (Savidis and Mallwitz 1995, 1997).
The dominating parameter concerning self-healing of
cracks of mechanical type is the consistency of the material
during the failure process, i.e. plasticity in interaction with
surcharge. Samples cracked at solid consistency experience
without exception no self-healing, regardless of depth of sur-
charge within the limited range applicable to cappings.
Self-healing of desiccation cracks depends primarily on
the material and, in contrast to the cracks of mechanical type,
is mainly influenced by the extent of the surcharge. Kaolinitic
or illitic materials should be preferred to counteract impair-
ment. Soils with any tendency to collapse must be rejected.
SEALING LAYER – HYBRID MATERIALS
Bentonite matting
Bentomats or geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) consist of ben-
tonite sandwiched between two geotextile layers which are
punch-needled or sewn together to provide shear strength
(Stief 1993; Heerten and Albers 1995).
Water-saturated bentonite exhibits good sealing properties,
and in principle a bentomat a few millimetres thick is capable
of producing the required barrier function. For practical rea-
sons thicknesses of a few centimetres are used. The attraction
of bentonite, especially its useful swelling properties, derives
from its three-layer mineral structure (Egloffstein 1996). Na
bentonite is particularly advantageous due to both inner-crys-
talline and osmotic swelling.
Bentomats can be manufactured industrially and installed
in rolls, similar to laying techniques for geomembranes. They
are light, easy and quick to lay, exhibit low susceptibility to
settlement and are readily repaired. Investigations in connec-
tion with trial pittings have shown much better self-healing
properties in geosynthetic clay sealers than in homogeneous
cohesive materials (Reuter and Kruse 1996). Measurement of
permeability requires special procedures due to very long sat-
uration time, though methods with shorter testing periods also
have been recommended (Didier and Cazaux 1996). Recently
geosynthetic clay sealers have been certified by the German
Institute for Construction Technology (Deutsches Institut für
29
Bautechnik) for Class I landfills (those with the least contam-
inant content) (Von Maubeuge and Ehrenberg 1996; Herold
1997).
However root penetration, desiccation and water accumu-
lation are potential risks with bentomats. In the field, Na ben-
tonite can change into Ca bentonite, which impairs its sealing
capacity (Müller and August 1997). Long-term shear strength
needs to be established: this greatly depends on the type of
fibres used in the matting, and is especially critical on slopes.
Extensive research is going on to gain experimental data in
test fields (Koerner et al. 1996; Carson et al. 1997). Reclama-
tion cover must be greater than 1 m to protect the bentomat
from desiccation.
Asphaltic liners
Asphalt is composed of a well-graded grain skeleton, a filler
(rock flour) and a bitumen.
Based on experience in hydraulic engineering, basal liner
systems incorporating asphalt are increasingly being used: in
Switzerland more than 20 landfills have been constructed
with asphaltic liners. In Germany a combination of a mineral
layer directly overlain by an asphaltic liner is preferred. How-
ever, only special formulae asphalts are suitable for landfill
engineering. Very high requirements must be maintained in
quality management and in the monitoring of placement tech-
niques.
Short-term tests have shown asphaltic liners to be a good
barrier to the convective transport of aqueous solutions, while
their stability and resistance to heat, weather and penetration
are advantageous features. However, resistance to solvents,
diffusion, ageing and settlement all require further investiga-
tion (August 1995).
Nevertheless, some experts believe that asphalt is also
suitable for capping systems (Ryser 1993; Haas 1995). Two
cases of practical application (one of them in combination
with HDPE) are known in Texas (Schlect 1991; Audibert and
Lew 1991/92). Susceptibility to tensile and shear stresses may
limit the range of capping applications.
SEALING LAYER – CAPILLARY BARRIERS
Principles
The capillary barrier consists of two permeable, loose sedi-
mental layers (Gibb Environmental Sciences 1991; Melchior
1993). The interface between the upper fine-grained layer
(‘capillary layer’, e.g. fine sand) and the lower coarse-grained
layer (‘capillary block’, e.g. gravel) forms the actual barrier.
On this interface, capillary menisci are formed in an
unsaturated state from the water percolating into the upper
layer. Capillary forces on these menisci, and a very low
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in the capillary block, pre-
vent water from penetrating into the coarse-grained layer. If
the capillary barrier is placed with a suitable slope, water can
be drained down the slope in the wet, and therefore highly-
permeable, capillary layer.
However, if the rate of percolation into the upper layer
exceeds the rate of drainage, water accumulates in the capil-
lary layer. Inrush then occurs into the coarse-grained layer,
 Land Contamination & Reclamation / Volume 6 / Number 1 / 1998
because hydrostatic pressure overwhelms capillary forces.
This danger of inrush is especially serious after downpours
(Gibb Environmental Sciences 1991). If the rate of percola-
tion reduces, the capillary barrier stabilises again in its initial
unsaturated state.
Design criteria
Extensive laboratory investigations in a large-scale experi-
mental rig by Steinert et al. (1996, 1997) indicate that capil-
lary barrier materials must satisfy certain requirements.
The upper capillary layer thickness should not be under
400 mm, on grounds of practical engineering. The capillary
layer material must exhibit satisfactory hydraulic conductiv-
ity (kf ≥ 1 x 10-4 m/s). Sands with marked silt and clay con-
tent or coarsely graded sands are not suitable for use in
capillary layers. At small suction the capillary layer should
exhibit great unsaturated hydraulic conductivity.
The thickness of the lower capillary block should not be
less than 300 mm. The grain size distribution of capillary
block material should allow a maximum pore jump, but
simultaneously meet the criteria for filter stability. Coarsely
graded capillary block materials with high sand content
should, therefore, be avoided. The materials must consist of
stable single grains with no open self-pores.
Selection and installation
In practical cases pre-selection of materials can be made on
the basis of grain size distributions and pF curves. Further
suitability tests may be carried out in tipping troughs. The
parameter values should match the geometry of the landfill or
contaminated site, adjusted as necessary for slope inclination
and infiltration rates. The expected infiltration rates into the
capillary layer throughout the year will depend on the on-site
climatic conditions and the layers overlying the capillary bar-
rier.
At materials placement, mechanical influences at the inter-
face between capillary layer and block should be minimised,
to which end the capillary layer is constructed in a satisfac-
tory thickness starting from the slope toe. The necessary min-
imum thickness above the interface before vehicles are
allowed can be determined in a test site. The integrity of any
joints between cells in the slope direction must be thoroughly
monitored. The same applies to water collecting systems
associated with the capillary layer.
Test field investigations have shown that capillary barriers
can make effective caps in arid and semi-arid regions (Khire
et al. 1997).
SEALING LAYER – COMPOSITE SOLUTIONS
For more than a decade sealing elements have been increas-
ingly applied in combination, to emphasise advantageous fea-
tures and circumvent disadvantageous ones. Capping systems
are thereby often over-specified, both as an environmental
assurance, and with the expectation of extending operational
life. Extensive analysis of statistical data from over 200 land-
fills has proved the extremely high effectiveness of composite
capping systems in reducing rainwater infiltration (Gross et
30
al. 1997).
