See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298429385

Variability of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements Made Using a

Flexible-Wall Permeameter

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · May 2016

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20150138

CITATIONS READS

2 449

2 authors:

Craig H Benson Nazli Yesiller

University of Virginia 92 PUBLICATIONS   1,075 CITATIONS   
385 PUBLICATIONS   10,251 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thermal Analysis of Landfills View project

Modeling Environmental Susceptibility of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Sites, Case Study São Paulo State, Brazil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Craig H Benson on 31 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotechnical
Testing Journal
C. H. Benson1 and N. Yesiller2

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20150138

Variability of Saturated
Hydraulic Conductivity
Measurements Made Using a
Flexible-Wall Permeameter
VOL. 39 / NO. 3 / MAY 2016
 Geotechnical Testing Journal
doi:10.1520/GTJ20150138 / Vol. 39
Manuscript received June 24, 2015;
accepted for publication November 16,
2015; published online March 8, 2016.
1
Dean, School of Engineering and
Applied Science, Univ. of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA 22904,
e-mail: chbenson@virginia.edu
2
Director, Global Waste Research
Institute, California Polytechnic State
Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA 93407,
e-mail: nyesille@calpoly.edu
Copyright V
C 2016 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
/ No. 3 / May 2016 / available online at www.astm.org
C. H. Benson1 and N. Yesiller2
Variability of Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity Measurements Made Using a
Flexible-Wall Permeameter
Reference
Benson, C. H. and Yesiller, N., “Variability of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements Made Using
a Flexible-Wall Permeameter,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2016, pp. 476–491,
doi:10.1520/GTJ20150138. ISSN 0149-6115
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted following the procedures in ASTM E691-14 (Standard Practice for
Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method) to
develop a precision statement for hydraulic conductivity measurement of fine-grained soils
using Method C (falling head, rising tailwater elevation) of ASTM D5084-10 (Standard Test
Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a
Flexible Wall Permeameter). Twelve laboratories conducted tests on three replicate
specimens of three fine-grained soils (9 specimens total per laboratory) from the ASTM
Reference Soils Program: Soil ML (silt), Soil CL (low plasticity clay), and Soil CH (high
plasticity clay). The data indicated that the measurement variability for hydraulic
conductivity is modest but not negligible, and probably contributes to the spatial variability
reported in past studies of hydraulic conductivity. No systematic relationships were
observed between variability in hydraulic conductivity and testing time (consolidation,
permeation), backpressure, B-coefficient achieved at end of consolidation, compliance with
the termination criteria, or specimen compaction conditions. Many laboratories did not
comply with the test standard or the supplemental instructions, which may indicate that
greater oversight of geotechnical laboratories is needed via accreditation and auditing
programs. Analysis of the data indicate that hydraulic conductivity can be measured using
Method C of ASTM D5084 within a factor of 2 for the 10–6 cm/s range, a factor of 1.5 for the
10–8 cm/s range, and a factor of 4 for the 10–9 cm/s range.
Keywords
hydraulic conductivity, precision, repeatability, reproducibility, flexible-wall permeameter
476

Introduction
ASTM D5084-10 is the most commonly used procedure world-
wide for measuring the hydraulic conductivity of finer-grained
soils having saturated hydraulic conductivity <1  10–7 m/s.
This method has undergone development and refinement for
over 25 years and is believed to be repeatable and reproducible.
ASTM Subcommittee D18.04 on Hydrologic Properties and
Hydraulic Barriers collaborated with the ASTM Interlaboratory
Study (ILS) program to conduct an intra- and inter-laboratory
testing program to develop a precision statement for ASTM
D5084 following the procedures in ASTM E691. Fifteen com-
mercial laboratories in the United States volunteered for the
study, and twelve laboratories ultimately conducted tests and
reported data. ILS staff conducted statistical analysis using the
test data under the procedures in ASTM E691. A precision
statement was published in ASTM D5084 that incorporated sta-
tistics developed by the ILS staff.
This paper describes the testing program, the variability in
the measurements reported by the participating laboratories, an
assessment of factors that may have influenced variability in the
test data, the statistical analysis of the data used to create the
precision statement for ASTM D5084, and typical uncertainty
associated with hydraulic conductivities measured with
Method C of ASTM D5084. A recommendation is included to
review accreditation and auditing programs for geotechnical
laboratories.
Testing Program
REFERENCE SOILS
Three fine-grained soils from the ASTM Reference Soils Pro-
gram (Germaine and Germaine 2009) were used for the study:
Soil ML (elastic silt), Soil CL (lean clay), and Soil CH (fat clay).
ASTM Committee D18 on Soil and Rock makes these soils
available for quality control assessments, training, and for con-
ducting ILS research. ASTM Reference Soils ML, CL, and CH
were selected to represent a broad range of hydraulic conductiv-
ity that could be measured using ASTM D5084. These soils
have been well characterized under the supervision of ASTM
Committee D18 and are essentially homogeneous.
TABLE 1 Index properties and compaction characteristics of ASTM reference soils used in interlaboratory study.
Atterberg Limitsa
Liquid Plasticity % Finesb
Soil Limit Index (<75 lm)
ML 27 4 99
CL 33 13 89
CH 60 39 99
Notes: measured using aASTM D4318-10e1, bASTM D422, and cASTM D698.
BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 477
All three soils are fine-grained and classify as silts or clays
per ASTM D2487-11. Bulk samples of the soils had been proc-
essed, characterized, homogenized, and stored previously under
the supervision of ASTM Committee D18. Atterberg limits,
fines content, and 2 lm clay content of the soils are summarized
in Table 1. Compaction characteristics of the soils are also
included in Table 1.
Specimen Preparation
The Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory prepared 45 specimens
of each soil for testing (3 specimens of each soil per laboratory).
All specimens were prepared in the same laboratory by a single
operator using a single set of procedures to minimize inter-
specimen variability. The intent was to isolate, to the greatest
extent practical, variations in hydraulic conductivity between
and within laboratories (inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory
variation) associated with application of the ASTM D5084 pro-
cedure from variations in hydraulic conductivity caused by vari-
ability between specimens.
The bulk soil samples obtained from the ASTM Reference
Soils Program were uniform and consisted of small clods (clays)
or fine particulates (silt). Clod-size reduction and scalping over-
size particles was unnecessary prior to preparation of test
specimens. Water content of each soil was adjusted prior to
compaction by gently adding tap water using a spray bottle until
the water content was as close as practical to optimum water
content defined by ASTM D698-12e2 (Table 1). Soil was care-
fully blended with a masonry float, while water was added to
ensure uniformity. One batch was prepared for each soil at the
target moisture content. Each batch was prepared within a sin-
gle day. Each batch was thoroughly blended and placed in a
sealed plastic bag within a plastic drum for 48 h of hydration.
Preparation of test specimens began immediately after the
48-h homogenization period. Each specimen was compacted at
optimum water content in a 102-mm-diameter compaction
mold following the procedures in the ASTM Reference Soil Pro-
tocol for ASTM D698. After compaction of each specimen, the
dimensions and weight were measured and recorded, and the
water content was measured on trimmings per ASTM D2216-
10. Each specimen was wrapped in three layers of flexible plastic
% Clayb Optimum Water Maximum Dry Unit
(<2 lm) Content (%)c Weight (kN/m3)c
14 16.2 16.7
34 16.5 16.9
55 21.5 15.3
478 Geotechnical Testing Journal

