Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is the type of the waste which includes primarily household waste with sometimes the addition of ordinary commercial waste containing either solids or semi solids. According to IFEN (2006) each year 31 million tons of domestic waste is generated in France with a generation rate of 457 kg/capita/year. In Figure I-1 the generation trends for member countries of the economic cooperation organisation are presented including the expected generation rate for the year 2020, where as Table I-1 details the MSW waste composition according to the income level.
Multi-Criterion Municipal Solid Waste Composition
If the solid waste is considered as a material demonstrating the properties of a geological material, it is certainly important to explain its environmental impacts in reference to its disposal as it concerns the geotechnical experts as well as the field operators.
Household waste is a mixture of particles each of which is differently classified from organic to granular and inert to putrescibles. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the waste mass there is always uncertainty for the parameters determined for the whole mass as it comprises many elements each unique in its nature. But together the technical experts, engineers and researchers work in collaboration to unite these all aspects in a manner to formulize in general the whole mass. The aim of the study always is to estimate the waste mechanical characteristics in correlation with the composition of waste which is modified because of change in the bio-chemical properties resulting in change of the mechanical properties. Depending upon the composition of the specific waste material the mechanical characteristics may differ from those of typical soils and may require special geotechnical consideration. Relating the changes in its chemical and biological form to the mechanical properties can be done through some laws of mechanics which has not yet been well established. There are models proposed by researchers which take into account these various aspects of biological, chemical and mechanical properties but their authenticity is still to be acknowledged.
Numerous approaches to characterize the waste components exist, which mainly depend upon the type of study under discussion. In terms of biochemical classification of the waste it is subdivided into two classes, namely organic and inorganic components as shown in Table I-1. Furthermore these components can be sub- classified as Aran (2001) proposed the classification of organic waste on the function of their degradation activity, with the following subdivision:
Readily Degradable waste: This class includes the kitchen and garden waste (fruits, vegetables, animal waste) etc.
Normally degradable waste: In this class sludge and fatty waste is considered Slow degradable waste: Paper, cardboard and wood is included in this class.
Different types of particles are present in a solid waste mass, classified (Landva & Clark, 1990, Kölsch, 1995) according to their geo-mechanical properties. Grisolia et al. (1995) proposed their classification as under:
Class A: Inert stable materials (rigid) are regrouped in this class whose composition do not vary over the course of time and have high resistance to deformation. These materials are considered to have mechanical behaviour similar to soils. This category includes different soil materials as well as aggregates and debris, glass, ceramics, metal, plastics and wood.
Class B: Highly deformable materials include those materials which tend to go under instantaneous compression under the application of load and some of them continue to deform over the period of time under the applied load but on the contrary their degradation is a very slow process. Within this class the waste materials are further subdivided into
• crushable/breakable
• compressible/bendable/deformable
The overall influence of these materials on the waste body is generally dependent upon their size, pre-treatment (shredding) and the load applied.
Class C: Biodegradable, which change in volume or change from solid to liquid or gas phase on decomposition. This class of waste materials comprises mainly of kitchen and garden waste. Their decomposition highly affects the material structure of the landfill over the long run as their degradation reduces the total volume of solids, increasing the over all density and generates by products such as leachate and biogas. This classification for various regions of the world is presented in Figure I-3.
Some classification systems e.g. as proposed by Langer (2005) separate different components as follows:
• Material groups (papers, plastics, metals)
• Mechanical properties of material groups (shear, tensile and compressive strength) With further subdivision according to
• shape
• Reinforcing components
• Compressible components (high & low)
• Incompressible components
• Size of the components
• Degradation potential within the material groups
Four Stage Bacterial Decomposition of MSW
Bacteria decompose landfill waste in four phases and the composition of the gas produced changes with each of the four phases of decomposition. Landfills often accept waste over a long period of time, so the waste in a landfill may be undergoing several stages of decomposition at once. This means that older waste in one section of the landfill might be in a different phase of decomposition than more recently buried waste in another section (Figure I-4, I-5).
Figure I-4 : Chemical processes occurring during the four stages of decomposition (Marshal, 2007).
