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

net/publication/269708517

Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Fibrous Reinforcement on Shear

Resistance of Soil-Waste Mixtures

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · June 2013

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20120190

CITATIONS READS

6 119

3 authors:

Dimitrios Zekkos Athina Grizi

University of Michigan University of Nottingham
108 PUBLICATIONS   844 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George Athanasopoulos
University of Patras
91 PUBLICATIONS   1,053 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Landslides View project

Interest in bimrocks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitrios Zekkos on 04 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2013
Available online at www.astm.org
doi:10.1520/GTJ20120190

Dimitrios Zekkos,1 Athena Grizi,1 and George Athanasopoulos2

Experimental Investigation of the Effect

of Fibrous Reinforcement on Shear
Resistance of Soil-Waste Mixtures

REFERENCE: Zekkos, Dimitrios, Grizi, Athena, and Athanasopoulos, George, “Experimental Investigation of the Effect
of Fibrous Reinforcement on Shear Resistance of Soil-Waste Mixtures,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2013, pp. 867–881,
doi:10.1520/GTJ20120190. ISSN 0149-6115.
ABSTRACT: The effect of fibrous waste reinforcement on the shear resistance of soil-waste mixtures is experimentally investigated using a
large (30 cm  30 cm  18 cm) direct shear box. Analogies in shear response to fiber-reinforced soils (FRS) are identified. Specimens are reconsti-
tuted at varying fibrous waste orientations using a custom-made specimen preparation split mold. Tests on soil-waste mixtures with waste fibrous
constituents, i.e., paperboard, plastic and wood, commonly encountered in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are performed. Fibrous constitu-
ents are characterized by performing tensile tests and interface testing. The experimental data confirms that the shearing response of soil-waste
mixtures is analogous to that of FRS and provides a basis for explaining the fiber reinforcement effect of MSW. It was found that the presence of
fibrous constituents results in significant anisotropy in shear resistance of the direct shear specimens with fiber reinforcement contribution being a
function of the reinforcement orientation and the type of fiber. The impact of reinforcement orientation on the shear strength of the specimens is
significant. The largest increase in shear resistance of the specimens is observed for a reinforcement angle of 60 with respect to the shear plane,
consistent with findings of previous studies on FRS. Wood fibers exhibit the highest tensile strength and the lowest strain at failure as well as the
highest interface strength with soil, compared to paperboard and plastic fibers. Wood fibers also contribute the most to the shear resistance of soil-
waste mixtures. For these mixtures, similarly to FRS, once the amount of reinforcement exceeds a certain threshold, it does not contribute further
to reinforcement. Results of this investigation indicate that the previously recommended strength envelopes for MSW may not account for the
significant fibrous reinforcement effect, although lower shear resistances may be observed in direct shear when shearing occurs parallel to plastic
fibrous constituents.
KEYWORDS: Municipal solid waste, fiber-reinforced soil, soil-waste mixtures, laboratory testing, paperboard, plastic, wood

Introduction technical literature. Recent studies on the shear strength of MSW

Modern municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are environmen-
tally sensitive, engineered infrastructure systems. Landfill slope
failures can have adverse environmental, social, and political con-
sequences. A critical aspect of landfill design is the slope stability
of the waste mass that is placed on top of a containment system
and can reach significant heights. To reliably analyze the stability
of landfill slopes, a realistic assessment of the shear strength of
MSW is required. Overly conservative shear strength parameters
may lead to unnecessary losses of landfill waste capacity. On the
other hand, unrealistically high shear strength parameters, or inad-
equate understanding of the shear resistance of MSW, may lead to
failures. A significant number of MSW slope failures have
occurred in recent years (e.g., Hendron et al. 1999; Eid et al.
2000; Koerner and Soong 2000; Merry et al. 2005; Huvaj-Sarihan
and Stark 2008) and many more are not documented in the
Manuscript received October 15, 2012; accepted for publication August 10,
2013; published online September 17, 2013.
1
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States of America.
2
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras 26500, Greece.
(e.g., Bray et al. 2009) recognize that the presence of fibrous
waste constituents, such as paper, plastic, and wood waste, con-
tributes to the reinforcement of the waste mass. However, recom-
mended envelopes (such as Bray et al. 2009 as well as earlier ones
such as Kavazanjian et al. 1995 and Eid et al. 2000) use a conserv-
ative estimate of the shear strength that largely ignores the contri-
bution of fibrous waste reinforcement of MSW. In some cases, the
stability of large, almost vertical waste slopes observed in landfills
worldwide cannot be justified by these shear strength envelopes.
Thus, an improved understanding of the fibrous waste reinforce-
ment is critical.
Objective of this Study
Previous testing of MSW indicated that the shear resistance of
MSW is highly anisotropic. Large-scale direct shear testing per-
formed on MSW specimens typically imposes shearing on a plane
generally parallel to the fibrous waste constituents. As a result,
fibrous waste constituents do not contribute to an increase in the
shear resistance of the MSW specimen and therefore do not act as
reinforcement (Bray et al. 2009). Direct shear tests performed on

