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

  • Landon C. BarlowEmail author
  • Michael A. Malusis
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


The objective of this paper is to present a comparison of measured hydraulic conductivities (k) for soil-bentonite (SB) backfill within a 60-m-long section of a 200-m-long, 7-m-deep cutoff wall constructed and instrumented for studying SB backfill properties and variability at the field scale. Backfill k was measured using flexible-wall tests (70-mm diameter) on remolded specimens prepared from surface grab samples collected during construction; flexible-wall tests on undisturbed specimens collected from the wall; larger-scale rigid-wall tests (150-mm diameter) on remolded specimens prepared from grab samples; and slug tests conducted within the wall. Applied effective stresses in the laboratory tests ranged from 4–35 kPa, encompassing the range of in-situ stresses measured in the backfill after load transfer and consolidation (8–13 kPa). The results indicate low spatial variability in k for a given test type, consistent with the observed homogeneity of the backfill. Modest variability in k was observed among the different test types, with the slug tests and rigid-wall tests generally yielding slightly higher k relative to the flexible-wall tests at field-representative stresses.


Cutoff wall Hydraulic conductivity Slug test Soil-bentonite 



Financial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant 1463198). The opinions and recommendations in this paper are solely those of the authors and are not necessarily consistent with the policies of NSF. The authors thank Central Builders Supply (Montandon, PA) and James Gutelius, Bucknell Director of Civil Engineering Laboratories, for their invaluable support.


  1. 1.
    Britton J, Filz G, Herring W (2004) Measuring the hydraulic conductivity of soil-bentonite backfill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1250–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malusis M, Evans J, Jacob R, Ruffing D, Barlow L, Marchiori A (2017) Construction and monitoring of an instrumented soil-bentonite cutoff wall: field research case study. In: Proceedings of 29th central Pennsylvania geotechnical conferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruffing D, Evans J, Malusis M (2010) Prediction of earth pressures in soil-bentonite cutoff walls. GeoFlorida 2010, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 2416–2425Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malusis M, Barben E, Evans J (2009) Hydraulic conductivity and compressibility of a model soil-bentonite backfill amended with activated carbon. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(5):664–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hvorslev M (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. Bulletin No. 36, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouwer H, Rice R (1976) A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour Res 12(3):423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teeter R, Clemence S (1986) In-place permeability measurement of slurry trench cutoff walls. In: Clemence SP (ed) Use of in-situ tests in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 1049–1061Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Britton J, Filz G, Herring W (2005) Slug test in soil-bentonite cutoff walls using a push-in piezometer tip. In: Waste containment and remediation, GSP 142Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi H, Daniel D (2006) Slug test analysis in vertical cutoff walls. I: analysis methods. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(4):429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lim J, Lee D, Zlotnik V, Choi H (2013) Analytical interpretation of slug test in a vertical cutoff wall. Ground Water. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations