79

Methods of interpretation of borehole falling-head tests performed in compacted clay liners

Paul Chiasson

Abstract: The interpretation of falling-head tests in cased boreholes is discussed. These tests are commonly used to measure hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay liners and are often part of the construction quality assurance program. Three methods of interpretation are reviewed with data sets collected from real tests. Two of these methods have been the subject of past research by other authors: the Hvorslev, or time-lag, method and the velocity method. After the limitations of these two approaches have been underlined, a third method is proposed. It uses a best linear unbiased estimator to fit the theoretical head difference function in a plot of falling water column elevation as a function of time (Zt method). The Hvorslev method is found unreliable and is not recommended. The velocity method is theoretically sound, but statistical uncertainty can become high when this method is used in testing materials with low hydraulic conductivity, such as clay liners. Materials with low hydraulic conductivity tend to produce scattered velocity plots, creating considerable uncertainty for the estimated k value. The proposed Zt method is less sensitive to inaccuracies in measurements, yielding a more reproducible result. An interpretation method for stages I and II of two-stage borehole tests is also proposed. This method yields the anisotropy of the liner and the vertical hydraulic conductivity. As a result of inaccuracies in measurements and limited difference between the geometries of stages I and II, the computed anisotropy exhibits significant uncertainty. Key words: clay liners, clay covers, hydraulic conductivity, permeability, in situ test, anisotropy, interpretation. Rsum : Linterprtation dessais charge variable dans des forages tubs est discute. Ces essais sont communment utiliss pour valuer la conductivit hydraulique des barrires dargile compacte. Ils font gnralement partie du programme dassurance qualit pendant la construction. Trois mthodes dinterprtation sont abordes. Deux de ces mthodes sont demploi courant et ont t le sujet de plusieurs travaux de recherche : celle de Hvorslev et celle des vitesses. Aprs une discussion mettant en contraste les particularits et les limites de ces deux mthodes, une troisime mthode est propose. Celle-ci utilise la technique du meilleur estimateur linaire non-biais pour lisser la courbe thorique de la diffrence dlvation de la colonne deau en fonction du temps. La comparaison conclut que, pour les argiles compactes, la mthode de Hvorslev conduit des valeurs non fiables parce quon y suppose a priori la position dun niveau pizomtrique inconnu. Celle des vitesses permet en thorie de trouver ce niveau pizomtrique mais lincertitude statistique peut tre leve dans le cas des faibles conductivits hydrauliques. La mthode Zt propose est moins sensible aux incertitudes de mesure. Une mthode dinterprtation pour les tapes 1 et 2 de lessai deux tapes en forage ( two-stage borehole ) est propose. Elle permet de calculer lanisotropie de la barrire et la conductivit hydraulique verticale. Cette anisotropie ne peut pas tre connue avec prcision tant donnes les incertitudes de mesure et la faible diffrence entre les gomtries des tapes I et II de lessai. Mots cls : barrire hydraulique dargile, couverture en argile, conductivit hydraulique, permabilit, essai in situ, anisotropie, interprtation. Chiasson 90

Introduction
In the early 1980s, a number of regulatory bodies adopted programs to manage all domestic solid wastes produced within a geographically defined region. Such programs have permitted the construction of controlled regional sanitary landfills that have gradually replaced local unsupervised open-pit dumps. Wastes are now stored in isolation cells that
Received 16 December 2002. Accepted 24 June 2004. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on 15 February 2005. P. Chiasson. Secteur de gnie civil, Facult dingnierie, Universit de Moncton, Moncton, NB E1A 3E9, Canada (e-mail: chssp@umoncton.ca).
Can. Geotech. J. 42: 7990 (2005)

restrict outflow of contaminated liquids (mainly contaminated water). Cell designs typically include a hydraulic barrier layer overlaid by a leachate drainage system. During operations, wastes are gradually mounded in the cell. Once the design capacity is reached, the cell is capped with a second hydraulic barrier (cover), thus encapsulating and isolating the waste. Modern regulations for base-layer hydraulic barriers in landfills have the goal of protecting groundwater (Chen and Liew 2003). Typically, the regulation requires a minimum breakthrough criterion, such as 25 years under a unit hydraulic gradient flow. In the case of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1991), the regulations provide two design options for owners of municipal solid-waste landfills. The first option is a composite liner system, whose
2005 NRC Canada

