Municipal Solid Waste Slope Stability Modeling:

A Probabilistic Approach
Ali Jahanfar 1; Bahram Gharabaghi 2; Edward A. McBean 3; and Brajesh K. Dubey 4

Abstract: The geotechnical properties (e.g., density, friction angle, and cohesion) of waste material in landfills and dumpsites vary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

significantly, depending on the waste composition and compaction practices. This variability results in a major source of uncertainty in
slope stability analysis for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal sites. This study presents a novel probabilistic approach for slope stability
analysis by backcalculation, assigning probability distributions to waste material properties. Using backanalysis of historical, well-
documented failed waste slopes, probability distributions for the density, friction angle, and cohesion of MSW are assigned based on
the disposal method (landfill or dumpsite) and waste material composition (fibrous or food waste materials). MSW with (1) major food
waste contents has lower shear strength (friction angle = 22.2° and cohesion = 19.2 kPa) in comparison with MSW with major fibrous
waste contents (friction angle = 34° and cohesion = 14 kPa) and (2) compaction practices in landfills compared to dumpsites result in 20%
higher shear-strength properties for the waste material. The application of this new approach and its advantages is demonstrated/validated
using four case studies (Rumpke, Durban, Istanbul, and Sarajevo). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001704. © 2017 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Landfill failure; Probabilistic stability analysis; Monte Carlo; Waste friction angle; Waste cohesion; Waste unit weight.

Introduction
Landfill/dumpsite slope stability is a function of different factors,
including pore water pressure, geometry, waste composition, and
compaction (Stark and Huvaj-Sarihan 2009). Each of these factors,
or a combination of these factors, may lead to the slope failure
mechanism reaching critical conditions.
• Pore water pressure: For example, ten days of heavy rainfall
in Payatas landfill and extra leachate injection in the Bogota
bioreactor landfill affected the pore water pressure and contrib-
uted to landfill slope failure (Blight 2008; Merry et al. 2005).
• Geometry: Height and side-slope are the main driving param-
eters in landfills that influence slope stability (Omari 2012;
Babu et al. 2014). For example, the Rumpke landfill failure in
1996 happened when the landfill height exceeded the tolerable
elevation by 13–15 m (Eid et al. 2000a). Also, landfill slope in
the Payatas dumpsite was estimated as 1.5 H:1 V prior to failure,
whereas a more typical value was 3 H:1 V (Merry et al. 2005).
• Waste composition: One might question why a designer uses
typical friction angle values pertinent for U.S. landfills in the
design of a landfill when dealing with sites in Asia where much
larger food percentages of waste contents exist (Dixon et al.
2008; Moon and Ku 2016). Koelsch (2007) emphasized that
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Toronto,
35 St. George St., Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 1A4 (corresponding author).
E-mail: ali.jahanfar@mail.utoronto.ca
2
Professor, School of Engineering, Univ. of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. East,
35 St. George St., Guelph, ON, Canada M5S 1A4.
3
Professor, School of Engineering, Univ. of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. East,
35 St. George St., Guelph, ON, Canada M5S 1A4.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 13, 2016; approved on
January 12, 2017; published online on March 31, 2017. Discussion period
open until August 31, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
the major reason for the low waste density in Payatas’s failure
was waste composition. He explained that scavenging of the
waste materials in the Payatas landfill had changed the waste
composition; high-strength materials such as wood, metal, card-
board, and intact bottles were scavenged by waste pickers, leav-
ing the waste with only organic and light plastic portions.
• Waste compaction: Blight (2008) stated that lack of compac-
tion can lead to landfill slope failure because, in the absence
of effective compaction of the waste in uncontrolled dumpsites
(e.g., Istanbul and Sarajevo dumpsites) or poor and inconsistent
compaction in landfills (e.g., Bogota and Durban landfills),
there is a relatively low–shear strength and cohesionless waste
mass.
Given the above, and the apparent variability of municipal solid
waste (MSW) geotechnical characteristics, challenges exist in se-
lecting appropriate values for use in landfill design (Fowmes et al.
2006; Gharabaghi et al. 2008; Ering and Babu 2016; De Stefano
et al. 2016; Jahanfar et al. 2017). As a result, there is merit in using
a probabilistic approach to develop the distributions. The backcal-
culation of landfill slope stability–related geotechnical characteris-
tics is used as an example (Babu et al. 2014; Fowmes et al. 2006;
Bray and Zekkos 2008; Jianguo et al. 2010; Onisiphorou et al.
2011; Ramaiah et al. 2016; Sabatini et al. 2002; Srivastava and
Reddy 2012).
Probabilistic approaches have been used in landfill slope stabil-
ity studies since 2002. In a recent study, Babu et al. (2014) used
numerical analysis and Monte Carlo simulation methods to assess
the typical landfill slope stability within a probabilistic framework,
considering spatial variations of geotechnical properties. Compar-
ing the results with a traditional factor of safety (FoS) value, the
mean value of the FoS distribution decreased with an increase in
the coefficient of variation. Srivasatava and Reddy (2012) used
both deterministic and probabilistic methods of slope stability as-
sessment to calculate the FoS and reliability of typical landfills,
respectively. A high range of FoS indicated safe slopes under
widely ranging shear-strength properties of a MSW while low reli-
ability indices indicated safety concerns for a similar slope structure