The popular composite solution, of HDPE geomembrane
in intimate contact with a cohesive mineral layer, has already
been outlined above. The mineral layer’s resistance to pene-
tration by roots and burrowing animals can also be improved
by reinforcement (geotextile, geogrid or non-woven geotex-
tile) and by advantageous grain-size characteristics (Thomé-
Kozmiensky 1988). The rate of percolation can be greatly
limited by a well-functioning drainage system, draining the
water towards the toe of the slope.
In-situ investigations by Melchior et al. (1990, 1992) and
Melchior (1993, 1997) have demonstrated the advantages
(provided desiccation can be avoided) of the so-called
‘extended capillary barrier’, in which a cohesive mineral
layer is placed on top of the capillary barrier. Another promis-
ing combination is to overlay the capillary barrier with an
HDPE geomembrane. Combining a geomembrane with a
bentonite matting or with a monitoring system (either electri-
cal or underdrainage) may also provide a cost-effective com-
posite capping (Müller and August 1997; August et al. 1997).
Indeed, the main field of application currently envisaged
for capillary barriers is as additional sealers on strongly
loaded and gas producing landfills, in combination with gas
and watertight layers. Such composite capping systems
exhibit numerous advantages; they are simple and easy to
produce, provide additional safety, and can be monitored
through the water run-off from the capillary layer. Composite
sealers incorporating two geomembranes and a leak detection
layer (e.g. sand) have also demonstrated excellent perform-
ance (Parvey and Strout 1997).
WATER BALANCE AND WATER TRANSPORT
Rainwater loss and percolation
Water balance in landfill cappings is essentially determined
by the following parameters (Melchior et al. 1992):
Water flows – flow on the surface
– lateral flow in the reclama-
tion layer
– flow in the drainage layer
– percolation through the
sealer
Groundwater content of layers
Meteorological parameters – precipitation
– evaporation (air tempera-
ture, air moisture content,
velocity and direction of
wind, balance of radiation)
Transpiration via vegetation
The rate of percolation of rainwater into the landfill is pri-
marily limited by evaporation and by flow in the outer drain-
age system. Measurements (Urban 1987; Melchior et al.
1992) have shown that over the long term about two thirds of
 Landfill capping: engineering and restoration – Part 2. Engineering of landfill capping systems
water input (rainwater + change of the amount of water stored
in the soil) can evaporate through the soil surface or be tran-
spired through vegetation; the other one third mostly flows
laterally in the drainage layer above the sealer. Water flow on
the surface, lateral flow in the reclamation layer and percola-
tion through an undamaged sealer are normally responsible
for only a minor part of the water balance in the waste. For a
given climate, vegetation, slope inclination and permeability
are thus decisive factors in terms of the level of infiltration
into a landfill (Reuter 1986).
Schäfer (1990) has found, using a simple model, that the
ratio of the quantities of water flowing in the drainage layer
and percolating into the sealer depends on the pressure gradi-
ent and the height of the water column in the drainage layer as
well as on the permeabilities in either layer. Calculated data
are supported by measurement results cited. A further conclu-
sion is that it is the permeability and not the thickness of the
sealer which is of direct importance for the fraction of perco-
lation. The thickness of the sealer is only important because
of the need to ensure its proper compaction from a construc-
tion technology viewpoint. Multiple layers consisting of sev-
eral lifts offer an enhanced safety factor against construction
failures due to the weather.
Wessolek et al. (1992) have shown that (in Europe)
groundwater renewal is less and evapotranspiration is greater
on southern slopes than on northern slopes. The performance
of eastern and western slopes lies between the two. The ten-
dency towards evapotranspiration rather than groundwater
renewal increases with increasing slope inclination and it also
depends on the type of vegetation.
Test methods and results
Test sites are often used to investigate water balance of land-
fill capping systems and determine the parameters needed for
water balance (Ehresmann et al. 1986; Gibb Environmental
Sciences 1991; Street and Forster 1991; Melchior and Mieh-
lich 1989; Melchior et al. 1992; Forster 1993). Test sites are
constructed with materials and construction methods used for
landfill (Melchior et al. 1992). The most commonly-investi-
gated barrier systems are composite mineral/geomembrane
sealers, mineral sealers without geomembranes, and the capil-
lary barrier. HDPE troughs filled with gravel are used to col-
lect and measure the amount of water percolating through the
barrier system (Melchior et al. 1992; Melchior 1993).
Very small quantities, viz. percolation through the barrier,
have to be measured on sufficiently large test sites (Miehlich
and Melchior 1988; Melchior and Miehlich 1989). Independ-
ent measurement methods (both direct and indirect) and dif-
ferent instruments have also to be applied. Measurements
carried out on test sites provide several million readings
annually (Berger and Melchior 1989), which can only be
evaluated with sophisticated simulation and calculation meth-
ods.
Rates of infiltration in various capping systems were
measured by Mattravers and Robinson (1991) under tropical
weather conditions (2500 mm/annum rainfall, dry winter and
hot summer). Test cells with daily cover, temporary and final
capping were constructed in accordance with the planned
landfill operation. A sealing layer, as described in Section 1
31
above, was only applied in the final capping. The main
parameters of the test cells and the results of the investigation
were:
Slope Thickness Infiltration in % of
gradient (m) rainfall
Average Maximum
Daily 1 in 20 0.25–0.50 10 75
cover
Temporary 1 in 3 0.50 4 25
cover
Final cover 1 in 4 1.50 0 2
Adelman and Stansbury (1997) investigated the sensitivity
of leachate volume at hazardous waste disposal sites to cli-
matic, soil capping and vegetation conditions. Their results
showed that capping system leachate volume was quite sensi-
tive to climatic conditions and less sensitive to soil capping
and vegetation. Different design standards are recommended
for humid and arid conditions.
Due to the complexity of water movement across, into,
through and out of landfills, sophisticated computer programs
are used to conduct water balance analysis of landfills, cap-
ping systems and solid waste disposal and containment facili-
ties. One of the widely used models, HELP3 (Hydraulic
Evaluation of Landfill Performance) accepts weather, soil and
design data, and uses solution techniques that account for the
effects of surface storage, snowmelt, run-off, infiltration, eva-
potranspiration, vegetative growth, soil moisture storage, lat-
eral subsurface drainage, leachate recirculation, unsaturated
vertical drainage and leakage through soil, geomembrane or
composite liners. Landfill liner systems including various
combinations of vegetation, cover soils, waste cells, lateral
drainage layers, low permeability sealers and synthetic
geomembrane liners may be modelled (Schroeder et al. 1994;
Parvey and Strout 1997). The model facilitates estimation of
the amounts of run-off, evapotranspiration, drainage, leachate
collection and liner leakage. Its practical value depends, how-
ever, to a large extent on its validation (Berger and Miehlich
1996).
LANDFILL GAS CONTROL AND COLLECTION
Significance
Effective (gas-impermeable) landfill cappings have been
shown to allow efficiencies of gas collection as high as 70%,
while only a 50% recovery is achieved in comparable situa-
tions without a proper capping system (Martens and Weber
1990).
