YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Flow past Bench-Scale Vertical Ground-Water Cutoff Walls

    Source: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering:;2000:;Volume ( 126 ):;issue: 006
    Author:
    Taeyoon Lee
    ,
    Craig H. Benson
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:6(511)
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: An experimental study was conducted to evaluate factors affecting flow rates past soil-bentonite (SB), geomembrane (GM), and composite geomembrane-soil (CGS) vertical cutoff walls. Intact walls and walls containing defects (inadequate keys, windows, and poor joint seals) were studied. For intact cutoff walls, CGS walls had the lowest flow rate, followed by SB and GM walls. CGS walls typically had flow rates as much as 100 times lower than comparable GM walls. Flow rates increased by a factor of 2–160 when the GM walls contained defective joints or the SB walls contained permeable windows. For all wall types, an effective key was required to achieve low flow rate past the wall. For GM walls, under seepage was not effectively controlled when the GM was placed in direct contact with the aquitard. Flow rates for GM walls placed in direct contact with the aquitard were nearly equal to the aquifer flow rate without a wall. Better control of underseepage was possible with SB and CGS walls placed in direct contact with the aquitard because the soft bentonitic backfill conformed to the surface of the aquitard. Hydraulic conductivity of unsealed joints in GM walls was estimated from flow rates past GM walls where a portion of the joint was unsealed. These hydraulic conductivities ranged between 1.8 × 10
    • Download: (190.5Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Flow past Bench-Scale Vertical Ground-Water Cutoff Walls

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/51901
    Collections
    • Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorTaeyoon Lee
    contributor authorCraig H. Benson
    date accessioned2017-05-08T21:27:00Z
    date available2017-05-08T21:27:00Z
    date copyrightJune 2000
    date issued2000
    identifier other%28asce%291090-0241%282000%29126%3A6%28511%29.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/51901
    description abstractAn experimental study was conducted to evaluate factors affecting flow rates past soil-bentonite (SB), geomembrane (GM), and composite geomembrane-soil (CGS) vertical cutoff walls. Intact walls and walls containing defects (inadequate keys, windows, and poor joint seals) were studied. For intact cutoff walls, CGS walls had the lowest flow rate, followed by SB and GM walls. CGS walls typically had flow rates as much as 100 times lower than comparable GM walls. Flow rates increased by a factor of 2–160 when the GM walls contained defective joints or the SB walls contained permeable windows. For all wall types, an effective key was required to achieve low flow rate past the wall. For GM walls, under seepage was not effectively controlled when the GM was placed in direct contact with the aquitard. Flow rates for GM walls placed in direct contact with the aquitard were nearly equal to the aquifer flow rate without a wall. Better control of underseepage was possible with SB and CGS walls placed in direct contact with the aquitard because the soft bentonitic backfill conformed to the surface of the aquitard. Hydraulic conductivity of unsealed joints in GM walls was estimated from flow rates past GM walls where a portion of the joint was unsealed. These hydraulic conductivities ranged between 1.8 × 10
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleFlow past Bench-Scale Vertical Ground-Water Cutoff Walls
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume126
    journal issue6
    journal titleJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:6(511)
    treeJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering:;2000:;Volume ( 126 ):;issue: 006
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian