649684

research-article2016
WMR0010.1177/0734242X16649684Waste Management & ResearchPetrovic

Mini-review Article

Waste Management & Research

Mini-review of the geotechnical

1­–11
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
parameters of municipal solid waste: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X16649684

Mechanical and biological pre-treated wmr.sagepub.com

versus raw untreated waste

Igor Petrovic

Abstract
The most viable option for biostabilisation of old sanitary landfills, filled with raw municipal solid waste, is the so-called bioreactor
landfill. Even today, bioreactor landfills are viable options in many economically developing countries. However, in order to reduce
the biodegradable component of landfilled waste, mechanical and biological treatment has become a widely accepted waste treatment
technology, especially in more prosperous countries. Given that mechanical and biological treatment alters the geotechnical properties
of raw waste material, the design of sanitary landfills which accepts mechanically and biologically treated waste, should be carried out
with a distinct set of geotechnical parameters. However, under the assumption that ‘waste is waste’, some design engineers might be
tempted to use geotechnical parameters of untreated raw municipal solid waste and mechanical and biological pre-treated municipal
solid waste interchangeably. Therefore, to provide guidelines for use and to provide an aggregated source of this information, this
mini-review provides comparisons of geotechnical parameters of mechanical and biological pre-treated waste and raw untreated
waste at various decomposition stages. This comparison reveals reasonable correlations between the hydraulic conductivity values of
untreated and mechanical and biological pre-treated municipal solid waste. It is recognised that particle size might have a significant
influence on the hydraulic conductivity of both municipal solid waste types. However, the compression ratios and shear strengths
of untreated and pre-treated municipal solid waste do not show such strong correlations. Furthermore, another emerging topic that
requires appropriate attention is the recovery of resources that are embedded in old landfills. Therefore, the presented results provide
a valuable tool for engineers designing landfills for mechanical and biological pre-treated waste or bioreactor landfills for untreated
raw waste as well as planning landfill mining projects.

Keywords
Degree of decomposition, geotechnical properties, mechanically and biologically treated waste, municipal solid waste, sanitary
landfills

Introduction
With increasing awareness of environmental protection, various
municipal solid waste (MSW) pre- and post-treatment techniques
have been developed. Their mutual goal is to reduce the impact
and amount of disposed waste to the environment.
Of the widely accepted post-treatment techniques for older
sanitary landfills filled with raw untreated MSW, the most viable
option is the so-called bioreactor landfill. A bioreactor landfill
operates in a manner to minimise environmental impact and opti-
mise waste decomposition through intensive leachate recircula-
tion (Reinhart and Townsend, 1998). Moreover, another emerging
post-treatment technique of old sanitary landfills is landfill min-
ing (Greedy, 2016). The proper design of both bioreactor landfills
and landfill mines requires proper knowledge about the geotech-
nical parameters of raw untreated waste material at various
decomposition stages. While bioreactor landfills are currently the
most viable option only in economically developing countries,
the recovery of resources that are embedded in old landfills
– landfill mining – has received increased attention in the most
developed countries.
One of the widely accepted pre-treatment methods is the
mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) process. During
mechanical treatment, coarser waste particles are screened out or
shredded into smaller pieces. Further size reduction and a change
of the waste structure are mainly achieved with subsequent bio-
logical treatment. As a consequence, the mechanical and biological
(MB)-pre-treated waste usually has a finer and more homogenous
particle distribution compared with raw untreated waste material.
Faculty of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Zagreb, Varazdin,
Croatia
Corresponding author:
Igor Petrovic, Faculty of Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Zagreb, Hallerova aleja 7, 42000 Varazdin, Croatia.
Email: igor.petrovic@gfv.hr

