焚化底渣與地工合成材界面摩擦性之探討

Interfacial Shear Strength Characterstics of

Incinerator Bottom Ash

Interfacial Shear Strength Characterstics of Incinerator Bottom Ash

Student Pei-Hsuan Wu

Advisor Hsin-Yu Shan

A Thesis

Submitted to Institute of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering

National Chiao Tung University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

In

Civil Engineering

August 2007

82 20-25 %

2.31

4

79-82 % 61-71 %

51-58 % 26-52 % 30-33

Interfacial Shear Strength Characterstics of

Incinerator Bottom Ash

Student Pei-Hsuan Wu Advisor Dr. Hsin-Yu Shan

Department of Civil Engineering

National Chiao Tung University

ABSTRACT

In Taiwan, Municipal solid wastes (MSW) were primarily disposed in landfills in the past. Due to the limitation of population density and availability of land, the incineration of MSW has become widely used since 1993. After incineration, 20-25 % by weight of incinerator ashes are produced.

Even if some researchers have conducted investigations with the possibility of incinerator ashes as a potential material for construction applications, landfilling is still the primary method of disposal of these materials. On the other hand, geosynthetics have become essential components of the bottom lining system of MSW landfills because of their capabilities of drainage, barrier, reinforcement, separation and filtration, etc. As a result, the incinerator ashes/geosynthetics interface friction is an important parameter in the design of landfills.

In this study, an experimental program was conducted to determine the engineering properties of incinerator bottom ashes and the interfacial shear strength between ashes and geosynthetics. Direct shear test was performed for the incinerator bottom ashes and five geosynthetics (woven and two types of nonwoven geotextiles, textured and smooth geomembranes) interfaces. Furthermore, the shear tests on the interface between bottom ashes and

geosynthetics were conducted to investigate the difference of shear strength parameters under water-saturated and unsaturated conditions.

The results show that the incinerator bottom ash of MSW has advantages such as high permeability and low compressibility. The shape of the bottom ash is generally irregular, angular and rough. In addition, the specific gravity of the bottom ash is 2.31. According to Unified Soil Classification System USCS , the bottom ash can be classified similar to well-graded sand SW .The internal friction angle of bottom ash was approximately 52.5°. The shear strength

decreased as the water content increased.

The interfacial shear strength decreased as the interface was conducted under water-saturated. This effect might be attributed to the loss of the suction and the decrease of effective stress at the ashes / geosynthetics interface, especially for woven geotextiles. The interfacial friction angle between the bottom ash and geosynthetics ranges from 26-82 % of the internal friction angle. Although the textured geomembranes have higher friction angle efficiency Eφ , the smooth geomembranes are still the main materials in the

... i ABSTRACT ... iii ... v ... vi ... x ... xi ... xiv ... 1 1-1 ...1 1-2 ...2 1-3 ...2 ... 4 2-1 ...4 2-1-1 ...4 2-1-2 ...7 2-2 ... 10 2-2-1 ... 10 2-2-2 ... 11 2-3 ... 12 2-3-1 ... 12

2-3-2 ... 16 2-3-3 ... 17 2-4 ... 19 2-4-1 ... 19 2-4-2 ... 22 2-5 ... 24 2-5-1 ... 24 2-5-2 ... 31 ... 33 3-1 ... 33 3-2 ... 37 3-2-1 ... 37 3-2-2 ... 41 3-3 ... 43 3-3-1 ... 44 3-3-2 ... 45 3-3-3 ... 45 3-3-4 ... 46 3-4 ... 47 ... 49

4-1 ... 49 4-1-1 ... 50 4-1-2 ... 50 4-2 ... 51 4-2-1 ... 51 4-2-2 ... 53 4-2-3 ... 54 4-2-4 ... 55 4-2-5 ... 56 4-3 ... 57 4-4 ... 58 4-4-1 ... 58 4-4-2 ... 59 4-5 ... 62 4-5-1 ... 62 4-5-2 ... 62 4-5-3 ... 64 4-5-4 ... 66 ... 68 5-1 ... 68 5-2 ... 77

