Calculating Of Volume Of Sanitary Landfill

1) Required volume could be calculated using following formula which includes specific solid waste production rate, volumetric weight and compacting ratio.

V₁ = d[R/w + C_v]

in which V₁ : required landfill volume per one person per year (m³/capita.year)

R : specific solid waste production rate (=1 kg/capita.day)

w : volumetric weight of solid waste after compacted (=800 kg/m³)

C_v : specific required volume for isolation layer at the bottom, covering layers between solid waste beds and final upper covering layer

(=0.0004 m³/capita.day)

d : number of day in one year (=365 day/year)

ec : efficiency of collection from SW (=0.85)

Alternative I :

V₁ = 365[1/800 + 0.0004] = 0.60 m³/capita.year

Required landfill volume for the year 1991,

V₁₉₉₁ = V₁.N₁₉₉₁ = 0.60 m³/capita.year x 2,775,613 capita

V₁₉₉₁ = 1,671,613 m³/year

After settlement and decomposition :

V₁₉₉₁ = (1,671,613)x0.8 = 1,337,290 m³/year

Alternative II :

V₂ = 365[(1/800)0.85 + 0.0004] = 0.50 m³/capita.year

Required landfill volume for the year 1991,

V₁₉₉₁ = V₂.N₁₉₉₁ = 0.50 m³/capita.year x 2,775,613 capita

V₁₉₉₁ = 1,481,657 m³/year

After settlement and decomposition :

V₁₉₉₁ =(1,481,657) x 0.8 = 1,185,326 m³/year

2) Required volume for solid waste beds could be caculated using following equation.

V = (p.e.c.k)/d_c

in which V : required volume for solid waste beds (m³/year)

p : population of the region (capita)

e : coefficient of ratio between covering material volume and solid waste beds volume

d_c : volumetric weight of compacted solid wastes (kg/m³)

ec : efficiency of collection from SW (=0.85)

k : 365 days/year

c : 1kg/capita.day

Required volume for solid waste beds for the year 1991,

Alternative I :

V₁₉₉₁ = (2,775,613 x 1 x 1.20 x 365)/800

V₁₉₉₁ =1,519,648 m³/year

After settlement and decomposition :

V₁ = 0.80 x ( 1,519,648) m³/year = 1,215,718 m³/year

Alternative II :

V₂ = 0.85 x (2,775,613 x 1 x 1.20 x 365)/800

V₂ = 1,291,701 m³/year

After settlement and decomposition :

V₂ = 0.80 x ( 1,291,701) m³/year = 1,033,361 m³/year

Landfill volume which is required for a settlement area, depends on population, specific solid waste production rate, additional volume required for covering material and time period at which filling continues.

Capacity Of Harmandalı Sanitary Landfill Area

In the Harmandalı filling region, to determine the land profile and elevations which will occur at the end of filling, maps which have a scale of 1/1000, have been applied.

To prevent the clay layer which is impermeable, and to accomplish minimum backfilling, natural slope has been considered.

For trucks, as a principle, maximum road slope has been assumed as 10%. Connections with the main road were made with the slope of 3:1. Mean filling height is 20 m.

Athough, three alternatives which include filling and ultimate elevations, have been given in the project, it is impossible that to get ultimate elevations.

Alternative capacities of Harmandalı sanitary landfill have been assumed as follows :

- first alternative, 7,934,371 m³,

- second alternative, 11,190,396 m³,

- third alternative, 17,596,131 m³.

Considering the waste production of Izmir and volumetric weight of compacted solid waste as 1,940 ton/day and 560 kg/m³, respectively, mean usage period of Harmandalı sanitary landfill area, for whole alternatives, have been calculated and listed below :

- first alternative, 7,934,371 m³/1,264,464 m³/year = 6.3 year

- second alternative, 11,190,396 m³/1,264,464 m³/year = 8.9 year

- third alternative, 17,596,131 m³/1,264,464 m³/year = 13.9 year

The third alternative includes a future planning that energy transfer lines which is upon the area required for this alternative, would be delocated.

