DEPOSITION OF MECHANICAL-

BIOLOGICALLY TREATED MUNICIPAL

SOLID WASTE

G. ZIEHMANN*, K. MÜNNICH** AND K. FRICKE**

* Ihlenberger Abfallentsorgungsgesellschaft mbH, Selmsdorf, Germany

** Leichtweiss Institute for Hydraulic Engineering, Department of Waste
Management, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany

SUMMARY: Since the 1970th waste was deposited untreated directly on landfills. Due to this
experience, much knowledge exists about management of municipal solid waste landfills.
According to the EU-Landfill-Directive (1999/31/EG) and the German “Ordinance on
Environmentally Compatible Storage of Waste from Human Settlements and on Biological
Waste-Treatment Facilities“ (Abfallablagerungsverordnung 2001) municipal solid waste has to
be treated before deposition. According to waste treatment physical characteristics of wastes
change. New, adopted deposition techniques are required as well as new landfill concepts. The
change of values for the most important parameters for the example of mechanically biologically
treated wastes are described in this paper by theoretical fundamentals and on the basis of
laboratory experiments and in-situ-tests. It is shown and explained that there are differences
between results of measurements on in-situ and on laboratory conditions. Conclusions for the
landfill management, deposition techniques and costs are drawn as well.

1. INTRODUCTION

There is a great deal of knowledge about landfill operation for untreated or roughly mechanically
treated municipal solid waste (MSW). Until recently most waste was deposited in this manner.
The knowledge generally comes from tests that were conducted in the 1980s. Some examples are
the change from tipping edge operation to thin-layer tipping (e.g. Collins and Spillmann, 1981)
and the development of water household models (Spillmann, 1986). But the change in the waste,
which has to be deposited from mechanical-biological treatment is forcing landfill operators and
research institutions to develop new concepts and fundamentals of landfill operation. The
deciding variable factors affecting tipping on the landfill and the tipping operation itself are:
• Tipping density,
• Hydraulic conductivity,
• Surface runoff,
• Vehicle-terrain-interaction,
• Costs.

Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 6 - 10 October 2003
 2003 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
The following text will consider these variables with respect to mechanical-biological treatment
of MSW and the requirements or changes resulting from them for landfill operation.

2. TIPPING DENSITY

Mechanical processing, i.e. grinding and sieving out certain fractions before tipping, greatly
reduces the range of piece sizes. One direct result is that treated waste can be tipped into the
landfill with higher densities. Two different general methods exist for the determination of
tipping densities. One is the in-situ test field and the other the laboratory test (Proctor test).
Because determining tipping density according to the GDA Recommendation E3-13 (DGGT,
1998) is very time and money consuming, tipping density is often determined with the help of a
Proctor test. This procedure comes from soil mechanics. It requires that the maximum diameter
of waste pieces be proportional to the diameter of the Proctor container. The Proctor container
generally used in waste mechanics has a diameter of 250 mm, meaning the maximum piece size
of the waste can be 60 mm.
Calculating the Proctor density allows a quick estimation of the possible maximum density
under comparable experimental conditions. The comparison of tests with wastes of different
treatment methods leads to an efficient decision about the appropriateness of the material’s
characteristics for tipping after the chemical and biological treatment goals have been achieved.
If not, it may be necessary to use another treatment process or to add other materials to improve
the waste’s quality, which is only permissible when it is not necessary to achieve the required
values of chemical analysis.
Table 1 shows examples of Proctor densities of waste that was processed in various treatment
procedures. The values are all similar to those described in the literature (Gnuschke, 2000).

Table 1. Proctor densities for variously mechanically-biologically treated waste.

Treatment in fermentation
Treatment in windrows
plants
Material 1 Material 2 Material 3 Material 4
(< 5 mm) (< 30 mm) (< 40 mm) (< 25 mm)
Proctor density [t/m³] 0.95 1.20 0.88 0.70
Water content at Proctor
34 26 32 39
density [% wet mass]

