See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11186271

Design of landfill daily cells

Article in Waste Management & Research January 2002
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X0101900617 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

308

2 authors:
Demetrios panagiotakopoulos Panagiotak

Ioannis M. Dokas

Democritus University of Thrace

Democirtus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Gr

15 PUBLICATIONS 145 CITATIONS

38 PUBLICATIONS 188 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Ioannis M. Dokas

Retrieved on: 20 October 2016

Waste Manage Res 2001: 19: 613622

Printed in UK all rights reserved

Copyright ISWA 2001

Waste Management & Research

ISSN 0734242X

Design of landfill daily cells

The objective of this paper is to study the behaviour of
the landfill soil-to-refuse (S/R) ratio when size, geometry and operating parameters of the daily cell vary over
realistic ranges. A simple procedure is presented (1) for
calculating the cell parameters values which minimise
the S/R ratio and (2) for studying the sensitivity of this
minimum S/R ratio to variations in cell size, final refuse
density, working face length, lift height and cover thickness. In countries where daily soil cover is required, savings in landfill space could be realised following this
procedure. The sensitivity of minimum S/R to variations
in cell dimensions decreases with cell size. Working face
length and lift height affect the S/R ratio significantly.
This procedure also offers the engineer an additional
tool for comparing one large daily cell with two or more
smaller ones, at two different working faces within the
same landfill.

Problem definition
Landfill is the general term used for structures which
are specifically designed, constructed and operated for
accepting solid waste. By etymology, landfills (LF) are
below ground level. Often, however, these structures are
above original ground level, forming a landraise (LR). In
general, such a structure is partly below and partly above
ground level. The abbreviation LF/LR is hereafter used
to refer to any morphology of a landfill.
In the process of planning and operating a LF/LR, specific choices need to be made regarding:
1. LF/LR morphology: base area shape, side slopes,
benches, final cover thickness;
2. Daily cell geometry (see Fig. 1): height h, length L,
angles j2 and j3 of the sloping faces; and
3. Operation parameters:
thickness of cell soil cover (top: w1, side: w2, front
face: w3);
density d of compacted waste; and

D. Panagiotakopoulos
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus
University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi Greece

I. Dokas
Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus
University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi Greece
Keywords Landfill, landraise, daily cell design, cell geometry
and operating parameters, soil-to-refuse ratio, functional
relationships, minimum S/R ratio, lift height, working front
length, waste density, cover soil

Corresponding author: D. Panagiotakopoulos, Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace,
67100 Xanthi Greece (E-mail: dpanag@xanthi.cc.duth.gr)
Received 10 March 2000, accepted in revised form 15 February
2001

working face length M (see Fig. 1).

The overall objective is to maximise LF/LR capacity
(space available for waste), given: a specific site, design
and operation rules, and a budget (for construction,
operation, and aftercare). This is equivalent to minimising the soil-to-refuse (S/R) ratio. The LF/LR capacity
and the S/R ratio are dependent upon the specific choices mentioned above. In countries where daily cover of
landfilled refuse is required, it is important to minimise
the volume of soil needed. Although it is very likely that
soil cover might not be recommended in future LF/LRs
(EU Landfill Directive 1999/31), in many countries it
will continue to be a fundamental LF/LR feature for at
least another decade.
Landfills and landraises are constructed as sequence of
cells. As described by Milke (1997), a cell is like a box
that has been pushed in one top corner to give two pairs
of parallel sloping sides (Fig. 1). Each cell corresponds to
Waste Management & Research

613

D. Panagiotakopoulos, I. Dokas

Fig. 1. The geometry of an idealised cell (refuse volume = L h M)

a periodic refuse inflow (typically, the daily inflow) covered by soil. A lift is a sequence of cells, which covers the
whole horizontal cross section of the LF/LR. The LF/LR
is a vertical series of lifts of increasing horizontal area
(from bottom up) for a LF and of decreasing area for a LR.
At the cell level, if:
Vr = volume (m3) of refuse in the daily cell,
Vs = volume (m3) of cover soil for the daily cell,
and
Vt = total space occupied by daily cell = Vs+Vr, [1]
then, a best design could be the set of geometric and
operation parameter values which minimises the S/R
ratio defined as follows:
Vs /Vr = (Vt Vr) / Vr = (Vt / Vr) 1.