Stage I: During the first phase of decomposition, aerobic bacteria consume oxygen while breaking down the long molecular chains of complex carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids that comprise organic waste. The primary by-product of the process is carbon dioxide. Nitrogen content is high at the beginning of this phase, but declines as the landfill moves through the four stages. Stage I continues until available oxygen is depleted. Decomposition during the stage I can last for days or months, depending on how much oxygen is present when the waste is disposed of in the landfill. Oxygen levels vary according to factors such as how loose or compressed the waste was when it was buried.
Stage II: Stage II decomposition starts after the oxygen in the landfill has been used up. Using an anaerobic process, bacteria convert compounds created by aerobic bacteria into acetic, lactic, and formic acids and alcohols such as methanol and ethanol. As the acids mix with the moisture present in the land-fill, they cause certain nutrients to dissolve, like nitrogen and phosphorus. The gaseous by-products of these processes are carbon dioxide and hydrogen.
Stage III: Stage III decomposition starts when certain kinds of anaerobic bacteria consume the organic acids produced in stage II and form acetate, an organic acid. This process causes the landfill to become a more neutral environment in which methane producing bacteria begin to establish themselves. Methane and acid producing bacteria have a symbiotic, or mutually beneficial, relationship. Acid-producing bacteria create compounds for the methanogenic bacteria to consume.
Methanogenic bacteria consume the carbon dioxide and acetate, too much of which would be toxic to the acid producing bacteria.
Stage IV: Stage IV decomposition begins when both the composition and production rates of landfill gas remain relatively constant. Gas is produced at a stable rate in stage IV, typically for about 20 years; however, gas will continue to be emitted for 50 or more years after the waste is placed in the landfill. Gas production might last longer, for example, if greater amounts of organics are present in the waste, such as at a landfill receiving higher than average amounts of domestic animal waste.
*Time scale variable for different stages of biodegradation.
Figure I-6 : Gas production trends for all four phases of decomposition (William, 1998).
Landfill gas typically has methane concentrations around 50%. Advanced waste treatment technologies can produce biogas with 55-75%CH4 (Figure I-6). Landfill gas production results from chemical reactions and microbes acting upon the waste as the putrescibles begin to break down in landfill. Due to the constant production of landfill gas, pressure increases within the landfill provoke its release into the atmosphere. Such emissions lead to important environmental, security and hygiene problems in the landfill. Landfill gas production must be managed to control the discharge of potentially dangerous gases into the atmosphere. Venting and/or gas collection systems must be installed to control and monitor the gas production in the landfill. All new landfills must be assessed for the viability of energy recovery from the gas production.
Initially these gases were vented and burned to avoid nuisance to the surrounding atmosphere but then more economical and productive solution in the form of energy production gave rise to installation of piping system within the waste body to collect and use biogas for energy generation. And now there are a number of landfill sites capable of managing its energy requirement from the generation of biogas.
