EFFECT  OF  FREEZE-THAW  ON  THE HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY  OF  BARRIER MATERIALS: LABORATORY
                 AND FIELD EVALUATION
                             by
                Jason F. Kraus and Craig H. Benson
                Environmental Geotechnics Program
          Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
                 University of Wisconsin-Madison
                      Madison, Wisconsin
                    Cooperative Agreement

                       CR-821024-01-0
              Environmental Geotechnics Report 94-5
                        Project Officer
                       Robert Landreth
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                    Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
      NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
           OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    CINCINNATI, OH 45268

-------
                                      CONTACT

Robert Landreth is the EPA contact for this report.  He is presently with the newly organized
National Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Land Remediation and Pollution
Control Division in Cincinnati, OH (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, and
is now responsible for research conducted by the Land Remediation and Pollution Control
Division in Cincinnati.

-------
                             DISCLAIMER
 , ,                   ,                    .   „,       ,      |
      The information in the document has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under  assistance agreement
number CR-821024-01-0.   It has  been subject  to the Agency's  peer  and
administrative review and has been approved for publication as  a  U.S. EPA
document.  Mention of trade names  or commercial  products  does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                  FOREWORD
                                                                 i
      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress With protecting
                                                                 i
the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national; environmental
laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible
balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture
life. To meet this mandate, EPA's  research program is providing data and technical
                                                                 i
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological  resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.     i
                                                _ . .        ....    j     .      ,  .
      The National Risk Management Research  Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats
to human health and the environment.  The focus of the Laboratory's research program is
on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface
resources; protection of water  quality in public water systems  ;  remediation of
contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution.
The goal of this research  effort  is  to catalyze  development and implementation of
innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific arid engineering
information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions;  and provide
technical  support and  information  transfer to  ensure  effective  implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies.                            i
     i                                     •                       !

      This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research  plan.   It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and
Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
                                    E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
                                    National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                       111

-------
                                 ABSTRACT                  ;

       Tests were performed in the laboratory to assess the impact jof freeze-thaw
 on the hydraulic conductivity of two compacted clays and three alternative barrier
 materials: a sand-bentonite mixture, three geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), and
 three paper mill sludges.  Results of laboratory tests on the clays, sand-bentonite
 mixture,  and  GCLs  were  compared to data obtained from  the COLDICE
 (Construction of Liners Deployed in Cold Environments) project coriducted by the
 U. S.  Army Cold  Regions  Research and Engineering Laboratory i(CRREL) and
 CH2M  Hill, Inc.  The  COLDICE  project is a large-scale field study designed to
 evaluate the effect of freeze-thaw on the hydraulic conductivity of barrier materials.
 Results of laboratory tests performed on the paper mill sludges were compared to
 results of hydraulic conductivity tests performed in a small-scale field study
 conducted at the  University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The small-scale field study
 consisted of compacting paper mill sludge in large PVC pipes and measuring their
 hydraulic  conductivity before and after exposure to freeze-thaw. Tests were also
 performed on  the paper mill sludges to determine how effective stress  and
 permeation time affect hydraulic conductivity.
       Results of this project show that:                            \
 (1)  The  hydraulic  conductivity  of compacted clay increases as  a result  of
     exposure to freeze-thaw.  Cracks that form due to desiccation (induced by
     freezing) and formation  of ice lenses  are responsible for the  increase  in
     hydraulic  conductivity.   Furthermore,  greater  increases  Jin hydraulic
     conductivity occur in the field  relative to those that are observed in freeze-thaw
     tests conducted in the laboratory.  Larger cracks and a more blocky structure
     occur in the field.  The exact cause of this difference in structure iis not known.
     It possibly can be attributed to differences in soil structure prior to freezing.
                                                               i
                                                               |
(2)  The hydraulic conductivity of the bentonitic barrier materials (sand-bentonite
     mixture, geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs)) tested in this study was Insensitive to
     freeze-thaw.  This was observed in the field (COLDICE data) and in  the
     laboratory.  Although segregated ice was observed in  sections of frozen
     specimens, no cracks were observed in the sand-bentonite mixture or GCLs
     after  thawing. Apparently, cracks in the soft bentonite close during thawing
     and thus  no increase in hydraulic conductivity occurs.  This  behavior is in
                                    IV

-------
     direct contrast to the behavior of compacted clays, which are relatively stiff and
     retain the cracks incurred during freezing after thawing has occurred.
                                                             i
(3)  Hydraulic  conductivities  less than  1  x 10-9 m/s were  obtained  when
     compacting the three paper mill sludges wet of optimum water content. Two of
     the sludges behaved like clay when subjected to freeze-thaw.  :Their hydraulic
     conductivity increased one to two orders of magnitude.  In contrast, the other
     sludge  was resistant to freeze-thaw  if  it was permeated after each  thaw.
     However,  if this  sludge  was  frozen   and thawed  without  intermittent
     permeation, the hydraulic conductivity increased approximately one order of
     magnitude.
                                   ,        .          _       !
(4)   The small-scale field tests with the sludge were inconclusive.  |When the field
     specimens were permeated in the pipes,  a reduction in hydraulic conductivity
     was observed after one winter of freeze-thaw.  However, when 'the specimens
     were removed from the pipes  as slices and permeated in flexible-wall
     permeameters,  increases in hydraulic conductivity of approximately one  order
     of magnitude were observed.  This discrepancy in hydraulic conductivity may
     have been the result of disturbance  incurred when the specimens were sliced
     from the pipes.  Nevertheless, the effect that freeze-thaw has on paper mill
     sludges in the field is not clear. Large-scale  field tests are recommended to
     address this issue.

-------
VI

-------
                          TABLE  OF CONTENTS
 DISCLAIMER
 FOREWORD
                .......... :- ............. ................ • ........................... • ......................... . ............. .....ill
 ABSTRACT ..... [[[ ..... . ............................... ;L          jv
 LIST OF FIGURES... [[[ .               !            vi!
                                            •••••»...*......,...,.,.......,,... ....,..»...,,....,,.,, .All
 LISTOFTABLES ............... .
 1.   INTRODUCTION
 2.   BACKGROUND
                                                                        2
    2.1  IMPACTS OF FREEZE-THAW ON COMPACTED CLAY   !            ?
    2.2  BENTONITIC BARRIER MATERIALS ................................. »!!"I"!!!""!!""!!!."".5
         2.2.1 Sand-Bentonite Mixtures .....................................                  5
         2.2.2 Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) ................. !""."'." ™."3!!!!!™/Z'"'""6
    2.3  PAPER MILL SLUDGE ...................................... ..... ....................... .            8
 3,  MATERIALS,..: ................................ . .................................... ; .....         _         13
    3.1  CLAYS .................................
                                                            •r:
                                                                       13
        3.1.1  Index Properties....,	              13
        3.1.2  Compaction	."......^                	13
    3.2 BENTONITIC BARRIER MATERIALS	\	16
        3.2.1  Sand-Bentonite Mixture	   ;     _      -|g
              3,2.1.1 Index Properties	           15
              3.2.1.2 Compaction.	^"."'."'.'"""'"'19
        3.2.2  Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs)	i	19
    3.3 PAPER MILL SLUDGES	   i...     .    23
                                                            i
        3.3.1  Index Tests	    !           23
        3.3.2  Compaction	".'."""ll"'.T.".	24
4.   METHODS	i           27

-------
 4.1   CLAYS.
     4.1.1  Field Methods.
            4.1.1.1 COLDICE Test Pads..
            4.1.1.2 In Situ Box Infiltrometers.,
                                                                        .27
                                                                        .27
.27
.29
            4.1.1.3 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale
                   Hydraulic Conductivity	29
                                             .-  .              !
     4.1.2  Laboratory Methods	;	'           35

            4.1.2.1 Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content
                   Relationships	!.	35
            4,1.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	I......:..............."!... 36
            4.1.2.3 One-Dimensional Freeze-Thaw Tests	.......!............."."38

 4.2  SAND-BENTONITE MIXTURE	......;	    40
                                                             i
     4.2.1   Field Methods	[    _       40

            4.2.1.1 COLDICE Test Pads.	  !           40
            4.2.1.2 In Situ Box Infiltrometers..	,	i..'".'.'.'.'".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."40
            4.2.1.3 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale
                   Hydraulic Conductivity	;	..40
                                                             i     	""""
     4.2.2   Laboratory Methods	i           43

            4.2.2.1 Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content       '<
                   Relationship	j           43
            4.2.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	."......."..."!.!.."!."43

4.3  GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINERS (GCLs)....	j	44

     4.3.1   Field Methods	     _     44

           4.3.1.1  COLDICE Test Ponds and Pans-Field       •
                   Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity.	44
           4.3.1.2 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale
                   Hydraulic Conductivity	45

     4.3.2  Laboratory Methods	45

           4.3.2.7  Laboratory Measurement of Hydraulic       ;
                   Conductivity	(          45
           4.3.2.2  Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	........".."i................l."48

4.4  PAPER MILL  SLUDGES	...	;	49

                                 viii

-------
         4.4.1  Field Methods	;             49

                4.4.1.1 Compaction of Pipe Specimens	j	49
                4.4.1.2 Instrumentation and Burial of Pipe Specimens........'"""...49
                4.4.1.3 Permeation of Pipe Specimens	.'	.."..........52
                4.4.1.4 Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity in "	
                       Flexible-Wall Permeameters	54

         4.4.2  Laboratory Methods..	,	             54

                4.4.2.1 Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content    \
                       Relationships	;...           54
                4.4.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'".'.'.'.'.'.'.'I'.'	55
                4.4.2.3 Effective stress Tests	!!!"Z!"!!""!!!!!;!!!	57
                4.4.2.4 Long-Term Hydraulic Conductivity reste.....l......................57

5.  RESULTS:  CLAYS	[             58

    5.1  FIELD  TESTS	;             58

         5.1.1  Freeze-Thaw Monitoring	                58
         5.1.2 In Situ Box Infiltrometers	-"."""""""""";	   58
         5.1.3 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale   	!	
               Hydraulic Conductivity	'.	]             QQ

               5.1.3.1 Block Specimens	.„!   .          50
               5.1.3.2 Specimens Collected in Thin-Wall Tubes"'''l"f"''^""^'"'.	64
               5.1.3.3 Frozen Core Specimens	...........!!.....   68
               5.1.3.4 Structure of Compacted Clay Subjected to l	
                      Freeze-Thaw.	;    ..........    68

    5.2  LABORATORY TESTS	[        ......72
                                                              !         ""
         5.2.1  Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships;...	       72
         5.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	             72
         5.2.3 One-Dimensional Freeze-Thaw Tests	............."....!!."."!"1"!.1.""76

    5.3  COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS	...76

6.   RESULTS: SAND-BENTONITE MIXTURE	[.	82

    6.1   FIELD TESTS	;	.J             82

         6.1.1 Freeze-Thaw  Monitoring	                     82
         6.1.2 In Situ Box Infiltrometers	„	......"!l.....f...	82
         6.1.3 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale     	"'	
              Hydraulic Conductivity	            83

                                     ix                       i

-------
    6.2  LABORATORY TESTS	      ;-          85

         6.2,1  Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships '•           85
         6.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	    ........"	85
                                                           i
    6.3  COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS	87
                                                           i
7.  RESULTS: GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINERS (GCLs)	[	92

    7.1  FIELD TESTS'.	';           Q2

         7.1.1  GCL Test Ponds and Pans	.„.'           92
         7-1.2  Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale        	:	
              Hydraulic Conductivity	:           95

    7.2  LABORATORY TESTS	\J_         95

        7.2.1  Laboratory-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity Tests	             95
        7.2.2  Structure of Frozen Specimens	             	'	-JOP
        7.2,3  Bentonite in Effluent	»~!!Z"!!!!"!:!!!!!!!!!".'""!!.'io2

    7.3  COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS	104

8.  RESULTS: PAPER MILL SLUDGES	!          105

    8.1  FIELD TESTS	      •          105

        8.1.1  Compaction of Pipe Specimens	•.....105
        8.1.2  Freeze-Thaw Monitoring of Pipe Specimens	105
        8.1.3  Hydraulic Conductivity of Pipe Specimens ..ZZ!!!""^//.!!".3".1'.106

              8.1.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity Measured in Pipes	106
              8.1.3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Measured in Flexible-Wail	
                    Permeameters.	   106

    8.2  LABORATORY TESTS	    -, -, 1

        8.2.1 Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships.
        8.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests	...............111

             8.2.2.1 Low-K Molding Water Contents	     111
             8.2.2.2 As-Received Molding Water Contents	....."..........118

        8.2.3 Effective Stress Tests
        8.2.4 Long-Term Hydraulic Conductivity

   8.3  COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS	122

-------
9.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	,	[	..124

   9.1  COMPACTED CLAYS	                           104
   9.2  SAND-BENTONITE MIXTURE	           	'	105
   9.3  GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINERS (GCLs)	."."	]	"lofi
   9.4  PAPER MILL SLUDGES	™ZIZZ"!"""Il26

REFERENCES	j         128

APPENDIX A	i         132

APPENDIX B....	:	:.         13g
                             XI

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES
 Rgure2.1.  Hydraulic conductivity vs.  number of freeze-thaw cycles for three
             Wisconsin clays (after Othman and  Benson 1993).
                                                               i

 F:igure 2.2.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. depth for tests performed • on specimens
             sliced from "field" specimen (after Benson and Othman !1993).

