1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.1 Introduction 2

1.2 Flow Chart of The Study 4

1.3 Flow Chart of Methodology 5

1.4 Site Selection 6

1.5 Laboratory Experiment 8

1.6 Calculating Bearing Capacity 15

1.7 Monte Carlo Simulation 19

1.8 Conclusion 21

1.9 Reference 22
 2

METHDOLOGY

1.1 Introduction
The vast majority of landfills in Malaysia are open-air pits. This quick and dirty
method is cheap, but fantastically rough on the environment. Among the problems
inherent to open-are landfills are surface and groundwater contamination through
leaching, soil contamination through direct contact, air pollution through garbage
burning (intentional or not), disease spread through birds, insects and rodents,
uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases and of course, a very unpleasant odor[1].

Some of dumping area near the city are need to be eliminated through the population
increase and needs for development. Due to the historical garbage are located below
the soil, most of them are made up from plastic it is non-biodegradable particle. A
lot of possibility can happen when the load located above this material. For example,
it can be settlement happened due to the void between this material particle or soil
shear failure based on lack of bearing capacity of that particular soil in this area. For
this purpose, geotechnical engineer need to find the critical soil profile to be selected
for design in term of bearing capacity to ensure the structure are completely saved.

In this part will cover the detail explanation of methodology that being used for
achieve the objective and also solve the problem faced when the dumping area need
to eliminated for construction purpose.

Some of the laboratory experiment need to carry out to make sure the result is clearly
capture for this problem and also the simulation based on the Monte Carlo
simulation also need to do for get more accuracy in the prediction on risk analysis
development or construction at the dumping area. The result of the simulation will
convert in term of risk assessment to predict the strength of the soil and also the
solution need to do for ensuring this place is saved for future used.

For first determination is bearing capacity for shallow foundation. In this

determination, we used the theoretical method. All the method got their limitation
form example in Terzaghi bearing capacity theory got seven limitation there were,
Depth of foundation is less than or equal to its width, Base of the footing is rough,
Soil above bottom of foundation has no shear strength; it is only a surcharge load
 3

against the overturning load, surcharge up to the base of footing is considered, Load
applied is vertical and non-eccentric, the soil is homogenous and isotropic. And L/B
ratio is infinite.

According to this limitation, the theory is not so accurate. In this research, the
bearing capacity determination is using Meyerhof equation. This is because this
theory is more accurate compare to the Terzaghi theory. All of the limitation
mention above regarding to the Terzagi Theory.

Meyerhof (1963) was came out the equation to consider all of the limitation in his
equation. In Meyerhof analysis (1963), he made use of a failure mechanism. The
expression for N was obtained according to his previous theoretical analysis
(1951,1953), combining with the experimental observation, Meyerhof work (1963)
also included equations which account for the effects of footing shape and depth
and the effect of load inclination. The shape factors obtained are partly theoretical
and partly semi- empirical factors. He proposed expressions of depth factors which
reflect approximate failure surface in many test results. Meyerhof (1963) also
indicated that bearing capacities of inclined foundations decrease with greater
inclinations of foundations, especially for cohesion less soils [2].
 4

1.2 Flow chart of the study

The three-main objectives were setup and all the experiment was stated in the flow
chart below to make sure all the data present clearly for this project.

Three main
Objectives

Figure 1: Chart of the total Project Work Flow

 5

1.3 Flow Chart for Methodology

The flow of experiment and expected outcome shown in flow chart below. All of this
experiment need to set up for achieving goal for this research that is risk Assessment.

Figure 2: Chart of the set-up of works

 6

1.4 Site selection

This part is very important for risk assessments. The right dumping area need to be
selected for experimental work or observation. By picking the site, the sample can
be taken to find all parameter needed for all of the experiments stated above. The
consideration is very important for picking the site. Because it may affect the
accuracy if the result.

They are a lot of dumping area in Malaysia. Depicts the generation of municipal
solid waste by individual states in Malaysia from 1996 to 2009. Johor, Kuala
Lumpur and Selangor states are the top three ranked in the municipal solid waste
generated. With the advancement in living standards, it is not sur- praising if the
amount of solid waste generated continues to rise over the years. Waste generation
has since increased with population expansion (Agamuthu and Fauziah, 2011).

