COMPLIANCE INFO_JTD 12/4/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BRAY, RATHJE, AUGELLO AND MERRY D Seismic Design for Lined Solid-Waste Landfills 205GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1998, VOL. 5, NOS. 1-2 2 DEVELOPMENTS IN SEISMIC DESIGN PRACTICES 2.1 General The rapid evolution of seismic design practices for MSWLFs can be appreciated by reviewing previous state-of-the-art papers such as Seed and Bonaparte (1992), Bray et al. (1993), and Anderson and Kavazanjian (1995). All of the advancements resulting from previous investigations cannot be addressed in the current paper, but some of the key developments in seismic design practice, with an emphasis on those developed by the authors of the current paper, are discussed. This focused review also provides sum- mary data required forthe simplified design procedure presented in Section 3. Specifi- cally, developments in these areas aresummarized asfollows: seismic landfill case his- tories, earthquake ground motions, dynamic waste fill properties, dynamic responses of geomembranes and their interfaces, nonlinear dynamic response analysis, and seis- mic stability evaluation. 2.2 Seismic Landfill Case Histories Recent earthquake events have provided excellent opportunities to document the seismic performance of waste fills. The Northridge earthquake (moment magnitude, Mw =6.7)isaparticularly important event, as22landfills were subjected to groundmo- tions in excess of0.05g, and eight ofthese landfills were lined with geosynthetics (Au- gello et al. 1995). Surficial cracking in the cover soil, primarily near the transitions be- tween the waste fill and natural ground areas and at changes in landfill geometry, was the most commonly observed damage pattern at landfills. This pattern of damage is consistent with damage observed after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in California (Buranek andPrasad1991).Thecracking canbeattributed tothecontrastinthedynam- ic response characteristics between the relatively soft waste material and the stiffadja- cent native ground. Cracking of the relatively brittle cover soil overlying more ductile waste fill wasalso observed at many landfills. Cracks were typically 10 to 75 mm wide with 10 to 75 mm of vertical offset. However, larger cracks (up to 300 mm) were ob- served at some landfills (e.g. Sunshine Canyon landfill in California). Cracking of the soil cover due to limited downslope movement (typically less than 200 mm) was observed at the Chiquita Canyon landfill in California, where localized tears in the high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner oftwo cells ofthe landfill were ob- served. Two other geosynthetic-lined landfills (Bradley Avenue and Lopez Canyon landfills in California) at similar distances from the zone of energy release suffered no apparentdamagetotheirlinersystems.However,thesetwolandfillsdidsuffermoderate damage evidenced by cracking in the cover soil at waste fill/native ground transitions. A temporary shut down of the landfill gas extraction systems occurred at a number oflandfills due to the lossofpower asa result ofthe earthquake, and breaksin theland- fill gas system headers and lines were reported at several landfills. The temporary loss of a waste landfill’s gas extraction system is an important consideration because ofthe potential for a fire or an explosion. A few solid-waste landfills located in the Kobe/Osaka area of Japan were surveyed following the 1995 Kobe earthquake (Akai et al. 1995). There were a number of waste fills setup to burn and dispose of construction debris being cleared from Kobe which