© ASCE 04017035-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035

 of a MSW landfill. Furthermore, Onisiphorous et al. (2011) applied
a probabilistic approach to analyze the slope stability of a typical
landfill in response to the anisotropic and heterogeneous character-
istics of waste materials. They utilized Monte Carlo simulation to
estimate the probability of failure, with results indicating that the
probabilistic approach provides more reliable slope stability analy-
sis, since this approach is better able to capture the variability and
uncertainty in shear-strength properties. Comparing traditional FoS
and the probability of failure for the same typical landfill models,
Fowmes et al. (2006) concluded that a deterministic approach
was very conservative, and the target probabilities of failures were
far lower than for the corresponding deterministic target values
(e.g., FoS > 1.5).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
To date, researchers have used both laboratory and in situ tests
to estimate unit weight, friction angle, and cohesion for MSW.
Consequently, an extensive database of geotechnical parameters of
MSW is available to practitioners, although it is difficult to use and
interpret this database in practice because of the heterogeneity of
MSW. As a result, backanalysis of case studies of landfill slope
failures has been described herein as a reliable way of obtaining
representative geotechnical values for MSW (Singh et al. 2009;
Ering and Babu 2016).
The preceding paragraphs demonstrate that there is substantial
merit in using probabilistic methods for the analysis of landfill
slope stability. In response, a novel probabilistic approach for slope
stability analysis of landfills and dumpsites is described. Using
backanalysis of historical, well-documented failed waste slopes,
an approach assigning probability distributions to density, friction
angle, and cohesion of MSW based on the disposal method (landfill
or dumpsite) and major waste contents (fibrous or food waste ma-
terials) is provided. The application of the novel probabilistic slope
stability analysis method and its advantages are demonstrated in
four case studies (Rumpke, Durban, Istanbul, and Sarajevo).
Waste Classification
Estimates of MSW shear strength and unit weight values are highly
uncertain (Bray and Zekkos 2009; Chen et al. 2010; Bray and
Zekkos 2008). Uncertainties related to shear strength and unit
weight depend on waste composition and disposal operation fac-
tors (Bareither et al. 2012; Zekkos et al. 2006). Table 1 illustrates
a typical waste disposal classification based on the disposal method
(landfill or dumpsite) and major waste contents (fibrous or food
waste materials).
Disposal Method (Waste Compaction)
Globally, landfilling is the primary engineered method for MSW
disposal. There are two types of landfills: conventional landfills
and bioreactor landfills. Conventional landfills contain a bottom
liner, leachate and gas collection system, and daily soil cover to
avoid leachate and contamination release into the environment.
Compaction effort is the main factor that controls the short-
term density and resulting shear strength of waste in landfills
Table 1. Waste Disposal Classification Based on Disposal Method and
Major Waste Contents
Waste class Disposal method Major waste contents
Class I Landfill Fibrous material
Class II Landfill Food waste
Class III Dumpsite Fibrous material
Class IV Dumpsite Food waste
© ASCE 04017035-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
(Hanson et al. 2010). The moisture content of typical landfills is
relatively low, or less than field capacity, which is mostly within
the range of 30 to 55% (Qian et al. 2003).
Bioreactor landfills are a relatively new alternative to conven-
tional landfills because of the recirculation of collected leachate
back through the disposal mass, which expedites degradation and
settlement of solid waste (Bareither et al. 2012; Reddy et al. 2009).
The injection of collected leachate into the waste mass increases
the water content of the bioreactor landfill and accelerates waste
decomposition, changing the geotechnical characteristics of the
MSW (Hanson et al. 2010; McBean et al. 2007). Hence, the ef-
fect of decomposition on MSW shear strength is crucial to as-
sess landfill/dumpsite stability, particularly in bioreactor landfills
(Bareither et al. 2012). Hossain and Haque (2009) published one
of the few studies that has examined the effect of waste decompo-
sition on the shear strength of a laboratory-scale bioreactor landfill.
They observed considerable decreases in friction angle (28%) and
cohesion (47%) during the decomposition processes of MSW.
However, bioreactor landfills and the effect of decomposition on
MSW shear strength are excluded from the assessment herein be-
cause of the complexity and brevity of background experiments.
Additional experimental and numerical studies on bioreactor land-
fills are required.
Dumping of waste still represents the primary waste disposal
method in developing countries, because dumpsites entail a lower
operational cost in comparison with landfills (Munawar and Fellner
2013). With no daily cover soil, attaining sufficient compaction
and leachate drainage pose the greatest threats to structural stability
of these types of disposal sites. Without an effective leachate col-
lection system, the water content at dumpsites is potentially high,
especially in wet climate conditions, so that precipitation penetrates
throughout the MSW in the absence of daily cover soil and end
cap layer.
Waste Composition
In addition to operational aspects, knowledge of waste composition
is usually one of the most valuable factors to estimate MSW proper-
ties (Bareither et al. 2012; Cho et al. 2011; Athanasopoulos et al.
2008). The contribution of this factor in the MSW shear strength
data has been verified (Bray and Zekkos 2009; Zekkos et al. 2010),
so it is considered in the above classification (Table 1). Wastes con-
tain different categories of materials, e.g., fibrous material varies
from low-degradable (e.g., paper, cardboard, texture, wood, gravel)
to nondegradable (e.g., metal, plastics, glass) materials (Sharma and
McBean 2007). These materials are identified as the primary cause
of the large shear strength of MSW as a result of interlocking
(Zekkos et al. 2010; Wong 2009; Cho et al. 2011; Bareither et al.
2012). Food waste (e.g., cooked food, uncooked vegetables and
fruits) contents are biodegradable. The approximate food waste
content of U.S. MSW is approximately 12.5%, while refuse in
