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

net/publication/306062044

Shear Strength of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): Beyond the Raw Values of
“Cohesion” and Friction Angles

Conference Paper · August 2016

DOI: 10.1061/9780784480144.026

CITATIONS READS

0 342

4 authors, including:

Luis Alberto Jaramillo

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Life cycle analysis in buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis Alberto Jaramillo on 26 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 264

Shear Strength of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW):

Beyond the Raw Values of “Cohesion” and Friction Angles

Jaime J. Díaz-Beltrán1; Juan J. Iguarán-Fernández2;

Joan M. Larrahondo, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE3; and Luis A. Jaramillo4
1
Project Engineer, SIEMENS, Autopista Medellín KM 8.5 Costado Sur, Colombia;
formerly, Student Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pontificia
Universidad Javeriana. E-mail: julian.diaz_beltran@siemens.com
2
Student Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana, Bogotá-Colombia. E-mail: j.iguaran@javeriana.edu.co
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana,
Ed. No. 42 Artes Oriental, Segundo Piso, Bogotá-Colombia. E-mail:
jlarrahondo@javeriana.edu.co
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana,
Bogotá-Colombia. E-mail: jaramillo.l@javeriana.edu.co

Abstract: Understanding the mechanical behavior of municipal solid waste (MSW) is

still a major challenge in engineering. The purpose of this paper is to critically review
published literature on MSW shear strength from the past 20 years, including the
major strength mechanisms and failure criteria, so a landfill engineer can access key
behavioral concepts, beyond just the raw values of friction angle and “cohesion”
parameters that are required for design. In addition, this paper explores the
relationship of shear strength parameters with MSW composition and urban
population, which are useful proxies for economic development. To revisit the state
of the practice since the introduction of commonly used design charts, an enhanced
database of shear strength parameters as well as Mohr-Coulomb envelopes was
compiled. Also, a relationship was developed between strength parameters, MSW
composition, and population data for a number of cities in a developing country. This
study supports the concept that the consumption habits of an urban area are very
relevant when it comes to designing landfills. Furthermore, instead of introducing a
new recommended range of design parameters or a new strength envelope, the
compiled data are interpreted under a simple statistical basis, so the designer can
make informed decisions on which parameters to choose for design.

INTRODUCTION

Municipal solid wastes (MSW) are typically disposed of in engineered landfills

obeying geotechnical design criteria. The characterization of MSW normally includes
determining or estimating geotechnical-equivalent properties and strength parameters,
including unit weight, friction angle, and the “cohesion” intercept. In reality, MSW
are highly complex materials of strong spatial and temporal variability. The factors
that influence MSW shear strength include composition, age or degree of

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 265

decomposition, degree of compaction, and strain level. For practical applications, the
determination of design parameters is also subjected to the type of field or laboratory
test of choice.
While landfill stability is determined by leachate build-up, excessive pore pressures,
and/or foundation bearing capacity, it is also recognized that "of all of the information
necessary to obtain an accurate factor of safety value, none is more important than
determining representative shear strength values" (Koerner and Soong, 2000).
Particularly, interface shear strength, especially when geosynthetics are involved, are
key for reliable stability assessment.
The complexity of MSW is reflected on the variability of shear strength parameter
values reported in the literature. In fact, friction angles (φ') vary widely between 15-
35°, while cohesion intercepts (c') normally range between 0-70 kPa (Kavazanjian et
al., 1995; Machado et al., 2002; Reddy et al., 2009; Zhan et al., 2008; Zekkos et al.,
2007). In some cases, strength data have been coherently organized for practical use
and interpretation. In fact, the bi-linear lower-bound strength envelope by
Kavazanjian et al., 1995 is likely the most used chart for landfill design parameters.
Also, the recommended cohesion and friction angle design values by Singh and
Murphy (1990) and Sánchez-Alciturri et al. (1993) are well known to practice.
The purpose of this paper is to critically review the driving mechanisms that control
shear strength of MSW, so a landfill engineer, in charge of design or management,
can access the key behavioral concepts, beyond the raw values of friction angle and
cohesion parameters that are available elsewhere. In addition, this paper explores the
relationship between MSW shear strength parameters, composition, and urban
population, the latter closely related to economic development.

