Full Design Report - Southern Makkah Sanitary Landfill

COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION PROJECT
DESIGN REPORT ON
THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND TENDERING
FOR THE NEW PHASE OF LANDFILL AT
SOUTHERN MAKKAH DISPOSAL SITE:
PHASE 1
Department of Environmental Sciences,

King Abdulaziz University (‫)ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻠﻙ ﻋﺑﺩﺍﻟﻌﺯﻳﺯ‬,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and
Research Cluster on Waste Management,
c/o School of Civil Engineering,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang
Tel: +604 599 6200 Fax: +604 594 1009
MAY 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an account of initial site investigations, proposed plans and detailed
designs for Southern Makkah landfill. The project is collaborative involving teams and
experts from King Abdul Aziz University (KAU), Jeddah led by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Asad Siraj
Omar Abu-Rizaiza, and Research Cluster on Waste Management, Universiti Sains
Malaysia (USM), led by Prof. Dr. Hamidi Abdul Aziz. A total of 3 technical visits have
taken place during the study period, which were 19 - 26 June 2008, 22 January - 05
February 2010, and 21 February - 06 March 2011.
The landfill is located near Wadi Uramah and Wadi Malkan. To date, the facility has
operated for about 9 years. Since 1424 Hijrah (2003), it has been receiving an estimated
2000-2500 tonne/day of solid waste from Makkah and the vicinity. Surveying works have
been carried out by a Saudi Arabian surveyor to establish the exact area topography of
the site. Hydrogeological data was established from the existing literature which was
used in the design of the drainage system. Geophysical studies were carried out with 2
lines covering the project site. The results of resistivity analyses indicate that the
subsurface is made up of low resistivity zones of below 10 ohm-m which appear to be
zones fully saturated with leachate for that area. Bedrock can be divided into fractured
zones with resistivity of more than 200 ohm-m and solid granites of more than 800 ohm-
m. This feature was further confirmed by the findings from erecting two boreholes which
also provided soil profiling information and leachate or water level. Borehole 1 was drilled
up to 19.2 meter below ground surface and the water level was at 18.6 m. Water sample
collected from this borehole indicate a contamination by leachate. Borehole 2 was drilled
inside a depression of about 7 meter lower than surrounding area and the water level
was 9.3 m deep below the bed of the depression. Water sample collected from this
borehole indicate that it might still be free of leachate. However, for an area as large as
the site, the limited works have caused some important data to remain unavailable. More
boreholes are in fact required in order to make a complete assessment of the soil strata
within the proposed landfill. After discussing it with KAU counterpart, the design of the
landfill has to be finalized based on the available information. Nevertheless, as much as
possible, current technologies were considered in the design to minimize impacts on
public health and the environment.
From the field survey data, the estimated total surface area is 0.6 km2 covering the
section to be developed and the phase currently operates. The deepest possible
i|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

excavation for borehole 1 will only be to a depth of about 18 meters and for borehole 2
will only be 15 meters from the surrounding high ground level or 8 meters from the floor
of the depression. The constraint for the depth of excavation is mainly due to the
presence of ground water. The following works are therefore proposed:
1) Two cells namely Advanced Cell 1 and Advanced Cell 2. Advanced cell 1 has a
capacity of 1.2 million cu. M while Advanced Cell 2 has a capacity of 92000 cu.
m. The Main Cell with a floor area of 29 ha is located above the two cells. Based
on a disposal rate of 2500 tonne/cu. m and proposed compacted density of 0.8
tonne/cu. m, the disposal rate in volume would be 3125 cu. m/day. In total, this
landfill will be able to cater for slightly more than 10 years of disposal.
2) Surface runoff will be diverted out of the landfill site to prevent infiltration and
formation of leachate. Consequently, the perimeter drainage system is provided
based on the contour levels and the direction of flow to the lowest point,
incorporating a prominent separator trench.
3) In order to prevent leachate contamination, the cells will be protected with 2.5
mm thick HDPE liner, provided with main and branch leachate collection pipes of
600 mm and 250mm diameters respectively.
4) At the downstream of the main leachate collection pipe, a leachate collection well
is provided. The leachate will be pumped into a retention pond. As agreed with
KAU counterpart, leachate will be collected from the retention pond and taken
away for off-site treatment at suitable industrial waste water treatment plant which
will be determined later.
5) A trench separator is proposed in order to separate the existing active cells and
the new proposed cells. The trench also is design to cater outflow leachate from
the existing active cells. A 500 meter of 4 meter wide with 4 meter depth trench is
proposed. The trench should be designed sloping (inverting) towards the new
proposed cells with a final end sump at the end.
6) Gas vents of 150 mm internal diameter will be constructed accordingly and
connected to a collection system. The gas will be conveyed to the flaring facilities
via vacuum system. This facility will be provided towards the final closure stage.
7) In the final capping, slope design considerations will be taken into account while
planning for protection against infiltration and controlling gas emission.
Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) will be provided as final cover. The choice of GCL
as the impermeable final barrier is considered as the most cost effective in
comparison with the alternatives.
ii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENT iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF PROJECT 1-2
1.2 OBJECTIVES 1-3
1.3 PROJECT TEAM 1-3
SECTION 2: INITIAL INVESTIGATION WORKS
2.0 INITIAL INVESTIGATION WORKS 2-1
2.1 SURVEY WORKS 2-1
2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING 2-2
2.2.1 Soil and rock properties 2-3
2.2.2 Rock Mass properties 2-4
2.2.3 Rock excavate-ability 2-4
2.2.4 Conclusion 2-5
2.3 2-D RESISTIVITY SURVEYS 2-6
2.3.1 Field procedures 2-6
2.3.2 Results and discussion 2-8
2.4 SUB-SURFACE DESCRIPTION IN SOUTHERN MAKKAH
2-9
LANDFILL
2.4.1 Site Investigation Results 2-9
2.4.2 Excavation Limits 2-10
CHAPTER 3: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PHASES
3.1 PRINCIPLES OF SANITARY LANDFILL 3-2
3.2 PROPOSED LOCATION 3-2
3.3 DESIGN APPROACH AND COMPONENTS 3-3
3.3.1 DESIGN COMPONENTS 3-3
CHAPTER 4: ASPECTS OF LANDFILL OPERATION
4.1 LIFTS IN EACH CELL 4-2
4.2 EXCAVATIONS AND LIFTS IN ADVANCED CELL 1 4-2
4.3 EXCAVATIONS AND LIFTS IN ADVANCED CELL 2 4-2
4.4 EXCAVATIONS AND LIFTS IN THE CELLS FOLLOWING
4-2
THE ADVANCED CELLS
iii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

4.5 MATERIAL FOR DAILY COVER 4-3
4.6 MATERIAL FOR FINAL COVER 4-3
SECTION 5: LANDFILL DESIGN
5.1 LIFESPAN, CELL EXCAVATION AND LINING DESIGN 5-2
5.1.1 Lifespan 5-2
5.1.1 Order of excavation and filling 5-2
5.1.2 Lining design 5-6
5.2 PERIMETER DRAIN 5-7
5.2.1 Estimate of Flow 5-7
5.2.2 Hydrologic Losses and Rainfall Excess 5-8
a) SCS rainfall-runoff 5-8
b) Rational method 5-13
c) Simplified Method used in Australia 5-15
5.2.3 Design approach for southern landfill 5-16
5.3 SEPARATOR TRENCH 5-21
5.4 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM 5-21
5.4.1 Components of Leachate Containment, Retention, and 5-21
Disposal Facility
5.4.2 Leachate Collection Pipes 5-22
i) Main Leachate Collection Pipe 5-24
ii) Branch Leachate Collection Pipe 5-25
5.4.3 Leachate retention pond 5-27

5.5 Gas Vent System 5-29
5.5.1 Gas Vent System (over main leachate pipe) 5-29
5.5.2 Gas Vent System (over branch leachate pipe) 5-29
5.6 LANDFILL FACILITIES 5-30
5.6.1 Weigh bridge 5-30
5.6.2 Washing bay 5-31
5.6.3 Administration building 5-32
5.6.4 Workshop 5-32
5.6.5 Guard house, gate and signage 5-32
5.6.6 Perimeter fencing 5-32
5.6.7 Access road and internal road 5-32
5.6.8 Service Life 5-34
5.7 DESIGN OF COVER LAYER FOR SOUTHERN MAKKAH 5-35
5.7.1 Introduction 5-35
iv|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

5.7.2 Proposal for final landfill cap for Southern Makkah 5-37
5.7.3 Geo-synthetic clay liner (GCL) for cap 5-37
5.7.4 Erosion Protection 5-38
5.7.5 Concluding remarks and final design proposal 5-38
5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 5-40
REFERENCES 5-43
APPENDIX A1 A-1
v|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

List of Figures
Page No.
Figure 2.1: Map showing location of survey lines 2-6
Figure 2.2: The arrangement of electrodes for a 2-D electrical survey and the 2-7
sequence of measurement used to build up a pseudo section
Figure 2.3: Resistivity sections of Line L1 and L2 showing leachate and depth of 2-8
bedrock
Figure 2.4: Map showing locations and results of resistivity survey lines and 2-9
estimated flow of leachate
Figure 2.5: Locations of BH1 and BH2 in Southern Makkah landfill 2-11
Figure 2.6: Interpreted profile at BH1, Southern Makkah landfill 2-12
Figure 2.7: Interpreted profile at BH2, Southern Makkah, inside existing depression 2-13
Figure 2.8: BH1 and BH2 put together in subsurface profile of Southern Makkah 2-14
landfill l
Figure 3.1: Conceptual view of leachate collection and drainage system 3-2
Figure: 5.1: Conceptual order of excavation and filling for Southern Makkah in side 5-4
view
Figure 5.2: Conceptual order of filling for Southern Makkah landfill in plan view 5-5
Figure 5.3: Liner design proposed for Southern Makkah landfill 5-6
Figure 5.4: Variables in the SCS method of rainfall abstractions: I a = initial 5-10
abstractions, P e = rainfall excess, F a = continuing abstraction, and P =
total rainfall.
Figure 5.5: Solution of the SCS runoff equations (Mays, 2001) 5-11
Figure 5.6: Conceptual diagram covering the main collection pipe 5-22
Figure 5.7: A photo showing well prepared bed, ready for waste disposal 5-23
Figure 5.8: Cross section of a leachate containment sump with surrounding items 5-24
Figure 5.9: Main collection perforated pipe 5-25
Figure 5.10: Schematic connection of main leachate pipe, branch leachate pipe 5-26
and gas vent at gas vent sump
Figure 5.11: Plan views of (a) retention pond and (b) air diffuser system 5-28
Figure 5.12: Example of weigh bridge in operation 5-31
Figure 5.12: An example of washing bay on site 5-31
Figure 5.13: Proposed cross section of access road 5-35
Figure 5.14: Proposed cross section of temporary access road 5-35
Figure 5.15: A recommended design for final cover (after Oweis and Khera, 1998) 5-35
vi|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

Figure 5.16: Final cap proposal for Southern Makkah landfill 5-39
vii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

