Current State of the Practice of Construction on Closed
Landfill Sites
(Presented at the 16th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and
Management, PA, USA – December 12, 2000)
Claire Odud
Rowan University
Student Assistant
Civil and Environmental Engineering
201 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028
Abstract: Closed landfills are being used beneficially, either as wildlife habitats, parks
and golf courses, or even as sites for retail buildings. This paper will focus on the
geotechnical aspects of the construction on closed landfill sites. It will include a
comprehensive literature review of the current state of the practice of construction on
closed landfill sites, typically municipal solid waste. The paper will address such topics
as site improvement that is typically done before construction can begin. In addition it
will address design issues that need to account for the compressibility and low bearing
capacity of the waste material underlying the construction. To provide sufficient bearing
capacity, pile foundations are typically used. Downdrag on the piles due to waste
settlement is a major problem. Environmental health is also a major concern in such
construction because any breach of the landfill containment system would jeopardize
public health. Construction on closed landfill sites therefore requires careful planning,
and design to account for the characteristics of the waste as well as health and safety
issues. These topics will be addressed in the paper. The future of such construction will
also be discussed.
Keywords: Landfill, construction, current practice, geotechnical engineering
1. Introduction
More closed landfills are being used beneficially today as demand for usable land
increases. There has been an expansion of the possibilities from wildlife habitats, parks
and golf courses to retail buildings, family homes, and office parks. The sites that are
being built on are mainly municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Landfills can be
wonderful sites for real estate development. Often located near major transportation
routes, many older landfills are located in growing urban or suburban population centers,
where demand for real estate is high.
There are many challenges to reusing a closed landfill site. Liability
considerations (Superfund, toxic torts) and technical problems (settlement, gas, health
and safety) abound. But just as a growing number of formerly-used industrial sites are
being redeveloped for productive uses in what has become known as the "Brownfield"
movement, so too have landfill sites been increasingly developed for high-value,
productive land uses.
The major considerations when constructing on a landfill are evaluating the site
for the appropriate type of structure and end use, the actual design process, the
environmental health risks and precautions, and finally site monitoring after construction
is complete. Landfills will have varying settlement rates depending on the type of waste
and foundation used during construction, so careful monitoring is required after the
project construction is completed. In the past, construction on closed landfills has
resulted in problems associated with excessive settlement. Projects like this need careful
and extensive planning, which will be discussed further in the paper.
2. General Design Process
There are also three goals that should be considered during the general design
process. They are to achieve acceptable performance as the site settles, avoid penetration
of the low permeability landfill cap (barrier layer), and to minimize future maintenance
requirements. Keeping these goals in mind while designing, helps keep the engineers on
track. To achieve these goals, Keech (1996) has implemented a four-step design
process. The four steps are as follows:
• Analyze historical documents and geotechnical reports;
• Define site characteristics (boundary conditions);
• Design foundation for predicted rates of settlement; and
• Define future inspection and maintenance requirements.
These topics will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.
2.1 Analysis of historical documents and geotechnical reports
This process helps guide both the geotechnical and civil engineers. Some of the major
documents that should be analyzed are:
• The original landfill grading plan: The original landfill grading plan will shed
light on the boundaries of the landfill, and the bottom elevation of the landfill
without having to resort to extensive investigations.
• Sequence of landfill operations: Sequencing of landfill operations is of
particular importance in assessing the rate of decomposition of the waste and
the expected settlement. This information can be obtained from written logs
and operation reports, as well as personal interviews with operators of the
facility.
• Existing utilities and landfill gas collection systems: The location of these
facilities is important in determining the location of the constructed facility.
• Previous uses and topography: Previous use of the facility before development
will alter the settlement to be expected.
• Contour map of depth to the barrier and refuse layer: This information will be
used by the designer to make sure that none of the construction operations
will cause a breach of the barrier layer.
• Contour map of anticipated settlement: This will provide the designer with
information on expected settlement due to consolidation of the waste material
within the landfill.