MSW SHEAR STRENGTH: A BRIEF REVIEW

Shear Strength Mechanisms

Shear strength mechanisms are processes that define the overall mechanical
response of a material. In MSW, because of their complexity both in composition and
behavior, the number of factors at play are ample. Manassero et al. (1997) proposed a
model in which MSW is visualized as the combination of two main components,
namely fibers and paste. The fibers include wood, paper, plastic, rubber, leather, and
cardboard, while the paste comprises all other components, mainly oxidizable organic
matter. They concluded that the frictional mechanism is directly related to paste
content, whereas cohesion is governed by the fibers when subjected to traction.
While in this paper the discussion will be addressed in terms of effective shear
strength parameters, it is acknowledged that full dissipation of excess pore water
pressures is uncertain in landfills.

Effect of Composition
The behavior of the fibers portion of MSW is strongly dependent on the fibers’
orientation and composition. FIG. 1 (Bray et al., 2009) demonstrates that
reconstituted samples of MSW with fibers parallel to the direction of shear stress
exhibit low shear resistance, while shear strength is maximum when the fibers are
inclined at 60°. Likewise, FIG. 2 compares the relative shear strength of three

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 266

different MSW fiber materials at varying shear stress directions. It can be seen that
wood exhibits the highest strength, followed by plastic and paper, reflecting the
tensile strength of the fibers.
The MSW paste fraction accounts mostly for its oxidizable organic matter (OM)
which has significant effects on shear strength. FIG. 3 (Cho et al., 2011) presents the
change in the MSW strength envelope with food waste content. This figure shows
that high OM contents greatly influence the value of friction angle which decreases
with increasing food waste content.
Shear stress, τ (kPa)

Angle between shear surface and fiber orientation

Horizontal Displacement, ∆H (mm)
FIG 1. Influence of fiber orientation FIG 2. Effect of fiber composition on
on MSW shear strength (Bray et al., MSW shear strength (Bray et al.,
2009) 2009)

Effect of Strain Level

MSW stress-strain curves (see FIG. 4; Manassero et al., 1997) normally exhibit
strain-hardening behavior. Therefore, the MSW shear response is enhanced with
deformation, though it is difficult to attain asymptotic ultimate shear strength values
under typical experimental conditions, e.g., triaxial or direct shear tests.

FIG 3. Influence of food waste con- FIG 4. MSW stress-strain behavior

tent on MSW strength envelope (Cho (triaxial test results; Manassero et al.,
et al., 2011; used with permission) 1997; used with permission)

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 267

Zekkos et al. (2007) presented results from back-analyses that estimated strain-level
dependent shear strength envelopes. FIG. 5 shows their strength envelopes when
superimposed to those commonly used in practice (see FIG. 7 for details on the
strength envelopes). It can be seen that most MSW shear strength envelopes used in
design match a 10% strain level.

Effect of Aging
MSW composition and behavior is influenced by age, i.e., degree of decomposition.
However, shear strength is in turn influenced by strain level. FIG. 6 presents the
effect of MSW age on friction angle, which is also dependent on OM content. While
the effect of age on friction angle seems negligible at low strain levels, friction angle
increases with age at high strains, reflecting mainly OM degradation.

400
Shear stress (kPa)

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400
Normal stress (kPa)

Left: FIG 5. MSW shear strength envelopes at varying strain levels (modified
from Zekkos et al., 2007. Envelopes superimposed: Van Impe et al., 1997,
Eid et al., 2000, Bray et al., 2009, Stark et al., 2010, Baraither et al., 2012)
Right: FIG 6. Effect of MSW age on friction angle (Gomes et al., 2013; open
access)

Shear Failure Criteria

The Mohr-Coulomb (MC) failure criterion has been extensively used in engineering
analysis of MSW to represent mechanical response. The MC criterion describes a
material in which shear strength increases with increasing applied normal stress, and
only requires two fitting parameters, namely cohesion and friction angle:

= + ′ tan ′ (1)

where τ is shear strength, σ′ is normal stress, c’ is cohesion, and φ’ is friction angle.