Copyright V
C 2013 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 867
868 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
MSW from Tri-Cities landfill in California (Zekkos et al. 2010)
indicated that the shear strength of MSW with fibrous waste con-
stituents perpendicular to the horizontal shearing plane may be
two times greater than the shear strength of MSW with fibrous
constituents parallel to the horizontal shear plane.
The objective of this study is to better quantify the contribution
of fibrous waste constituents (considered as reinforcement) on
MSW shear resistance. Typical fibrous waste constituents encoun-
tered in MSW landfills include primarily paper, plastic, and wood.
Soil-waste mixtures were prepared using daily soil cover from a
landfill in Greece and fibrous waste similar to that typically
disposed of in the landfill. Use of synthetic MSW specimens in
laboratory testing has been found to be an efficient way to study
the behavior of material with controlled composition and structure
(Langer et al. 2005; Athanasopoulos et al. 2008; Dixon et al.
2008; Reddy et al. 2009; Bareither et al. 2012). In the present
study, specimens were prepared that included daily soil cover and
“clean” fibrous waste constituents. Paperboard, plastic, and wood
fibrous waste constituents were separately included in specimens
so that the shear resistance of the soil-waste mixture specimen can
be related to the type of fibrous waste constituents. The size of the
fibers was uniform and similar to the size of actual fibrous waste
constituents encountered in the landfills. The orientation of the
fibrous constituents with respect to the horizontal shear plane,
referred to as fiber reinforcement angle (i), was varied. Fibrous
waste constituents were also characterized by performing tensile
testing and interface testing in an effort to better understand the re-
inforced behavior of the soil-waste mixtures.
The results of this study aim to improve our understanding of
the reinforcing effect of fibrous constituents of MSW. It is also
anticipated that the findings can be utilized in two ways: (1) to
apply knowledge obtained from fiber-reinforced soil (FRS) studies
in selecting the design strength values of MSW, and (2) to utilize
test results regarding the behavior of heavily reinforced soil-waste
mixtures to provide information on the behavior of FRS with large
concentrations of fiber reinforcement that may be applicable to
MSW.
MSW as a Reinforced Soil
Vidal (1969) defined soil reinforcement as any material that when
embedded in a soil mass—in the form of an inclusion—can
develop tensile resistance. To function as reinforcement, an
inclusion—in addition to its tensile strength—must also allow the
development of interface resistance, which is necessary for the
transmission of stresses from soil to reinforcement (Palmeira
2009; Tang et al. 2010). Based on the above definition and the
required properties of soil reinforcement, MSW can be viewed as
a heavily reinforced composite material (Athanasopoulos et al.
2008; Fernado et al. 2009; Stark et al. 2009); it is composed of
fibrous waste constituents (paper, plastic, wood, or textiles) with
varying tensile strengths and interface resistances, which are
embedded in a “soil-like” matrix, and represent a significant per-
centage (in the order of 25 % to 50 % by weight) of the total waste
mass. Recycled fibrous waste constituents can also be utilized as
reinforcing elements in reinforced soil applications (e.g., Omine
et al. 2001).
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:12 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
Furthermore, noting the small size of the fibrous constituents
of MSW compared to the much larger size of 1D (strips, rods)- or
2D (sheets, grids)-oriented reinforcement used in reinforced soil
applications (Jones 1996), it is reasonable to consider MSW as a
fiber-reinforced soil (FRS). FRS is a composite material produced
by randomly mixing discrete (manufactured or natural) fibers or
mesh elements (Morel and Gourc 1997) with soil material to
improve the mechanical behavior of the composite compared to
the unreinforced soil. At present, the most common applications
of FRS involve the stabilization of thin soil veneers, clay-based
landfill covers, and localized repair of failed slopes (Gregory and
Chill 1998; Zornberg 2008; Gregory 2011; Divya et al. 2013).
Early research on the mechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced soil
was focused mainly on sands (Gray and Ohashi 1983; Gray and
Al-Refeai 1986; Gray and Maher 1989; Maher and Gray 1990;
Shewbridge and Sitar 1990; Al-Refeai 1991; Morel and Gourc
1997; Al-Refeai and Al-Suhaibani 1998). Research was gradually
extended to soils possessing cohesion (Maher and Ho 1994;
Alwahab and Al-Ourna 1995; Falorca et al. 2006; Ahmad et al.
2010; Viswanadham et al. 2011; Ple and Le 2012; Divya et al.
2013) and to the effects of the amount of deformation on the
behavior of composite material (Shewbridge and Sitar 1990;
Nataraj and McManis 1997; Heineck et al. 2005; Consoli et al.
2007).
In approximately the last 10 years, research has focused on
understanding the mechanics of FRS in an integrated framework
of soil mechanics (Diambra et al. 2010; Sadek et al. 2010; Santos
et al. 2010; Gao and Zhao 2012), the development of analytical
methodologies for predicting the improved shear strength of the
composite material (Michalowski and Zhao 1996; Ranjan et al.
1996; Zornberg 2002; Michalowski and Cermak 2003; Michalow-
ski 2008), and the validation of the above methodologies through
laboratory testing (Li and Zornberg 2005; Zornberg 2008; Najjar
et al. 2012). Anisotropy in shear strength of the composite mate-
rial containing “randomly” oriented fibers, has also been demon-
strated in a number of studies (e.g., Michalowski and Cermak
2002; Diambra et al. 2007; Michalowski 2008).
Based on the results of the above (and other) studies, the state
of knowledge on fiber-reinforced soil, as related to the behavior of
MSW, can be summarized as follows (see also Najjar et al. 2012):
(a) The peak strength of the composite material (FRS) increases
with fiber content only up to a certain content, gradually
approaching an asymptotic upper limit. Also, the strength
increase as a result of reinforcement is more pronounced at
low confining pressures, given that granular materials derive
their strength from friction forces between particles; these fric-
tion forces increase significantly with increasing confining
pressure. It should be noted that in FRS applications, the by-
weight fiber content usually does not exceed 0.5 % to 1 %,
whereas in the case of MSW, it may typically reach much
higher (tenfold or more) values.
(b) The strain (or displacement) required to reach the peak
strength value is significantly increased in FRS compared to
unreinforced soil. This behavior explains the continuous
increase of shear resistance of MSW samples containing large
amounts of fibrous constituents when tested in laboratory

FIG. 1—Grain size distribution of daily cover soil from Xerolakka landfill in
Patras, Greece.
devices, which allow only a limited amount of displacement
(Stark et al. 2009).
(c) FRS retains its improved shear strength even after large post-
peak deformations. This behavior, when considered for the
case of MSW, may justify use of increased values of strength
in landfill slope stability evaluations even in cases involving
large displacements.
(d) For a given fiber content and 1D fibers, the shear strength of
FRS increases with increasing fiber aspect ratio (i.e., fiber
length/fiber diameter) or increasing interface resistance
between fiber and soil. Fibrous constituents of MSW (mainly
plastic, paper, and wood) are predominantly 2D with lengths
that are relatively high compared to the fibers typically used
in FRS. The interface resistance would also be expected to
vary depending on the type of fibrous waste material.
(e) In FRS with large fiber content, the strength improvement is
greater for coarse sands than fine-grained soils. This behavior
is reversed for low fiber concentrations. In MSW—character-
ized by very large content of fibrous waste constituents—the
daily cover soil gradation may influence the strength of the
composite material.
(f) The strength increase of FRS depends on the orientation of
fiber reinforcement with respect to the shearing plane: it
FIG. 2—View of “clean” fibrous waste constituents used in the direct shear tests of the present study: (a) paperboard dimensions 50 mm  60 mm, (b) plastic
dimensions 130 mm  50 mm, and (c) wood dimensions 90 mm  20 mm  10 mm.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:12 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 869
reaches its peak value when the orientation angle is equal to
45 þ u/2, and may even take negative values (i.e., strength
reduction) when the fiber orientation is such that the fibers are
subjected to compressive strains. Experimental data and prob-
abilistic analyses have shown that the behavior of FRS with
random distribution of fiber orientation is almost identical to
the behavior of material with a fiber reinforcement angle of
90 (e.g., Gray and Ohashi 1983; Gray and Maher 1989). In
FRS field applications and in specimens compacted and tested
in the laboratory, the distribution of orientation of fibers is
actually not random. Instead, the preferred orientation is com-
monly sub-horizontal, because of the procedures used to mix
the fibrous constituents with the soil matrix. This preferred
orientation results in an anisotropic strength increase in FRS.
In a similar way, in MSW landfills, the orientation of fibrous
constituents is predominantly sub-horizontal, because of the
procedures used to compact the disposed waste.
Materials Tested and Testing Equipment
Materials tested in this study included daily soil cover from the
Xerolakka landfill in Patras, Greece, and plastic, paperboard, and
wood samples, which were used to simulate the fibrous constitu-
ents of MSW (Athanasopoulos et al. 2008; Zekkos et al. 2010).
The above materials were characterized using a large direct shear
apparatus and a high-capacity tensile testing machine.
The shear strength of daily cover soil was evaluated by
running direct shear tests in a large size Wykeham Farrance
(WF 25505) apparatus with shear box dimensions 300 mm
 300 mm  180 mm, load capacity (vertical and horizontal) of
10 kN, and adjustable rate of shearing. This apparatus has been
used for testing MSW from Tri-Cities landfill and is described in
more detail by Zekkos et al. (2010). It has also been modified by
Athanasopoulos et al. (2002) to allow the performance of interface
shear testing between soil and any material that can be cut in a
sheet-like shape with planar dimensions 300 mm  300 mm and a
thickness up to 40 mm.
The tensile behavior of the fibrous constituents (plastic, paper-
board, and wood) was measured by using an MTS 20/M (100 kN)
loading frame. This equipment is capable of applying tensile or
compressive axial loading at adjustable rate, and is equipped with
mechanical clamps (grips) for testing sheet-like specimens (e.g.,
geosynthetics) in tension (Atmatzidis and Chrysikos 2002).
870 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 3—Close-up views of tested samples in the MTS 20/M tensile testing machine: (a) wood sample, (b) plastic sample, and (c) paperboard sample.
Characterization of Tested Materials
The daily cover soil used in the present study is, according to the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), silty sand (SM), or
clayey sand (SC) with natural moisture content equal to 10 %,
fines content equal to 27 %, liquid limit LL ¼ 24 %, and plasticity
index PI ¼ 5 %. The grain size distribution curve of the material
is shown in Fig. 1, from which the following parameters can be
calculated: D50 ¼ 0.5 mm, D10 ¼ 0.013 mm, D60 ¼ 2 mm, and
Cu ¼ 154.
A view of “clean” fibrous constituents (pieces of plastic, paper-
board, and wood) used to prepare the composite material for direct
shear testing is shown in Fig. 2. Characterization of fibrous con-
stituents included interface direct shear tests and axial tensile test-
ing. Tensile testing of plastic, paperboard, and wood was
performed as shown in Fig. 3 at a rate of loading equal to 5 mm/
min. The tensile specimen width was equal to 200 mm for paper-
board and plastic specimens and 38 mm for the wood specimen.
The thickness of the fibrous constituents was 10 mm for wood,
0.25 mm for paperboard, and 0.025 mm for plastic. Two pieces of
plastic, with a total thickness of 0.05 mm were used during tensile
testing to reliably assess the tensile stress–strain response. The dry
unit weight of the paperboard was 6.6 kN/m3 and the plastic mate-
rial was polyethylene. The dry unit weight of the wood was
4.9 kN/m3 and the type of wood was Swedish pine. Unit weight of
the plastic was not measured, but the literature indicates that it is
in the order of 0.9–0.97 kN/m3.
The testing results are shown in Fig. 4, in terms of tensile force
per width versus axial strain and tensile stress versus axial strain.
Tensile stress is calculated by dividing the tensile force with the
thickness of the fiber. The tensile force per width and tensile stress
FIG. 4—Results of tensile testing in terms of force (in kN/m) and stress (in kPa) as a function of axial strain for (a) wood, (b) paperboard, and (c) plastic fibrous
waste.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:15 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
are uncorrected, i.e., they are calculated using the before-testing
dimensions of the fiber specimens. The data from tensile testing
indicate that the tensile characteristics of the various fibrous waste
constituents are very different, with wood representing the strong-
est and more brittle material. Paperboard and plastic are character-
ized by a much lower tensile force and a more ductile response.
Specifically, the wood specimen yielded the highest ultimate ten-
sile force (45.7 kN/m) at 1.8 % tensile strain. For the case of dry
paperboard, the tensile force was found to be 7.7 kN/m at axial
strain of 3 %, whereas the corresponding values for moist paper-
board were 0.46 kN/m and 0.95 %. Thus, dry paperboard has sig-
nificantly greater tensile force and strain at failure compared to
moist paperboard. It was also found that paperboard exhibited
some anisotropy because of the presence of paperboard fibers.
Tensile force capacity is greater when paperboard is tested in ten-
sion parallel to the paperboard structure than when the loading is
perpendicular to the paperboard fibers. Finally, the ultimate tensile
force of plastic specimens was found to be 0.6 kN/m at an axial
strain of 58 %. The results were also plotted in terms of tensile
stress. Interestingly, the calculated shear stresses for all fibers at
1.8 %, i.e., the failure tensile strain of the wood fiber, are very
similar, however, both paperboard and plastic achieve larger shear
stresses at larger tensile strains.
Direct Shear Specimen Preparation Procedure
Soil specimens were prepared in the large shear box of the appara-
tus by placing the material at its natural moisture content in three
lifts of equal thickness and manually applying moderate compac-
tion using a 95 mm2 wooden tamper as shown in Fig. 5.