These values show that the optimal water content range, often given as approx. 30 – 35 % (wet
mass) should not be over generalised. For example, material 2 contains a far higher proportion of
fine inert material (sand and glass splinters). This causes a reduction in its field capacity
compared with other samples. Furthermore, the type of waste treatment seems to influence the
density. Non aerobically treated waste has Proctor densities in the lower range of those given for
waste from aerobic mechanical biological plants. The low Proctor densities for material 4
indicate high hydraulic conductivity and could lead to an increased leachate production in the
landfill body.
In practise, however, tipping densities differ from the Proctor densities. Lower tipping
densities can occur when bulky components, which cannot be included in the Proctor tests, but
reduce the densification properties of the waste, are deposited together with the treated waste.
Another aspect is the water content after the mechanical-biological treatment, which often does
not correspond to the optimum water content determined with the help of Proctor tests. However,
many experiments with piece sizes between 40 and 60 mm have shown that high densities are
reached over a relatively large water content range (BMBF, 2000; Münnich/Ziehmann, 2000). In
practise this means that in many cases the slight changes in water content with respect to the
heterogeneity of the waste hardly affects affect the tipping density. Compared with untreated
waste the homogeneity is greatly increased because of the sorting out of unwanted material and
the mechanical processing. However the densification properties of the waste are further affected
by the varying piece sizes and dimensional distribution. Furthermore, varying material densities
of waste mixtures with values between < 1 Mg/m³ (plastics) and 8 Mg/m³ (steel) also affect
Proctor density (Ziehmann, 2001).
Conversely, higher tipping densities for waste at the landfill can also be achieved compared
with Proctor densities. This is caused by the test procedure in the laboratory, where the load is
placed down flat by dynamic loads. Waste tipping in practise, e.g. with a compactor, causes a
static load with an additional “milling” effect; i.e. the pieces are shoved together horizontally,
causing them to weave together.
The multiplication of these effects was observed during tipping of mechanically biologically
treated material with bulldozers onto test fields where the waste was afterwards compacted with
vibrating rollers. For this example the Proctor density had previously been determined at
0.91 Mg/m3 with a water content of 31 % (wet mass). The density on the test field was
determined by a volume displacement method, which is permissible in this case due to the small
minimum particle sizes and the homogeneity of the waste. It gave tipping densities between
0.78 Mg/m³ and 0.97 Mg/m³ with water contents distinctly above those of the Proctor test:
40.2 % (wet mass) and. 37.6 % (wet mass) (Table 2). Further examples for higher in-situ-
denisties than maximum densities in Proctor tests or similar densities at higher water contents in-
situ are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Proctor densities and in-situ-densities of different mechanically-biologically treated

wastes
Proctortest In - situ -test
- field
Material Density Water-content Density Water-content
[t/m³] [%] [t/m³] [%]
Landfill Mansie 0,91 31 0,78–0,97 37,6–40,2
Landfill Meisenheim 0,97 25 1,17–1,45 32,9–35,1
Aerobic Method Rethmann 0,95 34
LandfillWilhelmshaven 0,96 31 0,92–0,97 38
LandfillSchwarnebeck
Landfill 1,20 26
Anaerobic ISKA- Method, Pilot - 0,88 32
and Aerobic plant Buchen
Anaerobic Anonymus 0,70 39

3. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

Recently there is little knowledge about the movement of water in the landfill body compared
with that of conventional hydraulic engineering and soil mechanics. A direct transfer of these
concepts to waste is often impracticable due to the vast heterogeneity and anisotropy of the
material. Moreover, water entering the landfill body is not only transported vertically downwards
as a result of gravity; occasionally gas movement or temperature gradients can cause water to be
transported against gravity in limited areas. The main factors of water transport are:
• Infiltration,
• Saturated hydraulic conductivity
• Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
The term infiltration refers to vertical, downward movement of water in waste material. The
process of infiltration is characterized by the infiltration ratio, which indicates the infiltrated
layer thickness of water per time unit (e.g. mm/d or m/s). If the infiltration ratio over time is
integrated, it shows the cumulated infiltration, i.e. the total infiltrated water volume.
Factors affecting infiltration into the landfill body are:
• Consistence of the surface (e.g. slope, porosity, cleavage, muddiness);
• Water content of waste before infiltration;
• Type of change in water conductivity depending on water content
The typical curve of infiltration ratio during continuous addition of water at the same ratio or a
higher ratio than the ratio of infiltration of the waste (e.g. a build-up on the waste surface) is
shown in Figure 1.
The influence of the tipping density of waste, which directly affects porosity and water
conductivity, is shown by the time curve of the infiltration ratio (Figure 1). The test material is
mechanically-biologically treated waste that was sieved for piece sizes < 60 mm. The tipping
water content was approx. 30% (wet mass) in all tests.
The tests show that even slight changes in tipping density greatly affect the water volume
infiltrating into the landfill. Furthermore it is apparent that in all test cases the end infiltration
ratio is approx. one power of 10 lower than the start infiltration ratio. In practise, this means that,
particularly for short precipitation events, a much higher proportion can infiltrate into the waste
than is described by the saturated hydraulic conductivity.