Landfill gas in municipal landfills comprises on average
approximately 65% by volume of methane and 35% by vol-
ume of carbon dioxide (Ramke and Brune 1990; Brune
1991); but it also contains pollutants. Steam, H2S, FCHCs
(fluorochlorohydrocarbons) and higher HCs (hydrocarbons)
have to be removed. Scrubbing is carried out in modern
equipment to achieve natural gas quality (Wiemer and Widder
1987; Rautenbach et al. 1990).
 Land Contamination & Reclamation / Volume 6 / Number 1 / 1998
Landfill gas is usually used to produce heat and/or elec-
tricity. Pure electricity production typically yields an overall
energy efficiency of 30% (Ryser 1987); if waste heat is recov-
ered efficiencies of around 70% are said to be feasible. How-
ever, electricity generation can be a more flexible use.
Gas permeability
As regards the gas-tightness of mineral sealers in landfill cap-
pings, both water and gas permeability are important. Gas
permeability has been little investigated, and further research
is needed.
Müller-Kirchenbauer et al. (1990b) have shown that gas
permeability of clayey mineral sealers – in contrast to their
water permeability – depends to a great extent on the mois-
ture content of the material on placement. At a plastic limit
below 0.85 (water content above 20%) clay remains imper-
meable to gas if the pressure does not exceed 250kPa. Gas
flow starts only at higher pressures and gas permeability has
then been found to be below 10-12 m/s. In clays with a plastic
limit above 0.85 (water content below 20%) gas pore chan-
nels are formed, and permeability reaches values as high as
10-4 m/s. In order to provide effective gas-tightness, the high-
est placement water content acceptable for reasons of stability
has thus to be applied.
In-situ measurements by Figueroa (1990) in a boulder clay
layer indicated gas permeabilities between 10-9 and 10-6 m/s
at water contents above the Proctor optimum – two orders of
magnitude higher than laboratory results – due to vertical
micro cracks. The explanation of this difference was that the
interconnected pores and the natural texture of the liner mate-
rial had not been destroyed sufficiently by compaction.
Diffusion coefficients (in m2/s) and gas permeability coef-
ficients (in m2) of clays, for methane, hexane, dichlorometh-
ane, toluene and trichloroethane, show an exponential
decrease with increasing moisture content at placement in the
range 3% to 26% (di Muzio et al. 1990). Diffusion coeffi-
cients decrease in the range 10-6 to 10-10 m2/s with increasing
molecular mass. Gas permeability reduces with increasing
gas viscosity from 10-14 to 10-18 m2 and water permeabilities
were found to lie in the range to 10-8 to 10-10 m/s.
Collection technology
Landfill gas collection can be carried out by one of two basic
methods (Rettenberger 1987): either under the landfill gas
pressure (passive gas extraction) or by a vacuum produced by
compressors (active gas extraction). In landfill practice,
active gas extraction is preferred because of its higher effi-
ciency, although passive gas extraction has to be considered
for gas extraction on old landfills (TA Siedlungsabfall 1993).
The primary means of gas collection is by vertical gas
wells constructed in the waste body. They are typically built
with large diameters (0.6 – 1.2 m) and with perforations usu-
ally occupying around 10% of the total surface of the casing.
Gas wells can be constructed either during or following waste
disposal; the former is easier to do if the waste is deposited in
bales. Alternatively gas extraction may also be carried out by
means of gravel or stone columns instead of wells (Bothmann
1987). Collection pipes are connected to the gas wells and are
joined in turn either to a circular main along the landfill
32
periphery or to individual delivery pipelines (Tönsmann
1988).
Inhomogeneity in gas production within the waste body
can be equalised by incorporating horizontal pipes (collec-
tors) in stone beds into the gas drainage layer (Dernbach
1989; Rettenberger 1990). Daily covers applied for odour and
dust abatement tend to reduce overall permeability of the
landfill and if left in place are disadvantageous from the point
of view of gas production. Cut-off walls, gas drainage
trenches containing porous material and gas well curtains
may be used in order to prevent horizontal gas migration from
the landfill (Kallo and Roth 1992; Pye 1993).
The difference between gas pressure in the landfill and the
surrounding atmospheric pressure results in a load on the cap-
ping: under passive gas extraction (positive pressure in the
landfill) a resultant force acts upwards on the liner, while
active gas extraction (vacuum in the landfill) results in a
downward force. In the latter case the regulating and gas
drainage layers have a distributional effect, ensuring that
point loads are avoided (Rettenberger 1988).
Special applications
A special application of capping technology is aimed at seal-
ing and extinguishing spontaneous combustion in colliery
spoil heaps, which might develop into exogenous fires and
cause toxic gas emission (Kus 1997).
There are also many parallels in entombment solutions for
contaminated land, although such applications will some-
times demand additional consideration to the risks of diffu-
sion of contaminants into and through the capping.
OUTLOOK
Due to ongoing efforts in waste minimisation (e.g. by dis-
pensing with or redesigning packaging), and in recycling,
materials recovery and alternative methods of waste disposal
(e.g. incineration and composting) (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und
Abfallgesetz 1994), demand for landfill space has begun to
slacken (Engelmann 1997).
The number of landfills and contaminated sites to be
capped is still, however, very large in comparison with the
number requiring basal liners. In Germany, for example, the
number of contaminated sites is about 80 000, while approxi-
mately 500 landfills are currently in operation. Even where
the deficiency is in basal lining – in Germany 41% of landfills
have no such liners, and 32% are lined only in part – capping
with gas control sometimes offers the most practical remedy.
For all these reasons, capping issues and technologies are
gaining importance within the reclamation and waste disposal
industry.
Since capping systems serve various purposes (August et
al. 1997), site specific characteristics, such as location, avail-
able materials and performance requirements, should be con-
sidered in their specification and construction (Jesionek and
Dunn 1997). On landfills, the trend is towards the installation
of temporary cappings, with the final capping only being con-
structed after initial settlement (see next article in this series).
The potential significance of large landraising schemes in
 Landfill capping: engineering and restoration – Part 2. Engineering of landfill capping systems
future waste disposal brings its own emphasis for capping
performance. The search continues for more cost-effective
capping materials and systems.
With all this interest and activity, it is perhaps the more
important that we step back from time to time, to reassess the
basic functions of capping systems, and review the alterna-
tives employed to date. The high quality cappings of the
future are likely to be produced by those who heed such les-
sons.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Parts of this and its companion articles are based on the inte-
grated research programme ‘Development of Advanced
Landfill Liner Systems’ (project number: 1440569) spon-
sored by the Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft,
Forschung und Technologie (German Federal Ministry for
Education, Science, Research and Technology) whose sup-
port is gratefully acknowledged. Other parts draw upon cer-
tain of the work underlying the Waste Management Paper
series of the UK Department of the Environment: particularly
that relating to the recent revisions of No. 26B ‘Landfill
Design, Construction and Operational Practice’ and No. 26E
‘Landfill Restoration and Post Closure Management’.
The authors express appreciation to Dr. S. Melchior (IGB
Hamburg, formerly University of Hamburg), Prof. H. August,
Dr. U. Holzlöhner and Dr. W. Müller (Federal Institute for
Materials Research and Testing, BAM, Berlin) for their help-
ful advice. Permission by the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Unit of the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, to
use parts of the State of the Art Report ‘Landfill Liner Sys-
tems’, is gratefully acknowledged. The views herein are those
of the authors, and are not necessarily shared by their collabo-
rators or employers.