FIG. 5—Manual compaction of daily cover soil in the direct shear box using a
wooden tamper.
The specimens of soil-waste mixtures were built in alternating
layers of soil and fibrous waste at the target fiber orientation angle,
either directly in the direct shear box or using a custom-made
specimen preparation split mold. Compaction was executed
manually after the placement of each soil layer using the tamper
and relatively low compaction effort. This approach allowed the
preparation of specimens at target fiber reinforcement angles with
uniform compaction effort. Specimens with fiber reinforcement
angles of 0 and 30 were prepared directly in the shear box.
Specimens with fiber orientation angles of 60 and 90 were
impossible to prepare in the direct shear box, and thus a split mold
with plan dimensions of 300 mm  180 mm and height of 300 mm
was manufactured, as shown in Fig. 6. Specimens were prepared
in the mold at an angle of 0 and 30 from horizontal. Then, the
split mold was disassembled and the waste specimen remained
freestanding. The specimen was temporarily wrapped in plastic
and placed sideways in the shear box so that the fiber orientation
angle of the specimen once placed in the shear box was 60 and
90 , respectively. A schematic of the preparation process is shown
in Fig. 7. A view of prepared specimens after removal of the split
mold is shown in Fig. 8. Six reinforcement layers were used for
each specimen. As shown in Fig. 7, the average spacing between
the reinforcement layers was identical for all specimens. Speci-
mens were built so that each line shown in Fig. 7 was the center
of the reinforcement layer. Waste fibers were simply stacked one
next to the other and one on top of the other to form the layer. For
each specimen, the thickness of each reinforcement layer was
identical. However, depending on the percentage and the type of
FIG. 6—View of the split mold (a) assembled, and (b) disassembled.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:20 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 871
the waste used for each specimen, the thickness of the reinforce-
ment layers varied.
Paperboard and wood fibers were submerged in water for a
minimum of 24 h prior to being placed in the specimen. Moisture
content of paperboard fibers was 100 % and moisture content of
wood fibers was 30 %. Note that in this study only uniform size
fibrous waste constituents were used. Thus, the effect of the size
of fibers on the reinforcement of the soil-waste mixtures was not
investigated. As indicated earlier, research on reinforced soils has
shown that longer fibers tend to contribute more to the reinforce-
ment than shorter fibers. However, beyond a certain length, their
actual size is not as critical. Relatively large fibrous constituents
are used in this investigation compared to the soil (<20 mm)
material. In addition, note that these fibers are also larger than the
maximum particle size limitations specified by ASTM standards.
However, because these fibers are not bulky but long, planar, and
thin, we believe they are probably acceptable for testing in the
direct shear device. However, more research is necessary to inves-
tigate this issue.
Upon completion of specimen preparation, each specimen was
subjected to the target normal stress, which was sustained for 12
to 24 h prior to shear testing. The weights of the fibrous constitu-
ents and of the soil used for preparation of each specimen were
separately measured before placement. In addition to the vertical
displacement transducer that continuously measured the elevation
of the center of the top loading plate during compression and
shearing, the volume of the specimen upon completion of the
specimen preparation, upon completion of the compression stage
and following shearing is measured by measuring the elevation of
the four corners of the top loading plate. The total unit weight of
the specimen is thus estimated at all stages.
Shear strength is defined as the mobilized shear resistance at
55 mm horizontal displacement. This displacement threshold is
nearly the maximum horizontal displacement that can be
imposed by the direct shear device. Note that in many cases,
the shear resistance increases beyond this horizontal displace-
ment of 55 mm. However, the 55 mm horizontal displacement
is used as a common reference for defining shear strength for
all experimental data presented. The results of the compression
stage are not included in this paper and will be presented
elsewhere.
872 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 7—Stages of specimen preparation in the split mold with paperboard
fibers at an angle of 30 .
Direct Shear Testing Program
A total of 38 direct shear specimens (specimens UP24 to UP63)
were tested and are summarized in Table 1. Total unit weight
upon specimen preparation and prior to shearing is also shown
along with the composition of each specimen. Specimens UP1
through UP23 are direct shear specimens on MSW from Tri-Cities
landfill and have been published by Zekkos et al. (2010). Note
that the specimen preparation procedure used in this investigation
was different than the procedure used by Zekkos et al. (2010).
Testing on specimens UP38 through UP40 and UP60 through
UP63 was performed on daily soil cover only, prepared at two dif-
ferent levels of compaction and at the natural moisture content.
A series of tests was performed to evaluate the impact of the
type of reinforcement and reinforcement angle (0 , 30 , 60 , 90 )
on the shear response of the specimen at a normal stress of 50 kPa
with a fibrous waste composition of 38 % by weight. This percent-
age was selected as a reasonable baseline estimate of the (by
weight) amount of fibrous waste material on the basis of available
waste characterization data (e.g., Zekkos et al. 2010). Tests were
performed on specimens with paperboard fibers (UP24-UP27),
wood fibers (UP28-UP31), and plastic fibers (UP32 to UP37).
The effect of normal stress was assessed by performing additional
tests at 2 kPa, 150 kPa, and 300 kPa on specimens with paperboard
fibers (UP41-UP44 and UP53), wood fibers (UP45-UP48), and
plastic fibers (UP49-UP52) at 0 and 60 fiber reinforcement
angle. Finally, the effect of waste composition was assessed by
almost doubling the composition (by weight) of fibrous constitu-
ents from 38 % to 75 % (specimens UP54-UP59). Because of
challenges associated with preparing a specimen at 60 fiber rein-
forcement angle with such a high fiber composition, specimens
FIG. 8—Prepared specimens with (a) paperboard, (b) plastic, and (c) wood fibers following full or partial removal of the split mold.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:22 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
were built at 90 and the results were compared to results from
specimens with the same fiber reinforcement angle.
Note that the effect of compaction effort on the fibrous rein-
forcement effect was not assessed in this study. Only specimens
with 100 % daily soil cover material were prepared at two differ-
ent compaction levels. Also note that, as shown in Table 1, despite
the use of the same compaction effort, soil-waste mixtures with
i ¼ 0 appear, in some cases to have somewhat higher total unit
weights upon preparation compared to specimens with other val-
ues of i. The reasons for this observation are not entirely clear, but
are likely an artifact of the specimen preparation technique and
the need to compact the soil-waste mixture on an inclined plane.
Such effects appear to be reduced or eliminated once the specimen
is compressed at the target normal stress and are more pronounced
for wood-soil mixtures, as opposed to mixtures with paperboard
or plastic.
Direct Shear Testing Results
Soil Testing
Direct shear test results on the daily soil cover are presented in
Fig. 9. Figure 9(a) presents the shear stress (s) versus horizontal
displacement (DH) relationship at different normal stresses.
Figure 9(b) presents the relationship of shear strength to normal
stress at two compaction levels. The low compaction level repre-
sents the compaction effort employed in this experimental testing
program. The high compaction level is a much higher compaction
effort involving the drop of a weight and was used in previous
studies by Zekkos et al. (2010). The graphs indicate: (1) a strain
hardening behavior approaching the peak value of shear resistance
at the maximum horizontal displacement of the apparatus, and (2)
a linear failure envelope characterized by u ¼ 30 and c ¼ 13 kPa
for the lower compaction effort and higher failure envelope
parameters when compaction effort increased.
Interface Testing
Interface direct shear testing was performed in the modified large
direct shear apparatus by placing a thin sheet of material, meas-
uring 300 mm  300 mm, at the top of lower part of the shear box,
Fig. 10(a). The upper part of the shear box was next filled with
daily cover soil in two lifts and was compacted following the
 ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 873

