Published: Jan 2002
| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|PDF ()||22||$25||  ADD TO CART|
|Complete Source PDF (4.0M)||22||$60||  ADD TO CART|
For waste facilities, field assessment of the hydraulic conductivity of fine- grained soils has been a real challenge for the past decades that has led to several types of test methods. Although standards (ASTM, NF, etc.) have been adopted in many countries, any test method needs careful application for constructing quality-control programs. The type of apparatus, its geometry, and even specimen preparation may be major sources of discrepancy. We compared hydraulic-conductivity values obtained from various field-testing methods (open, sealed, single and double infiltrometers, and borehole methods), and laboratory-testing methods such as oedometer cells or rigid and flexible-wall permeameters. Three materials were tested in this study: a compacted sandbentonite mixture, compacted clayey silt, and natural sandy clay. The field tests were run on soil-test pads whose characteristics were defined beforehand in the laboratory and the field. Comparison of the results shows a large range of hydraulic-conductivity values for a single soil sample. Such variability can commonly be explained by a scale effect, as demonstrated by the use of various types of diameter or geometry for the field or laboratory tests. Soil behavior (swelling or shrinkage) and test-analysis methods (saturated or unsaturated-flow analysis) are other important parameters. In conclusion, we identified the main problems affecting tests with infiltrometers and permeameters, and how they can be reduced or avoided by the improvement of current techniques.
infiltration, hydraulic conductivity, clay liner, ring, infiltrometer, borehole, scale effect
Research Engineer, BRGM, Orléans,
Lecturer, URGC Géotechnique, INSA Lyon, BAT JCA Coulomb, Villeurbanne,