TABLE 2 Water content and dry unit weight statistics for test
specimens. FIG. 1 Compaction curves, water contents and dry unit weights of ILS
specimens, and optimum points (“compaction curve peaks”) from
Soil Statistic Water Content (%) Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) previous ISR compaction study on ASTM Reference soils: ML (a), CL
(b), and CH (c).
ML Mean 16.90 16.65
COV (%) 0.83 0.29
Min 16.66 16.54
Max 17.42 16.75
CL Mean 16.39 16.97
COV (%) 0.78 0.45
Min 16.14 16.78
Max 16.71 17.13
CH Mean 21.61 15.60
COV (%) 0.73 0.66
Min 21.23 15.38
Max 21.89 15.83

that were taped in place. The wrapped specimen was placed in a

resealable plastic bag, with the air evacuated before the bag was
sealed. A second resealable plastic bag was then placed over the
specimen, evacuated, and sealed to provide extra protection
against moisture loss. Test specimens were placed in padded
boxes and shipped by overnight courier to each of the laborato-
ries. Only one specimen was damaged during transport. All
others were reported to be intact when received at the
laboratories.
Water contents and dry unit weights of the test specimens
are summarized in Table 2 and are shown as solid symbols in
Fig. 1. The compaction curves in Fig. 1 were determined at the
Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory by the same operator that
prepared the test specimens. Compaction curve peaks from a
historical interlaboratory study conducted by the ASTM Insti-
tute for Standards Research (ISR) also are shown in Fig. 1 as
open squares (ASTM 2000). The scatter in water contents and
dry unit weights of the specimens in this testing program was
less than the scatter in the optimum water contents and maxi-
mum dry unit weights from the historic interlaboratory study
on ASTM D698.
As shown in Table 2, the specimens were prepared with low
variability. The coefficient of variation was no greater than
0.83 % for water content and 0.66 % for dry unit weight, the
water content varied by at most 0.76 %, and the dry unit weight
differed by at most 0.45 kN/m3. Variability in dry unit weight
was lowest for the ML silt and highest for the CH clay, which is
consistent with the increasing difficulty typically associated with
processing and handling soils as the plasticity increases.

Hydraulic Conductivity Tests

All participating laboratories were instructed to conduct
hydraulic conductivity tests on the test specimens
provided by the Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory under

ASTM D5084 - Method C (falling head, rising tailwater elevation),
which is the most common method used in practice. In addition,
each participating laboratory was instructed to follow a set of sup-
plemental instructions that specified many of the options within
Method C that can be selected by the requestor. The additional
instructions were provided to minimize variations in hydraulic
conductivity that could be attributed to different procedures possi-
ble within the protocol defined in Method C. Laboratories were
instructed to precisely follow the procedures in Method C with the
supplemental instructions. The following instructions were sent to
each laboratory (including BOLD typeface):
“All tests for the ILS must be conducted by following the
procedures provided in D5084 for Method C, even if the
method in D5084 differs from typical practices in your labora-
tory. Conformance with the methods in D5084 is essential to
ensure the validity of the ILS.
This document is a supplement to ASTM D5084 and pro-
vides additional requirements for the test procedure. Please
ensure that these additional procedures are followed.
• Ensure that the equipment, measurement systems, and
test set-ups conform to the requirements in D5084. Please
pay particular attention to measurement capabilities
and tolerances. Ensure that the various measurements
(e.g., dimensions, head levels, pressures, temperature,
time, flow volumes, etc.) are in compliance with the toler-
ances and significant digits required in D5084.
• Ensure that the rate of flow through the assembled per-
meameter without a specimen is at least ten times greater
than the rate of flow that is measured when a specimen is
placed inside the permeameter and the same hydraulic
cell and pore water pressures are applied (D5084 Sections
5.2.3 and 5.2.3.1).
• Use de-aired tap water as the permeant liquid. Please
return a sample of the tap water in the enclosed sample
container. Fill the container completely with tap water
(i.e., the container should have no headspace after filling).
• Do NOT trim the specimen. The specimens are 58 mm
long and are intended to fit 102-mm-diameter (4 inch)
end platens. If your laboratory cannot test specimens of
this size, please contact the ILS organizers immediately
(see contact information on the next page).
• Record dimensions of the specimen (diameter and height)
and mass of the specimen prior to testing. Do NOT sam-
ple the specimen for a water content measurement prior
to permeation. The attached data tables have the initial
water content and dry unit weight of each specimen.
Record the initial dimensions of the specimen in mm and
the initial mass in g. Determine and report the initial vol-
ume of the specimen in cm3, the initial void ratio (dimen-
sionless), and the initial degree of saturation (%).
• Use filter paper between the porous stones and the
specimen.
• Concurrently backpressure and consolidate each speci-
men. Use a cell pressure of 45 psi and a backpressure of
BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 479
40 psi during consolidation. Verify saturation using a
B-check prior to beginning the permeation phase. Do
NOT soak the specimen as permitted in Section 9.2.
• Permeate the specimen using a cell pressure of 45 psi, an
influent pressure of 41 psi, and an effluent pressure of
40 psi.
• Ensure that the termination criteria for outflow-inflow
ratio and calculated hydraulic conductivity are met
(Section 9.5.5.1) before terminating the test.
• Measure and record the final diameter and height, final
water content, and final total mass of the specimen after
the test is complete. Record the final dimensions in mm
(one decimal place), final water content in % to one deci-
mal place, and final total mass in g (two decimal places).
• Report the maximum, minimum, and average hydraulic
gradient applied during testing based on the length of the
specimen measured at the end of the test.
• Provide the hydraulic conductivity (in cm/s) and provide
graphs of hydraulic conductivity vs. time and
outflow  inflow versus time. Also, indicate the duration
of the entire test and the duration for the saturation-
consolidation and permeation stages. Report the dura-
tions in hours (one decimal place).
• Report any deviations from the requirements of D5084 or
parameters provided in these guidelines.
• Ensure that all of the required reporting requirements in
Section 11 of ASTM D5084 are included in the submit-
tals, along with the requirements noted in this
document.”
Results and Discussion
Hydraulic conductivities of the test specimens from each labo-
ratory are summarized in Tables 3–5 with the water content and
dry unit weight of each specimen determined after compaction
at the Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory. Testing conditions
reported by each laboratory are summarized in Tables 6–8.
Twelve laboratories that agreed to participate in the program
conducted tests and submitted data (completion rate ¼ 80 %).
Those not completing the program had various reasons for not
fulfilling their commitment.
OVERALL VARIABILITY OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
MEASUREMENTS
Histograms of the hydraulic conductivity data from Tables 3–5
are shown in Fig. 2. The histograms are slightly to moderately
skewed towards lower hydraulic conductivities with a heavier
“upper tail,” which is typical of hydraulic conductivity data. The
lognormal probability distribution is often used to describe
the skewed distribution of hydraulic conductivity data for com-
pacted fine-grained soils (e.g., see Benson 1993; Zhai and Ben-
son 2006). For field conditions, negative skew and a heavy
upper tail are normally attributed to spatial variation in the hy-
draulic properties between specimens and not to measurement
480 Geotechnical Testing Journal