1E-03

Tipping density(wet
Tipping mass):mass ):
density (wet
Infiltration ratio [m/s]

3
1,3 Mg/m 3
1E-04 1,3 Mg/m
1,4 Mg/m3
1,4 Mg/m
1,5 Mg/m3
3

1,5 Mg/m3

1E-05

1E-06

1E-07

1E-08
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time [ minutes]

Figure 1. Curve of the infiltration ratio as related to tipping density of treated waste
The flow movement of a fluid in landfills is often characterised by the saturated hydraulic
conductivity (permeability value). This value can be determined using the measuring procedure
given in DIN 18130. Note that the test procedure is adapted to the largest piece diameter of the
test material in order to reduce the influence of edges on the test results. Measuring value cells
used in soil mechanics cannot be implemented for waste, which is much rougher than soils are.
All approaches to water household of landfills must additionally take into consideration that the
permeability value is not a constant, but is dependent on the water component substances and the
temperature in the landfill body.
In the last few years tests have been increasingly conducted to determine the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of treated waste in laboratory scale. The values determined by various
authors are in the range of 10-6 to 10-10 m/s (Dach, 1998; Steube, 1996, Münnich/Ziehmann,
2000), well below values determined for untreated waste of 10-4 to 10-8 m/s (e.g. Beaven/Powrie,
1995; Oweis et al, 1990). The difference is caused mostly by the tipping density.
The following is a description of tests conducted at the Leichtweiß-Institute on mechanically-
biologically treated waste with variations of sieve sizes and tipping densities. The purpose is to
show the influence of these factors on the permeability (Figure 2). The waste was all treated with
the same mechanical biological procedure; only the last sieving was performed with varying
sieve sizes. All waste was deposited with approx. 30% (wet mass) into the test containers in
order to achieve comparable results.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity

1E - 04
<
< 60
60mm
mm
< 40
< 40mm
mm
< 30
< 30mm
mm
1E- 05

1E-06
[m/s]

1E-07

1E-08

1E-09
0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2

Density [Mg/m3 (Dry mass )]

Figure 2. Saturated hydraulic conductivity as a function of the tipping density and piece size

The results show that the saturated hydraulic conductivity for one piece size is greatly reduced
with increasing tipping density. However, the results are also obviously skewed; several
conductivity values can be assigned to each tipping density of a single piece size. This is caused
by the heterogeneity of the output material of the mechanically biologically treated waste.
However, the results also show that, despite high tipping densities sometimes greater than
1.0 Mg/m3 the saturated hydraulic conductivity does not achieve the value often discussed in
Germany of less than 1*10-8 m/s.
In landfills, water saturation is only reached in areas where leachate has built up, if at all. This
causes an unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, in which both states (gasous and fluid) claim a part
of the void spaces. This double state flow causes a reduction of the permeability that each state
would have if it claimed all the void space. This means that the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity is dependent on the saturation content of the waste, and it must be lower than
saturated hydraulic conductivity in any case.
Tests at the Leichtweiss-Institute have shown that even a slight reduction in water content can
lead to a dramatic reduction of the hydraulic conductivity of wastes (Münnich et al., 2003).

4. SURFACE RUNOFF

Depending on waste treatment and the tipping equipment, surface runoff on the tipping surface
can occur. This factor was not generally taken into consideration in the past, because at landfills
of non treated waste no surface runoff occurs. In some early tests performed at the Meisenheim
Landfill mechanically biologically treated waste was tipped onto test fields and artificially
watered with sprinklers. Approx. 30 – 60% of the precipitation was able to run off on the
surface. Long-term experiments where only natural precipitation is a factor, confirmed that 15 to
50% surface runoff occurs even under these conditions (Maak, 2001). These in-situ test results
have also been confirmed in the laboratory. However, it is noted that particularly strong
precipitation leads to surface runoffs, while longer, weaker precipitation events can be
completely absorbed by the waste in some cases. This depends on the infiltration ratio and the
saturated hydraulic conductivity of the waste (Ziehmann/Münnich, 2001).
Not only the volume of surface runoff but also its quality is important for landfill operation.
Laboratory tests have shown that a large portion of the solid materials is dissolved and carried
off at the beginning of precipitation (Figure 3). As the duration of the precipitation increases, the
substance concentration of the surface runoff decreases (Figure 3). However the requirements for
a direct return to water sources given by the drinking water regulations are still not fulfilled even
after longer precipitation.
At the Mansie Landfill a test field with MECHANICALLY BIOLOGICALLY TREATED
waste was built in September 2000 to allow collection of surface and liner runoff. Since then
samples are taken at regular intervals and analysed for content. Table 3 shows concentrations in
the liner runoff and in surface runoff at the beginning of the test, i.e. after the first precipitation
event, and after an observation period of about seven months. Figure 4 graphs the change in
COD concentration over time.

