Seismic design of landfills requires an understanding of the dynamic properties of municipal solid waste (MSW) and the dynamic site response of landfill waste during seismic events. The dynamic response of the Mavallipura landfill situated in Bangalore, India, is investigated using field measurements, laboratory studies and recorded ground motions from the intraplate region. The dynamic shear modulus values for the MSW were established on the basis of field measurements of shear wave velocities. Cyclic triaxial testing was performed on reconstituted MSW samples and the shear modulus reduction and damping characteristics of MSW were studied. Ten ground motions were selected based on regional seismicity and site response parameters have been obtained considering one-dimensional non-linear analysis in the DEEPSOIL program. The surface spectral response varied from 0.6 to 2 g and persisted only for a period of 1 s for most of the ground motions. The maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) obtained was 0.5 g and the minimum and maximum amplifications are 1.35 and 4.05. Amplification of the base acceleration was observed at the top surface of the landfill underlined by a composite soil layer and bedrock for all ground motions. Dynamic seismic properties with amplification and site response parameters for MSW landfill in Bangalore, India, are presented in this paper. This study shows that MSW has less shear stiffness and more amplification due to loose filling and damping, which need to be accounted for seismic design of MSW landfills in India.
American Public Health Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, & Water Environment Federation (1965) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (Vol. 11). American Public Health Association.
AnbazhaganPThingbaijamKKSNathSKNarendara KumarJNSitharamTG (2010) Multi-criteria seismic hazard evaluation for Bangalore city, India. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences38: 186–198.
4.
AnbazhaganPAdityaPariharRashmiHN (2011) Amplification based on shear wave velocity for seismic zonation: comparison of empirical relations and site response results for shallow engineering bedrock sites. Geomechanics and Engineering3(3): 189–206.
5.
AnbazhaganPNeaz SheikhM (2012) Seismic site classifications and site amplifications for the urban centers in the shallow overburden deposits. International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering3(1): 86–108.
6.
AnbazhaganPNeaz SheikhMAdityaP (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Natural Hazard Review ASCE14(2): 108–121.
7.
AnbazhaganPSmithaCVAbhishekKumar (2014) Representative seismic hazard map of Coimbatore, India. Engineering Geology171: 81–95.
8.
AnbazhaganPUdayAnjaliMoustafaSayed SRAl-ArifiNassir S.N. (2015) Correlation of densities with shear wave velocities & SPT N values, GTJ-2015–0029 (under review).
9.
ASTM Designation: D 3999–91. Standard test methods for the determination of the modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial apparatus. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 04. 08.
10.
ASTM Designation: D 5311–92 (Reapproved) (1996) Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soil.
11.
AugelloAJBrayJDAbrahamsonNASeedRB (1998a) Dynamic properties of solid waste based on back-analysis of OII landfill. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124(3): March.
12.
AugelloAJBrayJDAbrahamsonNASeedRB (1998b) Dynamic properties of solid waste based on back-analysis of OII landfill. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124(3): 211–222.
BrayJDAugelloAJLeonardsGARepettoPCByrneJR (1995) Seismic stability procedures for solid-waste landfills. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering121(2): 139–150.
15.
CareyPJKoragappaNGurdaJJ (1993) A case study of Brookhaven landfill, Long Island, New York. WasteTech Proceedings, Marina Del Rey, CA, National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, DC.
16.
ChoudhuryDSavoikarP (2009) Simplified method to characterize municipal solid waste properties under seismic conditions. Waste Management29(2): 924–933.
17.
ElgamalALaiTGunturiRZeghalM (2004) System identification of landfill seismic response. Journal of Earthquake Engineering8(4): 545–566. London: Imperial College Press.
18.
HashashYMParkD (2001) Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Engineering Geology62(1): 185–206.
19.
HashashYMAGroholskiDRPhillipsCAParkDMusgroveM (2011) DEEPSOIL 5.0, User Manual and Tutorial. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
20.
IdrissIMSeedHB (1968) Seismic response of horizontal soil layers. Soil Mechanics and Foundations94(4): 1003–1029.
21.
IdrissIM (1990) Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. Proceedings Symposium to Honor H. B. Seed, Berkeley, CA, pp. 273–289.
22.
IdrissIMFiegelGHudsonMBMundyPKHerzigR (1995) Seismic response of the Operating Industries landfill. In: YegianMKFinnWDL (eds) Earthquake Design and Performance of Solid Waste Landfills. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 54. Reston, VA: ASCE, pp. 83–118.
KavazanjianEMatasovicNStokoeKHBrayJD (1996) In situ shear wave velocity of solid waste from surface wave measurements. In: KamonM (ed.) Proceedings of Environmental Geotechnics, Balkema, 1, pp. 97–102.
25.
KaklamanosJBaiseLThompsonEDorfmannL (2015) Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016, pp. 207–219.
26.
MatasovicNKavazanjianEJr (1998) Cyclic characterization of OII landfill solid waste. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124(3): 197–210.
27.
MorochnikVBardetJPHushmandB (1998) Identification of dynamic properties of OII landfill. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering124(3): 186–196.
28.
MatasovićNVuceticM (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering119(11): 1805–1822.
29.
ParkCBMillerRDXiaJ (1999) Multi-channel analysis of surface waves. Geophys64(3): 800–808.
30.
PhillipsCHashashYM (2009) Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29(7): 1143–1158.
31.
PsarropoulosPNTsompanakisYKarabatsosY (2007) Effects of local site conditions on the seismic response of municipal solid waste landfills. Journal of Soil Dynamicsand Earthquake Engineering27: 553–563.
32.
RoessetJM (1977) Soil amplication of earthquakes. In: DesaiCSChristianJT (ed.) Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 649–682.
33.
RepettoPCBrayJDByrneRLAugelloAJ (1993) Seismic design of landfills. Progress in Geotechnical Engineering Practice. New York: ASCE.
34.
RathjeEMBrayJD (2001) One- and two-dimensional seismic analysis of solid-waste landfills. Canadian Geotechnical Journal38: 850–862.
35.
SinghSSunJI (1995) Seismic evaluation of municipal solid waste landfills. Proceedings, Geoenvironment 2000: Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, vol. 2, pp. 1081–1096.
36.
SharmaHDDukesMTOlsenDM (1990) Field measurements of dynamic moduli and Poisson’s ratio of refuse and underlying soils at a landfill site. Geotechnics of Waste Fills – Theory and Practice, STP 1070. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
37.
ZekkosDPBrayJDRiemer (2006) Shear modulus reduction and material damping relations for municipal solid-waste. Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA.
38.
ZekkosDBrayJDRiemerMF (2008) Shear modulus and material damping of municipal solid waste based on large-scale cyclic triaxial testing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal45(1): 45–58.
39.
ZekkosDSahadewaAWoodsRDStokoeKII (2014) Development of a model for shear wave velocity of municipal solid waste. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering140(3), 04013030(14).