China has been indicated as up to 73% food waste (Cho et al. 2011).
Hence, large variations in food waste materials within MSW can be
an important factor to explain the variation in MSW shear strength
and disposal slope stability. In addition to municipal waste materi-
als, landfills usually contain up to 30% daily cover soils (nondegrad-
able constituent), which are mixed with MSW layers during the
operation time (Machado et al. 2002). This layer has a reinforcement
effect on the slope stability of landfills (Hossain and Haque 2009).
Waste Unit Weight
Zekkos et al. (2006) studied the MSW unit weight based on
waste compaction and soil contents. From literature data,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Unit Weight (kN/m3)
0 5 10 15 20
0
10
20
Depth (m)
30
40
50
60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Low compaction and soil content (Class III & IV)
Typical compaction and soil content (Class I & II)
High moisture waste or soil content
Fig. 1. Unit weight field-fitted hyperbolic curves for different classes
of waste (adapted from Zekkos et al. 2006)
Zekkos et al. (2006) introduced three field-fitted hyperbolic curves
illustrated in Fig. 1. Increasing the compaction effort and soil con-
tent, the unit weight curve is shifting from the dashed curve on the
left-hand side to the continuous curve on the right-hand side of
Fig. 1. The sensitivity of unit weight to confining stress in depth
decreases from left to right.
The left-hand side of the dashed curve in Fig. 1 represents the
waste unit weight (range of values between 5 and 12.5 kN=m3 )
with no compaction and soil content, which is allocated to
Classes III and IV in this study. In addition, the dashed curve in
the middle of Fig. 1, in concert with moderate compaction and soil
content, constitutes the typical unit weight of the landfill situation.
Although fibrous materials have lower unit weights than soillike
materials (<20-mm materials), combined daily covers soils with
these materials and compaction effort raise the unit weight to
a typical value between 10 and 14 kN=m3 (Zekkos et al. 2006,
2010). Zekkos et al. (2006) recommended the right-hand side con-
tinuous curve for the waste mass with higher moisture contents
and higher soil contents.
In this study, spatially variable unit weights have been used and
the middle dashed curve in Fig. 1 is used for Classes I and II, while
the left-side dashed curve in Fig. 1 is considered for Classes III
and IV.
Waste Shear Strength
As shown in Table 1, waste disposal geotechnical characteristics
are classified into four classes. The shear strengths of these classes
are discussed herein.
• Class I: The shear strength of conventional landfill refuse with
large fractions of fibrous materials (>50%) was the focus of
Bareither et al. (2012), who indicated that landfills with high
percentages of fibrous materials such as glass, ceramics, gravel,
and soillike waste are comparable with sandy soil in terms of
shear strength. The upward curvature of stress-strain response
of triaxial tests on high percentages (>50%) of fibrous materials
confirms this hypothesis (Bareither et al. 2012; Bray and Zekkos
2009; Zekkos et al. 2012). Assuming a cohesion of zero, Zekkos
et al. (2012) recommended a range from 34 to 44° for the inter-
nal friction angle in landfill slope stability design where the
moisture content is less than field capacity. However, Cho et al.
(2011) used both small-scale and large-scale direct shear tests,
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
300
250
Shear Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
50
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Normal Stress (kPa)
Class I
Class II
Class I (Upper & Lower bound)
Class II (upper & Lower bound)
Zekkos et. al., (2012)
Cho et. Al., 2011 (Major Food-waste)
Cho et. Al., 2011 (Major Fibrous-Material)
Stark et al. (2009) recommendation
Fig. 2. MSW shear strength versus normal stress for Class I and
Class II
concluding that the internal friction angle and cohesion of waste
materials with high fibrous material (60–100%) ranged from 26
to 39°, and from 0 to 38 kPa, respectively. The upper region in
Fig. 2 illustrates 43 data points, including those of Zekkos et al.
(2012) as well as Cho et al. (2011) for MSW shear strength ver-
sus normal stress with regard to high compaction and high
ranges of fibrous materials (Class I).The recommended MSW
strength envelope from Stark et al. (2009) has been added in
Fig. 2 to facilitate comparison. This bilinear curve is in the range
of the MSW strength envelopes for Class I.
• Class II: Slope stability parameters related to landfill design
with large food waste content are expected to be different in
comparison with a typical friction angle and unit weight values
used for Class I (Zekkos et al. 2010). Food waste has a higher
density than other waste components (Cho et al. 2011). Further-
more, large amounts of easily degradable materials reduce the
shear strength of waste. Cho et al. (2011) reported that the
internal friction angle ranged from 21 to 31° as the food waste
content of waste materials ranged from 40 to 58%. The cohesive
behavior of food waste tends to increase from 13 to 28 kPa. The
lower region in Fig. 2 shows data points corresponding to a
MSW strength envelope with major food waste contents
(Cho et al. 2011).
• Class III: No compaction effort reduces the unit weight and
eventually, the shear strength, resulting in decreased dumpsite
slope stability. Zekkos et al. (2014) indicated that the absence
of proper compaction and high percentage of low-density waste
materials (e.g., fibrous materials) changes the unit weight sig-
nificantly from typical values and reaches as low as 5 kN=m3 .
Thus, Zekkos et al. (2014) argued that the average shear strength
parameters of MSW may decrease by 20% from the shear
strength parameters for compacted MSW.
• Class IV: Uncompacted MSW with large food waste content
is the common type of waste disposal in developing countries,
which mostly operate without any daily soil cover or leachate
control. Although the unit weight of food waste is higher than
that of fibrous materials, the absence of compaction and daily
soil cover reduces the unit weight in comparison with Classes I
and II. Considering the lack of compaction or daily soil cover,
the best estimate of the shear strength of Class IV disposal sys-
tems is reduced by 20% from the shear strength envelope recom-
mended by Cho et al. (2011) for Class II.
04017035-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 30
Prior Data Class I
Class II
The statistics for friction angle and cohesion include the effects of