They are a lot of type land fill in Malaysia. The classification of a landfill is based
on the decomposition pro-cases that occur in a landfill: (1) anaerobic landfill, (2)
anaerobic sanitary landfill with daily cover, (3) improved anaerobic sanitary landfill
with buried leachate collection pipes, (4) semi-aerobic land-fill with natural
ventilation and leachate collection facilities, (5) aerobic landfill with forced aeration
(Idris et al., 2004). However for operational purposes, a second classification system
is used: Level 0, open dumping; Level 1, controlled tipping; Level 2, san-tarry
landfill with a bund (embankment and daily soil covering ; Level 3, sanitary landfill
with a leachate recirculation system; Level 4, sanitary landfill with a leachate
treatment system (Latifah et al.,2009). The second classification system is used to
access and classify landfill sites in Malaysia (Idris et al., 2004). From available
resource, survey conducted by MHLG back in 2002 revealed that of 112 disposal
landfill sites in use, 43% of these landfills were open dumps and only 6.3% were
classified as Level 4 landfills ass shown in Figure2 [1].

For all type of dumping area. The area of interest for picking the dumpsite area it is
at Sungai Ramal Dalam. This because. The location is very strategic for
development and most of the activity there are already stopped due to the planning
by MPKJ for construction purpose.
 7

Figure 2: Land Fill site in peninsular Malaysia

 8

1.5 Laboratory experiments

The soil sample need to take from the site for all experimental work. There many type
of soil testing can be used. But the selected experiment stated in the figure 1 is most
common used for site investigation. All the selected experiment above is need to carried
out for doing simulation to estimate the risk assessments.

Soil sample are divided into two main categories, undisturbed and disturbed sample.
Undisturbed samples in which the structure and water content is preserved, as far as
possible, to truly represent site condition. Undisturbed samples are often defined as
those samples obtained by slowly pushing thin-walled tubes into the soil. Disturbed
samples should be collected as drilling or digs proceed, where possible attempting to
preserve the in-situ water content. Disturbed samples are mainly required for soil
identification and for classification and quality test.

In the detail, Undisturbed sample is the sample without disturbing the natural conditions
of a soil sample such as its structure, texture, density, natural water contents or the stress
condition the sample obtained is called undisturbed soil sample. Undisturbed soil
samples keep the structural integrity of the in-situ soil and they have a higher recovery
rate in the sampler. Its actually tough to gather a perfect undisturbed sample and the
samplers may contain a small portion of undisturbed soil at the top as well as the bottom
of the sample length. Undisturbed samples allow the engineer to identify the properties
of strength, permeability, compressibility, as well as the fracture patterns among others.
Usually, the results of these analyses help many geotechnical engineering firms in terms
of designing a new building.

It should be recognized that no soil sample can be taken from the ground in a perfectly
undisturbed state. However, this terminology has been applied to those soil samples
taken by certain sampling methods. Undisturbed samples are often dened as those
samples obtained by slowly pushing thin-walled tubes, having sharp cutting ends and
tip relief, into the soil. Two parameters, the inside clearance ratio and the area ratio, are
often used to evaluate the disturbance potential of different samplers, and they are
dened as follows:
 9

where :

De = diameter at the sampler cutting tip

Di = inside diameter of the sampling tube

Do = outside diameter of the sampling tube

Next is disturb sample. When the natural conditions of a sample such as its structure,
texture, density, natural water contents or the stress conditions are disturbed then the
sample is called as disturbed soil sample. Disturbed soil is soil that has been remolded
during the sampling process. For example, soil obtained from driven samplers, such as
the Standard Penetration Test spilt spoon sampler, or chunks of intact soil brought to
the surface in an auger bucket (i.e., bulk samples), are considered disturbed soil.
Disturbed soil can also be taken by using shovel from auger cutting. Disturbed soil can
be used for numerous types of laboratory tests. This are a lot easier to collect and the
precision necessary for gathering an undisturbed sample isnt required for many soil
tests.