 Figure 2.3.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cycles for sand-
             bentonite mixtures (after Wong and  Haug 1991).       |

 Figure 2.4.  Hydraulic conductivity  vs.  number of  freeze-thaw  cycles  for
             Bentomat® for test set 1 (a) and test set 2 (b) (after Robert L Nelson &
             Associates 1991).                                  i


 Figure 2.5.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. number  of freeze-thaw cycles at various
             effective stresses (after Zimmie et al. 1994).

 Figure 3.1.  Plasticity chart showing locations of  Parkview and Valley Trail clays.

 Figure 3.2.  Results of particle size analyses for Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b)
             clays.                                             ;          v '


 Figure 3.3.  Compaction curves for Parkview clay.                 \

 Figure 3.4.  Compaction curves for Valley Trail clay.               i

 Figure 3.5.   Results of particle size analysis for sand component of sand-bentoriite
             mixture.                                            \

 Figure 3.6.   Compaction curves for sand-bentonite.


 Figure 3.7.   Schematic diagrams of Bentofix® (a), Bentomat® (b), and Clavmax®
             (c)GCLs.                                          i

 Figure 3.8.   Compaction curve for Sludge A.                      !

 Figure 3.9.   Compaction curve for Sludge B.

 Figure 3.10.  Compaction curve for Sludge C.

 Figure 4.1.   Compaction curves and field compaction data for Parkview (a) and
             Valley Trail (b) test pads.                           .  i

Figure 4.2.   COLDICE project field test layout (from Erickson et al. 1994).
                                                               !
Figure 4.3.   Schematic of in situ box infiltrometer  (from Erickson et all 1994).
                                    xii

-------
 Figure 4.4.  Flexible-wall permeameter.                        '•

 F:igure4.5.  Large flexible-wall permeameter used for measuring hydraulic
             conductivity of block specimens.                    \

 Figure 4.6.  Trimming of block specimen (a) and separating block specimen from
             underlying soil using a wire saw (b).                 i

 Figure 4.7.  CRREL frozen soil core barrel sampler.              '

 Figure 4.8.  Temperature vs. time  for Valley Trail clay during three-dimensional
             freezing.                                          i

 Figure 4.9.  One-dimensional freezing set-up.                   j

 Figure 4.10.  Freezer and data-acquisition  system used for  one-dimensional
             freezing of compacted clay specimens.               !
                                                              (
 Figure 4.11.  Temperature vs. time for one-dimensional freezing of Parkview clav in
             the laboratory.                                     ;          •

 Figure 4.12.  Compaction curve and field  compaction data  for  siand-bentonite
             mixture.

 Figure 4.13.  Schematic of GCL test pan used  at the COLDICE  field site (from
             Erickson etal. 1994).

 Figure 4.14.  Photograph  of trimmed  Bentomat® specimen for laboratory testing.

 Figure 4.15.  Temperature vs. time for Bentomat® GCL frozen three-dimensionally.

 Figure 4.16.  Small-scale  field pipe specimens.                   I

 Figure 4.17.  Compaction of paper mill sludge pipe specimen.

 Figure 4.18.  Data acquisition set-up for buried pipe specimens.     i
                                                              ;
 Figure 4.19.  Burial of pipe specimens in the ground outside  the  Environmental
            Geotechnics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Figure 4.20. Photograph  of  sliced sludge specimen for hydraulic!  conductivity
            testing in flexible-wall permeameter.                  ;

Figure 4.21. Test set-up for hydraulic conductivity testing of compacted paper mill
            sludge specimens.                                  ;
                                   XIII

-------
  Figure 5.1.   Frost depth vs. time in the Parkview test pad (from Chamberlain 1994
              personal communication).                           i
  Figure 5.2.   Frost depth vs. time in the Valley Trail test pad (from'chamberlain
              1994, personal communication).                      !
  Figure 5.3.   Photograph of soil inside box infiltrometer-Parkview test pad.
  Figure 5.4.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. depth  for specimens removed from the
              Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b) test pads.             !
  Figure 5.5.   Interior of block specimens removed before winter from the Parkview
              (depth = 0-0.3 m) (a) and Valley Trail (depth = 0.6-0.9 m) i(b) test pads.
  Figure 5.6.   Interior  of block specimens removed after winter from a depth of 0-0 3
              m from the Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b) test pads.
 Figure 5.7.   Interior  of block specimens removed after winter from  a depth of 0 6-
              0.9m from the Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b) test padsj
 Figure 5.8.   Specimens removed from the  Parkview and Valley Trail test Dads
              using a  thin-wall tube (a) and their internal structure (b). :
                                         '             '  -         '-
 Figure 5.9.  Specimen removed from Parkview test pad while frozen using CRREL
             core barrel (from Erickson 1994, personal communication).
 Figure 5.10.  Test pit excavated  in Valley Trail test pad showing:  blocky soil
             structure caused by freeze-thaw.                      . i       y
 Figure 5.11,  Hydraulic conductivity vs.  molding water content for Parkview clay.
 Figure 5.12.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for Valley  Trail clay.
 Figure 5.13.  Hydraulic conductivity vs.  number of freeze-thaw cycles for Parkview
             (a) and Valley Trail (b) clay.                           i
 Figure 5.14.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. freezing rate for Parkview clay.
 Figure 5.15.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. freezing rate for Valley Trail clay!.
 Figure 5.16.  Interior of Parkview specimen frozen and thawed  in the  laboratory.
Figure 6.1.    Depth of frost penetration vs. time  for the COLDICE sand-bentonitp
            test pad  (after Chamberlain 1994, personal communication).
Figure 6.2.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for sand-bentonite.
                                    XIV

-------
 Figure 6.3.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cycles for sand-
             bentonite.                                          1

 Figure 6.4.   Photograph of sand-bentonite block specimens before! exposure to
             freeze-thaw (a) and after exposure to freeze-thaw (b) showing internal
             structure and bentonite-rich zones.
                                                               I
 Figure 6.5.   Photograph  of  internal  structure of  sand-bentonite  specimen
             compacted in the laboratory and subjected to freeze-thaw.

 Figure 6.6.   Photograph of the internal  structure of sand-bentonite specimen
             removed from the  COLDICE test pad after winter using  a thin-wall
             tube.
                                                       •  •      i •
 Figure 7.1.   Temperature vs. time beneath the GCLs  in  the COLDICE  test ponds
             for the winters of  1992-93 (a) and 1993-94 (b) (from  Chamberlain
             1994, personal communication).
                                                               i
 Figure 7.2.   Photograph of the two Bentomat® specimens removed from the GCL
             test ponds at the COLDICE field site.                   !

 Figure 7.3.   Results of freeze-thaw tests  on specimens of Bentofix® frozen arid
             thawed in the laboratory.

 Figure 7.4.   Results of freeze-thaw tests on specimens of Bentomat® frozen arid
            thawed in the laboratory.                             ;

 Figure 7.5.   Results of freeze-thaw tests  on specimens  of Claymax® frozen and
            thawed in the laboratory.

 Figure 7.6.  Photograph of section of frozen Claymax® GCL.

 Figure 7.7.  Photograph  of hydrated Bentomat®  specimens before and  after
            freeze-thaw.

 Figure 8.1.  Temperature vs.  time at various depths within  field  specimen
            consisting of paper  mill sludge A.

 Figure 8.2.  Temperature vs.  time at various depths  within  field  specimen
            consisting of paper  mill sludge B.                           »

 Figure 8.3.  Temperature vs.  time at various depths  within  field  specimen
            consisting of paper  mill sludge C.

Figure 8.4.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for paper mill sludge
            A.
                                    xv

-------
Figure 8.5.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for paper mill sludge
       -     B.                                                 ;
                                                               i
Figure 8.6.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for paper mill sludge
             C.

Figure 8.7.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cycles for low-K
             specimens (a) and as-received specimens (b): paper mill sludge A.

Figure 8.8.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cybles for low-K
             specimens (a) and as-received specimens (b): paper mill sludge B.
                                                    - -          |

Figure 8.9.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cycles for low-K
             specimens (a) and as-received specimens (b): paper mjll sludge C.

Figure 8.10.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. effective stress for paper mill sludges A, B,
             and C.                                           . .:

Figure 8.11.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. time for paper mill sludge A.  >

Figure 8.12.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. time for paper mill sludge B.  :
                                                               i
Figure 8.13.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. time for paper mill sludge C.  :

Figure B.1.   Air temperature vs. time  during winter of 1993-94 at srhall-scale field
             test site.
                                    XVI

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
 Table 3.1.

. Table 5.1.


 Table 5.2.



 Table 5.3.



 Table 5.4.




 Table 5.5.


 Table 5.6.



 Table 5.7.


 Table 6.1.


 Table 6.2.


Table 6.3.


Table 6.4.

Table 7.1.


Table 7.2.


Table 7.3.

Table 8.1.
 Results of GCL mass per unit area and free swell tests.:

 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on block specimens removed
 from the Parkview test pad.                        !

 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on block specimens removed
 from the Valley Trail test pad.                      ;


 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on thin-wall tube specimens
 removed from the COLDICE test pads.              ;
                                                 i

 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on specimens removed from the
 COLDICE test pads with CRREL frozen core barrel (from Chamberlain
 1994, personal communication).
                     ^                           i
 Results of freeze-thaw tests on  specimens of Parkview and Valley
 Trail clay  compacted in the laboratory.              ;

 Summary of hydraulic conductivity tests performed on Parkview field
 and laboratory specimens.                         ;


 Summary of  hydraulic conductivity tests  performed on Valley Trail
 field and laboratory specimens.                     ;

 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on  block specimens removed
 from the sand-bentonite test pad.

 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on thin-wall tube  specimens
 removed from the sand-bentonite test pad.

 Results of freeze-thaw tests on sand-bentonite specimens  compacted
 in the laboratory.     ,                            i


 Summary  of freeze-thaw test results for sand-bentonite mixture.

 Summary  of hydraulic conductivity test results for the GCL test pans
 used in the COLDICE project.                      '.

 Results of hydraulic conductivity  tests on  GCL specimens removed
from the COLDICE test ponds.

Summary  of freeze-thaw tests on GCL laboratory specimens.

Results  of hydraulic conductivity tests on paper mill sludge conducted
in the pipes.
                                    XVII

-------
 Table 8.2.



 Table 8.3.

 Table A. 1.



 Table A.2.



 Table A.3.



 Table A.4.



 Table A.5.



Table A.6.
 Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on sludge
 flexible-wall permeameters.
specimens tested in
 Summary of freeze-thaw test results for paper mill sludges
 Results of compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests
 Parkview clay.


 Results of compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests
 Valley Trail clay.


 Results of compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests
 sand-bentonite.


 Results of compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests
 paper mill sludge A.


 Results of  compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests
paper mill sludge B.


Results of  compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests
paper mill sludge C.
                                   XVIII
      performed on



      performed on



      performed on



      performed on



      performed on



      performed on

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
                                                              i        •
                                                              !
      Financial  support  for this study was provided by the United States
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under cooperative agreement CR 821024-
 01-0  and by the National Council  of the Paper  Industry for Air and Stream
 Improvement (NCASI). Mr. Robert Landreth was the Project Officer for EPA and Mr.
 Van Maltby was the contact person at NCASI.  Support for sampling andlhydraulic
 conductivity testing  of the block  specimens was provided  by Jamies  Clem
 Corporation  and Colloid Environmental Technologies Company (CETCO).  This
 report has not been  reviewed  by  NCASI, James Clem, or CETCQ  and no
 endorsement should be implied.
      Appreciation is extended to Mr. Allan Erickson of CH2M Hill, Inc.  and Mr.
 Edwin Chamberlain of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research
and Engineering  Laboratory (CRREL).   Mr. Erickson and Mr. Chamberlain
permitted sampling of the  COLDICE test pads, GCL test ponds and pans, and
provided field  and laboratory data.  Their assistance and cooperation  were
essential to the successful completion  of this study.
                                 XIX

-------
                                  SECTION  1

                               INTRODUCTION

       The low hydraulic conductivity of compacted clays has led to their frequent use
 in landfill liners and covers, caps over contaminated soil, and other applications where
 minimizing fluid flow is desired.  However, the  hydraulic integrity of compacted clay
 can be compromised if it freezes.  When the temperature of compacted clay falls below
 0°C, water present in the  clay freezes and ice lenses form.  Concurrently, soil below
 the freezing front desiccates as water is pulled to the growing ice lenses: (Benson and
 Othman 1993, Chamberlain et al. 1995).  As the temperature of the clay later rises
 above freezing, the ice lenses thaw, leaving behind a network of cracks that allow
 rapid transmission of water (Chamberlain et al. 1990, Benson and Othman 1993).
       Because  of the detrimental impact that freeze-thaw  has on compacted clay,
 alternative materials are being considered for use in hydraulic barrier applications in
 northern climates.  Three  alternative materials and two clays were examined in this
 study.   The alternative materials were a  sand-bentonite mixture, geosynthetic clay
 liners (GCLs), and paper mill sludges. Previous research indicates thatjthe hydraulic
 conductivity of sand-bentonite mixtures decreases after exposure  to freezing and
 thawing (Wong and Haug  1992).  Recent studies have also suggested that GCLs are
 resistant to the detrimental effects of freeze-thaw (e.g.,  Geoservices 1989, GeoSyntec
 1991, Shan and Daniel 1991).  Because of  their high water content and fiprous nature,
 paper mill sludges may also be resistant to  increases in hydraulic conductivity.
      The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect! that freezing
 and thawing has on the hydraulic conductivity of clays, sand-bentonite  mixtures, GCLs,
 and  paper industry sludges  under laboratory and field conditions,  to meet this
 objective, a battery of hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted in the laboratory on
 specimens prepared  under  conditions that yield low hydraulic conductivity.  The
 hydraulic conductivity of each specimen was measured before and after the specimen
 had  been exposed to a specified  number of freeze  thaw  cycles.  Results of the
 laboratory tests  were  compared to data from the  COLDICE project, a recent large-
scale field study evaluating the impact of freeze-thaw on compacted clays and GCLs
(Chamberlain et al. 1994), and small-scale field tests  using paper mill jsludges that
were conducted as part of this study.                                 i