However, the MC is not the only failure criterion that has been used in MSW
engineering. In fact, since MSW friction angles tend to decrease with increasing
normal stress (Bray et al., 2009), a modified version of the MC failure criterion can
be written as follows:

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 268

= ′ + ′ tan ′ (2) ′ = ′ − ∆ ′ log (3)

where ′ is the normal-stress-dependent angle of friction, ′ is the friction angle

measured under a normal stress of 101.3 kPa, ∆ϕ′ is the change in friction angle in a
logarithmic normal stress cycle, and is the atmospheric pressure. It should be noted
that this failure criterion is not unique to MSW, but it has been also observed in soils
(Yamamuro and Lade, 1996).

METHODS TO DETERMINE MSW SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS

A number of field, laboratory, and analytical techniques are available to estimate

MSW shear strength parameters. Naturally, each method bears advantages and
drawbacks. Field tests, particularly standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration
test (CPT), and vane shear test (VST) provide useful information in degraded, soil-
like MSW; however, no clear relationship can be discerned between penetration
resistance and MSW shear strength (Dixon & Jones, 2005). In-situ direct shear tests
can provide detailed strength data, though such tests are difficult to perform, and
applied stress levels are rather low.
A method that has gained some popularity for in-situ MSW shear strength
parameter determination is the pressure-phicometer test (Caicedo et al., 2002). In this
technique, an inflatable probe of cylindrical shape is lowered into a borehole, and
subsequently inflated thereby pushing the borehole at measurable normal stresses.
Then, a pulling force is applied and measured as well, which is translated into shear
stress. This way, shear strength envelopes can be drawn, and strength parameters can
be calculated.
Among laboratory tests, though controlled experimental conditions are attained,
sample representativity is arguable. In fact, while triaxial compression tests can yield
high quality results, samples are disturbed, and ultimate shear strengths are difficult to
reach due to very high shear strains and strain-hardening behavior (Dixon & Jones,
2005). Direct shear tests, while simpler than triaxial tests, require large MSW samples
and apparatuses (e.g., 1m x 1m x 1m), and exhibit issues regarding lack of pore
pressure control, sample disturbance, and very large strains required to mobilize
strength.
The analytical technique of back-analysis of landfill slope failures is also popular.
This method can provide good strength parameter estimations as long as adequate
field information is available (e.g., pore pressures, topography). However, a major
drawback of the method is that, even if large deformations have taken place in a
landfill, there is no guarantee that a shear failure has in fact occurred. On the other
hand, even if an embankment slope appears stable, MSW composition evolves due to
degradation, so past behavior may not reflect future performance (Dixon & Jones,
2005).

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 269

MS
SW SHEAR
R STRENGT
TH PARAM
METERS

Sheear strength h Envelopess

Multiple
M sheaar strength envelopes
e are available iin the literatture (see FIG
G. 7). Each
streength envellope has beeen prepareed differenttly, accordiing to the degree off
connservatism and a expertisse of each author.
a In oorder to disstinguish bettween such
disttinct criteriaa, FIG. 7 sepparates enveelopes prepaared under a best-fit appproach from
those plot undeer a lower-b bound (moree conservativve) criterionn. This simpple figure is
inteended to pro ovide engineeers with a tool
t to visuaalize the deggree of risk involved in
chooosing publisshed strength h parameterss.