5-2-1 ... 77 5-2-2 ... 82 5-3 ... 86 5-3-1 ... 86 5-3-2 ... 91 ... 93 6-1 ... 93 6-2 ... 94 ... 96

2.1 2004 ... 11 2.2 1998 ... 14 2.3 ... 14 2.4 1995 ... 17 2.5 Muhunthhan et al. 2004 ... 19 2.6 1996 .. 21

2.7 Koerner and Martin 1997 ... 30

2.8 2004 ... 30 2.9 2000 ... 31 2.10 2000 ... 32 3.1 ... 36 4.1 ... 49 4.2 ... 51 4.3 ... 55 4.4 ... 57 4.5 ... 58 5.1 ... 69 5.2 ... 79 5.3 ... 90 5.4 ... 92

1.1 ... 2 2.1 2005 ... 4 2.2 2006 ... 6 2.3 2007 ... 7 2.4 2007 ... 8 2.5 2007 ... 8 2.6 2007 ... 9 2.7 2006 ... 9 2.8 Muhunthan et al. 2004 . 16 2.9 Parsons 1936 ... 20 2.10 a b Bove 1990 ... 22 2.11 1995 ... 23 2.12 John, A.B. 1990 ... 25 2.13 a b Jogi 2005 . 27 3.1 HDPE ... 34 3.2 HDPE ... 34 3.3 ... 35 3.4 ... 35 3.5 ... 36 3.6 ... 38 3.7 a b ... 39 3.8 a b ... 40 3.9 ... 41

3.10 a b ... 42 3.11 ... 43 4.1 ... 50 4.2 a b ... 52 4.3 ... 53 4.4 ... 54 4.5 ... 55 4.6 ... 56 4.7 ... 57 4.8 ... 59 4.9 ... 61 4.10 ... 61 4.11 ... 63 4.12 ... 63 4.13 ... 65 4.14 ... 65 5.1 ... 71 5.2 ... 71 5.3 ... 72 5.4 ... 72 5.5 ... 73 5.6 ... 73 5.7 ... 74 5.8 ... 74 5.9 ... 75

5.10 ... 75 5.11 ... 76 5.12 ... 80 5.13 ... 80 5.14 ... 81 5.15 ... 81 5.16 ... 82 5.17 ... 83 5.18 ... 84 5.19 ... 84 5.20 ... 85 5.21 ... 85 5.22 ... 88 5.23 ... 88 5.24 ... 89 5.25 ... 89 5.26 ... 92

LOI

c

u

c

z

c

c

c

s

c

r

c

φ

c*

φ∗

c

a

δ

c

a

*

δ∗

γ

dmax

O.M.C.

E

c

E

φ

82

1-1

95 94

577 55 %

1-2

1.1

1.1

2-1

2-1-1

89 93 20.12±1.05 % 32.99±4.24 % 3.36±1.04 % 5.76±0.88 % 23.83±4.55 % 2.1 2.1 2005

95 2006 94 95.97 38.64 38.15 13.78 4.03 2.08 0.85 94 89 93 95 2.2 94 201 26 4 300 22 300 3 94 577 560 102 2006 3 7 94 27 26-27 %

2-1-2

2000 88 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.3 2007

2.4 2007

2.6 2007

2-2

Ash

2-2-1

2004 Shifting Grate ash

Boiler ash Dust

collector ash scrubber ash

2005 20-40 µm

2004

2.1 2004 4-6 mm 1 mm 4-6 mm 6 mm 15 % 90 %

2-2-2

1995 SiO2 CaCO3 CaCO3 SiO2 glass 2004 Pb Zn Arm Maria 2004

LOI

2-3

2-3-1

1. 1995 1998 2004

2. 1995 21.9-26.1 % 24.6 % 4 Gs 2.48-2.69 2.62 2.56-2.76 2.68 2.65 2.6-2.8 53 % 4 37 % 4 200 200 6 % cu 51 cz 2.8 GW-GM Wiles 1996 15-25 % Pandeline et al. 1997 RDF Refuse-Derived-Fuel MB Mass-Burn 1998 4 2.76

200 10 % 200 10% cu 24.4 cz 0.89 NP SW 2.2 2.2 1998

#4 (%)

#200 (%) D

10

(mm) c

u

c

z

62

2

0.18

24.4 0.89 NP

SW

2.3 1.8-2.8 20 % 2.3 Site Gs w (%) Tay 1991
2.45 - NP SP Pandeline 1997
2.55-2.79 15-21 - SW 1995 2.65 24.6 - GW-GM 1998
2.76 23.5 NP SW 2.6 24.5 NP SW 2.03 - - SP 2.02 - - SW 1.83 - - SW 3.