[2]

For an almost any external morphology, this best

design will also maximize the LF/LR capacity.
Functional relationships can be developed between
total LF/LR capacity and the external morphologic
parameters (Aivaliotis et al. 1995), allowing the engineer to investigate alternative LF/LR morphologies.

614

Waste Management & Research

More recently, Milke (1997) developed functional relationships between the S/R ratio Vs/Vr and some of the
cell and operation parameters. Along this path, for a
given morphology, the LF/LR capacity can be expressed
as a function of the cell geometry and operation parameters (Aivaliotis et al. 1998), the cell size, and the S/R
ratio.
The objective in this paper is to study the design of
the daily cell so that the Vs/Vr ratio is minimised. To this
end, functional relationships are developed of minimum
Vs/Vr (symbolised as [Vs/Vr]min) with: Vr, h, L, M, 2, 3,
wi (i = 1, 2, 3) and density d (see Fig. 1); moreover, the
sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations in most of these
parameters is studied. It is noted that, in general, a cell
may correspond either to the daily inflow or to a fraction
of it (meaning, two or more working fronts simultaneously). Fig.s 2 through 7 show how [Vs/Vr]min is affected
by variations in cell size, cell dimensions, and final refuse
density.
In the real world, given a daily refuse inflow Vr and a
desirable density d, the landfill planner or engineer
would like to know the values of h, L, M, wi (i = 1, 2, 3),
2, and 3 which minimise the ratio Vs/Vr. The relevant
literature suggests ranges of values for these design para-

Design of landfill daily cells

Fig. 2. Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to daily cell size (50 T 750)

Fig. 3. Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to daily cell size (750 T 4000)

meters, letting the engineer choose. For example, on the

basis of McBean et al. (1995), Pfeffer (1992),
Tchobanoglous et al. (1993) and the U. K. Department of
the Environment (1995), the suggested (and field-tested) ranges are shown in Table 1. In practice, the engineer
would set his own ranges on the basis of considerations
like operating conditions, budget, available equipment,

biodegradation rates, etc.

In any case, for minimum Vs/Vr, geometry dictates
that angles 2 and 3 be as high as technologically possible and w1, w2 and w3 be as small as possibly allowed. In
this paper, the minimisation of the S/R ratio will be set
up as a simple mathematical programming model for
choosing simultaneously the optimum values for operaWaste Management & Research

615

D. Panagiotakopoulos, I. Dokas

Fig. 4. Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations of final refuse density

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of [Vs/T]min to variations of final refuse density

tion and cell geometry parameters within realistic

constraining ranges.
The question of optimum cell design is embedded in
the work by Aivaliotis et al. (1995), but it was explicitly
dealt with recently by Milke (1997). Milke (1997) proceeds as follows:
he assumes w1 = w2 = w3 = w and 2 = 3 = ;

616

Waste Management & Research

expresses Vs as a function of , w, Vr, L, and M;

sets Vs/L = 0; and
for given M, he finds optimum values for L and h,
without any constraint consideration on any parameter.
The approach taken in the present paper is both simpler (thus, more practical for the engineer) and broader in
scope. First, a procedure is outlined for sizing the daily

Design of landfill daily cells

Fig. 6. Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations of working face length M (d = 0.7 tonnes m3, h 3 m)

Fig. 7. Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations of height h (d = 0.7 tonnes m3, M 30 m)

cell so that the S/R ratio Vs/Vr is minimised. Second, the

sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations in some design
parameters is explored. In the following paragraphs, it
will be shown that:
[Vs/Vr]min decreases rapidly with cell size, for sizes up
to about 1000 tonnes/day;
the sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations in cell

dimensions decreases as cell size increases;

as daily inflow tonnage increases, the optimum
value of cell height increases (obviously), but the
sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variation around this value
decreases rather rapidly; and
[Vs/Vr]min is a moderately increasing linear function of
final compacted density.
Waste Management & Research

617

D. Panagiotakopoulos, I. Dokas

Table 1. Cell design parameters and their ranges of values

Parameter

Symbol

Units

Range of values

m
degrees

2.00 6.75
up to 30

M
L

m
m

3.00 50.00
depends on Vr , h, M

Height of compacted refuse

h
Angles of cell sloping faces 2, 3
Daily working face length
Cell length

The above assumption is both logical and realistic,

rendering expression [10] an acceptable substitute for
[8]. It so happens, however, that the results of the optimisation process are the same, regardless of whether one
uses [8] or [10]. Hereafter, the expression in [10] will be
used for the S/R ratio.

