Slug Test in Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Walls Using a Push-In Piezometer Tip

Britton, J. P.; Filz, George M.; Herring, Wayne E.

doi:10.1061/40789(168)42

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2. The volumes are the laboratory specimen volumes and the approximate backfill volume represented in the slug tests based on estimated effective radii of 29.7 cm [8]. Narrow ranges of k were obtained for a given test type and stress, indicating a high degree of homogeneity in the backfill.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Backfill Hydraulic Conductivity in an Instrumented Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Wall

Barlow

Malusis

2018

Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics Volume 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4b). The shape factor, F, is based on the dimensions and depth of the well, and different methods for estimating F have been proposed in previous studies [5][6][7][8][9][10]. The shape factors proposed for SB walls by Britton et al [8] were used in this study.…”

Section: In Situ (Slug) Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Backfill Hydraulic Conductivity in an Instrumented Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Wall

Barlow

Malusis

2018

Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics Volume 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Slug tests that fail to pass the permeability criterion can be inspected with an optical logger to check for coring-induced cracking. Slug tests in cutoff walls establish a three-dimensional flow regime, and the data should be reduced with an appropriate method, such as described by Britton et al (2002Britton et al ( , 2005 or Choi and Daniel (2006). The Hvorslev (1951) method should not be used because it overestimates the permeability of cutoff walls in aquifers.…”

Section: Permeabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Control and Quality Assurance Methods for Cutoff Walls in Dams and Levees

Bruce¹,

Filz

2013

Geo-Congress 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detailed performance assessments of many existing dams and levees have demonstrated a need to install cutoff walls to reduce seepage quantities and provide protection against internal erosion and piping. Cutoff walls can be constructed by removal and replacement technologies or by in-situ mixing technologies. In either case, a high level of quality control (QC) by the construction contractor is necessary to produce an effective barrier, and sound quality assurance (QA) activities are necessary to provide the owner with confidence that the result will perform as intended. This paper provides descriptions of different cutoff wall construction technologies and appropriate QC/QA activities to accompany each. The principal objectives of QC/QA programs are to produce and verify cutoff walls with the necessary geometry, homogeneity, integrity, permeability, strength, and deformability. QC/QA programs include component material certifications and tests, construction process observations, construction process records, observations and tests of samples from the completed cutoff wall, and tests of completed cutoff wall performance at specific locations. Appropriate application and details of these QC/QA components differ in important ways for the different types of cutoff wall. This paper provides guidance regarding QC/QA methods and data interpretation.

show abstract

“…A vertical cutoff wall is one of the viable subsurface containment facilities that can effectively restrict lateral spreading of contaminated groundwater. The hydraulic conductivity of vertical cutoff walls can be evaluated by performing a slug test on a well within the wall (Teeter and Clemence ; Yang et al ; Britton et al ; Choi and Daniel , ; Choi ). The slug test is a preferred in situ test due to its convenience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytical Interpretation of Slug Test in a Vertical Cutoff Wall

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An analysis method for slug tests performed in a partially penetrating well within a vertical cutoff wall is presented. A steady-state shape factor for evaluating hydraulic conductivity of the material within the wall was derived by applying the method of images to the previously developed analytical solution of Zlotnik et al. (2010) for an infinite aquifer. Two distinct boundary conditions were considered: constant-head boundary for the case of direct contact between the wall and the aquifer, and no-flux boundary representing an impermeable filter cake on the sides of the wall. The constant-head and no-flux boundary conditions yield significantly higher and lower shape factors, respectively, than those for the infinite aquifer. Consequently the conventional line-fitting method for slug test analysis would yield an inaccurate estimate of the hydraulic conductivity of a vertical cutoff wall.

show abstract

Slug Test in Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Walls Using a Push-In Piezometer Tip

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Assessment of Backfill Hydraulic Conductivity in an Instrumented Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Wall

Assessment of Backfill Hydraulic Conductivity in an Instrumented Soil-Bentonite Cutoff Wall

Quality Control and Quality Assurance Methods for Cutoff Walls in Dams and Levees

Analytical Interpretation of Slug Test in a Vertical Cutoff Wall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About