List of Tables
Page No.
Table 1.1: List of USM researchers and their specialisations 1-4
Table 2.1 - Makkah soil classes according to USCS (Abdulaziz Al Solami et 2-3
al,2006).
Table 2.2: Rock types and RMR classification 2-5
Table 2.3: Excavate-ability classes of various rock types 2-5
Table 2.4: Resistivity of some common rocks, soil minerals, and chemicals in the 2-7
area
Table 5.1: The expected lifespan of the proposed landfill 5-2
Table 5.2: Runoff Curve Numbers (Average Washed Condition, I a =0.2S) 5-12
Table 5.2: Runoff Curve Numbers (continued) 5-12
Table 5.3: Runoff Coefficients C Recurrence Interval ≤10 years 5-15
Table 5.4: Runoff percentage 5-16
Table 5.5: Comparisons between two methods for the perimeter drain size 5-21
determination
Table 5.5: Checklist of road design aspect 5-33
Table 5.6: Groundwater leachate and landfill monitoring program 5-42
viii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
1-1|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

1.1 BACKGROUND OF PROJECT
The population of the city of Makkah has increased rapidly in the last three decades
which has caused the large amount of municipal solid waste generated in the city. In
addition, the number of pilgrims and visitors has also been on the rise, which further
increased waste generation.
The estimated amount of waste received at the landfills of Makkah hovers around 1800-
2000 ton/day in normal days, to 3000 ton/day during Ramadan, and 4500 ton/day during
Hajj. For the year 1426H, the per capita waste generation rate for pilgrims and local
residents were 1.55 kg/day and 1.69 kg/day, respectively. The waste mainly consisted of
organics, plastics, paper, and boxes.
The old landfill of Makkah was at Muassim, Mina (near Wadi Add) which operated
between 1406H and 1423H. The current landfill is in Southern Makkah (Kakia), near
Wadi Uramah and Wadi Malkan, which began operation in 2003. However, this new
landfill in Southern Makkah has not been properly designed and therefore allows much
opportunity for improvement. Hence, a proper and new sanitary landfill facility to
accommodate waste generation of Makkah and surrounding areas is urgently required.
The principle reasons for the Proposed Project are to address the following issues:
• To provide a facility with an average capacity of 2,000 - 2,500 ton/day to cater for
solid waste from whole of Makkah.
• Currently, the Southern Makkah landfill is operated as a non-systematic sanitary
landfill without any proper treatment of leachate, gases, and storm water.
• The existing method of solid waste dumping is not environmentally conforming
and needs to be replaced by a system whereby environment control measures
can be put in place.
• The proposed landfill will need to replace the operation of the existing non-
sanitary landfill of Southern Makkah.
• The proposed landfill will need to be more sustainable and will prevent potential
pollutions to the surrounding environment.
• The proposed landfill will need to meet current and future demand for waste
disposal that is estimated to grow at a rate of at least 2% per year.

1.2 OBJECTIVES
The key items of concern that are required in order to complete the designs of Southern
Makkah landfill are as follows:
1. Site study and data analysis of the existing facility. Site visits to collect and
establish meteorological, hydrological, geological and other relevant data are required.
2. Identification of locations for boreholes and the provision of drilling supervision.

The boreholes will also function as monitoring wells.
3. Collection of soil samples for laboratory analyses to determine soil properties

such as classification and k values of the soils.
4. Design of the landfill including cut, fill, and trenching, and planning for
construction of liners, leachate pipes, gas venting systems with collection system,
surface drainage control, perimeter bund, access road, on-site facilities, and leachate
collection and treatment system.
5. Preparation and submission of conceptual and detailed drawings.
6. Proposal of items for tendering with Bill of Quantity and specifications.
7. Assistance in the process of preparing the evaluation documents.
8. Preparation of reports.
1.3 PROJECT TEAM

This project is a collaborative work, involving experts and teams from King Abdulaziz
University (KAU), Jeddah and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). The main researcher
from KAU is Associate Professor Dr. Asad Siraj Omar Abu-Rizaiza while the main
personnel from the Malaysian side is Professor Dr. Hamidi Abdul Aziz, who is also
heading the Research Cluster on Waste Management at USM. The detail list of
researchers from USM is shown in Table 1.1:

Table 1.1: List of USM researchers and their specialisations
No. Researcher Specialisation

Environmental engineer and Project
1 Hamidi Abdul Aziz, Prof.
leader
2 Mohd. Nordin Adlan, Assoc. Prof. Civil engineer
3 Ismail Abustan, Assoc. Prof. Civil engineer and hydrologist
4 Mohd. Suffian Yusoff, Dr. Environmental scientist
5 Mohamad Razip Selamat, Assoc. Prof. Geotechnical engineer
6 Mohd. Nawawi Mohd Nordin, Assoc. Prof. Geophysicist
7 Kamar Shah Ariffin, Assoc. Prof. Geologist, Geophysicist
8 Mohamad Anuar Kamaruddin Civil engineer
9 Zulkifli Hashim Assistant engineer

SECTION 2: INITIAL INVESTIGATION WORKS

2.1 SURVEY WORKS
Surveying works for Southern Makkah Landfill area were carried out by a surveyor
appointed by the Saudi Arabian counterpart. The objectives of surveying works were to
develop topographical maps and to capture the existing features of the landfill. The
topographical maps of the landfill were sent to USM via email. After validation was made
using maps from “Google Earth” and topography prints of Saudi Arabia, it was found that
the level used by the surveyor did not follow the ordinance datum. This discrepancy has
been corrected when USM team visited the site on 2nd March 2011. The team has met
the surveyor and has determined on site, the control points that were used in the survey.
Garmin was used to validate the elevations of control points. The elevations in related
contour maps have been rectified as well.
2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

Makkah, including the area of concern is located within the southern part of Hijaz region
on the west-central part of the Arabian Shield, which is dominated by different types of
igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks of Precambrian and lower Palaeozoic era
(Greenwood et al. 1976, Abdulaziz Al Solami et al, 2006)). Generally, the area is covered
by Precambrian intrusive rocks. Intermediate rocks, ranging in composition from diorite
to Tonalite, predominate the Makkah batholiths and are assigned to the Kamil suite. The
dominant structural trends in the northeast to north-northeast direction and reflects three
major phases of Precambrian deformations and Tertiary faulting.
Geologic factors which are not always obvious without extensive study may hamper later
landfill performance. Therefore, the geological investigation for this project was mainly
carried out for identification, description, and classification with emphasis to provide
information on engineering geology and characteristics of the site. The resulting
information will be useful for the technical design and construction particularly for the
construction of slope and excavation of Advanced Cell 1 and Advanced Cell 2.
The new proposed site is an east-west oriented zone confined in a valley, the Wadi-
Uranah. The surrounding rocky terrain is predominated by complex intrusions of igneous
rock. They are mainly consisted of coarse grained, greenish-white, hornblende,
granodiorite, biotite monzogranite, and sills of various size and orientation, in various
places. The intrusions are normally by fine-grained dolerite and other ulramafic rocks
(gabbro), as well as by less than 10cm thick milky white quartz vein. Occasional and
isolated, grey, granitic schist is found exposed at the lowest part of the valley (BH-1).

The site is considered as an upper part of the Wadi-Uranah-Aidiyah (SGS geological
map) system. The floor of this valley, at BH-1 and BH-2, indicates a thick sequence of
wadi alluvium, comprises of unconsolidated sand and gravel of about 20m thick,
underlying the centre part of the wadi. This alluvium generally consists of loose, sub-
angular to subrounded, brownish grey, sand and rock fragments, originated from
surrounding hill, eroded and later transported by water during raining period. Very recent
form of erosions by water can also be seen through collapsed banks surrounding the
depression of partially excavated Advanced Cell 1.
2.2.1 Soil and rock properties

Table 2.1 gives the classification of typical soils around Makkah from geotechnical
investigations as compiled by Abdulaziz Al Solami et al (2006). The associated sources
have come from SGS of various locations and also supplied by construction companies
in Makkah (Abdulaziz Al Solami et al, 2006). About 50 percent of the samples fall under
Well graded (SW) category and the rest under poorly sorted (SP) category in accordance
with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
As observed in the field and from boreholes (BH-1 and BH-2), the unconsolidated wadi
alluvial of the site can be categorised as SW type – well graded sands, gravely sand,
little or no fine, and can be graded as loose to medium dense (SPTN-value of 4-10).
Table 2.1: Makkah soil classes according to USCS (Abdulaziz Al Solami et al, 2006).
Number of Soil Class
Samples Description Symbol
1 Sandy silt MS
10 Poorly graded sand SP
9 Silty sand SM
7 Poorly graded sand with silt SP-SM
4 Well graded sand with silt SW-SM
4 Silty sand with gravel SM
1 Poorly graded sand with sand GP
1 Poorly graded sand with gravel SP
1 Well graded sand SW

2.2.2 Rock Mass properties
The rock mass quality of the site is variable with the types of rock, rate/degree of
weathering and alteration experienced by the outcrops, including distribution pattern of
joint sets, fractures, faults, bedding planes, and surface roughness.
There are many classifications that assign numerical values to properties of rocks.
Among them is the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system proposed by Bieniaswski (1989)
which has been extensively applied in evaluating rock mass quality for different
engineering purposes.
The RMR system was the most suitable rock mass classification systems for engineering
purpose in the arid environments such as of Saudi Arabia (Al-Harthi, 1993). RMR is a
composite property of rock taking into account several other properties such as:
(a) Strength of intact rock mineral represented by Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)
and Point Load strength index,
(b) Rock Quality Designation (RQD),
(c) Spacing of discontinuities,
(d) Condition of discontinuities or degree of weathering and
(e) Groundwater (Bieniaswaki 1989) – dry
The rock mass (RMR) is then defined as very good rock (100-81), good rock (80-61), fair
rock (60-41), poor rock (40-21) and very poor rock (<20) respectively as shown in Table
2.2. The rocks listed in the table can be found in the project area thus the values indicate
certain properties of the materials.
2.2.3 Rock excavate-ability

The excavate-ability of rock depends on the geotechnical properties of the material,
method of working, and type and size of excavation equipment used. It is generally
accepted that discontinuity spacing and the strength of intact rock as particularly
important rock properties. The aperture, infilling and the wall strength of the
discontinuities are also important factors. The main excavation methods are blasting,
ripping and digging. Table 2.3 summarizes the classes of excavate-ability of various rock
types. Thus excavate-ability of rock in Makkah area is a function of RQD, UCS and
discontinuity spacing. Table 2.3 combines these three parameters and divides rock types

into five classes I, II, III, IV and V, and four excavation methods (i) Blast to fracture (ii)
Blast to loosen (iii) Rip and (iv) Dig
Table 2.2: Rock types and RMR classification

Rock Type Number of Stations
RMR Very Good Good Fair Poor Very poor
Diorite 1 13 4
Quartz-Diorite 5 47 15 1
Tonalite 1
Granodiorite 1
Amphibolite 1 11 4
Gabbro 4
Meta Basalt 1 2
Chlorite 2 1
Phyllite 1
Table 2.3: Excavate-ability classes of various rock types

