CME Gate (this study) |
0.250 - 0.310 |
90 - 110 |
17.2 |
−, 15.5, 3.2, −, −, 3.2, 64.1 |
Dharma (this study) |
0.240 |
70 |
9.8 |
−, 3.4, 3.4, −, −, −, 81.6 |
IIT-T1 (this study) |
0.199 - 0.232
|
40 - 150 |
7.8 |
−, 2.2, 2.1, 2.4, 3, 1.4, 81.1 |
IIT-T2 (this study) |
0.200 - 0.251
|
60 - 230 |
19.4 |
−, 12.1, 0.1, 5.8, 2.3, 1.2, 59.1 |
Metropolitan Center (Machado et al., 2008Machado, S.L., Vilar, O.M., & Carvalho, M.F. (2008). Constitutive model for long term municipal solid waste mechanical behavior. Computers and Geotechnics, 35, 775-790.; Machado et al., 2002Machado, S.L., Carvalho, M.F., & Vilar, O.M. (2002). Constitutive model for municipal solid waste. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(11), 940-951.) |
0.072 |
113
|
23.8 |
36.1, 17.1, 2.6, 2.4, 3.5, 4, 10.5 |
0.084 |
153
|
23.8 |
36.1, 17.1, 2.6, 2.4, 3.5, 4, 10.5 |
0.193 |
167
|
23.8 |
36.1, 17.1, 2.6, 2.4, 3.5, 4, 10.5 |
0.056 |
134
|
14 |
50.2, 5.2, 2.5, 5, 4.1, 5.6, 13.4 |
0.125 |
143
|
14 |
50.2, 5.2, 2.5, 5, 4.1, 5.6, 13.4 |
0.158 |
201
|
14 |
50.2, 5.2, 2.5, 5, 4.1, 5.6, 13.4 |
0.296 |
79
|
19 |
55, 2, 3, 5, 2, 4, 10 |
0.498 |
95
|
19 |
55, 2, 3, 5, 2, 4, 10 |
0.741 |
95
|
19 |
55, 2, 3, 5, 2, 4, 10 |
Suzhou (Zhan et al., 2008Zhan, T.L.T., Chen, Y.M., & Ling, W.A. (2008). Shear strength characteristics of municipal solid waste at the Suzhou landfill, China. Engineering Geology, 97(3), 97-111.) |
0.200 |
105
|
16.6 |
14.75, 7.07, 0, 1.9, 0, 0, 59.65 |
Yancheng (Li & Shi, 2016Li, X., & Shi, J. (2016). Stress-strain behavior and shear strength of municipal solid waste (MSW). KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(5), 1747-1758.) |
0.223 |
149
|
15.2 |
53, 11.8, 5.2, 7.5, 4, 5.4, 6 |
0.284 |
189
|
15.2 |
53, 11.8, 5.2, 7.5, 4, 5.4, 6 |
Okhla (Ramaiah & Ramana, 2017Ramaiah, B.J., & Ramana, G.V. (2017). Study of stress-strain and volume change behaviour of emplaced municipal solid waste using large-scale triaxial testing. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 63, 366-379.) |
0.141 |
77
|
1 |
0, 0, 0.8, 0, 0, 98.2 |
0.162 |
118
|
1 |
0, 0, 0.8, 0, 0, 98.2 |
0.270 |
147
|
4 |
0, 0, 6.2, 0, 0, 89.8 |
0.102 |
213
|
4 |
0, 0, 6.2, 0, 0, 89.8 |
Ghazipur (Ramaiah & Ramana, 2017Ramaiah, B.J., & Ramana, G.V. (2017). Study of stress-strain and volume change behaviour of emplaced municipal solid waste using large-scale triaxial testing. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 63, 366-379.) |
0.066 |
80
|
0 |
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100 |
0.090 |
78
|
0 |
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100 |
0.154 |
175
|
0 |
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100 |
0.127 |
85
|
3.3 |
0, 0, 4.5, 0, 0, 92.2 |
0.217 |
105
|
3.3 |
0, 0, 4.5, 0, 0, 92.2 |
0.413 |
141
|
3.3 |
0, 0, 4.5, 0, 0, 92.2 |
Austin Community (Zalachoris, 2010Zalachoris, G. (2010). Field measurements of linear and nonlinear shear moduli of solid municipal waste using a dynamically loaded surface footing [MS Thesis, The University of Texas]. The University of Texas’s repository.) |
0.22
|
65 - 105 |
2.0 |
−, 5.0, −, −, 1.0, 92 |
Michigan Subtitle D (Hanson et al., 2010Hanson, J.L., Yesiller, N., Von Stockhausen, S., & Wong, W.W. (2010). Compaction characteristics of municipal solid waste. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(8), 1095-1102.) |
0.34
|
49 - 71
|
19.0, |
25.0, 24.0, 6.0, 7.0, 6.0, 7.0, 6.0, |
Valdemingómez (van Elk et al., 2014van Elk, A.G.P., Mañas, L.M.S., & Boscov, M.E.G. (2014). Field survey of compressibility of municipal solid waste. Soil and Rocks, 37(1), 85-95.) |
0.22
|
70 - 140 |
14.0 |
59, 6.0, −, 4, 8.0, −, 9 |