• Contour map of settlement per foot of additional fill: This will provide
information on settlement to be expected due to loads produced during and
after construction due to the addition of the constructed facility.
• General analysis of surcharge and dynamic compaction options: The
feasibility of using surcharge or dynamic compaction during construction to
preconsolidate the waste material will be determined.
2.2 Defining boundary conditions
Closed landfills are very different from regular ground sites due to the nature of
the material that lies below the ground. Differential settlement is a major problem
plaguing landfill sites. Boundary conditions exist when large differential settlements
take place over short distances. Keech (1996) differentiated between artificial
boundaries such as those created by deep foundations as hard boundaries and those due to
site changes as soft edge boundary conditions.
Soft edge boundaries can develop because refuse depths vary and the actual
bottom of the landfill is not level. Composition of the landfill also varies throughout,
which means the rate at which it decomposes will vary. The age of the landfill also
causes soft boundaries. The type and thickness of the landfill cover can cause changes in
the loading of the landfill mass as well as if the site was ever used for anything else such
as recycling or storage. Many of the variables for soft edge boundaries conditions are
hard to define. Therefore, observation over long periods of time and empirical data will
provide accurate enough information to go ahead with construction.
Hard edge boundary conditions occur mainly where the site meets the structure
and vertical shear occurs. Utility connections that cross hard edge boundaries are of
concern. Isolated pile caps and grade beams may sometimes protrude from the site as
the area settles. With many sites, retaining walls may be required near the edge of the
site; these spots should be given much attention. As with the soft edge boundaries, hard
edge boundaries need to be looked at carefully so that nothing is overlooked.
2.3 Design foundation for predicted rates of settlement
Foundation design for buildings on closed landfills requires special consideration.
Suitable foundation design requires an evaluation of the total and differential settlement,
the effect of the foundation on air and water quality due to possible puncturing through
the liner system, and impact of the landfill environment on foundations.
Settlements of solid MSW are not as well understood as those for soils. Sowers
(1968, 1973), Sheurs and Khera (1980), and Edil et al. (1990) have proposed models for
prediction of landfill settlement. Data compiled by Fassett et al. (1994) showed that
published data and formulas can be used to develop conservative initial settlements, but
site-specific measurements are required. In most cases settlement can exceed 4 inches.
To reduce settlements after construction, site improvement techniques can be employed.
Some methods suggested by Dunn (1993) are:
• Delaying construction so that decomposition can take place
• Compaction of the surficial deposits of the MSW
• Surcharging
• Dynamic compaction
• Grouting or fly ash injection
2.3.1 Shallow Foundations
Most structures constructed on closed MSW landfill require deep foundations
unless it is a very lightly loaded building when shallow foundations can be used.
Shallow foundations used include conventional spread footings, reinforced concrete
mats, and grid foundations (Dunn 1993). Additional reinforcement is used in these
shallow foundations to be able to tolerate the stresses developed due to differential
settlement. In most cases, an engineered fill is provided which provides the bearing
capacity. In cases where this cannot be provided, bearing capacity calculations are
difficult because the strength properties of MSW are difficult to determine. It is
advisable to use a range of published values of strength of MSW from Jessberger and
Kockel (1991), Mitchell and Mitchell (1992) or Fassett et al. (1994). High factors of
safety are also required to account for the uncertainties in the strength properties of
MSW.
2.3.2 Deep Foundations
Pile foundations are the deep foundation system of choice for larger buildings
constructed on closed MSW. Design of pile foundations require an analysis of the
vertical and lateral pile capacity, downdrag loads, the impact of the construction on the
landfill environment including the likelihood of punching through the landfill liner, and
corrosion resistance of the pile (Dunn 1993). Downdrag loads on piles can be significant.