doi: 10.1139/T04-068

80

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 42, 2005

minimum requirements include a 0.60 m thick compacted clay liner (CCL) with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 1 109 m/s. Quality control for liner construction has led to the development and in some instances standardization of a number of field hydraulic conductivity testing methods. Sealed double-ring infiltrometer (SDRI) tests, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method D5093 (ASTM 2004a), and lysimeter tests are examples. These permit one to test CCL compliance by measuring flow through both large- and small-scale defects, such as bad lift-to-lift bonding and insufficient destruction of clods and interclod macropores. Unfortunately, they require long testing times, which can exceed 3 weeks (Trautwein and Boutwell 1994). This renders these tests impractical for construction quality assurance (CQA). They are used, rather, on test pads to demonstrate compliance during the design phase. In this design philosophy, field tests serve to establish construction procedures that best minimize defects in the liner. These procedures are then used to construct the actual liner. During construction, the procedures adopted must be followed exactly and controlled through a well-conceived CQA program. Time being an important factor in regions where the construction season is rather short, a need exists for faster hydraulic conductivity tests. One of these tests, which aims to decrease testing times, is the two-stage borehole (TSB) test (test method D6391; ASTM 2004b). This test combines two well-established borehole test methods: end of casing and injection through an extended borehole chamber (CAN BNQ 1988a, 1998b; AFNOR 1992). Trautwein and Boutwell (1994) indicated that this test is more than three times faster than SDRI. Trautwein and Boutwell (1994) proposed special shape factors for stage I (end-of-casing test) and stage II (extended borehole). These (as advanced by the authors) could be combined and solved for horizontal and vertical components of hydraulic conductivity. Chapuis (1999) demonstrated these shape factors to be incorrect. Furthermore, Chapuis doubted whether the anisotropy ratio, kh/kv, could be extracted from such a procedure. Chapuis gave two arguments to support his affirmation: the two stages have nearly spherical (not elliptical) equipotentials; and smearing effects introduce high uncertainty into this ratio. Also worthwhile pointing out is an assumption implicitly made by Trautwein and Boutwell (1994): the liner is homogeneous in k. Liners are built from a succession of lifts that may vary in hydraulic conductivity for reasons such as variations in dry density and water content, soil gradation, and clay mineral content. Cassan (2000) pointed out that the hypothesis of homogeneity in k is legitimate at a testing scale where water flows through all representative soil layers. This does not appear to be the case in a TSB test. Even with a good CQA program, the importance of hydraulic conductivity field tests must be emphasized. It is through such tests that bad or faulty construction practice was identified in the past. Early liner construction often showed large discrepancies between field and laboratory hydraulic conductivity values (Daniel 1984; Elsbury et al. 1990). Although it was well known that hydraulic conductivity measurements on samples compacted on the dry side are

many orders of magnitude more permeable than samples compacted on the wet side (Bjerrum and Huder 1957; Lambe 1958a, 1958b; Mitchell et al. 1965), CQA programs did not use acceptance criteria based on this widely demonstrated experimental result until quite recently. Work by Benson and Boutwell (1992), Leroueil et al. (1992), Daniel and Koerner (1995), Daniel (1998), Benson et al. (1999), and many others gradually permitted the evolution of a CQA based on compaction control points falling within a zone of acceptance. This zone of acceptance is defined by a plot of unit dry mass versus water content (the same as for a compaction curve). On the basis of optimum conditions for hydraulic conductivity, the zone is delimited on its left side (lowest water contents) by the line of optimums and on its right side (highest water contents) by the saturation curve. Other criteria, such as shear strength and the potential to generate shrinkage cracks, may be added to circumscribe an overall acceptance zone (Daniel and Wu 1993). Even when compaction control points fall on the wet side within the overall zone of acceptance, there is still potential for noncompliance. Other defects can yield a CCL that fails hydraulic conductivity requirements because of bad bonding between lifts; insufficient water content blending in the liner material during compaction; or environmental factors such as desiccation and freezing. Thus, field hydraulic conductivity tests are still warranted and should be part of a good CQA program. A safer practice would be to include such controls on the CCL during and after final construction. For practical reasons, controls must be fast and reliable. Otherwise, construction may be severely delayed, creating excessive expenditures. TSB tests fall into this category. They are fast, with results obtained in 24 h. They also have minimal destructive impact on the CCL, thus minimizing subsequent repair costs. A final performance check of the liner can be done through a full-scale test for total leakage versus water load within the cell (Chapuis 2002). Such a test has the merit of detecting defects that have been missed by field tests or the CQA program. Performing the test for a long duration (greater than 3 weeks) can also help evaluate whether the liner is prone to suffosion (internal erosion). Although such a test may appear as overkill, detection of defects before the liner enters into service makes it less costly to repair than it would be once the site is in operation. This paper reviews data interpretation of cased borehole, specifically TSB, tests. Two known methods of interpretation are reviewed: the Hvorslev method and the Chapuis velocity method. A third method is also introduced. All three methods are compared for their precision in the statistical sense when field hydraulic conductivity, k, is estimated. Recommendations are proposed for interpreting such measurements.

Site description and testing program

A number of cased borehole falling-head hydraulic conductivity tests were performed at the Red Pine Regional Sanitary Landfill. The landfill is located in northeastern New Brunswick (Canada), 20 km south of Bathurst. It is part of a
2005 NRC Canada

Chiasson

81

government program adopted in 1985 and designed to manage solid waste in a safe and controlled manner. The site currently collects and stores 86 000 t/year of waste. The cell design at Red Pine includes a base liner of compacted clay (1.4 m) overlaid by a high-density polyethylene geomembrane. To meet the New Brunswick Department of the Environment breakthrough criteria, this clay layer must have a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1.4 109 m/s. The construction material, clayey red till and gray transition till that is readily available on the site, has the potential to meet requirements. Chiasson et al. (1998) reported laboratory hydraulic conductivity values on specimens compacted at optimum water content under modified energy. Both materials and their mixtures were found to have values no greater than 0.29 109 m/s. Mineralogical studies showed high clay mineral content for both native soils, thus explaining their potential to attain low hydraulic conductivity. Means and standard deviation (SD) for plastic limits, liquid limits, and plasticity indexes of the two materials are, respectively, 18.9% (1.1%), 30.0% (2.5%), and 11.1% (2.2%). During the course of landfill operations, a number of test pads were built and field tested. Data presented in this paper are for one test pad built in 1995, where an extensive testing program was performed. Construction crews and practices for the pad were the same as for the real storage cell being built at that time. The 1995 test pad was 1 m thick and built of clayey till only. Very little variation in water content was reported during construction. Compaction controls yielded an average maximum dry density of 2.015 Mg/m3, with average water content of 10%, corresponding to 80% saturation. Following construction of the test pad, an SDRI test was performed (Jacques Whitford Ltd. 1995). Total duration of infiltration was 25 days. Shelby tube samples, extracted before SDRI testing, showed an average water content of 10%, with little variation throughout the sampled depth of 0300 mm. Tensiometers were also installed within the outer ring of the SDRI at depths of 50, 100, and 150 mm. Briefly after installation and before SDRI testing, suction readings rapidly stabilized at 80 kPa. Following initiation of SDRI infiltration, suction readings gradually declined to stabilize at 5 kPa after 8, 15, and 21 days at the three respective depths. This indicates that compacted clay had attained satiation at these depths at those times of testing. Following removal of the SDRI apparatus, water content of 14% was measured up to a depth of 220 mm. Cased borehole tests reported in this paper were performed on this pad the next year, in July 1996. Although water content was not measured when these tests were performed, the 1 year resting period must have favoured dissipation of suction values throughout the thickness of the liner, yielding satiated compacted clay. Cased borehole tests performed on the 1995 test pad were of the end-of-casing type. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene pipes had an internal diameter of 102 mm (4 in.). The testing campaign used medium sodium bentonite chips (9.5 mm) and sodium bentonite grout to seal the annular space between borehole sidewall and pipe. As reported by ASTM (2004b), Chapuis (1998), and Trautwein and Boutwell (1994), wall smearing of the injection zone may influence results. To prevent this problem, the soil surface at the end