Goh Anthony et al. 1993 γdmax

OMC 14 kN/m3 30.7 % 18 kN/m3

1995 5-25 % 14.8-16.2 % 16.2-18.14 kN/m3 1998 cv cc 0.003-0.068 cs 0.001-0.011 > > 60 %>80 % Muhunthan et al. 2004 2.8 15.4 kN/m3 26.8 % 45 % 10.8 kN/m3

2.8 Muhunthan et al. 2004

2-3-2

1995 0-60 90 % cc 0.18-0.26 0.043 cr 0.0045 1998 cc 0.003-0.068 cs 0.001-0.011

Arm Maria 2004

2-3-3

1995 2.4 3-D 2.4 1995 w (%) 5% 15% 25% 15% 15% 15% γd (kN/m3) 12.75 13.12 14.25 17.76 12.75 13.1 c (kPa) 16.4 16.5 30.6 82.5 13.6 15.7 φ (°) 34.3 32.4 40.8 47.9 34.1 36.5

1998 150 150 mm 6-14 kPa 25-43° Zeller 1957 10-15 % Pandeline et al. 1997 13.8-34.5 kPa pozzolonic cementing reaction 24-50° 4 8 Muhunthan et al. 2004 2.5 7.7 kPa 50.7°

2.5 Muhunthhan et al. 2004

(%)

(%)

φ



°



c (kPa)

φ



°



c (kPa)

100

0 29.3

3.4 20.8

34.1

60

40 33.8

3 22.2

34.4

0

100 50.2

9.6 50.7

7.7

45

0

-

-OMC

2-4

2-4-1

1. Parsons 1936 1.5-9.8 kPa 2.9 30.7-31.5°

Palmeira and Milligan 1989 Leighton Buzzard

2.9 Parsons 1936 Vallejo et al. 1996 100 100 mm Cerato et al. 2006 60 101.6 304.8 mm 60 mm 304.8 mm 10° 10 %

Koerner 1997 300 300 mm 100 100 mm 1996 150 150 mm 200 200 mm 300 300 mm 2.6 150 150 mm 300 300 mm 2-7° 2.6 1996 OMC OMC 150 × 150 29.0 32.3 27.3 25.4 27.7 24.0 200 × 200 27.1 29.1 23.8 23.6 27.2 18.8 300 × 300 24.3 27.2 20.6 19.9 25.8 17.7 mm×mm Ling et al. 2001 100 100 mm ASTM 2. John A. Bove 1990

2.10 a b 2.10 a b Bove 1990

2-4-2

SD 128-87 1 2 3

Lowe 1964

1995

2.11 S-model P-model

M-model S-model

2-5

2-5-1

John A. Bove 1990 2.12 a b c d

2.12 John, A.B. 1990 Koerner 1997 Ec Eφ 1 2

(

)

(

tan tan

)

100%...(2) E ...(1) ... ... ... ... ... % 100 ⋅ = ⋅ = φ δ φ c c E_{c a} Ec Eφ

Rowe 1962

sliding friction effect

rearrangement effect

dilatancy effect

Lee and Seed 1967

crushing effect

Koerner 1970

morphological effect

1988

Williams and Houlihan 1986

Koutsourais et al. 1991

Mitchell et al. 1990 Von Pein et al. 1991

Orman 1994 MH

d80

1

Izgin et al. 1998 Vallejo et al. 1996

optimum particle size

Jogi 2005 5-30 kPa 100 100 mm

2.13 c

Deatherage et al. 1987 Collios et al. 1980 EOS Dembicki 1991 300 300 mm bending rigidity