6000 1. Hour
Hour of 2. Hour
Hour of
precititation
precititation precititation
precititation
5000
COD [mg/l]

4000

3000

2000

1000
S2 (1:2)

S6 (1:2)

S7 (1:3)

S3 (1:2)

S5 (1:2)

S8 (1:3)

S1 (1:2)

S4 (1:2)

Terminology of samples (slope inclination)

Figure 3. COD-concentration in surface runoff from laboratory tests

 5000

Liner runoff
Basisabfluss
Surface runoff
Oberflächenabfluss
COD-concentration [mg/l]

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250

Testing duration [d]

Figure 4. Change in COD concentration over time in the runoff from a test field at the Mansie
Landfill

It is clear that the first precipitation events cause great contamination in surface and liner runoff.
As the precipitation events increase the concentrations decrease, as they did in the laboratory
experiments. However, the levels of both liner and surface runoff contamination are still higher
than the permissible levels for direct return to water sources. For landfill operation this means
that it must be considered whether this water should be piped into an on-site treatment plant or
whether this is even possible due to the high volume.
In the scope of precipitation tests performed on laboratory scale at the Leichtweiß Institute,
simple experiments to purify surface water were also conducted (Ziehmann/Münnich, 2001).
Because the water generally contains a high level of floating substances, settling tests and
filtrations were performed. These showed that simple procedures such as pressure filtration were
able to purify the water enough that it could be piped into natural water sources near the surface.
It is even plausible that still simpler and cheaper passive procedures could be implemented such
as sand- or soil filters or floral treatment plants.
Table .3 Concentrations in the water of the test field of the Mansie Landfill (Münnich/Ziehmann,
2001)
Surface runoff Liner runoff
At the After seven At the After seven
beginning months beginning months
pH-Value
7.0 7.4 7.1 7.5
[-]

El. Conductivity
7,000 2,940 16,600 3,710
[µS/cm]

TOC
429 122 1.812 98
[mg/l]

COD
2,000 352 4,670 452
[mg/l]

BOD5
66 19 244 15
[mg/l]

NH4-N
89 <5 392 <5
[mg/l]

Steam residue
5,842 2,280 14,722 3,009
[mg/l]

Filterable substances
1,065 134 4,015 167
[mg/l]

5. VEHICLE-TERRAIN-INTERACTION

The vehicle safety of a waste surface for haulers and compactors is extremely important when
considering the plausibility of mechanically biologically treated waste for landfilling and for
landfill operation itself. Driving safety on the surface is guaranteed as long as there is no
breakage below the wheel path surface. The ground properties down to around twice the depth of
the wheel path surface decide the extent of load that can be carried (Henke). This approach
comes from soil mechanics. An important factor is the range of water content changes, largely
dependent on the weather and on the infiltration ratio (section 3). It is thus possible to calculate
vehicle safety using similar approaches to those familiar from other fields, like agricultural or
soil mechanical engineering, as long as waste-specific characteristics are considered. The
calculation must also take into consideration the wheel and vehicle specific characteristics such
as slipping and the shape of the load surface (Söhne 1963). Parameters that cannot be calculated
or are taken from experience must be determined in in-situ experiments.

6. COSTS

Even “conventionally” operated landfills rarely publicise data about general costs. Generally
information is given only about individual landfill structures. Further, there is at present no
publicised data about the different costs of operation for landfills that are filled partially or
completely with mechanically biologically treated waste. Therefore only general cost aspects can
be discussed in this paper. At this point it is important to have a look at the interaction between
the operation of treatment processes and the operation of landfills. It is not appropriate to list
individual aspects of cost increases or reductions and then apply them to the treatment process or
to the landfill. The interaction of both components is decisive because treatment processes
greatly influence the physical characteristics of the material to be landfilled. This means that the
characteristics of the landfill itself, e.g. tipping and hydraulic conductance, are changed due to
the change in operation with the treatment procedure. An increase in costs caused by treatment
of waste can actually be balanced out by cost reduction in landfill operation. Even an overall
decrease in operation costs can be achieved. However, each landfill must be considered
individually. Generalised speculation is inappropriate because of the numerous operating models
for landfill locations.
Table 4 shows general changes in costs that can occur. These changes are based on the
variations in landfill operation, on the change in waste characteristics and on other factors not
given here. In general, cheaper landfill operation can be achieved with mechanically biologically
treated wastes than with fresh wastes as long as landfill operators exploit their possibilities, and
unnecessary bureaucratic limitations are avoided.