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016

2 Waste Management & Research
Regardless of whether landfilled MSW has been pre-treated
or is going to be post-treated, the main objective of proper land-
fill design is the assurance of pertinent functioning of all landfill
components, not just within the operational period, but also in the
post-closure period. Improper landfill design could lead to the
loss of the integrity of lining systems and subsequently to the loss
of overall landfill stability, which would present a significant
environmental hazard.
From the perspective of civil engineering, sanitary MBT/bio-
reactor/mine landfills can be viewed as artificial embankments
and slopes where the main building block is MSW. As both types
of waste materials – pre- and post-treated – are strongly hetero-
geneous in nature, establishing the appropriate design parameters
of distinct waste material can be a demanding task. Consequently,
by assuming that ‘waste is waste’, one might be tempted to treat
the mechanical parameters of pre- and post-treated MSW inter-
changeably. By following the mentioned assumption, the risk of
disregarding fuzziness in the mechanical properties of the pre-
and post-treated MSW is significant.
Therefore, the examination and critical estimation of the
geotechnical properties of waste material, by taking into con-
sideration the type of structure that has to be built (MBT/bio-
reactor/mine), are of substantial importance to a qualified
design process.
The geotechnical parameters of MB pre-treated MSW were
examined by Ziehmann (1999), Bidlingmaier et al. (1999),
Duellmann (2002), Kuehle-Weidemeier and Doedens (2003),
Carrubba and Cossu (2003), Boni et al. (2006), Bauer et al.
(2006, 2007), Entenmann and Wendt (2007), Olivier and Gourc
(2007), and more recently by Bhandari and Powrie (2012),
Siddiqui et al. (2012, 2013a, 2013b), Pimolthai and Wagner
(2014) and Sivakumar Babu et al. (2015).
According to Reddy et al. (2011), very few studies focused
on geotechnical parameters of raw untreated MSW at various
degrees of decomposition (DOD): e.g. Kavazanjian (2001),
Kavazanjian et al. (2001), Hossain (2002), Hossain et al. (2009),
Hossain and Haque (2009), Dixon and Langer (2006), Gabr
et al. (2007), Bray et al. (2009), Reddy et al. (2009a, 2009b,
2011) and more recently by Reddy et al. (2015) and
Lakshmikanthan et al. (2015).
Operating principles of MBT processes
Various mechanical treatment processes have been designed in
order to separate different waste streams prior to biological
treatment. Some steps included in mechanical treatment are
hand sorting, screening, shredding, ballistic separation and
magnetic separation. The first treatment step is commonly
based on a mechanical separation of biodegradable organic
components and recyclable materials, such as plastic, metals,
glass, paper and cardboard. In this step, a stream of mainly bio-
degradable organic matter, along with small inert material that
cannot be separated, is obtained. After mechanical treatment,
aerobic or anaerobic biological treatment takes place.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
With respect to aerobic treatment, there are two distinctive
treatment processes: composting and biodrying. Biodrying
usually occurs immediately after the biodegradable organic
components have been mechanically separated in order to pre-
serve its calorific value. After drying, subsequent mechanical
treatment processes permit the production of high-calorie
fuel. As opposed to biodrying, composting usually takes place
only after mechanical treatment is completed. The composting
process leads to the complete decomposition of easily degra-
dable organic matter. Ultimately, regardless of the specific
MBT process used, a remaining non-recyclable waste stream
has to be landfilled.
Operating principles of bioreactor
landfills
Bioreactor landfill technology involves injecting leachate into
the waste mass to accelerate or enhance the anaerobic biodegra-
dation of raw untreated MSW. There are two main operating con-
ditions that must be maintained:
•• the moisture content must be held at field capacity, and
•• the pH must remain nearly neutral.
As opposed to dry-tomb landfills, bioreactor landfills offer a
sustainable way to achieve higher rates of MSW decomposition
and faster reduction of leachate and landfill gas pollution poten-
tial. In parallel, the decomposition of organic waste matter
changes the composition of the solids matrix of MSW. With the
drastic changes in solids composition and increased moisture
content, the mechanical behaviour of bioreactor MSW is going to
change as decomposition continues.
The generally accepted decomposition stages that leachate
undergoes in a bioreactor landfill were defined by Pohland and
Harper (1986). These stages are as follows.
Stage 1: Initial adjustment or aerobic phase. Moisture is added
and the waste supports an active microbial community. This
phase continues for a very short period of time, and mainly nitro-
gen and carbon dioxide are produced during this phase. Methane
production is not observed in this stage.
Stage 2: Transition phase. All the oxygen is consumed by the
bacteria, and production of carbon dioxide takes place. Both
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total volatile acids (TVA)
appear in the leachate.
Stage 3: Acid formation phase. Acid-forming bacteria convert
these molecules into short chain carboxylic acids, alcohols, car-
bon dioxide and hydrogen. This results in a lower pH. Both COD
and TVA in the leachate are maximised.
Stage 4: Methane fermentation phase. Acids are consumed and
converted into methane and carbon dioxide. Heavy metals are
removed from the leachate by complexation and precipitated
onto the remaining solids.
Petrovic 3
Figure 1.  Particle size distribution curves for MB treated MSW and raw MSW.
Stage 5: Final or maturation phase. Biological activity diminishes
along with diminished gas production. Leachate strength is at
much lower concentrations than in all previous stages. However,
the concentrations of CH4 and CO2 in Stages 4 and 5 remain
approximately the same.
Scope of article
In this work, a mini-review of the geotechnical parameters (i.e.
hydraulic conductivity, consolidation coefficient, oedometric
modulus, compression indices, cohesion, shear friction angle and
tension angle) of MB pre-treated MSW and raw untreated MSW
at known decomposition stages are presented and compared.
Furthermore, the influence of biodegradation on particle size is
also discussed.
Categorical evaluation
Influence of biodegradation on particle
size distribution
Kuehle-Weidemeier (2007) argues that the granulometry of MB
pre-treated waste material is mainly affected by the mechanical
treatment process because large/coarse waste components were
removed by sieving or reduced to smaller pieces by shredding.
He also recognises that the influence of biological treatment on
the particle size distribution, in contrary to the mechanical treat-
ment, is negligible. The exception is for fractions less than 20 mm
where clear refinement of particles owing to biological treatment
can be noticed. Furthermore, he also found that, with respect to
the mass content, the fraction of particles in the range of 0–20 mm
prevails, followed by the fraction of particle in the range of 20–
40 mm, and the fraction of particles larger than 40 mm represents
only a small share of the mass content of the MBT-output.
A similar distribution of mass content in MB pre-treated waste
was also confirmed by the author’s research (Petrovic et al.,
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
2014). The particle size distribution curves for MB pre-treated
MSW presented in Figure 1 were established from two (denoted
as A and B) air dried samples with residual moisture contents of
7% in accordance with the Croatian standard testing procedure
HRN.U.B1.018 (1980). As can be seen from Figure 1, the mass
content of particles larger than 20 mm in samples A and B are 3%
and 7%, respectively.