Horizontal cell cover thickness w1

0.15 0.70

Side cell cover thickness

w2

0.15 0.35

Minimising the S/R ratio

Front cell cover thickness

w3

0.15 0.35

In a mathematical programming form, the cell design

problem is formulated as follows:

Cell design for minimising cover soil

The S/R ratio

Let the daily inflow be T tonnes, which is compacted to

a final density of d tonnes/m3. If the daily inflow corresponds to a single cell, then Vr = T/d and from Fig. 1 we
have:

Given a daily inflow T requiring space Vr (Vr =T/d),

and for specified cell cover thickness w1, w2, w3,
find h, L, M and , which minimise Vs/Vr = (w1 / h) +
[w2 / (M sin)] + [w3 / (L sin)]
so that

Vr = L h M
and

[3]
h L M = T / d (= Vr)

Vt = L h M

[4]
hmin h hmax

where
0 max
L = L + (w3 / sin3)

[5]
Mmin M Mmax,

h = h + w1

[6]

M = M + (w2 / sin2).

[7]

The S/R ratio, from [2], becomes:

Vs/Vr = [(L h M) / (L h M)] 1 =
= (w2 / M sin2) + (w1 / h) + (w1 w2 / M h
sin2) + (w3 / L sin3) +
+ (w2 w3 / M L sin2 sin3) + (w1 w2 w3
/ L M h sin2 sin3) +
[8]
+ (w1 w3 / L h sin3).
Assuming, as Milke (1997) did, that 2 = 3 = ,
then Vs can be approximated by Vs as follows:
Vs = (w1 L M) + (w2 L h / sin) + (w3 M
h / sin)
[9]
The corresponding approximate S/R value is
Vs / Vr = w1 / h + w2 / (M sin) + w3 / (L sin).
[10]

618

Waste Management & Research

[11]

where hmin, hmax, Mmin, Mmax and max are lower

and upper bounds set by operation and other
considerations.
The practical benefit of formulating the cell design
problem as in [11] and of using expression [10] instead
of [8] for the S/R ratio is that, quite often, problem [11]
has an almost obvious solution, as explained below. In
general, however, it can be solved on Excel (solver).
From the format of [11], and letting subscript opt
denote the generated optimal values of the decision
variables, the following can be deduced:
1. opt = max
hopt
sin
hopt
sin,
= w1
and
= w1
w2
Lopt
w3
Mopt
as long as hopt and Mopt happen to fall below their
upper bounds.
Thus, if w2 = w3, then Lopt = Mopt and, for given h*,
Lopt = Mopt = (Vr / h*)1/2 . If w1 sin w2, then hopt
Mopt .
2.

Design of landfill daily cells

At a practical level, now, as a rule, 30 (sin

Thus, if = 30, w1 = 0.30 m, w2 = 0.15 m, and w3
= 0.10 m, then we would get: hopt = Mopt and Lopt = 2/3
hopt, as long as hopt < hmax.
1/2).

Example

Let T = 300 tonnes and d = 700 kg m3, making Vr =

429 m3. Also, let w1 = 0.30 m, w2=0.20 m, w3 = 0.15 m,
max = 20, hmax = 3.0 m and Mmax 30m. A logical
cell design could have the following values: h = 3 m,
= 20, and M = 30 m. Given these values, we get L =
Vr / (3x30) = 4.8 m while expression [10] yields Vs/Vr =
21.2%.
If, however, the model in [11] is employed, we have:
For given T and d, find h, L, M and , which minimise
Vs/Vr where
Vs/Vr = (0.30 / h) + [0.20 / (M sin)] + [0.15 / (L
sin)]
h L M = Vr
0 h 3; 0 M 30; 0 20.