Rock Type Class
Diorite III-II
Quartz-Diorite III-II-I
Tonalite II-I
Granodiorite II-I
Amphibolite IV-III-II
Gabbro III-II
Meta Basalt II-II
Chlorite II-I
Phyllite V
2.2.4 Conclusion
The rock mass categories in the proposed landfill generally fall into Class II to Class V on
the excavate-ability rating. This classification is mainly based on the density of joints set
(blocky). The rocks of the area are easy to excavated or ripped as indicated in Table 2.2.
The valley/wadi floor are overlain by thick sequence of silty sand to gravely sand which
can easily be removed by scraping machine (bulldozer). The underlying bedrock at the

centre of wadi seemed undulating in places. They seemed to be underlain by
granodiorite/quart diorite and of schist such as at BH-2.
2.3 2-D RESISTIVITY SURVEYS

The purpose of the surveys was to map the resistivity of the subsurface of the landfill
area mainly for leachate detection and estimates of depths to the bedrock. The
resistivity measurements were made along two 2-D electrical imaging survey lines
(Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Map showing location of survey lines
2.3.1 Field procedures

Electrical Imaging System is now mainly carried out with a multi-electrode resistivity
meter system (Figure 2.2). Such surveys use a number (usually 25 to 100) of electrodes
laid out in a straight line with a constant spacing. A computer-controlled system is then
used to automatically select the active electrodes for each measure. Throughout the
survey conducted in the proposed site, the Pole-dipole array was used with the ABEM

SAS4000 system. The data collected in the survey is then processed using RES2DINV
software. The survey carried out in Southern Makkah has generally followed the given
procedures.
Station 3
Laptop
C1 P1 P2 C2 computer
3a 3a 3a Resistivity meter
Station 2
C1 P1 P2 C2
2a 2a 2a
Station 1
Data C1 P1 P2 C2 Electrodes
level
a a a
n=1 .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
n=2 2 • . . . . . . . . . . . . .
n=3 3 • . . . . . . . . . .
n=4 • . . . . . . .
4
n=5 • . . . .
5
n=6 • .
6
Figure 2.2: The arrangement of electrodes for a 2-D electrical survey and the sequence
of measurement used to build up a pseudo section
The resistivity method basically measures the resistivity distribution of the subsurface
materials. Table 2.4 shows the resistivity and conductivity values of some of the typical
rocks and soil materials that are normally associated with landfills.
Table 2.4: Resistivity of some common rocks, soil minerals, and chemicals in the area
Material Resistivity
(ohm-m)
Leachate (plume) 0 to 5
Saturated fractured zone with leachate < 10
Groundwater (fresh) 10 to 100
Unsaturated fractured zone 200
Bedrock Granite > 4000

2.3.2 Results and discussion
A total of 2 survey lines were conducted at the site. Line L1 traversed along N-S direction
while Line L2 traversed along E-W direction. The locations of the survey lines are shown
in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. A spacing of 5 meters using the pole-dipole array of ABEM LUND
SYSTEM was used on the survey. The maximum depth of investigations for the surveys
varies from 70 to 80 meters. The total length of the survey lines was 200 m. Generally,
the subsurface is made up of low resistivity zones of below 10 ohm-m which appear to
be zones fully saturated with leachate. Bedrock can be divided into unsaturated fractured
zones with resistivity of more than 200 ohm-m and granites of more than 800 ohm-m.
Figure 2.3: Resistivity sections of Line L1 and L2 showing leachate and depth of
bedrock

Figure 2.4: Map showing locations and results of resistivity survey lines and estimated
flow of leachate
2.4 SUB-SURFACE DESCRIPTION IN SOUTHERN MAKKAH LANDFILL
2.4.1 Site Investigation Results

The aim of doing site investigation in Southern Makkah Landfill was to aid in the design
of cells particularly in determining maximum depths of cell excavation. BH1, drilled and
completed on March 2nd, 2011, is located within the area of future Cell 2, and not very far
from the existing dump. BH2 drilled and completed on March 3rd, 2011, is located within
the area of future Cell 1, and further away from the existing dump as compared to the
location of BH1. Figure 2.5 shows the borehole locations. Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show the
interpreted profiles for BH1 and BH2 respectively. Figure 2.8 – BH1 and BH2 put
together in a subsurface profile across Southern Makkah Landfill.
BH1 was drilled on original ground while BH2 was drilled inside an excavated depression
of about 7 m lower than surrounding area. Both boreholes are 1 foot in diameter and
were cased down to about 3 m from surface. Water samples taken from boreholes

indicate that the level of contamination at BH1 is more severe than at BH2, as evidenced
by relative darkness of the samples. The water sample from BH2 was clean and
appeared to have not been affected by the leachate of the dump.
2.4.2 Excavation Limits

For BH1, the water level was recorded as 63 feet (19.2 m) below ground surface. In this
location, the plan to prepare for Cell 2 was to excavate the area 20 m deep. However,
since water level was found at 19.2 m, in order to avoid reaching ground water, the
deepest possible excavation would be only to a depth of about 18 m.
For BH2, the water level was recorded as 33 feet (10 m) below ground surface. Note that
since BH2 is located inside a depression, the ground surface is already 7 m below
surrounding area. In this location, the plan to prepare for Cell 1 was to excavate the area
a further 13 m so that the total depth would be 20 m. However, since water level was
found at 10 m, in order to avoid reaching ground water, the deepest possible excavation
would be to a depth of about 8 m, making total depth to about 15 m instead of the
planned 20 m.
Figure 2.8 also shows the limits of excavation for BH1 (Cell 1) and BH2 (Cell 2) put
together in a cross sectional profile.

BH2
BH1
Existing
Dump
nd
Note: BH1, drilled and completed on March 2 , 2011, is located within the area of future Cell 2,
rd
and not very far from the existing dump. BH2 drilled and completed on March 3 , 2011, is located
within the area of future Advanced Cell 1, and further away from the existing dump as compared
to the location of BH1. BH1 was drilled on original ground while BH2 was drilled inside an
excavated depression of about 7 m lower than surrounding area. Both boreholes are 1 foot in
diameter and were cased down to about 3 m from surface. Water samples taken from boreholes
indicate that the level of contamination at BH1 is more severe than at BH2, as evidenced by
relative darkness of the samples. The water sample from BH2 was clean and probably has not
been affected by the leachate of the existing dump.
Figure 2.5: Locations of BH1 and BH2 in Southern Makkah landfill

nd
Note: BH1, drilled and completed on March 2 , 2011, is located within the area of proposed
Advanced Cell 2. The water level was recorded as 63 feet (19.2 m) below ground surface. Water
sample collected from this borehole has indicated contamination by leachate. In this location, the
plan to prepare for Advanced Cell 2 was to excavate the area 20 m deep. However, since water
level was found at 19.2 m, in order to avoid reaching ground water, the deepest possible
excavation would be only to a depth of about 18 m.
Figure 2.6: Interpreted profile at BH1, Southern Makkah landfill

rd
Note: BH2, drilled and completed on March 3 , 2011, is located within the area of proposed
Advanced Cell 1. The water level was recorded as 33 feet (10 m) below ground surface. Water
sample collected from this borehole had indicated that it might still be free of leachate. In this
location, the plan to prepare for Advanced Cell 1 was to excavate the area a further 13 m so that
the total depth would be 20 m. However, since water level was found at 10 m, in order to avoid
reaching ground water, the deepest possible excavation would be to a depth of about 9 m,
making total depth to about 16 m instead of the planned 20 m.
Figure 2.7: Interpreted profile at BH2, Southern Makkah, inside existing depression

BH1 BH2
Limits of excavation
Figure 2.8: BH1 and BH2 put together in subsurface profile of Southern Makkah landfill

SECTION 3: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PHASES

3.1 PRINCIPLES OF SANITARY LANDFILL
A sanitary landfill is one that will deposit solid waste onto or into the land in such a
manner that pollution to the environment is prevented as far as possible. It is designed to
reduce the health and environmental risks associated with open and uncontrolled waste
dumps. It has leachate management through its internal catchment drainage and
treatment, external drainage and surface water management, landfill management,
landfill gas management, and closure and restoration provisions. The design and
specifications of the sanitary landfill are based on soil investigation, topographic surveys
and other detailed engineering studies. The conceptual view of leachate collection and
drainage system is shown in Figure 2.9.
The proposed landfill in Southern Makkah shall be designed as a sanitary landfill with all
appropriate facilities and issues described above addressed to prevent pollution.
Figure 3.1: Conceptual view of leachate collection and drainage system
3.2 PROPOSED LOCATION

Makkah Municipality has proposed to develop sanitary solid waste landfill within the
existing facility in Southern Makkah. This is to replace the non-sanitary landfill operation
currently going at the same site. The Southern Makkah facility is located about 10 km
from Makkah with coordinate of 37Q-503977N, 2351377E. The location and layout plans
are shown in Drawings PPKA/SM/PI/DT/01 and PPKA/SM/PI/DT/02, respectively.

3.3 DESIGN APPROACH AND COMPONENTS
3.3.1 Design components

The Makkah Sanitary Landfill will be an engineered landfill, which will be designed using
current technology to minimise impacts on public health and the environment. The
sanitary landfill will be developed in stages by construction of consecutive cells, in order
to optimize material balance and cost efficiency. The method will also minimize waste
exposure to the elements.
The proposed development of the landfill will have the following basic design and
operational components:
• Geomembrane bottom liner.

• Leachate collection system and detention pond.
• Leachate pumping for off-site treatment.
• Landfill gas management system.
• Daily cover material.
• Stormwater drainage and separator trench.
• Internal and external access roads.
• Machinery for waste compaction.
• Closure works incorporating capping layer and re-vegetation.
• Groundwater monitoring
• Weighbridge system and IT Support.
• Fencing and site security.
• Washing bay
• Administration building
Certain data may still be unavailable. Thus, the design of the proposed new landfill will
make full use of available ones such as detailed in Section 2:

SECTION 4: ASPECTS OF LANDFILL OPERATION

4.1 LIFTS IN EACH CELL
The thickness of a lift will generally be 5.0 m. The estimated 10-year average amount of
waste disposed of daily will be 2500 ton. As density of compacted waste is taken as 0.8
ton/m cu., the volume of waste land-filled each day will be about 3125 m cu. As the
thickness of a lift is 5.0 m, and assuming there will be only one lift per day, the area
required to cater for waste in a day will be about 25 m by 25 m. The thickness of daily
cover to top every lift will be about 150 mm.
4.2 EXCAVATIONS AND LIFTS IN ADVANCED CELL 1

The limit of excavation in Advanced Cell 1 will be 9 m beyond the lowest point of existing
floor, i.e. 1 m above the ground water table. Since the floor is located in a depression,
and is already 7 m to 9 m below local ground surface, the total depth of Advanced Cell 1
will generally be 15 m to 17 m below original ground level. Thus Advanced Cell 1 can
cater 3 lifts. As the area of Advanced Cell 1 is about 134000 m sq. the total capacity of
the cell will be about 2.1 million m cu. and can cater waste disposal for 1.9 years.
4.3 EXCAVATIONS AND LIFTS IN ADVANCED CELL 2

The limit of excavation in Advanced Cell 2 will be 18 m deep from existing floor, i.e. down
to 1 m above the ground water table. Since the floor is the original ground, the total
depth of Advanced Cell 2 will generally be 18 m. Thus Advanced Cell 2 also will cater 3
lifts. Advanced Cell 2 will have a volume of 920000 m cu., and therefore will cater for 0.8
years of disposal. The area covered by Advanced Cell 2 is about 50000 m sq.
4.4 EXCAVATIONS AND LIFTS IN THE CELLS FOLLOWING THE ADVANCED

CELLS
Advanced Cell 1 and Advanced Cell 2 will be the only cell which will go under ground
surface. The following cells will be located above ground. Once the two advanced cells
are completed and flattened, the hill sides and floors south and south east of Advanced
Cell 2 will be tidied and liner will be placed, before disposal proceed.