of casing was inspected and manually cleaned according to ASTM D6391 recommended practice (ASTM 2004b). Finally, permeability tests in compacted clay were preceded by a wetting period of 2448 h.

Interpretation of falling-head sealed borehole tests

Chapuis (1998) indicated that when the deformations of the soil can be neglected, falling-head tests are governed by the Laplace equation. Its solutions, the harmonic functions, have several properties. One of them relates the flux in the soil (Qsoil) to the flow into the pipe (Qinj) through a massbalance equation, [1] Qinj = Qsoil = ckH

where c is a shape factor that depends on the geometry of the injection zone and on the hydraulic boundaries of the problem; H is the applied hydraulic head difference; and k is the hydraulic conductivity. This equation is the starting point of both the Hvorslev and the Chapuis methods. Another equation is the starting point of another method for cases where soil deformation is assumed to be elastic and not negligible (Cooper et al. 1967). However, the mathematical model of this method does not correspond to the physical model. This is according to mathematical, physical, and numerical proofs by Chapuis (1998) and experimental proofs by Chapuis and Chenaf (2002). According to the equations of Chapuis (1998), the effect of soil deformation can be neglected when the soil is an aquifer or an overconsolidated aquitard. Soil deformation is no longer negligible for compressible aquitards when they are tested by using either a falling-head test with a very small injection pipe or a pulse test between packers. Chapuis and Cazaux (2002) suggested methods for handling the instantaneous (elastic) and delayed deformations in such cases. Because this paper deals only with compacted clays, which are overconsolidated aquitards, the use of eq. [1] is thus justified. In a falling-head test, Qinj is the flow through the inflow pipe (often a standpipe connected to the borehole casing) of internal cross section Sinj. [2] Qinj = Sinj dH dt

where t is time. Equations [1] and [2] yield [3] dH ckH = dt Sinj

Rearranging gives [4] dH ck = dt H Sinj

Integrating leads to Hvorslevs solution (1951): [5] H c ln 1 = k (t1 t 2) = kC (t1 t 2) Sinj H2

where H1 and H2 are, respectively, the applied differences in total head at times t1 and t2; and C = c/Sinj. If the falling 2005 NRC Canada

82

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 42, 2005 Fig. 1. Typical setup of a cased borehole test in a compacted clay liner.

head test is made with a standpipe of internal diameter d, then [6] Sinj = d 2 4

Shape factors
The following shape factors are best suited for the problem at hand (Chapuis 1999). For the end-of-casing test, the shape factor C is [7] C = 11D d 2
Fig. 2. Semilog plot of falling-head test. Datum and assumed piezometric level at top of compacted clay liner (see data in Table 1).

For the Lefranc test, which is with a cylindrical injection zone, the sphere formula is recommended when 1 L/D 8: [8] c = 2 D L 1 + D 4

which gives [9] C = c 8D L 1 = 2 + Sinj d D 4

when 1 L /D 8. These latter two equations are, according to Chapuis (1999), accurate to a relative error of 10%. More accurate shape factors can be obtained from modified equations that take into account the upper and lower boundaries of the barrier (Chapuis 1989).

Hvorslev method of interpretation

In the Hvorslev method, data are plotted on a semilog graph with ln [H(t = 0)/H(tj)] on the ordinate and time t on the abscissa. According to eq. [5], this should theoretically give a straight line. Let m be the slope of this line, such that m = [ln (H1/H2)]/(t1 t2). Then, from eq. [5], [10] m = kC [13] and hence [11] k = m/C In normal practice, the operator is too often unaware of the unknown height Ho. The operator thus sets the PL at an assumed level and sets this level as the datum. By doing this, the operator is not plotting ln[H(t = 0)/H(tj)] but rather ln[Z(t = t0)/Z(tj)] versus tj, which from eq. [5] gives Z(t ) ln 0 = kC (t 0 t j ) + ln Z(t 0) Z(t j ) ln[Z(t 0) Ho(1 e kC ( t0 tj ) )] where t0 and Z(t0) are initial readings of time and water column elevation; and tj and Z(tj) are the jth readings. This plot gives a straight line only when the datum is set at the same level as the correct PL of the soil (in other words, when the hypothesis Ho = 0 is correct). When Ho 0, the plot of ln [Z(t0)/Z(tj)] versus tj yields a more or less pronounced upward or downward curve (Fig. 2). Furthermore, inspection of eq. [13] shows that when Ho 0, eq. [13] cannot be simplified to eq. [5], and therefore the relationship between hydraulic conductivity and the slope of the plot as expressed by eq. [11] is no longer valid. Anyone who is not aware of this will naturally assume that eq. [11] still applies. This would lead to an erroneous interpretation of the plot and erroneous hydraulic conductivity values. Because soils composing a CCL are in an unsaturated state, a PL below the top of the liner should be expected. In the authors experience, the correct PL for a fairly humid climate is often
2005 NRC Canada