250
(Kavazaanjian,
1995)

200 (Van Im
mpe et al.,
1997)

(eid et al., 2000)

Shear Stress (kPa)

150
(Bray et al.,
2009)

100 (Espino
oza and
Gonzalees, 2001)

(Stark eet al.,

50 2010)

(Bareith
her et al.,
2012)
0
0 100 200 3000
Normal Stress(kPa)

FIG W shear streength envelopes classifi

F 7. MSW fied accordin ng to their aauthors’
crriteria: loweer-bound (b
blue lines) annd best-fit ((red lines)
Sheear Strength h Parameter Values
FIG.
F 8 presennts a compillation of 1811 shear strenngth parametter data valuues reported
in the
t literaturee over the paast two decaades (Cho, K Ko, Chi, & T Townsend, 22011; Jafari,
Stark, & Merry y, 2013; Sin ngh and Murrphy, 1990; Gomes, Loopes, & Olivveira, 2013;
Red ddy et al., 2009).
2 It can be seen that
t the oveerall range oof cohesion values and
fricction angless are 0-108 kPa, and d 5-53°, reespectively, reflecting significant
disp persion. Sup perimposed on FIG. 8, 8 two welll-known reggions of reccommended
dessign parametters are also presented, namely
n thosee by Singh aand Murphy (1990) and
Sán nchez-Alcitu urri et al. (19
993). Clearly, no relatioonship existss between thhe data and
the design regions. Moreo over, there is
i no discerrnible trend relating coohesion and
fricction angle values.
v
Since there iss no correlatiion between c’ and φ’, thhese two varriables can bbe treated as
stattistically ind
dependent. Therefore,
T FIG.
F 9 and FFIG. 10 shoow separate histograms
for the cohesiion and friiction anglee parameterrs, respectivvely, as weell as their

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 270

probabilities of exceedance, calculated using the 181 data points compiled. The
cohesion histogram clearly skews towards the left-hand side of the distribution, the
mean is around 15 kPa, the standard deviation is 22 kPa, and the coefficient of
variation is 94.3%. On the other hand, unlike the cohesion histogram, the friction
angle distribution appears significantly more symmetrical, with mean around 27°,
standard deviation of 9°, and coefficient of variation of 34.2%. This simple
representation of strength parameters may allow engineers to make more informed
decisions about which design parameters to use, perhaps over the traditional c’-φ’
charts, or even the strength envelope plots.

Sánchez-Alciturri et al. (1993)

(1) Parameters recommended for design
(1a) Laboratory results
(1b) Field test results

Singh and Murphy (1990)

Parameters recommended
(2) (2)
Cohesion (kPa)

for design

Data points
Others
Back-analysis

(1a) Field
Lab

(1) (1b)

Friction angle (deg)

FIG 8. Compilation of c' vs. φ' parameters. Data are classified according to their
method of determination. Common design regions are superimposed.
80 1.0 50 1
Relative frequency
Absolute frequency

Relative frequency
Absolute frequency

60 0.8 40 0.8
0.6
40 30 0.6
0.4
20 20 0.4
0.2
10 0.2
0 0.0
greate…
15
30
45
60
75
90
0

0 0
gre…
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (deg)

FIG 9. Histogram and probability FIG 10. Histogram and probability of
of exceedance for cohesion exceedance for friction angle