TABLE 3 Summary of hydraulic conductivities reported for Soil ML.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Water Dry Unit Hydraulic Water Dry Unit Hydraulic Water Dry Unit Hydraulic
Content Weight Conductivity Content Weight Conductivity Content Weight Conductivity
Lab (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s) (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s) (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s)
A 16.90 16.68 8.8  10–7 16.89 16.68 7.4  10–7 16.87 16.68 8.8  10–7
–6 –6
B 16.96 16.69 1.0  10 16.92 16.66 1.4  10 16.99 16.68 9.9  10–7
C 16.94 16.58 9.8  10–7 16.80 16.71 1.6  10–6 17.01 16.63 —
D 16.84 16.59 1.2  10–6 16.88 16.67 1.5  10–6 16.82 16.63 8.7  10–7
–7 –6
E 16.99 16.69 7.8  10 16.74 16.68 1.4  10 16.80 16.62 9.3  10–7
F 16.93 16.67 1.4  10–6 16.79 16.64 1.4  10–6 16.90 16.60 1.2  10–6
H 16.85 16.66 1.1  10–6 16.93 16.59 9.2  10–7 16.92 16.65 8.4  10–7
–6 –7
I 16.83 16.63 1.0  10 16.91 16.71 9.1  10 16.96 16.67 1.1  10–6
K 16.66 16.67 1.2  10–6 17.10 16.67 1.1  10–6 16.78 16.66 1.0  10–6
L 16.95 16.66 9.1  10–7 16.99 16.57 1.1  10–6 16.81 16.69 8.6  10–7
–7 –7
M 17.21 16.54 9.3  10 16.68 16.68 9.1  10 16.83 16.73 2.0  10–6
N 16.88 16.61 2.4  10–6 16.96 16.68 2.6  10–6 16.91 16.61 1.5  10–6

Notes: Laboratories G, J, and O are not listed. These laboratories were sent specimens but did not submit test results. Specimen 3 for Lab C was damaged and
could not be tested.

variability. As shown subsequently, there was no systematic var-
iation between these hydraulic conductivities and soil properties
known to affect hydraulic conductivity. Thus, some of the nega-
tive skew inherent in most assessments of spatial variability is
probably due to measurement variability.
The variability of the data in Fig. 2 is smaller than the spa-
tial variability commonly observed in the field. The standard
deviation of the natural logarithm of hydraulic conductivity
(rlnK) in cm/s ranged from 0.15 (Soil CL) to 0.69 (Soil CH)
for the ILS soils, with an average of 0.38. In contrast, rlnK
ranges from 0.27 to 2.02 (typical ¼ 0.85) for compacted clay
liners (Benson 1993) and 0.10 to 4.32 (typical ¼ 1.50) for
finer-grained final cover soils (Benson and Gurdal 2013), both
for hydraulic conductivity in cm/s. Thus, much of the spatial
variability reported for field conditions can be attributed to spa-
tial variation in soil properties, but the impact of measurement
error in the variation is not negligible.
Box plots of the hydraulic conductivities for each of the
soils are shown in Fig. 3(a). A box plot represents the variability
in the data, with the center of the box representing the median,
the outer edges of the box representing the interquartile range,
and the whiskers representing the extent of the data falling out-
side the interquartile range by 1.5 times the interquartile range.
The circles are outliers falling beyond the whiskers. Soil CL has

TABLE 4 Summary of hydraulic conductivities reported for Soil CL.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Water Dry Unit Hydraulic Water Dry Unit Hydraulic Water Dry Unit Hydraulic
Content Weight Conductivity Content Weight Conductivity Content Weight Conductivity
Lab (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s) (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s) (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s)
A 16.40 17.01 3.5  10–8 16.52 16.79 3.8  10–8 16.23 17.04 3.4  10–8
B 16.31 16.96 5.6  10–8 16.34 17.06 4.5  10–8 16.34 17.00 4.7  10–8
C 16.40 16.94 4.2  10–8 16.55 16.95 3.4  10–8 16.48 16.84 4.3  10–8
–8 –8
D 16.38 16.98 3.6  10 16.32 17.03 3.0  10 16.46 16.89 3.1  10–8
E 16.36 17.01 3.4  10–8 16.38 17.04 3.6  10–8 16.32 16.99 3.6  10–8
F 16.28 17.01 3.7  10–8 16.51 16.97 2.7  10–8 16.58 16.95 3.5  10–8
–8 –8
H 16.14 17.13 3.6  10 16.42 17.01 3.7  10 16.46 17.03 3.6  10–8
–8 –8
I 16.36 16.96 3.1  10 16.38 16.99 3.6  10 16.29 17.03 3.3  10–8
K 16.33 17.06 3.4  10–8 16.25 17.02 3.5  10–8 16.36 16.99 3.8  10–8
L 16.33 16.96 4.3  10–8 16.16 17.12 4.0  10–8 16.46 16.86 4.6  10–8
–8 –8
M 16.40 16.97 4.6  10 16.29 16.78 3.5  10 16.20 16.99 3.8  10–8
N 16.64 16.99 5.2  10–8 16.71 16.80 4.3  10–8 16.50 16.92 3.4  10–8

Note: Laboratories G, J, and O are not listed. These laboratories were sent specimens but did not submit test results.
 BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 481

TABLE 5 Summary of hydraulic conductivities reported for Soil CH.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Water Dry Unit Hydraulic Water Dry Unit Hydraulic Water Dry Unit Hydraulic
Content Weight Conductivity Content Weight Conductivity Content Weight Conductivity
Lab (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s) (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s) (%) (kN/m3) (cm/s)
A 21.51 15.62 1.4  10–9 21.67 15.71 1.3  10–9 21.58 15.72 1.2  10–9
–9 –9
B 21.76 15.49 3.9  10 21.57 15.56 3.8  10 21.63 15.53 2.9  10–9
C 21.51 15.56 1.6  10–9 21.76 15.61 2.1  10–9 21.54 15.51 3.4  10–9
D 21.70 15.52 1.4  10–9 21.69 15.71 1.3  10–9 21.88 15.49 1.5  10–9
–9 –9
E 21.40 15.76 2.8  10 21.67 15.65 3.1  10 21.32 15.83 3.6  10–9
F 21.38 15.42 2.5  10–9 21.37 15.74 6.7  10–9 21.66 15.60 4.0  10–9
H 21.35 15.59 1.2  10–8 21.65 15.59 8.9  10–9 21.60 15.60 2.7  10–8
–9 –9
I 21.55 15.57 2.0  10 21.70 15.61 1.6  10 21.70 15.48 2.4  10–9
K 21.58 15.75 1.8  10–9 21.82 15.40 2.2  10–9 21.62 15.48 1.7  10–9
L 21.65 15.63 1.7  10–9 21.44 15.69 2.8  10–9 21.77 15.54 2.8  10–9
–9 –9
M 21.70 15.57 3.7  10 21.87 15.46 1.9  10 21.66 15.64 4.3  10–9
N 21.60 15.58 1.5  10–9 21.78 15.52 1.1  10–9 21.72 15.70 1.6  10–9