-------
                                 SECTION  2                  i        .    '

                               BACKGROUND

 2.1   IMPACTS OF FREEZE-THAW ON  COMPACTED CLAY
      The deleterious effect that freeze-thaw has on the hydraulic; conductivity of
 compacted clays is well documented.  Chamberlain  et'al. (1990) have shown that
 changes  in soil structure that occur during freeze-thaw can result in significant
 increases in the hydraulic conductivity of compacted clays.  They compacted five clays
 at  optimum  water content  and  measured  their  hydraulic  conductivities in
 consolidometers.  For four of the clays, the hydraulic conductivity increased one to two
 orders of magnitude after being exposed to freeze-thaw.  Chamberlain et al. (1990)
 attributed the increases in hydraulic conductivity to macroscopic horizontal and vertical
 cracks that formed during freeze-thaw.                             j
      Othman and Benson (1993a) examined how freeze-thaw affected the hydraulic
 cpnductivity of three compacted clays.  Specimens were compacted i using standard
 and modified Proctor efforts  at water contents equal to or exceeding ioptimum water
 content.  Then, they were subjected to one or three-dimensional freeze-thaw. Factors
 investigated were molding water content, compactive effort, dimensionality of freezing,
 ultimate temperature below freezing, and temperature gradient.  Othman and Benson
 (1993a) found that the hydraulic conductivity of all three clays  increased about two
 orders of magnitude and attributed the increases in  hydraulic conductivity to a network
 of cracks that formed during freezing. Results of their study are shown in Figure 2.1.
      Similar results have been documented by other investigators (eJg., Zimmie and
 LaPlante 1990, Kim and Daniel 1992, Bowders and McClelland 1994).;  Othman  et al.
 (1994) provide a review and  synthesis of these studies.  They report that compacted
 clays having an initial hydraulic conductivity less than 1x10'9 m/s generally undergo
 an increase in hydraulic conductivity of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude when subjected to
 freeze-thaw.  Greater increases in hydraulic conductivity occur for clays having lower
 initial hydraulic conductivity,  specimens frozen more quickly, and tests conducted at
 lower effective stress.                                            :
      Three studies have been performed in the field to assess the impact of freeze-
thaw on the hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay.  Benson and Othman  (1993)
performed small-scale field tests. Two specimens of compacted clay were prepared in
 PVC pipes (diameter =  0.30 m, length = 0.91  m).  One specimen was kept in the

-------
laboratory  as a "control" specimen, and  was  permeated  to determine the as-
compacted hydraulic conductivity.  The other specimen ("field" specimen) was buried
in the ground in January 1991 and subjected to two months of winter! weather.  The
field specimen was instrumented with thermocouples and fiberglass moisture probes
at various depths to monitor temperature and water content while the specimen was in
the ground.                                                      |
      The  field  specimen was removed from  the  ground  in  Mafch  1991  and
permeated  in the laboratory.  No significant change in overall hydraulic conductivity
was observed between the control and field specimens.  However,  Jwhen the field
specimen  was sliced horizontally into  separate specimens (which were then
permeated in a large-scale flexible-wall permeameter), increases  in  hydraulic
conductivity of 1.5 to 2 orders of magnitude were observed for specimens sliced from
above  the  freezing  plane.  In contrast,  a specimen  removed from  just below the
freezing plane showed a slight increase in hydraulic conductivity,  and the  specimen
removed from 0.3 m  below the freezing  plane  showed no'increase in  hydraulic
conductivity.  Figure 2.2 shows the results obtained by Benson and Othman (1993).
Benson and Othman (1993) attributed the increase in hydraulic conductivity above the
freezing plane to horizontal and vertical cracks that formed as a result  bf freeze-thaw.
They attributed the increase in hydraulic conductivity just below the freezing plane to
vertical cracks that formed as a result of desiccation, which occurred as a result of
water redistribution during freezing.                                 ;
      Benson et al. (1995) conducted a full-scale field test to determine if increases in
hydraulic conductivity occur in the field that are similar to those observed in laboratory
tests. A test pad was constructed and instrumented at a site in  southeastern  Michigan.
Temperatures within the test pad were monitored and recorded throughout the winter
of 1992-93.                                                      I
      Hydraulic conductivity of the test pad was  measured in the laboratory and in the
field before and after winter. Laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests were performed in
flexible-wall permeameters on large block specimens (diameter = OJ30 m) and on
small specimens (diameter = 71 mm) taken from the test pad using thin-wall sampling
tubes (Shelby tubes).  Field measurements of hydraulic conductivity w4re made using
sealed  double-ring infiltrometers (SDRIs).                            !
      Results of the laboratory  tests  indicated  that  an increase  in  hydraulic
conductivity occurred as a result of freeze-thaw.  Increases in hydraulic conductivity
were seen in  specimens extracted from the zone in which freezing occurred (depth <

-------
           i
           '•5
           o
           O

 Figure 2.1.
        0       i       23      4       5       6 :
                  Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles            ;

Hydraulic  conductivity vs.  number of freeze-thaw  cycles for three
Wisconsin clays (after Othman and Benson 1993a).       I
               .c
               a.
               
-------
  0.5 m), whereas no increase in hydraulic conductivity was found for specimens taken
  from below the depth of frost penetration. In contrast, results of the SDRI tests showed
  no increase in hydraulic conductivity after winter exposure. Benson et al. (1995) state
  that no increase in hydraulic conductivity was observed in the SDRI te;sts because soil
  below the depth of freezing controlled the infiltration rate.             ;
        Erickson  et al. (1994)  examined the effect  of freezing  and thawing on two
  compacted clay test  pads constructed for the  COLDICE (Construction Of Liners
  Deployed  In Cold Environments)/CPAR  (Construction  Productivity Advancement
  Research) project at a landfill near Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The test pads were
  instrumented with  thermistors and a weather station was used  to'record the  soil
  temperature distribution, number of freeze-thaw cycles, depth of frost penetration and
  climatic conditions throughout the winter.   Hydraulic conductivities of the test pads
  were measured before and after exposure to winter weather.         j
       Hydraulic conductivities  of the test pads were  assessed  in the laboratory using
  specimens collected  by three sampling methods:   large blocks, thin-wall sampling
 tubes (Shelby tubes), and as cores,  which were removed from the test pads while the
 soil was frozen.  The large block specimens (diameter = 0.30 m) were taken before
 and after the winter of 1992-93.. Thin-wall  sampling  tubes (diameter == 71 mm) were
 used to remove  specimens in  June 1993.   Frozen cores (diameter =, 71 mm) were
 collected in March 1993 and March 1994.                           i
       Increases in hydraulic  conductivity  of up to 4 orders of magnitude were
 observed for the specimens removed from the soil subjected to freeze-thaw. Erickson
 et al. (1994) state that the increase in hydraulic conductivity of the compacted clay is a
 result of the formation of cracks due to the formation of ice lenses and shrinkage of the
 soil caused  by redistribution of water.                               i

 2.2   BENTONIT1C BARRIER  MATERIALS
 2.2.1   Sand-Bentonite Mixtures                                !
       Wong and Haug (1991)  examined how freeze-thaw affected! the hydraulic
 conductivity  of sand-bentonite mixtures consisting of a sodium bentonite from western
 Canada and Ottawa sand.  Varying amounts of sodium bentonite were rnixed with the
 Ottawa sand and the mixtures were compacted according to ASTM D i698 (standard
 Proctor).  The specimens  were extruded and permeated in fixed- and flexible-wall
permeameters. After initial  permeation was complete, the specimens were exposed to
an ultimate temperature of -20°C for a minimum of 6 hours in  a closed system (no

-------
 external water  supply).  The specimens  were then  allowed to Ithaw at room
 temperature.  After thawing, their  hydraulic conductivity  was measured.   This
 procedure was repeated until 5 freeze-thaw cycles were completed.   ':
       Figure 2.3 shows the results of their study. A decrease in hydraulic conductivity
 was observed in all specimens as  a result of freeze-thaw.  Wong arid Haug (1991)
 provided two possible  explanations for the  decrease in  hydraulic  conductivity: (1)
 freeze-thaw promotes hydration of  the bentonite, lowering the hydraulic conductivity
 towards long-term test values or (2) thaw consolidation compresses the bentonite into
 gaps between the sand grains.                                     !
       Erickson et al. (1994) examined how freeze-thaw  affected a sand-bentonite
 mixture in the field.  A test pad with a sand-bentonite mixture was constructed for the
 COLDICE project, adjacent to the two clay test pads described in Section 2.1. A large
 box infiltrometer  (1.3 m  x  1.3 m) was constructed in the  field to assess the in situ
 hydraulic conductivity of the test pad after winter.  Hydraulic conductivity was also
 measured on specimens removed from the test pad as blocks, using thin-wall tubes,
 and as frozen cores. The hydraulic conductivity of the sand-bentonite  test pad was 4 x
 10-10 m/s before winter and 5 x 10"10 m/s after winter.                  j
       Erickson et al. (1994) concluded that sand-bentonite mixtures that are mixed
 properly with a large enough percentage of bentonite  can be  resistant to increases in
 hydraulic conductivity caused by freeze-thaw.

 2.2.2  Geosynthetic  Clay Liners (GCLs)                        I
       Several studies have been performed to evaluate how freeze-thaw affects the
 hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs).  Geoservices (1989), Shan
 (1990), and  Chen-Northern (1988) studied how freeze-thaw affects: the  hydraulic
 conductivity of the GCL Claymax®.  Geoservices (1989) measured an mitial hydraulic
 conductivity of 4 x 10-12 m/s for ciaymax®.  The hydraulic  conductivity tests were
 conducted at an effective stress of 196 kPa and hydraulic  gradient of Approximately
 1000.  The hydraulic conductivity of the specimens after 10  cycles of freeze-thaw was
 1.5x10-12 m/s.                                                    ;
      Shan  (1990) measured the hydraulic conductivity of Claymax®  before and after
5 cycles of freeze-thaw.  The samples were permeated using an effective stress of 14
kPa and a hydraulic gradient of 10.  The initial hydraulic conductivity  was 2.0 x 10'11
m/s.  After 5 cycles of freeze-thaw, the hydraulic conductivity was 2.2 x 10-"11 m/s.

-------
^o,
&
>
       O
       o

             10
                -7
             10"
             10
               -9
            10
               -10
                                                   T—i—i—r
4,5% bentonite i
6.0% bentonite !
8.3% bentonite '
13% bentonite
25% bentonite '
                            1          2         34

                              Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
£— :^L_^_ ?
— i — i — i — i — i — i — -i — i i i ••
A
	 V 	 _
j 	 . 1 . .
	 O ; -
-
" 	 V— : i
_j 	 i 	 \ 	 ,_,_. 1, ,
Figure 2.3.  Hydraulic conductivity vs.  number of freeze-thaw  cycles  for sand-
            bentonite mixtures (after Wong and Haug 1991).         !

-------
       Chen-Northern (1988) subjected specimens of Claymax® to 10 cycles of freeze-
thaw.  The specimens were permeated after 0, 3, and 10 cycles of freeze-thaw using
procedures similar to those used by Shan (1990).  The initial  hydraulic conductivity
was 1.0 x-10'11 m/s.  After 3 freeze-thaw cycles the hydraulic conductivity was 2.3 x 10-
11 m/s, and after 10 freeze-thaw cycles, it was 2.2 x 10-11 m/s.         •
       GeoSyntec (1991) studied how freeze-thaw affected the hydraulic conductivity
of the GCL Bentomat®.  Initially and after each freeze-thaw cycle, the specimen was
permeated with de-aired water at an  effective stress of 34.5 kPa and hydraulic gradient
of 30.  Flexible-wall permeameters were used.  The hydraulic conductivity of the
Bentomat® fluctuated between 1 x 10'11 and 6 x 10'11 m/s for various cycles of freeze-
thaw, with no increasing or decreasing trends being observed.       !
       Freeze-thaw tests were also performed on Bentomat® by Robert L. Nelson and
Associates, Inc. (1993).  Two sets of tests were performed.  In the first set, several
specimens were permeated  after undergoing a designated numberi of freeze-thaw
cycles (up to six cycles).  In  the second set, a single  specimen was used  that was
permeated after each freeze-thaw cycle (up to 10 freeze-thaw cycles)!  The  hydraulic
conductivities  ranged between 1.1 x 10-11 m/s and  4.0 x 10'11 m/s for the first set of
tests, and 1.9 x 10-11 m/s and 3.3 x 10'11  m/s for the second set.  Results of the tests
performed by Robert L.  Nelson & Associates, Inc. (1993) are shown in Figure 2.4.