TABLE 1—List of specimens tested.

Constituents

Unit Weight Unit Weight

Normal Upon Immediately
Specimen Stress Preparation Prior to <20 mm Paperboard Wood Soft Shear Stress at Fiber Orientation
ID (kPa)a (kN/m3) Shearing (kN/m3) Material (%) (%) (%) Plastics (%) 55 mm (kPa) Angle, i (degrees)
UP24 50 (61.22) 12.08 13.54 62 38 0 0 49.87 0
UP25 50 (61.23) 11.52 13.17 62 38 0 0 74.83 30
UP26 50 (61.22) 11.21 12.57 62 38 0 0 113.32 60
UP27 50 (61.21) 12.45 12.99 62 38 0 0 91.07 90
UP28 50 (61.21) 9.15 9.46 62 0 38 0 73.74 0
UP29 50 (61.08) 7.46 7.89 62 0 38 0 69.77 30
UP30 50 (61.22) 7.20 7.58 62 0 38 0 187.59 60
UP31 50 (61.24) 7.37 7.75 62 0 38 0 169.74 90
UP32 50 (61.24) 10.19 11.22 62 0 0 38 26.03 0
UP33 50 (61.22) 8.63 11.01 62 0 0 38 42.83 30
UP34 50 (61.24) 9.14 12.17 62 0 0 38 88.41 60
UP35 50 (61.23) 9.50 10.98 62 0 0 38 143.14 90
UP36 50 (61.21) 9.61 11.92 62 0 0 38 63.42 90
UP37 50 (61.67) N/R N/R 100 0 0 0 64.99 N/A
UP38 1.8 (1.94) 19.2 19.20 100 0 0 0 17.6 N/A
UP39 150 (183.76) 19.9 20.51 100 0 0 0 148.09 N/A
UP40 300 (367.37) 20.11 21.52 100 0 0 0 273.82 N/A
UP41 1.8 (2.27) 12.05 12.05 62 38 0 0 20.60 60
UP42 150 (183.69) 12.44 17.83 62 38 0 0 107.90 0
UP43 150 (183.71) 12.43 16.94 62 38 0 0 162.15 60
UP44 300 (367.48) 12.04 19.10 62 38 0 0 280.96 60
UP45 1.8 (2.27) 7.69 7.71 62 0 38 0 64.53 60
UP46 150 (183.73) 8.69 9.73 62 0 38 0 138.30 0
UP47 150 (192.13) 7.69 8.65 62 0 38 0 383.40 60
UP48 300 (394.72) 7.65 8.68 62 0 38 0 619.88 60
UP49 1.8 (2.27) 10.05 10.29 62 0 0 38 17.90 60
UP50 150 (183.71) 9.11 12.9 62 0 0 38 64.54 0
UP51 150 (183.68) 10.17 13.48 62 0 0 38 183.27 60
UP52 300 (367.46) 10.02 13.76 62 0 0 38 367.18 60
UP53 50 (61.23) 12.42 15.96 62 38 0 0 68.87 60
UP54 50 (61.23) 8.10 11.12 25 75 0 0 87.30 90
UP55 50 (61.22) 7.00 7.14 25 0 75 0 180.55 90
UP56 50 (61.26) 5.19 7.81 25 0 0 75 66.73 90
UP57 150 (183.68) 8.26 11.32 25 75 0 0 120.37 90
UP58 150 (183.07) 7.10 7.15 25 0 75 0 309.64 90
UP59 150 (183.73) 5.20 7.85 25 0 0 75 151.32 90
UP60 80 (98.27) 17.68 19.03 100 0 0 0 72.14 N/A
UP61 150 (183.76) 17.55 19.40 100 0 0 0 126.93 N/A
UP62 300 (367.58) 19.38 21.63 100 0 0 0 219.19 N/A
UP63 2 (2.27) 16.95 16.95 100 0 0 0 8.24 N/A

Note: Shearing rate of 1 mm/min was used for all tests; N/A, not applicable; N/R, not reported.
a
The normal stress at the shear surface at the beginning of the test and at a displacement of 55 mm.

same procedure used in the direct shear testing of soil as shown
in Fig. 10(b). All interface shear tests were performed under a
normal stress of 50 kPa and a horizontal displacement rate of
1 mm/min. Shearing started approximately 1.5 h following the
application of normal load, when the immediate compression of
soil material had been completed. The diagram of Fig. 11 shows
the results of interface testing, in terms of shearing resistance
versus horizontal displacement, for the three materials tested. The
maximum shear resistance of the wood-soil interface is equal to
51 kPa, whereas the corresponding values for paperboard and

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:46 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
874 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 9—Results of direct shear testing of daily cover soil: (a) shear stress versus displacement curves for soil compacted with low compaction effort, and (b) failure
envelopes for soil compacted with low and high compaction effort.