Gas Control Preventions

Solid Waste Control Regulations Article 27 which is related with removal of deposit gas:

From the products that form as a result of anaerobic decomposition of organic substances, partially stabilized organic materials, organic acids and various gases (CO₂, CH₄, N₂, H₂S) can be stated. In standard conditions, there is a linear relationship between decomposition rate and gas production rate. Gas production rate increases in the firs two years and it continues at a slower rate for 25 or more years. Gas quantity practically measured changes for 1 t of solid waste in between 60 - 180 m³ depending on the characteristics of the solid waste deposited.

Average landfill gas analyses:

CH₄ = 55-60 % as volume

CO₂ = 35-40 % as volume

H₂ = 2 - 3 % as volume

H₂S,CO₂,NO₂ = 1 % as volume

A typical gas aeration stack is formed from gravels and distances between each stack changes from 18 m to 60 m. For gravel layer thickness 30-45 cm is suggested. Alternatively aeration barriers or wells may be used.

At Harmandalı sanitary landfill area soil is impermeable so inside the site an aeration stack will be placed it each 50 m distance. Gas aeration stacks should be prepared before for weekly demand so it should not limit solid waste dumping process. Hard PVC pipes with 150-200 mm diameter and 3.00 length are placed at the center of the base of a pit opened at 1.00 m x 1.00 m size. The pipe is surrounded 1 m with washed gravels and lime stones. While compacting solid waste layers, a second PVC pipe is placed over the first one and height more than human height is obtained and again it is surrounded with gravels. As fill up depth of the solid waste increases this process is repeated. But to protect these pipes from dosers which dump the solid wastes, they should be placed 1-2 m away from dumping sites.

Finishing Of Sanitary Landfilling And Final Procedures:

1. Final layer of solid waste cells. To complete the filling, namely, to construct the final layer of cells, ultimate usage of the area should be considered. If agricultural procedured will be applied, final layer must not contain coarse materials and matters which are not suitable for the plant growth. This layer must be compacted until a limited level.

2. Dwelling of soil. Sanitary landfill area could be dwelled due to storm water, self-compacting, etc. This process will take time. Before covering of final layer, this period must be considered.

3. Top soil. If surface of the landfill area will be used for agricultural purposes or as a green area, suitable soil which will be located on the final layer, must be spread over the area. For getting a green area, top layer which has a thickness of 15 to 25 cm, must be consisted of soil. If it will be used for agricultural area, the thickness of the top soil must be greater than that of green area has. This thickness must be determined by experts. If there is not any top soil source near the sanitary landfill area, composted wastes and dewatered sewer sludges could be mixed with top soil which has a limited amount.

4. Procedures for reuse of the sanitary landfill area. To prevent the soil erosion, final surface of the landfill area must be become green.

Table 1. Different solid wastes disposal methods in EC - Country ( in % )

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Sanitary Dumping,

Country Landfill Composting İncineration Others

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

FRG 70 3 27 --

Belgium 65 7 28 --

Denmark 40 4 56 --

France 54 11 35 --

Ireland 100 00 00 --

Italy 53 10 32 5

Luxemburg 24 0 76 --

Netherland 69 1 30 --

Grece 20 3 2 75

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Turkey 10 4 1 85

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Table 2. Results of microbiological analysis in Harmandalı-Landfill

-=================================================================================¬

¦ Sample Sample Sampling Total E.Coli Fecal Total ¦

¦ No. name date coliform Streptocok bacteria¦

¦=================================================================================¦

¦ WS-6 Harmandalı 23.11.1990 240 150 - 160 ¦

¦ WS-8 Ulucak 23.11.1990 - 0 - <1 ¦

¦ WS-11 GK14 23.11.1990 1100F 39 - 3,000 ¦

¦ WS-12 GK15 23.11.1990 1100F 43 - 650 ¦

¦ WS-13 GK28 23.11.1990 1100F 1100F - 100 ¦

¦ WS-14 GK16 23.11.1990 1100F 460 - 550 ¦

L=================================================================================-

Table 3. Yearly variation of solid waste amount of Izmir.

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Years Population Solid waste Solid waste Cumulative

(capita) amount amount amount

(ton/day) (ton/year) (ton)

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

1991 2,775,613 2,776 1,013,240 1,013,240

1996 3,123,966 3,123 1,139,895 6,206,095

2001 3,621,555 3,621 1,321,665 12,087,340

2006 4,324,324 4,324 1,578,260 18,952,260

2011 5,013,054 5,013 1,829,745 27,095,045

2016 5,811,514 5,811 2,121,015 36,535,040

2021 6,737,141 6,737 2,459,005 47,478,105

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

The specific production rate of solid wastes which are produced until the year of 2021, was assumed as 1 kg/capita.day. There is no any increment of amount of solid wastes for 5 years.