Effects of Degradation on Biochemical Properties of MSW
Though not well defined and understood, the bio-chemical aspects of a solid waste are very important to understand its behaviour in a landfill. These bio-chemical properties are interconnected with the mechanical and hydrological properties in such a way that ignoring them for the sake of future predictions alone lead to misinterpretation of the situation. To see the nature of these impacts some observations need to be carried out at site and determination of certain parameters needs to be done in the laboratory to homogenise these parameters for their scope of work. Most important factors with respect to biological and chemical reactions are the temperature and moisture content. Rates of biodegradation and chemical reaction depend on factors such as waste composition, moisture content, leachate mobility and temperature. When the solid wastes are placed in the landfills the following biological, chemical and physical events occur simultaneously:
• Biological decay of organic materials (aerobic/anaerobic) with evolution of gases and leachate (chemical oxidation of waste materials)
• Leaching of organic and inorganic materials by water and movement of leachate through the fill
• Movement of dissolved materials by concentration gradient and osmosis, Movement of liquids caused by differential heads
• Escape of gases
• Differential settlements caused by consolidation of materials into voids
Table of contents :
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
I-1 TYPES OF SOLID WASTES
I-1.1 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
I-1.2 MULTI-CRITERION MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
I-1.3 FOUR STAGE BACTERIAL DECOMPOSITION OF MSW
I-1.4 EFFECTS OF DEGRADATION ON BIOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MSW
I-1.4.1 Composition
I-1.4.2 Temperature & pH
I-1.4.3 Leachate
I-1.4.4 Biogas
I-2 LANDFILLS
I-2.1 LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
I-2.1.1 Waste Compaction and Pre-Consolidation
I-2.1.2 Bottom Lining System
I-2.1.3 Cover System (Cap Liner),Different types of cover systems
I-2.2 POST-CONSTRUCTION BEHAVIOUR
I-3 WASTE TREATMENT MODES RELATED TO LANDFILLING
I-3.1 MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL PRE-TREATMENT (MBP)
I-3.1.1 Control of Waste Input and Pre-treatment before Disposal
I-3.1.2 Potential Advantages of MBP
I-3.2 IN SITU AEROBIC TREATMENT
I-3.2.1 Fundamentals and Objectives of Aerobic Stabilisation
I-3 .2.1.1 Low Pressure Aeration
I-3 .2.1.2 Over Suction Method
I-3.2.2 Processes and Effects of Aerobic Stabilisation
I-3 .2.2.1 Effects on the Water Path
I-3 .2.2.2 Effects on the Gas Path
I-3.2.3 Future Applications of Aerobisation
I-3 .2.3.1 Processes
I-3 .2.3.2 Stabilisation Criteria
I-3 .2.3.3 GHG Emissions and CO2 Emission Trading
I-3.3 BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS
I-3.3.1 Anaerobic Bioreactor Landfill
I-3.3.2 Hybrid (Aerobic-Anaerobic) Bioreactor Landfill
I-3.3.3 Potential Advantages of the Bioreactor Landfill
I-4 STATUS OF MSW MANAGEMENT IN PAKISTAN
I-4.1 DISPOSAL TREND IN PAKISTAN
I-4.2 MSW COMPOSITION IN PAKISTAN
I-4.3 CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY
CHAPTER II PHYSICAL MECHANICAL AND HYDROLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
II-1 PRESENTATION OF THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MEDIUM
II-2 PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
II – 2.1 LEACHATE
II- 2.1.1 Liquid Density