FIG. 10—Interface testing in the direct shear box for plastic sheet against daily cover soil: (a) lower part of shear box with attached plastic sheet, and (b) upper
part of box partially filled with daily cover soil.

FIG. 12—Relationship of normalized shear resistance with horizontal dis-

FIG. 11—Results of interface shear resistance for plastic, paperboard, and placement for specimens with horizontally oriented fibrous constituents (speci-
wood under a normal stress of 50 kPa. men ID shown in parenthesis).

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:46 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
 ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 875

plastic are 31 kPa and 27 kPa, respectively. These shear resistan-

ces represent equivalent secant interface friction angles of 46 ,
32 , and 28 for the interface of wood, paperboard, and plastic
materials with soil, respectively.

Testing of Soil-Waste Mixtures

Effect of Type and Orientation of Fibrous Waste
Reinforcement—Figure 12 illustrates the normalized shear
stress (ratio of shear stress to normal stress) versus horizontal
displacement relationship for specimens with fibrous waste con-
stituents oriented at an angle of 0 and at 50 kPa and 150 kPa nor-
mal stress. All specimens reach peak shear stress conditions, but
the peak value varies among specimens. Similarly to the interface
tests (Fig. 11), specimens with wood fibers exhibit the highest
shear resistance followed by specimens with paperboard fibers.
The specimens with plastic fibers exhibit the lowest shear resist-
ance. For the shear strength definition used in this study, speci-
mens with wood fibers have normalized shear resistance that
ranges from 0.75 to 1.2 (equivalent secant friction angle range of
37 –50 ). Specimens with paperboard fibers have normalized
shear resistance of 0.6 to 0.8 (equivalent secant friction angle
range of 31 –39 ) and specimens with plastic fibers have normal-
ized shear resistance of 0.38–0.42 (equivalent secant friction angle
range of 21 –23 ). The ratio of shear stress to normal stress is not
constant, but reduces with increasing normal stress indicating the
existence of cohesion and/or that the friction angle is not constant.
Figure 13 illustrates the relationship of shear resistance
with horizontal displacement of specimens with paperboard
fibers (Fig. 13(a)), wood fibers (Fig. 13(b)), and plastic fibers
(Fig. 13(c)) at 50 kPa normal stress and 38 % by weight fibrous
waste composition. Tests were performed for specimens with fiber
reinforcement angle of 0 , 30 , 60 , and 90 . For all reinforcement
angles, the largest shear resistance is observed for specimens with
wood fibers followed by specimens with paperboard fibers and
specimens with plastic fibers. In general, shear resistance
increases with increasing horizontal displacement. Specimens at a
reinforcement angle of 0 approach or reach a “plateau,” i.e., a
peak shear resistance. For comparison, the interface test for each
type of fiber constituent at the same normal stress is also shown.
Specimens with paperboard and wood fibers at a reinforcement
angle of 0 exhibit higher shear resistance than their interface
resistance, whereas for the specimen with plastic fibers, the shear
resistance is equal to the soil-plastic interface resistance.
As the reinforcement angle increases from 0 , the shear stress
versus displacement relationship changes remarkably, exhibiting
an upward curvature. Such change is indicative of the mobiliza-
tion of the fibrous constituents with increasing displacement in
MSW (Bray et al. 2009; Zekkos et al. 2010, 2012). For specimens
with reinforcement angles greater than 30 , there is a rapid
increase in shear resistance with displacement. Specimens with a FIG. 13—Shear stress versus horizontal displacement relationship for (a)
paperboard, (b) wood, and (c) plastic fibrous constituents at a normal stress of
reinforcement angle of 60 exhibit the most pronounced upward 50 kPa and fibrous waste composition of 38% by weight.
curvature and the highest shear strength. The change in shear
strength with the type of reinforcement (paperboard, plastic, and greater than the shear resistance at a reinforcement angle of 0 ,
wood) and reinforcement angle is shown in Fig. 14. The shear with paperboard, plastic, and wood fibrous waste constituents con-
resistance at a reinforcement angle of 60 may become 3.5 times tributing differently in the shear resistance. Shear strength at a

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:49 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
876 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 14—Normalized shear resistance for soil-waste mixtures as a function of

fiber orientation angle.

reinforcement angle of 30 or 90 is lower than that observed at

60 , but still significant. These results are consistent with testing
on FRS. The shape of the curves is qualitatively identical to data
presented for reinforced soils (e.g., Gray and Ohashi 1983). The
increase in shear strength observed for these soil-waste mixtures
is greater than that observed in FRS, possibly because of the sig-
nificantly greater percentage of fibers included in waste specimens
compared to typical FRS specimens.
The only deviation from these trends is the strength of the
specimen with wood fibrous constituents at an angle of 30 that
appears to be slightly weaker than the specimen with wood fibers
at a reinforcement angle of 0 . This may possibly be attributed to
the following reasons:
(a) The shear strength of the soil-wood specimen at a reinforce-
ment angle of 0 (UP28) is generally higher than expected.
This is indicated by the irregular shear stress versus displace-
ment response of this specimen (Fig. 12) and its overall higher
shear resistance that may be a consequence of shearing of
wood fibers that have also compressive strength.
(b) Wood fibrous constituents are inextensible and thicker, and
thus able to contribute to specimen reinforcement at very
small displacements and also in the specimen’s compression
capacity. Plastic and paperboard fibrous constituents are thin-
ner and flexible without contributing to the specimen’s com-
pression capacity.

Effect of normal stress—Figure 15 presents the shear
stress versus horizontal displacement relationship for specimens
with fibrous waste composition of 38 % at a reinforcement angle
of 60 and at normal stresses of 2 kPa, 50 kPa, 150 kPa, and
300 kPa. The results indicate that the shear resistance increases
significantly with normal stresses. The observed upward curvature
becomes also progressively less pronounced with increasing nor-
mal stress. It is most pronounced in the case of 2 kPa normal
stress, and least pronounced at normal stress of 300 kPa. Note that
all tests are completed at an horizontal displacement of less than
60 mm. Thus, it is likely, but not certain, that a more pronounced
FIG. 15—Shear stress versus horizontal displacement of specimens with (a)
paperboard, (b) wood, and (c) plastic fibrous constituents at a reinforcement
angle of 60 and at variable normal stresses.
curvature would be observed at large displacements for the tests at
larger normal stresses. As discussed earlier, this trend has been
observed in FRS and is attributed to the fact that at the early stages
of shearing, fibers are mostly in compression and significant dis-
placement is necessary before their tensile capacity is mobilized.
Figure 16 presents the shear resistance as a function of hori-
zontal displacement for specimens with different fibers and a fiber

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:51 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