2.3   PAPER  MILL  SLUDGE                                   'i
       Because  some pulp and  paper mill sludges (wastes createp! in the paper
making process) have been shown to possess properties similar to clays, interest has
arisen in  using  them in construction of landfill  liners and covers (NCASI 1989).
Nonetheless, information regarding the geotechnical properties of paper mill sludge is
scant (Genthe 1993).
      The  National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI) performed  hydraulic conductivity tests on  11 paper mill sludges of various
origins (NCASI  1989).   Tests were  performed on  specimens  compacted using
standard Proctor procedures  (ASTM D 698), except only 10 blows were applied per
lift. The specimens were compacted at their as-received water content, which ranged
fromi 120 to 409%. Their hydraulic conductivity ranged from  4.2 x 10J6 to 5.8 x 10-10
m/s. The variability in the hydraulic  conductivity test results was prob[ably caused by
the variability in molding  water content and sludge type.              j
                                      8

-------
                10-9
          ;f   io-10
          TJ

           O
          O

               10
                 -12
               10'9
           >>
           >   1
           -G
           X)
           O
           O
          I
          •o
          >,
          x
               io-12
                                                         (a)
                            2        34       5
                           Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                                        (b)
                   0        2       4        6       8      10
                           Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Figure 2.4.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cycles for Bentomat® for
            test set 1  (a) and test set 2 (b) (after Robert L. Nelson & Associates 1991).

-------
       Zimmie et al.  (1994) examined the geotechnical properties of a paper mill
 sludge from Erving Paper Co. in Massachusetts.  Compaction, hydraulic conductivity,
 consolidation, and shear strength tests were performed. The effects that freeze-thaw
 and effective stress have on the hydraulic conductivity of sludge were also examined.
       Zimmie et al.  (1994) report that the compaction curve for the sludge was
 developed by gradually drying the sludge from its high as-received wafer content and
 compacting specimens at various water  contents using standard Proctor compaction
 effort (ASTM D 698).  The maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content were
 determined,  and  the curve was  similar to curves for compacted clays.;  However, the
 maximum dry unit weight (8.1  kN/mS)  was much lower than that for most clays,
 whereas optimum water content  (49%)  was much higher.            I
       The compacted specimens were  permeated in flexible-wall  pejrmeameters to
 determine the hydraulic conductivity-water content relationship.  The  hydraulic
 conductivity was  found to be much  lower for specimens compacted  at [water contents
 wet of optimum, relative to the hydraulic conductivity of specimens compacted at water
 contents near or  dry of optimum. This behavior is similar to that of compacted clays
 (Mitchell et al. 1965, Benson and Daniel  1990,  Daniel and Benson  1990). However,
 the lowest hydraulic conductivities were obtained for specimens compacted 50% wet
 of optimum water content, where for  clays the lowest hydraulic conductivities are
 generally obtained 1-3%  wet of  optimum. For sludge specimens compacted greater
 than  50% wet of optimum, hydraulic conductivities less than 1 x 10'9 m/s were
 obtained.          ,                                            ;
      Zimmie et al. (1994) also  performed hydraulic conductivity tests 
-------
 compaction, the specimens were wrapped in plastic to prevent desiccation and frozen
 one-dimensionally.  After the desired number of freeze-thaw cycles,! the specimens
 were placed in flexible-wall permeameters and permeated at effective stresses of 34.5,
 69, and 138 kPa using a hydraulic gradient of 21.                    ;
       Results of the freeze-thaw tests showed that the paper mill sludge was affected
 by freeze-thaw (Figure  2.5).  The hydraulic conductivity of the sludge increased
 approximately one order of magnitude after 10 freeze-thaw cycles.  Similar increases
 in hydraulic conductivity occurred at each effective stress. However; increasing the
 effective stress from 34.5 kPa to 138 kPa decreased the hydraulic conductivity of the
 sludge approximately one order of magnitude at each freeze-thaw cycle; (Fig. 2.5).-
      Maltby and Eppstein (1994) describe a field  study in which paper mill sludges
 were used in landfill cover test cells.  The field study was undertaken to compare the
 performance of paper mill sludge and compacted  clay when used as  hydraulic
 barriers. The comparison was based on water balance computations (e.g., runoff and
 percolation).  One of the two test cells containing paper mill sludge was constructed
 with a  combined  (primary and secondary treatment)  sludge and  the other  was
 constructed with a primary sludge.  Construction of the test cells wa;s completed  in
 November 1987.                                                  I
      Maltby and  Eppstein (1994) observed after 5  years that: (1) the test cells
 constructed with sludge consolidated more than those constructed with clays, (2) the
 cells containing sludge had greater amounts of runoff than the cells constructed  with
 clay,, (3) percolation was lower for the cells containing  paper mill sludge, and (4) the
 average field hydraulic conductivities for the cells containing sludge were lower than
those containing compacted clay (9.6 x 10-10  m/s and 4.4 x 10-9 m/s for the cells
containing sludge; 1.4 x 10-8 m/s and 1.5 x to-8 m/s for the cells containing compacted
clay).
                                      11

-------
     U)

     E
     o
     O
     .o
          10-io
          10-11
                                              effective stress = 34.5 kPa;
                                              effective stress = 69 kPa  i
                                              effective stress = 138 kPa •
                          5         10        15        20

                           Number of Freeze-Tf\aw Cycles
25
Figure 2.5.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. number  of  freeze-thaw cycles  at  various
            effective stresses (after Zimmie etal. 1994)               ;
                                       12

-------
                                  SECTION  3

                                  MATERIALS
                                                                i
                                  . •' .    . _ ....    _ ...   . .   .      .    !  '
 3.1   CLAYS
 3.1.1  Index Properties                                       !
       Two clays were used in the testing program: Parkview clay and Valley Trail clay.
 Parkview clay is a low plasticity glacial till, whereas Valley Trail clay jis a moderately
 plastic glacio-lacustrine clay. Both clays have been used in the construction of landfill
 liner and cover systems and were used to construct test pads for the CpLDICE project
 (Sec. 2.1).  Bulk samples  of both clays used in this project were obtained from the
 COLDICE test pads.                                             :
       Parkview clay  is from a glacial  deposit in Germantown, Wisconsin.  It has a
 liquid limit of  30, plastic  limit of 15, and plasticity index of 15 (ASTfv} D 4318). The
 location of  Parkview  clay on the plasticity chart is showh in Fig. 3.1J.  Particle size
 analyses of the clay (Fig. 3.2) showed that it is composed of 0.5% gravfel, 11.5% sand,
 and 88.0%  fines (particle sizes < 0.075 mm) based on definitions in the Unified Soil
 Classification  System  (USCS) (ASTM D 421).  Clay content (particles finer than 2 |im)
 was found to  be 36.5% by  hydrometer  analysis (ASTM D 422). Specific gravity tests
 on Parkview  clay showed  the clay has a specific  gravity  of 2.81 (ASTM  D 854).
 Parkview clay  is classified as CL.in the USCS (ASTM D 2487).       l
       Valley Trail clay is  from a lacustrine deposit in Berlin, Wisconsin.  It has a liquid
 limit of 45, plastic limit of 19, and plasticity index of 26.  The location of Valley Trail clay
 on the plasticity chart is shown in Fig. 3.1.  Particle size analyses of the clay (Fig. 3.2)
 showed that it is composed of 0.6% gravel, 3.8% sand/and 95.6% fines based on
 definitions in the USCS. Clay content was found to be 51.2%  by hydrometer analysis.
 Specific gravity tests on Valley Trail clay showed the clay has a specific gravity of 2.77.
 Valley Trail clay is classified as CL-CH in the USCS.                 '

 3.1.2  Compaction                                             :
      Compaction  tests were  conducted on the  two clays  to determine the
 relationships between dry unit weight,  water content, and compactive  effort.   Two
compactive efforts were used: standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) and modified Prortor
(ASTM D 1557).                                              .   i
                                     13

-------
    X
    0)
   -a
   "o
   'w
   SS
   a.
                       •    Parkview Clay
                       •    Valley Trail Clay
                                           50

                                    Liquid  Limit (LL)
1 100
Figure 3.1.   Plasticity chart showing locations of Parkview and Valley! Trail clays.
                                       14

-------
            CD

            IE

            IE-
            CD

            CD
            Q.
100
80
60
40
20
0
PI
in itJ i g^ MJ i i. i , | mi I | | | III 1 1 1 1 I — nil i i i i — | 	
" E3 o
• ^ ra
- • • o Q
o 3 -
- ° Sra
- O ^
0 0 . -
0 Testl ^o
D Test 2 u
o Test 3
( n\ -
V"/
"I'll 1 	 1 	 Inn 1 1 1 . 1 1 	 1,,, | , , , , . [,,,, , l ( |
                     10
                     0.1     0.01     0.001    0.
                  Particle Size (mm)
                                                                 0001
            CD
            C
           LJL
           i*_i

            CD
            e
            CD
           Q-
                 100
                  80
60
40
                 20
                  0
                                                   n
                                  og
o
 o
 o
           o   Test 1
           n   Test 2
           o   Test 3
     "II 1 - 1 - Illll 1 1 1 - 1 - In, .....   |,
                                                             (b)
                    10
             1        0.1      0.01     0.001   0.0001
                  Particle Size (mm)
Figure 3.2.   Results of particle size analyses for Parkview  (a) and
             clays.
                                        15
                                                  Valley Trail (b)

-------
       Prior to compaction, the soil was air dried and crushed to pass the No. 4 sieve
 (particle size < 4.75 mm).  The soil was then uniformly mixed with tap water from
 Madison, Wisconsin to a pre-determined  water content.  The moistened clay was
 sealed in a plastic bag or bucket and allowed to hydrate for at  least 24 hours prior to
 compaction.                                                   '
       Compaction curves are shown in Figs. 3.3 and 3.4.  For Parkview clay, optimum
 water contents of 14.1 and  9.6% were obtained for standard and mbdified Proctor
 compactive efforts, respectively.  The maximum dry unit weights corresponding to
 these water contents are 18.8 and 21.1 kN/m3.  For Valley Trail clay, optimum water
 contents  of 17.9 and 14.2% were obtained for  standard and mqdified  Proctor
 compactive efforts, respectively.  The maximum dry unit weights corresponding to
 these water contents are 17.3 and 19.1 kN/m3.                      ;

 3.2   BENTONITIC BARRIER MATERIALS
 3.2.1   Sand-Bentonite  Mixture
 3.2.1.1 Index Properties                                   '.'•!.
       One sand-bentonite mixture was used  in the testing program.  The sand-
 bentonite mixture was obtained from one of the COLDICE test pads (Sec. 2.2.1). The
 sand-bentonite  mixture  was prepared in the field using a pugmill prior to construction
 of the test  pad  (Erickson  et al. 1994).  The sand component is a clean mortar sand,
 which was purchased from a concrete supplier near the landfill site. The sand is a
 poorly graded, clean, medium to fine sand and is classified as SP in thei  USCS. More
 than 90% of the sand passed the No. 30 sieve and less than  5% passed the No. 200
 sieve (Fig.  3.5).  The bentonite component  is a granular sodium bentohite (American
 Colloid CG-50) with no polymer additives.                          !
      The  sand-bentonite mixture  has  a liquid limit of 42,  plastic limit of  29, and
 plasticity index of 13.  Methylene blue titration tests were performed  to measure the
 bentonite content of the sand-bentonite.  Measurements were made onjgrab samples
 of the mixture from a drum stored in the laboratory.  The average bentonite content
was 12% by weight. Specific  gravity tests showed that the sand-bentonite mixture has
a specific gravity of 2.70.                                     •    ;
                                     16

-------
I
o>
i
.tr
c
Q

^
f
§
'c
ID
0
C.C.
21
20
19
18
17
16
I
. • • ' ' i ' ' ' i i i i i i i — i — i — i — i — | — i — i — i — i —
1 O Standard
r^" N n Modified ~
y f-i C" „. , ,.