Research on synthetic and real raw untreated waste conducted
by Reddy et al. (2011, 2015) revealed that particle refinement of
raw untreated waste material caused by the decomposition pro-
cess also takes place (Figure 1). The decomposition phases of
synthetic waste are identified as fresh (FS), anaerobic acid (S1;
DOD = 50%), accelerated methane (S2; DOD = 53%), deceler-
ated methane (S3; DOD = 70%) and methane stabilisation (S4;
DOD = 86%). The decomposition phases of real waste (collected
from the working phase of Orchard Hills Landfill) are identified
as the initial stage (FR), stage R1 (DOD = 43%), stage R2 (DOD
= 45%), stage R3 (DOD = 53%), stage R4 (DOD = 56%) and
stage R5 (DOD = 73%). Figure 1 reveals that the particle size of
synthetic raw untreated MSW continuously decreases as decom-
position occurs. The particle size of real raw untreated MSW also
decreased as decomposition continued, during which the percent-
age of particles smaller than 10 mm in the highly decomposed
sample (R5) doubled with respect to the initial stage.
Although the particle size distribution curves indicate that
fresh synthetic raw MSW (FS), was a gap-graded material, those
gaps clearly diminished during the decomposition process.
Furthermore, with respect to the considered MB pre-treated
MSW and synthetic raw untreated MSW, Figure 1 also reveals
that the examined real raw untreated MSW is coarser and more
uniformly graded. However, the transition from poorly graded to
well-graded, as in the case of synthetic raw untreated MSW, was
not observed. By taking into consideration the mentioned fea-
tures, it can be anticipated that the real raw untreated MSW tested
by Reddy et al. (2015), being coarser and more uniformly graded,
4 Waste Management & Research
is going to be more permeable and compressible than MB pre-
treated and/or synthetic raw untreated MSW.
Hydraulic conductivity
In general, the hydraulic conductivity of any porous media is pri-
marily a function of the interconnected void space. Reddy et al.
(2009a) examined raw untreated MSW for the dependency of
hydraulic conductivity on particle size distribution. They have
found that at comparable dry unit weight, the hydraulic conduc-
tivity obtained for decomposed waste was slightly lower than
that of fresh waste material, which can be attributed to the differ-
ence in their particle-size distribution caused by biodegradation.
Furthermore, they argued that larger effective size (i.e. diameter
for 10% passing) provides an indication of higher conductivity
values for raw untreated MSW with fewer small particles. In
addition, the authors demonstrated that tests conducted by
Penmethsa (2007) also confirm the dependency of hydraulic con-
ductivity on the particle size distribution of MSW. These results
were reconfirmed by Reddy et al. (2011, 2015) for synthetic and
real raw untreated MSW samples at various decomposition
stages. The obtained results for both types of material show a
clear dependency between hydraulic conductivity and DOD, and
correspondingly on the increased number of smaller particles
caused by decomposition.
In contrast, Powrie and Beaven (1999) established that the
hydraulic conductivity resulting from particle size reduction and
waste decomposition are essentially second order, but appear to
be more significant at higher vertical effective stresses. What
they found to be more important is a single correlation between
vertical hydraulic conductivity and vertical effective stress in ini-
tial loading. This correlation has been confirmed by various stud-
ies: for raw bioreactor MSW at various DOD by Reddy et al.
(2011, 2015), for MB pre-treated waste by Petrovic et al. (2011)
and for raw untreated MSW by Gavelitė et al. (2015).
Considering that hydraulic conductivity is dependent on the
particle size of MSW, Table 1 presents the average hydraulic con-
ductivity values obtained for various fractions of MB pre-treated
MSW. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows the average hydraulic con-
ductivity values of MB pre-treated MSW and synthetic raw
untreated MSW at various decomposition stages in relation to
grain diameter at 60% passing (D60). The grain diameter at 60%
passing (D60) for synthetic raw untreated waste was obtained
from Figure 1 (Reddy et al., 2011); in contrast, the appropriate
D60 values for different fractions of MB pre-treated MSW were
obtained from Kuehle-Weidemeier (2007).
Figure 2 and Table 1 reveal that the hydraulic conductivity
of MB pre-treated MSW and raw untreated waste at various
DOD directly correlates to their fraction size. As can be seen in
Figure 2, the average hydraulic conductivity value of MB pre-
treated MSW (0–40 mm fraction) is similar to those of slightly
decomposed synthetic or raw untreated MSW, whereas the
average hydraulic conductivity value of MB pre-treated MSW
(0–25 mm fraction) is similar to that of well-decomposed syn-
thetic raw untreated MSW. Figure 2 also reveals that the
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
average hydraulic conductivity value of MB pre-treated MSW
(0–60 mm fraction) is at least one order of magnitude higher
than those of fresh synthetic MSW, suggesting no relevant com-
parison. Moreover, the average hydraulic conductivity value of
anaerobically pre-treated MSW (0–30 mm fraction) is similar to
that of slightly decomposed synthetic raw untreated MSW.
However, a correlation between the D60 value and hydraulic
conductivity values for real raw untreated MSW at various
DOD (Reddy et al., 2015) could not be established.
Table 2 summarises hydraulic conductivity values from vari-
ous literature and the average hydraulic conductivity values of
raw untreated MSW over various DOD. Figure 2 indicates that
these values coincide reasonably well with the mean hydraulic
conductivity value obtained from the 0–25 mm to 0–40 mm MB
pre-treated MSW fraction range.
Compressibility
Analogous to soils, waste settlement is usually divided into
three distinguished stages. The first stage corresponds to the
immediate waste settlement as a consequence of compression
or expulsion of gas and/or particles. The second stage is
known as the consolidation stage, which is driven by the time-
dependent process of dissipation of excess pore pressures. The
third stage is secondary settlement, which in the case of waste
materials is the aggregate of mechanical creep and additional
settlement caused by biodegradation.
Siddiqui et al. (2013a) conducted a comprehensive analysis of
MB pre-treated waste settlement and critically investigated all
three stages. They tested MB pre-treated waste samples taken
from two different MBT facilities. One sample, with the largest
particle size of approximately 60 mm, was taken from an MBT
facility in Germany (GER), whereas the second one, with the
largest particle size of approximately 20 mm, was taken from an
MBT treatment facility in England (E).
With respect to immediate compression, they have found
that immediate compression of finer MB pre-treated waste
material (E) was in the range from 18% to 20%; whereas for the
coarser MB pre-treated waste material (GER), the immediate
settlement was between 21% and 23%. In contrast, Hossain
et al. (2009) found that initial compression settlement of biore-
actor waste material at various DOD is more pronounced for
finer material (7%–15%) than for coarser material. The
observed trend remained consistent, even at different cell sizes
and various decomposition stages.
It is anticipated that the majority of immediate waste settle-
ment occurs during the emplacement period, and therefore does
not significantly alter the total amount of settlement throughout
time; therefore, it will not be discussed any further.
Regarding the primary compression (consolidation) stage,
Siddiqui et al. (2013a) suggested that one-dimensional consoli-
dation theory could provide a suitable framework for analysing
the settlement of saturated MB pre-treated waste. In this context
they established consolidation coefficients cv of tested MBT
waste samples at vertical stress of 50 kPa. For the coarser MB
Petrovic 5