Cohesion (kPa)
20 Class III
spatial and temporal variability and waste heterogeneity, increasing
Class IV
statistical uncertainties. Furthermore, unit weight, friction angle,
and cohesion are assumed to be statistically independent. Table 2 10
summarizes the mean and standard deviation of unit weight, fric-
tion angle, and cohesion for different classes of waste mass disposal
0
methods. 0 10 20 30 40 50
In terms of friction angle and cohesion for Classes I and II, the Friction Angle
most likely strength envelope is calculated using linear regression
(Fig. 2). The mean friction angle and cohesion for Classes III and Fig. 3. Uncertainty range of friction angle and cohesion of Classes I
IV have been assumed to be 20% less than those for Classes I and to IV
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

II, respectively. The standard deviations (SDs) have been estimated

using Duncan’s (2000) method, as follows:

ðHCV − LCVÞ as linear models and hence the shear strength parameters would
SD ¼ ð1Þ primarily depend on the composition and compaction of MSW.
6

The lower and upper bounds in Fig. 2 for each class can be used Case Studies
to estimate the highest conceivable value (HCV) and lowest con-
ceivable value (LCV) of the strength envelope for calculation of the Case study failures for two dumpsites (Sarajevo 1977 and Istanbul
SD of the waste shear strength. Using the three-sigma rule, SD can 1993) and two landfills (Rumpke 1997 and Durban 1997) are de-
be estimated because 99.7% of all normally distributed values fall scribed herein. Each failure case study is assigned to one class of
within three SDs plus or minus a mean value (Duncan 2000). Stark MSW based on the effect of compaction and composition on geo-
and Huvaj-Sarihan (2009) recommended this method to estimate technical factors of MSW (Table 3).
the FoS probabilistic distribution in landfill slope stability instead In addition to geotechnical factors, the water pressure along the
of simply reporting a value of FoS. slip surface affects slope stability. El-Ramly et al. (2002) described
In Fig. 3, the range of the friction angle and cohesion for the pore pressure ratio (Ru ), the ratio of water pressure to total nor-
Classes I to IV are compared to each other. mal stress, as a useful parameter to characterize the water pressure
Regarding Classes II and IV, high food waste contents decrease of the slip surface in complex situations. Assuming a normal dis-
the friction angle to the lower level than Classes I and III with lower tribution for Ru, the mean value for each failed slope is provided,
food waste contents. Thus, a friction angle of MSW with minor based on knowledge/experience with the groundwater regime gov-
food waste contents (Classes I and III) falls within a typical range erned by literature studies (Table 3). The SD of 0.05 is used to
of 21.2–40°, while the friction angle decreases to the range of 14.7– account for the lack of site-specific measurements.
24° for MSW with major food waste contents (Classes II and IV). Fig. 4 illustrates cross-section geometries for all case studies.
Also, for minimal compaction and daily soil cover, the best esti- Lateral translational failure is the most probable type of failure for
mates of friction angle and cohesion for Classes III and IV are dumpsites and landfills. Thus, fully specified block shapes have
reduced by 20% from those stated for Classes I and II. been used as the slip surface in all case studies.
Stark et al. (2009) presented strain and stress dependency of the
Mohr-Coulomb shear failure envelope of MSW. However, large
Rumpke Landfill Failure (1996)
shear displacements that are required to mobilize the peak shear
strength of MSW can lead to undesirable displacement incompat- The Rumpke landfill, also known as Rumpke Mountain, in
ibility between MSW and the underlying geosynthetic material. Cincinnati, Ohio, is one of the largest landfills in the United States.
Therefore, conservative shear-strength parameter values are used In March 1996, the largest slope failure in the United States hap-
for the design of stable slopes by setting stringent failure criteria pened at this landfill a few days following the 45-m extra excava-
limits for the maximum allowable MSW shear displacements tion in front of the landfill toe (Eid et al. 2000a). In addition, the site
(<25 mm) and maximum axial strain (<10%). For these lower was overfilled by 13–15 m at the time of the failure.
ranges of displacements (and small axial strains <10%), the Mohr- Eid et al. (2000a) indicated that the failure surface developed
Coulomb shear strength envelope of MSW can be approximated through a nearly vertical cut in the MSW and a horizontal cut in the
saturated brown native soil underlying the waste [Fig. 4(a)]. With a
typical U.S. waste type (low food waste contents) and the presence
Table 2. Average and Standard Deviation Unit Weight, Friction Angle, and of waste compaction and daily soil cover, this landfill is approx-
Cohesion Discussed for Different Classes of Waste Mass Disposal Methods imately categorized as Class I. The probabilistic distribution of geo-
technical characteristics of the MSW are extracted from Class I in
Shear strength
Design Unit weight Friction Cohesion
class (kN=m3 ) angle (degrees) (kPa)
Table 3. Failed Slopes, Assigned Classes and Pore Water Pressures
Class I 10–14 (1) 34 (2) 14 (1)
Failed slope Assigned class Ru mean value References
Class II 10–14 (1) 22.2 (1) 19.2 (2)
Class III 5–12.5 (1) 27.2 (2) 11.2 (1) Rumpke (1996) Class I 0.3 Eid et al. (2000a)
Class IV 5–12.5 (1) 17.7 (1) 15.4 (2) Durban (1997) Class II 0.67 Blight (2008)
Sarajevo (1977) Class III 0.42
Note: Values in the table are the mean and in the brackets (standard
Istanbul (1993) Class IV 0.14
deviation).

© ASCE 04017035-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. (a) Rumpke and (b) Durban landfill cross-sectional geometries before failure; (c) Sarajevo and (d) Istanbul dumpsite cross-section geometries
before failure
Table 2, while the geotechnical characteristics of subsoil are as-
sumed constant. Eid et al. (2000a) suggested a unit weight, friction
angle, and cohesion of 19 kN=m3 , 17°, and 0 kPa for subsoil,
respectively. The mean and SD of the Ru prior distribution are
assumed to be 0.3 and 0.05.
The interconnection of the fibrous materials contributes to the
high shear strength of the MSW in this case history. In addition, the
probable failure surface likely extended to deeper surfaces because
of initial deep cracks at the top of the slope and a potential block
form slide. Thus, stability evaluation depends on the shear strength
of the foundation soil rather than that of the MSW (Eid et al.
2000b). This case history is a great example to show that although
waste compaction and composition are contributory factors, foun-
dation design can also be a critical factor in landfill/dumpsite slope
stability.
Durban Landfill Failure (1997)
The Durban landfill (also called Bulbul landfill), in Durban, South
Africa, was designed to be filled with a specific codisposal ratio of
liquid and dry waste. Dry waste contained 31% food waste and
liquid waste was industrial sludge, indicating that a major waste
content of this landfill was nonfibrous materials. To increase slope
stability, berms were constructed across the toe of the landfill for
each phase of waste disposal.
In September 1997, the landfill failed, and the waste moved
on to an area prepared for a future phase of the landfill [Fig. 4(b)].
A translational failure occurred within a face of a previous land-
filling phase on the hillside and within a weak boundary cover layer
(clay liner) and underlying soil in the foothill of the slip surface,
respectively. The MSW in this landfill can be classified as Class II
because of the provided compaction and low fibrous materials. The
input data for probabilistic distributions of MSW geotechnical
characteristics are collected from Class II in Table 2. The geotech-
nical characteristics of clay liner are assumed to be constant (unit
weight ¼ 18 kN=m3 , friction angle = 12°, and cohesion = 10 kPa).
A high pore water pressure in the waste body as a result of the
omitted drainage provisions of the design and greater volumes of
liquid with the same mass of dry waste was the likely reason for
the failure (Blight 2008). Considering the evidence, the berms and
liners provided a huge barrier around the saturated waste materials.
© ASCE 04017035-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
To simulate this situation, Blight (2008) used an Ru value of 0.67
for the backanalysis of Durban landfill slope stability. This value is
assumed to be an average of the initial distribution of Ru with a SD
of 0.05 for backcalculation.
Sarajevo Dumpsite Failure (1977)
The Sarajevo dumpsite failure was the first recorded waste disposal
failure in the technical literature. In December 1977, approximately
200,000 m3 of waste slid down the dumpsite slope and traveled
more than 1 km from the site. This dumpsite contained 74% fibrous
materials, including 45% paper and cardboard. No compaction
value was reported for this dumpsite. Blight (2008) indicated that
a translational wedge failure took place at this dumpsite, which was
potentially the result of winter rain infiltration into the uncom-
pacted and uncovered waste [Fig. 4(c)].
The Sarajevo dumpsite failure is an example of Class III waste
disposal. Hence, input data for a slip surface through MSW and
along the interface of the MSW and ground surface are adopted
from strength properties of MSW from Class III in Table 2. The
friction angle and cohesion in Class III are 20% lower than those
of Class I, as a result of the lack of compaction and soil cover. Since
a high pore water pressure may have caused this failure, an Ru value
with a mean and standard deviation of 0.42 and 0.05, respectively,
are assumed as inputs for backcalculation.
Istanbul Dumpsite Failure (1993)
About 30 km from Istanbul city, the Istanbul dumpsite is located
near the edge of a steep hillside [Fig. 4(d)]. Heavy rain and exces-
sive infiltration, together with a suddenly applied disturbing force,
triggered the failure, causing 39 deaths from the waste’s movement
and destroying 11 informal brick-built houses. Blight (2008) re-
ported that 72% of the waste contents were food waste in this
dumpsite. The waste materials were placed without any protection
at the base, and there was no compaction or daily cover of the waste
at the site.
The Istanbul dumpsite failure can be classified as Class IV waste
disposal because of the lack of compaction and high range of food
waste. Class IV has a 20% lower friction angle and cohesion than
Class II. The strength properties of MSW from Class IVare used for
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Methodology flowchart
the slip surface through MSW, and along the interface of the MSW
and ground surface, as input data for the Istanbul dumpsite back-
analysis (Table 2).
Blight (2008) obtained Ru ¼ 0.14 for this failure, while Stark
and Huvaj-Sarihan (2009) calculated a value of 0.41. The prior
mean and SD of Ru are assumed to be 0.14 and 0.05 as input data
for backcalculation.
Methodology
Slope/W, a limit-equilibrium model, was employed to analyze
landfill/dumpsite slope stability, and the FoS was computed with
the Morgenstern-Price method in this study. Based on the high un-
certainties of the geotechnical characteristics of waste materials, the
input parameters for these materials were assigned a probabilistic
status. The probabilistic input data include unit weight, cohesion,
and friction angles, classified based on waste compaction and com-
position effects.
With the probabilistic distributions of input data and Monte
Carlo simulation, the probabilistic distributions of FoS were ob-
tained for each case study. Based on the Monte Carlo definition, a
randomly selected value from the probability distributions of the
input data was analyzed, and the output value was calculated. This
process was repeated 2,000 times to develop a distribution for
output. The output of the slope stability assessment was the prob-
abilistic distribution of FoS.
Since these case study slopes have already failed, backanalyses
of slope failures were carried out to improve the prior distributions
of γ W (waste unit weight), ⊘W (waste friction angle), and CW
(waste cohesion) (MSW input data) at the moment of slope
failure. To approach this goal, simplified probabilistic backanalysis
was employed. Zhang et al. (2010) described the mathematical
equations to backcalculate the normal distribution of shear-strength
© ASCE 04017035-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
parameters in slope stability analysis and this procedure, with
details as outlined in the Appendix, was followed.
As discussed above, the parameters to be backcalculated for
waste disposal slopes can be denoted by the vector θ ¼ fCW ; ⊘W ;
γ W ; Ru gT . Assuming μθ as the mean and Cθ as a covariance ma-
trix of θ prior distribution, the objective of probabilistic backanal-
ysis is then to improve the probabilistic distribution of θ to μðθjdÞ
and CðθjdÞ
μðθjdÞ ¼ μθ þ Cθ HT ðHCθ H T þ σ2ε Þ−1 ½1 − gðμθ Þ − με  ð2Þ

T −1
H H −1
CðθjdÞ ¼ þ Cθ ð3Þ
σ2ε

∂gðθÞ
H¼ ð4Þ
∂θ θ¼μθ
gðμθ Þ is defined as a FoS, and when this factor equals unity,
then the backanalysis loop is completed. H is the measured slope
representing the sensitivity of FoS with respect to θ at point μθ .
Quantifying the effect of model imperfection, με and σε are con-
sidered as the mean and standard deviation of this factor. Regarding
uncertainties of the simulation, με ¼ 0.05 and σε ¼ 0.07 were sug-
gested (Christian et al. 1994). Fig. 5 illustrates the methodology
flowchart.
The degree of modification achieved by backanalysis is not
the same for all the parameters and is related to the contribution
of each parameter to the uncertainty of FoS, as follows (Zhang
et al. 2010):
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Example of backanalysis process