In the case of TSB tests in a CCL, the true difference in hydraulic head at time t is unknown. What is measurable at time t is elevation Z of the water column from a set reference level. Typically, this is chosen as the surface of the barrier. The unknown component is the height of the piezometric level (PL) of the soil around the injection zone from the set reference (Fig. 1). The correct difference in head at time t is [12] H(t) = Z(t) Ho

where Ho is the unknown height of the soil PL from the set reference level (positive, if over; negative, if under). This notation is in accordance with that of a number of authors (Schneebeli 1954; Chapuis et al. 1981; CANBNQ 1988a, 1988b) who use Ho to symbolize this unknown height. This should not be confused with the definition employed in the Hvorslev method (1951), where Ho is the initial head difference.

Chiasson Table 1. Falling-head test in a cased borehole on the 1995 test pad. Reading, j 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time, tj (min) 0 4.53 9.10 13.72 18.49 23.36 28.35 33.41 35.99 Z(tj) (cm) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.5 ln [Z(to)/Z(tj)] 0 0.13 0.29 0.47 0.69 0.98 1.39 2.08 2.77 m (min1) 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.137 0.269 k (m/s) 2.42109 2.76109 3.24109 3.83109 4.85109 6.66109 1.12108 2.21108 v (cm/min) 0.2209 0.2186 0.2166 0.2094 0.2055 0.2004 0.1974 0.1940 Zm (cm) 7.5 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 0.75

83

Note: Datum and assumed piezometric level of soil at top of compacted clay liner (Lefranc type test, shape factor C = 2032 cm1).

found somewhere between the top and the bottom of the liner (see also Chapuis 1999). In an illustrative example (Table 1, Fig. 2), the datum is set at the top of a 1 m CCL, and the soil PL is assumed to be at the same level. This leads to the erroneous conclusion that hydraulic conductivity increases with time (Table 1, Fig. 3: PL assumed to be at the top of the CCL). If the datum and assumed PL are set at the bottom of the liner (add 100 cm to Z in Table 1), the hydraulic conductivity decreases slightly with time, thus suggesting a relatively constant value of k = 1.4 1010 m/s (Fig. 3: PL assumed to be at the bottom). Finally, choosing the correct PL, at 44.55 cm below the top of the liner, yields a constant k = 3.51 1010 m/s throughout the duration of the test. Three different results are found for three different assumed PL levels. Test interpretation through the Hvorslev method yields a hydraulic conductivity, k, that is a function of the assumed PL. Use of this method does not appear to be recommendable.

Fig. 3. Hydraulic conductivity computed for assumed piezometric level at top, bottom, and correct level (44.55 cm below top) with Hvorslevs method (see data in Table 1).

The velocity (Chapuis) method

According to eq. [3], plotting of falling-head velocity as a function of applied head difference should yield a straight line. Because the applied head difference is usually unknown, combining eqs. [3] and [12] yields [14] dZ = Ck(Z Ho) dt

Fig. 4. Velocity method plot of a cased borehole test (see data in Table 1).

and rearranging gives [15] Z = dZ 1 + Ho dt Ck

Note that in a falling-head test, the velocity, dZ/dt, is negative, as a result of the downward direction of flow. According to this last equation, the plot should yield a straight line for whatever set datum. The intercept Ho is the error, or the height separating the datum and the correct PL of the soil (Fig. 1). The slope of the plot is mv = 1/Ck. Therefore, [16] k = 1/Cmv

The slope, mv , is not a function of the unknown PL of the soil. Thus, a hydraulic conductivity computed from a plot of height Z as a function of velocity dZ/dt is independent of the PL of the soil.

In practice, the mean elevation, Zm, during time increment t is plotted as a function of average velocity, v = Z/t. A plot of data from Table 1 gives a straight line (Fig. 4) with a slope mv = 233.7 min and an intercept Ho = 44.55 cm. Computing k gives 3.51 1010 m/s. The Hvorslev method gives this same value if the datum is set 44.55 cm below the top of the liner. To resume, the velocity method does not depend on the set datum (or assumed PL); furthermore, it yields the correct
2005 NRC Canada

84 Table 2. Falling-head test in a piezometer installed in Champlain clay below the weathered surface layer and phreatic line. Time (min) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 z (cm) 122.90 122.00 120.80 119.80 118.80 118.00 117.00 116.10 115.00 113.90 113.10 112.30 111.50 110.50 109.60 108.80 108.10 107.10 v (cm/min) 0.450 0.600 0.500 0.500 0.400 0.500 0.450 0.550 0.550 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.500 0.450 0.400 0.350 0.500 Zm (cm) 122.45 121.40 120.30 119.30 118.40 117.50 116.55 115.55 114.45 113.50 112.70 111.90 111.00 110.05 109.20 108.45 107.60

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 42, 2005 Fig. 5. Velocity method plot for a falling-head test in a piezometer installed in Champlain clay (Lefranc test; see data in Table 2).

Fig. 6. Semilog plot for a falling-head test in a piezometer installed in Champlain clay (Lefranc test; see data in Table 2).

Note: Lefranc type test, shape factor C = 2353 cm1.