: % n :
Dn :
o QD -
'. o \
— i — i — i — ' i i • • • i . . i . i i , , , i , , , , ~
3 5 10 15 20 2£
Molding Water Content (%)
Figi
20
19
18
17
16
15
jre 3.3. Compaction curves for Parkview clay:
7"1 ' ' n • • ' i i i i i i 'i i i i i i •— | — i — i — i —
O Standard
^(ttp — \ D Modified J
^^& \. '-
an :
\n ~
°/^\° ^
o/ ^\p
c/° \ '-
0 7 xo :
o o .
—> — > — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 	 1 . . 1 . . , 1 . , , 1 , , ,
           8      12      16     20      24
                Molding Water Content (%)
28
Figure 3.4.  Compaction curves for Valley Trail clay.
                       17

-------
o

HZ




I
CD
Q_
           100
            80
            60
            40
            20   -
                     O  Test 1

                     D  Test 2

                     O  Test 3
                 Mill - 1 - 1 - 1
                                           ^&S_
              10
                           1              0.1

                            Particle Size (mm)
                                                               0.01
Figure 3.5.   Results of particle size analysis for sand component of sand-bentonite

            mixture.
                                     18

-------
  3.2.1.2 Compaction                                           , i
        Compaction tests were conducted to determine the relationships between dry
  unit weight, water content, and compactive effort. Two compactive efforts were used:
  standard Proctor and modified Proctor.                            !
        Prior to compaction, the sand-bentonite was air dried and crushed to pass the
  No. 4  sieve.   The sand-bentonite was then uniformly mixed with itap water from
  Madison, Wisconsin to a pre-determined water content.  The moistened mixture was
  sealed in a plastic bag or bucket and allowed to temper for at least 24 hours  prior to
  compaction.                                                   |
       Compaction curves for the sand-bentonite  mixture are shown in  Fig. 3.6.
  Optimum water contents of 16.5 and 12.3% were obtained for standard and modified
  Proctor compactive efforts, respectively.  The maximum dry unit weights corresponding
 to these water contents are 17.4 and 18.8 kN/m3.                    ;

 3.2.2   Geosynthetic  Clay  Liners (GCLs)
       Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) are  commerciaiiy manufactured products that
 consist of highly swelling bentonitic clay either sandwiched between two geotextiles or
 glued to a geomembrane. Three geosynthetic clay liners were used  in this- study:
 Bentofix®, Bentomat®,  and Claymax®. Two of the GCLs (Bentomat® iand Claymax®)
 were used as liners for test ponds and test pans in the COLDICE project (Erickson et
 al. 1994).                                                      :
      Two rolls of each GCL were shipped to the University of Wisconsin-Madison by
 their manufacturers. The rolls were wrapped in plastic to prevent absorption of water
 and stored in the Environmental Geotechnics Laboratory  at  the; University of
 Wisconsin-Madison.                                             i
      Bentofix® is manufactured by the National Seal Company (NSC) by needle-
 punching loose granular bentonite between two geotextiles (Fig. 3.7). For this project,
 a Bentofix® GCL with a 140 g/m2 upper, woven polypropylene geotextile and  a 270
 g/m2 lower, non-woven polypropylene geotextile was used. The mass per unit area of
 the Bentofix® GCL was 6.8 kN/m2 (ASTM D  5261). Free swell tests performed on the
 bentonite from Bentofix® using GRI GCL-1 showed that the average free swell was
 18.1  mm.  Results of the mass per unit area and free swell tests are .shown in  Table
3.1.
      Bentomat®  is  manufactured by the  Colloid Environmental |Technologies
Company  (CETCO) by needle-punching granular Volclay® bentonite between two
                                    19

-------
«"-
 E
-c
O)
Q
        20
        19
        18
        17
        17
       16
                1 — 1 — — 1 — 1 _ 1
                                               O  Standard

                                               D  Modified
                     8        1.2         16        20

                        Molding Water Content (%)
                                                             24
          Figure 3.6.  Compaction curves for sand-bentonite.
                                20

-------
          Needle-Punched Fibers
 Woven Polypropylene Gedtextile

                      Non-Woven Polypropylene Geotextile

                              (a) Bentofix®
         Needle-Punched Fibers
Woven Polypropylene Geotextile
             Non-Woven Polypropylene Geotextile '


                              (b) Bentomat®

            Woven Polypropylene Geotextile,

             Polyester, Open Weave Geotextile'


                              (c) Claymax®


Figure 3.7.  Schematic diagrams of Bentofix® (a), Bentomat® (b), and
           0>CLS.
                         Claymax® (c)
                                    21

-------
Table 3.1.    Results of GCL mass per unit area and free swell tests
Specimen Number
Bentofix-1
Bentofix-2
Bentofix-3
Bentomat-1
Bentomat-2
Bentomat-3
Claymax-1
Claymax-2
Claymax-3
Mass per Unit Area
(kg/m2)
7.4
6.5
6.4
6.1
6.1
no test
6.5
6.4
6.4
Free Swell
(mm)
12.3
9.5
7.f
16.5
18.0
19.8
5.6!
6.6
7.9!
                            22

-------
  geotextiles (Fig. 3.7) (Daniel and Estornell 1990).  For this project, Bentomat® "CS"
  with a 140 g/m2 upper, woven polypropylene geotextile and a 140 g/m2 lower, non-
  woven polypropylene geotextile was used.  The mass per unit area ofthe Bentornat®
  was 6.1 kN/m2. Free swell tests performed on bentonite from Bentomat® showed that
  the average free swell was 9.6 mm (Table 3.1).                      ;
       Claymax®  is manufactured by the James Clem Corporation  in Arlington
  Heights, Illinois. It is comprised of amended sodium bentonite sandwiched between
  two woven, polypropylene geotextiles (Fig. 3.7).  The bentonite is adhered to the two
  geotextiles using a non-toxic, water soluble adhesive (Daniel and Estornell 1990).
       For this project,  Claymax® 200R  with  a  140 g/m2  upper  polypropylene
 geotextile and 25 g/m2  lower polyester, open-weave geotextile was used. The  mass
 per unit area of the Claymax® used was 6.4 kN/m2.  Free swell tests performed on
 bentonite from Claymax® showed that the average free swell was 6.7 mm  (Table 3,1).

 3.3  PAPER  MILL SLUDGES
 3.3.1   Index Tests
       Three paper industry sludges were used in the testing program, and are
 referred to as sludges A, B, and C.  Sludge A is a combined sludge; the sludge is
 composed of primary sludge from the clarification of raw wastewater^nd biological
 sludge from an  activated sludge treatment plant.  Sludge A is from a non-integrated
 mill, which produces specialty grades and coated and uncoated book grades.  Sludge
 B is a primary paper mill sludge from a non-integrated  mill which produces specialty
 coated, lightweight coated, coated bag, and pressure sensitive paper,  kludge C is a
 combined  (primary and biological) sludge from a de-inking mill  which produces
 disposable garments and napkin and tissue paper. Sludges A and B are from paper
 mills in Michigan, whereas Sludge C is from a paper  mill in Massachusetts.  Bulk
 samples ofthe sludges were supplied by the National Council ofthe PapW Industry for
 Air and Stream  Improvement  (NCASI) office in Kalamazoo, Michigan.    ;
      Attempts  were  made  to determine the liquid and plastic limits of the three
 sludges.  However, difficulties were encountered when performing the Atterberg limits
tests. The fibrous nature of the sludge prevents changes in the behavior of the sludge
with changes in water content.  Therefore,  measurements of the liquid and plastic
limits were not possible.  Similar difficulties with Atterberg  limit tests have been
reported by NCASI (1989) and Genthe (1993).                       ;
                                     23

-------
                                                               <
       Sludge A contains 58.9% fines as determined by wash sieving the sludge past
 the No. 200 sieve.   The ash  content  of Sludge  A is 56.0%  (ASTM D  2974).
 f-ractionation of Sludge A by wet screening was found to be 78.5% (TAPPI T 261).
 The weighted average fiber length of Sludge A is 0.24 mm (TAPPI T 233).
       Sludge B contains 75.8% fines as determined by wash sieving the sludge past
 the No. 200 sieve.  The ash content was found to be 53.1%. Fractionatjon of Sludge B
 by wet screening  was found to be 85.5%.  The weighted average \fiber length of
 Sludge B is 0.12 mm.
       Sludge C contains 79.8% fines as determined by wash sieving p&st the No. 200
 sieve.  The ash content of Sludge  C is 44.4%.  Fractionation of Sludge C by wet
 screening is 76.5%, whereas the weighted average fiber  length  of Sludge C is 0.29
 mm.                                                           :

 3.3.2   Compaction                                            j
       Compaction tests were conducted on  the three  sludges to determine the
 relationship between dry unit weight and water content.  Standard Proctor compactive
 effort was used.                                                 ;
       Prior to compaction, the sludge was allowed to air dry from  its "as-received"
 water content. At various times, a grab sample was taken, sealed in a plastic bag or
 bucket, and allowed to equilibrate at least 24 hours prior to compaction.  This method
 was used because previous research has shown that re-wetting completely air-dried
 sludge results in a loss of plasticity (NCAS11989, Zimmie et al. 1994).  !
      Compaction  curves for the three sludges are  shown in Figs. 3.8-3.10.  For
 Sludge A, the optimum water content is 40% and the maximum dry unit weight is 8.7
 kIN/m3.  For Sludge B, optimum water content is 97% and the maximum 'dry unit weight
 is 6.0 kN/m3. For Sludge C, the optimum water content is 72%, whereas1 the maximum
 dry unit weight is 6.4 kN/m3.                                      j
      Results of the compaction  tests  indicate that sludges havfe  compaction
 properties similar to those of clays. However, the optimum  water contents determined
for the sludges are higher in comparison to typical optimum water contents for clays
 (-10-30%) and the  maximum dry unit weights are lower than those foriclays (-15-19
kN/m3).                                                        :
                                     24

-------
 i
 D)

I
.*;
 C
          0          50        100        150
                      Molding Water Content'(%)

          Figure 3.8.   Compaction curve for Sludge A.
200:
.E
D)

I
          •  O
        3  -
          0      50      100     150    200     250    300
                      Molding Water Content (%)

         Figure 3.9.   Compaction curve for Sludge B.
                             25

-------

D)
                  50        100      150      200
                      Molding Water Content (%)
250
            Figure 3.10.  Compaction curve for Sludge C.
                             26

-------
                                 SECTION  4

                                 METHODS

 4.1   CLAYS
 4.1.1   Field  Methods                                         i
 4.1.1.1 COLDICE Test Pads                                     \
       The tests performed on clay in this study were conducted for comparison to field
 data collected from tests on large-scale test pads constructed/for the COLDICE project.
 The COLDICE project was conducted by CH2M Hill, Inc., the U. S. Army Cold Regions
 Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), and a suite of industrial partners at a
 landfill near  Milwaukee, Wisconsin  (Erickson  et  al. 1994)  as k  Construction
 Productivity Advancement Research (CPAR) project.  Assistance was also provided  by
 the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The objective of the COLDICEJ project was  to
 evaluate how  freeze-thaw affects the  hydraulic conductivity of compacted clays and
 geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) at field-scale.                        \
       Four test pads in the COLDICE project were constructed with compacted clay.
 Two of the pads were constructed with Parkview clay and two were constructed with
 Valley Trail clay.   The test pads were labeled: PV-2, PV-3,  VT-4,  and  VT-5
 (Chamberlain  et al. 1995).  Each test pad was 9 m by 21 m.  Two.test pads had
 thicknesses of 0.6 m (PV-2 and VT-5), and two had thicknesses of 0.9 m| (PV-3 and VT-
 4).  Two thicknesses were used such  that the effects of fully- or partially-penetrating
 frost could be examined (Erickson etal. 1994).                      ;
      A layer  of high-density polyethylene  (HOPE) geomembrane was placed  above
 a prepared subgrade and a geocomposite  drain (non-woven geotextile  on each side
 of a geonet) was placed above the HOPE geomembrane (Erickson et k\. 1994).  Clay
 was placed in 0.15  m loose lifts and the  lifts were compacted with a Caterpillar 825C
 tamping foot compactor at water contents 2-5% wet of  standard Proctor optimum.
 Relative compaction exceeding 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight was
 obtained for each test pad (Benson et  al. 1994). All of the measurements  of molding
water content  and  dry  unit weight made during construction fell wet of the line of
optimums (Benson et al. 1994) (Fig. 4.1).  Construction of the test pads was completed
in October 1992 (Erickson et al. 1994).                              ;
      The 0.6 m-thick  pads (PV-2 and  VT-5) were covered with a 0.15 mm thick
polyethylene sheet  and 0.1 m of sand to minimize desiccation.  Test pad PV-3 was

                                     27                         ;

-------

IE
iz

.4_i
.D>
1
H-^
'c
Z>
Q






1=
2
^
•#-»
0)
' ' i i i — i — i — i — | — i — i — i — i— i
O Standard -
D Modified -
9-,^~^Dv + Field :
I — I \^
/ \ -
n rj n
L * \ .:
"- 8^- :
1 / O^jt :
: / ^(j- ~
: o/o an :
— O . Q-}
: o . ^°v -
— i — i — i — i — i — i — i 	 iii... , , , , , i . . .
05 10 15 20 25
Molding Water Content (%)
20

19


18


•\ -7

I"1 ' ' i ' ' • t • ' ' r~> ' ' — T"1 — ' — ' — i — i — i — i — i
O Standard I
O\ D Modified -
^^X + Field
0 X
n — -u \ , :
1 °\n -
\D
\
\
_ n 	 Q_
          c
          Z)
          Q
                         8     12     16    20     24     28
                            Molding Water Content (%)
Figure 4.1.  Cojrnpaadon^curw.jand field  compaction  data for Parkview (a) and
                                    28

-------
  covered with a needle-punched non-woven geotextile and 0.3 m of gravel.  Test pad
  VT-4 was covered with 0.3 m of well-graded sand.
        An array of thermistors was placed within the test pads and! an automated
  weather station was installed  at  the  COLDICE  field  site (Erickson  et ai.  1994).
  Measurements of frost depth and climatic conditions were recorded every five minutes
  using  a Campbell Scientific datalogger.  Hourly  averages were  bomputed and
  transferred to a computer at the CRREL laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire via a
  cellular phone and computer modem (Erickson et al. 1994).  Figure 4.2 is diagram of
  the COLDICE project field test layout.                              i
                                                                 ! .
  4.1.1.2 In Situ Box Infiltrometers
        Erickson et al. (1994) installed box i nf i It ro meters to measure ;the field-scale
  hydraulic conductivity of the test pads.  The infiltrometers were designed to  measure
  hydraulic conductivity before and after exposure to freeze-thaw without disturbing the
 structure of the soil.  Infiltrometers were placed in  test pads PV-2 and PV-3.  No
• infiltrometers were installed in either of the Valley Trial test pads.       i
       Figure 4.3 is  a schematic of the box  infiltrometers.  Immediately following
 construction of the test pads, trenches were excavated to leave a 1.3 m tpy 1.3 m
 block of undisturbed  soil.  An HOPE box with an open  top and  bottJm was placed
 around the block of soil  and seamed to the underlying HOPE geomeriibrane.  Pipes
 and filters were connected to the geocomposite drain to carry any infiltration to a sump
 for measurement.  The annular space between the block of clay and the HOPE was
 filled with a bentonite  grout to prevent sidewall leakage.               :
       A non-woven geotextile was  placed on top of the block of soil land was then
 covered with a layer of washed gravel.  An HOPE lid was seamed to the walls of the
 box which contained  a riser pipe  for adding water to the system and for measuring
 inflow.  The infiltrometers were covered with 0.6 m of sand to prevent uplift of the lids.
The sand  layer was  reduced to  a  thickness of  0.1  m  (level with  the  surrounding
overburden) during winter months to allow penetration of the freezing plane  into the
compacted clay.                                                  '