FIG. 16—Shear stress versus horizontal displacement of specimens at a reinforcement angle of 60 degrees and normal stress of (a) 2 kPa; (b) 50 kPa; (c)
150 kPa; and (d) 300 kPa, for fiber content (FC) of 38%.
reinforcement angle of 60 at normal stresses of 2 kPa, 50 kPa,
150 kPa, and 300 kPa. The largest shear resistance is observed in
all cases for specimens with wood fibrous constituents, whereas
specimens with plastic fibrous constituents have generally similar
shear resistances to paperboard fibrous constituents. Shear resist-
ance of specimens with paperboard fibrous constituents is some-
what higher at low normal stresses (2 kPa and 50 kPa), but lower
at higher normal stresses (150 kPa and 300 kPa) than plastic fi-
brous constituents. The significant difference between specimens
with wood fibrous constituents and paperboard or plastic fibrous
constituents may be attributed to the high tensile force capacity
and stiffness of the wood fibrous constituents, consistent with ex-
perience on FRS (Fig. 4).
Relevant data at a normal stress of 150 kPa are also shown in
Fig. 14 with the 50-kPa baseline data. At a normal stress of
150 kPa, the ratio of the shear strength of the specimen with a
reinforcement angle of 60 to the shear strength of the specimen
with a reinforcement angle of 0 (i.e., horizontal) is equal to 1.5
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:54 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 877
for paperboard and 2.8 for wood and plastic. These ratios are
lower than the ratios at 50 kPa normal stress for specimens with
paperboard and plastic fibrous constituents. This may be attributed
to the definition of shear strength (defined as the shear resistance
at a horizontal displacement of 55 mm). Although the shear resist-
ance at 55 mm for a reinforcement angle of 0 is practically the
maximum shear resistance of that specimen, the shear resistance
at 55 mm is expected to be smaller than the shear resistance at
larger displacements of the specimens with a reinforcement angle
of 60 . For plastic and paperboard fibrous constituents, the nor-
malized shear strength is lower at 150 kPa normal stress than
50 kPa. This is not true for wood, where the normalized shear
strength at a normal stress of 150 kPa is higher than its counterpart
at 50 kPa, possibly because of the “artificially” high (as explained
earlier) shear strength of the specimen at 0 fiber reinforcement
angle and 50 kPa normal stress.
Figure 17 shows the relationship of shear strength normalized
with normal stress, as a function of the normal stress, for
878 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 17—Normalized shear strength as a function of normal stress. FIG. 18—Effect of amount of fibrous waste constituents on the shear strength
of soil-waste mixtures (at normal stress of 50 kPa and 90 fiber reinforcement
angle).
specimens with wood, plastic, and paperboard fibrous constitu-
ents. Data points for fiber reinforcement angles of 60 and 0 are Development of Mohr-Coulomb Parameters
shown representing the lowest and highest shear strengths as a Function of Fibrous Waste Constituents
observed in this study. The data indicates that the normalized
shear resistance reduces with normal stress from high s/rn ratios Mohr-Coulomb envelopes for different soil-waste mixtures were
on the order of 8–30 at normal stresses of 2 kPa to 0.3–1.6 at nor- derived and the results are summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 19. As
mal stresses of 300 kPa. These trends indicate that the shear shown in Fig. 19, similarly to MSW from Tri-Cities landfill, the
response of the specimen cannot be described by a constant fric- envelopes are nonlinear. For simplicity, linear Mohr-Coulomb
tion angle (in which case there would be a constant normalized envelopes are shown for a reinforcement angle of 0 and 60 that
shear resistance). The specimen strength exhibits a cohesion inter- represent the lowest and highest shear resistances observed in this
cept as well as a reduction in friction angle with confining stress, study for all types of fibers. For a specimen with a reinforcement
or in other words, exhibits nonlinearity in the failure envelope, angle of 0 and plastic fibers, the Mohr-Coulomb strength parame-
similarly to the response of MSW (Bray et al. 2009). ters are the lowest (u ¼ 18 and c ¼ 7 kPa). These strength param-
eters are lower than the parameters for the daily cover soil alone,
Effect of Amount of Fibrous Constituents—Additional and similar to the interface strength of the plastic with the soil,
tests were performed on specimens UP55, UP54, and UP56 to indicating shearing parallel to the fibers and possibly along multi-
evaluate the effect of increased amounts of fibrous constituents ple soil-to-fiber and fiber-to-fiber interfaces. Similarly, Landva
on the shear resistance of the specimens. These specimens were and Clark (1986) also noted that during shear, sliding between
prepared with 75 % by weight fibrous constituents (paperboard, aligned particles occurs. For a reinforcement angle of 60 , the
plastic, or wood). Specimens were tested at a reinforcement angle strength parameters are: u ¼ 54 jai c ¼ 20 kPa indicating signifi-
of 90 , because preparation of specimens with 75 % fibrous waste cant plastic fiber-reinforcing effect. These values are consistent
was not possible at a reinforcement angle of 60 . The specimens with strength parameters reported for MSW where shearing occurs
were sheared at a normal stress of 50 kPa and were compared to across fibrous constituents (Zekkos et al. 2012). For paperboard
specimens UP31, UP27, and UP36 that included 38 % of fibrous and wood fibrous waste constituents the shear strength of the
constituents at the same reinforcement angle and normal stress.
Note that, similarly to MSW, although these specimens were pre- TABLE 2—Mohr-coulomb strength parameters for soil-waste mixtures and
pared with the same compaction effort, the specimens with the soil specimens compacted with the same compaction effort.
larger percentage of fibrous constituents have lower unit weights, Material i c (kPa) u (degrees)
because of the lower material density of the fibrous constituents

Paperboard 60 24 41
compared to the soil fraction (Zekkos et al. 2006). The results are
0 21 27
shown in Fig. 18 and indicate that the specimens with 75 % of
fibrous waste constituents are generally, for practical purposes, Wood 60 88 79
not stronger than specimens with 38 % fibrous waste constituents. 0 42 30
This observation is consistent with research findings on FRS that Plastic 60 20 54
indicate that additional fibrous reinforcement beyond a certain 0 7 18
threshold amount is not contributing to further reinforcement of
Soil Not applicable 13 30
soils.

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:39:58 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