PL of the soil. Unfortunately, this method has its pitfalls. Inaccuracies in measurements can generate larger inaccuracies in computed velocities. This is due to the problem of double inaccuracy in derivatives, with the potential to produce considerable scatter in the velocity plot (see data in Table 2 and Fig. 5). Least squares yields an intercept Ho = 100.97 cm and a slope mv = 29.59 min, which corresponds to k = 2.4 109 m/s. Applying the Hvorslev method to the falling elevation data of Table 2, with a new datum set at 100.97 cm above the original one, yields a curved plot in the semilog graph (Fig. 6). This curvature underlines an inappropriate correction of the PL, as demonstrated earlier by eq. [13]. After inspection of the velocity plot and the semilog plot (see Figs. 5 and 6), one would not put much confidence in the velocity method value of k or in the test itself. The velocity plot has a mediocre fit (R2 = 0.1832), whereas the semilog plot is clearly curved downward. The inaccuracy amplified in the velocity plot of Fig. 5 may lead one to classify this test as poor or defective, and the temptation may be to reject it. Results such as this motivated the development of the method described in the following section.

and combining with eq. [12] yields [19] Z(t) = [Z(0) Ho]eat + Ho

Because the expression in brackets corresponds to H(0), the following is preferred: [20] Z(t) = H(0)eat + Ho

where Z(t) is water column elevation as a function of time t; and H(0) is the (true and unknown) hydraulic head difference at t = 0. A best unbiased estimator is used to evaluate the unknown parameters: H(0), Ho, and a. The residual between the estimator of the function Z * (t) and the measurement Z(tj) is [21] j = Z j Z * (t j ) The solution for Z * (t) is obtained by minimizing the sum of squared residuals, [22] n Min 2 j j =1

Proposed interpretation method: Zt

The objective is to develop a method less sensitive to measurement inaccuracy. Because relative inaccuracies on water column elevation Z and time t are generally small (<1%), a plot of these data should display little scatter around the trend. Rearranging eq. [5] results in H(t) becoming [17] H(t) = H(0)ekCt

subject to the unbiased condition, [23]

Setting [18] a = kC

j
j =1

=0

2005 NRC Canada

Chiasson

85 Fig. 7. Elevation of water column as a function of time for falling-head test data in a piezometer installed in Champlain clay (Lefranc test, see data in Table 2).

where n is the number of measurements Z(tj). The complexity of eq. [20] does not permit an analytical solution to this problem. Numerical optimization techniques are therefore required. These are readily available in most modern spreadsheets. The solution for hydraulic conductivity, k, will be [24] k = a/C

Deriving eq. [20] as a function of time t yields the slope of the velocity graph: [25] mv = dZ/dt = 1/a = 1/kC

Plotting the data of Table 2 and applying the method yields H(0) = 71.79 cm, Ho = 51.15 cm, and a = 0.00730 min1 (Fig. 7). Equation [24] gives k = 5.2 1010 m/s. As expected, the statistical scatter around the trend is low. The hydraulic conductivity from this method is smaller by a factor of 4.6 than that obtained from the velocity method. The goodness of fit illustrated in Fig. 7 gives more confidence in this hydraulic conductivity value and suggests that the test is of good quality. Furthermore, a regression line through a semilog plot of corrected falling elevation data from Table 2, with a new datum set 51.15 cm above the original reference, yields a correlation coefficient, R2, of 0.9996 (Fig. 8). This implies that the estimated Ho obtained by the proposed method is a better estimate of the true correction to be applied to the data.

Fig. 8. Semilog plot of corrected falling-head test data in a piezometer installed in Champlain clay. Data corrected by Zt method (Lefranc test; see data in Table 2).

Comparing methods
For comparison of statistical robustness, the three studied methodsthe velocity method, the Hvorslev method corrected by Ho as estimated from the velocity method, and the Hvorslev method corrected by Ho as estimated by the Zt methodand the proposed Zt method were applied on 19 falling-head test trials. These tests were performed on a CCL test pad built in 1995 on the Red Pine site. The clay was compacted at 94.5% of the modified Proctor dry density. All 19 test trials were performed in borehole No. 5 and used the same end-of-casing geometry. The velocity and the Zt methods of interpretation yield values of the same order of magnitude, although the average hydraulic conductivity of 1.9 109 m/s for the proposed method is lower than the 2.4 109 m/s obtained from the velocity approach. The velocity method also yields higher statistical scatter than the Zt method (Fig. 9). With the exception of one test, the proposed method systematically yields lower hydraulic conductivity values (Figs. 9 and 10). It also gives the lowest SD for k, with 0.6 109 m/s versus 0.9 109 m/s. Thus, the precision of computed k values is 33% better with the proposed Zt method. In the case of the velocity method, the standard error on the slope permits one to compute the 95% confidence interval for k (Neter et al. 1989). As a basis of comparison for both methods, the coefficient of determination (R2) computed for each trial run is used. Both quantities are used as indexes to characterize statistical dispersion of each test trial. Test trials with low data scatter have narrower error bars than tests with higher scatter (Fig. 10). In tests with low scatter, similar hydraulic conductivity values are computed whatever the method used. This is not true for tests with high data scatter. In such tests, the veloc-

Fig. 9. Cumulative frequency of hydraulic conductivity for 19 tests as computed with the velocity method; the Hvorslev method corrected by Ho as estimated by the velocity method; the proposed Zt method; and the Hvorslev method corrected by Ho as estimated by the Zt method. All tests were performed in borehole No. 5, using the same end-of-casing geometry, on a compacted clay liner built in 1995.

2005 NRC Canada

86 Fig. 10. Hydraulic conductivity computed with the proposed Zt method versus that computed with the velocity method with error bars (end-of-casing tests performed in borehole No. 5, 1995 test pad).

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 42, 2005 Fig. 12. Hydraulic conductivity computed with the Zt method as a function of the coefficient of determination for 19 test trials (end-of-casing tests performed in borehole No. 5, 1995 test pad).