∂gðθÞ 2 H ¼ f0.0188; 0.0168; −0.0636; −1.2993g
varðFoSÞ ≈ × varðCw Þ
∂cw  θ ¼ μθ
 The sensitivity of FoS to γ W and Ru are negative, meaning that
∂gðθÞ 2 FoS decreases with the growth of either γ W or Ru. In this case, FoS
þ × varð⊘w Þ
∂⊘w  θ ¼ μθ is respectively sensitive to Ru , γ W , CW , and ⊘W . Using mean and
 SD values for CW , ⊘W , γ W , and Ru and the Durban landfill geom-
∂gðθÞ 2 etry as inputs to the Slope/W model, a probabilistic distribution
þ × varðγ w Þ
∂γ w  θ ¼ μθ of FoS is obtained. Fig. 6 illustrates the calculation process in an
 Excel sheet.
∂gðθÞ 2
þ × varðRu Þ þ σ2ε ð5Þ The mean of the FoS distribution based on the prior distribution
∂Ru  θ ¼ μθ is 1.1, with a probability of failure of 0.4 (Step 1). As the FoS mean
value is not equal to unity, Eqs. (2) and (3) are used to backcalculate
the CW , ⊘W , γ W , and Ru distributions. The FoS after one backcal-
culation is 1.00, with a probability of failure of 0.51 (Step 2). Thus,
Example the backcalculated CW , ⊘W , γ W , and Ru distributions are qualified
The backcalculation of cohesion, friction angle, unit weight, and as posterior distributions (Step 3).
pore pressure ratio for the Durban landfill is described below.
The prior distributions of CW , ⊘W , γ W , and Ru can be described
with a multivariate normal distribution with a mean of μθ ¼ Result of Backanalysis (Posterior Data)
f19.2; 22.2; 13; 0.67gT and the following covariance matrix (after Two dumpsite failures (Sarajevo 1977 and Istanbul 1993) and two
Tables 2 and 3): landfill failures (Durban 1997 and Rumpke 1996) are described
2 3 2 3 herein. The geotechnical characteristics of the MSW in each failure
SD2Cw 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 have been addressed based on corresponding classifications in
6 7 6 7
6 0 SD2⊘w 0 0 7 12 Table 1. The initial distributions of unit weight, friction angle, and
6 7 6 0 0 0 7
Cθ ¼ 6 7¼6
6
7
7 cohesion of the waste materials (Table 2) were utilized as inputs
6 0 0 SD2γw 7
0 5 40 0 12 0 5
4 on the uncertainty in the backanalysis. Using Eqs. (1)–(3), the pos-
0 0 0 SD2Ru 0 0 0 0.052 terior distributions of CW , ⊘W , γ W , and Ru for each slope failure
are listed in Table 4.
The units for CW , ⊘W , γ W , are kPa, degree, and kN=m3 ,
respectively. Information Allocation in Backanalysis
The measured slope representing the sensitivity of FoS to CW ,
⊘W , γ W , and Ru are described with a row vector as follows The Sarajevo and Istanbul dumpsites, as well as Rumpke and
[Eq. (4)]: Durban landfill failures, were backanalyzed in terms of slope

© ASCE 04017035-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035

 Table 4. Prior and Posterior Distributions of Unit Weight, Friction Angle, Cohesion, and Pore Water Pressure Ratio
Unit weight Friction Pore water
(kN=m3 ) angle (degrees) Cohesion (kPa) pressure ratio FoS distribution
Probability
MSW class Meana SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean FOS of failure
Class I (prior distribution) 13 1 34 2 14 1 0.3 0.05 0.95 0.87
Rumpke landfill failure 12.68 0.97 34.36 1.98 14.09 1 0.24 0.01 1.00 0.45
Class II (prior distribution) 13 1 22.2 1 19.2 2 0.67 0.05 1.1 0.4
Durban landfill failure 13.26 0.85 22.13 0.99 18.9 1.9 0.68 0.04 1.00 0.51
Class III (prior distribution) 10.6 1 27.2 2 11.2 1 0.42 0.05 0.95 0.64
Sarajevo dumpsite failure 10.52 0.98 27.7 1.59 11.25 0.99 0.4 0.032 1.00 0.45
Class IV (prior distribution) 10.6 1 17.7 1 15.4 2 0.14 0.05 1.27 0.05
Istanbul dumpsite failure 8.71 0.49 17.93 0.99 17.38 1.78 0.123 0.05 0.99 0.52
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a
As MSW unit weight changes with depth, means of unit weight distributions in −25m are listed in here.

stability. Prior distributions of shear strength characteristics of the

waste materials in some cases were altered and in others remained
almost constant. Table 4 illustrates the prior and posterior distribu-
tions of CW , ⊘W , γ W , and Ru for each case study and associated
class.
The Ru column in Table 4 demonstrates that the Durban landfill
failure was strongly influenced by pore water pressure on the
failure surface, whereas pore pressure at the Istanbul dumpsite
was less, with the Sarajevo dumpsite being an in-between case.
As expected in all case studies, a lateral translational failure is
the most probable type of failure for dumpsites and landfills. In the
cases of the Sarajevo and Istanbul dumpsites, the failure occurred
within the interface between the waste and the underlying soil
[Figs. 4(c and d)]. The waste shear strengths in the Sarajevo and Fig. 7. Contribution of different parameters to the variance of FoS for
Istanbul dumpsite failures validate Classes III and IV, as the shear all case studies
resistances of the slip surfaces for both dumpsites almost corre-
spond to the Classes III and IV shear strengths, except for the
cohesion in the Istanbul landfill, which increased by 12% from
Class IV (Table 4). Fig. 7 illustrates the relative percentages of the contributions
The shear strengths of the Class III and Class IV disposal sys- of different parameters to the variance of FoS for all four case stud-
tems are 20% lower than those of Class I and Class II because of the ies. Correspondingly, a large contribution of a parameter means that
lack of compaction. This was confirmed by the backcalculation of a prior distribution of that parameter is relatively modified in com-
the slope failure of the Sarajevo and Istanbul dumpsites (Table 4). parison with other parameters. The contribution of Ru in FoS vari-
A translational failure of the Durban landfill occurred within ance is high among other parameters for the Rumpke, Durban, and
waste interfaces in the hillside slip surface and within a weak boun- Sarajevo failed slopes.
dary cover layer (clay liner) and underlying ground in the foothill of In the Rumpke and Sarajevo failure events, the prior and
slip surface [Fig. 4(b)]. Thus, the waste shear strength in the hillside modified distributions for cohesion are almost identical, while for
of the slip surface in the Durban landfill validates Class II, while the Durban and Istanbul, the probabilistic distributions of cohesion are
shear resistance of the slip surface in the foothill is a function of the modified. Conversely, the friction angle distribution contributes in
cover layer’s shear strength. the Rumpke and Sarajevo failures while it is almost identical in the
The shear resistance of the slip surface in the Rumpke landfill
Durban and Istanbul case studies (Fig. 7). In other words, the slope
is mostly the function of native brown foundation soil. Thus, the
stability in the Rumpke and Sarajevo cases was friction dependent,
backcalculation of MSW shear strength cannot validate Class I.
while the slope stability in the Durban and Istanbul failures was
However, the recommendation of Stark et al. (2009) for MSW
cohesion dependent. It could be a result of the fact that the MSW
shear strength validates the range of friction angle and cohesion
shear strength parameters with high ranges of fibrous materials
in this class. All studied slope failures occurred at normal stress
(e.g., Rumpke and Sarajevo) are comparable with sandy soils
lower than 200 kPa along the waste interfaces. Thus, laboratory
(Bareither et al. 2012), while MSW with major contents of food
shear-stress measurements with normal stress less than 300 kPa
waste materials (e.g., Durban and Istanbul) are cohesive (Cho et al.
(Fig. 2) are applicable for classification.
2011; Mcknight et al. 2015).