FIG. 19—Mohr-Coulomb strength envelopes for specimens with various fi-
brous waste constituents and reinforcement angles of 0 and 60 .
mixtures at a reinforcement angle of 0 is higher than its interface
strength.
For specimens with paperboard fibers, significant variation in
the strength parameters as a function of reinforcement angle is
observed. For 0 reinforcement angle, u ¼ 27 and c ¼ 21 kPa are
calculated, whereas for a 60 reinforcement angle, u ¼ 41 and
c ¼ 24 kPa. For the wood fibers, u ¼ 30 and c ¼ 42 kPa are esti-
mated for a 0 reinforcement angle, and for a 60 reinforcement
angle the Mohr-Coulomb parameters are u ¼ 79 jai c ¼ 88 kPa,
indicative of significant fiber reinforcement.
Figure 19 also illustrates the generic nonlinear shear strength
envelope recommended by Bray et al. (2009) for MSW. The rec-
ommended envelope is generally consistent with the strength
envelopes derived in this study and similar to the shear strength
envelope for wood fibrous reinforcement when shearing occurs
parallel to the fibrous reinforcement. It is higher than the shear
strength envelopes for paperboard and plastic fibrous reinforce-
ment when shearing occurs parallel to the fibrous reinforcement,
and significantly lower than the shear strength envelopes for all
fibrous constituents when shearing occurs at a fiber reinforcement
angle of 60 . This observation is consistent with the derivation of
the Bray et al. (2009) recommended envelope that was based on a
large database of direct shear test data on MSW where fibrous
waste was not expected to contribute significantly to the shear
resistance of the material.
Conclusions
An experimental investigation into the fibrous waste reinforce-
ment of soil-waste mixtures was performed with the intent to bet-
ter quantify the fibrous reinforcement effect observed in MSW.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
• The presence of the fibrous constituents results in significant
anisotropy in shear resistance of the direct shear specimens.
Fibrous constituents may contribute significantly to the
shear resistance of the specimen, and their contribution is a
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:40:0 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 879
function of the reinforcement angle and the type of fiber.
For a reinforcement angle of 60 , a significant upward
curvature in the stress-displacement relationship is observed
for all specimens. For a reinforcement angle of 0 , such cur-
vature is not observed and specimens appear to reach peak
shear stress conditions. The upward curvature becomes less
pronounced with increasing normal stress, but a significant
reinforcing effect is still observed.
• The impact of reinforcement angle on the shear strength of
the specimens is significant and resembles the trends
observed for fiber-reinforced soils. The largest increase in
shear resistance of the specimens is observed for a rein-
forcement angle of 60 , consistent with findings of previous
studies on FRS.
• Wood fibers exhibit the highest tensile strength, and the
lowest strain at failure, whereas in interface testing they
exhibit the highest interface strength compared to paper-
board and plastic fibers. Wood fibrous waste constituents
contribute the most to the shear resistance of specimens of
soil-waste mixtures. This trend is consistent with findings
on reinforced soils that inextensible and strong fibers con-
tribute more in the reinforcement of the specimens than ex-
tensible and weaker fibers.
• The shear resistance of soil-waste mixtures is affected by
normal stress. There is a significant cohesive component as
well as a friction angle that varies with varying normal
stress, similarly to observations on MSW. Linear Mohr-
Coulomb strength envelopes can also be fitted to the data
without a significant loss of accuracy for the normal stresses
tested in this investigation.
• Increasing the amount of fibers from 38 % to 75 % (by
weight) did not result in an increase in shear strength of the
soil-waste mixtures indicating that, similarly to FRS, once
the amount of reinforcement exceeds certain threshold it
does not contribute further to reinforcement.
• Results of this investigation indicate that the previously rec-
ommended strength envelopes for MSW may not account
for the significant fibrous reinforcement effect, and thus pro-
vide a conservative estimate of the shear strength of MSW.
Lower shear resistances are only observed for the case of
shearing parallel to plastic fibrous constituents or in inter-
face testing.
Acknowledgments
The writers thank Ms. X. Founta, Dr. I. Pantazopoulos, Dr. P.
Kloukinas, Mr. V. Vlachakis, and Ms. E. Panagiotakopoulou of
the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Patras, Greece, who assisted in aspects
of the laboratory testing program.
References
Ahmad, F., Bateni, F., and Azmi, M., 2010, “Performance Evalua-
tion of Silty Sand Reinforced With Fibers,” Geotext. Geomem-
branes, Vol. 28, pp. 93–99.
880 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Al-Refeai, T., 1991, “Behaviour of Granular Soils Reinforced
With Discrete Randomly Oriented Inclusions,” J. Geotext.
Geomembranes, Vol. 10, pp. 319–333.
Al-Refeai, T. and Al-Suhaibani, A., 1998, “Dynamic and Static
Characterization of Polypropylene Fiber-Reinforced Dune
Sand,” Geosynth. Int., Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 443–458.
Alwahab, R. M. and Quirma, H. H., 1995, “Fiber Reinforced Co-
hesive Soils for Application in Compacted Earth Structures,”
Proc. Geosynth.’95, Vol. 2, Nashville, TN, March, Industrial
Fabrics Association International (IFAI), pp. 433–446.
Athanasopoulos, G. A., Katsas, C., Ioannidis, A., and Pelekis, P. C.,
2002, “Evaluation of Interfacial Friction Angle between Sand
and Geotextile by Using a Modified Large Shear Box Direct
Shear Device,” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on Geosynthetics, Vol. 4, Nice, France, Sept 22–27, Industrial
Fabrics Association International (IFAI), pp. 1301–1304.
Athanasopoulos, G., Grizi, A., Zekkos, D., Founta, P., and
Zisimatou E. M., 2008, “Municipal Solid Waste as a
Reinforced Soil: Investigation Using Synthetic Waste,” ASCE
GSP No. 177, Geo Congress 2008, Geotechnics of Waste Man-
agement and Remediation, New Orleans, LA, March 9–12,
ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 168–175.
Atmatzidis, D. K. and Chrysikos, D. A., 2002, “On the Static
Puncture Strength of Nonwoven Geotextiles,” Proceedings of
the 7th ICG-NICE 2002, Geosynthetics: State of the Art Recent
Developments, Vol. 4, Ph. Delmas and J. P. Gourc, Eds.,
France, Sept 22–27, pp. 1363–1366.
Bareither, C. A., Benson, C. H., and Edil, T., 2012, “Effects of
Waste Composition and Decomposition on the Shear Strength
of Municipal Solid Waste,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000702.
Bray, J. D., Zekkos, D., Kavazanjian, E., Athanasopoulos, G. A.,
and Riemer, M. F., 2009, “Shear Strength of Municipal Solid
Waste,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 135, No. 6, pp.
709–722.
Consoli, N. C., Casagrande, M. D. T., and Coop, M. R., 2007,
“Performance of a Fibre-Reinforced Sand at Large Shear
Strains,” Geotechnique, Vol. 57, No. 9, pp. 751–756.
Diambra, A., Russell, A. R., Ibraim, E., and Muir Wood, D.,
2007, “Determination of Fibre Orientation Distribution in Re-
inforced Sands,” Geotechnique, Vol. 57, No. 7, pp. 623–628.
Diambra, A., Imbraim, E., Muir Wood, D., and Russell, A. R.,
2010, “Fibre Reinforced Sands: Experiments and Modeling,”
Geotext. Geomembranes, Vol. 28, pp. 238–250.
Divya, P. V., Viswanadham, B. V. S., and Gourc, J. P., 2013,
“Evaluation of Tensile Strength Strain Characteristics of Fiber
Reinforced Soil through Laboratory Tests,” American Society
of Civil Engineering, Reston, VA (to be published).
Dixon, N., Langer, U., and Gotteland, P., 2008, “Classification
and Mechanical Behavior Relationships for Municipal Solid
Waste: Study Using Wastes,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
Vol. 134, No. 1, pp. 79–90.
Eid, H. T., Stark, T. D., Evans, W. D., and Sherry, P. E., 2000,
“Municipal Solid Waste Slope Failure. I: Waste and Founda-
tion Soil Properties,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 126,
No. 5, pp. 397–407.
Falorca, I. M. C. F. G., Pinto, M. I. M., and Ferreira Gomes, L.
M., 2006, “Residual Shear Strength of Sandy Clay Reinforced
with Short Polypropylene Fibers Randomly Oriented,” Pro-
ceedings of the 8th International Conference on Geosynthetics
(8ICG), Vol. 4, Yokohama, Japan, Sept 18–22, IFAI, pp.
1663–1666.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:40:2 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
Fernado, S., Powrie, W., Watson, G., and Richards, D. J., 2009,
“The Impact of Reinforcing Content on the Shear Strength of
Mechanically Biologically Treated Soil,” Third International
Workshop on Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills, Braun-
scheweing, Germany, March 10–13.
Gao, Z. and Zhao, J., 2012, “Evaluation on Failure of
Fiber-Reinforced Sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000737.
Gray, D. H. and Ohashi, H., 1983, “Mechanics of Fiber
Reinforcement in Sand,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 109, No. 3,
pp. 335–353.
Gray, D. H. and Al-Refeai, T. O., 1986, “Behavior of Fabric-
Versus Fiber-Reinforced Sand,” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol.
112, No. GT8, pp. 804–820.
Gray, D. H. and Maher, M. H., 1989, “Admixture Stabilization of
Sands with Random Fibers,” Proceedings of 12th ICSMFE,
Vol. 2, Rio Janeiro, Brazil, Aug 3–19, Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 1363–1366.
Gregory, G. H. and Chill, D. S., 1998, “Stabilization of Earth
Slopes with Fiber Reinforcement,” Proceedings of Sixth
International Conference on Geosynthetics, Vol. 2, Atlanta, GA,
March 25–29, Canadian Geotechnical Society, pp. 1073–1078.
Gregory, G. H., 2011, “Sustainability Aspects on the Fiber Rein-
forced Soil Repair of a Roadway Embankment,” Proceedings
of the 24th Annual GRI Conference, G. R. Koerner, Y. G.
Hsuan, R. M. Koerner, M. V. Ashley, and J. R. Koerner, Eds.,
Texas, March 16, Geosynthetics Research Institute and IFAI.
Heineck, K. S., Coop, M. R., and Consoli, N. C., 2005, “Effect of
Microreinforcement of Soils from Very Small to Large Shear
Strains,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 131, No. 8, pp.
1024–1033.
Hendron, D. M., Fernandez, G., Prommer, P. J., Giroud, J. P., and
Orozco, L. F., 1999, “Investigation of the Cause of the 27 Sept
1997 Slope Failure at the Dona Juana Landfill,” Proceedings,
Sardinia 1999, Seventh International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy,
Oct 4–8, CISA.
Huvaj-Sarihan, N. and Stark, T. D., 2008, “Back-Analyses of
Landfill Slope Failures,” 6th International Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, VA,
Aug 11–16, Paper #2.34, Missouri S&T.
Jones, C. J. F. P., 1996, Earth Reinforcement and Soil Structures,
Thomas Telford, London, 279 pp.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Matasovic, N., Bonaparte, R., and
Schmertmann, G. R., 1995, “Evaluation of MSW
Properties for Seismic Analysis,” Geoenvironment 2000,
Vol. 2, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication #46, New
Orleans, LA, Feb 24–26, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 126–141.
Koerner, R. M. and Soong, T.-Y., 2000, “Stability of Ten
Large Landfill Failures,” Advances in Transportation and
Geoenvironmental Systems using Geosynthetics, Geodenver
2000, J. G. Zornberg and B. R. Christopher, Eds., Denver, CO,
Aug 5–8, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 103, Reston,
VA, pp. 1–38.
Landva, A. O., and Clark, J. I. 1990. “Geotechnics of Waste Fill.
Theory and Practice.” STP No. 1070, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 86–103.
Langer, U., Dixon, N., and Gotteland, D., 2005, “Understanding
the Mechanical Behavior of Municipal Solid Waste: The Role
of a Classification System,” International Workshop on
Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills, LIRIGM, Grenoble
University, France, March 21–22, LIRIGM, 4 pp.