The methods include using a backhoe in creating a test pit where soil is collected from
the bucket or by using hand augers to gather a sample from a vertical boring. We can
also use drill rigs in collecting disturbed soil samples of great depths. Gathering
disturbed samples of soil will need using collection tools such as Shelby tubes, split
spoon samplers, and microcore push samplers with the drill rig. It could even include
the use of geotechnical engineering software.
 10

1.5.1 Sieve Analysis (ASTM D 2487-93)

A sieve analysis is a practice or procedure are uses to assess the particle size distribution
of a granular material. The size distribution is often of critical importance to the way
the material performs in use. A sieve analysis can be performed on any type of non-
organic or organic granular materials including sands, crushed rock, clays, granite, coal,
soils, a wide range of manufactured powders, grain and seeds, down to a minimum size
depending on the exact method. Being such a simple technique of particle sizing, it is
probably the most common. For this experiment. The main purpose is to find soil
classification. After sampling, we need to classified the soil for other purpose. For
instance, we need to know the type of soil for finding the total settlement or bearing
capacity parameter.

The main objective for this test is to determines the grain size distribution curve of soil
sample by passing them through a stack of sieves of decreasing mesh opening sizes and
by measuring the weight retained on each sieve. To determine also the percentages of
different grain sizes contained within a soil. Lastly to determine the distribution of the
coarse, larger- sized particles.

The soil sample needed for doing this experiment it is 200g of dried soil. Each sieve
need to weighed and clean. Sieve weights need record and on the data sheet provided.
The sieve also need to clean and weighed. The large sieve opening should be on top and
the pan at the bottom. The dried soil need to put in to the sieve and all set of sieves ne
to place on the sieve shaker. After that the sieve shaker need to turn off and allow to
operate for 5 minutes. Once the sieve shaker stops. The sieve stacked need to remove
and carefully disassemble. Each sieve need to weight again to obtained the data. And
all the weight need to recorded for analysis purpose.

The soil sample used for this experiment must completely dried. The reason behind this
is because higher moisture content that remain in the soil will cause the particles to be
glue together and formed a bigger size of the particle and thus it cannot pass through
the sieve as expected.
 11

1.5.2 Specific Gravity Test (ASTM D 854-92)

Specific gravity, (Gs), of a soil can be defined as the ratio of the mass of a given volume
of soil particles at a stated temperature to the mass of an equal volume of distilled water.
The main objective for this test is to determine the specific gravity of fined grained soil.
The density bottle need to clean and dry, it thoroughly washes with distilled water and
allowed it to drain. The mass of the empty cleaned bottle need to weighed, (M1) with
its stopper (reading taken accurate to 0.01 g). 10 g of oven-dried soil sample need to
add into the density bottle. The mass, (M2) of the bottle and its content with the stopper
need record. The bottle was filled with deaired distilled water so that the soil is fully
soaked or 34 full. We did not fill it completely, as the content must be agitated under
vacuum. The entrapped air should be removed by subjecting the contents to a partial
vacuum. Next the bottle is completely fill with deaired distilled water and closed it with
stopper. The mass of the bottle and its content need to determine, (M3). The bottle is
emptied and clean thoroughly. It filled with deaired distilled water, the stopper was put
and the bottle was wiped dry from outside. The mass also need to recorded, (M4).

1.5.2 Triaxial Test Without Pore-Pressure Measurement (ASTM D 2850)

Firstly, keep all drainage valve closed. Place the specimen assembly centrally on the
pedestal. Admit the operating fluid in the cell, raise it pressure to 200 Kpa. Adjust the
loading machine to bring the loading ram a short distance away from the se on the top
cap of the specimen. Read the initial reading to the load measuring gauge. Adjust the
loading machine further so that the loading ram comes just in contact with seat on the
top of the specimen. Note the initial reading of the dial measuring axial compression.
Apply the compressive force at constant rate of axial compression, such that failure is
produce in period of approximately 5 to 15 minutes. take simultaneous reading of load
and deformation dials. Continuous the test until the maximum value of stress has been
passed or until an axial strain of 20% has been passed. Unload the specimen and drain
of the cell fluid. Dismantle the cell and take out the specimen. Remove the rubber
membrane. Weight the specimen and measure the moisture content of that particular
specimen.
 12