Table 4. Possible generalized cost changes for operation of an MBT landfill

Cost Increase
•Installation of a surface drainage
•Surface water treatment
•Additional transport vehicles or
containers (+additional personnel)
•Possibly new equipment needed (e.g.
compactor)
•Intermediate storage areas required
•Possibly lower tipping volume due to
lower shear strength of waste/shallower
slopes
•Cap procedures for tipping surface
Cost Reduction
•Costs for the treatment of surface water
lower than for leachate
•Lower leachate volume
•Simpler infrastructure (e.g. paths to the
tipping surface) for landfill vehicles
•Higher tipping density/lower volume fill
•Surface cap necessary?
•Simpler gas collection systems
•Lower personnel and machine
requirements for waste tipping (fewer
tipping days)
•Shortened post closure care of landfills

7. CONCLUSIONS

This paper shows the effects of mechanical and biological treatment of waste on several aspects
of landfill operation. Other considerations such as stability and gas drainage are not given here.
The description of effects on landfill operation, costs and characteristics of the landfill body
support the thesis that waste treatment and landfilling cannot be considered separately. They
must be considered together. This applies not only to mechanical-biological treatment but also to
thermal treatment.
Furthermore, it is imperative to assess that
• Landfill operation and the characteristics of landfill bodies change due to the treatment of the
stored wastes,
• Landfilling mechanically biologically treated waste can be cheaper than landfilling fresh
waste and
• There is a good deal of executive flexibility for landfill operators.
REFERENCES

Abfallablagerungsverordnung (2001): Verordnung über die umweltverträgliche Ablagerung von

Siedlungsabfällen und über biologische Behandlungsanlagen, Bundesministerium für
Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Berlin
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2000): Abschlußbericht zum
Verbundvorhaben „Mechanisch-biologische Behandlung von zu deponierenden Abfällen“.
Förderkennzeichen 1470960
DGGT (1998): GDA-Empfehlung E3-13: „Versuchsfelder zur Ermittlung der Einbaudichte von
Sielungsabfall“; Bautechnik 75, H. 9, S. 626 – 629
EU-directive 1999/31/EG: Richtlinie 1999/31/EG des Rates vom 26. April 1999;
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Berlin
Gnuschke, K. (2000): Veränderung der mechanischen Festigkeit, sowie der Wasser- und
Gasdurchlässigkeit durch mechanisch-biologische Vorbehandlung. Studienarbeit am
Leichtweiß-Institut für Wasserbau, TU Braunschweig (unveröffentlicht).
Henke, K. F.: Messung und Beurteilung der Befahrbarkeit von Böden; Forschungsvorhaben des
Bundesministerium für Verteidigung
Maak, D. (2001): Reduzierung der Infiltration in Deponien für mechanisch-biologisch
behandelte Abfälle – Einflüsse der Einbautechnik-. Dissertation am Leichtweiß-Institut für
Wasserbau, TU Braunschweig
Münnich, K.; Ziehmann, G. (2000): Abschlussbericht „Mechanische Untersuchungen des
mechanisch-biologisch behandelten Abfalls der Deponie Pinnow, Landkreis Uckermark“
(unveröffentlicht).
Münnich, K.; Ziehmann, G.; Fricke, K. (2003): Hydraulic behavior of mechanical biological pre-
treated waste. Sardinia 2003, 9th Int. Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Söhne, W. (1963): Beitrag zur Mechanik des Systems Fahrzeug-Boden unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Ackerschlepper, Grundlagen der Landtechnik, Heft 17
Spillmann, P. (1986): Wasser- und Stoffhaushalt von Altdeponien und deren Auswirkungen auf
Gewässer, VCH-Verlag, Weinheim
Spillmann, P. und Collins, H.-J. (1981): Erhöhung der Nutzungsdauer von Hausmülldeponien
durch betriebliche Maßnahmen, Müll und Abfall, Heft 1, 2, 3 und 5, Erich Schmidt Verlag
Berlin
Wiemer, K. (1982): Qualitative und quantitative Kriterien zur Bestimmung der Dichte von
Abfällen in geordneten Deponien. Dissertation im Fachbereich Umwelttechnik der TU Berlin
Ziehmann, G. (2001): Setzung von Abfalldeponien – Theorie und Laborversuche zur
Kennzeichnung von Einflussgrößen -. Dissertation am Leichtweiß-Institut für Wasserbau, TU
Braunschweig.
Ziehmann, G.; Münnich, K. (2001): Qualität und Quantität des Oberflächenabflusses bei der
Deponierung von MBT-Abfällen. Schriftenreihe des ANS. 62. Informationsgespräch des ANS
e.V.