[12]

Solving [12] for T = 300 tonnes and d = 0.7

tonnes/m3 (Vr = 429 m3), we get: hopt = 3 m, Lopt =
10.4 m, Mopt =13.8 m , opt = 20, and [Vs/Vr]min =
18.5%. A decrease of 2.7 percentiles for the value of the
S/R ratio over the previous solution is noted. This corresponds to a LF/LR refuse space increase of 2.1%. Had
we required w2 = w3 = 0.15 m in [12], we would have
gotten Lopt equal to Mopt (Lopt = Mopt = 12.0 m) and
[Vs/Vr]min = 17.3%. (It is noted that [Vs/Vr]min is lower
here than its value from [12] because of the reduction
in w2 from 0.20 to 0.15 m).
These numerical examples show the advantages of
choosing cell design parameters through [11], in connection with the ranges in Table 1. As already mentioned, it so happens that, in all cases above, if
expression [8] had been used in place of [10], the
numerical results for the design parameters would have
been exactly the same.
In a way of comparison with Milke s (1997) approach,
we will use one of his examples. Thus, inserting Vr = 1000
m3, w1 = 0.20 m, w2 = w3 = 0.19 m, = 18.43 and M=
30 m in [11], we get L = 10 m and h = 3.3 m, i.e. exact-

ly the same values as in Milke (1997). The relative simplicity of the approach suggested here is underlined.
From the point of view of the landfill engineer or planner, a practical question is how sensitive the S/R ratio
(and, thus, the LF/LR capacity) is to variations in the
values of the cell design parameters. In other words,
whether it is worth making the extra effort for attaining
the optimal values of the parameters. The analyst, as
already suggested in the examples above, can rather easily explore this question through model [11]; therefore,
it is not explored further in this paper. A more intriguing
and cumbersome, but equally practical, question is:
How sensitive [Vs/Vr]min is to variations in cell size and
parameters values? This question is considered in the
following paragraphs.

Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to daily cell size and

compaction
Problem [11], with the parameter values as in [12], is
solved for a range of daily inflows from 50 to 4000 tonnes
and for three values of d: 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 tonnes per
m3. The results are shown in Fig.s 2 and 3, and in Tables
2 and 3. (It is again noted that the analysis here refers to
[Vs/Vr]min, not to Vs/Vr).
Fig. 2 shows [Vs/Vr]min as a function of d for 50 T
750. Fig. 3 shows the same function for
750 T 4000. The general form of the function relating [Vs/Vr]min with cell size, for specific d, is
[Vs/Vr]min = a T b.

[13]

The regression line derived for the whole range {50

T 4000}, through repeated solutions of [12] with
hmax = 3 m and d = 0.75 tonnes m3, is
[Vs/Vr]min = 53.31 T 0.181 (R2 = 0.950)

[14]

It is observed that [Vs/Vr]min decreases rapidly with

cell size up to about 1000 tonnes day1; thereafter,
[Vs/Vr]min is not very sensitive to cell size. Regarding the
daily cell size measure, it is noted that the basic quantity
the engineer is confronted with is the refuse tonnage.
The cell volume is an outcome of a decision on the
degree of compaction. In Fig.s 2 and 3, the cell size is in
tonnes. Along a vertical axis at any level T*, the three
{[Vs/Vr]min, T*} pairs on the three crossings correspond
Waste Management & Research

619

D. Panagiotakopoulos, I. Dokas

Table 2. Values of optimal cell parameters for various inflows T (tonnes) in Problem [12]
Cell
parameters

T = 50
Vr = 71

T = 100
Vr = 143

T = 500
Vr = 714

T = 1000
Vr = 1429

T = 4000
Vr = 5714

Mopt

5.7

8.0

17.8

25.2

Range of M*
Lopt

5.2 6.3
4.3

7.0 9.1
6.0

13.7 23.2
13.4

17.6 36.1
18.9

19.8 73.4
63.5

Range of L*
hopt

4.7 3.9
2.9

6.8 5.3
3.0

17.4 10.2
3.0

27.0 13.2
3.0

96.1 25.9
3.0

300

opt

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

[Vs/Vr]min

30.8

24.7

16.6

14.6

12.6

* Range for which Vs/Vr deviates by less than 1 percentile from the [Vs/Vr]min value
Table 3. Values of optimal cell parameters for various inflows T (tonnes) in Problem [12]
Cell
parameters