II- 2.1.2 Dynamic Viscosity
II – 2.2 BIOGAS
II- 2.2.1 Gas Density
II- 2.2.2 Dynamic Viscosity
II – 2.3 SOLIDS DENSITY
II-3 STATE PARAMETERS
II – 3.1 DEFINITIONS OF VARIOUS DENSITIES ASSOCIATED WITH MSW
II – 3.2 DEFINITIONS OF MOISTURE CONTENT IN REFERENCE WITH THE WASTE MASS
Moisture Content at Field Capacity
II – 3.3 DEFINITION OF POROSITY AND CORRESPONDING VOLUMETRIC CONTENT PARAMETERS
II- 3.3.1 Total Porosity
II- 3.3.2 Volumetric Liquid Content
II- 3.3.3 Volumetric Gas Content
II- 3.3.4 Degree of Saturation
II- 3.3.5 Interrelation of the State Parameters
II-4 MECHANICAL PARAMETERS
II – 4.1 SETTLEMENT
II – 4.2 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
II-5 FLUID TRANSPORT PARAMETERS
II – 5.1 DEFINITION OF FLUID TRANSPORT PARAMETERS
II- 5.1.1 Darcy‟s Law for Saturated and Unsaturated Conditions
II- 5.1.2 Intrinsic Permeability (at Saturation)
II- 5.1.3 Fluid Permeability (Unsaturated State)
II – 5.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON FLUID TRANSPORT PARAMETERS
II- 5.2.1 Permeability/Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements
II- 5.2.2 Effects of Degradation on Physical Parameters of MSW
II- 5.2.3 Anisotropy of Permeability in Relation with MSW
II – 5.3 FLOW MODELS FOR SATURATED AND UNSATURATED POROUS MEDIA
II- 5.3.1 Laws of Intrinsic Permeability
II – 5.3.1.1 Carman-Kozeny Model
II – 5.3.1.2 Application of Carman-Kozeny‟s Model to the Gas Permeability
II- 5.3.2 Relative Permeability Models
II- 5.3.3 Application of Permeability Models to MSW Landfills
II-6 OEDOPERMEAMETER, HYDRO-MECHANICAL PARAMETERS’ MEASUREMENT AND THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED
II – 6.1 APPARATUS DESCRIPTION
II- 6.1.1 Complimentary Equipment
II- 6.1.2 Sample Preparation
II – 6.2 PHYSICAL AND STATE PARAMETERS
II- 6.2.1 Volumetric Moisture Content
II- 6.2.2 Gas Porosity Measurement through Pycnometer (gas saturation)
II- 6.2.3 Total Porosity Measurement
II- 6.2.4 Conclusions on Total Porosity Measurement
II – 6.3 GAS PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT
II- 6.3.1 Permanent Flow Method
II- 6.3.2 Transitory Flow Method
II – 6.4 PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENT WITH WATER AT SATURATED CONDITION
II- 6.4.1 At Constant Head
II- 6.4.2 At Variable Head with Back Pressure
II- 6.4.3 Head Losses within the Apparatus
CHAPTER III GAS – PERMEABILITY TESTS IN OEDOPERMEAMETER
III-1 LABORATORY SCALE PERMEABILITY ANALYSES
III – 1.1 TESTS PROGRAM FOR A FRESH WASTE
III – 1.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION
III – 1.3 ANALYSIS OF COMPRESSIBILITY
III – 1.4 DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIVE SOLID DENSITY
III- 1.4.1 Average Solid Density
III- 1.4.2 Determination of Solid Density from the Waste Composition
III – 1.5 ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT
Leachate Drainage under Compression
III – 1.6 ANALYSIS OF GAS PERMEABILITY TESTS
III – 1.7 ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT HYDROLOGICAL PARAMETERS
III-2 TEST PROGRAM FOR AN OLD WASTE
III – 2.1 PRESENTATION OF THE CELLS
III- 2.1.1 Experimental Variations
III- 2.1.1.1 Conventional Waste Cell “C2”
III – 2.1.1.2 Bioreactor Waste Cell “C1”
III – 2.1.1.3 Pre-treated Waste Cells “C3 & C4”
III- 2.1.2 Municipal Solid Waste under Study
III – 2.1.2.1 Un-treated Waste
III – 2.1.2.2 Mechanical Treatment
III – 2.1.2.3 Biological Treatment (C3 & C4)
III-2.1.2.4 Sample Retrieval at the end of Test Period
III – 2.2 SAMPLE PREPARATION
III – 2.3 ANALYSIS OF COMPRESSIBILITY
Determination of Coefficient of Primary Compression
