Laboratory Measurements of K0 of Municipal Solid Waste

  • Pengbo YuanEmail author
  • Edward KvazanjianJr.
  • Wenwu Chen
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Laboratory measurements of the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0, of municipal solid waste were made in a large-scale testing device using tactile pressure sensors. The effects of waste composition, compaction and overconsolidation ratio (OCR) on the coefficient earth pressure at rest, K0 of municipal solid waste were evaluated. The tests results showed that K0 of municipal solid waste decreased with increasing fiber content and OCR of the waste. K0 decreased at first with increasing of applied vertical stress and then became approximately constant value at 0.48, 0.35, and 0.23 for MSW 100% < 20 mm, MSW 65% < 20 mm and MSW 35% < 20 mm respectively. Compaction effort also affected the initial value of K0. However, with increasing vertical stress the effect of compaction decreased and was finally eliminated.


Municipal solid waste Landfill Tactile pressure sensor OCR 



The work described in this paper was funded by the National Science Foundation Division of Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation under Grant CMMI-0635435 and by the China Scholarship Council. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contribution of John Kondziolka and Zachery Shafer, undergraduate laboratory assistants at Arizona State University, to this work, who helped conduct the tests and reduce the data reported herein.


  1. Kavazanjian E (2006) Waste mechanics: recent findings and unanswered questions. In: Geoshanghai international conference, pp 34–54Google Scholar
  2. Dixon N, Jones DRV, Whittle RW (1999) Mechanical properties of household waste: In: Situ assessment using pressuremeters. In: Proceedings of seventh international waste management and landfill symposium, vol 3, pp 453–460Google Scholar
  3. Landva AO, Valsangkar AJ, Pelkey SG (2000) Lateral earth pressure at rest and compressibility of municipal solid. Can Geotech J 37(6):1157–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Towhata I, Kawano Y, Yonai Y, Koelsh F (2004) Laboratory tests on dynamic properties of municipal wastes. In: Proceedings of the 11th conference in soil dynamics and earthquake engineering and 3rd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, vol 1, pp 688–693Google Scholar
  5. Sharma HD, Dukes MT, Olsen DM (1990) Field measurements of dynamic moduli and Poisson’s ratios of refuse and underlying soils at a landfill site. In: Proceedings of the symposium on geotechnics of waste fills—theory and practice, Pittsburg, pp 57–70, 10–13 September 1989. Publ Philadelphia: ASTM, 1990 (ASTM. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 28(6):A356 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. Houston WN, Houston SL, Liu JW et al (1995) In-situ testing methods for dynamic properties of MSW landfills. In: Earthquake design and performance of solid waste landfills. ASCE, pp 73–82Google Scholar
  7. Matasović N Jr, Kavazanjian E (1998) Cyclic characterization of OII landfill solid waste. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(3):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Zekkos DP (2005) Evaluation of static and dynamic properties of municipal solid-waste. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Zekkos D (2013) Experimental evidence of anisotropy in municipal solid waste. In: Coupled phenomena in environmental geotechnicsGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai G, Liu S, Puppala AJ (2015) Assessment of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) from seismic piezocone tests (SCPTU). In: Geo-Frontiers congress, pp 2278–2287Google Scholar
  11. Podoloff R, Benjamin M (1989) Tactile sensor for analyzing dental occlusion. SOMA Eng Hum Body 3(3):1–6Google Scholar
  12. Paikowsky SG, Hajduk EL (1997) Calibration and use of grid-based tactile pressure sensors in granular material. Geotech Test J 20(2):218–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wilson DR, Apreleva MV, Eichler MJ et al (2003) Accuracy and repeatability of a pressure measurement system in the patellofemoral joint. J Biomech 36(12):1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brimacombe JM, Wilson DR, Hodgson AJ et al (2009) Effect of calibration method on Tekscan sensor accuracy. J Biomech Eng 131(3):034503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmer MC, O’Rourke TD, Olson NA et al (2009) Tactile pressure sensors for soil-structure interaction assessment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(11):1638–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pengbo Yuan
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Edward KvazanjianJr.
    • 2
  • Wenwu Chen
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and MechanicsLanzhou UniversityLanzhouChina
  2. 2.The Center for Bio-Inspired and Bio-Mediated GeotechnicsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western ChinaThe Ministry of Education of ChinaLanzhouChina

Personalised recommendations