4.1.1.3 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity   !
      Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed in the laboratory on specimens
removed from the test pads to assess field-scale hydraulic conductivity, j   Specimens
were  removed from the field by three methods: as large blocks (diameter =  0.4 m)
                                     29

-------
                                                                     MOTTOSCAU
OAnlNc*   ttttnlhlck   ttflmlMck I OAnlNck    OimlNc*
                                k
                                       &3~
               Sand
       /
                            Storw

                                           aim
                               Section A-A'
                                 NOtKOCMt
  Figure 4.2.  COLDICE project field test layout (from Erickson et ai. 1994).
                                       °K>*OO»    /SSf2£!?rr»tw
Figure 4.3.   Schematic of in situ box infiltrometer (from Erickson et al. 1994).
                                      30

-------
using thin-wall sampling tubes (Shelby tubes, diameter = 71 mm), and as frozen cores
(diameter = 71 mm).  The specimens removed as blocks and with thin-wall tubes were
collected by personnel from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.   Personnel from
CRREL and CH2M Hill, Inc. obtained the frozen cores.
      Large block specimens were removed before freezing in December 1992 and
after thawing in June 1993.  Thin-wall sampling tubes were used in |June  1993.  A
frozen core barrel sampler  developed at CRREL was used  to  remove  frozen
specimens in March 1993.  The frozen core barrel sampler is designed to remove a
soil specimen  while the soil is frozen.  Removing specimens while frozen  prevents
disturbance and preserves the soil and  ice structure (Benson  et al.  1994).  Flexible-
wall permeameters were used to measure the hydraulic conductivity of all specimens
removed from the COLDICE test pads (Figs. 4.4 and 4.5).
      The large block specimens were removed using a  procedure developed at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Othman et al. (1994) describe the  procedure  in
detail. The following is a brief summary of the sampling procedure:    :

      1.  A location for sampling is chosen and  marked and the surface  is
         cleaned  and leveled.  For this project, cleaning consisted of removing
         0.1  to 0.3  m of  gravel or sand (and  underlying  geosynthetics)
         overlying the clay.

      2.  Trenches are excavated around the marked area using a shovel. The
         specimen is trimmed from the remaining block of soil.        '

      3.  A PVC ring  (inside diameter =  0.40 m, height =,0.30  m) is placed on
         the surface of the block of soil.  The ring has a vertical cut that is used
         to expand the ring during removal of the specimen in the laboratory.
         Excess soil around the ring is gently trimmed away  and the  ring  is
         slowly pushed by hand over the  block of soil in a  manner similar to
         trimming a specimen for consolidation testing (Fig. 4.6). Trim!ming of
         excess soil is continued until the ring is  pushed to full depth  (-0.30
         m).                                                    !
                                                               i
      4. The specimen is separated from the underlying soil by pressing a flat
        spade into the underlying soil around the perimeter of the ring or by
                                     31

-------
                                                  .Vent Port
                       Top Plate
                     Acrylic Cylinder «». =
                      Porous Disks   =
                      Base Pedestal
                      Base Drain
                    Top Drain
                                                        c- 5 _„ Flexible Tube
                                                             ,"O" Ring Seal
                                                             .Latex Membrane
Ring Seal
Hom
  Base Drain
  Top Drain
                        Cell Drain
                         Figure 4.4.   Flexible-wall perm'eafrfeter.
Figure 4.5.   Large  flexible-wall  permeameter  used  for   measuring  hydraulic
              conductivity of block specimens.                             ;
                                            32

-------
Figure 4.6.
Trimming of  block specimen (a) and separating  block specimen from
underlying soil using a wire saw (b).                      ;
                                      33

-------
          using a wire saw (Fig 4.6):  Once the specimen is separated'from the
          underlying soil, excess soil is trimmed away and it is placed on a
          pallet.

       5. The  specimen is sealed with two layers of plastic wrap to' prevent
          desiccation during transport to Madison, where it is placed inja humid
          room until testing.                                       :

       Block specimens were taken along one continuous profile at three depths (0-0.3
 m, 0.3-0.6 m, and 0.6-0.9 m) from the 0.9 m-thick test pads (PV-3 and VT-4).  Three
 specimens were removed from the test pad before winter (December 11992) and four
 specimens  were removed after one winter (June 1993).  A second specimen was
 obtained in June 1993 from a depth of 0-0.3 m to obtain an additional measurement of
 the surficial hydraulic conductivity.                                 ;
       Before  being placed in permeameters, the PVC ring was removed from  the
 specimens and excess or disturbed soil was trimmed away until the  specimens had a
 diameter of 0.3 m and a height of 0.15 to 0.20 m.  The block specimens were placed in
 large flexible-wall permeameters and permeated at an average effective stress of 10.5
 kPa,  hydraulic  gradients of 4 to 5, and a backpressure of 413 kPa.  Tap water from
 Madison, Wisconsin was used as the permeant.  The specimens were permeated until
 the hydraulic conductivity measurement was steady (no upward or downward trend
 over time) and the ratio of outflow to inflow was between 0.75 and 1.25. ;
       Specimens were also removed  from the COLDICE test pads ijising thin-wall
 sampling tubes (diameter = 71 mm). Specimens were removed from the test pads in
 June  1993, after on.e winter of exposure. The sampling tubes were seajed in the field
 and shipped to  the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  In the laboratory, ihe specimens
 were  extruded from the sampling tubes, sealed in plastic wrap, and stored  in  a high
 humidity room prior to hydraulic conductivity testing.                   ]
      The specimens collected in  thin-wall tubes were permeated in flexible-wall
 permeameters at an average effective stress of 7 kPa and hydraulic gradients ranging
 from  2 to 5.  A backpressure of 280 kPa was used.  Tap water from Madison,
 Wisconsin was used as  the permeant.  Specimens were permeated until hydraulic
 conductivity was steady and the ratio of outflow to inflow was between 0.75 and 1.25
      The core barrel sampler developed at CRREL was used to remove  specimens
from the COLDICE test pads in March  1993 while the soil was frozen (Erickson et  al.
          .'                           '                           i
                                     34                         !

-------
 1994, Benson et a!. .1994).  The core barrel sampler removes a specimen having a
 diameter of 71 mm and length up to 0.9 m (Fig 4.7). A power auger was used to slowly
 advance the core barrel so as not to melt the frozen soil. The barrel was then retracted
 and the frozen specimen was removed from the barrel.  The specimens were then
 wrapped in plastic and packaged in an insulated box with  ice packs for overnight
 shipping to CRREL.  All of the specimens obtained with the core barrel were removed
 by personnel from CH2M Hill, Inc. or CRREL as part of the COLDIGE project.
       Storage and placement of  the  core barrel specimens  in flexible-wall
 perrneameters was conducted in a cold room at CRREL by CRREL staff (Chamberlain
 et al. 1995).  The frozen core specimens were allowed to thaw and consolidate at an
 average effective stress of 7 kPa. Hydraulic conductivity tests were then performed at
 the same average effective stress using hydraulic gradients  ranging from 2 to 5. A
 backpressure  of 380 kPa was used and tap water from Hanover,  New Hampshire was
 used as the permeant (Chamberlain et al. 1995).                    '

 4.1.2   Laboratory Methods
 4.1.2.1  Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships          \
      Specimens of the Parkview  and Valley Trail clays that  were |compacted to
 determine compaction curves corresponding  to standard and  modified Proctor efforts
 (Sec. 3.1.2) were also used  to determine the  corresponding hydraulic conductivity-
 water content relationships. After compaction, the  specimens  were extruded from .the
 compaction molds, sealed in plastic wrap to prevent desiccation, and stored until
 permeation.                                                    .!
      The specimens were placed in flexible-wall perrneameters for Saturation and
 measurement of hydraulic conductivity.  The  falling head-rising tailwater method was
 used  (ASTM D 5084-Method  D).  An average effective stress  of 7 kPa, hydraulic
 gradient  of 12, and backpressure of 128 kPa were used.  Tap water from Madison,
 Wisconsin was used as the permeant.                              !             .
      Each test was terminated when the hydraulic conductivity was steady (change <
± 25% and no increasing or decreasing trend) and the ratio of outflow1 to inflow was
 between  0.75 and  1.25 for four consecutive readings.  The hydraulic conductivity was
 reported as the arithmetic mean of the last four measurements.         j
                                    35

-------
4.1.2.2  Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests                              ;
      Three specimens each of Parkview clay and Valley Trail clay were compacted
at standard Proctor effort at  water contents similar to the water content used in
construction of the COLDIGE test pads. These water contents also yielded the lowest
hydraulic conductivities determined in Sec 4.1.2.1. Each specimen was extruded from
its compaction mold, sealed in plastic wrap to prevent desiccation, and stored until
permeation.                                                    \     '
      The  clay specimens were placed in flexible-wall permeameters to determine
their initial  hydraulic conductivity (before exposure to freeze-thaw).  Test conditions
identical to those described  in  Sec. 4.1.2.1 were  employed.  After the initial hydraulic
conductivity tests were complete,  the specimens were carefully removed from the
permeameters.  They were then  sealed.in plastic wrap and duct tkpe to prevent
desiccation and placed in a laboratory freezer for cooling.    Extreme Icare was used
when handling the specimens to avoid disturbing the soil structure.
      The  free-standing procedure described by Othman et al. (1994)  was used to
freeze the  specimens in a closed  system  (no external supply of water).  They were
cooled to an ultimate temperature of -20°C  at a freezing rate of approximately 52
mm/hr.  The free-standing procedure results in three-dimensional freezing as opposed
to one-dimensional freezing which  occurs  in the  field. Othman and Benson (1993b)
and Zimmie and LaPlante (1990)  have shown,  however, that the dimensionality of
freezing does not affect the change  in hydraulic conductivity, even though it does
result in somewhat different ice and crack structures.                 ;
                                                               t
      The specimens were left in the freezer for at least 24 hours, at which point they
were  removed and allowed  to thaw at room  temperature (25°C).  After 24 hours of
thawing, the specimens were placed back  in the  freezer. Data collected from control
specimens instrumented with  thermocouples showed that the 24 hour period was
more  than adequate to ensure that complete  freezing or thawing occurred (Fig.  4,8).
This procedure was repeated until the desired  number of freeze-th^w cycles was
attained.                                                       I
      The  hydraulic conductivity of each specimen was measured Jn flexible-wall
permeameters after 1, 3, and 5 freeze-thaw cycles.  To minimize disturbance, frozen
specimens were removed from the freezer and placed in flexible-wall permeameters to
thaw. The  cell pressure and hydraulic gradient were applied immediately. The falling
head-constant tailwater method for  measuring hydraulic conductivity was  used (ASTM
                                     36

-------
                                                             • -;-;, -r-Sr
                                                             ^ ' -  * -iS
                Figure 4.7.   CRREL frozen soil core barrel sampler.




£
£
3
5
0)
Q.
1





\J\J
i
20

10


0


-10

-20
-30
I 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 [ 	 r— T 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 r— i 	 j 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	
1 O TopTC
3 D Middle TC
ft o Bottom TC
iS . Specimen — ^' /&
-8 _ /
C3 ' ^^^
~ v g H Middle ~^
". W S Bottom 	 ^.

8
-
2.
,
_
-

-
"
-
7 . Thermocouple ~
: e Locations :
S3 -
1 1 1 « 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
f
i

i
i


!




0 5 10 15 20 25 !
Time (hours) i
Figure 4.8.   Temperature vs. time for Valley  Trail clay during three-dimensional
            freezing.                                             -i
                                      37

-------
                                                               [
 05084-Method C). An average effective stress of 10 kPa and hydraulic gradient of 12
 was used. Termination criteria identical to those described in Sec. 4.1.2.1 were used.