III-2.4 COMPARISON OF THE IN-SITU DENSITY WITH THE DENSITY ATTAINED IN OEDOPERMEAMETER
Influence of the Initial Moisture Content and Waste Treatment on the Dry Density
III-2.5 ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT
Leachate Drainage under Compression
III-2.6 ANALYSIS OF GAS PERMEABILITY TESTS
III-2.7 COMPARISON OF HYDRO-MECHANICAL PARAMETERS DETERMINED THROUGH OEDOPERMEAMETER
III-2.7.1 Coefficient of Primary Compression C*R
III-2.7.2 Comparison of Solids Density ρS
III-2.7.3 Comparison of Gas Permeability θG
CHAPTER IV APPLICATION OF DOUBLE POROSITY MODEL TO LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
IV-1 MODEL OF DOUBLE POROSITY
IV – 1.1 OTHER MODELS AVAILABLE IN THE LITERATURE
IV- 1.1.1 Tracer Tests, Beaven et al. (2003)
IV- 1.1.2 Water Saturation Experiments, Capelo et al. (2007)
IV – 1.2 DEFINITION OF THE STATE PARAMETERS FOR THE DOUBLE POROSITY MODEL
IV- 1.2.1 Waste Structure
IV- 1.2.2 Properties of Micro Porosity
IV- 1.2.3 Properties of the Macro Porosity
IV – 1.3 DEFINITION OF THE STATE PARAMETERS OF MACRO AND MICRO POROSITY
IV- 1.3.1 Fundamental Parameters
IV- 1.3.2 Moisture Contents – Porosities – Degrees of Saturation
IV- 1.3.3 Relation between the Physical State Parameters
IV- 1.3.4 Determination of the Residual Degree of Saturation SrL
IV- 1.3.5 Gas Permeability
IV-2 INTERPRETATION OF MEASUREMENTS OF GAS PERMEABILITY
IV – 2.1 DETERMINATION OF THE PARAMETER „WMICRO‟
IV- 2.1.1 From the Composition of the Waste
IV- 2.1.2 From all the Measurements of Gas Permeability
IV – 2.2 APPLICATION OF DOUBLE POROSITY MODEL TO THE GAS PERMEABILITY TESTS
IV – 2.3 GAS PERMEABILITY MODELLING
Power Law
IV – 2.4 INTRINSIC PERMEABILITY MODELLING
Carman – kozeny law:
Power Law:
IV – 2.5 RELATIVE GAS PERMEABILITY MODELLING
IV – 2.6 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE MODEL OF DOUBLE POROSITY AND PERMEABILITY MODELLING
CHAPTER V MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOUR
V-1 STAGES OF SETTLEMENT
V – 1.1 SETTLEMENT RATES
V – 1.2 SETTLEMENT ANALYSES AVAILABLE IN LITERATURE
V- 1.2.1 Compressibility & Stiffness
V- 1.2.2 Study of Settlement Data of MSW
V- 1.2.3 In-situ Experimentation of Vertical Deformation
V-2 PREDICTION AND MODELLING OF SETTLEMENT
V – 2.1 IMPORTANCE OF SETTLEMENT MONITORING
V – 2.2 LOGARITHMIC LAWS IN SOIL MECHANICS
V- 2.2.1 Primary Settlement
V- 2.2.2 Secondary Settlement
V – 2.3 MODELLING LANDFILL SETTLEMENT
V- 2.3.1 Complex Settlement Models for Landfills
V- 2.3.2 Sowers Model (1973) and its Variations
V-3 INCREMENTAL SETTLEMENT PREDICTION MODEL (ISPM)
V – 3.1 CONCEPTION OF A NEW MODEL (LTHE)
V – 3.2 SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS OF ISPM MODEL
V- 3.2.1 Elementary Layer of Waste
V- 3.2.2 Waste Column
V- 3.2.3 Time and Sequences of Construction of Waste Column
V- 3.2.4 Settlement
V- 3.2.5 Deformation
V – 3.3 ASSUMPTIONS OF ISPM MODEL
V- 3.3.1 Geometry of Storage
V- 3.3.2 Waste Material
V- 3.3.3 Compaction
V- 3.3.4 Soil and Cover Liner
V – 3.4 FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF ISPM MODEL FOR AN ELEMENTARY LAYER I
V- 3.4.1 Primary Settlement
V- 3.4.2 Secondary Settlement
V – 3.5 GENERAL FORMULATION OF MODEL ISPM: MODELLING OF SURFACE SETTLEMENT
V- 3.5.1 Expression of the Primary Settlement of a Waste Column
V- 3.5.2 Secondary Settlement Expression for a Column of Waste
V- 3.5.3 Scheme of Construction
V- 3.5.4 Case of Constant Lift Rate for Waste Column Construction
V-4 APPLICATION OF THE MODEL FOR A DIRECT EVALUATION OF SETTLEMENT
V – 4.1 DEFINITION OF THE SURFACE SETTLEMENT
V – 4.2 INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS OF THE STUDY