Fig. 11. Hydraulic conductivity computed with the velocity method as a function of the coefficient of determination for 19 test trials (end-of-casing tests performed in borehole No. 5, 1995 test pad).

posed method is statistically more robust. This is evident when comparing the goodness of fit of the velocity plots (Fig. 5) with that of the Zt plots (Fig. 7). With the velocity method, small inaccuracies in measurements generate rather large relative errors in the velocity values. Scatter is amplified in the velocity plot, from which follows the high uncertainty of k. The Hvorslev method does not prove to be very useful. When the correct head difference of eq. [12] uses Ho computed with the velocity method, the Hvorslev method yields the same k value as obtained from the velocity approach (Fig. 9). If the same is done using Ho obtained from the proposed Zt method, the Hvorslev method then gives the same result as the proposed method (Fig. 9). Thus, the Hvorslev method will agree with the method with which the Ho correction is obtained, even though the velocity method and the proposed method yield different hydraulic conductivity values. Evaluating the anisotropy of hydraulic conductivity Soils commonly display anisotropy in hydraulic conductivity, = kh/kv 1. In a stratified soil, this ratio will always be greater than 1. According to eq. [1] and Cassan (2000), the flow from an injection zone into a transformed medium is [26] Qinj = Qinj = Qsoil = c k H

ity and Zt methods of interpretation yield different hydraulic conductivity values. For example, test trial No. 19 yields 3.0 109 m/s with the velocity method, whereas the proposed Zt method gives 1.1 109 m/s. The latter value is 2.8 times smaller. As shown in Fig. 11, hydraulic conductivity computed with the velocity method tends to increase with decreasing quality of fit (decreasing R2). In the case of the proposed method, hydraulic conductivity is not sensitive to random inaccuracies in measurements, because no significant correlation is found between computed hydraulic conductivity and quality of fit (R2 = 0.064 in Fig. 12). Note also that the proposed method yields very high coefficients of determination. This indicates that the curve fits the data well (such as illustrated in Fig. 7) and explains well the interrelationship between time t and falling water column elevation Z. The same data, when interpreted with the velocity method, yield variable coefficients of determination, with many tests appearing to be of poor quality. Meanwhile, very high coefficients of determination are systematically obtained for the proposed method (Table 3). Thus, the pro-

where c is the shape factor of the injection zone for the transformed medium; k = kv; and H = H. In the shape factor c, D = D/(1/ 2). The shape factor c is a function of the injection zone aspect ratio, , in the transformed medium, where [27] = = L D

Depending on the ratio of anisotropy, the transformed ratio can be significantly greater than the true physical aspect ratio. Therefore, the shape factor function for the transformed medium can be different from that for the physical
2005 NRC Canada

Chiasson Table 3. Hydraulic conductivity (k), coefficient of determination (R2), and relative error on k ( k/k) as computed with velocity and Zt methods. Velocity method Trial No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 k (m/s) 2.410 2.4109 2.9109 3.1109 1.8109 1.9109 2.3109 1.7109 1.8109 1.2109 1.4109 1.7109 4.1109 4.7109 2.2109 2.6109 2.2109 2.8109 3.0109
9

87

Zt method k/k (%) 16 16 20 14 20 13 38 14 24 15 18 9 47 70 32 22 62 61 91 k (m/s) 2.210 2.1109 2.7109 2.9109 1.7109 1.8109 1.6109 1.6109 1.4109 1.1109 2.8109 1.8109 2.8109 2.8109 2.0109 1.8109 9.71010 1.5109 1.1109
9

R2 0.936 705 0.955 260 0.935 620 0.963 077 0.927 941 0.967 652 0.759 273 0.954 769 0.886 522 0.952 773 0.926 404 0.982 498 0.723 131 0.535 798 0.867 935 0.933 218 0.630 636 0.607 390 0.446 227

R2 0.999 976 0.999 966 0.999 968 0.999 967 0.999 978 0.999 988 0.999 928 0.999 959 0.999 940 0.999 981 0.999 974 0.999 956 0.999 138 0.999 450 0.999 898 0.999 515 0.999 903 0.999 481 0.999 817

Note: All 19 test trials were performed in the same borehole on the 1995 test pad.

medium. Following development of the velocity method, eq. [15] can be rewritten as [28] Z = dZ 1 + He dt C k

from velocity plots (or Zt plots and eq. [25]) for tests performed in stage I and stage II. Computing the quotient of eqs. [31] and [32] gives [33] C2 m = 1 C1 m 2

where C = c/ Sinj . The velocity plot of average elevation, Zm, during a time increment as a function of dZ/dt has the slope [29] mv = 1 kv C

Both C1 and C 2 are functions of the ratio of anisotropy, = kh/kv. During stage I of the TSB test described by Trautwein and Boutwell (1994), shape factor C1 is, according to eq. [7], [34] C1 = 11D 1 11D = d 2 d 2

The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the medium is then [30] kv = 1 C m v

The shape factor C of the transformed injection chamber is a function of the unknown anisotropy, = kh/kv. To solve unknowns and kv, Trautwein and Boutwell (1994) suggested performing borehole tests of varying geometry. The test is first performed with the casing flush with the hole bottom (end-of-casing test). This is stage I of the test. Stage II infiltration is measured with an extended borehole. During stage I, [31] kv = 1 C1 m1

Because of the limited thickness of the CCL, injection zones for stage II of TSB tests rarely extend beyond one diameter in length. Generally, the shape factor for stage II will correspond to eq. [9], giving [35] C2 = 1 8D L 1 + 4 D d2

when 1 < (L1/2)/D < 8. Note that (L1/2)/D is the transformed aspect ratio 2 , and the shape factor C is as defined in eq. [9]. Equation [33], combined with shape factors for stage I and II, then gives [36] 2 =
2 m1 11 1 2 m 2 8 4 2

and during stage II, [32] kv = 1 C 2 m2

when 1 < 2 < 8 and by eq. [27], [37] D = 2 L

2

where C1 and C 2 are, respectively, shape factors for stage I and stage II; and slopes m1 and m2 are obtained, respectively,

2005 NRC Canada

88 Fig. 13. Hydraulic conductivity ratio of anisotropy as a function of slopes m1 and m2 obtained from velocity plots of stages I and II. Relation valid when, for stage II, 1 < < 8. Dashed lines are confidence intervals obtained when relative errors on slopes m1 and m2 are both 10%.