1991 EOS Koutsourais et al. 1991 300 300 mm HDPE VLDPE HDPE

Koerner and Martin 1997 2.7

2.7 Koerner and Martin 1997

concrete sand

(φ =30°) Ottawa sand (φ =28°) Mica schist sand (φ =26°)

smooth HDPE 18 18 17 rough PVC 27 - 25 smooth PVC 25 - 21 nonwoven needle-punched 30 26 25 nonwoven heat-bonded 26 - -woven monofilament 26 - -woven slit-film 24 24 23 Soil type geomembrane geotextile 2004 2.8 2.8 2004

geosynthetics soil size (mm) condition n (kPa) shear rate (mm/min) ca (kPa) δ (°) reference

Tx HDPE sandy clay 300×300 hydrated 7-35 1 0-7 25-42 Tx HDPE silty sand 300×300 hydrated 7-35 1 0-5 33-42 Tx HDPE sandy silt 300×300 hydrated 7-35 1 0-4 23-47 Nw GT sand 300×300 hydrated 20-62 0.0025-0.25 0 30-40 Wv GT sand 300×300 hydrated 20-62 0.0025-0.25 0 28-40 Sm HDPE sand 300×300 hydrated 20-62 0.0025-0.25 0 26-28 Rg HDPE sand 300×300 hydrated 20-62 0.0025-0.25 0 30-41 Sm HDPE sand 100×100 saturated 14-100 0.127 0 17-18 Nw GT sand 100×100 saturated 14-100 0.127 0 25-30 Wv GT sand 100×100 saturated 14-100 0.127 0 23-26 Nw GT sand 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 0.6-1.2 25-34 Wv GT sand 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 0-1.2 35 Sm HDPE sand 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 0.6-0.7 19-27 Nw GT Sapolite 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 0.8-1.5 29-30 Wv GT Sapolite 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 1.5 31 Sm HDPE Sapolite 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 0.4 21 Nw GT clay 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 1.3-1.8 39-45 Wv GT clay 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 2 43 Sm HDPE clay 300×300 saturated 5-25 0.3 1 25

Criley and John (1997) Koutsourais et al. (1991) Martin et al. (1984) Williams and Houlihan (1987)

2-5-2

2000 300 300 mm 88 186.5 kg/m3 50.48 % 38.62 % 10.9 % 60 % 80 % 80 % 23 % 20 % 0 % 2.9 2000

c (kPa)

φ

(

°)

1

60

0

1

26.9

2

60

20

4.35

22.1

3

80

0

4.75

33.3

4

80

20 24.35

26.3

Dr (%)

w (%)

1 mm/min 2.9 1-24.35 kPa 22.1-33.3°

2.10 0-7.08 kPa 19.1-25.7° - -2.10 2000 ca (kPa)  (°) 1 60 0 5.52 19.1 68 2 60 20 7.08 19.9 92 3 80 0 2.04 24.6 71 4 80 5 0 24.3 -5 80 20 1.5 25.7 97 E_φ Dr (%) w (%)

3-1

NIEA R119.00C 240 5.5 16,000 24 450 Collins 1977 38.1 mm 50 kg HDPE 1 mm 100 200 g/m2 3.1-5 3.1

3.1 HDPE

3.3

3.5 3.1 (g/m2) 940 940 373 100 +30/-20 200 (mm) 0.9-1 0.85-1 0.32 0.4 ±0.2 1.67 (mm) 0.25 (kN/m) 16 15 4 (N) 138 135 110 (N) 352 270 150

Apparent opening size O95 (mm) 0.25

(cm/s) 0.15

3-2

ASTM ASTM

3-2-1

3.6 0.005-0.25 mm/min 10 mm 5 kN 3.7 3.8 100 90 20 mm 100 90 20 mm 60 mm

(a)

