Developing Re-Use Applications
and Improving the Economic
Benefits of Florida’s Waste
Materials
By
Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
Howell H. Heck, III, Ph.D., P.E.
Background
Florida stockpiles large volumes of waste or
recyclable materials
– Examples:
Waste Glass
RAP
Concrete Rubble and Dust
Waste-to-Energy Ash
– Engineering characteristics of these materials may
be improved by adding common fill
Background (Cont.)
Proper re-use would produce savings for
Florida’s construction and landfill industries
Florida’s construction boom has caused a large
demand for quality fill
Engineering properties of RAP improved by
adding sand
Blending is common practice and often
economical
Objective
Evaluate Florida’s candidate waste materials
and improve their engineering behavior by
adding conventional fill to make them
economically attractive
Approach
Two year project
Nine Tasks to Accomplish Objectives
Flow
Chart
Identify Re-Usable Waste Streams
Identify Engineering
Environmental and
Economic Conditions
Sample Waste
Materials
Accept
Dry Rodded Unit Weight Evaluation
g
Reject
Reject
Mix %
Accept
Fundamental
Geotechnical Testing and
Analysis of Blends
Consistency and
Economic Impact
Accept
Reject
Reject
Landfill
Applications
Explanation of Tasks
1 – Identify Candidate Waste Materials
2 – Sampling
3 – Fundamental Geotechnical Testing
4 – Analysis of Testing
5 – Waste-Soil Mixing Program
6 – Waste-Soil Geotechnical Testing
7 – Analysis of Mixing Results
8 – Economic Impact of Re-Usable Materials
9 – Reporting, TAG Meetings & Specifications
Major Tasks
Year 1
– Select candidate materials from facilities statewide
– Perform fundamental geotechnical testing
– Choose materials with minimal environmental
concerns
RAP, waste glass and concrete rubble and dust
Year 2
– Perform Mixing Analysis
– Evaluate Economics
– Complete specifications describing proper use
Proposed Schedule
Expected Technical Results
Geotechnical engineering data base
Summary of economic impact for re-using
these materials
Specifications
Anticipated Benefits
Two end users groups will benefit:
– Contractors who use soils and borrow materials in highway
construction
– Landfill operators at solid waste or construction and
demolition landfills
Suitable fill is becoming costly. Providing more
choices, will control costs and save money.
Re-use of waste materials diverts them from the waste
stream, and reduces landfilling costs & increases
landfill space.
Related Work
A significant database of information exists to
expedite the proposed work
Waste products have engineering properties
that fall short of those needed for re-use in
highways
– Waste-to-energy ash
– Waste-glass
– RAP
Follow-up
FDOT has funded over a decade work in this area
without concentrating on economics.
A $261,000 24-month proposal has been funded to
continue work on RAP and RAP-soil mixes.
The funding request to the FCSHWM is considered a
supplement to the FDOT work.
Year 1 Budget
SALARIES & WAGES
PERSON-MONTHS
FUNDING
GRANTEE
FCSHWM
+
FCSHWM
EXTERNAL
Paul J. Cosentino PI
Howell H. Heck Co-PI
Laboratory Technician
Graduate Student
Undergraduate Students
FRINGE BENEFITS (Rate = 23.5 % of Base = $16,240)
PERMANENT EQUIPMENT
EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES
TRAVEL
OTHER COSTS
Tuition
TOTAL PROJECT DIRECT COSTS
INDIRECT COSTS
ON CAMPUS (Rate = 50% of Base = $ 22,806)
OFF CAMPUS (Rate = ___% of Base = $ _______)
TOTAL YEAR 1 COSTS PER SOURSE
GRAND TOTAL COST PER YEAR 1
1.6
0.4
0.25
10
9
2.5
0.75
11
8
GRANTEE
+
EXTERNAL
$ 12,600 $
$ 3,040
$
600 $
$ 12,100 $
$ 6,800 $
$ 3,816 $
$
$ 1,000 $
$ 1,750 $
20,000
$ 10,950 $
$ 52,656 $
22,365
123,091
1,800
31,680
12,800
7,896
4,000
3,250
7,500
$11,403+ $6,155
$ 52,626 $
129,246
$64,059+$129,246=$193,305
Year 2 Budget
SALARIES & WAGES
PERSON-MONTHS
FUNDING
GRANTEE
FCSHWM
+
FCSHWM
EXTERNAL
Paul J. Cosentino PI
Howell H. Heck Co-PI
Laboratory Technician
Graduate Student
Undergraduate Students
FRINGE BENEFITS (Rate = 23.5 % of Base = $16,240)
PERMANENT EQUIPMENT
EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES
TRAVEL
OTHER COSTS
Tuition
TOTAL PROJECT DIRECT COSTS
INDIRECT COSTS
ON CAMPUS (Rate = 50% of Base = $ 22,806)
OFF CAMPUS (Rate = ___% of Base = $ _______)
TOTAL YEAR 2 COSTS PER SOURSE
GRAND TOTAL COST PER YEAR 2
1.6
0.4
0.25
10
9
3
1.5
11
8
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,600
3,040
600
12,650
6,800
3,816
GRANTEE
+
EXTERNAL
$
24,720
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,000 $
1,750 $
3,600
31,680
12,800
10,759
2,000
4,500
$
$
10,950 $
53,206 $
18,000
125,521
$11,403+ $6,276
$ 53,206 $
131,797
$64,609+$131,797=$196,406
Technical Awareness Group
&
Peer Reviewers
David Horhota, Ph.D., P.E. State Geotechnical Materials Engineer,
FDOT, david.horhota@dot.state.fl.us
John Shoucair Geotechnical Materials Engineer, FDOT,
john.shoucair@dot.state.fl.us
David Westcott, Technical Service Manager Florida Region,
CEMEX Corp., david.westcott@cemexusa.com
Chris Brunais, Area Manager, APAC-Florida Melbourne Div.
clbrunais@ashland.com
Suzanne Boroff FDEP suzanne.boroff@dep.state.fl.us
Jim Langenbach, P.E. Senior Engineer, GeoSyntec Consultants,
jlangenbach@geosyntec.com
Summary
Waste Materials can be re-used in Highways
Economic Benefits to Construction Industry
Economic Benefits to the Solid Waste Industry
Environmental Benefits to the Public
Questions?