Note: Laboratories G, J, and O are not listed. These laboratories were sent specimens but did not submit test results.

the narrowest box, and therefore the least variability in the data.
The data comprising the boxes in Fig. 3(a) are graphed as dot
plots of hydraulic conductivity normalized by the mean for each
soil in Fig. 3(b), with the dashed lines in each group correspond-
ing to approximately 95 % of the variability. The dashed lines
correspond to the mean 6 a factor of 1.72 for Soil ML, 1.49 for
Soil CL, and 3.56 for Soil CH.
The higher variability for the more permeable Soil ML
and the less permeable Soil CH reflects the errors commonly
associated with measuring changes in burette levels in the
headwater and tailwater systems commonly employed for
testing per D5084 Method C, which typically have a cross-
sectional area of 93 mm2 and can be read to 0.1 mL. Higher
hydraulic conductivities (10–6 cm/s) typically have higher
flow rates, which result in burette levels that are changing
more rapidly and are more difficult to track. Low hydraulic
conductivities (<10–8 cm/s) have low flow rates and small
changes in burette levels that are prone to reading error and
evaporative losses. Hydraulic conductivities in the mid-range,
from 10–7 to 10–8 cm/s, result in flow rates (1–2 mL/d) and
burette levels that are easiest to measure precisely. This find-
ing is not unusual, as D5084 was developed primarily for
measuring the hydraulic conductivity of test specimens
removed from compacted clay liners, which commonly have
hydraulic conductivities in the 10–8 cm/s range (Benson et al.
1994,1999).

TABLE 6 Testing conditions for Soil ML.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Back Saturation & Permeation Back Saturation & Permeation Back Saturation & Permeation
Pressure Consolidation Time B Pressure Consolidation Time B Pressure Consolidation Time B
Lab (kPa) Time (h) (h) Coefficient (kPa) Time (h) (h) Coefficient (kPa) Time (h) (h) Coefficient
A 552 248 72.0 0.93 483 312 102.0 0.90 552 312 74.0 0.90
B 276 192 18.0 0.96 276 192 1.0 0.98 276 148 1.0 0.97
C 586 573 5.0 1.00 586 573 5.0 0.98 — — — —
D 690 23 1.5 0.95 689 — 4.1 0.96 690 71 1.7 0.95
E 552 338 3.3 0.96 552 339 2.8 0.96 552 337 2.7 0.97
F 276 224 0.4 0.95 276 224 0.4 0.95 276 224 0.4 0.95
H 276 216 2.5 0.72 276 216 4.0 0.75 276 216 2.5 0.69
I 655 216 2.8 0.96 655 360 2.7 0.96 655 401 2.9 0.97
K 276 104 24.0 0.66 276 104 24.0 0.74 276 104 24.0 0.66
L 276 122 1.9 0.95 276 91 0.2 0.98 276 112 1.9 1.00
M 276 108 30.0 0.95 276 108 30.0 0.96 276 108 30.0 0.96
N 655 25 6.6 0.46 655 30 6.3 0.45 655 27 6.3 0.52

Note: hyphen indicates data not provided.

482 Geotechnical Testing Journal

TABLE 7 Testing conditions for Soil CL.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Back Saturation & Back Saturation & Back Saturation &

Pressure Consolidation Permeation B Pressure Consolidation Permeation B Pressure Consolidation Permeation B
Lab (kPa) Time (h) Time (h) Coefficient (kPa) Time (h) Time (h) Coefficient (kPa) Time (h) Time (h) Coefficient
A 414 216 117 0.95 414 216 97 0.95 414 216 100 0.95
B 283 72 72 0.97 283 96 24 0.96 283 96 24 0.99
C 586 408 5 0.95 586 408 6 0.98 586 408 22 0.95
D 689 — 48 0.97 690 22 145 0.96 689 — 66 1.00
E 552 21 49 0.97 552 21 101 0.95 552 22 120 0.95
F 276 135 66 0.95 276 135 66 0.95 276 135 66 0.95
H 276 144 32 0.64 276 144 32 0.60 276 144 32 0.54
I 517 137 94 0.98 517 137 94 0.97 517 138 94 0.96
K 276 108 60 0.84 276 108 60 0.88 276 108 60 0.88
L 483 52 3 1.00 483 47 3 1.00 483 71 21 0.98
M 483 103 89 0.97 483 103 65 0.95 483 103 71 0.95
N 655 25 138 0.55 655 28 138 0.69 655 25 138 0.55

Note: hyphen indicates data not provided.

Effect of Specimen Variability on Hydraulic conductivity is shown versus compaction water

Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity data were examined in the context of
compaction water content and compacted dry unit weight to
determine if variability in the compaction process, although lim-
ited, had a systematic effect on the specimens that could exacer-
bate variability in the hydraulic conductivity measurements for a
given soil type. For example, an increase in compaction water
content at constant dry unit weight, or an increase in compacted
dry unit weight at constant compaction water content, typically
results in lower hydraulic conductivity (e.g., Mitchell et al. 1965;
Benson and Daniel 1990; Daniel and Benson 1990).
content in Fig. 4 and versus compacted dry unit weight in Fig. 5.
Separate graphs are provided for each soil for clarity and to
avoid compression in the variability of the hydraulic conductiv-
ity data. In each case, the abscissa has the same absolute range
(1 % for water content, 1 kN/m3 for dry unit weight) to ensure
a consistent representation. No systematic relationship was
observed between hydraulic conductivity and compaction water
content or compacted dry unit weight for the narrow range of
water content and dry unit weight achieved when preparing the
test specimens, indicating that the sample preparation proce-
dure likely had no systematic effect on variability in the hydrau-
lic conductivity data.