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 42, 2005

Theoretically, eqs. [36] and [37] give the ratio of anisotropy from measurements for stages I and II of a TSB test, and eq. [31] or eq. [32] permits one to compute the vertical hydraulic conductivity, kv. The ratio of anisotropy as a function of the slope ratio for a typical TSB test, where is within the range 18, is illustrated in Fig. 13. From a practical point of view, inaccuracies in measurement cause high uncertainty for anisotropy. An excellent velocity plot, such as illustrated in Fig. 4, gives 15% relative error on the slope (based on the 95% confidence interval on slope value; Neter et al. 1989). Figure 13 shows a confidence interval where relative errors on slopes m1 and m2 are both 10%. This confidence interval for the ratio of anisotropy spans a wide range. For example, a TSB test in which the ratio for stages I and II (m1/m2) is 4.22 gives a ratio of anisotropy () of 10, with a confidence interval extending from 3.7 to 22. This is in agreement with observations made by Chapuis (1999) and as earlier described in the introduction. Therefore, these equations should be used with caution.

Conclusion
Three methods of interpretation for borehole falling-head tests were reviewed. Hydraulic conductivity values computed with the Hvorslev method were found to strongly depend on the correct PL of the soil. Because the PL is usually unknown, a level must be assumed. Depending on the elevation at which PL is set, the method can yield an increasing k, a decreasing k, or a k that appears constant during the test. With the velocity method, the unknown PL of the soil is not needed for computing hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, an error in the assumed PL has no consequence for computations. When scatter in the velocity plot is low, the method yields good hydraulic conductivity values (these are found to agree with the proposed method). Unfortunately, even small inaccuracies in measurements create large inaccuracies in computed velocities, particularly when testing materials with

low hydraulic conductivity. Furthermore, computations will yield higher k values as scatter in the velocity plot increases. In a velocity plot, average water column elevation (Zm) and falling-head velocity, v = dZ/dt, are both dependent variables. Least-squares estimation is theoretically based on one dependent variable being a function of another that is independent. With low scatter, the choice of one or the other as the dependent variable has little consequence. With high scatter, k values depend on which variable is set as the independent variable and which is set as the dependent variable. The data in Table 2 yield k = 2.4 109 m/s when y = v and x = Zm. The same data produce k = 4.4 1010 m/s if y = Zm and x = v. The k value being a function of which variable is set as x and which is set as y is attributable to a hypothesis behind the least-squares method: x is an independent variable with no inaccuracies, and y is a dependent variable with unknown random inaccuracies in measurements. Unfortunately, both velocity, v, and average elevation, Zm, are dependent variables, with both having some random inaccuracies. Hence, they do not respect, in the strict sense, the hypothesis behind the least-squares method. Where inaccuracies are small, they will respect the hypothesis in a relaxed sense. In such cases, they will yield k values comparable with those of the Zt method and will not be sensitive to which variable is set as x and which is set as y (data in Table 1, for example). These observations lead us to conclude that the velocity method is not statistically robust. It should be used with caution when scatter in the velocity plot is observed. The proposed Zt method is found to be statistically more robust. It is independent of random inaccuracies in measurements (at least in the orders of magnitude found in routine tests). With this method, the intrinsic hypothesis mentioned earlier for least-squares estimation is respected. Water column elevation (Z) and time (t) are, respectively, true dependent and independent variables. Plots also typically display little data scatter, which clearly shows the theoretical interrelationship of t and falling water column elevation (Z) of eq. [20]. Theoretically, the Hvorslev method should yield a correct k when the correct PL of the soil is used for computing head difference. In practice, inaccuracies in measurements yield high uncertainty in the estimation of the correct PL. This is due to an important trend extrapolation to obtain Ho in both the proposed and the velocity methods. The Hvorslev method will agree with the method with which the PL is estimated, even though the velocity and proposed methods yield different hydraulic conductivity values. In light of this, the direct use of the Hvorslev method without questioning the PL value is not recommended. An interpretation method for stages I and II of TSB tests was also proposed. It yields the anisotropy and vertical hydraulic conductivity of the liner. As a result of inaccuracies in measurements and limited difference in geometry between stages I and II, computed anisotropy has high uncertainty.

Acknowledgements
This research on the interpretation of falling-head borehole tests was supported by the Nepisiguit-Chaleur Solid Waste Commission and in part by the Natural Sciences and
2005 NRC Canada