Sensitivity Analysis
Using the probabilistic backanalysis method, prior distributions of
all input parameters were modified by slope failure events simul-
taneously and posterior distributions were obtained. A sensitivity
analysis is required to realize the degree of modification achieved
for each parameter by the backanalyses.
Summary and Conclusion
This study is the first of its kind that presents a framework for a
probabilistic slope stability analysis for landfills and dumpsites.
This novel approach takes advantage of the information about the
waste material compaction and composition to assign probability

© ASCE 04017035-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035

 distributions for its unit weight (γ W ), friction angle (⊘W ), and
cohesion (CW ) for slope stability analysis.
The application of the method and its advantages have been
demonstrated in four case studies (Rumpke, Durban, Istanbul, and
Sarajevo). Since these slopes have already failed, backanalyses
of slope failures were carried out to improve the probabilistic dis-
tributions of γ W , ⊘W , and CW (MSW input data) at the moment of
slope failure.
Backanalyses results indicated that the slope stability in the
Rumpke and Sarajevo cases was friction dependent, while the slope
stability in the Durban and Istanbul failures was cohesion depen-
dent. This could be a result of the fact that MSW shear strength
parameters with high ranges of fibrous materials (e.g., Rumpke
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and Sarajevo) are comparable with sandy soils, while MSW with
major contents of food waste materials (e.g., Durban and Istanbul)
are cohesive.
Considering waste compaction and composition as two con-
tributory factors in landfill/dumpsite stability, the following conclu-
sions are drawn for MSW unit weight, friction angle, and cohesion
in different scenarios:
1. The backcalculated solid waste material unit weight distribu-
tions primarily depend on the composition and compaction
practices and change nonlinearly with depth. A lack of compac-
tion is best described by a unit weight ranging from 5 kN=m3 at
the high end to 12.5 kN=m3 at the low end, with a standard de-
viation of 1 kN=m3 . Compaction effort raises the unit weight to
a typical value between 10 and 14 kN=m3 at the top and bottom,
with a standard deviation of 1 kN=m3 , respectively.
2. Friction angle and cohesion of fibrous waste buried in engi-
neered landfills (which include waste compaction and daily soil
cover) are best fitted by normal distributions with mean values
of 34° and 14 kPa and standard deviations of 2° and 1 kPa,
respectively.
3. The friction angle and cohesion of solid waste material with
high food waste content disposed in engineered landfills can be
described with normal statistical distributions with mean values
of 22.2° and 19.2 kPa and standard deviations of 1° and 2 kPa,
respectively.
4. In dumpsite cases (which do not have waste compaction
and daily soil cover), the representative average shear strength
parameters of MSW decrease by 20% from the shear strength
recommended for landfill cases.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible by funding from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
References
Athanasopoulos, G., Grizi, A., Zekkos, D., Founta, P., and Zisimatou, E.
(2008). “Municipal solid waste as a reinforced soil: Investigation using
synthetic waste.” ASCE-Geoinstitute Geocongress, ASCE, Reston, VA,
168–175.
Babu, G. L. S., Asce, M., Reddy, K. R., Asce, F., Srivastava, A., and Asce,
A. M. (2014). “Influence of spatially variable geotechnical properties
of MSW on stability of landfill slopes.” J. Hazard. Toxic Radioactive
Waste, 10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000177, 27–37.
Bareither, C. A., Benson, C. H., and Edil, T. B. (2012). “Effects of waste
composition and decomposition on the shear strength of municipal solid
waste.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000702, 1161–1174.
Blight, G. (2008). “Slope failures in municipal solid waste dumps and
landfills: A review.” Waste Manage. Res., 26(5), 448–463.
© ASCE 04017035-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
Bray, J., and Zekkos, D. (2009). “Shear strength of municipal solid waste.”
J. Geotech. Geoenvioron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000063, 709–722.
Bray, J. D., and Zekkos, D. (2008). “Research needs in solid waste mechan-
ics.” Int. Symp. on Waste Mechanics Geotechnical Characterization,
Field Measurement, and Laboratory Testing of Municipal Solid Waste,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 195–205.
Chen, Y. M., Ke, H., Fredlund, D. G., Zhan, L. T., and Xie, Y. (2010).
“Secondary compression of municipal solid wastes and a compression
model for predicting settlement of municipal solid waste landfills.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000273,
706–717.
Cho, Y. M., Ko, J. H., Chi, L., and Townsend, T. G. (2011a). “Food
waste impact on municipal solid waste angle of internal friction.” Waste
Manage., 31(1), 26–32.
Christian, J. T., Ladd, C. C., and Baecher, G. B. (1994). “Reliability applied
to slope stability analysis.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1994)120:12(2180), 2180–2207.
De Stefano, M., Gharabaghi, B., Clemmer, R., and Jahanfar, M. (2016).
“Berm design to reduce risks of catastrophic slope failures at solid waste
disposal sites.” Waste Manage. Res., 34(11), 1117–1125.
Dixon, N., Langer, U., and Gotteland, P. (2008). “Classification and
mechanical behavior relationships for municipal solid waste: Study us-
ing synthetic wastes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2008)134:1(79), 79–90.
Duncan, J. M. (2000). “Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical en-
gineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2000)126:4(307), 307–316.
Eid, B. H. T., Stark, T. D., Evans, W. D., and Sherry, P. E. (2000). “Munici-
pal solid waste slope failure. I: Waste and foundation soil properties.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:
5(397), 397–407.
Eid, H. T., Stark, T. D., Evans, W. D., and Sherry, P. E. (2000). “Municipal
solid waste slope failure. II: Stability analyses.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:5(397), 408–419.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N. R., and Cruden, D. M. (2002). “Probabi-
listic slope stability analysis for practice.” Can. Geotech. J., 39(3),