Table 1.  Hydraulic conductivity values (cm s−1) of MB pre-treated MSW.

Reference 0–25 mm; aerobic 0–40 mm; aerobic 0–60 mm; aerobic 0–30 mm; anaerobic
Petrovic et al. (2011) 7.40×10−06  
  1.40×10−06  
  6.60×10−07  
  2.20×10−07  
Kuehle-Weidemier 7.80×10−06 6.50×10−04 6.20×10−04  
and Doedens (2003) 3.70×10−07 3.60×10−04 5.20×10−03  
2.30×10−08 7.00×10−08 1.80×10−06  
Heiss-Ziegler and 7.80×10−09 1.10×10−05  
Fehrer (2003) 1.80×10−08 3.10×10−06  
8.20×10−09 2.40×10−08  
7.00×10−09  
6.30×10−09  
6.20×10−09  
Kuehle-Weidemier 1.50×10−07  
et al. (2000)   2.00×10−08  
  2.00×10−08  
Friedrich and 7.88×10−06 6.73×10−04 1.45 × 100 1.06×10−05a
Weichgrebe (2007) 3.69×10−07 3.74×10−04 2.81×10−01 6.39×10−06a
2.41×10−08 4.24×10−04 4.96×10−03 4.03×10−06a
  8.18×10−07 1.37×10−01 2.24×10−06a
  5.35×10−8 5.35×10−04 1.88×10−07a
  7.49×10−8 3.82×10−04 1.00×10−07a
  1.79×10−04 1.59×10−07a
  3.48×10−05 2.75×10−07a
  1.69×10−06 2.87×10−07a
  6.42×10−07 3.39×10−07a
  2.56×10−03b
Ziehman et al. 7.42×10−06 4.53×10−06 3.76×10−06
(2003)   8.31×10−06 8.94×10−06 7.35×10−05
  2.60×10−06 8.50×10−06 6.03×10−05
  9.20×10−04 4.35×10−06 1.26×10−05
  8.57×10−04 8.50×10−05 6.61×10−04
  8.57×10−04 7.35×10−05 5.37×10−04
  1.04×10−03 2.41×10−05  
  1.05×10−03 1.53×10−05  
  2.15×10−05  
  6.79×10−04  
  1.18×10−04  
  6.26×10−04  
  1.63×10−03  
  1.44×10−03  
Felske et al. (2003) 1.10×10−03  
  3.20×10−03  
  9.00×10−04  
  3.00×10−03  
  2.10×10−03  
Average 1.38×10−06 5.48×10−04 1.61×10−02 2.31×10−04
Average (0–25 mm 2.75×10−05  
to 0–40 mm)
aFull stream digestion.
bPartial stream digestion.

pre-treated waste material (GER) they obtained a consolidation
coefficient cv of 6.45 × 10−7 m2 s−1 (at k = 3.46 × 10−5 ms−1);
whereas for the finer MB pre-treated waste material (E), they
obtained a consolidation coefficient cv of 7.89 × 10−7 m2 s−1 (at
k = 3.85 × 10−5 ms−1). For the same vertical stress level, Petrovic
et al. (2011) obtained a consolidation coefficient cv for MB pre-
treated waste taken from an Austrian MBT plant (0–40 mm frac-
tion) of approximately 2.33 × 10−6 m2 s−1 (at k = 4 × 10−8 ms−1).
From the data by Siddiqui et al. (2013a), it was possible to
recalculate the oedometric modulus of tested MB pre-treated

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016

6 Waste Management & Research

Figure 2.  Correlation between average hydraulic conductivity values obtained for various fractions of MB pre-treated MSW and
hydraulic conductivity values of synthetic raw untreated MSW at various DOD with grain diameter at 60% passing (D60).
MBT: mechanical and biological treatment.

Table 2.  Hydraulic conductivity values collected from pre-treated waste caused by biodegradation is 3.2% for finer
published literature for raw untreated MSW. MB pre-treated waste material (E) and 1.7% for coarser MB
pre-treated waste material (GER). These observations are in
Reference Hydraulic conductivity (cms−1) at
various decomposition stages
good agreement with Kuehle-Weidemeier (2007) who pub-
lished that a maximum volume reduction of 4.5% owing to bio-
Beaven (2000) 1.51×10−02 – 3.47×10−06 degradation can be anticipated, whereas approximately 2%
Beaven and Powrie (1995) 1.00×10−02 – 1.00×10−05
volume reduction occurs in the post-closure period.
Blieker et al. (1993) 1.60×10−04 – 1.00×10−06
It should also be noted that secondary compression caused by
Blieker et al. (1995) 1.36×10−04 – 4.30×10−07
Brandl (1994) 2.00×10−03 – 3.00×10−06 biodegradation might be dependent on the type of applied bio
Ettala (1987) 2.50×10−05 – 5.90×10−07 treatment process, namely, composting, biodrying or anaerobic
Gabr and Valero (1995) 1.00×10−03 – 1.00×10−05 digestion. However, to the best knowledge of the author, this kind
Jain et al. (2006) 6.10×10−05 – 5.40×10−06 of data is not yet available.
Jang et al. (2002) 1.10×10−03 – 2.90×10−04 As for the compressibility of bioreactor raw waste material,
Jie et al. (2013) 1.77×10−03 – 3.10×10−08 a comprehensive analysis of primary and secondary compres-
Korfiatis et al. (1984) 5.00×10−03 – 3.00×10−03
sion on synthetic and real untreated MSW samples was con-
Landva and Clark (1986) 2.60×10−02 – 1.00×10−03
Landva et al. (1984) 7.00×10−03 – 6.00×10−07
ducted by Reddy et al. (2011, 2015). The final results are
Machado et al. (2010) 3.73×10−04 – 7.66×10−06 somewhat ambiguous as the results obtained for synthetic sam-
Oweis et al. (1990) 1.30×10−03 – 1.60×10−04 ples show that both the primary and secondary compression
Penmethsa (2007) 1.00×10−02 – 8.00×10−04 ratios decrease with decomposition, whereas results obtained
Powrie and Beaven (1999) 1.50×10−04 – 3.70×10−08 for real samples show that both the primary and secondary com-
Reddy et al. (2009a) 1.95×10−01 – 8.05×10−07 pression ratios increase with decomposition degree. As for the
Shank (1993) 9.80×10−04 – 6.70×10−05 distinction between mechanical creep and secondary settlement
Zhu et al. (2003) 2.00×10−04 – 4.00×10−03
caused by the decomposition process, the authors found, at least
Composite statistics: Range: 1.36×10−03 – 1.03×10−07
Mean: 1.19×10−05 for the real waste samples, that there was no significant decom-
position process effect over the period of testing considered. A
longer duration may be needed to assess the contribution of
waste materials at a vertical stress of 50 kPa. The obtained biodegradation-induced compression.
oedometric modulus was approximately 0.2 kPa for both sam- In addition, the literature review (Table 4) shows that some
ples. Interestingly, the obtained values significantly differ from researchers (e.g. Chen et al., 2009; Karimpour-Fard and
the stiffness modulus of MB pre-treated waste material (at the Machado, 2011) reported that less decomposed material is more
same stress level) published by various researchers, as is sum- compressible; whereas other researchers (e.g. Hossain, 2002)
marised in Table 3. The reasons for such a large discrepancy reported that the compressibility of raw untreated waste
remain unclear. increases as decomposition occurs. Therefore, it remains
With respect to secondary compression, Siddiqui et al. unclear whether the compression ratio of raw untreated MSW
(2012) have shown that the total settlement strain of MB rises or falls with decomposition.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016