TABLE 8 Testing conditions for Soil CH.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Back Saturation & Back Saturation & Back Saturation &

Pressure Consolidation Permeation B Pressure Consolidation Permeation B Pressure Consolidation Permeation B
Lab (kPa) Time (h) Time (h) Coefficient (kPa) Time (h) Time (h) Coefficient (kPa) Time (h) Time (h) Coefficient
A 483 240 76 0.95 483 384 77 0.91 483 216 76 0.96
B 276 144 144 0.98 276 144 144 0.97 276 120 144 0.98
C 586 406 72 0.96 586 407 101 0.99 586 407 75 0.99
D 689 — — 0.96 689 — 237 0.95 689 — 214 0.96
E 552 48 266 0.97 552 46 215 0.98 552 47 312 0.99
F 276 347 117 0.95 276 347 117 0.95 276 347 95 0.95
H 276 120 48 0.80 276 120 48 0.86 276 120 48 0.86
I 586 137 790 0.96 586 136 790 0.96 586 136 790 0.97
K 345 120 192 0.90 345 120 192 0.96 345 120 192 0.94
L 483 344 101 1.00 483 322 101 0.98 483 311 101 0.98
M 483 116 217 0.96 483 116 191 0.98 483 116 217 0.98
N 655 74 340 0.52 655 75 303 0.35 655 75 332 0.72

Note: hyphen indicates data not provided.


FIG. 2 Histograms of hydraulic conductivity of soils ML (a), CL (b), and
CH (c).
Effect of Test Parameters on
Hydraulic Conductivity
A similar assessment was conducted to determine if testing vari-
ables had a systematic effect on the hydraulic conductivity
measurements. Although each laboratory was provided with the
BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 483
FIG. 3 Box plots showing the variability of hydraulic conductivities (a) and
dot plots showing the variability of hydraulic conductivity relative to
the mean (b) as measured for Soils ML, CL, and CH.
aforementioned instructions specifically to reduce variability in
testing variables, significant differences existed between the test-
ing procedures used (Tables 6–8). The backpressure varied
between 276 and 690 kPa, even though 276 kPa (40 psi) was
specified, the time for saturation and consolidation varied
between 21 and 573 h (not specified), the time for permeation
varied between 0.2 and 790 h (not specified), and the B-
coefficient varied between 0.35 and 1.00 (> 0.95 expected). The
wide variation in consolidation and saturation time, permeation
time, and B-coefficient was unexpected given that all of the lab-
oratories were instructed to conduct the tests following the
detailed procedures cited previously and the requirements of
ASTM D5084, and that conformance with the instructions was
cited as essential to the success of the study.
Hydraulic conductivity versus backpressure is shown in
Fig. 6(a), versus B-coefficient in Fig. 6(b), versus total time for
saturation and consolidation in Fig. 6(c), and versus permeation
time in Fig. 6(d). As with the compaction variables, no
484 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 4 Hydraulic conductivity of Soils ML (a), CL (b), and CH (c) as a
function of compaction water content.
systematic relationship exists between hydraulic conductivity
and any of these testing variables, indicating that the test varia-
bles did not systematically influence the hydraulic conductivity.
An exception is the greater variability in hydraulic conductivity
of the CH soil coincident with tests using the lowest backpres-
sures and with the shortest permeation times.
B-coefficients <0.95 were reported for 28 of the tests
(26 %), and all of the low B-coefficients were reported by Labo-
ratories A, H, K, and N (Tables 6–8). Laboratories H and N
reported B <0.90 for all of the tests they conducted. This was
unexpected because ASTM D5084 specifically states:
“9.3.4 Saturation shall be verified with one of the three fol-
lowing techniques: … 9.3.4.1 Saturation may be verified by
measuring the B coefficient as described in Test Method D4767
(see Note 9). The test specimen shall be considered to be
adequately saturated if the B value is 0.95, or for relatively
incompressible materials, for example, rock, if the B value
remains unchanged with application of larger values of back
pressure.”
FIG. 5 Hydraulic conductivity of Soils ML (a), CL (b), and CH (c) as a
function of compacted dry unit weight.
In addition, the supplemental instructions stated “verify
saturation using a B-check prior to beginning the permeation
phase,” which implies that B would exceed 0.95 per Section
9.3.4.1 of ASTM D5084. However, this shortcoming was not
found to affect the hydraulic conductivity systematically. The
termination criteria used in the test require steady flow thor-
ough the test specimen (outflow  inflow), which is achieved
after the pore space is saturated. Even if the test specimens were
not saturated after consolidation and backpressure application
prior to initiating permeation, the specimens probably became
saturated during permeation and were saturated when the tests
were terminated.
Inter-Laboratory and
Intra-Laboratory Variability
Hydraulic conductivities measured in each laboratory were
compared using dot plots, as shown in Fig. 7, to ascertain
whether the variation in hydraulic conductivity could be