d = 0.5

d = 0.75

d = 1.00

T = 100

T = 1000

T = 100

T = 1000

T = 100

T = 1000

Mopt

9.4

29.8

7.7

24.3

6.7

21.1

Lopt

7.1

22.4

5.8

18.3

5.0

15.8

hopt = hmax

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

opt
Vr
[Vs/Vr]min

20

20

200

2000

22.4

13.9

20

20

20

20

133.3

1333.3

100

1000

25.2

14.8

to three different cell volumes. For each of those volumes, we have specific optimal cell dimensions and a
specific [Vs/Vr]min value.
As already noted, Fig.s 2 and 3 are based on [12],
where hmax = 3 m. For the given input values in [12],
hopt comes out to be less than 3 m for cell sizes up to Vr
= 73 m3. (This volume corresponds to 55 tonnes for d =
0.75 tonnes/m3 or 73 tonnes for d = 1.00 tonnes/m3).
The value of hmax clearly affects the optimum cell dimensions and [Vs/Vr]min. For example, letting hmax be 6 rather
than 3 m, Problem [12] gives the same results for Vr
73 m3, but expression [14], which covers the range {50
T 4000}, changes to:
[Vs/Vr]min = 91.84 T 0.294
(R2 = 0.950), for 50 T 4000.

[15]

For T > 200, expression [15] gives slightly lower values for [Vs/Vr]min than [14] (the divergence increases
with Vr).
Table 2 shows the optimum dimensions for selected
cell sizes. It also shows the range of values of M and L for

620

Waste Management & Research

27.5

15.5

which the ratio Vs/Vr deviates by less than one percentile

from its minimum value. (The [Vs/Vr]min values come
from problem [12], not from the regression results). In
Table 2 we see that, for T = 50, if M varies from 5.2 to
6.3 m (with L varying, respectively, from 4.7 to 3.9 m),
the value of Vs/Vr deviates by less than 1 percentile.
Similarly, for T = 500, the corresponding range of M is
from 13.7 to 23.2 m (with L varying, respectively, from
17.4 to 10.2 m). The conclusion is that the sensitivity of
[Vs/Vr]min to variations in L and M decreases as cell size
increases.
Table 3 and Fig. 4 show the effect of d on [Vs/Vr]min.
For given inflow, as d increases Vr decreases more drastically than Vs; thus, [Vs/Vr]min increases. Since, normally,
we prefer high d and low Vs/Vr, the results in Table 3 and
Fig. 4 might give the impression of a paradox. Not so.
Higher compaction means more tonnes in the same volume; but the real target is less soil per tonne deposited, not
per m3. In fact, if we define a new soil-to-refuse ratio,
Vs/T, as the cover soil per tonne of refuse, i.e.
Vs / T = [Vs/Vr] / d

[16]

Design of landfill daily cells

and if we redefine [11] replacing Vs/Vr by Vs/T, we

would get exactly the same results for the cell design.
However, as shown in Fig. 5, [Vs/T]min is a decreasing
function of d (high d means lower soil-to-tonnage ratio).

Sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations in M and h

Variations in working face length

The sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variations in the working

face length M has already been discussed in connection
with the results shown in Table 2. Fig. 6 shows more
explicitly how M affects [Vs/Vr]min, for various values of
Vr. The points of the curves in Fig. 6 come from repeated solution of Problem [12], where M is assigned a different fixed value (step = 0.5 m) for each repetition.
Clearly, there exists a low-values range where [Vs/Vr]min
is extremely sensitive to changes in M. The smaller the
cell size, the more distinct the value of a best length M
that minimises [Vs/Vr]min. As T increases, this best
value of M increases, while the sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min
to variations around this value decreases rather rapidly.
Variations in lift height

Problem [12] is now solved repeatedly for varying specific values of lift height h. The results are shown in Fig. 7.
As expected, the best lift height (the value corresponding to the minimum [Vs/Vr]min) increases with cell size.
As T increases, this best value of h increases, while the
sensitivity of [Vs/Vr]min to variation around this value
decreases rather rapidly.