665–683.
Ering, P., and Babu, G. S. (2016). “Probabilistic back analysis of rainfall
induced landslide: A case study of Malin landslide, India.” Eng. Geol.,
208, 154–164.
Fowmes, G. J., Jones, D. R. V., and Dixon, N. (2006). “Interface shear
strength variability and its use in reliability-based landfill stability
analysis.” Geosynthetics Int., 13(1), 1–14.
Gharabaghi, B., Singh, M. K., Inkratas, C., Fleming, I. R., and McBean,
E. A. (2008). “Comparison of slope stability in two Brazilian municipal
landfills.” Waste Manage., 28(9), 1509–1517.
Hanson, J. L., Yesiller, N., Von Stockhausen, S. a., and Wong, W. W.
(2010). “Compaction characteristics of municipal solid waste.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000324, 1095–1102.
Hossain, M. S., and Haque, M. a. (2009). “The effects of daily cover soils
on shear strength of municipal solid waste in bioreactor landfills.”
Waste Manage., 29(5), 1568–1576.
Jahanfar, A., Amirmojahedi, M., Gharabaghi, B., Dubey, B., McBean, E.,
and Kumar, D. (2017). “A novel risk assessment method for landfill
slope failure: Case study application for Bhalswa Dumpsite, India.”
Waste Manage. Res., 35(3), 220–227.
Jianguo, J., Yong, Y., Shihui, Y., Bin, Y., and Chang, Z. (2010). “Effects of
leachate accumulation on landfill stability in humid regions of China.”
Waste Manage., 30(5), 848–855.
Koelsch, F. (2007). “Stability problems of landfills—The Payatas
landslide.” Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Solid Waste Technology and Man-
agement, Widener Univ. School of Engineering, Chester, PA, 1–7.
Machado, S., Carvalho, M., and Vilar, O. (2002). “Constitutive model for
municipal solid waste.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2002)128:11(940), 940–951.
McBean, E. a., Syed-Ritchie, S., and Rovers, F. a. (2007). “Performance
results from the Tucuman solid waste bioreactor.” Waste Manage.,
27(12), 1783–1791.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Mcknight, T., Cho, Y. M., Townsend, T. G., and Choate, A. (2015).
“Cone penetration testing for characterizing landfilled municipal solid
waste.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001243, 06014018.
Merry, S. M., Kavazanjian, E., Jr., and Fritz, W. U. (2005). “Reconnais-
sance of the July 10, 2000, Payatas landfill failure.” J. Perform. Constr.
Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2005)19:2(100), 100–107.
Moon, S. W., and Ku, T. (2016). “Development of global correlation
models between in-situ stress-normalized shear wave velocity and
soil unit weight for plastic soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 53(10)
1600–1611.
Munawar, E., and Fellner, J. (2013). “Guidelines for design and operation
of municipal solid waste landfills in tropical climates.” International
Solid Waste Association, Vienna, Austria.
Omari, A. (2012). “Slope stability analysis of industrial solid waste land-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Inst of Technology on 04/25/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fills.” Master thesis, Luleå Univ. of Technology, Lulea, Sweden.
Onisiphorou, C., Georgiou, P., and Anastasiou, C. (2011). “Risk-based
analysis of waste landfill slopes.” Protection and restoration of the envi-
ronment XI environmental geotechnology, Centre for Research and
Technology Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1328–1335.
Qian, X., Koerner, R. M., and Gray, D. H. (2003). “Translational failure
analysis of landfills.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2003)129:6(506), 506–519.
Ramaiah, B. J., Ramana, G. V., Kavazanjian Jr, E., Matasovic, N., and
Bansal, B. K. (2016). “Empirical model for shear wave velocity of
municipal solid waste in situ.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001389, 06015012.
Reddy, K. R., Hettiarachchi, H., Parakalla, N. S., Gangathulasi, J.,
and Bogner, J. E. (2009). “Geotechnical properties of fresh municipal
solid waste at Orchard Hills Landfill, USA.” Waste Manage., 29(2),
952–959.
Sabatini, P. J., Griffin, L. M., Bonaparte, R., Espinoza, R. D., and Giroud,
J. P. (2002). “Reliability of state of practice for selection of shear
strength parameters for waste containment system stability analyses.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 20(4), 241–262.
© ASCE 04017035-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(8): 04017035
Sharma, M., and McBean, E. (2007). “A methodology for solid waste char-
acterization based on diminishing marginal returns.” Waste Manage.,
27(3), 337–344.
Singh, M. K., Sharma, J. S., and Fleming, I. R. (2009). “Shear strength
testing of intact and recompacted samples of municipal solid waste.”
Can. Geotechn. J., 46(10), 1133–1145.
Srivastava, A., and Reddy, K. R. (2012). “Probabilistic design of municipal
solid waste landfill slopes.” XII Int. Symp. on Environmental Geotech-
nology, Energy and Global Sustainable Development, Unveiling the
Pathways to Global Sustainability, California State Univ., Los Angeles.
Stark, T. D., and Huvaj-Sarihan, N. (2009). “Shear strength of municipal
solid waste for stability analyses.” Environ. Geol., 57(8), 1911–1923.
Wong, W. W. Y. (2009). “Investigation of the geotechnical properties of
municipal solid waste as a function of placement conditions.” Master
thesis, California Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA.
Zekkos, D., Athanasopoulos, G. a, and Vlachakis, V. S. (2014). “The 2010
Xerolakka landfill slope instability.” Environ. Geotech., 1(1), 56–65.
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., 30(8–9), 1544–1555.
Zekkos, D., Bray, J. D., Kavazanjian, E., Matasovic, N., Rathje, E. M.,
Riemer, M. F., and Stokoe, K. H. (2006). “Unit weight of municipal
solid waste.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2006)132:10(1250), 1250–1261.
Zekkos, D., Bray, J. D., and Riemer, M. F. (2012). “Drained response
of municipal solid waste in large-scale triaxial shear testing.” Waste
Manage., 32(10), 1873–1885.
Zekkos, D., Kavazanjian, E., Bray, J. D., Matasovic, N., and Riemer, M. F.
(2010). “Physical characterization of municipal solid waste for geotech-
nical purposes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0000326, 1231–1241.
Zhang, J., Tang, W. H., and Zhang, L. M. (2010). “Efficient probabilis-
tic back-analysis of slope stability model parameters.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000205, 99–109.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.