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 271

EFFECT OF URBAN AREA SIZE

In developing countries (e.g., Colombia), the number of inhabitants of a city is

related to the composition of their waste. FIG. 11 presents MSW fiber and organic
matter contents for five cities in Colombia, namely (from the most to the least
populated): Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, and Cartagena. Clearly, the
consumption habits in large urban centers differ substantially from those in smaller
cities. For instance, population size may be used as proxy for degree of economic
development.
Since composition is a key variable influencing the mechanical behavior of MSW,
if an engineer is faced with a landfill design problem, it is reasonable to assume that
the population size of the municipality, and its evolution through time, must play a
role in the MSW shear strength design parameters. FIG. 12 was prepared considering
the data from FIG. 11 presented herein, together with published relationships
between strength parameters (φ’ and c’) and fiber, organic, and inert matter contents
(see Gomes et al., 2013, including FIG. 6 above). The content of inert material was
assumed to be 100% minus the fiber and organic contents combined. According to
Gomes et al. (2013), the fiber, organic, and inert matter content deliver one pair of φ’
and c’ values each. The φ’ and c’ values reported in FIG. 12 are the average values
for each city.
FIG. 12 shows that, despite the data dispersion, an approximate relationship exists
between shear strength parameters and urban area size (the latter quantified as
population). Indeed, for large urban areas, consumption habits predict that MSW will
have slightly higher friction angles likely due to lower organic matter content.
Unfortunately, an outlier data point in the cohesion data precludes the cohesion-vs-
fibers effect from emerging clearly. Still, the range of cohesion values covered by
FIG. 12 agrees well with the mean value of FIG. 9.
FIG. 12 is by no means intended to simply introduce a blind correlation between
chosen variables. Instead, the figure is presented as a tool for a landfill engineer to
realize that the consumption habits of the target urban area are relevant when it comes
to designing a MSW disposal facility.
To further understand FIG. 12, it should be pointed out that most landfills in
Colombia belong to the so-called “first generation” category, which means that MSW
is disposed of at the landfill after only minor or no recycling/reuse involved. The
relationships presented in this paper between population and strength parameters are a
framework rather specific to communities with such first-generation landfills, and
where the number of inhabitants of a municipality is as economic indicator.

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 272

30 100 30.5 Friction angle 17

% Fibers
25 80

% Organic matter
30.0

Friction Angle (°)

Cohesion (kPa)
20 16
% Fibers

60
15 29.5
40
10 15
20 29.0
5 % Organic matter Cohesion
0 0 28.5 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Population (Millions)
Population (Millions)
Left: FIG 11. MSW organic matter and fiber content vs. population in a
developing country. Data from AMB (2012), Bolaños et al., (2011),
Universidad del Valle (2006), and Ordóñez y Villarraga (2007).
Right: FIG 12. Relationship between MSW shear strength parameters and
population of an urban area

CONCLUSIONS

 The number of inhabitants of a municipality is roughly related to the composition

of its waste. Therefore, an approximate relationship can be derived between MSW
shear strength parameters and population size. Thus, the consumption habits of an
urban area are relevant when it comes to designing landfills.
 An enhanced compilation of MSW shear strength parameters reported in the
literature over the past two decades demonstrate the statistical independence
between c’ and φ’. Hence, a simple representation based on histograms and
probability of exceedance of c’ and φ’ delivers a clearer picture of strength
parameters for design, when compared to the traditional c’ vs. φ’ and strength
envelope design charts.
 The key phenomenological variables affecting shear strength of MSW are
composition, strain level, and age (i.e., degree of degradation). These variables
normally exhibit coupled behavior and may evolve with time. Particularly, MSW
exhibits a strain-hardening type stress-strain behavior with upward concavity, thus
the shear strength of MSW strongly depends on deformation level.
 The traditional Mohr-Coulomb strength envelopes used in landfill design practice
depict a strain level of about 10%.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was derived from undergraduate research work at Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana. The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments of Dr. Carlos
Rodríguez of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, as well as those by Dr. Bernardo
Caicedo of Universidad de Los Andes.