V- 4.2.1 Influence of Waste Column Height
V- 4.2.2 Influence of Column Height for a Constant Lift Rate
V- 4.2.3 Influence of Time of Waste Column Construction
V- 4.2.4 Influence of c (origin of time for secondary compression)
V-5 APPLICATION OF ISPM MODEL BY BACK ANALYSIS FOR AN EVALUATION OF C*
V – 5.1 CASE STUDY OF DIFFERENT SITES FOR LINEAR CONSTRUCTION
V – 5.2 ISPM APPLICATION ON 2 PHASES CONSTRUCTION FOR THE EVALUATION OF CR AND C*213
V- 5.2.1 ISPM Settlement Modelling for a 2 Phase Construction (Cell „B‟-Chatuzange
V- 5.2.2 ISPM Settlement Modelling for a 2 Phase Construction (Cell „C‟-Chatuzange
V-6 COMPARISON OF ISPM MODEL WITH THE SOWERS MODEL
V – 6.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE COEFFICIENT OF SECONDARY COMPRESSION (C)SOWERS FOR CONSTANT (C)ISPM
V- 6.1.1 Influence of Time of Construction (tc) (Cases A1 & A2)
V- 6.1.2 Influence of Waste Column Height (Cases A2 and B1)
V- 6.1.3 Influence of Lift Rate (Cases B1 & B2)
V- 6.1.4 Influence of Time for Start of Settlement (t1)
V – 6.2 COMPARISON ISPM – SOWERS MODEL: SITE STUDIES
V- 6.2.1 Principle of the Back Analysis for Case Studies
V- 6.2.2 Conclusion and Perspective of Practical Application of ISPM Model
CHAPTER VI MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SHEAR STRENGTH
VI-1 SHEAR STRENGTH-APPLICATION TO SITE STABILITY
VI-1.1 ANALOGY OF SOILS‟ SHEAR STRENGTH AND MSW
VI-1.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS AVAILABLE IN LITERATURE
BISHOP Simplified Method of Stability Analysis
VI-1.3 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS AND STABILITY ANALYSES IN LITERATURE
Gabr and Valero (1995)
Gotteland et al. (1995) Determination of mechanical properties at site: Kölsch (1995) Bearing model: Kölsch et al. (2005) Stability application to a slope failure case history:
Milanov et al. (1997) Phicometer test and back analysis of slope failure:
Eid et al. (2000) Shear strength from field and laboratory tests:
Kavazanjian et al. (1999) Shear strength envelope:
Mahler et al. (2003) Shear strength of MBP waste:
Caicedo et al. (2002 and 2007) In-Situ analysis of MSW shear strength:
VI-2 SHEAR TEST MATERIALS AND METHODS
VI-2.1 SHEAR BOX MEASUREMENTS
VI-2.2 METHODS: VARIABLE PARAMETERS
VI-2.2.1 Effect of Waste Composition
VI-2.2.2 Effect of Normal Stress
VI-2.2.3 Effect of Density
VI-2.2.4 Effect of Moisture Content
VI-2.2.5 Effect of Shear Rate
VI-3 SHEAR BEHAVIOUR OF SAMPLES RETRIEVED FROM SITES
VI-3.1 LANDFILL SITE „B‟
VI-3.1.1 Shear Tests Results and Discussion
VI-3.2 LANDFILL SITE „LM‟
VI-3.2.1 Sample Retrieval
VI-3.2.2 Drilled Samples
VI-3.2.3 Shear Tests Results and Discussion
VI-3.2.4 Excavated Samples
VI-3.2.5 Shear Tests Results and Discussion
Individual comparison of different parameters for both samples LMC and LMD:
VI-3.3 LANDFILL SITE „N‟
VI-3.3.1 Context of the Study
VI-3.3.2 Sample Retrieval through Drilling
VI-3.3.3 Determination of In-situ Unit Weight
VI-3.3.4 Drilled Samples N3
VI-3.3.5 Drilled Samples N6
VI-3.3.6 Shear Test Results and Discussion
VI-3.4 SYNTHESIS OF SHEAR STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
VI-3.5 INFLUENCE OF ANISOTROPIC BEHAVIOUR ON SLOPE STABILITY
VI-4 SPECIFIC STABILITY DESIGN FOR LANDFILL SITE ‘N’
VI-4.1 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS – APPLICATION TO THE VERTICAL EXPANSION OF A LANDFILL SITE
VI-4.2 PARAMETERS OF STABILITY
VI-4.2.1 Shear Strength Parameters
VI-4.2.2 Calculation of Factor of Safety
VI-4.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
VI-4.4 STABILITY DESIGN DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
REFERENCES
NOMENCLATUR