REFERENCES
Adelman, D. D. and Stansbury, J. (1997) A sensitivity analysis of
hazardous waste disposal site: climatic and soil design parameters
using HELP3. Proc. 1997 International Containment Technology
Conference, February 9 - 12, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, pp.
396-399.
Audibert, J. M. E. and Lew, L. R. (1991/92) Asphalt used for envi-
ronmental caps in Texas. Asphalt, Winter 1991/92.
August, H. (1995) Liner systems incorporating asphalt. In: Holzlöh-
ner, U., August, H., Meggyes, T., Brune M. Landfill Liner Systems.
A State of the Art Report. Anderson, D., Meggyes, T. (eds), pp. P-1 –
P-41. Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Unit of the University of
Newcastle Upon Tyne. Penshaw Press, Sunderland. ISBN 0-
9518806-3-2.
August, H., Holzlöhner, U. and Meggyes, T. (eds) (1997) Advanced
Landfill Liner Systems. Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 0 7277 2590
4.
August, H. and Lüders, G. (1997) Investigation into the long-term
integrity of protective materials for geomembranes in landfill basal
liners. In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U. and Meggyes, T. (eds.)
33
Advanced Landfill Liner Systems, pp. 261-269. Thomas Telford,
London. ISBN 0 7277 2590 4.
August, H. and Tatzky-Gerth, R. (1992) Neue Forschungsergebnisse
aus Langzeituntersuchungen an Verbunddichtungen als technische
Barriere für Deponien und Altlasten. (New research results of long-
term tests on composite liners as a technical barrier for landfills and
contaminated land). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J. (ed.) Abdichtung
von Deponien und Altlasten, pp. 273-283. FE-Verlag für Energie
und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
August, H., Tatzky-Gerth, R., Preuschmann, R. and Jakob, I. (1992)
Permeationsverhalten von Kombinationsdichtungen bei Deponien
und Altlasten gegenüber wassergefährdenden Stoffen (Permeation
behaviour against water contaminants of composite liners for land-
fills and contaminated land). UFOPLAN des BMU. Forschungs-
bericht (Research Report) F+E-Vorhaben. No 102 03 412
Durchgeführt von der BAM im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes,
Berlin, August 1992.
August, H. (1992) Dicht auch über Jahrhunderte – Technische Barri-
eren für Deponien (Impervious over centuries – technical liners for
landfills). Chemische Industrie, 1, 17-18.
August, H. and Tatzky-Gerth, R. (1991) Neue Forschungsergebnisse
aus Langzeituntersuchungen an Verbunddichtungen als technische
Barriere für Deponien und Altlasten (New research results of long-
term tests on composite liners as technical barrier for landfills and
contaminated land). Kammer der Technik, Fachkongreß ‘Umwelt-
technik '91’. 22-24 August 1991, Universität Rostock, Tagungshand-
buch.
Berger, K. and Melchior, S. (1989) Meßdatenerfassung und -verar-
beitung in einem Forschungsprojekt zur Untersuchung der Wirksam-
keit mehrschichtiger Deponieabdecksysteme (Mülldeponie
Georgswerder) (Processing measurement readings in a research
project to investigate the efficiency of multi-layered landfill cap-
pings – Georgswerder Landfill). In: Jaeschke, A., Geiger, W., Page,
B. (eds.) Informatik im Umweltschutz. 4. Symposium, Karlsruhe, 6-8
Nov. 1989, pp. 319-328. Springer, Berlin.
Berger, K. and Miehlich, G. (1996) Wasserhaushaltsbetrachtungen
bei Deponieoberflächenabdichtungssystemen auf der Grundlage des
HELP-Modells (Water balance consideration for landfill capping
systems based on the HELP Model). In: Czurda, K. and Stief, K.
(eds.) Oberflächenabdichtung oder Oberflächenabdeckung? Regel-
werke oder alternative Systeme? Schriftenreihe Angewandte Geolo-
gie Karlsruhe, pp. 15-1 – 15-28. Lehrstuhl für Angewandte
Geologie, Universität (TH) Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 12, PO Box 6980,
D-76128 Karlsruhe.
Bothmann, P. (1987) Dichtungssysteme für Oberflächenabdeckung
von Deponien (Sealing systems for landfill cappings). In: Fachta-
gung Die sichere Deponie. Würzburg: Süddeutsches Kunststoffzen-
trum (SKZ), 5-6.2.1987, pp. 139-152.
Brune, M. (1991) Ursachen für die Bildung fester und schlammiger
Sedimente in Entwässerungssystemen von Hausmülldeponien
(Causes of solid and sludge-type deposits in drainage systems of
municipal landfills). Von der Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der
Technischen Universität Braunschweig genehmigte Dissertation.
Braunschweig.
Brummermann, K. (1997) Geomembranes under punctiform loads.
In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U., Meggyes, T. (eds.) Advanced Land-
fill Liner Systems, pp. 251-260. Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 0
7277 2590 4.
 Land Contamination & Reclamation / Volume 6 / Number 1 / 1998
Carson, D. A., Daniel, D. E., Koerner, R. M. and Bonaparte, R.
(1997) Geosynthetic clay liners: slope stability field study. Proc.
1997 International Containment Technology Conference. February 9
- 12, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida, USA. pp. 381-388.
Dernbach, H. (1989) Erfassung von Deponiegas (Landfill gas collec-
tion). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J. (ed.) Deponie. Ablagerung von
Abfällen. 3, pp. 123-138. EF-Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttech-
nik, Berlin.
Didier, G. and Cazaux, D. (1996) Field permeability measurement of
geosynthetic clay liners. In: De Groot, M. B., Den Hoedt, G. and Ter-
maat, R.J. (eds.) Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construc-
tion, pp. 837-843. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 836 3.
di Muzio, M., Rettenberger, G. and Urban-Kiss, S. (1990) Funktion
der Oberflächenabdichtung zur Emissionsminderung – Entgasung,
Gasdurchlässigkeiten, Restemission (Role of landfill cappings in
emission control – gas extraction, gas permeability, residual emis-
sion). Vortrag am 4. Erfahrungsaustausch, 15-16. 11. 1990. Verbund-
vorhaben Neue Verfahren und Methoden zur Sanierung von Altlasten
am Beispiel der Deponie Georgswerder. Freie und Hansestadt Ham-
burg: Umweltbehörde, Amt für Altlastensanierung.
Egloffstein, T. (1996) Bentonite as sealing material in geosynthetic
clay liners. In: De Groot, M. B., Den Hoedt, G. and Termaat, R.J.
(eds.) Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construction, pp.
799-806. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 836 3.
Egloffstein, T. and Burkhardt, G. (1997) Einsatz von Z2-Materialien
als Profilierungsmaterial unter Oberflächenabdichtungen. Erfahrun-
gen aus der Praxis (Use of Z2 materials as profiling materials
beneath landfill cappings. Practical experiences). In: Egloffstein, T.
and Burkhardt, G. (eds.) Oberflächenabdichtungen von Deponien
und Altlasten. Planung - Bau - Kosten, pp. 103-123. Erich Schmidt,
Berlin. ISBN 3 503 04351 9.