Downdrag develops when the surrounding material settles more than the downward
movement of the pile shaft. To calculate the negative skin friction values developed on
the piles, shear strength properties cited by Fassett et al. (1994) can be used. If it is found
to be significant, field pull out tests can be done to determine the downdrag effect. To
reduce downdrag on piles in MSW, techniques that will reduce the downdrag on piles
can be used including coating the piles with bitumen, installing an outer casing, or pre-
drilling the pile.
Corrosion of piles is a serious issue as decaying MSW generates acids, chlorides,
and sulfates. To reduce the effect of corrosion on piles, Rinne (1994) suggested some of
the following approaches:
• Use of Type II or V cement.
• Increasing the thickness of concrete cover over the reinforcement.
• Designing a strong concrete mix.
• Using epoxy coated steel reinforcement.
• Using cased piles, with the casing backfilled with concrete or bentonite.
• Cathodic protection of steel piles.
Design of foundations also requires careful consideration of the site plan and
constant vigilance being exercised to determine if there is any leachate or landfill gas
migration due to construction. Pile foundations cannot be driven through geomembranes
or thin clay liners without breaching the landfill. Pile foundations can be installed more
easily in natural sealing layers. It will be required by the construction company to
demonstrate to the regulatory agency that there will be no migration of leachate into the
groundwater or gases into the atmosphere as a result of the construction.
Planning for differential settlement has also to be done. There are three main
areas that need to be designed for differential settlement. They are finish slopes, site
utilities, and pedestrian/utility connections to the structure.
The finish slope and grading design is a soft edge boundary. Design for this is
usually for the ultimate finish slope desired after differential settlement. This is a long
and iterative process, which includes testing the design by applying the expected
settlement from the contour map. Settlement from the additional fill also needs to be
considered. Paving materials on the site should be flexible and the use of Portland
concrete cement should be limited. Many times an additional fill is needed, but it is
smart to minimize it since more fill adds to the settlement of the site.
When designing for site utilities, settlement and fill settlement need to be
considered. Utilities should try to be condensed into one area. With gravity utilities, it
has to be noted that no reversal in flow direction takes place due to settlement.
Sometimes utilities can be placed above grade without affecting the aesthetics of the
building. With all of the utilities more problems arise, so factors of safety are
incorporated to ensure the quality of the structure.
The pedestrian and utility connections to the building are especially important for
buildings on pile foundations. Where walkways and utilities enter and exit the building,
there is a great amount of vertical shear where the building meets the ground. The
amount of dislocation at these points is greater for pile-supported buildings. Some of the
methods used to fix this problem are placing hinged slabs at the building entrances and
making sure grade beams/footings are formed to provide a smooth slip surface for site
settlements. Again, designing for these considerations incorporates factors of safety into
the project.
2.4 Inspection and maintenance requirements
While planning the final design, the future has to be considered. After the
structure is finished, it needs to be monitored to ensure safety. During construction,
settlement monitors should have been placed so that the actual settlement can be tracked
and compared to the anticipated settlement. The condition of the pavement needs to be
checked on. Slopes and small cracks or voids have to be filled/sealed in order to keep
water infiltration minimal. If hinged slabs are used, the leading and tailing ends where
the angular rotation occurs, have to be inspected. Utility connections have also to be
checked where they connect to the building or run off site.
3. Environmental health considerations
Environmental health is also a concern that needs to be factored into the final
design. The major hazards of landfill gas are flammability, asphyxiation and toxicity,
and the odor (Card, 1991). The flammability of landfill gas is due to the presence of
methane, which is explosive when mixed with air at certain ratios. Asphyxiation
(suffocation) and toxicity can occur due to the minimal amount of oxygen in the gas. The
landfill gas also has adverse effects on the vegetation of the surrounding area. The gas
also gives off a strong, unpleasant odor. All of these risks have a direct effect on the end
use of design and the surrounding community of the site. The risks are life threatening
and need to be given great concern when designing the site.
The level of risk from the landfill gas depends on the composition, the rate of
generation and emission, the rate of dispersion and diffusion, and the potential migration
route. There are many solutions to these problems. To decide on a solution, one has to
do extensive research and observation of the site and then put one of the most effective
solutions to use. A few of the design solutions are encapsulation, passive venting, gas-
detection and alarm systems, and gas management systems.