4.5 MATERIAL FOR DAILY COVER
The material for daily cover will be sands from excavations of Advanced Cell 1 and
Advanced Cell 2, as well as from clearings for the subsequent cells. During disposal in
Advanced Cell 1, materials for daily cover will be located in stock piles in the area
designated for Advanced Cell 2. During disposal in Advanced Cell 2, materials for daily
cover will be located in stock piles in the area on top of Advanced Cell 1. The
subsequent operation to the south of Advanced Cell 2 will require the stockpiles to be
located over Advanced Cell 1 and materials taken from clearing of the hill sides and also
from external sources.
4.6 MATERIAL FOR FINAL COVER

The material for final cover will have to be taken from external sources such as from
Wadi Fatimah, since local sand does not have enough fines.

SECTION 5: LANDFILL DESIGN

5.1 LIFE SPAN, CELL EXCAVATION AND LINING DESIGN
5.1.1 LIFE SPAN

The expected lifespan of the proposed sanitary landfill is 10 years as detailed in Table
5.1. The main cell refers to cells which will be positioned above Advanced Cell 1 and
Advanced Cell 2 upon their completion. Further details are given in the following
sections.
Table 5.1: The expected lifespan of the proposed landfill

Cell Name Estimated Volume Expected Life Span
6 3
(10 m ) (Year)
Advanced cell 1 1.974611 1.9
Advanced cell 2 0.863451 0.8
Main cell 9.277442 7.3
Total 12.115504 10.0
5.1.2 Order of excavation and filling

The disposal rate is assumed 2500 ton/m cu and the density is assumed 0.8 ton/m cu.
Therefore, the disposal rate in volume is 3125 m cu/day. If thickness per lift is maintained
at 5 m, the area covered each day will be 625 m sq or 25 m x 25 m.
Advanced Cell 1 will be excavated first, while Advanced Cell 2 still remains intact.
Excavated material from Advanced Cell 1 will be deposited over Advanced Cell 2, into
stockpiles. This stockpiled material will be used for daily cover in the disposal operation
of Advanced Cell 1. Advanced Cell 1 is capable of catering 1.9 years of operation or
about 2.1 million cubic meters of waste.
As stockpiling of cover material for Advanced Cell 1 will continuously require ground
areas over Advanced Cell 2, the excavation of Advanced Cell 2 will only commence
when cover material running out, i.e., in the last year of operation of Advanced Cell 1 or
thereabouts. Advanced Cell 1 will be excavated in accordance with the attached
engineering drawings. The plan in associated with excavation and operation of
Advanced Cell 1 and Advanced Cell 2 are shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
The described plan will avoid a situation where mound created by the filling of Advanced
Cell 1 preventing the area from being used as stockpile area while excavating Advanced

Cell 2. The filling of Advanced Cell 1 will temporarily halt when it is filled to the flat
surface.
Thus the excavation of Advanced Cell 2 should begin when Advanced Cell 1 is into its
2nd year of operation, or thereabouts, i.e. when the ground over Advanced Cell 1 is more
or less flat. Thus the excavated material for Advanced Cell 2 may be deposited over
Advanced Cell 1, into stockpiles. The subsequent land-filling operation will make use of
the newly excavated Cell 2.
And when Advanced Cell 2 is full, i.e. after 0.8 years of operation or thereabouts, the
successive daily cells will be started next to the hills over the far reaches of the South
Eastern edge of Advanced Cell 2, as indicated in Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
Step 1: Excavate
Advanced Cell 1
and deposit material
into stockpile over
site of Advanced
Cell 2.
Step 2: Fill waste
into Advanced Cell
1. Each daily cell is
25m x 25m x 5m.
Lifespan is 1.9
years.
Step 3: Advanced
Cell 1 once full,
excavate Advanced
Cell 2 and deposit
material into
stockpile over Cell
1.
Step 4: Fill waste
into Advanced Cell
2. Advanced Cell 2
will be 0.8 years
before full and
closed.

Step 5: Level up
Advanced Cell 1
and Advanced Cell
2. Prepare the
coming phase by
clearing hill sides to
the south.
Step 6: Proceed
with land-filling by
creating cells on the
main floor.
The landfill will cater
for a further 7.3
years of disposal.
Figure 5.1: Conceptual order of excavation and filling for Southern Makkah in side view

Filling of Advanced Cell 1
The first daily cells will be located

towards the northern edge of Advanced
Cell 1 and expanding southward. At this
stage, Advanced Cell 2 is still
untouched.
Stockpiles of cover material will be

located over covered Advanced Cell 2.
Filling of Advanced Cell 2

towards the southern edge of Advanced
Cell 2 and expanding northward. At this
stage, Advanced Cell 1 will already full
and covered.

located over covered Advanced Cell 1.
Filling of main floor area

towards the southern edge of main floor
area and expanding northward. At this
stage, Advanced Cell 1 and Advanced
Cell 2 will already be full and covered.

located over covered Advanced Cell 1
and Advanced Cell 2.
Figure 5.2: Conceptual order of filling for Southern Makkah landfill in plan view

5.1.3 Lining design
The classification of typical soils around Makkah from geotechnical investigations as
compiled by Abdulaziz Al Solami et al (2006) indicates that most materials come under
the category of SW (well graded sand) and SP (poorly graded sand) in the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). As observed in the field and from boreholes (BH-1 and
BH-2), the unconsolidated wadi alluvial of the proposed site appeared to conform to the
classification. Actual surface samples have been sent to King Abdulaziz University for
confirmation of the soil type and results are expected to be available soon. Nevertheless,
the anticipated results for the soil categories are no different than already stated. Thus
the requirement for a base lining that will protect the groundwater from leachate
contamination is ratified, and for the purpose, the use of 2.5 mm HDPE liner is proposed.
The liner design proposed for Southern Makkah is shown in Figure 5.3. Excavation will
be carried out to a depth of about 1 m above water Table. Over the limit of excavation, a
layer of cushion, 300 mm thick, will be laid and compacted, which will become the sub-
grade to the overlying HDPE Liner. The cushion material should be clean sands, clear of
any sharp rocks that may puncture, tear, or damage the HDPE Liner. The cushion layer
will need to be compacted, and the amount of compaction should cause the material to
achieve at least 90 % of the maximum dry density by modified proctor compaction.
The leachate collection and removal system over the GCL will consist of a layer of
mainly gravel material, 300 mm in thickness. Waste will be deposited over the gravel
layer. Leachate coming out of the waste will seep through the gravel layer and into the
leachate collection pipe.
Figure 5.3: Liner design proposed for Southern Makkah

5.2 PERIMETER DRAIN
Drainage basins, catchments and catchments are three synonymous terms that refer to
the topographic area that collects and discharges surface stream flow through one outlet
or mouth. Drainage is the term applied to systems for dealing with excess water. The
three primary drainage tasks are urban storm drainage, land drainage and highway
drainage. The primary distinction between drainage and flood mitigation is in the
techniques employed to cope with excess water and in fact that drainage deals with
water before it has reached major stream channels. Investment in drainage is
substantially more than the total investment in flood mitigation or irrigation. For example
for highway projects, about one-fourth of the cost of highways is spent on drainage
facilities.
The design of a drainage project requires a detailed map of the area with a scale
between 1:1000 and 1:5000. The contour interval should be small enough to define the
divides between the various sub-drainages within the system. Final design requires even
more detailed maps of those areas where construction is proposed. All existing
underground facilities must be accurately located, together with other structures that
might interfere with the proposed route. If rock is expected near the surface, rock profiles
as determined by borings along the proposed conduit lines are necessary to that pipe
layout can be selected to minimize rock excavation.
5.2.1 Estimate of Flow

The first step in the design of storm drainage works is the determination of the quantities
of water that must be accommodated. In most cases, only an estimate of the peak flow is
required, but where storage or pumping of water is proposed the volume of flow must
also be known. Drainage works are usually designed to dispose of the flow from a storm
having specified return period. It is often difficult to evaluate the damage that results from
urban storm water, especially when the damage is merely a nuisance. Hence the
selection of the return period is often dependent on the designer’s judgement. In
residential area, there may be little harm in filling gutters and flooding intersections
several times each year if the flooding lasts only a short time. Return periods of 1 or 2
year in residential districts and 5 to 10 year in commercial districts are all that can be
justified for the average city.
Drainage projects almost always deal with flows from ungaged areas, so that design
flows must be synthesized from rainfall data. For urban drainage the most widely used
method has been the rational formula using rainfall of the desired frequency.

The most satisfactory method for estimating urban runoff is by simulation using a
computer program or software. In this approach, flows are simulated throughout the
system from available rainfall data. For adequate definition of the 10 yr event, at least 30
yr of flow should be simulated. Output is the simulated flow at all key points in the
system. From this output annual flow peaks can be selected and subjected to frequency
analysis to define the design flow at each point. Calibration of the simulation model
should be made against the nearest gaged stream having soil characteristics similar to
those of the areas under study.
5.2.2 Hydrologic Losses and Rainfall Excess

Rainfall excess or effective rainfall is that rainfall that is neither retained on the land
surface nor infiltrated into the soil. After flowing across the watershed surface, rainfall
excess becomes direct runoff at the watershed outlet. The graph of rainfall excess
versus time is the rainfall excess hyetograph. The difference between the total observed
rainfall hyetograph and the rainfall excess hyetograph is called the abstractions or
losses. Losses are primarily water absorbed by infiltration with some allowance for
inception and surface storage.
The objective of many hydrologic design and analysis problems is to determine the
surface runoff from a watershed due to a particular storm. The process is commonly
referred to as rainfall-runoff analysis with the objective to develop the runoff hydrograph.
Where the system is a watershed or river catchment, the input is rainfall hyetograph, and
the output is the runoff or discharge hydrograph.
a) SCS rainfall-runoff
The depth of excess precipitation or direct runoff P e , is always less than or equal to
depth of precipitation P, likewise, after runoff begins, the additional depth of water
retained in the watershed F a , is less than or equal to some potential maximum retention
S (Figure 5.4). There is some amount of rainfall I a , (initial abstraction before ponding) for
which no runoff will occur, so the potential runoff is P-I a . The SCS method assumes that
the ratios of the two actual potential quantities are equal, that is,
𝐹𝑎 𝑃𝑒
= (5.1)
𝑆 𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎

From continuity,
𝑃 = 𝑃𝑒 + 𝐼𝑎 + 𝐹𝑎 (5.2)
so combining equations 5.1 and 5.2 and solving for P e gives
(𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 )2
𝑃𝑒 = (5.3)
𝑃 − 𝐼𝑎 + 𝑆
Which is the basic equation for computing the depth of excess rainfall or direct runoff
from a storm by the SCS method.
From the study by many small experimental catchments, an empirical relation was
developed for I a:
𝐼𝑎 = 0.2𝑆 (5.4)
So that equation (5.2) is now expressed as
(𝑃 − 0.2𝑆)2
𝑃𝑒 = (5.5)
𝑃 + 0.8𝑆
Empirical studies by the SCS indicate that the potential maximum retention can be
estimated as
100
𝑆= − 10 (5.6)
𝐶𝑁