Conclusions
In this paper, a simple procedure has been outlined:
for calculating the values of landfill daily cell
geometric and operating parameters which minimise
the S/R ratio (thus, maximising space available for
waste); and
for studying the sensitivity of this minimum S/R ratio
to variations in daily cell size, density, working face
length and lift height.
The procedure is based on a simplified (but of acceptable accuracy) formulation of the S/R ratio and on a simple mathematical programming model for minimising
this ratio. Accordingly, it is of practical value to the landfill engineer and planner.
Through several numerical examples, it was estab-

lished that savings in space available for waste could be

realised if the design engineer adopts the procedure suggested here instead of setting the values of the cell
design parameters on the basis of logical and tested
ranges suggested in the literature. It was also established
that the minimum S/R ratio is a moderately increasing
linear function of final compacted density. Regarding
cell size, the minimum S/R ratio is quite sensitive to variations for sizes of up to 1000 m3 and rather insensitive
for sizes above 1500 m3. On the basis of Relation [15],
the minimum S/R ratio at 100 m3 is about 50% higher
than at 1000 m3.
The working face length M and the lift height h have
a significant effect on the S/R ratio. The procedure outlined here helps the engineer calculate with sufficient
accuracy this effect. As expected, as cell size increases,
the optimum values for both M and h increase. In addition, the sensitivity of the minimum S/R ratio to variations around these optimum values for M and h
decreases rapidly as cell size increases. There exists a
low-values range where minimum S/R is very sensitive to
changes in M. For h=3 m, the optimum working face
length is rather sensitive to variations in the cell size up
to 300 m3 and rather insensitive for larger sizes.
This analysis also offers the engineer an additional
tool for comparing one large daily cell with two or more
smaller ones, at two different working faces within the
same landfill. For example, from Fig. 2, a single cell of
500 tonnes (d = 0.75 tonnes m3) would give [Vs/Vr]min
= 16.8%, while two cells of 250 tonnes each would give
[Vs/Vr]min = 20.1%. This difference of 3.3% corresponds
to an increase in space for refuse by 2.3%. It is noted that
the functions in fig. 2 refers to Problem [12] where hmax
= 3 m; as already pointed out, if h were a decision variable, optimum h would have been higher for the larger
cells.
Overall, the variations of the S/R ratio values, as well
as the deviations from the corresponding minimum
value for each case, seem to have an effect on net space
available for refuse in the range of 3%. One could
claim that this is quite small, especially for complex
engineering works such as landfills, and that this
explains the fact that the study of the S/R ratio does not
seem to be high on the investigators priority list.
However, as landfilling space is getting scarcer and, thus,
more valuable, one could hardly argue that even a 1%
improvement is not worthwhile, especially when the
Waste Management & Research

621

D. Panagiotakopoulos, I. Dokas

available analytical tools are quite simple.

The analysis presented here is based on an idealised
situation. Every engineer understands the difficulty in
attaining a specific h, wi (i = 1, 2, 3) or in the field,
given the day-to-day vagaries. But, as already stated, this
analysis offers a starting level for understanding how the

cover soil quantities affect the LF/LR capacity and how

cell dimensions affect the soil quantities. Of course, the
S/R ratio is not the only (perhaps not even the most
important) factor in determining the optimal cell size
and geometry. Cost, safety, productivity, equipment, and
compacting facility are some of the other factors.

References
Aivaliotis, V., Panagiotakopoulos, D. & Hatzisavas, S. (1995) Functional
Relationships of Landfill Capacity With Design Parameters. In:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia 95,
Cagliari, Italy, 26 October 1995, Vol. I, 781792.
Aivaliotis V., Panagiotakopoulos D. & Simos, T. (1998) Mathematical
Modelling of Sanitary Landfill Capacity as a Function of Design
Parameters. In: Proceedings Fourth International Conference. Protection
and Restoration of the Environment, Halkidiki, Greece, July 1998, Vol.
2, 635642.
EPA (1995) Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management. EPA/600. Vol. II.

622

Waste Management & Research

EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/26 April 1999.

McBean E., Rovers F. & Farquhar, G. (1995) Solid Waste Landfill
Engineering and Design. Prentice Hall.
Milke, M. W. (1997) Design of landfill daily cells to reduce cover soil use.
Waste Management and Research 15, 585592.
Pfeffer J. (1992) Solid Waste Management Engineering, Prentice Hall.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H. & Vigil, S. (1993) Integrated Solid Waste
Management. McGraw Hill.
U. K. Department of the Environment (1995), Landfill Design, Construction
and Operation Practice. HMSO Publications Centre.