3.1 Encapsulation
Encapsulation refers to placing a low permeability cap, like clay over the site to
control gas emissions. The requirements for a material that will serve as an effective cap
is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Design criteria for capping layer (Card 1991)
Property Design Criteria
Plasticity Index 15-20%
Moisture Content < 1.2 × optimum moisture content
Compaction <5% air voids
3.2 Passive venting
The main purpose of passive venting is to remove or reduce gases that are
produced prior to construction and to control migration of gases. Typical venting
systems can comprise of trenches or gas wells. Beneath buildings, a void space, which is
ventilated by air vents through the cavity wall, may be provided between ground slabs
and the building structure.
3.3 Gas detection and alarm systems
In residential and retail buildings on a closed landfill, gas detection and alarm
systems will be installed to monitor and protect against any build-up of dangerous levels
of gases. The alarm system is usually a two-stage alarm, with a low-level alarm
indicating that gas levels have increased and ventilation and investigation is required, and
a high-level alarm to indicate elevated gas levels in excess of permitted values requiring
evacuation of people.
3.4 Gas management systems
Gas management systems include regular monitoring of landfill gas
concentrations at specific monitoring points, which could be at under-floor voids in
buildings as well as regular servicing and maintenance of existing landfill gas collection
systems.
4. Conclusions
The steps of the design process on a closed landfill site contain more requirements than
on a regular site. The developing on a closed landfill can run smoothly as long as the site
is analyzed properly and the characteristics of the ground are considered along with the
environmental health risks and post construction monitoring is planned for. Some
examples that this can be done are the Key Largo Landfill, which was talked about
before, the SanLando Landfill, which was turned into a softball complex, and the Dyer
Boulevard Landfill closure. All of these sites were successful projects that followed the
proper steps for construction on a closed landfill.
5. References
• Card, G.B. (1991), “Development on and adjacent to landfill,” Journal of the
Institution of Water and Environment Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, Jun 1992, pp.
362-371.
• Dunn, R.J. (1993), “Successful development of closed landfill sites,” Proceedings
of the Green ’93 waste disposal by landfill, pp. 527-534.
• Edil, T.B., Ranquette, V.J., and Wuellner, W.W. (1990), “Settlement of municipal
refuse,” Geotechnics of waste fills, ASTM STP 1070, pp. 225-239.
• Fassett, J.B., Leonards, G.A., and Repetto, P.C. (1994), “Geotechnical properties
of municipal solid waste and their use in landfill design,” Proceedings of Waste
Tech ’94, Charleston, SC.
• Jessberger, H.L., and Kockel, R. (1991), “Mechanical properties of waste
materials, XV Ciclo di conferenze de Geotechnica di Torino, Torino, Italy.
• Keech, Max (1996), “Construction of retail buildings on closed landfill sites,”
Public Works, Vol.127, No. 3, Mar 1996.
• Mitchell, R.A., and Mitchell, J.K. (1992), “Stability evaluation of waste
landfills,” Proceedings of stability and performance of slopes and embankments,
II, Geotechnical special publication No. 31, ASCE, New York, NY.
• Rinne, E.E., Dunn, R.J., and Majchrzak, M. (1994), “Design and construction
considerations for piles in landfills,” Proceedings of the DFI 94 Fifth international
conference and exhibition on piling and deep foundations, pp 2.2.1-2.2.5.
• Sheurs, R.E., and Khera, R.P. (1980), “Stabilization of a sanitary landfill to
support a highway,” Transportation research record 754, pp. 46-53.
• Sowers, G.F. (1968), “Foundation problems in sanitary landfills,” Journal of
Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SA 1.
• Sowers, G.F. (1973), “Settlement of waste disposal fills,” Proceedings of the
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Moscow,
Vol. 2, pp. 207-210.