1.5.3 Consolidation test (ASTM D 2435)

Remould the soil sample for the purpose of odometer consolidation test. Using the
odometer cell-cutting ring as guide template, trim the extruded sample until the edge of
trimmed sample just allow the cutter ring to slide over the soil. Press the ring down until
it is centrally positioned with the upper and lower surface of the soil just protruding by
equal amount. Use a straight edge or spatula to trim these surfaces to be level with the
end faces of cutting ring. At this stage, weight the specimen in the ring and deduct the
weight of the ring to obtain sample weight. Determine the water content of the soil
sample. Load the filled cell onto the loading platen. Swing the loading beam up to
vertical and screw the beam support to the point where it just touches the underside of
the beam. Ensure the sliding arm attachment (where fitted), is set to the zero position.
Slowly lower the beam and yoke until the screw spindle is just above the loading cap.
If the beam, when contact is made, is above horizontal raise the support jack to hold the
level arm and bring the screw spindle into contact by screwing down. Lock into position
using lock nut. Note that the change in the beam angle has negligible effect on the
loading ratio. Swing the dial gauge on its block so that spindle is above the top surface
of the cross-beam screw spindle. Set the dial gauge, so that a small positive reading is
obtained. Ensure the screw jack is supporting the beam, place the first incremental load
on the weight pan, then when ready to start reading, release the screw jack and start the
timer. Upon completion of the test, unscrew the cross-beam spindle upward sufficiently
to permit the yoke to be swung clear of the cell, thus permitting the cell to be remove.
 13

1.5.4 XRD Test

Sample preparation

a. Milling - Samples are milled using a McCrone Grinding Mill with agate
grinding elements in a jar. The unique grinding action of the mill rapidly reduces
particles to sub micrometre sizes and mixes for homogenization required for
quantitative and qualitative analytical methods (Approx. 10 m). Make sure to
retrieve as much sample as possible after milling. Centrifuge to remove ethanol,
decant, dry and crush sample

Sample mounting

a. Load the randomly prepared samples into the well of a low background sample
holder and tap gently on the bench to help fill and pack to avoid sample
displacement which causes peak shifts.
b. Using a sharp razor, tap the sample surface slowly in all directions to distort
orientation a few times, and then continue to level while gently removing the
loose excess sample powder by scrapping off from the edges of the well of the
sample holder.
c. It is very important to have the correct sample level to the well surface since any
error in the height of the sample will cause peak displacement.
d. After measurement, the disc can be off loaded and washed with tap water and
then re-used.

Sample measurement

a. Switch on the instrument and let it warm for thirty minutes.

b. Pull down the spherical handle of the stage and place onto sample holder into
the sample position of the stage (Goniometer).
c. Lift the sample back into the sample measurement position by pulling up the
spherical handle of the stage and slide down the instrument door. Press down
door handle with force in order to close it correctly.
d. Activate the High Voltage
e. Set measurement parameters for a typical Lynx eye.
f. Select start button to initiate acquisition.
 14

Data acquisition

The intensity of diffracted X-rays is continuously recorded as the sample and

detector rotate through their respective angles. A peak in intensity occurs when the
mineral contains lattice planes with d-spacings appropriate to diffract X-rays at that
value of . Results are presented as peak positions at 2 and X-ray counts (intensity)
in the form of a table or an x-y plot (shown above). Intensity (I) is either reported as
peak height intensity, that intensity above background, or as integrated intensity, the
area under the peak. When sample material is analyzed by XRD a range of diffracted
peaks will occur and a diffractogram is obtained. The angle of each peak is used to
identify the mineral.

phase while the intensity of the peak will indicate relative amount present. The result
of an XRD measurement is a Diffractogram showing:

a. Phases present (peak positions),

b. Phase concentrations (peak heights),

c. Amorphous content (background hump)

d. Crystallite size/strain (peak widths).

A search of the ICDD standard database of x-ray diffraction patterns enables quick
phase identification for a large variety of crystalline samples [3].
 15

1.6 Calculating Bearing Capacity.

For calculating bearing capacity have a various theory. But in this study, will explain
three theories based on familiar theory. That is Terzaghi, Meyerhof, Vesic. In this
Research, we focus more to Meyerhof theory.