Petrovic 7
Table 3.  Oedometric moduli published by other researchers.
Load increment
Reference
Duellmann (2002)
Kuehle-Weidemeier (2007)
 
 
 
 
 
Bidlingmaier et al. (1999)
 
Petrovic et al. (2014)
 
 
 
 
Furthermore, Table 4 also shows a comparison of the com-
pressibility ratios ( Cc’ = Cc / 1 + e0 ) of bioreactor and MB pre-
treated waste material, where Cc is the compression index and
e0 is the initial void ratio. In general, the results presented in
Table 4 suggest that the compressibility ratio of MB pre-treated
MSW (0–40 mm fraction) is significantly lower than that of raw
untreated MSW at any decomposition stage, so it is less com-
pressible. As for MB pre-treated MSW, the literature review did
not yield additional compression ratio values.
Shear strength
The shear strength of granular materials is usually described
with two parameters: shear friction angle φ’ and cohesion c’.
In addition, Kölsch (1993) introduced a third shear strength
parameter for raw fibrous waste – the tensile angle ζ.
According to Kölsch (1993, 1995), the total shearing resist-
ance is composed of the friction in the shear plane and the
tensile force in the fibres. Therefore, the total shearing resist-
ance of waste, at an arbitrarily chosen normal stress, is higher
than the frictional resistance alone.
Ziehmann (1999) investigated the influence of waste treatment
(untreated, biologically treated, mechanically–biologically treated
and mechanically–biologically treated <60 mm fraction) on the
shear and tensile strength of MB pre-treated waste material. He
found that cohesion is not affected by waste treatment, whereas
the biological treatment increased the shear angle by approxi-
mately 17%. Furthermore, it was shown that the tensile angle in
the sieved fraction with particles smaller than 60 mm cannot be
detected. Therefore, according to Ziehmann (1999), the shear
strength of MB pre-treated waste can only be described by its
shear parameters. These observations were also confirmed by
Heiss-Ziegler and Fehrer (2003), who found that the tensile
strength in MB pre-treated material becomes more noticeable at
fraction sizes of above 80 mm. However, Bhandari and Powrie
(2012) found that MB pre-treated waste samples with a maximum
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
0–50 25–50 Fraction
(kPa) (kPa) (mm)
/ 730 0–30
/ 840 0–20
/ 800 0–20
/ 1070 0–40
/ 500 0–40
/ 940 0–60
/ 600 0–60
355 / <60
239 / <100
566 / 0–40
657 / 0–40
686 / 0–40
610 / 0–40
694 / 0–40
particle size of less than 10 mm, also exhibit a reinforcing effect at
confining pressures larger than 100 kPa and axial strains in excess
of approximately 1%.
More recently, Fucale et al. (2015) analysed the friction prop-
erties of basic MB pre-treated matrix and tensile properties of
two reinforced MB pre-treated matrices (10% and 20% fibre
components). They found that the tensile strength depends on the
fibre content, as the compound matrix with fewer fibre compo-
nents continuously demonstrated a higher strength than the com-
pound matrix with more fibre components. The measured tensile
angle for matrices with fewer fibrous particles was ζ = 19°,
whereas for the matrix with more fibrous particles, the measured
tensile angle was ζ = 13°.
With respect to the shear strength parameters of MB pre-
treated MSW, Kuehle-Weidemeier (2007) reported that the fric-
tion angles usually ranged between 32° and 38°, whereas the
cohesion lay between 10 kPa and 62 kPa. Bauer et al. (2009)
examined MB pre-treated MSW from three different treatment
facilities and different treatment processes with maximum parti-
cle sizes of 40 mm to 60 mm. In addition, they accounted for dif-
ferent water contents and portions of fibrous components. They
found that the shear friction angle ranged between 28.1° and
39.8°, whereas cohesion ranged from 5 kPa to approximately
47 kPa. Sivakumar Babu et al. (2015) conducted direct shear
(DS) tests and small and large scale consolidated drained (CD)
and consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial tests on reconstituted
compost reject (MB pre-treated MSW) samples. They found that
the friction angles at 20% strain levels were 40°, 55° and 33°
from the DS, CU and CD tests, respectively. There was a minor
variation in cohesion values (0–10 kPa).
Thorough examination of the shear strength properties of bio-
reactor waste at various DOD were conducted by Reddy et al.
(2011, 2015) and Gabr et al. (2007). However, the mentioned
authors did not address the tensile angle of bioreactor waste
material. The DS tests conducted on synthetic raw untreated
waste samples by Reddy et al. (2011) showed a general
8 Waste Management & Research

Table 4.  Compression ratios for MB pre-treated MSW and raw untreated MSW.

Reference MSW type Specimen Cc’

Petrovic et al. (2014) MBT C 0.15
E 0.13
average 0.14
Reddy et al. (2011) Raw (synthetic) FS 0.35
S1 0.27
S2 0.26
S3 0.21
S4 0.15
average 0.25
Reddy et al. (2015) Raw (real) FR 0.24
R1 0.28
R2 0.32
R3 0.27
R4 0.30
R5 0.30
average 0.29
Gabr and Valero (1995) Raw waste; 15–30 years old / 0.15–0.22
Karimpour-Fard and Machado (2011) Raw waste; 4 years old / 0.209
Raw waste; fresh / 0.361
Raw waste; fresh / 0.285
Raw waste / 0.333
Landva et al. (1984) Raw old waste / 0.2–0.5
Chen et al. (2009) e0 = 0.5–2.0; fill age (years) 0.5–11 / 0.2–0.12
e0 = 2.0–4.2; fill age (years) 0.5–11 0.27–0.18