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Table 4. Yearly filling volume.

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Years Solid waste Cumulative Landfill volume requirement

volume volume Cumulative

(m³/year) (m³) (m³/year) (x10⁹ m³)

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

1991 1,266,550 1,266,550 1,583,188 0.00158

1996 1,424,869 7,757,619 9,697,024 0.0176

2001 1,652,081 15,109,176 18,886,470 0.075

2006 1,972,825 23,690,325 29,612,906 0.18

2011 2,287,181 33,868,806 42,336,008 0.28

2016 2,651,269 45,668,799 57,085,999 0.51

2021 3,073,756 59,347,631 74,184,839 0.81

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Volumetric weight of solid waste was assumed as 0.8 ton/m³

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Average landfill gas analyses:

CH₄ = 55-60 % as volume

CO₂ = 35-40 % as volume

H₂ = 2 - 3 % as volume

H₂S,CO₂,NO₂ = 1 % as volume

Table 5. Main components of gas (Tabasaran et. al., 1979).

-===============================================================¬

¦ Component Chemical formula Concentration ¦

¦===============================================================¦

¦ Methane CH₄ about 55 vol.% ¦

¦ Carbon dioxide CO₂ about 45 vol.% ¦

¦ Nitrogen N₂ up to 80 vol.% ¦

¦ Oxygen O₂ up to 20 vol.% ¦

¦ Hydrogen H₂ up to 3.6 vol.% ¦

¦ Carbon monoxide CO up to 2.8 vol.% ¦

¦ Hydrogen sulfide H₂S up to 70 ppm ¦

¦ Ammonia NH₃ up to 0.4 ppm ¦

¦ Acetone C₂H₆CO about 100 ppm ¦

¦ Acetaldehyde CH₃CHO about 150 ppm ¦

¦ Argon Ar about 100 ppm ¦

¦ Ethylmercaptane C₂H₅SH up to 120 ppm ¦

¦ Benzene C₆H₆ about 800 ppm ¦

¦ Heptane C₇H₁₆ about 4,500 ppm ¦

¦ Toluene C₆H₅CH₃ about 900 ppm ¦

L===============================================================-

Table 6. Typical percentage distribution of landfill gases during first 48 months.

-===============================================================¬

¦ Time interval since Average percent by volume ¦

¦ start of cell Nitrogen Carbon dioxide Methane ¦

¦ completion, months ¦

¦===============================================================¦

¦ 0- 3 5.2 88 5 ¦

¦ 3- 6 3.8 76 21 ¦

¦ 6-12 0.4 65 29 ¦

¦ 12-18 1.1 52 40 ¦

¦ 18-24 0.4 53 47 ¦

¦ 24-30 0.2 52 48 ¦

¦ 30-36 1.3 46 51 ¦

¦ 36-42 0.9 50 47 ¦

¦ 42-48 0.4 51 48 ¦

L===============================================================-

G_t = G[1 - exp(-0.07t)]

G_t = amount of biogas at time t

Table 7. Yearly biogas production rates.

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Years Solid waste Cumulative Biogas volume Methane volume

amount amount at the end of year

(ton/year) (ton) (x10⁹ Nm³) (x10⁹) (Nm³)(*)

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

1991 1,013,240 1,013,240 0.0000197 0.00985

1996 1,139,895 6,206,095 0.53 0.265

2001 1,321,665 12,087,340 1.7 0.88

2006 1,578,260 18,952,260 3.5 1.8

2011 1,829,745 27,095,045 5.9 2.9

2016 2,121,015 36,535,040 8.7 4.3

2021 2,459,005 47,478,105 12 6.0

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

(*) : assuming CH₄=0.50 Biogas

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

Table 8. Energy parameters of solid wastes in Izmir (Erdin, 1980).