In Meyerhof theory, the form of equation used by Meyerhof (1951) for determining
ultimate bearing capacity of symmetrically loaded strip footings is the same as that of
Terzaghi but his approach to solve the problem is different. He assumed that the
logarithmic failure surface ends at the ground surface, and as such took into account the
resistance offered by the soil and surface of the footing above the base level of the
foundation. The different zone considers as stated below [4].

Figure 4: Failure zone consider by Meyerhof

The form of equation proposed by Meyerhof (1963) is,

 16

Nc, Nq, N = Bearing Capacity Factor,

C = cohesion,

Sq, Sc, Sy = Shape factor

Iq, Ic, Iy = Inclination factor

Dq, Dc, Dy = Depth Factor

= Unit weight of the soil below the foundation

D = depth of the foundation ( depth of the sample)

The footing or concrete foundation tasks are to transfer the structural load to soil

foundation. The shallow concrete foundation has ration of Df / B 2.5, where the Df

is the embedment depth and B is the width. The allowable bearing capacity or safe
bearing capacity qf is the maximum pressure on soil foundation, and it is margin of
safety against the collapse due to shear failure [5]. 15 sample have been used by
assuming no friction angle, zero and It is assumed the underground water has not
effect to bearing capacity of soil foundation. The bearing capacity factor Nc, Nq, N is
constant for every soil sample, it is

Table 1: Meyerhof Bearing Equation Factor

 17

From Triaxial Test, the parameters from that test is used for calculating the bearing
capacity for that particular place.

In this model, we take 10 samples from Abdoullah Namdar, Xiong Feng model [6] to
find the optimum bearing capacity vs the Width of the foundation.

Model C Width Width Width Width Width

(KN/m2) Friction KN/m2 = = = = =
Factor 1.0m 1.3m 1.6m 1.9m 2.2m
1 21.94 0 21
2 21.83 0 12
3 23.46 0 46
4 23.82 0 28
5 20.09 0 20
6 20.95 0 26
7 23.35 0 44
8 20.96 0 28
9 21.61 0 26
10 21.56 0 22

Table 2: Model Proposed by generating 10 models by varies C and value.

From the result above, it will tabulate using this model. The optimum value of the width
and resulting higher bearing capacity value will be find out using statistic approaches.
The outcome of the resulting bearing capacity from experimental result will compare
with this model and will be suggested to be one of the treatment of that particular
dumpsite.

Mixture of model type of soil with existing type of soil is one of the treatment if the soil
get from experimental value is not give higher bearing capacity. Using this model also,
the risk assessment will find out to check the bearing capacity of that particular land fill.
Lastly, we compare the bearing capacity value within experimental result and statistical
result and carryout the risk assessment for future development using shallow foundation.
Outcome form this part is the soil at dumping area is suitable or not for building
foundation using shallow foundation.
 18

Further analysis using Monte Carlo simulation were done for more number of iterations
such as N= 50, N = 100, N = 500, N = 1000 and N = 5000 [5].

1.6.2 Flow Chart For Risk Assessment Determination On Bearing Capacity.

Triaxial Test
C,

Bearing Capacity
Monte Carlo Simulation Calculation shallow
and Risk Assesment foundation Approach
(Mayerhof)

Development of the model

Compare Experimental
Model Proposed by Abdoullah
Bearing Capacity and the
Namdar, Xiong Feng with
optimum model
varies width and C

Figure 5: Flow for monte Carlo simulation based on Bearing Capacity

 19

1.7 Predicting Long Term Settlement Using Monte Carlo Simulation.

Based on the odometer test, the consolidation settlement using sampling soil taken from
dumpsite area can be determinate. Using Rheological model, the long-term settlement
can be predicted. And simulation was carried out with Monte Carlo simulation Method.
The settlement failure at the dumping area would expose the environment with the
hazardous gas and leaking of leachate to the groundwater. This would cause further
hazard to the environment if the problem are not solve before the settlement occur[7].

Gibson and Lo (1961) proposed a model that is applicable to peaty soils. This model is
used by Edil et al. (1990) to predict long-term total settlement of MSW. The model uses
an analogy that represents primary compression and secondary compression in which a
compression of a spring expresses immediate compression and a combination of piston
and spring expresses the slow deformation [8]. The model can be expressed below.