FIG. 6 Relationships between reported hydraulic conductivity and backpressure (a), B coefficient (b), saturation and consolidation time (c), and permeation time (d).
attributed to systematic (albeit unknown) variations between or
within laboratories. The horizontal bars in each bin of Fig. 7
correspond to the mean of the measurements (dots) in the bin.
No systematic variation could be detected. For example,
Laboratory B consistently had the highest hydraulic conductiv-
ities for Soil CL, but had hydraulic conductivities comparable to
the other laboratories for Soils ML and CH. Similarly, Labora-
tory N had the highest hydraulic conductivities for the Soil ML,
but hydraulic conductivities typical of most other laboratories
for Soil CL, and some of the lowest hydraulic conductivities for
the Soil CH. Laboratory F exhibited the greatest variability in
hydraulic conductivity for Soil CH, but the hydraulic conductiv-
ities of Soils ML and CL measured by Laboratory F exhibited
similar variability as measured by the other laboratories.
Termination Criteria and
Testing Method
Data sheets for each of the tests were examined to determine if
other factors could be identified that contributed systematically
to variability in hydraulic conductivity. Two factors that stood
out were non-compliance with the termination criteria and the
method in ASTM D5084 actually used by the laboratory (i.e.,
methods other than Method C stated in the instructions).
Method C states that permeation should be continued
“until at least four values of hydraulic conductivity are obtained
over an interval of time in which the ratio of outflow to inflow
rate is between 0.75 and 1.25, and the hydraulic conductivity is
BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 485
steady.” The criterion on the ratio of outflow to inflow is
referred to as the “steady flow” criterion. Each of the data sheets
was examined to determine if the steady flow and steady
hydraulic conductivity criteria were satisfied. The findings are
summarized in Table 9.
Most of the laboratories satisfied both criteria for the ML
and CL soils (Table 9). However, the termination criteria were
satisfied for only 20 of the 36 tests conducted on Soil CH, with
Laboratories C, H, I, K, and N not satisfying the termination
criteria for any of the tests conducted on Soil CH. The difficulty
and time required to measure the low hydraulic conductivity of
Soil CH (total test time up to 927 hr or 38.6 d) (Table 8) prob-
ably was responsible for the large number of tests for which the
termination criteria were not satisfied for this soil. Moreover,
Laboratory K did not satisfy the termination criteria for any of
the nine tests they were assigned, and Laboratory N satisfied the
criteria for only four of the nine tests they were assigned. Labo-
ratory K recorded only one measurement of hydraulic conduc-
tivity for each of the assigned test specimens for Soil CH.
Nevertheless, the variability of the hydraulic conductivities
measured by Laboratory K on Soil CH was not distinguishable
from the variability in hydraulic conductivity reported by the
other laboratories for this soil.
Laboratories A and B used Method F (constant volume–
falling head, by mercury, rising tailwater elevation) instead of
Method C when testing Soil CH, despite instructions to use
Method C. No explanation was provided for using Method F,
but the most likely reason was to expedite the test. Laboratory
A apparently started testing the specimens of Soil CH using
486 Geotechnical Testing Journal
FIG. 7 Hydraulic conductivity of Soils ML (a), CL (b), and CH (c) as a
function of laboratory conducting tests. Solid lines are arithmetic
means.
Method C, and then switched to Method F after the steady hy-
draulic conductivity and/or outflow-inflow ratio criterion were
not met for all three test specimens after 18 d of permeation.
Laboratory B conducted the tests on Soil CH only using Method
F and offered no explanation for not using Method C.
Despite these shortcomings, variability in the hydraulic
conductivity could not be linked systematically to not meeting
the termination criteria or using Method F instead of Method
C, which suggests that the test method may not be sensitive to
meeting all of the termination criteria. The similarity of the
hydraulic conductivities obtained with Method F as obtained
with Method C also suggests that the procedures in D5084 are
sufficiently robust that the same outcome can be expected
regardless of the method used. Wang and Benson (1999) deter-
mined that Method F and Method E (constant volume–constant
head, by mercury) yielded the same hydraulic conductivity as
measured with Method C when used to test geosynthetic clay
liners. A more comprehensive study must be conducted, how-
ever, to confirm that each method provides the same hydraulic
conductivity.
Permeant Water
Samples of tap water used for the hydraulic conductivity tests
were submitted by nine of the participating laboratories. These
samples were analyzed for total concentrations of metals (Al,
Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Zn were above detection limits)
and anions (Br-, Cl-, F-, NO3- SO42-, and PO43-). Metals were
analyzed by inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spec-
troscopy (ICP-OES) under USEPA Method 6010C (USEPA
2007a). Anions were measured by ion chromatography (IC)
under USEPA Method 9056A (USEPA 2007b).
Concentrations of metals and anions in the tap waters are
summarized in Table 10 with the ionic strength (I), RMD, and
pH of each tap water. Ionic strength is a measure of total ionic
concentration and is defined as (IUPAC 2014):
1X n
I¼ ci z 2 (1)
2 i¼1 i
where:
ci and zi ¼ the concentration and valence of the ith ion, and
n ¼ the number of ions in solution.
RMD is a measure of the relative abundance of monovalent
and polyvalent cations in the permeant water, and is defined as
(Kolstad et al. 2004):
MM
RMD ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (2)
MD
where:
MM ¼ the total molar concentration of monovalent cations,
and
MD ¼ the total molar concentration of polyvalent cations.
When computing I and RMD, metals were assumed to be
fully dissociated cations, with K and Na assumed to be monova-
lent; Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, and Zn assumed to be divalent; and Al
assumed to be trivalent.
 BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 487

TABLE 9 Summary of status of termination criteria.

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Lab Steady Hydraulic Conductivity Steady Flow Steady Hydraulic Conductivity Steady Flow Steady Hydraulic Conductivity Steady Flow
Soil ML
A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
D Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
E Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
H Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
K No No No No No No
L Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
N No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Soil CL
A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C Yes No Yes No Yes No
D Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
E Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
H Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
K No No No No No No
L Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
N No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Soil CH
A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C Yes No Yes No Yes No
D Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
E Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
H No No No No No No
I Yes No Yes No Yes No
K No No No No No No
L Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
M Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
N Yes No No No Yes No

Chemistry of the permeant waters had no discernable sys-
tematic effect on hydraulic conductivity. This is consistent with
the overall characteristics and the narrow range in chemical
properties of the tap waters used for permeation (Table 10),
which are circumneutral (pH 6.8–8.1), dilute (I ¼ 0.38–6.85
mM, average ¼ 3.56 mM), and have low RMD (< 0.065 M0.5,
average ¼ 0.036 M0.5) compared to leachates and other liquids
often encountered when testing fine-grained soils for waste con-
tainment applications (e.g., Bradshaw and Benson 2014).
A comparison is shown in Fig. 8 of RMD and I of the tap
waters in this study and pore waters in near surface soils
reported by Scalia and Benson (2010). The tap waters in this
study and the pore waters reported by Scalia and Benson (2010)
(I ¼ 0.80–11.28 mM, average ¼ 5.69 mM; RMD ¼ 0.006–0.115
M0.5; average ¼ 0.044 M0.5) have comparable I and RMD, indi-
cating that tap water can represent pore water realistically.
However, the 10 mM CaCl2 solution recommended in ASTM
D5084, which is referred to anecdotally as “standard water,” has
488 Geotechnical Testing Journal

TABLE 10 Chemical characteristics of tap water used in study.

Metal Concentrations (lg/L)

Lab Al Na K Ca Mg Cu Fe Mn Zn
A 548 13,831 338 4914 893 177.4 19.9 37.2 37.2
B <50 35,449 4267 40,308 4654 <5 <1 13.0 77.9
D <50 62,070 3830 60,210 9050 70.0 <1 <1 90.0
E <50 15,401 1573 30,869 8413 24.4 <1 0.4 8.2
F <50 753 49 697 56 72.7 <1 1.9 4536
H <50 21,755 1993 29,726 8137 15.9 <1 4.3 1874
I <50 11,278 2063 3344 1072 48.4 <1 4.5 1209
L <50 28,116 2679 42,092 4685 12.1 <1 1.1 555
M <50 14,097 1541 31,725 11,592 106.0 <1 <1 65.5

Anion Concentrations (lg/L)

 
Lab Br Cl F NO
3 SO42 PO43 Ionic Strength (mM) RMD (M0.5) pH

A 4,470 6520 580 <10 287,890 <20 6.85 0.045 7.4

B <10 32,380 270 5190 53,100 <20 4.84 0.048 6.8
D <10 4220 450 410 290 <20 5.23 0.065 7.7
E <10 21,590 810 10,440 22,810 <20 3.47 0.021 7.2
F <10 2350 0 2920 5880 <20 0.38 0.004 7.5
H 240 22,450 1010 2480 59,070 <20 4.30 0.030 6.9
I <10 6960 <10 67,290 15,710 <20 1.53 0.045 8.1
L <10 20,540 810 24,310 43,740 <20 1.77 0.045 7.5
M <10 20,660 790 3110 23,520 <20 3.69 0.018 7.8

Note: Laboratories C, K, and N did not submit samples of tap water.