Figure 5.4: Variables in the SCS method of rainfall abstractions: I a = initial abstractions,
P e = rainfall excess, F a = continuing abstraction, and P = total rainfall.
Where CN is a runoff curve number that is a function of land use, antecedent soil
moisture, and other factors affecting runoff and retention in a watershed. The curve
number is a dimensionless number defined such that≤ 0 CN≤100. For impervious and
water surfaces, CN = 100; for natural surfaces CN<100. The SCS rainfall-runoff relation
5 can be expressed in graphical using the curve numbers as illustrated in Figure 5.4.
Equation 5.5 or Figure 5.4 can be used to estimate the volume of runoff when the
precipitation volume P and the curve number CN are known.
Antecedent Moisture Conditions

The curve numbers shown in Figure 5.5 apply for normal antecedent moisture conditions
(AMC II). Antecedent moisture conditions are grouped into three categories:
AMC I – Low moisture
AMC II – Average moisture condition, normally used for annual flood estimation
AMC III – High moisture, heavy rainfall over preceding few days
For dry conditions (AMC I) or wet conditions (AMC III), equivalent curve numbers can be
computed using
4.2 𝐶𝑁 (𝐼𝐼)
𝐶𝑁(𝐼) = (5.7)
10 − 0.058 𝐶𝑁 (𝐼𝐼)

and
23𝐶𝑁 (𝐼𝐼)
𝐶𝑁(𝐼𝐼𝐼) = (5.8)
10 + 0.13 𝐶𝑁 (𝐼𝐼)
Figure 5.5: Solution of the SCS runoff equations (Mays, 2001)
Soil Group Classification
Curve numbers have been tabulated by the Soil Conservation Service on the basis of
soil type and land use in Table 5.2. The four soil groups are described as:
Group A: Deep sand, deep loess, aggregated silts

Group B: Shallow loess, sandy loam
Group C: Clay loams shallow sandy loam, soils low in organic content, and soils usually
high in clay
Group D: Soils that swell significantly when wet, heavy plastic clays, and certain saline
soils

Table 5.2: Runoff Curve Numbers (Average Washed Condition, I a =0.2S)

Table 5.2: Runoff Curve Numbers (continued)

b) Rational method
The assumptions for use of the formula requires a delineation of the contributing area
and intensity remains constant over the time period required to drain the area (time of
concentration). The contributing area can be related to the characteristics of the
watershed that contribute runoff (Table 5.3). For impervious areas that are hydraulically
connected (water flow continuous), runoff and rainfall excess must come from this area.
However, other areas may contribute during heavy or additional rainfall conditions
making the contributing area larger. The impervious area that contributes runoff
frequently called the directly connected area (DCIA). For catchment that has long travel
times, it is almost impossible to have a constant intensity over that time period. This
limits the use of Equation 5.9 to short time of travel catchments. Equation 5.9 can be
restated as the rational formula:
𝑄𝑝 = 𝐶𝑖𝐴 (5.9)
Where
Q p = peak discharge (cm3/s)
C = runoff coefficient (dimensionless)
i = rainfall intensity (m/s)
A= watershed area (m2)
The basic assumptions for using the rational formula are:

1. The rainfall intensity must be constant for a time interval at least equal to the time of
concentration.
2. The runoff is a maximum when the rainfall intensity lasts as long as the time of
concentration.
3.The runoff coefficient is constant during the storm.
4. The watershed area does not change during the storm.

Table 5.3: Runoff Coefficients C Recurrence Interval ≤10 years
c) Simplified Method used in Australia

According to Nelson (1985), estimating of yield could be made by assuming that it is a
percentage of the annual average rainfall (Table 5.4). This is regarded as less reliable
method but it has the merits of simplicity and ready availability. It is suitable for small
catchment. The estimated annual runoff from the catchment is calculated from the
formula:
Catchment runoff = 100 x A x R x Y litres (5.11)
Where: A is the catchment area in hectares, R is the average annual rainfall in

millimetres and Y is the runoff as a percentage of average annual rainfall.

Table 5.4: Runoff percentage
Average Total Reliability Runoff as a % of average annual rainfall (Y)

annual annual (years out of
Shallow Sandy Elastic Clay
rainfall (R) evaporation 10)
sand or clays clays* pans,
(mm) (mm)
loam inelastic
soils (%) (%) clays or
shales
(%)
(%)
8 10 to 15 10 to 15 15 to 20 15 to 25
> 1100 - 9 6.5 to 10 6.5 to 10 10 to 13 10 to
16.5
8 10 to 10 to 15 12.5 to 20 15 to 20
901 to 1100 - 12.5
9 6.5 to 8 6.5 to 10 8 to 13 10 to 13
less than 8 7.5 to 10 7.5 to 15 7.5 to 15 10 to 15
1300 9 5 to 6.5 5 to 10 5 to 10 6.5 to 10
501 to 900
1300 to 8 5 to 7.5 5 to 12.5 5 to 10 10 to 15
1800 9 3 to 5 3 to 8 3 to 6.5 6.5 to 10
8 2.5 to 5 5 to 10 2.5 to 5 7 7.5 to
1300 to
401 to 500 12.5
1800
9 1.5 to 3 3 to 6.5 1.5 to 3 5 to 8
8 0 to 2.5 0 to 5 0 to 2.5 2.5 to
<1800 7.5
250 to 400 9 0 to 1.5 0 to 3 0 to 1.5 1.5 to 5
8 0 0 to 2.5 0 2.5 to 5
>1800
9 0 0 to 1.5 0 1.5 to 3
*Elastic clays when dry develop pronounced surface cracking, which reduces runoff.
Inelastic clays are identified, when dry, by a fine dust cover; this dust prevents seepage into the
ground and so increases runoff.
Note: For irrigation schemes a reliability of 8 years out of 10 is acceptable, for domestic and
stock schemes the aim is 9 years.
5.2.3 Design approach for southern landfill

Due to unavailability of hourly rainfall data from the surrounding areas and the urgency of
the project, USM team has to discard the approach of rainfall analysis using unit
hydrograph. Three methods were initially considered namely SCS rainfall-runoff relation,
rational method and the Australian method. The Australian method was discarded as it is
applicable for localised situation. Thus two methods are used and the comparisons of
both are summarized in Table 5.4.

a) SCS method
Calculation Reference
A) Design of the runoff
Method = SCS May, 2001
1 a) State/town of development = Kakkia
* From our
2
2 (a) Main landfill area = 640999 m study
* From our
2
b) Total catchment area = 1310000 m study
2
c) Hilly catchment area 669001 m
334501 2
d) Balance area divided by 2 = m
(assume some of the run off will flow into middle portion
of the landfill area)
The balance area was divided into 1/4 portion,

2
e) A1 = 83625 m
2
m
Hilly catchment area, assume the hilly
2
f) catchment is = 278750 m
2
equivalent to both side of the landfill, where m
the runoff will flow directly to the proposed surface drain
2
g) Therefore, net total area will be = 362376 m
3
( P − 0.2S ) 2 S =
1000
− 10
Pe = CN
P + 0.8S
P = Precipitation
Pe = Depth of precipitation
Potential maximum
S = retention
CN = Runoff curve number
In this case, CN is determined from adjustment of curve numbers of dry and wet
4 condition
a) Use CN = 90
= 6 inch
= 1.1111111
= 4.85 inch
= 123.0853 mm
= 0.12 m
3
5 Volume of A1 = 44603 m
3
6 Peak flow rate, = 6.19 m /s 2 h rainfall

B) Drainage design
2/3
(AxR x
1/2
7 Manning formula, S )/n
3
8 Qpeak = 6.19 m /s
n = 0.015
S = 0.0066667
9 Let w = 1.5 m
h = 1.5 m
10 Area, A = w*h
2
= 2.25 m
11 Wetted perimeter, P = w + 2h
= 4.5 m
12 Hydraulic radius, R = A/P

= 0.5 m
3
13 Q capacity = 7.72 m /s OK
14 velocity, V = Q/A = 3.43 m/s OK

(V should larger than 0.6 and less than 4 m/s)
15 Therefore, Qcapacity>Qpeak
16 Suitable size will be 1.5 X1.5 m considering medium flow rate

b) Rational method
A) Design of the runoff Method = Rational Wanielista,
1997
1 a) State/town of development = Kakkia
2
2 a) Main landfill area = 640999 m * From our
study
2
b) Total catchment area = 131000 m * From our
0 study
2
c) Hilly catchment area 669001 m
2
d) Balance area divided by 2 = 334501 m
(assume some of the run off will flow into middle portion
of the landfill area)
2
e) The balance area was divided into 1/4 portion, = 83625 m
A1
2
m
2
f) Hilly catchment area, assume the hilly = 278750 m
catchment is
2
equivalent to both side of the landfill, where m
the runoff will flow directly to the proposed surface drain
2
g) Therefore, net total area will be = 362376 m
=
3 From rational formula,
Q= CiA
Q =
C = 0.7
i = 0.1 m/h
2
Total A = 362376 m
3
Q = 25366 m /2
h
3
= 3.52 m /s

Rational method U-drain precast design
B) Drainage design
Manning formula, Q=
3
Qpeak = = 3.52 m /s
n = 0.015
S = 0.006667
1 Let w = 1.5 m
h = 0.9 m
2 Area, A = w*h
2
= 1.35 m
3 Wetted perimeter, P = w + 2h
= 3.3 m
4 Hydraulic radius, R = A/P

= 0.41 m
3
5 Q capacity = 4.05 m /s OK
velocity, V = Q/A = 3.00 m/s OK

(V should larger than 0.6 and less than 4
m/s)
6 Therefore, Qcapacity>Qpeak
Suitable size will be 1.5 X 0.9 m considering high flow rate contributed from
7 large area

Table 5.5: Comparison between the two methods
Method Q (m3/s) Drain size Remarks
SCS 6.19 1.5 x 1.5 Selected size for perimeter
drain
Rational 3.52 1.5 x 0.9
The general layout of perimeter drain is shown in Drawing No. PPKA/SM/P1/DT/02.