(b)

a

b

3-2-2

3.9 100 90 20 mm 1 mm 2 mm 3.10 3.9

a

b

3-3

3.11 ASTM

3-3-1

1. ASTM D422-63 2. ASTM D854-92 4.75 mm 4.75 mm ASTM C127-04 3. ASTM D2216-92 4. LL PL PI ASTM D4318-05 PL PL LL NP

5. ASTM D698 D1557 5−6

3-3-2

3/8 9.52 mm

3-3-3

ASTM D2435-04 5 kPa 24

6 12 25 50 100 200 kPa 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 15 30 1 2 4 8 24 -cv cv Taylor Casagrande -cc cs av mv

3-3-4

ASTM D3080-90 24 70 155 225 kPa 15 %

3.1 3.2 ) 1 . 3 ( .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 50 t₅₀ t_f = ⋅ ) 2 . 3 ( ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... f f r d t d = mm failure at nt displaceme horizontal estimated d mm rate nt displaceme d failure to time elapsed estimate total t stress normal specified the under ion consolidat percent achieve to specimen the for required time t f r f , min / , min , min , 50 50 -c φ

3-4

1 2 24 3 70 155 225 kPa

100 % t100 t100 4 15 % 5 ca

4-1

95 4 4.1 70 % 30 % 80 % 4.1 47.26 45.01 48.77 6.22 2.3 38.12 43.71 18.17 4.7 41.94 38.49 19.57 11.53 33.99 43.06 22.95 24.94 38.25 46.58 15.17 1.71 42.21 51.31 6.48 1.99 33.52 47.03 19.45 0.81 37.21 0 100 1.13 23.58 0 100 1.76 8.78 0 100 ( …) 1.87 32.75 0 100 100 40.3 44.3 15.4 (%) (%) (%) (%)

4-1-1

4.1 40.3 % 44.3 % 249 kg/m3 15.4 % 4.1

4-1-2

4.2 C 24.6 % O 15 % H 3.55 % LOI LOI ARM 2004 LOI LOI 7 % 200 tons/day 10 % LOI 5 %

4.2 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) _(C/N) 1 22.6 3.3 0.68 22.1 0.08 0.05 33.16 2 26.2 3.45 2.22 11.3 0.47 0.06 11.8 3 26.7 3.57 1 7 0.12 0.06 26.74 4 24.1 3.11 1.73 13.8 0.19 0.08 13.94 5 32.9 4.94 0.36 8.29 0.09 0.05 91.25 6 31.3 3.83 0.42 15.2 0.48 0.08 74.55 7 30.7 4.34 7.46 2.95 1.53 0.08 4.11 24.6 3.55 0.86 15.0 0.14 0.05 28.6

4-2

4-2-1

4.2-(a) 4.2-(b)

(a)

(b)

4-2-2

300 g 32.15 % 26.69 % 4 4 4.3 Gs 2.31 Tay et al. (1991) 2.27-2.67 4.3

4-2-3

1.5 kg 4.4 38.1 mm 1½ 38.1 mm 4 4.75 mm 40 0.425 mm 56−70% 200 0.075 mm 0.5−2.38 % 4.4 152H 200 4.5 D10 0.185 mm D30 0.86 mm D60 3.965 mm cu 21.43 cz 1.01

4.5

4-2-4

25 NP 4.3 SW 4.3 #4 (%) #200(%) D10 (mm) D30 (mm) D60 (mm) cu cz PI 18.3 2.38 0.185 0.86 3.965 21.4324 1.0083 NP

4-2-5

4.6 4.6 OMC 20 % γdmax 1.54 g/cm3 18.7 % 1.58 g/cm3

4-3

4.7 3/8 9.52 mm 3/8 200 SW 4.4 D10 SW cu 4.7 4.4 #200 (%) #4 D10 (mm)

c

u

c

z PI 2.38 18.3 0.19 21.43 1.01 NP SW 2.69 20.7 0.17 12.94 1.06 NP SW

4.5 20 % 1.54 g/cm3 20 % 4.5 (%) (g/cm3) (%) (g/cm3) SW 2.31 20 1.54 18.7 1.58

4-4

4-4-1

4.8 6 50 % 6 200 kPa 1.235 mm 1.762 mm 5 0.133 mm 0.232 mm

4.8

4-4-2

4.9

4.10 cc cs cc 0.09 cs 0.03 cc 0.14 cs 0.04 cc 0.2 0.4 - A B Taylor t90 ASTM D3080 4.1 t50 ) 1 . 4 ( ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 28 . 4 90 50 t t = cv av mv k