much higher ionic strength (30 mM) and much lower RMD (0
M0.5) than the tap waters or the pore waters. The NaCl-CaCl2
solution (1.3 mM NaCl and 0.8 mM CaCl2; I ¼ 3.7 mM,
RMD ¼ 0.046 M0.5) proposed by Scalia and Benson (2010) as
an alternative to the 10 mM CaCl2 solution is similar to the tap
waters and the pore waters (Fig. 8), and appears to be a more re-
alistic water to use for hydraulic conductivity testing if tap water
is not acceptable or if a defined chemical solution is needed for
testing.
FIG. 8 RMD versus ionic strength of pore water of near-surface soils in Scalia
and Benson (2010) and tap waters submitted by laboratories in this
study.
Statistical Analysis by ILS Staff
The data in Tables 3–5 were analyzed by ILS staff under the pro-
cedures in ASTM E691 to determine the precision of hydraulic
conductivity measurements obtained with Method C in terms
of repeatability and reproducibility. Precision is defined in
ASTM E177-14 as “the closeness of agreement between inde-
pendent test results obtained under stipulated conditions.”
Repeatability is precision under “conditions where independent
test results are obtained with the same method on identical test
items in the same laboratory by the same operator using the
same equipment within short intervals of time.” Reproducibility
is precision under “conditions where test results are obtained
with the same method on identical test items in different labora-
tories with different operators using different equipment.”
Repeatability and reproducibility are evaluated when developing
a precision statement following the procedures in ASTM E691.
Bias, which is defined as “the difference between the expec-
tation of the test results and an accepted reference value” in
ASTM E177, was not evaluated in this study because “accepted
reference values” are not available for the hydraulic conductivity
of Soils ML, CL, or CH. As described in ASTM E177, an
accepted reference value is a “theoretical or established value
based on scientific principles,” an “assigned or certified value,
based on experimental work of some national or international
organization,” or “a consensus or certified value, based on
 BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 489

TABLE 11 Reproducibility and repeatability of hydraulic conductivity measured using Method C of ASTM D5084 for Soils ML, CL, and CH.

Global Mean Reproducibility Standard Repeatability Standard Reproducibility Repeatability R r

Soil (Xm, cm/s) Deviation (sR, cm/s) Deviation (sr, cm/s) Limit (R, cm/s) Limit (r, cm/s) Xm Xm

ML 1.2  10–6 4.4  10–7 3.3  10–7 1.2  10–6 9.3  10–7 1.0 0.8
CL 3.8  10–8 6.2  10–9 4.4  10–9 1.8  10–8 1.2  10–8 0.5 0.3
CH 3.6  10–9 4.7  10–9 2.9  10–9 1.3  10–8 8.2  10–9 3.6 2.3

collaborative experimental work under the auspices of a scien-
tific or engineering group.” No accepted reference values exist
for the hydraulic conductivity of soils, and to the authors’
knowledge, for any other soil property. Thus, bias statements
rarely exist for geotechnical testing standards.
The procedure in ASTM E691 assumes that the test results
obtained from any laboratory are part of a larger population
normally distributed with global mean (Xm) and global repro-
2
ducibility variance (sxr ). The standard deviation, which is used
more commonly, is the square root of the variance (Feller
1968). The global mean is estimated as the arithmetic average of
the m total measurements, xi, for a particular soil:
1X m
Xm ¼ Xi (3)
m i¼1
The global reproducibility variance is (s2xR):
s2xR ¼ s2rp þ s2Xm (4)
The reproducibility and repeatability limits for Method C
in ASTM D5084 for Soils ML, CL, and CH computed using
these definitions from ASTM E691 are summarized in Table
11. From a practical perspective, the reproducibility limits
indicate that hydraulic conductivity can be measured with
Method C within a factor of approximately 4.0 in the range
of 10–9 cm/s, 1.5 in the range of 10–8 cm/s, and 2.0 in the
range of 10–6 cm/s.
As stated in the discussion of Fig. 2, the hydraulic conduc-
tivity data exhibit negative skew that is more characteristic of a
lognormal distribution than a normal distribution. Thus, the
normality assumption implicit in the methods in ASTM E691
was not satisfied. However, the variance of the hydraulic con-
ductivity data for each soil type is small, and for small variances
the normal and lognormal distributions are similar (Aitchison
and Brown 1957). Thus, the precision limits reported in Table 11
are reasonable, even if the normality assumption was not satis-
fied precisely.