The detail cross section of box culvert is given in Appendix A1.
5.3 SEPARATOR TRENCH

In order to separate the existing active depositing areas and the new proposed cells, a
trench separator is proposed. Further, the trench also is design to cater outflow leachate
from the existing active cells. A 500 meter of 4 meter wide with 4 meter depth trench is
proposed. The trench should be designed sloping (inverting) towards the new proposed
cells with a final end sump at the end. It is proposed that the facing slope of the active
cell will be placed by rock gabion system so that the lechate from the active cell could
seep through and will be collected along the trench. L-shape pre-cast concrete will be
placed on the other side of the trench and also act as retaining wall. Periodically, the
collected leachate in the sump should be transported to water treatment plant for final
disposal. The general layout of separator trench is shown Drawing No.
PPKA/SM/P1/DT/02.
5.4 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
5.4.1 Components of Leachate Containment, Retention, and Disposal Facility

Leachate collection facility, in general, consists of collection pipes, leachate retention
ponds or pits, leachate control valves, etc. Generally following three types of collection
pipes are to be considered:
• Bottom pipe
• Inclined Pipe
• Vertical Pipe
The bottom pipe to be laid over the landfill basement and inclined pipe to be laid over the
slopes can again be categorized in main leachate pipe and branch leachate pipe

according to the designed layout plan. Ultimately the selected leachate collection pipe
system shall be able to collect and discharge leachate effectively.
5.4.2 Leachate Collection Pipes
The general function of leachate collection facility is to quickly collect and channel the
leachate generated from the landfilled waste layers to the leachate treatment facility. For
the proposed site, the system for proper and quick leachate collection at the landfill
basement consist of main leachate pipes and branch leachate pipes, which are to be
hydraulically full-size enough to allow the maximum leachate flow and structurally strong
enough against maximum static and dynamic loads coming over from ultimate height of
waste filling and equipment in operation. Besides, they are also to be big enough to
maintain permanent semi-aerobic condition within the waste layers for the proposed
landfill system (Fukuoka method of semi-aerobic system).
Leachate from waste will trickle to the bottom of landfill, pass through a layer of drainage
filter, and into collection pipes. The conceptual diagram of covering the main collection
pipe is shown in Figure 5.6. A photo showing well prepared bed, ready for waste
disposal, is shown in Figure 5.7. In this photo, the gravel drainage appears to cover the
entire floor of the landfill.
Figure 5.6: Conceptual diagram covering the main collection pipe
In Advanced Cells 1 and Advanced Cell 2, one for each cell, the leachate collection
pipes lead to a segmental cylindrical sump which extends upwards as the thickness of
waste is increasing. Each pre-cast segment that makes up the sump is 3.0 m in diameter
and 2.0 m in thickness. The cross sectional diagram of each sump with surrounding
items is shown in Figure 5.8.

The bases for design are as follows. Assume daily rate of waste deposited in landfill as
3125 m cu/day. Assume leachate amounts to 16% of waste volume, therefore 500 m
cu/day. Assume the rate of pumping, from sump into aerated retention pond, to amount
50% of leachate production rate, therefore 250 m cu./day. For each sump, leachate will
be pumped out on regular basis and deposited into an aerated retention pond, located
nearby, measuring 36 m x 36 m x 3 m, or about 3750 m cu in capacity. From the pond,
leachate will be carted away for treatment using tanker trucks.
Figure 5.7: A photo showing well prepared bed, ready for waste disposal

Figure 5.8: Cross section of a leachate containment sump with surrounding items
i) Main Leachate Collection Pipe

With due consideration of design calculations (hydraulic and structural design as well)
and adequate size for the very important fresh air circulation to maintain the permanent
semi-aerobic condition within the waste layers, perforated HDPE pipe of internal
diameter 600 mm shall be selected for the main leachate pipe. The pipe shall be
perforated in upper 2/3 part with circular holes of 25mm diameter and in distance interval
and pattern as shown in Figure 5.9. The lower 1/3 part shall be non-perforated (full
section) to allow smooth flow of the leachate collected without leaking out from the pipe.
The laying of main leachate collection pipes longitudinally over the prepared top layer of
compacted clay liner and along the gutter of basement prepared (sloped at 3%) as
shown in the typical cross-section, deserves special attention for technical perfection, i.e.
for being in line, level and position It is to be noted that laying of the main leachate pipe
over the jute mat (underlined additionally with a sheet of 350 micron-HDPE sheet
extended to the full width at the base of the filter material to be placed over the pipe)
shall be such that the top of its lower 1/3 part (i.e. the part without perforation) shall be in
level with the finished level of the top clay liner. This shall happen only when the curved
surface of contact of the pipe with the underlying jute mat, plastic sheet and top layer of
compacted clay liner are accordingly concavely shaped beforehand.
The leachate pipe is then covered longitudinally with well-compacted filter material of
riverbed shingles/ pebbles (grain size: 50 – 150mm) packed in shape and size as shown
in the drawing. The proposed width (more than 3d at the top and bottom) and thickness

of the packed filter material shall not only facilitate the filtration of leachate entering into
the pipe perforation, but also increase the bearing capacity of the pipe under static and
dynamic loading coming over it during operation at critical conditions.
Figure 5.9: Main collection perforated pipe
ii) Branch Leachate Collection Pipe

However, with due consideration of design calculations (i.e. hydraulic and structural
design as well) and adequate sizing for the very important circulation of fresh air coming
from main leachate pipe through the connected manholes to maintain the permanent
semi-aerobic condition within the waste layers, branch leachate pipe of diameter 250 mm
HDPE (strength 10 kgf/cm2) shall be selected.
The pipe shall be perforated in upper 2/3 part with circular holes of 10mm diameter and
in distance interval and pattern. The lower 1/3 part shall be non-perforated (full section)
to allow smooth flow of the leachate collected without leaking out from the pipe.
The laying of branch leachate collection pipes over the prepared top layer of compacted
clay liner and cross to the main leachate pipe deserves special attention for technical
perfection, i.e. for being in line, level and position. They shall be laid laterally (at intervals
of 20m) inclined on both sides of the main leachate pipe over the prepared top layer of
clay liner (sloped at 4% cross to the longitudinal direction of the valley). It is to be noted
that laying of the branch leachate pipe over the jute mat shall be such that the top of its

lower 1/3 part (i.e. the part without perforation) shall be in level with the finished level of
the top clay liner. This shall happen only when the curved surface of contact of the pipe
with the underlying jute mat over top layer of compacted clay liner is accordingly
concavely shaped beforehand.
The leachate pipe is then covered longitudinally with well-compacted filter material of
riverbed shingles/ pebbles (grain size: 50 – 150mm) packed in shape and size as shown
in the drawing. The proposed width (more than 3d at the top and bottom) and thickness
of the packed filter material shall not only facilitate the filtration of leachate entering into
the pipe perforation, but also increase the bearing capacity of the pipe under static and
dynamic loading coming over it during operation at critical conditions. Figure 5.10 shows
the schematic drawing for main and branch leachate pipe to gas vent sump.
Figure 5.10: Schematic connection of main leachate pipe, branch leachate pipe and gas
vent at gas vent sump

5.4.3 Leachate retention pond
A leachate retention pond of ~3750 cu. m capacity is provided at the designated location
shown in drawing. The retention pond will have a surface area of ~1500 sq. m and a
maximum depth of 3.0 m. The slope walls will be inclined at 1:1.75. The well-compacted
bottom and slopes will be lined with 2 layers of 350 micron HDPE sheet covering all
surfaces. The pond will be bordered at the top of its embankment along all sides with
stone masonry work. The aeration facility will have an air diffuser with a capacity of 50
cu. m/min. The estimated power requirement for the blower house is ~21 kW. The
aeration is expected to be running 6 to 8 hours daily. Figure 5.11 shows plan views of
the retention pond and a conceptual feature for the diffuser.
Leachate will generally be trucked away for further treatment in waste water treatment
facility to be identified later. Nevertheless, a recirculation procedure where leachate is
taken back to the landfill can also be considered as an option for disposal.
Either way, as pre-treatment in the retention pond, supplying oxygen to leachate by

aeration process will accelerate the decomposition process by micro-organisms, and it
will also be effective in reducing the offensive odor from the landfill site. The general
layout of retention pond is shown in Drawing No. PPKA/SM/P1/DT/02.

(a)
(b)
Figure 5.11: Plan views of (a) retention pond and (b) air diffuser system

5.5 Gas Vent System
Various types of gases (such as CH 4 , H 2 S and CO 2 ) are generated by decomposition of

organic materials in the landfill sites, which may cause fire disasters or affect the
surrounding environment and human health. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out gas
venting facility at landfill sites in order to prevent the adverse impacts of these gases.
Besides, the gas venting facility also has an effect on accelerating the decomposition
process of organic materials and promoting the stabilization of waste mass within the
sanitary landfill site.
Collection and utilization of landfill gas is usually not cost-effective under normal
condition. But however, it is necessary to carry out gas venting facility at landfill sites in
order to prevent the adverse impacts caused by the accumulation of these gases within
the waste mass. Besides, the gas venting facility also has an effect on accelerating the
decomposition process of organic materials and promoting the stabilization of waste
mass of the sanitary landfill site. The proposed simple but effective system for quick and
effective gas venting system is to be described as follows.
5.5.1 Gas Vent System (over main leachate pipe)

The main gas vent system shall be built over each and every main manhole that
connects the main leachate pipe with the two lateral branch leachate pipes. Perforated
HDPE vent pipe of diameter 150mm shall be vertically fixed at the centre of the
reinforced cement concrete (RCC) manhole cover. This vent pipe shall be surrounded by
gravel/boulder filled in cylindrical gabions (size 750 mm diameter and height 2.5m) of
strong mesh wire. Five number of MS rods (diameter 12 mm) fixed vertically on the side
of the mesh wire shall help not only held the gabion in vertical position but also ease the
further extension for every 5m of waste filling. For installation of the first gabion over the
manhole, fixing of the 5 MS rods in the manhole slab while concreting is highly
recommended. During operation, on top of every 5m of compacted waste layer, placing
of a 30 cm thick horizontal gas drain of length 3m around each and every gas vent is
recommended, which shall facilitate better venting and aeration through several waste
layers inside the waste mass.
5.5.2 Gas Vent System (over branch leachate pipe)

The gas vent system over branch leachate pipe that ends at the foot of steep slope shall
be built by using perforated used gas vent sump. The branch leachate pipe (HDPE pipe
of 250mm diameter) at the bottom shall be connected to the perforated HDPE vent pipe

of 150mm diameter and 6 kgf/cm2 strength. The perforated vent pipe is surrounded by
packed gravels/ boulders. Four number of 12 mm dia. MS rods, welded on the interior
side of oil drum, shall ease further extension of the gas vent system for every 5m of
waste filling.
However, the gas vent system to be built over branch leachate pipe, that has to be
extended laterally at the bottom, shall have a manhole similar to that to be built over
main leachate pipe as described above.
Figure
5.6 LANDFILL FACILITIES
5.6.1 Weigh bridge

All trucks entering the facility should be logged to properly account for the volume of
waste received. Weigh bridges improve billing, enable performance monitoring and route
rationalization of collection vehicles, and provide a good record of waste quantities and
landfill use history for load tracking and forward planning.
Ideally, weigh data should be recorded electronically, which allows for better
management oversight of waste management operations. Additionally, incoming and
out-bound traffic should be weighed.
The weight bridge is the heart of the solid waste system’s management information
system. Computerized weighbridge systems installed will be connected directly to
municipal managers for purposes of oversight and data analysis. Figure 5.12 shows an
example of weighbridge. A detail of weighbridge specification is shown in Volume 2:
Specification

Figure 5.12: Example of weigh bridge in operation
5.6.2 Washing bay

A washing bay facility will be constructed at the entrance of the existing landfill entrance.
This will allow for the cleaning of Council collection vehicles before leaving the landfill
site. To ensure maximum cleanliness of the vehicles after moving out from landfill site, all
vehicles entering the landfill is required to pass through the washing bay. An example of
washing bay is shown in Figure 5.13. The technical specifications of washing bay are
given in Volume 2- Specification.
Figure 5.13: An example of washing bay on site