MBT: mechanical and biological treatment; MSW: municipal solid waste.

decreasing trend for the shear friction angle with decomposition
and an increasing trend for cohesion. The DS tests conducted on
real raw untreated waste samples by Reddy et al. (2015) also
showed a general decreasing trend for the shear friction angle
with decomposition, whereas cohesion, although not constant,
showed no consistent trend. These findings are in good agree-
ment with previous finding from Hossain (2002), who also
showed that the shear friction angle decreases with age. However,
these results contradict the ageing effect reported by Zhan et al.
(2008) and van Impe (1998), who claims that the shear strength
of raw untreated waste material increases with age.
Figure 3 presents comparisons of the shear strengths of MB
pre-treated and bioreactor waste materials. In addition, Figure 3
also presents a boundary curve with a 90% probability of con-
taining the shear strengths of raw untreated MSW (Petrovic et al.,
2015). As can be seen from Figure 3, the shear strengths of syn-
thetic and real raw untreated MSW (Reddy et al., 2011, 2015) are
dispersed across a wider area, whereas the shear strengths of MB
pre-treated MSW show a much narrower region of appropriate
shear friction angle values. Therefore, even though the shear
strengths of MB pre-treated MSW is deeply rooted within the
boundary curve of raw untreated MSW, a specific relationship
between the shear strength of MB pre-treated MSW and raw
untreated MSW at various DOD cannot be established. The gen-
eral trend line of the variation of cohesion and friction angle of
MB pre-treated MSW, with respect to the miscellaneous testing
devices and multiple test conditions published by Sivakumar
Babu et al. (2015), is also presented in Figure 3. Sivakumar Babu
et al. (2015) obtained a wide range of possible shear friction val-
ues, whereas cohesion lies in a very narrow range. These results
contradict findings published by Kuehle-Weidemeier (2007) and
Bauer et al. (2009).
Conclusion
Owing to the strong heterogeneity of waste material that has to be
mined or landfilled, landfill design/design of a landfill mining
project is a demanding task. The inhomogeneous nature of MSW
requires that laboratory testing of such materials be conducted on
non-standard laboratory equipment that is capable of dealing with
large waste specimens. In comparison with standard geotechnical
equipment, such devices are usually not easily available. Thus, it
is not uncommon that, for the purpose of designing sanitary land-
fills, the mechanical parameters of waste material are estimated
based on data published in literature rather than from measure-
ments. With respect to the mentioned obstacles, the presented
aggregation of results is a valuable tool for designing landfills/
landfill mining projects involving MB pre-treated or raw untreated
MSW in scenarios when laboratory testing is not a viable option.
The obtained results suggest that MB pre-treated MSW is a
substantially stiffer material than raw untreated MSW.
Additionally, it seems that one-dimensional consolidation the-
ory can provide a suitable framework for analysing the consoli-
dation process of a saturated MB pre-treated waste. However,