where: Summary and Conclusions

2
srp ¼ the pooled repeatability variance (average of variances
from each set of laboratory data), and An intra- and inter-laboratory study has been described that
2
sXm ¼ the variance of the means of the data sets from each was conducted to evaluate the precision of hydraulic conductiv-
of k laboratories. ity measurements on finer-grained soils measured with Method
The pooled repeatability variance is estimated as: C of ASTM D5084. Three fine-grained soils (silt, low plasticity
clay, high plasticity clay) were used in the testing program. The
1X k
soils had hydraulic conductivities in the range of 10–6, 10–8, and
s2rp ¼ s2 (5)
k i¼1 ri 10–9 cm/s. Twelve laboratories participated in the program,
completing tests on 107 test specimens. Data submitted by the
where:
laboratories were used to characterize the variability in hydrau-
sri2 ¼ the variance of the hydraulic conductivity measure-
lic conductivity measurements, evaluate testing factors that may
ments from the ith of k laboratories, and
2 have contributed to variability, and to develop a precision state-
sXm ¼ the variance of the averages for the k sets of labora-
ment for ASTM D5084. The following conclusions were made
tory measurements for a material.
based on the findings of the study:
The “reproducibility limits” (R) of a test in ASTM E691 to
correspond to the 95th percentile confidence interval on the • The experience in this study suggests that a completion
mean for an underlying normally distributed population: rate of 80 % should be expected in an ILS study and con-
sidered when selecting the number of laboratories to
R ¼ Xm 6 2:8sxR (6) participate.
• Hydraulic conductivity measurements obtained with
where the factor 2.8 corresponds to the number of standard D5084 exhibit skew characteristic of a lognormal distri-
deviations that capture 95 % of the variability in the mean. Sim- bution rather than the normal distribution assumed in
ilarly, the “repeatability limits” for a laboratory correspond to: the statistical methods in ASTM E691. However, the
standard deviation is small, making the difference
r ¼ Xi 6 2:8srp (7)
between the distributions modest. Nevertheless, the
where Xi is the mean from the ith of k laboratories. standard deviation of the logarithm of hydraulic
490 Geotechnical Testing Journal
conductivity in cm/s is not negligible, and measurement
variability likely has been a non-negligible component
incorporated into the spatial variability reported in past
studies of hydraulic conductivity.
• No systematic relationship was observed between the var-
iability in hydraulic conductivity and the small variations
in compaction water content and dry unit weight of the
test specimens, indicating that the specimen preparation
procedure developed by Committee D18 for ASTM D698
provides uniform and nearly identical test specimens.
• No systematic effect was observed between variability in
hydraulic conductivity and consolidation or permeation
time, backpressure, or B-coefficient measured at the end
of consolidation. B-coefficients <0.95 were reported for
26 % of the specimens. However, saturation likely was
achieved during permeation after the B-coefficient mea-
surement. Thus, the test method is not sensitive to speci-
fication of these test parameters and the outcome of the
B-coefficient measurement at the end of consolidation.
• The steady hydraulic conductivity and steady flow termi-
nation criteria required in ASTM D5084 were not satis-
fied for all of the tests, including 20 of the 36 tests on the
high plasticity clay, which had low hydraulic conductivity
(10–9 cm/s). Two laboratories did not satisfy the termi-
nation criteria on nearly all of the tests they conducted.
Nevertheless, no systematic relationship was identified
between hydraulic conductivity and compliance with the
termination criteria, suggesting that the test method is
not sensitive to meeting all of the termination criteria.
• Variability in hydraulic conductivity was not sensitive to
the chemistry of the tap water used for permeation, and
the tap waters had similar chemistry to pore waters for
near surface soils reported in Scalia and Benson (2010).
The NaCl-CaCl2 solution (1.3 mM NaCl, 0.8 mM CaCl2)
recommended in Scalia and Benson (2010) is more repre-
sentative of the natural pore waters and the tap waters
used in this testing program, and is recommended as a
permeant water in lieu of the 10 mM CaCl2 solution
stipulated as an acceptable permeant water in ASTM
D5084.
• The reproducibility and repeatability limits obtained
from the precision analysis conducted with the test data
were used to develop the precision statement published
in ASTM D5084. From a practical perspective, the repro-
ducibility limit indicates that hydraulic conductivity typi-
cally can be measured within a factor of 2 for hydraulic
conductivity in the 10–6 cm/s range, a factor of 1.5 for the
10–8 cm/s range, and a factor of 4 for the 10–9 cm/s range.
• a Flexible Wall Permeameter, ASTM International, West Con-
Many of the laboratories in the study did not follow the
test method precisely or the supplemental instructions that
were provided. This finding is consistent with the authors’
observations in practice, and suggests that ASTM geotech-
nical test methods are being cited in engineering reports
even though laboratories are not following the methods
carefully. Committee D18 should consider the implications
of this finding, and evaluate whether laboratory
accreditation and auditing programs need greater emphasis
in geotechnical and geological engineering.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for this study was provided by the
ASTM Institute for Standards Research, Benson’s
Wisconsin Distinguished Professorship while at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, and the US Department of Energy
through the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder
Participation (CRESP). Jeremy Baugh prepared the test speci-
mens and compiled the data submitted by the laboratories.
Ph.D. student Jeffrey Ziegler of Washington University in
St. Louis prepared the tables. The following firms participated
in the study: Fugro-Texas, GeoTesting Express, Geotesting Serv-
ices, Geo-Logic Associates, Golder Associates, MACTEC, H.C.
Nutting Inc., 3rd Rock LLC, RMT Inc., Daniel B. Stephens &
Associates, STS Inc., and Vector Engineering. The authors are
grateful to the laboratories that participated in this study and
the following persons who provided assistance: Jeanne Asquith,
Ken Criley, Lam Dang, Bill DeGroff, Ron Ebelhar, John Han-
son, Joleen Hines, Jim Horton, Henry Mock, Bill Quinn, Greg
Thomas, and Gary Torosian.
References
Aitchison, J. and Brown, J., 1957, The Lognormal Distribution
with Special Reference to its Use in Economics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
ASTM D698-12e2, 2012, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
(12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org
ASTM D2216-10, 2010, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock
by Mass, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org
ASTM D2487-11, 2011, Standard Practice for Classification of
Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification
System), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org
ASTM D4318-10e1, 2010, Standard Test Methods for
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org
ASTM D5084-10, 2010, Standard Test Methods for Measurement
of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using
shohocken, PA, www.astm.org
ASTM E177-14, 2014, Standard Practice for Use of the Terms
Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods, ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org
ASTM E691-14, 2014, Standard Practice for Conducting an
Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test
Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org

Benson, C., 1993, “Probability Distributions for Hydraulic
Conductivity of Compacted Soil Liners,” J. Geotech. Eng.,
Vol. 119, No. 3, pp. 471–486.
Benson, C. and Daniel, D., 1990, “Influence of Clods on
Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted Clay,” J. Geotech.
Eng., Vol. 116, No. 8, pp. 1231–1248.
Benson, C., Daniel, D., and Boutwell, G., 1999, “Field Perform-
ance of Compacted Clay Liners,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., Vol. 125, No. 5, pp. 390–403.
Benson, C. and Gurdal, T., 2013, “Hydrologic Properties
of Final Cover Soils,” Foundation Engineering in the
Face of Uncertainty, GSP No. 229, J. Withiam, K.-K.
Phoon, and M. Hussein, Eds., ASCE, Reston VA, pp.
283–297.
Benson, C., Zhai, H., and Wang, X., 1994, “Estimating Hydrau-
lic Conductivity of Compacted Clay Liners,” J. Geotech. Eng.,
Vol. 120, No. 2, pp. 366–387.
Bradshaw, S. and Benson, C., 2014, “Effect of Municipal
Solid Waste Leachate on Hydraulic Conductivity
and Exchange Complex of Geosynthetic Clay Liners,”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 140, No. 4, 04013038.
Daniel, D. and Benson, C., 1990, “Water Content-Density Crite-
ria for Compacted Soil Liners,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol. 116,
No. 12, pp. 1811–1830.
Feller, W., 1968, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its
Applications, John Wiley, New York.
Germaine, J. and Germaine, A., 2009, Geotechnical Laboratory
Measurements for Engineers, Wiley, New York.
Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Fri May 20 23:34:12 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Craig H. Benson (University of Virginia, School of Engineering, 351 McCormick Road, Thornton Hall, Room A125PO Box 400246, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States, 22904)
Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.
View publication stats
BENSON AND YESILLER ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 491
IUPAC, 2014, Compendium of Chemical Terminology – Gold
Book, Version 2.3.3, International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Kolstad, D., Benson, C., and Edil, T., 2004, “Hydraulic Conduc-
tivity and Swell of Nonprehydrated GCLs Permeated With
Multispecies Inorganic Solutions,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., Vol. 130, No. 12, pp. 1236–1249.
Mitchell, J., Hooper, D., and Campanella, R., 1965,
“Permeability of Compacted Clay,” ASCE J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 41–65.
Scalia, J. and Benson, C., 2010, “Effect of Permeant Water on
the Hydraulic Conductivity of Exhumed Geosynthetic Clay
Liners,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 1–13.
USEPA 6010C, 2007a: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Emission Spectrometry, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Document No. SW-846,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA 9056a, 2007b: Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion
Chromatography, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, Document No. SW-846, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Wang, X. and Benson, C., 1999, “Hydraulic Conductivity Test-
ing of Geosynthetic Clay Liners Using the Constant Volume
Method,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 277–283.
Zhai, H. and Benson, C., 2006, “The Log-Normal Distribution
for Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted Clays: Two or
Three Parameters?” Geotech. Geol. Eng., Vol. 24, No. 5,
pp. 1149–1162.