H = Settlements
H0 = Initial Height Of waste (Data From Majlis Pembandaran Kajang)
= compressive stress depending upon waste height, density, and external loading.
a = primary compressibility parameter
b = secondary compressibility parameter

= =rate of secondary compression

t = time since load application (El-Fadel et al. 1999)

Based on that formula. performed 3 cases to calculate the long-term settlements

happened in that particular area.
Case 1 = 20 - 100 days
Case 2 = 200- 1000 days
Case 3 = 2000 10000 days
 20

Tabulated Model using Rheological model

Case Input Parameter

1 N (kPa) a (/kPa) b (/kPa)

Case Input Parameter Output Parameter

t(days) /b (e (/b) H (m) Mean Variance Std

(/day) t) () (2)(m) Deviation
()(m)
1

Table 3: Template for Rheological Model with varies cases

For doing this model. The settlement can be predicted with varies cases. The settlement
that we got from odometer test is used for compare the normally settlements happened
in dumping area using this model. The simulation also need to be carried out using
Monte Carlo simulation for more alteration to make sure the result is more precise.

Then the risk Assessment is need to predicted. The result form experiment need to
compare with this model to develop spread sheet of risk assessment.

Further analysis using Monte Carlo simulation were done for more number of iterations
such as N= 50, N = 100, N = 500, N = 1000 and N = 5000 [9].
 21

1.7.1 Flow Chart for Risk Assessment Determination in term of settlement

Rheological
Finding the
Model with varies
Odometer Test Settlement from
cases at Dumping
the experiment
area

Monte Carlo
Simulation with
Risk Assessment
increase number
alteration

Figure 6: Flow for Monte Carlo simulation based on Settlement

Assessment

1.8 Conclusion
For estimating the risk assessment at dumping area. Varies method need to be done. In
this research, five experiments were chosen for developing the risk assessment spread
sheet. The experiments were, XRD, Specific Gravity determination, Sieve Analysis,
Triaxial test and Odometer test. All of this experiment was done by taking the soil
sample (disturb sample or random sampling) from dumpsite area at Sungai Ramal
Dalam, kajang. For this selected experiment. All of this is the basic experiment that we
need to predict the suitability for development of that particular dump site after closure.

The simulations have been made for predict more accuracy or to compare between
experimental outcome and modeling outcome. The Monte Carlo simulation has been
used for this purpose.
 22

1.9 References
[1] Y. C. Moh and L. Abd Manaf, Overview of household solid waste recycling
policy status and challenges in Malaysia, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 82,
no. July 2014, pp. 5061, 2014.
[2] A. Belal, N. Nagy, and A. Elshesheny, Numerical Evaluation of Bearing
Capacity of Square Footing on Geosynthetic Reinforced Sand, no. 143, pp. 1
9, 2015.
[3] V. Singh and H. M. Agrawal, Qualitative soil mineral analysis by EDXRF,
XRD and AAS probes, Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 81, no. 12, pp. 17961803,
2012.
[4] J. Hou, M. xi Zhang, Z. heng Dai, J. zheng Li, and F. fan Zeng, Bearing
capacity of strip foundations in horizontal-vertical reinforced soils, Geotext.
Geomembranes, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 2934, 2017.
[5] A. Namdar, Failure analysis of concrete frame - A numerical analysis,
Procedia Struct. Integr., vol. 2, pp. 27962802, 2016.
[6] A. Namdar and X. Feng, Evaluation of safe bearing capacity of soil foundation
by using numerical analysis method, Frat. ed Integrita Strutt., vol. 30, pp.
138144, 2014.
[7] R. Merk, J. Mielcarek, J. Dring, B. Lange, and C. Lucks, Estimating
contamination monitor efficiency for beta radiation by means of PENELOPE-
2008 Monte Carlo simulation, Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 127, no. May, pp. 87
91, 2017.
[8] N. Irfah, M. Pauzi, Y. C. Wai, and H. Omar, Long-term Settlement Prediction
of Waste Soil using Rheological Model and Coupled with Monte Carlo
Simulation.
[9] N. Irfah and M. Pauzi, Monte Carlo Simulation Model for Waste Soil
Settlement Based on Soil Mechanics, no. January 2012, pp. 17931805, 2016.