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016

Petrovic 9
Figure 3.  DS strength of MB pre-treated MSW and raw untreated MSW.
MBT: mechanical and biological treatment.
for MB pre-treated waste, only two researchers have published
data about the consolidation coefficient cv. Therefore, in order to
provide a better understanding of the consolidation process of
MB pre-treated waste, additional research is necessary.
Moreover, in practice it is assumed that the hydraulic conductiv-
ity and oedometric modulus are constants, which also makes the
consolidation coefficient constant. However, this assumption is
valid only if the stress changes are small enough such that the
hydraulic conductivity and oedometric modulus do not change
significantly. As the hydraulic conductivity and oedometric
modulus of MB pre-treated waste material changes by few
orders of magnitudes during compression, the assumption that
hydraulic conductivity and oedometric modulus are constants is
probably invalid; therefore, the variation of these parameters
should be taken into account.
Furthermore, an absence of correlation was also noticed with
respect to the shear strength of the considered waste materials.
Therefore, the shear strengths of these two MSW types should
not be used interchangeably. In general, the MBT process gives a
much narrower range of appropriate shear friction angles, yet
cohesion is not significantly altered with the MBT process. The
influence of fibrous components on the shear strength of MB pre-
treated waste material needs to be thoroughly investigated. In
addition, the influence of aging on both the stiffness and shear
strength of bioreactor waste, is also necessary.
In contrast to the compression ratio and shear strength, the
mean hydraulic conductivity values for MB pre-treated MSW
and raw untreated MSW, which were obtained for various DOD
in the fraction range of 0–25 mm to 0–40 mm, coincide reasona-
bly well. Moreover, the gradation type of MSW, in conjunction
with the largest particle size, might also have a significant influ-
ence on the hydraulic conductivity of both MB pre-treated and
raw untreated MSW.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was supported by the University of Zagreb [grant number TP106].
References
Bauer J, Münnich K and Fricke K (2006) Investigation of mechanical prop-
erties of MBT waste. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian-Pacific landfill
symposium, 18–20 October, Shangai, China.
Bauer J, Münnich K and Fricke K (2007) Influence of hydraulic properties
on the stability of landfills. In: Cossu R (eds) Proceedings of the 11th
international waste management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita
di Pula, 1–5 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Bauer J, Münich K and Fricke K (2009) Response of MBT residues in large
scale triaxial compression tests. In: Cossu R (ed.) Proceedings of the 12th
international waste management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita
di Pula, 5–9 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Beaven RP (2000) The hydrogeological and geotechnical properties of
household waste in relation to sustainable landfilling. PhD Dissertation,
Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, London,
GBR.
Beaven RP and Powrie W (1995) Hydrological and geotechnical properties
of refuse using a large scale compression cell. In: Proceedings of the 5th
international landfill symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, 2–6 October,
pp.745–760, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Bhandari AR and Powrie W (2012) Behaviour of an MBT waste in mono-
tonic triaxial shear test. Waste Management 33: 881–891.
Bidlingmaier W, Scheelhaase T and Maile A (1999) Langzeitverhalten
von mechanisch-biologisch vorbehandeltem Restmüll auf der Deponie
Abschlußbericht zum Teilvorhaben 3.1 des BMBF-Verbundvorhabens,
Mechanisch-biologische Behandlung von zu deponierenden Abfaellen.
In: Univ.-Gesamthochschule, Fachbereich 10 – Bauwesen, Fachgebiet
Abfallwirtschaft, Essen, Germany.
Blieker DE, Farquhar G and McBean E (1993) Refuse sampling and perme-
ability testing at the Brock West and Keele Valley landfills. In: University
of Wisconsin (eds) Proceedings of the 16th international Madison
waste conference, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 22–23 September,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Blieker DE, Farquhar G and McBean E (1995) Landfill settlement and
the impact on site capacity and refuse hydraulic conductivity. Waste
Management & Research 13: 533–554.
Boni MR, Chiavola A and Sbaffoni S (2006) Pretreated waste landfilling:
Relation between leachate characteristics and mechanical behaviour.
Waste Management 26: 1156–1165.
Brandl H (1994) Vertical barriers for municipal and hazardous waste con-
tainment. In: Balasubramanian AS, Hong SW, Bergado DT, et al. (eds)
10 Waste Management & Research
Proceedings of the development in geotechnical engineering, Balkema,
pp.301–320, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Bray JD, Zekkos D, Kavazanjian E Jr, et al. (2009) Shear strength of
municipal solid waste. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 135: 709–722.
Carrubba P and Cossu R (2003) Investigation on compressibility and perme-
ability of pre-treated waste mixture. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R and
Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international waste manage-
ment and landfill symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, 6–10 October,
Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Chen YM, Zhan TLT, Wei HY, et al. (2009) Aging and compressibility of
municipal solid wastes. Waste Management 29: 86–95.
Dixon N and Langer U (2006) Development of a MSW classification system for
the evaluation of mechanical properties. Waste Management 26: 220–232.
Duellmann H (2002) Untersuchungen zum Einbau von MBA-Abfaellen auf
der Zentraldeponie Hannover, Laboruntersuchungen zum Verdichtungs-,
Durchlaessigkeits-, Last-Setzungs- und Scherverhalten. Im Auftrag des
Abfallwirtschaftsbetriebes, Hannover, Germany.
Entenmann W and Wendt P (2007) Placement and compaction of treated
municpal solid waste in modern landfills – Results of geotechnical and
hydraulic tests and monitoring. In: Cossu R (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th
international waste management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita
di Pula, 1–5 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Ettala M (1987) Infiltration and hydraulic conductivity at a sanitary landfill.
Aqua Fennica 17: 231–237.
Felske C, Kraft E, Ustohalova V, et al. (2003) Experimental analysis of the
large scale behavior of MBP waste – new results for the design future
landfills. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R and Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings
of the 9th international waste management and landfill symposium, S.
Margherita di Pula, 6–10 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Friedrich K and Weichgrebe D (2007) Determination of parameters for
description of water balance in landfills with stabilized municipal solid
wastes. In: Cossu R (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th international waste
management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, 1–5 October,
Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Fucale S, Jucá JFT and Muennich K (2015) The mechanical behavior of
MBT–waste. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE)
20: 5927–5937.
Gabr MA and Valero SN (1995) Geotechnical properties of municipal solid
waste. Geotechnical Testing Journal 18: 241–251.
Gabr MA, Hossain MS and Barlaz MA (2007) Shear strength parameters of
municipal solid waste with leachate recirculation. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133: 478–484.
Gavelitė S, Bazienė K, Woodman N, et al. (2015) Premeability on differ-
ent size waste particles. Mokslas – Lietuvos Ateitis [Science – Future of
Lithuania] 7: 407–412.
Greedy D (2016) Editorial: Landfilling and landfill mining. Waste
Management & Research 34: 1–2.
Heiss-Ziegler C and Fehrer K (2003) Geotechnical behaviour of mechan-
ically-biologically pretreated municipal solid waste (MSW). In:
Christensen TH, Cossu R and Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th
international waste management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita
di Pula, 6–10 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Hossain MS (2002) Mechanics of compressibility and strength of solid
waste in bioreactor landfills. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Hossain MS and Haque MA (2009) The effects of daily cover soils on
shear strength of municipal solid waste in bioreactor landfills. Waste
Management 29: 1568–1576.