-===============================================================================================¬

¦ Samples Water Ashes Organic Inert Carbon Burn Lower Upper Explanations¦

¦ content content loss calorific calorific ¦

¦ at 875?C value value ¦

¦ (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kcal/kg) (kcal/kg) ¦

¦===============================================================================================¦

¦ Bazaar 75.2 9.2 15.6 0.0 3.0 12.6 120 3,645 winter waste¦

¦ İemikler 37.3 39.7 23.0 8.8 7.7 15.3 855 4,690 " ¦

¦ Rubbish 25.0 54.3 0.0 54.3 13.2 7.3 220 1,805 " ¦

¦ Tobacco 9.4 23.7 66.9 2.4 12.7 54.2 2,810 4,285 " ¦

¦ Wool 6.4 13.2 80.4 0.4 11.7 68.7 3,340 4,200 " ¦

¦ Tob. dust 7.1 25.9 67.0 0.0 12.5 54.5 2,830 4,285 " ¦

¦ Fine comp. 32.8 43.2 24.0 0.0 12.1 11.9 810 4,190 " ¦

¦ Coarse comp13.3 52.8 33.9 8.6 12.7 21.2 1,585 4,905 " ¦

¦ Fine waste 39.9 34.9 25.2 2.5 7.9 17.3 905 4,530 " ¦

¦ Compost 40.6 38.5 20.9 0.0 8.8 12.1 - - " ¦

¦ Poor reg. 43.9 36.9 19.2 4.7 4.8 14.4 505 3,995 summer waste¦

¦ Rich reg. 52.6 19.3 28.1 6.1 7.0 21.1 955 4,520 " ¦

¦ Good reg. 30.9 44.5 24.6 7.7 7.1 17.5 905 4,430 " ¦

¦ Mid. reg. 53.6 25.0 21.4 2.6 5.3 16.1 625 4,430 " ¦

¦ Shops 37.6 23.1 39.3 6.0 9.2 30.1 1,570 4,570 " ¦

¦ Rubbish 25.0 54.3 20.5 54.3 13.2 7.3 220 1,805 " ¦

L===============================================================================================-

Table 9. Calorific values of SW in Izmir (Erdin,1987 and 1988).

-===============================================================¬

¦ Region Social Ratio Calorific Amount Ratio ¦

¦ structure value ¦

¦ (%) (kcal/kg) (ton/day) (%) ¦

¦===============================================================¦

¦ Alsancak 150 13.4 ¦

¦ 1.Kordon Rich 70 1,070 ¦

¦ 2.Kordon " 30 930 ¦

¦ Basmane Poor 100 900 125 11.2 ¦

¦ Kadifekale Middle 100 490 230 20.5 ¦

¦ Hatay 140 12.5 ¦

¦ at night Middle 20 790 ¦

¦ Karatat " 60 715 ¦

¦ at day " 20 745 ¦

¦ Konak 50 4.5 ¦

¦ Centrum - 5 120 ¦

¦ Bazaar - 10 140 ¦

¦ Yenitehir Middle 100 1,035 65 5.8 ¦

¦ Karşıyaka 290 25.9 ¦

¦ Bostanlı Rich 20 1,260 ¦

¦ Bayraklı Middle 27 935 ¦

¦ İemikler Poor 16 855 ¦

¦ Naldöken Middle 27 695 ¦

¦===============================================================¦

¦ Total 990 93.8 ¦

L===============================================================-

Table 10. Effects of fine wastes on the calorific value as kcal/kg (Erdin,1988).

-===============================================================¬

¦ Region Calorific Calorific Calorific Calorific Calorific ¦

¦ value value value value value ¦

¦ of wet of fine of wet of dry of fine ¦

¦ wastes and wet wa. wastes wastes and wet wa¦

¦ (inc.ashes) (no ashes) (no ashes) (no ashes)¦

¦===============================================================¦

¦ Kadifekale 490 485 490 3,280 3,535 ¦

¦ Alsancak 1,070 1,020 1,085 4,845 4,885 ¦

¦ Alsancak 930 550 985 4,495 3,420 ¦

¦ Yenitehir 1,035 500 1,245 4,440 3,465 ¦

¦ Karşıyaka 1,260 765 1,295 4,575 3,720 ¦

¦ İemikler 855 715 910 4,690 4,315 ¦

¦ Hatay ¦

¦ at night 790 1,025 765 4,450 4,810 ¦

¦ at day 745 680 745 4,480 4,005 ¦

L===============================================================-