Strength of Waste Materials

BURAK YILDIZLI
Strength of Municipal Waste
Municipal Waste is heterogeneous in nature. Therefore it is difficult to obtain strength
parameters.
Several studies has been carried out in order to determine strength parameters in literature.
Studies on Municipal Waste
Fang and Slutter(1976): Even at very high strains, no failure was observed.
Jessberger (1994): No failure even at 40% strain for 50-100 kPa confinement stress
Cooper and Clark Engineers(1982): Samples show strain hardening. Refuse was given a cohesion
value of 35 kPa
Studies on Municipal Waste
Siegel et al. (1990)
Found great variability in composition and shear behavior between samples from different
depths from refuse.
They applied direct shear tests on refuse specimen. They read 16% to 39% strain results from
these tests and they concluded that strength of refuse should be selected from 10% strain value.
They warned not to use single specimens for shear strength derivation.
Studies on Municipal Waste
Singh and Murphy(1990)
Cohesion values from 0 to 80 kPa and Friction angles from 0° to 42° were found.
Landva and Clark(1990)

Sample Cohesion Friction Angle

Old Landfills 19-23 kPa 39° - 33°
Fresh shredded waste with 23 kPa 24°
plastic sheet abundance
Wood Waste 0 36°
Stacked Plastic bags 0 9°
Studies on Municipal Waste
Del Greco and Oggeri(1994)
At lower normal stresses, friction angle is higher compared to higher normal stresses.
Kavazanjian et al.(1995)
Cohesion: 24 kPa, Friction angle: 0° ; for normal stresses < 30 kPa
Cohesion: 0 kPa, Friction angle: 33° ; for normal stresses > 30 kPa
Studies on Municipal Waste
SPT and CPT tests were carried out, however no direct correlation was found between shear
strength and penetration resistance.
Hinkle (1990): 5 MPa tip resistance and 50-100 kPa skin friction was found.
Siegel et al.(1990): 25 kPa tip resistance
Duncan and Buchignani (1975) conducted a tested on a landfill placed systematically on a slope
in Southern California. Cohesion and friction angle was then determined by laboratory tests, in
situ results and back computation results of the slice slope stability analysis using a factor of
safety of 1.0
Strength of Mineral and Industrial Waste
Examples of industrial and mineral wastes:
Mixed Coal refuse
Fly Ash
Solid Waste Incinerator Residues
Bottom Ash
Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludge
Mine Waste
Pulp and Paper Mill Waste
Dredged Waste
Strength of Mineral and Industrial Waste
Since mineral and industrial wastes are mainly disposed with high water content slurries, their
shear strengths are low.
It is difficult to obtain samples from these slurries. Samples cannot withstand testing equipment,
they are easily disturbed. Therefore receiving undisturbed samples is a challenge for mineral
waste deposits.
During assessment of test results, disturbance, aging and applicability of testing should be
considered.
Strength of Mixed Coal Refuse
Strength depends on water content of the sample. Strength decreases with increasing water
content.
Composition of coal waste refuse is varying, therefore results reflect this variation:
Cohesion: 10 - 40 kPa, Friction angle: 25° - 43°
Properly compacted coal show higher friction angles of 30°-35° whereas uncontrolled samples
have friction angles of 24° - 28°
 Strength of Fly Ash
Fly ash is a pozzolanic material and it reacts with water resulting in cementation and its strength
increases with continuing cementation with time.
Class C fly ash has higher curing capacity with time and high cohesive strength.
Class F fly ash has lower curing capacity with time and no cohesive strength.
Sample Cohesion Friction Angle
Lagoon Fly Ash 40 kPa 25° - 27.5°, (11.5° at lower elevation) – Cunningham et al (1977)
28° - 30° – Toth et al. (1988)
32° - 33° – Mclaren and DiGioia (1987)
Compacted Fly Ash 0 34° (CU test result) 37.5° (UU test result) – Seals et al. (1977)
34° (St.Dev=3.3°) – McLaren and DiGioia (1987)
Class C Fly Ash 35 kPa 26°
1800 kPa 36° (after one week curing) – Indraratna et al. (1991)
Strength of Incinerator Residue Waste
From study of Poran and Ahtchi-Ali(1989); UU tests show 43° friction angle and 65 kPa cohesion
Lime and cement stabilization much improved these strength values.

Sample Cohesion Friction Angle

Without stabilization 65 kPa 43°
Lime Stabilization 50% - 260% of original value 45°
Cement Stabilization 44°
Strength of Bottom Ash
For wet and dry bottom ash, Seals et al. (1977) gave test results of friction angle varying
between 38° and 42.5°.
As the relative densities of sample bottom ashes increase, friction angles have shown increase
as well. (Huang and Lovell - 1990)
Strength of FGD Sludge
Sludges generated by sulfur dioxide are frictional in nature. They show friction angles from 31°
to 39°.
There are studies regarding introduction of fly ash to FGD Sludge, however results are
contradictory in terms of resulting friction angles. Result of fly ash introduction depends on the
curing of the end product.
Sulfite sludges stabilized with lime ash have higher strength compared to sulfate sludges as
shown by Ullrich and Hagerty (1987)
Strength of Pulp and Paper Mill Waste
Angle of friction depends on the organic material content. It decreases from 75° to 45° while
organic content decreases from 65% to 35%.
Existing pulp and paper mill wastes have low strength due to high water content at placement,
low permeability, long drainage distances, decomposition of organics.
Strength of Mine Waste
Mine tailings are inhomogeneous and fairly loose since large particles settle close to discharge
point whereas smaller particles are carried away. Results of triaxial tests are similar to results of
soils with alike particle distribution.
Mine tailings show both cohesion and friction. Angle of friction ranges from 14° to 24°, and
cohesion may be as high as 95 kPa.
Strength of Waste Materials
BURAK YILDIZLI
Question from Presentation
Q: Why do mineral and industrial wastes exhibit low shear strengths in general?
What are the problems in obtaining good test data from mineral and industrial
wastes?

A: Since mineral and industrial wastes are mainly disposed with high water content slurries,
their shear strengths are low.
It is difficult to obtain samples from these slurries. Samples cannot withstand testing equipment,
they are easily disturbed. Therefore receiving undisturbed samples is a challenge for mineral
waste deposits.