 4.1.2.3 One-Dimensional Freeze-Thaw Tests                      ]
       Compacted specimens of Parkview and Valley Trail clay were subjected to one-
 dimensional freeze-thaw to replicate freezing processes that occur in the field.  The
 hydraulic conductivity of  these  specimens was  then measured to; compare with
 hydraulic conductivities of specimens removed from the  COLDICE test pads.  The
 compacted specimens were subjected  to the same number of freeze-thaw  cycles
 observed in the COLDICE test pads.                               !
                                                               i
       Three specimens each of  Parkview and Valley Trail  clay were; compacted at
 standard Proctor effort at water contents similar to the water  consents  used for
 construction of the COLDICE test pads.  The specimens were removed from their
 compaction molds and sealed in plastic wrap.                       >
       The specimens were instrumented with thermocouples at the top, middle,
 bottom, and along their side. They were then wrapped in 0.1 m thick ft-11 fiberglass
 building insulation and placed on a sheet of expanded polystyrene. A circular heating
 element (diameter = 0.15 m) was placed beneath the polystyrene  sheet.; The top of the
 specimen was left exposed to the ambient temperature of the freezer (-20°C).  Figure
 4.9 is  a  diagram  of the one-dimensional freezing set-up; a  similar method to one-
 dimensionally freeze compacted specimens  was used  by Othmah  and Benson
 (1993b).   Figure  4.10 contains photographs of the equipment used to induce and
 monitor one-dimensional freezing.                                 <
      Temperatures  within the specimens were recorded while freezing (Fig.  4.11).
 The specimens  were removed  from the freezer when no  further  decrease in
 temperature was occurring. The specimens were allowed to thaw at room temperature
 (25°C) for at least  24 hours.
      Three specimens of each clay were subjected to three different; freezing rates
 (one freezing rate per specimen). The freezing rates were varied by changing the
 thickness of the  polystyrene  between the specimen and heating  ejement.  After
 freezing and thawing, the hydraulic conductivity of each specimen was measured in a
 flexible-wall permeameter.  An average effective  stress  of 10 kPaiand hydraulic
 gradient of 12 was used. No backpressure was applied.  Tests were terminated when
the hydraulic conductivity was steady and the ratio of outflow to inflow was  between
                                     38

-------
                                      Fiberglass Insulation


                                         Compacted
                                           Clay
                                         Specimen
\
                                                /.•Type-T
                                                ^•^Thermocouple
                                                fLocations
                   //Expanded Polystyrene Sheets-^
                   '/    (variable thickness)     J
                   /
                                                   0.15 m-Diameter
                                                Circular Heating Element


                     Figure 4.9.   One-dimensional freezing set-up.
Figure 4.10.  Freezer and data acquisition system  used  for one-dimensional freezing
              of compacted clay specimens.
                                            39

-------
 0.75 and 1.25 for four consecutive readings.  The hydraulic conductivity was reported
 as the arithmetic mean of the last four hydraulic conductivity measurements.

 4.2  SAND-BENTONITE  MIXTURE                            ;
 4.2.1   Field Methods                                          I
 4.2.1.1 COLDICE Test Pads                                     \
       A test pad consisting of a sand-bentonite mixture was also constructed in the
 COLDICE project, adjacent  to the four clay test pads described in Sec. 4.1.1.1. The
 sand-bentonite test pad, labeled SB-1, was 9 m by 21 m and had a thickness of 0.6 m
 (Erickson et al. 1994) (Fig. 4.2).  It was constructed with similar procedures as the test
 pads constructed with clay, except that it was compacted  using a smooth vibrating
 wheel compactor. The test pad was covered with a 0.15 mm-thick polyethylene sheet
 and 0.1 m of sand to minimize desiccation.   Construction of the sand-bentonite test
 pad was  completed in October 1992.  All of the measurements of'molding water
 content and dry unit weight made during construction of the test pad felj  wet of the line
 of optimums (Fig. 4.12).  Like the clay test pads, the  sand-bentonite  test pad was
 instrumented with thermistors to record temperature at different depths. •
                                                                i
 4.2.1.2  In Situ Box Infiltrometers                                  \
      A box infiltrometer was also installed in  the sand-bentonite test pad to measure
 hydraulic conductivity in the field (Fig 4.3). The infiltrometer was the same
 as those described in Sec. 4.1.1.2,  and was installed using similar methods (Erickson
 et al. 1994).                                                     j
                                                                i
 4.2.1.3  Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity  \
      Hydraulic conductivity tests  were performed in the laboratory'on specimens
 removed  from the .sand-bentonite test pad to  assess the field-scale hydraulic
conductivity.   Specimens were removed from the field by three methods: as large
blocks, using thin-wall sampling tubes (Shelby tubes), and as frozen cores. Sampling
of the sand-bentonite test pad was performed concurrently with sampling from the clay
test pads  and  similar sampling methods were employed.  The sampling  methods and
schedule  are described in Sec.  4.1.1.3.  Flexible-wall .permeameters! were used to
measure the hydraulic conductivity of specimens removed from the sand-bentonite test
pad.                                                            ;
                                      40

-------
O
o

£

1
CD
CL
E
                       T	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	i	1	r-

                           Specimen
                              . Middle

                              '.—• Side
                                       - Bottom
                                                  _Thermocouple
                                                   Locations
X:-	
                                                           •J.9P
                                                      — — -Side
                                             _j	i  i  •
                             10
20       30

 Time (hours)
                                             ,40
                                        50
Figure 4.11. Temperature vs. time for one-dimensional freezing of Parkview clay in
             the laboratory.                      ,                    :
  .g>
  I
            • &•
             Q
                   20
                   19
                   18
                   16
                                                      O   Standard
                                                      D   Modified
                                                      +   Field
                                           b
                                         A
                                                          \
                    8       12       16      20

                       Molding Water Content (%)
                                                                 24
Figure 4.12. Compaction curve and field compaction data for sand-ben' tonite mixture.
                                         41

-------
       Three block specimens were removed from the sand-bentohite test pad in
 December  1992 (before freezing) and in June 1993 (after freezing);.   Because the
 sand-bentonite pad was only 0.6 m thick, only two specimens were removed along
 one continuous vertical  profile (0-0.3 m and 0.3-0.6 m).  The third; specimen was
 removed from a location adjacent to the first two specimens at an intermediate depth of
 0.15-0,45 m.    .                                     •          |
       Before being placed in permeameters, the PVC ring was removed from the
 specimens and excess or disturbed soil  was trimmed away until the specimen had a
 diameter of 0.3  m and  a height  of 0.15 to  0.20  m.  The  block  specimens were
 permeated at an average effective stress  of 10.5 kPa, hydraulic gradients of 4 to 5, and
 using  a backpressure of 413 kPa.  One specimen (before winter, 0.15-0.45 m) was
 tested at a  higher hydraulic  gradient (8.0) to reduce the time required to reach
 equilibrium. The hydraulic gradient was increased by reducing the effluent pore water
 pressure to 406 kPa.  Increasing the  hydraulic gradient also increased the average
 effective stress  to  14 kPa.  Tap water  from Madison, Wisconsin was  used, as the
 permeant.  The specimens were permeated until the  hydraulic conductivity was steady
 (no upward or downward trend over time) and the ratio  of outflow1 to inflow was
 between 0.75 and 1.25.  The  latter criterion was not met by the  specimen collected
 before winter from a depth of 0.15-0.45 m, which was permeated  for 55 days without
 reaching equal inflow and outflow.                                ,
       Specimens were also removed from the sand-bentonite test pad with thin-wall
 sampling tubes  (Shelby  tubes) in June 1993, after one winter  of exposure.  The
 sampling tubes were sealed in the field and shipped to the University of Wisconsin-
 Madison. The specimens were extruded from the sampling tubes,  sealed in plastic
 wrap, and stored in a high humidity room to await hydraulic conductivity'testing.
       The  specimens removed  in thin-wall tubes were permeated in  flexible-wall
 permeameters at an average effective  stress of 28 kPa using a hydraulic gradient of
 25. No backpressure was used. Tap water from Madison, Wisconsin was used as the
 permeant.  The specimens were permeated until hydraulic conductivity was steady
 and the ratio of outflow to  inflow was between 0.75 and 1.25           ;
      Specimens were also removed from the sand-bentonite test  pad in March 1993
while the soil was frozen.  Personnel from CH2M Hill, Inc. and CRREL collected the
specimens using  the core barrel described in  Sec.  4.1.1.3 (Erickson  et al.  1994).
Storage  and hydraulic conductivity testing were performed at CRREL.   Hydraulic
conductivity  of the frozen cores was measured in flexible-wall permeameters. The

                                  ' '  42"                 ,

-------
 frozen core specimens were allowed to thaw and consolidate  under an average
 effective stress of 7 kPa.  Hydraulic conductivity tests were then performed at that
 average effective stress using hydraulic gradients ranging from 2 to 5.  A backpressure
 of .380 kPa was used.  Tap water from Hanover,  New Hampshire was used as the
 permeant.
                                                                i

 4.2.2   Laboratory  Methods                                    i
 4.2.2.1  Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationship           ;
       Specimens of sand-bentonite that were compacted to determine compaction
 curves corresponding to standard and modified Proctor efforts (Sec 3.2.1.2) were also
 used  to  determine  the  hydraulic conductivity-water  content relationships.   The
 specimens were extruded from the compaction molds, sealed in pla'stic wrap, and
 stored until permeation.                                           |             '
       The specimens were placed in flexible-wall permeameters for saturation and to
 measure their hydraulic conductivity, which was measured while the specimens were
 saturating. The falling head-rising tailwater method was used. An average effective
 stress of 21  kPa and hydraulic gradient of 30 were used.  A backpressure of 345 kPa
 was applied.  Tap water from Madison, Wisconsin was used as the permeant fluid.
       Each test was terminated when the hydraulic conductivity was steady (change <
 ±25%  and no increasing or decreasing trend) and  the  ratio of outflow to inflow was
 between 0.75 and 1.25 for four consecutive readings or when  the'test  time had
 reached  30 days. For specimens which had reached steady conditions, the hydraulic
 conductivity was reported as the arithmetic mean of the last four measurements. For
 specimens which did not reach steady conditions in 30 days, the hydraulic conductivity
 was reported as the last measurement.  For all of the  specimens  which had not
 reached  steady conditions in 30 days,  the hydraulic conductivity was steady and the
 ratio of outflow to inflow was approaching 1.0.

 4.2.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests                               \
      Three  specimens of the sand-bentonite mixture  were compacted at a water
content similar to the water content used for construction of the sand-bentonite test pad
(Sec. 4.2.1.1). Each specimen was extruded from the compaction mold and sealed in
plastic wrap to prevent desiccation and stored until permeation. The 4and-bentonite
specimens were  placed  in  flexible-wall permeameters to  determine  their initial
                                     43

-------
  hydraulic conductivity. Conditions and termination criteria identical to those described
  in Sec. 4.2.2.1 were employed.                                   ;
        After the initial hydraulic conductivity tests were complete, the specimens were
  carefully removed from the permeameters.  Extreme care was used to avoid disturbing
  the structure of the specimens.  They were then sealed in  plastic wrap to prevent
  desiccation and  placed  in a laboratory  freezer for cooling.  The free-standing
  procedure  was used to  freeze the sand-bentonite specimens (Sec.:4.1.2.2).  The
  specimens were left in the freezer for at  least 24 hours, at which point they were
  removed and allowed to thaw at room temperature (25°C). After 24 hours of thawing,
  the specimens were placed back in the freezer. This procedure was repeated until the
  desired number of freeze-thaw cycles was attained.                  i
       The  hydraulic conductivity of each specimen was measured after 1,  3, and 5
  freeze-thaw cycles.  To minimize disturbance, the frozen specimens were removed
 from the  freezer and directly placed in flexible-wall permeameters forkhawing.  The
 cell pressure and hydraulic gradient were applied immediately.  An average  effective
 stress of 21 kPa and hydraulic gradient of  30 were applied.   A backpressure of 345
 kPa was used.                                                  j
                                                                i
                                                                I
 4.3  GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINERS (GCLs)
 4.3.1   Field  Methods

 4.3.1.1  COLDICE  Test Ponds and Pans-Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity
      Large-scale  GCL test ponds were constructed in October 1992 and large-scale
 test pans were constructed in September 1993 by personnel from CH2lv1 Hill, Inc. as
 part of the COLDICE project (Fig. 4.2).  The ponds and pans were used;to assess the
 impact that  freeze-thaw had on the  hydraulic  conductivity of GCLs (Erickson et al.
 1994).  The test pans were constructed  because of difficulties encountered  the
 previous year (1992) with the seepage collection system in the GC|L test ponds
 (Erickson  et al. 1994). Consequently, the only successful hydraulic conductivity tests
 were performed using the GCL test pans.  Tests  were performed  on! three GCLs:
 Bentomat®,  Claymax®, and Gundseal®:
      Nine  rectangular test pans were constructed in three groups  (one group for
 each GCL).  Each group of test  pans contained one  large test pan (surface area = 1.8
 m2) and two  smaller test pans (surface area = 0.7 m2).  The large test pans and one of
the two small test pans contained GCLs with seams that were installed ih accordance
                                     44

-------
 with the manufacturers' specifications.  The third pan in each group contained a
 seamless GCL specimen (Erickson et al. 1994).
       The  large test pans were constructed  by  welding pieces  of HOPE
 geomembrane plate stock together. The smaller test pans were manufactured storage
 bins constructed of HOPE.  Each test pan contained a seepage collection system with
 drains. A GCL specimen was placed over a thin layer of pea gravel to act as a support
 and drain for the GCL The GCL was covered with a 0.25 m-thick layer of pea gravel.
 The  test pans were then surrounded by pea gravel to the same level of the gravel
 within the pans (Fig, 4.13) (Erickson et al. 1994).
       Water was  initially added  to a depth of 30 mm  in the test pahs to allow the
 bentonite to hydrate.  After one week, the water level was  increased to 0.25 m.  The
 bentonite was allowed to hydrate in this condition for one month.  After one month,
 seepage data were recorded.  The water level was kept constant during! the duration of
 the tests, and the water was not drained prior to winter. The hydraulic gradient ranged
 from 5 to 15 and averaged 10.  Hydraulic conductivity of the GCLs was determined by
 measuring outflow. Measurements of before-winter hydraulic conductivity were made
 through December 1993.  Measurements after winter began in April 1994 (Erickson et
 al 1994).                                                      • |   .      .