5.6.3 Administration building
An administration building will be constructed to house the personnel for the operation of
the sanitary landfill. It also consists of meeting room, staff area, lobby area, toilet and
store. Apart from the necessary furniture the office will be occupied with communications
equipment, sanitary facilities, first-aid kits and fire extinguisher.
5.6.4 Workshop
Next to the administration building is a service station and maintenance facility. The
planned area of around 250 square meters is sufficient to accommodate several units of
heavy equipment for repair and maintenance. Only the service and maintenance portion
shall be covered. A storeroom for supplies and tools with an area of 30 sq. m. will be
constructed.
5.6.5 Guard house, gate and signage

At the entrance of the sanitary landfill, a 5 meters wide steel gate will be constructed, to
allow the passing of heavy equipment. Beside the gate is guard house for controlling and
recording of incoming waste. A signage shall be posted on top painted on a steel plate.
Shown below is a representation of an entrance gate. The general layout is shown in
Drawing No. PPKA/SM/P1/DT/02.
5.6.6 Perimeter fencing

Around the landfill area, chain-link fence will be constructed to prevent unauthorized
entry of waste pickers and stray animals. Natural materials such as thorny shrubs may
be used to support the fence integrating live fencing. The general layout of perimeter
fence is shown in Drawing No. PPKA/SM/P1/DT/02. The total length of the wire fence is
4950 m.
5.6.7 Access road and temporary access road

The internal road will be proposed for the general operation of the landfill. There are
permanent operational road and temporary access roads. A loop system is proposed as
the permanent access road so that the landfill traffic congestion will be minimized. Good
design means matching the road to the application. Consider the type of vehicles that will
use the road. It shall handle 40-ton solid waste transfer trucks with periodical traffic.
Developing a checklist can help you not miss some important aspect of the road design.
A basic example is shown in Table 5.5. The general layout of access road is shown in
Drawing No. PPKA/SM/P1/DT/02.
Table 5.5: Checklist of road design aspect

Road Design Checklist
Item Purpose Criteria Typical Choices
Cross-Slope Cross-slope Too little cross-slope will allow 1-2%
helps direct water ponding, erosion, and
off the road. increased maintenance and
can ultimately lead to road
failure. Too much cross-slope
can make the road unsafe.
Longitudinal Longitudinal While steeper roads can Up to 8%
Slope slope refers to reduce travel distance, roads
the slope of the that are too steep can cause
road either uphill vehicles to move too slow
or downhill. (uphill) or too fast (downhill).
The risks can increase during
periods of rain, snow, or ice.
Width Road width Roads should be wide enough Varies, but typical
includes the to allow for safe two-way values range from
driving lanes and traffic. Also, roads should have 5 to 10 metes.
shoulder. regular turnouts or enough
shoulder width to get stalled
vehicles off the roadway.
Underlying The underlying The underlying base is typically Varies
Base base, be it waste native soil or waste. A road
or soil, provides a built on native soil is preferred
certain amount of to a road built on waste. Roads
strength. Any built on garbage will usually
additional have settlement problems.
strength required
must be met by
the base/sub-
base.
Base/Sub- Base/sub-base The type and quantity of sub- Soil, pit-run,
Base refers to the base varies depending on the gravel, geotextiles,
prepared layer(s) underlying material. On native asphalt/
of base above soil, 6-12 in. of gravel may concrete rubble,
the waste or suffice; however, roads built on etc.
native soil. Sub- top of waste might require 2-3
base is intended ft. of compacted prior to
to provide placement of gravel.
strength to the Geotextiles or discarded
road. asphalt/concrete rubble may
also be used to replace and/or
supplement a soil or gravel
sub-base.
Surface To provide good While the criteria can vary from Compacted soil,
traction and low one landfill to another, the goal gravel, asphalt,
maintenance at a is to find the most economical rubble, etc.
minimum cost. road surface that provides

good traction and durability. It’s
also important to take into
consideration such things as
tire wear, windshield damage,
and dust.
Drainage To remove water It’s important to consider traffic Ditches, culverts,
quickly and safely volume, rainfall, and even the downdrains, etc.
from the roadway cost of road failure when
while minimizing designing roadway drainage
erosion or systems.
sedimentation
problems.
5.6.8 Service Life

There are two type of internal road, permanent and temporary access. The permanent
internal road will be used as the main access road for the whole life span of the land fill
including for the maintenance purposed after safety closured. Meanwhile, the temporary
access will provide short-term access to a remote corner of the landfill.
The service life of the road will impact not only the cost of the road but also the type of
road you want to build. It is proposed a paved access road. This will further reduce
maintenance cost offered by a paved road. Meanwhile, the temporary access road that
construct on top of waste, this road will not hold up very well because of waste
settlement.
The proposed cross-section of an temporary and permanent access road is shown in

Figure 5.14 and 5.15.

Figure 5.14: Proposed cross section of access road
Figure 5.15: Proposed cross section of temporary access road
5.7 DESIGN OF COVER LAYER FOR SOUTHERN MAKKAH
5.7.1 Introduction
A landfill cover design for Southern Makkah, such as recommended in Figure 5.15,
should attempt to achieve the following five goals (Oweis and Khera, 1998).
1. Minimize infiltration from precipitation, and hence minimize leachate

generation.
2. Develop a cap that is not more permeable than the bottom liner system.
3. Promote drainage from the surface with minimal erosion.
4. Accommodate settlements and subsidence.
5. Operate with minimum maintenance.

Figure 5.15: A recommended design for final cover (after Oweis and Khera, 1998)
A cover design for Southern Makkah should further consider the following matters.
1. The vegetation cover is needed to minimize erosion and bring about

naturalization.
2. Plants for vegetation should not have a deep root system that damages the
barrier.
3. The recommended top soil layer should accommodate non-woody cover
plants.
4. Top slopes between 3 and 5% are recommended to avoid pooling and
erosion.
5. A surface drainage system must accommodate runoff to avoid rills and
gullies. The drainage layer functions as the leachate collection and removal
system (LCRS); a minimum thickness of 12 in. (30.5 cm) and 2% grades are
recommended. To avoid clogging, a separation filter is recommended
between the drainage layer and the vegetative support layer. The 20-mil
(minimum thickness) geomembrane must be protected by a bedding of sand
(SP) free of stone or sharp objects 6 in. (15 cm) above and below the barrier
unless the clay below- and the drainage layer above serves as bedding.

Landfill cover is applied when a landfill reaches maximum volume capacity in order to
minimize rainfall infiltration, reduce leachate generation, and avoid possible
environmental contamination. Designing a sufficient final cover is crucial in ensuring a
proper landfill closure.
At the current stage, the study investigates the effectiveness of using a single
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), put together with 400 mm of topsoil on top of it. The GCL
must be protected by a bedding of sand (SP) free of stone or sharp objects 6 in.
(15 cm) above and below the barrier, wherever required. The complete study will
also look into the possibility of improving the cover by applying appropriate concepts and
aspects associated with a properly designed facility.
5.7.2 Proposal for final landfill cap for Southern Makkah

Settlement will still be progressing in Southern Makkah landfill at the time of closure.
Thus, it is assumed that a geo-membrane or geo-synthetic clay liner can be used for the
impermeable sheet but with a fear of possible tearing due to differential settlement. In
selecting between the two types of material, the GCL will probably perform better judging
from the fact that water will be applied continuously, thus the use of GCL for the
impermeable layer will avoid the potential problem of tearing due to the settlement. GCL
will automatically seal itself with consistent supply of moisture. Therefore, the watering
will serve two purposes, to provide water to the plants and to continuously wet the clay
liner if such is to be used.
5.7.3 Geo-synthetic clay liner (GCL) for cap

Settlements could cause cracking of a clay cap. Other causes of cracking are
dehydration and build up of gas pressure beneath the cap. Differential settlements
or presence of voids cause tensile-bending stresses. Because of the low tensile
resistance of clays, a crack can easily developed, which reduces the effective
thickness of the cap and decreases the effectiveness of the cap in limiting
percolation.
For Southern Makkah, after considering the weaknesses described above, the use
of synthetic clay liner (GCL) has been preferred for use. The clay liner, in this
case, is reinforced on both sides by strong fibres and fabrics. The top fibres are
unwoven and although very thin in dimension, can act as drainage layer. The
bottom geotextile is woven and act as reinforcement. The geo-synthetic clay liner

comes in ready-made sheets and can be conveniently installed at site over a
prepared ground.
A geo-synthetic clay liner (GCL) is a thin layer (6 mm) of bentonite sandwiched between
two geo-textiles or glued to a geo-membrane. At placement time, the bentonite will be
dry and permeable to gas. After exposure to water and hydration, the bentonite barrier in
intact position, is virtually impermeable to gas and water. Because of the reinforcing
effect of the attaching geo-textile, and the moderate tensile strength of bentonite, the
GCL is expected to be more resistant to cap settlement. GCL requires lesser quality
control or maintenance than a clay liner or geo-membrane would need.
5.7.4 Erosion Protection

In the case of Southern Makkah, it is important to keep the cover layer slope to less than
5 % in order to control erosion. Any damage usually is severe and cost of repair will be
substantial. Vegetation can control erosion but in order to establish vegetation, erosion
free setting must first be established. Vegetation will control erosion and like wise,
erosion control will bring about growth and vegetation.
5.7.5 Concluding remarks and final design proposal

In this chapter, design considerations for cap have been described which should be
taken into account when planning the cover at Mina. The reason for having a good cover
is to protect against infiltration and to control gas emission. A fact known for many years
is that cracks that develop as a result of settlement will make failure of clay cap almost
certain. The GCL however is reinforced on both side and therefore protected against
cracking. Furthermore, if the site in Southern Makkah is slotted for conversion into a
recreation park, the watering of plants will help maintain the moisture content that is
required for maintenance of GCL. The choice of GCL as the impermeable barrier in
Southern Makkah is considered cost effective.
Top soils which were reportedly available in Wadi Fatimah can be used for landscaping
purpose in Southern Makkah. Watering using local ground water, pumped from local
wells can also be tested on the plants. Local plant species which require least
maintenance may be tried at the landfill. Bazromia is another plant variety popular with
the area but it is an imported species. Judging from the height of grown Bazromia trees
along the streets of Makkah, the roots can be very deep and therefore will be damaging
to the impermeable membrane intended to protect the waste against infiltration. The use
of shallow rooted grass therefore is recommended.