Ehresmann, J., Rettenberger, G., Tabasaran, O. and Urban, S. (1986)
Untersuchungen zur Auswahl geeigneter Oberflächenabdich-
tungssysteme für die Sonderabfalldeponie Gerolsheim (Investiga-
tions to choose suitable landfill capping systems for the Gerolsheim
hazardous waste landfill). Müll und Abfall, 18 (5), 183-194.
Engelmann, B. (1997) Stand der Umsetzung bei Oberflächenabdich-
tungen in Deutschland (The status of practical application of landfill
cappings in Germany). In: Egloffstein, T., Burkhardt, G. (eds.) Ober-
flächenabdichtungen von Deponien und Altlasten. Planung – Bau –
Kosten, pp. 217-222. Erich Schmidt, Berlin. ISBN 3 503 04351 9.
Fang, H.Y., Inyang, H.I. and Daniels, J.L. (1997) Failure mecha-
nisms of landfill covers. Preliminary Proceedings 2nd International
Green Symposium on Geotechnics and the Environment. 8-11 Sep-
tember 1997. Kraków, Poland. The Agricultural University of
Kraków (Poland) and Bolton Institute (UK).
Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (Bundesanstalt
für Materialforschung und -prüfung, BAM, Berlin) (1994) Guide-
lines for the Certification of Geomembranes as Element of a Com-
posite Liner for Municipal and Hazardous Waste Landfills as well as
for Contaminated Land. Berlin.
Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (Bundesanstalt
für Materialforschung und -prüfung, BAM, Berlin) (1997) Require-
ments for Protective Layers for Geomembranes in Composite Liners.
Certification Guidelines for Protective Layers. Berlin.
Figueroa, R. (1990) Einflüsse des Deponiegases auf die Obere
Abdeckung (Influences of landfill gases on the capping). Vortrag am
4. Erfahrungsaustausch, 15-16.11.1990. Verbundvorhaben Neue
34
Verfahren und Methoden zur Sanierung von Altlasten am Beispiel
der Deponie Georgswerder. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg:
Umweltbehörde, Amt für Altlastensanierung.
Forster, A. (1993) Water balance evaluation of different multi-lay-
ered landfill final cover systems. Green '93: Waste Disposal by
Landfill. 28 June - 1 July 1993, Bolton, Lancashire. Vol. 1, pp. 161-
166.
Gibb Environmental Sciences (1991) Capillary barrier landfill caps.
In: Department of the Environment Wastes Technical Division (ed.)
Landfill Practices Review Meeting. 6 Nov. 1991. London.
Gross, B.A., Bonaparte, R. and Othmann, M.A. (1997) Inferred per-
formance of surface hydraulic barriers from landfill operational data.
Proc. 1997 International Containment Technology Conference. Feb-
ruary 9 - 12, 1997, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, pp. 374-380.
Hämmerle, E. and Lottner, U. (1997) Ergebnisse der Aufgrabungen
mineralischer Oberflächenabdichtungen (Trial pitting results on
mineral landfill cappings). In: Egloffstein, T. and Burkhardt, G.
(eds.) Oberflächenabdichtungen von Deponien und Altlasten. Pla-
nung – Bau – Kosten, pp. 189-195. Erich Schmidt, Berlin. ISBN 3
503 04351 9.
Haas, H. (1995) Deponieoberflächenabdichtungen aus Asphalt
(Asphaltic landfill cappings). In: Proceedings Oberflächenabdich-
tungen nach TA Siedlungsabfall. 26.09.1995. IGB Ingenieurbüro für
Grundbau, Bodenmechanik und Umwelttechnik. Heinrich-Heine-
Str. 116. D-22083 Hamburg.
Heerten, G. and Albers, K. (1995) Geosynthetische Tondichtungen
als Oberflächenabdichtungen (Geosynthetic clay liners for landfill
capping). In: Proceedings Oberflächenabdichtungen nach TA Sied-
lungsabfall. 26.09.1995. IGB Ingenieurbüro für Grundbau, Boden-
mechanik und Umwelttechnik. Heinrich-Heine-Str. 116. D-22083
Hamburg.
Herold, C. (1997) Zulassung von Bentonitmatten als Dichtungsele-
ment für Oberflächenabdichtungssysteme von Deponien nach
Deponieklasse I der TA Siedlungsabfall (Certification of bentomats
as sealing element for Class I landfill cappings of TA Abfall). In:
Egloffstein, T. and Burkhardt, G. (eds.) Oberflächenabdichtungen
von Deponien und Altlasten. Planung – Bau – Kosten, pp. 1-11.
Erich Schmidt, Berlin. ISBN 3 503 04351 9.
Holzlöhner, U. (1993) Transportvorgänge und Bodendeformation
unter Einwirkung von Austrocknung und äußeren Spannungen
(Transport processes and soil deformation under the influence of
desiccation and external stresses). In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U.,
Meggyes, T. and Brune, M. (eds.) Deponieabdichtungssysteme. 2,
pp. 139-148. Arbeitstagung BAM, Berlin.
Holzlöhner, U. (1994) Rißgefährdung von Erdstoff-Abdichtungss-
chichten bei Austrocknung unter Auflast (Risk of cracking in
earthen liners due to desiccation under surcharge). In: 10. Nürn-
berger Deponie-Seminar, LGA-Grundbauinstitut. Nürnberg, No 72,
p. 307-324.
Holzlöhner, U. (1996) Rechnerische Abschätzung der Austrock-
nungsgefährdung von mineralischen Abdichtungsschichten in
Deponieabdichtungssystemen (Estimation by calculations of the risk
of desiccation cracking in mineral landfill liners and cappings). In:
Czurda, K. and Stief, K. (eds.) Oberflächenabdichtung oder Ober-
flächenabdeckung? Regelwerke oder alternative Systeme? Schriften-
reihe Angewandte Geologie Karlsruhe, pp. 9-1 – 9-27. Lehrstuhl für
Angewandte Geologie, Universität (TH) Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 12,
PO Box 6980, D-76128 Karlsruhe.
 Landfill capping: engineering and restoration – Part 2. Engineering of landfill capping systems
Holzlöhner, U. and Meggyes, T. (1995) Schutz vor Kontamination
durch Deponien (Protection against contamination by landfills). In:
Handbuch der Bodenkunde, Chapter 7.6.7, pp. 1-19. Ecomed Verlag,
Landsberg. ISBN 3-609-72210-X.
Holzlöhner, U. and Ziegler, F. (1995) The effect of overburden pres-
sure on desiccation cracking of earthen liners. Proc. 5th Int. Landfill
Symposium Sardinia '95, Vol. II, pp. 203-212.
Jesionek, K.S. and Dunn, R.J. (1997) Final cover systems for munic-
ipal solid waste landfills. Preliminary Proceedings 2nd International
Green Symposium on Geotechnics and the Environment. 8-11 Sep-
tember 1997. Kraków, Poland. The Agricultural University of
Kraków (Poland) and Bolton Institute (UK).