4.9

4-5

0.05 mm/min 9 mm 33 % 20 %

4-5-1

4.11 dilatancy effect

4-5-2

4.12 15 %

4.11

2-4 mm

4-5-3

-4.13 c φ c 43.7 kPa φ 46.6° c 34.8 kPa φ 47.8° c 40° 45° 46-47° 4.14 c* 0 kPa φ∗ 52.6° φ∗ 52.4°

4.13

4-5-4

2000 249 kg/cm3 186.5 kg/cm3 40.3 % 44.3 % 15.4 % 50.48 % 38.62 % 10.9 % 2.6-2.76 2.31 23.4-25.7 % 32.15 % 26.69 % 4 D10 0.1 mm cu 10 cz 1.0 SW D10 0.1 mm cu 10 cz 1.0 SW D10 0.185 mm cu 21 cz 1.0 SW D10 0.17 mm cu 13 cz 1.0 SW Cu 2000 1.32 g/cm3 OMC γdmax 20 % 1.54 g/cm3

60 80 % 0 20 % 50-200 kPa 1 mm/min 0.05 mm/min ASTM

1.0-24.35 kPa 22.1-33.3°

34.8-43.7 kPa 46.7-47.8°

33 % 20 %

5-1

5.1-5 -5.6-10 5.1 5.2 Fleming et al. 2006 5.1 70 kPa 68 kPa 155

1 mm 2 mm 3 mm 5 mm 5.1 kPa mm kPa mm 70 95.1 2.0 47.9 0.9 155 163.1 2.6 116.9 2.2 225 230.0 4.5 146.1 3.7 70 87.1 2.7 54.8 0.7 155 175.9 4.7 103.4 1.8 225 222.0 5.2 146.8 2.9 kPa 5.3 John 1990 5.4 5.5 5.11

5.6 5.7 4-6 mm 5.8 5.9 6 mm 5.10

5.1

5.3

5.5

5.7

5.9

5-2

5.2 ca BS 6906 ca=0

5-2-1

5.12-16 ca 7.5-12.8 kPa 30.5-32.6° 5.12 5 kPa 2° 5.13 ca 30.1-32.5 kPa 41-41.2° 1 kPa ca -14.2-1.9 kPa 17.8-28.7° 5.14 20° 10° 5.15 ca 8.5-13.7 kPa 35.5-37.7° ca 6.5-8.8 kPa 19-21.6° 5.16 5 kPa 2°

ca 1-5 kPa

5.2 (%) (kPa) (kPa) 70 54.8 155 103.4 225 146.8 70 47.9 155 116.9 225 146.1 70 87.1 155 175.9 225 222.0 70 95.1 155 163.1 225 230.0 70 28.4 155 60.7 225 114.1 70 25.0 155 50.7 225 75.0 70 65.6 155 122.1 225 182.5 70 63.5 155 124.2 225 173.8 70 37.1 155 62.1 225 91.9 70 33.0 155 62.1 225 86.4 70 116.9 155 210.3 225 281.0 70 104.1 155 223.4 225 273.4 21% 33% 21% 30% 20% 30% 20% 33% 22% 33% 21% 36%

5.12

5.14

5.16

5-2-2

ca*=0 5.17-21 * _{33-34° 5.17} * _{46.3-46.5° 5.18}

* _{18.4-25° 5.19}

7° 5.20

* _{38-39° 21.5-23.5° 5.21}

7° 1-2°

5.18

5.20

5-3

5-3-1

5.22-25 Koerner 1997 Ec 5.22 0.69 Ec 0.5 Ec 5.23 Ec 0.93 0.05 Eφ Eφ 0.82 Eφ 0.79 Eφ 0.33 Eφ 0.29 Eφ 0.56 0.58 Eφ 5.24-25 Eφ