Scoria is a rock-mineral available in Saudi Arabia which can be used to boost plant
growth and which has high water retention capacity. Compost soil and imported peat
moss can also be used to promote growth and this material is also reportedly available in
the country.
Landscaping should be attempted stage by stage to see the performance of various

plants and growth media. For erosion control, the most suitable gradient of finished
ground is between 3 % and 5 %. Further aspects of landscaping and general
maintenance may be referred to in manuals.
The final design proposal for the cap of Southern Makkah is shown in Figure 5.16, while
detail drawings are given separately in attachments. The construction will involve giving
the final disposal of waste a final cover amounting to 300 mm thick followed by a layer of
sand of about 300 mm to act as cushion to the GCL. Connections of gas pipes will also
be concealed within this sand cushion. The sand will be graded and moderately
compacted. GCL will be placed on top of the sand and finally a layer of topsoil will be
placed on top of it. The thickness of topsoil will be 600 mm.
Figure 5.16: Final cap proposal for Southern Makkah landfill

5.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
The objective of an environmental monitoring system is (a) to find out whether a landfill is
performing as designed; and (b) to ensure that the landfill is conforming to the
environmental standards set. Monitoring at a landfill site is carried out in three zones:
(a) on and within the landfill;
(b) in the groundwater (saturated) zone around the landfill and
(c) in the atmosphere/local air above and around the landfill.
The parameters to be monitored regularly are:

(a) leachate and gas quality within the landfill;
(b) long-term movements of the landfill cover;
(c) quality of groundwater in the saturated zones and
(d) air quality above the landfill, at buildings on or near the landfill and along any
preferential migration paths.
The indicators of leachate quality and landfill gas quality must be decided after
conducting a study relating to the type of the waste, the age of the waste, the
composition of leachate and gas likely to be generated and the geotechnical as well as
hydro-geological features of the area. All monitoring programmes must first establish the
baseline/background conditions prior to landfill monitoring.
The monitoring should be carried out on a bimonthly basis so as to be capable of

detecting unusual events and risks in the initial phases of their appearance and to give
time to diagnose and localise the cause and enable early steps to be taken for
containment or remediation.
The monitoring frequency may have to be increased if higher concentrations than

expected are detected, if control systems are changed or if drainage systems become
clogged/non-functional. The frequency of monitoring may also be increased during those
periods in which gas generation or leachate generation is higher, such as during the
wetter winter periods.
A monitoring programme must specify
• a properly selected offsite testing laboratory capable of measuring the constituents at
correct detection levels,
• a methodology for acquiring and storing data; and
• a statistical procedure for analyses of the data.

The following instruments/equipment will be used for monitoring:
• Groundwater samplers for groundwater monitoring wells
• Leachate samplers for leachate monitoring within the landfill and at the leachate tank
• Surface water samplers for collection of sample from any surface water systems.
• Water quality sensors for measuring conductivity, pH, DO, ORP, temperature in
groundwater wells.
• Landfill gas monitors (portable) for onsite monitoring of landfill gases.
• Active and Passive air samplers for monitoring ambient air quality.
It is recommended that the location of each type of instrument/equipment be finalised on

the basis of the topography of the area and the layout of the landfill. A minimum of 4 sets
of ground water monitoring wells (one up-gradient and three down gradient) for sampling
in groundwater conditions are considered desirable at the Southern Makkah landfill site.
Table 5.5 shows parameter require for the proposed monitoring program

Table : Groundwater, leachate and landfill monitoring program
Item parameter Frequency Equipment/measurement

1. CH 4
2. CO 2
4 times/year @ Handheld GA2000 or
Landfill Gas 3. O 2 every 3 month equivalent
4. H 2 S
5. CO
1. BOD5 (mg/L)
2. COD (mg/L)
3. pH
4. Turbidity (FAU)
5. Color (Pt Co)
6. Total solids (mg/L)
7. Suspended solids (mg/L)
8. Total iron (mg/L Fe)
9. Zinc (mg/L Zn) 4 times/year @
Send to accredited lab
10. Total coliform every 3 month
11. E. Coli
12. Phenols (mg/L)
Leachate /
13. Total nitrogen (mg/L N-TN)
Groundwater
14. Ammonia-N (mg/L NH3-N)
15. Copper ( mg/L Cu)
16. Nickel (mg/L Ni)
17. Cadmium (mg/L Cd)
18. Lead (mg/L Pb)
1. Temperature
⁰C
e 3
2. Conductivity mS/m and µS/cm
3. TDS % YSI Handheld
4. Salinity Once /Month Multiparameter or
equivalent
5. DO % and mg/L
6. pH
7. ORP

REFERENCES
1. Abdulaziz al solami, Gabel Al Barakati, Shabbir A. S. Sayed, Sultan Al Bahloul &

Bandar al Tunsi (2006) Engineering geological mapping of the holy city of Makkah Al
Mukarramah, Saudi, IAEG 2006 Paper number 552 , 10pp.
2. Al-Harithi, A. A. 1993. Application of CSIR and NGI classification systems along tunnel
No.3 at Al-Dela descent, Asir Province, Saudi Arabia. In: The Engineering Geology of
Weak Rock, 26th Annual Confernce of the Engineering Group of the Geological
Society. Special Puplication No.8., 323-328.
3. Bieniawski, ZT 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley-Interscience, New

York.
4. Bieniawski, Z.T., (1974). Geomechanics classification of rock masses and its

application in tunneling. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Rock
Mechanics, vol.11A. International Society of Rock Mechanics, Denver, pp. 27–32.
5. Greenwood, W. R., Hadley, D. G., Anderson, R. E., Fleck, R. J. & Schmidt, D. L.

(1976) Late Proterozoic Cratonization In Southwestern Saudi Arabia. Philosophical
Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London. Series A, Mathematical And Physical
Sciences, 280, 517-527.
6. Mays, L.W. (2001). Water Resources Engineering, Second Edition, Hamilton Printing
Company, Danver, MA.
7. Nelson, K. D. (1985) Design & Construction Of Small Earth Dams, Elsevier Science &
Technology.
8. Oweis I S. and Khera R. P. (1998). Geotechnology of Waste Management, 2nd Ed.,

PWS Publishing, Boston, MA .

Appendix A1
STANDARD SIZE BOX CULVERTS TABLE 1 * tc=tb for b=600, 900, 1500 and 1800, tc=50 for
b=1200
NOMINAL SIZE DIMENSIONS WEIGHT (tonnes)
b h B H tb G J M LID INVERT
300 740 370 70 140 128 - 0.25 0.25
600 450 740 520 70 140 128 - 0.25 0.29
600 740 670 70 140 128 - 0.25 0.34
450 910 530 80 140 128 - 0.31 0.38
750 600 910 680 80 140 128 - 0.31 0.44
750 910 830 80 140 128 - 0.31 0.50
450 1060 530 80 140 100 225 0.33 0.41
600 1060 680 80 140 100 225 0.33 0.47

900
750 1060 830 80 140 100 225 0.33 0.52
900 1060 980 80 140 100 225 0.33 0.58
600 1390 695 95 150 110 225 0.48 0.62
750 1390 845 95 150 110 225 0.48 0.69
1200 900 1390 995 95 150 110 225 0.48 0.76
1050 1390 1145 95 150 110 225 0.48 0.83
1200 1390 1295 95 150 110 225 0.48 0.90
750 1700 850 100 175 125 300 0.66 0.84
900 1700 1000 100 175 125 300 0.66 0.91
1500 1050 1700 1150 100 175 125 300 0.66 0.98
1200 1700 1300 100 175 125 300 0.66 1.05
1350 1700 1450 100 175 125 300 0.66 1.13
A-1|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

1500 1700 1600 100 175 125 300 0.66 1.21
900 2030 1015 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.14
1050 2030 1165 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.22
1200 2030 1315 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.31
1800 1350 2030 1465 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.39
1500 2030 1615 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.48
1650 2030 1765 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.57
1800 2030 1915 115 175 125 300 0.79 1.65

TABLE 2
NOMINAL SIZE DIMENSIONS WEIGHT (tonnes)
b h B H tb c tc e LID INVERT
300 740 440 70 300 70 70 0.25 0.33
600 450 740 590 70 300 70 70 0.25 0.39
600 740 740 70 300 70 70 0.25 0.44
450 910 610 80 450 80 80 0.31 0.50
750 600 910 760 80 450 80 80 0.31 0.56
750 910 910 80 450 80 80 0.31 0.62
450 1060 610 80 450 80 80 0.33 0.55
600 1060 760 80 450 80 80 0.33 0.61

900
750 1060 910 80 450 80 80 0.33 0.66
900 1060 1060 80 450 80 80 0.33 0.72
600 1390 920 95 1075 50 225 0.48 0.97
750 1390 1070 95 1075 50 225 0.48 1.05
1200 900 1390 1220 95 1075 50 225 0.48 1.11
1050 1390 1370 95 1075 50 225 0.48 1.19
1200 1390 1520 95 1075 50 225 0.48 1.25
750 1700 1075 100 1075 100 225 0.66 1.35
900 1700 1225 100 1075 100 225 0.66 1.42
1050 1700 1375 100 1075 100 225 0.66 1.50

1500
1200 1700 1525 100 1075 100 225 0.66 1.58
1350 1700 1675 100 1075 100 225 0.66 1.65
1500 1700 1825 100 1075 100 225 0.66 1.72

900 2030 1240 115 1075 115 225 0.79 1.83
1050 2030 1390 115 1075 115 225 0.79 1.92
1200 2030 1540 115 1075 115 225 0.79 2.00
1800 1350 2030 1690 115 1075 115 225 0.79 2.09
1500 2030 1840 115 1075 115 225 0.79 2.17
1650 2030 1990 115 1075 115 225 0.79 2.26
1800 2030 2140 115 1075 115 225 0.79 2.34
STANDARD SIZE BOX CULVERT WITHOUT DRY STANDARD SIZE BOX CULVERT COMPLETE WITH
WEATHER FLOW DRY WEATHER FLOW

Full Design Report - Southern Makkah Sanitary Landfill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Design Report - Southern Makkah Sanitary Landfill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Design Report - Southern Makkah Sanitary Landfill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this report?

What is the purpose of this report?

What site investigations were conducted?

What site investigations were conducted?

COLLABORATIVE CONSULTATION PROJECT

Department of Environmental Sciences,

i|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

ii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

iii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

5.4.3 Leachate retention pond 5-27

iv|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

v|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

vi|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

vii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

viii|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

1-1|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

1-2|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2. Identification of locations for boreholes and the provision of drilling supervision.

3. Collection of soil samples for laboratory analyses to determine soil properties

5. Preparation and submission of conceptual and detailed drawings.

6. Proposal of items for tendering with Bill of Quantity and specifications.

7. Assistance in the process of preparing the evaluation documents.

1.3 PROJECT TEAM

1-3|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

No. Researcher Specialisation

1-4|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2-1|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2-2|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2.2.1 Soil and rock properties

2-3|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2.2.3 Rock excavate-ability

2-4|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

Table 2.2: Rock types and RMR classification

Table 2.3: Excavate-ability classes of various rock types

2-5|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2.3 2-D RESISTIVITY SURVEYS

Figure 2.1: Map showing location of survey lines

2.3.1 Field procedures

2-6|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2-7|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2-8|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2.4 SUB-SURFACE DESCRIPTION IN SOUTHERN MAKKAH LANDFILL

2.4.1 Site Investigation Results

2-9|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2.4.2 Excavation Limits

2-10|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

Figure 2.5: Locations of BH1 and BH2 in Southern Makkah landfill

2-11|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

Figure 2.6: Interpreted profile at BH1, Southern Makkah landfill

2-12|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2-13|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

2-14|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

3-1|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

Figure 3.1: Conceptual view of leachate collection and drainage system

3.2 PROPOSED LOCATION

3-2|SOUTHERN MAKKAH SANITARY LANDFILL

3.3.1 Design components

• Geomembrane bottom liner.