Comparison of Four Methods to Assess Hydraulic Conductivity

Abstract

A hydraulic conductivity assessment that was conducted on four test pads constructed to the same specifications with soil from the same source by four different contractors is described. The test pads had distinctly different field hydraulic conductivities, even though they were constructed with similar soil, to similar compaction conditions, and with similar machinery. Adequate hydration time was key in achieving low field hydraulic conductivity. More extensive processing was another factor responsible for low field hydraulic conductivity. Four different test methods were used to assess the hydraulic conductivity of each test pad: (1) sealed double-ring infiltrometers (SDRIs); (2) two-stage borehole permeameters; (3) laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests on large block specimens; and (4) laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests on small specimens collected in thin-wall sampling tubes. The tests were conducted independently by each of the writers. After the tests were completed, the results were submitted and compared. Analysis of the test results shows that the three large-scale test methods generally yield similar hydraulic conductivities. For two of the test pads, however, the hydraulic conductivities of the specimens collected in sampling tubes were significantly lower than the field hydraulic conductivities. Both of these test pads had high field hydraulic conductivity. Thus, there is little value in using small specimens to assess field hydraulic conductivity.