0.36 0.26 5.24 5.25 Eφ 0.26 5.3 4.6-4.9° 2-10° 2-6° Eφ 0.01-0.16

5.22

5.24

5.3

c

43.7 Ec

- c

0 Ec

-φ

46.7 E

_φ

-

φ

52.6 E

_φ

-c

34.8 Ec

- c

0 Ec

-φ

47.8 E

_φ

-

φ

52.4 E

_φ

-c

_a

_{30.1 Ec 0.69 c}

_a

_{0 Ec}

-41.2 E

_φ

0.82

46.3 E

_φ

0.8

c

_a

32.5 Ec 0.93 c

a

0 Ec

-41 E

φ

0.79

46.5 E

φ

0.81

c

_a

12.8 Ec 0.29 c

a

0 Ec

-30.6 E

_φ

0.56

33.6 E

_φ

0.51

c

_a

7.7 Ec 0.22 c

a

0 Ec

-32.6 E

_φ

0.58

34.3 E

_φ

0.53

c

_a

-14 Ec

- c

a

0 Ec

-28.7 E

_φ

0.52

25 E

_φ

0.36

c

a

1.9 Ec 0.05 c

a

0 Ec

-17.8 E

_φ

0.29

18.4 E

_φ

0.26

c

_a

_{10.7 Ec 0.24 c}

_a

_{0 Ec}

-36.9 E

_φ

0.71

39.1 E

_φ

0.62

c

_a

_{13.7 Ec 0.39 c}

_a

_{0 Ec}

-35.8 E

φ

0.65

38.3 E

φ

0.61

c

_a

_{11 Ec 0.25 c}

_a

_{0 Ec}

-19.4 E

_φ

0.33

22.5 E

_φ

0.32

c

_a

8.8 Ec 0.25 c

a

0 Ec

-19 E

_φ

0.31

21.5 E

_φ

0.3

5-3-2

2000 2 mm HDPE 1 mm HDPE 20 % 1.5-7.08 kPa 19.9-25.7° 12.8 kPa 30.6° 33.6° Eφ 92-97 % 51-56 % Takasumi et al. 1991 Eφ Dembicki et al. 1990 5.4 300 300 mm 100 100 mm Dembicki et al. 1990 Eφ 5.26 0.8 Eφ 0.9

5.4 δ(°) Eφ 41° 37 0.9 30° 26.2 0.87 52.6° 39.1 0.62 2007 41° 35 0.85 30° 24.1 0.83 52.6° 22.5 0.32 2007 Dembicki et al. 1990 Dembicki et al. 1990 5.26

6-1

2.31 4 40 cc 15 % 34.8-43.7 kPa 46.7-47.8° 52.4-52.6°

79-82 % 61-71 % 51-58 % 26-52 % 30-33 %

[1] 2000 , 88 , [2] 2006 , 95 , [3] 2006 , , [4] 1998 , , [5] 1991 , , [6] 1995 , , [7] 1989 , , [8] (2004), , , 102 , 69-78 [9] 2000 , , [10] 2005 , , [11] 2005 , 94 , [12] 1998 , ,

[13] 2004 , , [14] 1997 , , , , 199-210 [15] 1996 , , [16] 1988 , , [17] 2004 , , , 23 , 3 , 408-414 [18] 1991 , , , 36 , 62-74 [19] 2004 , , , 102 , 5-14

[20] Arm Maria 2004 , Variation in Deformation Properties of Processed MSWI Bottom Ash Results From Triaxial Tests , Waste Management, Vol.24, No.10, pp.1035-1042.

[21] Cerato, A.B. Lutenegger A.J. 2006 , Speciment Size and Scale Effects

of Direct Shear Box Tests of Sands , Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol.29, No.6.

[22] Collios, A. Delmas, P. Giroud, J.P. 1980 , Experiments on Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles , The Use of Geotextiles for Soil

Improvement, ASCE National Convention, Portland, Oregon, pp.53-73. [23] Deatherage, J. David, J.R. Hansen, L.A. 1987 , Shear Testing of

Geomembrane Soil Interfaces , Geotechnical Aspects of Head Leach Design, Society of Mining Engineers, pp.45-50.