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 273

REFERENCES

AMB (2012). “Aprovechamiento y valorización de residuos sólidos en AMB a través

de validación y evaluación de alternativas exitosas en el manejo en otras
ciudades.” 7 p. http://goo.gl/Ut2xFX (Accessed August 2015). In Spanish.
Bolaños, E. Q., Bello, J. M., and Urzola, M. E. (2011). “Evaluación de alternativas
para el manejo de residuos sólidos ordinarios en la ciudad de Cartagena de Indias
mediante la metodología del análisis del ciclo de vida. Hacia la sustentabilidad:
Los residuos sólidos como fuente de energía y materia prima.” pp. 187-192.
http://goo.gl/cZbHxy (Accessed August 2015). In Spanish.
Bray, J., Zekkos, D., Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Athanasopoulos, G., and Riemer, M.
(2009). “Shear Strength of Municipal Solid Waste.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. 135(6), 709-722.
Caicedo, B., Yamin, L., Giraldo, E. and Coronado, O. (2002). “Geomechanical
properties of municipal solid waste in Doña Juana sanitary landfill.” Proc. 4th
International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, Rio de Janeiro (1), 177-
182.
Cho, Y. M., Ko, J. H., Chi, L., and Townsend, T. G. (2011). “Food waste impact on
municipal solid waste angle of internal friction.” Waste Management, 31(1), 26-
32.
Dixon, N., and Jones, D. R. V. (2005). “Engineering properties of municipal solid
waste.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23, 205-233.
González, A. y Espinosa, A. (2001). “Falla del relleno sanitario Doña Juana, Bogotá,
Colombia. III-Mecanismo de falla, causas y costos del deslizamiento.”
Unpublished.
Gomes, C., Lopes, M. L., and Oliveira, P. J. V. (2013). “Municipal solid waste shear
strength parameters defined through laboratorial and in situ tests.” Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association, 63, Nov. 2014, 1352-1368.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Matasovic, N. Bonaparte, R. and Schmertmann, G.R. (1995).
“Evaluation of MSW Properties for Seismic Analysis.” In: Geoenvironment 2000,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, Vol. 2, pp. 1126.
Koerner, R. M., and Soong, T-Y. (2000). Stability Assessment of Ten Large Landfill
Failures. Advances in Transportation and Geoenvironmental Systems Using
Geosynthetics, GSP 103, 1-38.
Machado, S. L., Carvalho, M. F., and Vilar, O. M. (2002). “Constitutive Model for
Municipal Solid Waste.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 128(11), 940-951.
Manassero, M., Van Impe, W. F., and Bouazza, A. (1997). “Waste Disposal and
Containment.” Environmental Geotechnics, 1733-1751.
Ordóñez, C. A. O., y Villarraga, M. R. V. (2007). “Resistencia al corte de residuos
sólidos urbanos: Estado del arte.” Revista Politécnica, 1 (5). http://bit.ly/1UlcFac
(Accessed August 2015). In Spanish.
Reddy, K. R., Gangathulasi, J., Parakalla, N. S., Hettiarachchi, H., Bogner, J. E., and
Lagier, T. (2009). “Compressibility and shear strength of municipal solid waste
under short-term leachate recirculation operations.” Waste Management &
Research: The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing
Association, ISWA, 27, 578-587.

© ASCE
Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 274

Sánchez-Alciturri, J. M., Palma, J., Sagaseta, C., and Canizal, J. (1993). “Mechanical
properties of wastes in a sanitary landfill.” Waste Disposal by Landfill-Green’93,
R. W. Sarsby, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 357-363.
Singh, S. and Murphy, B. (1990). “Evaluation of Stability of Sanitary Landfills.
Geotechnics of Waste Fills-Theory and Practice”, ASTM STP 1071, Landva &
Knowles, (Eds), Philadelphia.
Universidad del Valle (2006). “Caracterización de los residuos sólidos residenciales
generados en el municipio de Santiago de Cali.” http://goo.gl/T9Yjiu (Accessed
August 2015). In Spanish.
Yamamuro, J. A. and Lade, P. V. 1996. “Drained sand behavior in axisymmetric tests
at high pressures.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 122(2): 109-119.
Zekkos, D., Bray, J. D., Athanasopoulos, G. a., Riemer, M. F., Kavazanjian, E.,
Founta, P. a, & Grizi, A. F. (2007). “Compositional and Loading Rate Effects on
the Shear Strength of Municipal Solid Waste.” Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. pp. 25-28.
Zhan, T. L. T., Chen, Y. M., and Ling, W. A. (2008). “Shear strength characterization
of municipal solid waste at the Suzhou Landfill, China.” Eng. Geology, 97, 97-
111.

© ASCE

View publication stats