Chiasson

89 Chapuis, R.P. 2002. The 2000 R.M. Hardy lecture: full-scale hydraulic performance of soilbentonite and compacted clay liners. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(2): 417439. Chapuis, R.P., and Cazaux, D. 2002. Pressure-pulse test for field hydraulic conductivity of soils: Is the usual interpretation method adequate? In Evaluation and remediation of low permeability and dual porosity environments. ASTM STP 1415. Edited by N.N. Sara and L.G. Everett. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Penn., pp. 6682. Chapuis, R.P., and Chenaf, D. 2002. Slug tests in a confined aquifer: experimental results in a large soil tank and numerical modeling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(1): 1421. Chapuis, R.P., Par, J.J., and Lavalle, J.G. 1981. In situ variable head permeability tests. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, 1519 June. Edited by N. Foldin, J. Lindgren, H. Fagerstrm, and B. Steen. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Vol. 1., pp. 401406. Chen, W.F., and Liew, J.Y.R. 2003. The civil engineering handbook. 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York. Chiasson, P., Massira, M., Comeau, S., and Caissie, M.A. 1998. Characterization of till materials used for liners at the Red Pine Regional Sanitary Landfill, Canada. In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vancouver, B.C., 21 25 September 1998. Edited by D.P. Moore and O. Hungr. Vol. 4. A.A. Balkema, Brookfield, Vt., pp. 24912498. Cooper, H.H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J.D., and Papadopulos. 1967. Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Resources Research, 3(1): 263269. Daniel, D.E. 1984. Predicting hydraulic conductivity of clay liners. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110(2): 285 300. Daniel, D.E. 1998. Landfills for solid and liquid wastes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, Lisbon, Portugal, 711 September 1998. Edited by P.S.S. e Pinto. Vol. 4. A.A. Balkema, Brookfield, Vt., pp. 1231 1246. Daniel, D.E., and Koerner, R.M. 1995. Waste containment systems: guidance for construction, quality assurance, and quality control of liner and cover systems. ASCE Press, New York. Daniel, D.E., and Wu, Y.K. 1993. Compacted clay liners and covers for arid sites. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(2): 223237. Elsbury, B.R., Daniel, D.E., Sraders, G.A., and Anderson, D.C. 1990. Lessons learned from compacted clay liners. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(11): 16411660. Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in ground water observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Bulletin 36. Jacques Whitford Ltd. 1995. Permeability testing of the Red Pine landfill liner. Jacques Whitford and Associates Ltd., Bathurst, N.B. Lambe, T.W. 1958a. The structure of compacted clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 84(SM2): 1654-1 1654-34. Lambe, T.W. 1958b. The engineering behaviour of compacted clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 84(SM2): 1655-1 1655-35. Leroueil, S., Le Bihan, J.P., and Bouchard, R. 1992. Remarks on the design of clay liners used in lagoons as hydraulic barriers. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29: 512525.
2005 NRC Canada

Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Facult des tudes suprieures et de la recherche de lUniversit de Moncton. The author is grateful for the assistance offered by Mr. Raymond Bryar, manager of the Commission, and by Mr. Marc Antoine Caissie, engineer with the Roy Consultants Group. Field testing performed by Benjamin Chiasson, Rmi Godin, and Wamytan Rezza is also acknowledged. The author wishes to thank Mr. Camille Vautour, technician, and Mrs. Jolaine Landry, laboratory engineer, for their technical assistance throughout this research program. Special thanks are due to Dr. Robert Chapuis of the cole polytechnique de Montral for his constructive comments and helpful advice during the preparation of this paper.

References
AFNOR. 1992. Norme NF P94-132. Essai deau Lefranc. Association franaise de normalisation, Paris. ASTM. 2004a. Standard test method for field measurement of infiltration rate using a double-ring infiltrometer with a sealedinner ring (D5093). In Annual book of ASTM standards. Vol. 04.08. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Penn. ASTM. 2004b. Standard test method for field measurement of hydraulic conductivity limits of porous materials using two stages of infiltration from a borehole (D6391). In Annual book of ASTM standards. Vol. 04.08. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Penn. Benson, C.H., and Boutwell, G. 1992. Compaction control and scale-dependent hydraulic conductivity of clay liners. In Proceedings, 15th Annual Madison Waste Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., 2324 September 1992. Edited by Department of Engineering Development, University of Wisconsin at Madison. pp. 6283. Benson, C.H., Daniel, D.E., and Boutwell, G.P. 1999. Field performance of compacted clay liners. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(5): 390403. Bjerrum, L., and Huder, J. 1957. Measurement of the permeability of compacted clays. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, U.K., 1224 August 1957. Edited by L.F. Cooling, A.W. Bishop, H.Q. Golder, and D.J. Maclean. Butterworths Scientific Publications, London. pp. 610. CANBNQ. 1988a. Soilsdetermination of permeability at the end of a casing. Canadian Standards Association and Bureau de normalisation du Qubec, Rexdale, Ont. CAN/BNQ 2501-130M-88. CANBNQ. 1988b. Soilsdetermination of permeability by the Lefranc method. Canadian Standards Association and Bureau de normalisation du Qubec, Rexdale, Ont. CAN/BNQ 2501-135M-88. Cassan, M. 2000. Application des essais Lefranc lvaluation du coefficient danisotropie hydraulique des sols aquifres. Revue franaise de gotechnique, 90: 2543. Chapuis, R.P. 1989. Shape factors for permeability tests in boreholes and piezometers. Ground Water, 27(5): 647654. Chapuis, R.P. 1998. Overdamped slug test in monitoring wells: review of interpretation methods with mathematical, physical, and numerical analysis of storativity influence. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(5): 697719. Chapuis, R.P. 1999. Borehole variable-head permeability tests in compacted clay liners and covers. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(1): 3951.

90 Mitchell, J.K., Hooper, D.R., and Campanella, R.G. 1965. Permeability of compacted clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 91(SM4): 4165. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M.H. 1989. Applied linear regression models. 2nd ed. Irwin, Boston, Mass. Schneebeli, G. 1954. La mesure in situ de la permabilit dun terrain. Comptes-rendus des 3imes journes dhydraulique, Alger, pp. 270279. Trautwein, S.J., and Boutwell, G.P. 1994. In situ hydraulic conduc-

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 42, 2005 tivity tests for compacted soil liners and caps. In Hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soils. ASTM STP 1142. Edited by D.E. Daniel and S.J. Trautwein. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 184226. U.S. EPA. 1991. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment. Part 258, Criteria for municipal solid waste landfills. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

2005 NRC Canada