[24] Dembicki, E. Jermolowicz, P. 1991 , Soil-Geotextile Interaction ,

Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.10, No.3, pp.249-268.

[25] Fleming, I.R. Sharma, J.S. Jogi, M.B. 2006 , Shear Strength of Geomembrane-Soil Interface under Unsaturated Conditions , Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.24, pp.274-284.

[26] Goh, A.T.C. Tay, J. 1993 , Municipal Solid-Waste Incinerator Fly Ash

for Geotechnical Applications , Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.119, No.5, pp. 811-825.

[27] Izgin, M. Wasti, Y. 1998 , Geomembrane-sand interface frictional properties as determined by inclined board and shear box tests , Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.16, pp.207-219.

[28] Jogi, M. 2005 , A Method for Measuring Smooth Geomembrane / Soil

Interface Shear Behaviour Under Unsaturated Conditions , A Thesis for the Degree of Master’s of Science in the Department of Civil Engineering

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK Canada.

[29] John A. Bove 1990 , Direct Shear Friction Testing for Geosynthetics in

Waste Containment , Geosynthetic Testing for Waste Containment Applications, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 241-256.

[30] Koerner, R. M. 1997 , Designing with Geosynthetics, 4th_{., Prentice Hall,}

New Jersey.

[31] Koutsourais, M.M. Sprague, C.J. 1991 , Interfacial Friction Study of

Cap and Liner Components for Landfill Design , Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.10, No.5-6, pp.149-166.

Interaction Between PVC Geomembranes and Compacted Clays ,

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.127, No.11, pp.950-954.

[33] Mitchell, J.K. Seed, R.B. Seed, H.B. 1990 , Kettleman Hills waste

landfill slope failure – I Liner-System Properties , Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.116, No.4, pp.647-668.

[34] Mitchell, J.K. Seed, R.B. Seed, H.B. 1990 , Stability Considerations

in the Design and Construction of Lined Waste Repositories. , Geotechnics of Solid Waste Fills Theory and Practice, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp.207-239. [35] Muhunthan, B. Taha, R. Said, J. 2004 , Geotechnical Engineering

Properties of Incinerator Ash Mixes , Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol.54, No.8, pp.985-991.

[36] Orman, M.E. 1994 , Interface Shear Strength Properties of Roughened

HDPE , Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.120, No.4, pp.758-761.

[37] Palmeira, E.M. Milligan, G.W.E. 1989 , Scale Effects in Direct Shear

Tests on Sand , Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.1, No.1, pp.739-742.

[38] Pandeline, D A Cosentino, P J Kalajian, E H Chavez, M F 1997 ,

Shear and Deformation Characteristics of Municipal Waste Combustor Bottom Ash for Highway Applications , Transportation Research Record No. 1577, TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C. , pp.101-108. [39] Parsons, J.D. 1936 , Progress Report on an Investigation of the Shearing

Resistance of Cohesionless Soils , Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.2, pp.133-138.

[40] Poran, Chaim J Ahtchi-Ali, Faouzi 1989 , Properties of Solid Waste

Incinerator Fly Ash , Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.115, No.8, pp.1118-1133.

[41] Takasumi, D.L. Green, K.R. Holtz, R.D. 1991 , Soil-Geosynthetics

Interface Strength Characteristics A Review of State-of-the-Art Testing Procedures , Geosynthetics ’91 Conference, Atlanta, USA, pp.87-100. [42] Tay, J. Goh, A.T.C. 1991 , Engineering Properties of Incinerator

Residue , Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol.117, No.2, pp.224-235.

[43] Vallejo, L.E. Zhou Y. 1996 , Interaction Between Geomembranes and

Granular Materials , Engineered Contaminated Soils and Interaction of Soil Geomembranes, ASCE, pp.82-96.

[44] Von Pein, R.T. Lewis, S.P. 1991 , Composite Lining System Design

Issues , Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.10, No.5, pp.507-511. [45] Williams, N.D. Houlihan, M.F. 1986 , Evaluation of Friction

Coefficients Between Geomembranes, Geotextiles and Related Products , the 3rd International Conference on Geotextiles, OIAV Vienna, Austria.