Kallo, J.D. and Roth, R.J. (1992) Landfill gas collection and treat-
ment at Bems/Big Hill landfill. Proceedings International Sympo-
sium on Environmental Contamination in Central and Eastern
Europe. 12-16. Oct. 1992. Budapest, pp. 700-703.
Koerner, R. M., Carson, D.A., Daniel, D.E. and Bonaparte, R.
(1996) Current status of the Cincinnati GCL test plots. In: Czurda,
K. and Stief, K. (eds) Oberflächenabdichtung oder Oberflächenab-
deckung? Regelwerke oder alternative Systeme?, pp. 3-1–3-39.
Schriftenreihe Angewandte Geologie Karlsruhe. Lehrstuhl für Ange-
wandte Geologie, Universität (TH) Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 12, PO Box
6980, D-76128 Karlsruhe.
Khire, M.V., Benson, C.H. and Bosscher, P.J. (1997) Water balance
of two earthen landfill caps in a semi-arid climate. Proc. 1997 Inter-
national Containment Technology Conference. February 9 - 12,
1997. St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, pp. 252-261.
Kohler, E.E. (1988) Mineralogisch-geochemische Aspekte bei min-
eralischen Abdichtungen (Mineralogical and geochemical aspects of
mineral liners). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J. (ed.) Deponie.
Ablagerung von Abfällen. 2, pp. 343-352. EF-Verlag für Energie-
und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Kus, R. (1997) Insulation of fire sources within the dump ‘Matylda’
in Walbrzych. Preliminary Proceedings 2nd International Green
Symposium on Geotechnics and the Environment. 8-11 September
1997. Kraków, Poland. The Agricultural University of Kraków
(Poland and Bolton Institute (UK).
Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz, KrW-/AbfG: Gesetz zur
Förderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der umweltver-
träglichen Beseitigung von Abfällen vom 27 September 1994. (The
Waste Recycling Economy and Environmentally Compatible Dis-
posal Act of 27.9.1994.) Abfallgesetz. Deutscher Taschenbuch Ver-
lag. ISBN 3 423 05569 3 (dtv).
Lüders, G., Müller, W., Müller, U. and August, H. (1995) Untersuc-
hungen zur Langzeitbeständigkeit von Schutzmaterialien für Kunst-
stoffdichtungsbahnen in Deponiebasisabdichtungen (Investigation of
long-term behaviour of protective materials for geomembranes in
landfill basal liners). In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U. and Meggyes, T.
(eds.) Tagungsband der 3. Arbeitstagung (Statusseminar) des
BMBF-Verbundforschungsvorhabens Weiterentwicklung von
Deponieabdichtungssystemen. BAM, Berlin.
Martens, J. and Weber, B. (1990) Deponiegas und Sickerwasser –
Energiebilanz eines integralen Entsorgungskonzepts (Landfill gas
and leachate – energy balance of an integrated waste management
concept). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J. and Lante, D.W. (eds.)
Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen 4, pp. 459-478. EF-Verlag für
Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
35
Mattravers, N. and Robinson, H. (1991) Infiltration of rainfall into
landfill sites. Proceedings Sardinia '91. Third International Landfill
Symposium. 14-18 October 1991. S. Margherita di Pula (Cagliari),
Italy. pp. 889-903.
Von Maubeuge, K. and Ehrenberg, H. (1996) Requirements and
design of landfill caps with approved geosynthetic clay liners. In: De
Groot, M.B., Den Hoedt, G. and Termaat, R.J. (eds.) Geosynthetics:
Applications, Design and Construction, pp. 795-798. Balkema, Rot-
terdam. ISBN 90 5410 836 3.
Meggyes, T. and McDonald, C. (1995) Landfill capping systems. In:
Holzlöhner, U., August, H., Meggyes, T. and Brune M. Landfill
Liner Systems. A State of the Art Report. Anderson, D. and Meggyes,
T. (eds.) Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Unit of the University
of Newcastle Upon Tyne. Penshaw Press, Sunderland. ISBN O-
9518806-3-2. pp. O-1 - O-12.
Melchior, S. (1993) Wasserhaushalt und Wirksamkeit mehrschichti-
ger Abdecksysteme für Deponien und Altlasten (Water balance and
efficiency of multi-layered cappings for landfills and contaminated
land). Hamburger Bodenkundliche Arbeiten, 22, p. 330.
Melchior, S. (1997) In-situ studies on the performance of landfill
caps (compacted soil liners, geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners,
capillary barriers). Proc. 1997 International Containment Technol-
ogy Conference. February 9 - 12, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida, USA,
pp. 365-373.
Melchior, S., Berger, K., Vielhaber, B. and Miehlich, G. (1992) Ver-
gleichende Bewertung unterschiedlicher Abdecksysteme für Depon-
ien und Altlasten (Comparative analysis of various capping systems
for landfills and contaminated land). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J.
(ed.) Abdichtung von Deponien und Altlasten, pp. 453-475. EF-Ver-
lag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Melchior, S. and Miehlich, G. (1989) Field studies on the hydrologi-
cal performance of multilayered landfill caps. Third International
Conference on New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management.
Sept. 10-13, 1989, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Melchior, S., Vielhaber, B. and Miehlich, G. (1990) Untersuchungen
zur Wirksamkeit verschiedener Oberflächendichtsysteme für Depon-
ien und Altlasten (Investigation into the efficiency of various cap-
ping systems for landfills and contaminated land). In: Thomé-
Kozmiensky, K.J. and Lante, D.W. (eds) Deponie. Ablagerung von
Abfällen 4, pp. 177-196. EF-Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik,
Berlin.
Miehlich, G. and Melchior, S. (1988) Hydrologische Untersuchung
mehrschichtiger Oberflächenabdichtungssysteme auf der Deponie
Georgswerder, Hamburg (Hydrological investigation of multi-lay-
ered capping systems in the Georgswerder, Hamburg landfill). In:
Franzius, V., Stegmann, R. and Wolf, K. (eds.) Handbuch der Altlas-
tensanierung. 5.3.2.1.4. : R. v. Decker’s, G. Schenk, Heidelberg.
Müller, W. (1993) Stand der BAM-Zulassungen für Kunststoffdich-
tungsbahnen in Kombinationsdichtungen (State of the BAM certifi-
cations for geomembranes in composite liners). Müll und Abfall, 4,
282-283.
Müller, W. (1995) Dichtigkeit und Beständigkeit von Baustoffen für
Deponieabdichtungen (Sealing efficacy and durability of materials
for landfill liners). AbfallwirtschaftsJournal, 7 (1995), No. 12.
Müller, W. and August, H. (1997) Abdichtungen mit Kunststoffdich-
tungsbahnen für die Oberfläche von Deponien (Landfill cappings
using geomembranes). In: Egloffstein, T. and Burkhardt, G. (eds.)
Oberflächenabdichtungen von Deponien und Altlasten. Planung –
 Land Contamination & Reclamation / Volume 6 / Number 1 / 1998
Bau – Kosten, pp. 49-58. Erich Schmidt, Berlin. ISBN 3 503 04351
9.
Müller, W., August, H., Jakob, I., Tatzky-Gerth, R. and Vater, E.-J.
(1995) Die Wirkungsweise der Kombinationsdichtung – Immersion-
sversuche zur Schadstoffmigration in Deponieabdichtungssyste-
men. (Operation of composite liners – immersion tests on
contaminant migration in landfill liner systems). In: Bartz, W.J. (ed.)
Asphaltdichtungen im Deponiebau, Eine Standortbestimmung, Vol.
488, Kontakt & Studium, Renningen-Malmsheim; Expert-Verlag,
pp. 24-46. ISBN 3-8169-1296-6.
Müller, W. and Lüders, G. (1995) Geomembranes. In: Holzlöhner,
U., August, H., Meggyes, T. and Brune M. Landfill Liner Systems. A
State of the Art Report. Anderson, D. and Meggyes, T. (eds), pp. E-1
– E-14. Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Unit of the University
of Newcastle Upon Tyne. Penshaw Press, Sunderland. ISBN 0-
9518806-3-2.
Müller-Kirchenbauer, H., Markwardt, W., Friedrich, W., Rogner, J.
and Ehresmann, J. (1989) Schlitzwandaushub als mineralisches
Oberflächenabdichtungsmaterial (Diaphragm wall debris as mineral
material for landfill cappings). Müll und Abfall, 21 (1), 361-370.
Müller-Kirchenbauer, H., Rogner, J. and Friedrich, W. (1990a)
Erfahrungen zur Verwendung von Schlitzwandaushub als Dich-
tungsmaterial einer Oberflächenabdeckung (Experience in the utili-
sation of diaphragm wall debris as sealing material for landfill
capping). Vortrag am 4. Erfahrungsaustausch, 15-16.11.1990. Ver-
bundvorhaben Neue Verfahren und Methoden zur Sanierung von
Altlasten am Beispiel der Deponie Georgswerder. Freie und Hanses-
tadt Hamburg: Umweltbehörde, Amt für Altlastensanierung.
Müller-Kirchenbauer, H., Rogner, J., Markwardt, W. and Friedrich,
W. (1990b) Wasser- und Gasdurchlässigkeit von Deponieober-
flächenabdichtungen aus bindigen Erdstoffen (Water and gas perme-
ability of cohesive earthen materials for landfill cappings). Müll und
Abfall, 22 (1), 14-22.
Parvey, J.G. and Strout, J.M. (1997) Landfill Cap Design at the
Tacoma Landfill Superfund Site. Preliminary Proceedings 2nd
International Green Symposium on Geotechnics and the Environ-
ment. 8-11 September 1997. Kraków, Poland. The Agricultural Uni-
versity of Kraków (Poland) and Bolton Institute (UK).
Pye, N. (1993) Personal Information.
Ramke, H.-G. and Brune, M. (1990) Untersuchungen zur Funktions-
fähigkeit von Entwässerungsschichten in Deponiebasisabdich-
tungssystemen (Investigations into the efficiency of drainage
systems in landfill basal liners). Abschlußbericht zum Forschungs-
vorhaben FKZ BMFT 145 0457 3.
Rautenbach, R., Welsch, K. and Mellis, R. (1990) Einsatz von Mem-
branverfahren zur Methangewinnung aus Deponiegas und zur Sick-
erwasserbehandlung (Utilisation of membrane technology for
methane extraction from landfill gas and for leachate treatment). In:
Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J. and Lante, D.W. (eds) Deponie.
Ablagerung von Abfällen 4, pp. 397-428. EF-Verlag für Energie- und
Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Rettenberger, G. (1987) Grundlagen der Entsorgungstechnik und
Stand der Deponiegasverwertung (Fundamentals of waste manage-
ment and state of landfill gas utilisation). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.
J. (ed.) Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen, pp. 614-638. EF-Verlag
für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Rettenberger, G. (1988) Oberflächenabdichtungen bei Sonderab-
falldeponien (Landfill cappings for hazardous waste landfills). In:
36
Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J. (Ed) Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen.
2, p. 440-450. EF-Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Rettenberger, G. (1990) Fortschritte bei der Entgasungstechnik.
(Progress in gas extraction). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J. and Lante,
D.W. (eds.) Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen 4, pp. 451-457. EF-
Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Reuter, E. (1986) Übertragung der Ergebnisse von Durchlässigkeits-
versuchen an mineralischen Dichtungsmaterialien im Labor auf die
Verhältnisse im Feld (Application of results of laboratory permeabil-
ity tests on mineral liner materials to site conditions). In: Fehlau, K.-
P. and Stief, K. (eds.) Fortschritte der Deponietechnik 1986, pp. 31-
54. Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
Reuter, E. and Kruse, B. (1996) Prüfung der Wirksamkeit geotextiler
Tondichtungen durch Aufgrabungen (Efficiency testing for geosyn-
thetic clay liners by trial pittings). In: Czurda, K. and Stief, K. (eds.)
Oberflächenabdichtung oder Oberflächenabdeckung? Regelwerke
oder alternative Systeme? Schriftenreihe Angewandte Geologie
Karlsruhe, pp. 5-1 - 5-24. Lehrstuhl für Angewandte Geologie, Uni-
versität (TH) Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 12, PO Box 6980, D-76128 Karl-
sruhe.
Ryser, W. (1987) Aspekte und Probleme der Deponiegasnutzung bei
Verwendung von Gasmotoren. (Aspects and problems of landfill gas
utilisation using gas motors). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J. (ed.)
Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen, pp. 685-710. EF-Verlag für
Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Ryser, W. (1993) Erfahrungen mit der Planung und Herstellung von
Deponieabdichtungen aus Asphaltbeton in der Schweiz (Design and
construction experience with asphaltic concrete landfill liners in
Switzerland.) UTECH Berlin, 15.02.1993, pp. 51-72. Ablagerung
von Siedlungsabfällen. Fortbildungszentrum Gesundheits- und
Umweltschutz Berlin e. V., Berlin.
Savidis, S. and Mallwitz, K. (1995) Selbstheilung von mineralischen
Dichtmaterialien bezüglich Durchlässigkeit in gestörten Deponieab-
dichtungen/Dichtsystemen. (Self-healing capability of mineral seal-
ing materials with regard to permeability in disturbed landfill liners /
liner systems). Final Report. BMBF Integrated Research Pro-
gramme ‘Development of Advanced Landfill Liner Systems’. 1140
569A5-18.
Savidis, S. and Mallwitz, K. (1997) Self-healing behaviour with
regard to permeability of mineral sealing materials in disturbed land-
fill liners / liner systems. Final report. In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U.
and Meggyes, T. (eds.) Advanced Landfill Liner Systems, pp. 182-
192. Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 0 7277 2590 4.
Schäfer, J. (1990) Oberflächenabdichtungen von Deponien – Dich-
theit und ihre Einflußfaktoren (Landfill cappings – watertightness
and its influencing parameters). Müll und Abfall, 22 (7), 427-432.
Schlect, E. D. (1991) Tacoma asphalt landfill cap is tough and
impermeable. Asphalt, Summer 1991.
Schroeder, P. R., Dozier, T.S., Zappi, P. A., McEnroe, B.M., Sjos-
trom, J.W. and Peyton, R.L. (1994) The Hydraulic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: Engineering Documentation
for Version 3, EPA/600/9-94/168b. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Seeger, S. (1995) Zulassung von Schutzlagen (Certification of pro-
tective layers). In: Tagungsband der 11. Fachtagung ‘Die sichere
Deponie’. Kunststoffinformation Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Bad
Homburg.