Waste Manage Res 2001: 19: 623x?x

Printed in UK all rights reserved

Copyright ISWA 2001

Waste Management & Research

ISSN 0734242X

List of referees 2001

Harvey Alter
USA
Robert Ball
United Kingdom
Jarrod M. Ball
South Africa
Morton A. Barlaz
USA
E. F .Barth
USA
Carl Bartone
USA
Heinz-Georg Baum
Germany
Richard Beaven
United Kingdom
HasanBelevi
Switzerland
G. E.Blight
South Africa
Niels O.Breum
Denmark
A .V.Bridgewater
United Kingdom
Kirk W.Brown
USA
Paul H.Brunner
Austria
A.Buekens
Belgium
PhilipByer
Canada
Gunnar Brjesson
Sweden
D. J .V. Campbell
United Kingdom
Franco Cecchi
Italy
Stefano Cernuschi
Italy
Thomas H. Christensen
Denmark
Mette Christophersen
Denmark
Chris Coggins
United Kingdom
C. Collivignarelli
Italy
Peter Czepiel
USA
R. D. Davis
United Kingdom
Robert B .Dean
Denmark
Luis F .Diaz
USA
J.P. du Plessis
South Africa
Peter Dupen
Australia
G .Eduljee
United Kingdom

H. J .Ehrig
Germany
Mohamed Mokhtar El-Halwagi
Egypt
Matti O. Ettala
Finland
Joseph B. Farrell
USA
Andy Fourie
South Africa
Ann-Marie Fllman
Sweden
Emanuela Galli
Italy
Jean-Michel Giovannoni
Switzerland
Clarence G .Golueke
USA
Derek Greedy
United Kingdom
Robert G Gregory
United Kingdom
Adam Grochowalski
Poland
K. Rao Gurijala
USA
Albert Hackl
Austria
Robert K. Ham
USA
Jens Aage Hansen
Denmark
Philippe Hartemann
France
Floyd Hasselriis
USA
Aage Heie
Norway
Stefanie Hellweg
Switzerland
Robert Van Heuit
USA
N. Hirayama
Japan
Richard W. M. Hoare
United Kingdom
H. A. J. Hoitink
USA
N. R. Hulugalle
Australia
Hilary I. Inyang
USA
Phil James
United Kingdom
William J. Jewell
USA
David I. Johnson
USA
G. Kahr
Switzerland
Jean-Pierre Kaiser
Switzerland

Issac R. Kaplan
USA
Peter Kjeldsen
Denmark
Keith Knox
United Kingdom
Michael Kotschan
Austria
A. Knig
P.R. China
Lorenzo Liberti
Italy
Ralf L. Lindbauer
Austria
Karl Lorber
Austria
Virginia W. Maclaren
Canada
P. K. Maitra
India
Rocco L. Mancinelli
USA
B. J. W. Manley
United Kingdom
Stellan Marklund
Sweden
Christian Maurice
Sweden
Brendan McGrath
Ireland
Mark W. Milke
New Zealand
Steven J. Moore
Australia
Charles Moore
USA
Leo Morf
Switzerland
Jeremy Morris
USA
Kiyohiko Nakasaki
Japan
HisashiOgawa
Philippines
Aldo Panzia Oglietti
Italy
Turgut T. Onay
Turkey
Hans Oonk
The Netherlands
E. A. R. Ouano
Philippines
A. L. Page
USA
J. Jeffrey Peirce
USA
Philippe J. Pichat
France
Frederick G. Pohland
USA
Chongrak Polprasert
Thailand

Waste Management & Research

Pratap Pullammanappallil
Australia
Helmut Rechberger
USA
Dieter Reimann
Germany
Debra R. Reinhart
USA
H. D. Robinson
United Kingdom
David E. Ross
USA
W. R. Roy
USA
Philip Rushbrook
Italy
Gian Franco Saetti
Italy
George M. Savage
USA
Atilio A. Savino
Argentina
Roland Schertenleib
Switzerland
Hans Schnitzer
Austria
Paolo Selldorf
Switzerland
James Smith
USA
Luminita Stefanescu
Romania
E. I. Stentiford
United Kingdom
Dieter Strauch
Germany
Samuel Stucki
Switzerland
Robert E. Sweeney
USA
Ryszard Szpadt
Poland
Hiroshi Takatsuki
Japan
Jens Christian Tjell
Denmark
Dave Tomasko
USA
William K. Townend
United Kingdom
Giordano Urbini
Italy
Giovanni Vallini
Italy
Hans A. van der Sloot
The Netherlands
Robert B. Wenger
USA
Dennis Wichelns
USA
Heinrich Widmer
Switzerland

623