Li, C. and Zornberg, J. G., 2005, “Validation of Discrete Frame-
work for the Design of Fiber-Reinforced Soil,” Proceedings of
the 18th GRI Conference, Geosynthetics Research and Devel-
opment in Progress, Austin, TX, Jan 24–26, ASCE, Reston,
VA.
Maher, M. H. and Gray, D. H., 1990, “Static Response of Sand
Reinforced with Randomly Distributed Fibers,” J. Geotech.
Eng., Vol. 116, No. 11, pp. 1661–1677.
Maher, M. H. and Ho, Y. C., 1994, “Mechanical Properties of
Kaolinite/Fiber Soil Composite,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 120,
No. 8, pp. 1381–1393.
Merry, S. M., Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Fritz, W. U.,
2005, “Reconnaissance of the July 10, 2000, Payatas
Landfill Failure,” J. Perform. Construct. Facil., May, pp.
100–107.
Michalowski, R. L. and Zhao, A., 1996, “Failure of Fiber-
Reinforced Granular Soils,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 122, No. 3,
pp. 226–234.
Michalowski, R. L. and Cermak, J., 2002, “Strength Anisotrophy
of Fiber-Reinforced Sand,” Comput. Geotech., Vol. 29, pp.
279–299.
Michalowski, R. L. and Cermak, J., 2003, “Triaxial Compression
of Sand Reinforced With Fibers,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., Vol. 129, No. 2, pp. 125–136.
Michalowski, R. L., 2008, “Limit Analysis With Anisotropic
Fibre-Reinforced Soil,” Geotechnique, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp.
489–501.
Morel, J. C. and Gourc, J. P., 1997, “Mechanical Behavior of
Sand Reinforced With Mesh Elements,” Geosynth. Int., Vol. 4,
No. 5, pp. 481–508.
Najjar, S. S., Sadek, S., and Alcovero, A., 2012, “Quantification of
Model Uncertainty in Shear Strength Predictions for
Fiber-Reinforced Sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Nataraj, M. S. and McManis, K. L., 1997, “Strength and Deforma-
tion Properties of Soils Reinforced With Fibrillated Fibers,”
Geosynth. Int., Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 65–79.
Omine, K., Ochiai, H., Yasufuku, N., Yamamoto, M., and Inone,
Y., 2001, “Improvement Effect of Composite Geomaterial
by Utilization of Plastic Wastes,” Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Vol. 1, Fukuoka,
Kyushu, Japan, Nov 12–14, Taylor & Francis, pp. 111–116.
Palmeira, E. M., 2009, “Soil-Geosynthetic Interaction: Modeling
and Analysis,” Geotext. Geomembranes, Vol. 27, pp. 368–390.
Ple, O. and Le, T. N. H., 2012, “Effect of Polypropylene Fiber-
Reinforcement on the Mechanical Behavior of Silty Clay,”
Geotext. Geomembranes, Vol. 32, pp. 111–116.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Mon Sep 23 19:40:7 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
Dimitrios Zekkos (University of Michigan, Civil and Environmental Engineering , 2350 Hayward Street, 2358 GG Brown Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 48109)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
View publication stats
ZEKKOS ET AL. ON EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 881
Ranjan, G., Vasan, R., and Charan, H. D., 1996, “Probabilistic
Analysis of Randomly Distributed Fiber-Reinforced Soil,”
J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 122, No. 6, pp. 419–426.
Reddy, K. R., Hettiarachchi, H., Gangathulasi, J., Bogner, J. E.,
and Lagier, T., 2009, “Geotechnical Properties of Synthetic
Municipal Solid Waste,” Int. J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 3, pp.
429–438.
Sadek, S., Najjar, S. S., and Freiha, F., 2010, “Shear Strength of
Fiber-Reinforced Sands,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol.
136, No. 3, pp. 490–499.
Santos, A. P. S., Consoli, N. C., and Baudet, B. A., 2010, “The
Mechanics of Fibre-Reinforced Sand,” Geotechnique, Vol. 60,
No. 10, pp. 791–799.
Shewbridge, S. E. and Sitar, N., 1990, “Deformation Based Model
for Reinforced Sand,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 116, No. 7, pp.
1153–1170.
Stark, T. D., Huvaj-Sarihan, N., and Li, G., 2009, “Shear Strength
of Municipal Solid Waste for Stability Analysis,” Environ.
Geol. J., Vol. 57, pp. 1911–1923.
Tang, C.-S., Shi, B., and Zhao, L.-Z., 2010, “Interfacial Shear
Strength of Fiber Reinforced Soil,” Geotext. Geomembranes,
Vol. 28, pp. 54–62.
Vidal, H., 1969, “The Principle of Reinforced Earth,” Highway
Research Record No. 282, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., pp. 1–16.
Viswanadham, B. V. S., Rajesh, S., Divya, P. V., and Gourc,
J. P., 2011, “Influence of Randomly Distributed Geofibers on
the Integrity of Clay-Based Landfill Covers: A Centrifuge
Study,” Geosynth. Int., Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 255–271.
Zekkos, D., Bray, J. D., Riemer, M., Kavazanjian, E., Matasovic,
N., Rathje, E., and Stokoe, K. H., 2006, “Unit Weight of
Municipal Solid-Waste,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol.
132, No. 10, pp. 1250–1261.
Zekkos, D., Athanasopoulos, G. A., Bray, J. D., Grizi, A., and
Theodoratos, A., 2010, “Large-Scale Direct Shear Testing of
Municipal Solid Waste,” Waste Manage., Vol. 30, pp.
1544–1555.
Zekkos, D., Bray, J. D., and Riemer, M. F., 2012, “Drained
Response of Municipal Solid Waste in Large-Scale Triaxial
Shear Testing,” Waste Manage. J., Vol. 32, pp. 1873–1885.
Zornberg, J. G., 2002, “Discrete Framework for Limit Equilibrium
Analysis of Fibre-Reinforced Soil,” Geotechnique, Vol. 52,
No. 8, pp. 513–604.
Zornberg, J. G., 2008, “Advances in Soil Reinforcement
Technology,” KGSS Geosynthetics Fall Conference, Seoul,
Korea, Nov 21, Korean Geosynthetics Society (KGSS).