 Landfill capping: engineering and restoration – Part 2. Engineering of landfill capping systems

Seeger, S. and Müller, W. (1996) Limits of stress and strain: design
criteria for protective layers for geomembranes in landfill liner sys-
tems. In: De Groot, M.B., Den Hoedt, G. and Termaat, R.J. (eds.)
Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construction, pp. 153-157.
Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 836 3.
Seeger, S., Müller, W., Jakob, I., Tatzky-Gerth, R. and August, H.
(1995) Anforderungen an die Schutzschicht für die Dichtungsbah-
nen in der Kombinationsdichtung, Teil 1: Wirksamkeit
(lastverteilende Wirkung und Beständigkeit), Materialien und
Prüfverfahren bei Schutzschichten. (Requirements on protective lay-
ers for geomembranes in composite liners. Part 1: Efficacy (load-dis-
tribution and durability), materials and test methods). Müll und
Abfall, 27 (8), 544.
Shercliff, D.A. (1996) Optimisation and Testing of Liner Protection
Geotextiles used in Landfills. In: De Groot, M.B., Den Hoedt, G. and
Termaat, R.J. (eds) Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Con-
struction, pp. 823-828. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 836 3.
Steinert, B., Melchior, S., Burger, K., Berger, K., Türk, M. and
Miehlich, G. (1996) Dimensionierung von Kapillarsperren zur Ober-
flächenabdichtung von Deponien und Altlasten (Design criteria for
capillary barriers in landfill cappings and contaminated sites). Final
Report. BMBF Integrated Research Programme ‘Advanced Landfill
Liner Systems’. 1140 569A-39.
Steinert, B., Melchior, S., Burger, K., Berger, K., Türk, M. and
Miehlich, G. (1997) Design of capillary barriers for capping of land-
fills and contaminated sites. In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U. and Meg-
gyes, T. (eds.) Advanced Landfill Liner Systems, pp. 286-301.
Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 0 7277 2590 4.
Stief, K. (1993) Zur Gleichwertigkeit von Deponieabdichtungssyste-
men. (Equivalence of landfill liner systems). 9. Nürnberger
Deponieseminar. 29.-30.4.1993. Grundbauinstitut der Landesgewer-
beanstalt Bayern, Nürnberg.
Street, A. and Forster, A. (1991) Performance of landfill capping
systems. In: Department of the Environment Wastes Technical Divi-
sion (ed.) Landfill Practices Review Meeting, 6 Nov. 1991, London.
TA Siedlungsabfall (1993) Dritte Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift
zum Abfallgesetz: Technische Anleitung zur Verwertung, Behand-
lung und sonstigen Entsorgung von Siedlungsabfällen (Third Gen-
eral Administrative Provision to the Waste Avoidance and Waste
Management Act: Technical instructions on recycling, treatment and
disposal of municipal waste – TI municipal waste). In: Schmeken,
W. TA Abfall, TA Siedlungsabfall. 3. Edition. Deutscher Gemeindev-
erlag, W. Kohlhammer, Köln and in: Müll-Handbuch. Band 1, 0675,
pp. 1-52. Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
Taprogge, R. (1989) Kunststoff-Dichtungsbahnen bei der Einkapse-
lung von Deponien – Aufbau, Anforderungen und Verlegung, Basi-
sabdichtungen, Oberflächenabdichtungen, Umschließung. (Geo-
membranes for containment of landfills – construction, require-
ments, placement, basal liners, cappings, surrounding). In: Thomé-
Kozmiensky, K.J. (ed.) Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen. 3, pp.
445-459. EF-Verlag für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J. (1988) Deponie – Ablagerung von Abfäl-
len. (Landfill – deposition of wastes). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J.
(ed.) Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen. 2, pp. 1-145. EF-Verlag für
Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Tönsmann, F. (1988) Auslegung und Ausschreibung von Gaserfas-
sungs- und -verwertungssystemen (Design and call for tenders of gas
extraction and utilisation systems). In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, K.J.
(ed.) Deponie. Ablagerung von Abfällen. 2, pp. 666-694. EF-Verlag
für Energie- und Umwelttechnik, Berlin.
Urban, S. (1987) Gestaltung einer dichten Deponieabdeckung –
Resultate eines Testprogramms (Construction of a tight landfill cap-
ping). In: Zeitgemäße Deponietechnik. Stuttgarter Berichte zur
Abfallwirtschaft. Vol 24, pp. 123-148. Erich Schmidt, Bielefeld.
Wessolek, G., König, R., Renger, M., Roth, C., Bohl, H. and Plagge,
R. (1992) Entwicklung und Anwendung von Wasserhaushalts- und
Photosynthesemodellen für Hangstandorte (Development and appli-
cation of water balance and photosynthesis models for slopes). Bod-
enökologie und Bodengenese, No 8. Fachgebiet Bodenkunde und
Regionale Bodenkunde, Institut für Ökologie, Technische Univer-
sität Berlin.

TA Abfall (1991) Zweite Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum
Abfallgesetz, Teil 1: Technische Anleitung zur Lagerung, chemisch/
physikalischen und biologischen Behandlung, Verbrennung und
Ablagerung von besonders überwachungsbedürftigen Abfällen.
(Second General Administrative Provision to the Waste Avoidance
and Waste Management Act, Part 1: Technical instructions on the
storage, chemical, physical and biological treatment, incineration
and deposition of waste requiring particular supervision – TI hazard-
ous waste) In: Schmeken, W. TA Abfall. Deutscher Gemeindeverlag,
W. Kohlhammer, Köln and in: Müll-Handbuch. Band 1, 0670, pp. 1-
136. Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
Wiemer, K. and Widder, G. (1987) Emissionsminimierung durch
thermische Deponiegasbehandlungsanlagen (Emission control
through thermal landfill gas treatment equipment). Franzius, V. (ed.)
Deponiegasnutzung. Beiheft 26 zur Müll und Abfall, pp. 16-21.
Erich Schmidt, Berlin.
Witte, R. (1997) Practice-oriented investigations to improve geotex-
tile protective layer systems for geomembranes with regard to their
long-term protective efficacy. In: August, H., Holzlöhner, U. and
Meggyes, T. (eds) Advanced Landfill Liner Systems, pp. 270-277.
Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 0 7277 2590 4.

Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, this publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.

The views expressed in this and in all articles in the journal Land Contamination & Reclamation are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect
those of the editor, editorial board or publisher, or of the authors’ employers or organizations with which they are associated. The information in this article is
intended as general guidance only; it is not comprehensive and does not constitute professional advice. Readers are advised to verify any information obtained
from this article, and to seek professional advice as appropriate. The publisher does not endorse claims made for processes and products, and does not, to the
extent permitted by law, make any warranty, express or implied, in relation to this article, including but not limited to completeness, accuracy, quality and fitness
for a particular purpose, or assume any responsibility for damage or loss caused to persons or property as a result of the use of information in this article.

37
 Land Contamination & Reclamation / Volume 6 / Number 1 / 1998

38

View publication stats