Hossain MS, Gabr MA and Asce F (2009) The effect of shredding and test
apparatus size on compressibility and strength parameters of degraded
municipal solid waste. Waste Management 29: 2417–2424.
HRN U.B1.018 (1980) Geomehanicka ispitivanja, Odredivanje granulo-
metrijskog sastava [Testing of soils, determination of particle size distri-
bution]. Croatian Standards Institute, Zagreb, Croat.
Jain P, Powell J, Townsend TG, et al. (2006) Estimating the hydraulic con-
ductivity of landfilled municipal solid waste using borehole permeameter
test. Journal of Environmental Engineering 132: 645–653.
Jang YS, Kim YW and Lee SI (2002) Hydraulic properties and leachate level
analysis of Kimpo metropolitan landfill, Korea. Waste Management 22:
261–267.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
Jie Y-X, Xu W-J, Dunzhu D, et al. (2013) Laboratory testing of a densified
municipal solid waste in Beijing. Journal of Central South University 20:
1953–1963.
Karimpour-Fard M and Machado SL (2011) Deformation characteristics of
MSW materials. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 16,
Bundle U.
Kavazanjian E Jr (2001) Mechanical properties of municipal solid waste.
In: Cossu R and Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international
waste management and landfill symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, 1–5
October, Cagliari, Sardinia, ITA.
Kavazanjian E Jr, Hendron D and Corcoran GT (2001) Strength and stability
of bioreactor landfills. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual landfill sympo-
sium, Solid Waste Association of North America, 19 June, San Diego,
CA, USA.
Kölsch F (1993) The bearing behaviour of domestic waste and related conse-
quences for stability. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R and Stegmann R (eds)
Proceedings of the 4th international waste management and landfill sym-
posium, S. Margherita di Pula, 11–15 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Kölsch F (1995) Material values for some mechanical properties of domestic
waste. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R and Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings
of the 5th international waste management and landfill symposium, S.
Margherita di Pula, 2–6 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Korfiatis GP, Demetracopoulos AC, Bourodimos EL, et al. (1984) Moisture
transport in a solid waste column. Journal of Environmental Engineering
110: 780–796.
Kuehle-Weidemeier M (2007) Geomechanical properties of mechanically
and biologically treated municipal solid waste – Review of literature
in German language and own investigations. Langenhagen, Germany:
Wasteconsult International.
Kuehle-Weidemeier M and Doedens H (2003) Landfilling and properties
of MBP waste. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R and Stegmann R (eds)
Proceedings of the 9th international waste management and landfill sym-
posium, S. Margherita di Pula, 6–10 October, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Kuehle-Weidemeier M, Doedens H and Von Felde D (2000) Die mecha-
nisch-biologische Restabfallbehandlung und die Ablagerung der biolo-
gischen Fraktion. Oberflaechenabdichtung von Deponien und Altlasten,
Erich-Schmidt Verlag, Germany.
Lakshmikanthan P, Santhosh LG and Sivakumar Babu GL (2015) Evaluation
of the mechanical and hydrological characteristics of a bioreactor landfill
using laboratory simulators. In: Sahinkaya S and Kalipci E (eds) Digital
Proceeding of ICOCEE – Cappadocia 2015, 20–23 May, Nevsehir,
Turkey.
Landva AO and Clark JI (1986) Geotechnical testing of waste fill. In:
Proceedings of the 39th Canadian geotechnical conference, Canadian
Geotechnical Society, Ottawa, 27–30 August, pp.371–385, Ontario,
Canada.
Landva AO, Clark JI, Weisner WR, et al. (1984) Geotechnical engineering
and refuse landfill. In: Proceedings of the 6th national conference on
waste management in Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Machado SL, Karimpour-Fard M, Shariatmadari N, et al. (2010) Evaluation
of the geotechnical properties of MSW in two Brazilian landfills. Waste
Management 3: 2579–2591.
Olivier F and Gourc J-P (2007) Hydro-mechanical behaviour of municipal
solid waste subject to leachate recirculation in a large-scale compression
reactor cell. Waste Management 27: 44–58.
Oweis IS, Smith DA, Ellwood RB, et al. (1990) Hydraulic characteristics
of municipal refuse. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 116: 539–553.
Penmethsa KK (2007) Permeability of municipal solid waste in bioreactor
landfill with degradation. MS thesis, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, Texas, USA.
Petrovic I, Szavits-Nossan V and Kovacic D (2011) Deformabilnost
mehaničko-biološki obrađenog komunalnog otpada [Deformability of
mechanically and biologically treated municipal solid waste]. Gradevinar
63: 255–264.
Petrovic I, Stuhec D and Kovacic D (2014) Large oedometer for measuring
stiffness of MBT waste. Geotechnical Testing Journal 37: 296–310.
Petrovic I, Hip I and Fredlund M (2015) Application of continuous normal-
lognormal bivariate density functions in a sensitivity analysis of munici-
pal solid waste landfill. Waste Management. Epub ahead of print 21
November 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.021.
Petrovic 11
Pimolthai P and Wagner J-F (2014) Soil mechanical properties of MBT waste
from Luxembourg, Germany and Thailand. Songklanakarin Journal of
Science and Technology 36: 701–709.
Pohland FG and Harper SR (1986) Critical Review and Summary of Leachate
and Gas Production from Landfills. EPA/600/2–86/073, Ohio, USA: US
Environmental Protection Agency.
Powrie W and Beaven RP (1999) Hydraulic properties of household waste
and applications for landfills. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 137: 235–247.
Reddy KR, Hettiarachchi H, Parakalla NS, et al. (2009a) Hydraulic conduc-
tivity of MSW in landfills. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135:
677–683.
Reddy KR, Hettiarachchi H, Parakalla NS, et al. (2009b) Geotechnical prop-
erties of fresh municipal solid waste at Orchard Hills Landfill, USA.
Waste Management 29: 952–959.
Reddy KR, Hettiarachchi H, Gangathulasi J, et al. (2011) Geotechnical prop-
erties of municipal solid waste at different phases of biodegradation.
Waste Management 31: 2275–2286.
Reddy KR, Hettiarachchi H, Rajiv KG, et al. (2015) Effects of degrada-
tion on geotechnical properties of municipal solid waste from Orchard
Hills Landfill, USA. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground
Engineering 1: 24.
Reinhart DR and Townsend TG (1998) Landfill Bioreactor Design &
Operation. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press LLC.
Shank KL (1993) Determination of the hydraulic conductivity of the Alachua
County southwest landfill. MS thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA.
Siddiqui AA, Powrie W and Richards DJ (2013a) Settlement characteristics
of mechanically biologically treated wastes. American Society of Civil
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at University of Sussex Library on May 27, 2016
Engineers Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
139: 1676–1689.
Siddiqui AA, Richards DJ and Powrie W (2012) Investigations into the land-
fill behaviour of pretreated wastes. Waste Management 32: 1420–1426.
Siddiqui AA, Richards DJ and Powrie W (2013b) Biodegradation and flush-
ing of MBT wastes. Waste Management 33: 2257–2266.
Sivakumar Babu GL, Lakshmikanthan P and Snathosh LG (2015) Shear
strength charachteristics of mechanically biologically treated munici-
pal solid waste (MBT-MSW) from Bangalore. Waste Management 39:
63–70.
Van Impe WF (ed.) (1998) Environmental geotechnics – ITC5 – reports and
future goals, Geotechnical Hazards. In: Proceedings of the 11th Danube
– European conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering,
Porec, Croatia, 25–29 May, pp.127–155.
Ziehmann G (1999) Veraenderung des mechanischen Verhaltens durch die
mechanische und biologische Vorbehandlung. Deponierung von vor-
behandelten Siedlungsabfaellen, Veroeffentlichungen des Zentrums
fuer Abfallforschung der Technischen Universitaet Braunschweig,
Heft 14.
Ziehmann G, Münnich K and Fricke K (2003) Deposition of mechanical-
biologically treated municipal solid waste. In: Christensen TH, Cossu R
and Stegmann R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international waste man-
agement and landfill symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, 6–10 October,
Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Zhan TLT, Chen YM and Ling WA (2008) Shear strength characterization of
municipal solid waste at the Suzhou landfill, China. Engineering Geology
97: 97–111.
Zhu X, Jin J and Fang P (2003) Geotechnical behavior of the MSW in
Tianziling landfill. Journal of Zhejiang University Science 4: 324–330.