 4.3.1.2 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity \
       During decommissioning of the COLDICE GCL test ponds and pans in June
 1994, four specimens  of Bentomat® and Claymax® (two  specimens'of each GCL)
 were removed from the test ponds by personnel  from the University! of Wisconsin-
 Madison.  The GCLs  in the  test  ponds had been exposed to two  winters and two
 freeze-thaw cycles. Specimens, approximately 0.8  m by 0.8 m, were  cut using a razor
 knife, placed on stiff sheets of 10  mm-thick HDPE plate stock, and sealed with plastic
 wrap for shipping.  Extreme  care was taken to prevent disturbance of the  hydrated
 bentonite when cutting, sealing, and transporting the specimens.  The specimens were
 stored prior to permeation in a high humidity  room at the University 'of Wisconsin-
 Madison.                                                       ;
      Large  flexible-wall  permeameters were used  to  measure ihe  hydraulic
 conductivity of the GCL specimens. The protocol described  in Geosynthetic Research
 Institute (GRI) test  method GCL-2 was employed, which is an adaptation of ASTM D
5084  specifically for use with  GCLs.  Circular specimens  were cut from the 0.8 m by
0.8 m sections with a  razor knife to  a diameter of 0.45  m.  A bentonite paste was
                                                         i
                           	45                        ;

-------
 applied to the  edge of the specimens to prevent sidewatl leakage between  the
 specimen and  the  membrane.   The falling  head-constant  tailwater method was
 employed for permeation. An effective stress of 28 kPa and hydraulic; gradient of 75
 were used.  No backpressure was applied. The hydraulic conductivity tests were run
 until  the hydraulic  conductivity was steady  and outflow equaled inflow for four
 consecutive measurements.                                      i         .
      The two Bentomat® specimens had very high flow rates. Dye was injected  into
 the influent and the permeameter was then disassembled to attempt to; locate the high
 seepage zones. It was found that sidewall leakage between the  specimen and the
 membrane was the cause of the high flow rates for both Bentomat® specimens. The
 Bentomat® specimens were removed  from  the permeameter and trimmed to a
 diameter of 0.3 m and placed in another flexible wall permeameter.  Bentonite paste
 was applied around the edges of the specimen to alleviate the sidewall leakage
 problem. Similar testing conditions and termination criteria were used when re-testing
 the Bentomat® specimens.  Sidewall leakage continued to be a problem for one of the
 smaller Bentomat® specimens,  and additional  measures were  not successful in
 correcting the problem.                                          '

 4.3.2  Laboratory  Methods                                   !    •       .
      Laboratory tests were  conducted on Bentofix®, Bentomat®, and Claymax® (Fig.
 3.7).  Tests were not conducted on Gundseal®, because  freeze-thaw is unlikely to
 affect the hydraulic performance of the geomembrane component  of the  Gundseal®
 GCL. Also, the GCL Bentofix® was only used in the laboratory freeze-thaw tests and
 was not evaluated in the field.                                    |

 4.3.2:7  Laboratory Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity           \
      Specimens for hydraulic conductivity testing were  selected by unrolling the
 GCLs on the laboratory floor  and locating a point away from the edge of the roll where
the specimens were  likely to  have uniform bentonite content. A piece of plywood was
placed underneath the GCL  and a razor  knife was used to carefully cut out circular
specimens (diameter =  0.15 m).   Efforts  were made to keep  loose bentonite in the
GCLs from spilling  out of the edges.  This procedure was used to make  three
specimens each of Bentofix® and  Bentomat® and four specimens  of Claymax® (Fig.
4.14). The specimens were weighed and their diameter and thickness were measured
                                    46

-------
                            1cm Pea Gravel
 \
       fVC Covor Strip
                                             4cm Minus Stone ^-Vent Pipe
       \
  4cm Minus"
  Stone
       Bentonlte Edge
        Seal (Paste)
Bentonlte Paste
;Seepage Drain
                   Side Leakage Drain
20 ml PVC Membrane
PVC Seepage
 Collection
Control Varve
Figure 4.13.  Schematic of GCL test pan used at the COLDICE field site (from Erickson
             etal. 1994).
   Figure 4.14.  Photograph of trimmed Bentomat® specimen for laboratory testing
                                        47

-------
 using calipers.  A bentonite paste was then applied to the edges of each specimen to
 prevent short circuiting during permeation.                         :
        The specimens were placed in flexible-wall permeameters for saturation and to
   define their initial hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity was measured
 while the specimens were saturating. The protocol described in GRI test method GCL-
 2 was employed.  An average effective stress of 7 kPa and hydraulic gradient of 75
 were  applied, and no backpressure was used.  Tap water from Madison,  Wisconsin
 was used as the permeant.                                       !
       The tests were terminated when  the hydraulic conductivity was steady (change
 smaller than ± 25% and no increasing or decreasing trend) and the ratio of outflow to
 inflow was between 0.75  and  1.25 for  four consecutive readings.  > The  hydraulic
 conductivity was reported as the arithmetic mean of the last four measurements.

 4.3.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests
       After the  initial hydraulic conductivity tests were complete, the GCL specimens
 were  carefully  removed from the permeameters by sliding  them onto  sheets of
.expanded polystyrene.  Extreme care was used to avoid  disturbing the structure of the
 hydrated bentonite. Calipers were used to measure their dimensions. They were then
 sealed in plastic freezer bags to  prevent desiccation and  placed in a. laboratory freezer
 for cooling. An identical procedure was used after each freeze-thaw-pej-meate cycle.
       The free-standing  procedure (Othman et al. 1994) was used' to  freeze  the
 specimens in a closed system.  They were cooled to an ultimate temperature of -20°C
 at a freezing rate of approximately 12  mm/hr.  This  procedure  results in three-
dimensional freezing as opposed to one-dimensional freezing which' occurs in  the
field.   Nevertheless,  because the  GCL specimens  are  thin  and wide  relative to
specimens of compacted clay, freezing  was .approximately one-dim'ensional (Fig
4.15).                                                           ;
       The specimens were left in the freezer for at least  24 hours, at which  point they
were removed and allowed to thaw at room  temperature  (25°C). After 24 hours of
thawing, the specimens were placed back in the freezer. Data collected from control
specimens instrumented with thermocouples (Fig. 4.15) showed that !24 hours was
more  than  adequate to  ensure that complete freezing  or thawing occurred.  This
procedure was repeated until the desired number of freeze-thaw cycles was attained.
      The hydraulic conductivity of each specimen was measured after 1, 3, 5, and 20
freeze-thaw cycles.  To minimize disturbance, frozen specimens were removed from

                                     48                         :

-------
 the freezer and directly placed into flexible-wall permeameters in the frpzen state.  The
 cell pressure and hydraulic gradient were applied immediately.  Hydraulic conductivity
 was measured during and subsequent to thawing.  Test parameters and termination
 criteria identical to those described in Sec. 4.3.2.1 were used.        j

 4.4  PAPER MILL SLUDGES
 4.4.1   Field  Methods
 4.4.1.1 Compaction of Pipe Specimens
       Large specimens  of  compacted paper mill  sludge  were  constructed  by
 compacting paper mill sludge in a poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (diameter = 0.35 m,
 length— 0..6 m) (Fig. 4.16).  Two specimens were constructed for each sludge.  One
 specimen  of each  sludge  was used to determine  the initial hydraulic conductivity
 (herein referred to as the "control" specimen).  The other specimen was instrumented
 with thermocouples and buried in the ground outside the Environmental Geotechnics
 Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison  (herein referred tb as the "field"
 specimen).  The field specimens were.buried in the ground in early December 1993
 and allowed to freeze  one-dimensionally.  The specimens were removed from the
 ground in March  1994 and were permeated to determine  the hydraulic conductivity
 after exposure to freeze-thaw. Benson and Othman (1993) conducted similar small-
 scale field tests on a pipe specimen of compacted clay.              ;
        A PVC plate was used at the bottom of the  pipe to confine the specimen. A
 georiet and non-woven geotextile were placed at the bottom of the specimen prior to
 compaction to  provide for filtration and drainage during permeation,  the specimens
 were compacted directly in the pipe using a compaction  energy equal to standard
 Proctor energy and  molding water  contents  which yield the  lowest hydraulic
 conductivities  for  the  three  sludges (see Sec. 4.4.2.1).  The  specimens  were
 compacted in six 0.1-m-thick lifts. Compaction was performed by dropping a 11.8 kg
 cylindrical weight with a diameter of 100 mm 120 times on each lift from, a height of 0.3
 m (Fig.  4.17).  A flexible PVC geomembrane was placed  on top of the  compacted
 paper mill sludge in the field specimens and sealed  to the  inside of the PVC pipe to
 prevent desiccation.                                             ;

 4.4.1.2  Instrumentation and Burial of Pipe Specimens               '•
      Thermocouples were placed  in the field specimens  at the center of the pipe
between each  lift so the  temperature within the specimen could be pleasured with

                                     49                        i

-------


0
o
2
1
8.
O)
H





i
1 ^
I O
10
5
0
-5


-10

-15

.on
L , i . , i . . I . - i • • • i • • • i • • • i • • • i • • A-
1 Top. Middle '
KJ \ / Qj
V6 . VaLrk,;... ..;••:.-,;: .. .j'.^' , i^jr. :
i-O .x /
ZB Bottom Side A :
^ o :
' SB 8 ° 1
- S 8 a ' g ^^ ^oo -:
A A ' ~.
@-
:
O Top :
D Middle ;
O Bottom as
A Side Q A :
' , , , I , i , 1 i i i 1 i . i 1 i r I V t . J _i — 1 — i — i — 1 I I i 	 1 —
                  0     2    4    6    8    10    12    14  -  16
                                  Time (hours)                    •

Figure 4.15.  Temperature vs. time for Bentomat® GCL frozen three-dimensionally.
                Figure 4.16.  Small-scale field pipe specimens.
                                    50

-------
Figure 4.17.  Compaction of paper mill sludge pipe specimen.
                          51

-------
 depth.  Teflon® coated Type-T thermocouples were used.  Five thermocouples were
 placed in  each pipe specimen.   Temperatures  within the pipe specimens were
 recorded by a Campbell  Scientific CR10  Datalogger every hour:between rnid-
 December 1993 and late March 1994.  Air temperature and relative hurfiidity were also
 recorded every hour by the datalogger.  A graph of air temperature vs.i time is located
 in Appendix B.  Figure 4.18 is a photograph of the data acquisition set-up.
       The field specimens were buried in the ground in early December 1993, before
 any ground freezing had occurred. A large trench was excavated and the three field
 specimens were placed next to each other in the trench (Fig 4.19).  The trench was
 then backfilled level with the top of the compacted sludge in the pipe specimens. The
 top of the sludge, overlain  by the PVC geomembrane was exposed to the ambient air
 temperature.                                                    ;
                                                                i
 4.4.1.3 Permeation of Pipe Specimens                             !
      The  pipe  specimens  were  designed  to be  used  as la;rge  rigid-wall
 permeameters. The,control specimens were permeated  while the  fibld specimens
 were buried in the ground, whereas  the field specimens were permeated after
 exposure to one winter. Brass  fittings were placed in the top and bottom plates of the
 pipe specimens to allow for inflow and outflow of water.  The constant headwater-
 constant tailwater method was  used to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the pipe
 specimens in accordance with methods described in the ASTM draft standard for rigid-
 wall hydraulic conductivity tests. Mariotte bottles were  used to apply a constant head.
 Tests were performed at a hydraulic gradient of 3.                    •
      The tests were terminated when the hydraulic conductivity was steady and the
 ratio of outflow to inflow was between 0.75 and 1.25  for four consecutive  readings.
 The hydraulic conductivity of the specimens is reported as the arithmetic mean of the
 last four hydraulic conductivity measurements.
      High  initial  values  of the outflow to inflow ratio  were observed for all pipe
 specimens during  testing.  It was determined that excessive gas build-jup was taking
 place within the specimens.  This  gas build up was preventing  inflow and increasing
outflow as  a result of increased pore  pressures in the specimens.  To correct this
problem, venting pipes were installed in the top plates. After the venting pipes were
installed, accurate readings of outflow and inflow were possible.        i
                                     52

-------
           Figure 4.18.  Data acquisition set-up for buried pipe specimens.
Figure 4.19.  Burial of pipe specimens  in the ground outside the Environmental
            Geotechnics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
                                     53

-------
                               i  ft         j|  (ft ,
 4.4.1.4 Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity in Flexible-Wall Permeameters
       Following permeation, the pipe specimens were sliced into horizontal sections
 that were subsequently permeated to investigate how depth influenced hydraulic
 conductivity. Benson and Othman (1993) showed that the hydraulic conductivity of the
 compacted clay varied with depth for their pipe specimen.            \
       A circular saw was used to slice the pipe into horizontal sections.  The sections
 were then separated from each other by slicing through the compacted paper mill
 sludge with a carpenter's saw.  Vertical cuts were made in the pipe around the sludge
 sections  and the remaining pieces of PVC were carefully removed to  prevent
 disturbance (Fig 4.20).  The sections of compacted paper mill sludge were trimmed to
 a diameter of 0.3 m and heights ranging from  0.1 to 0.2 m. The specimens were then
 placed in  large flexible-wall permeameters (Fig. 4.5). An average effective stress of 18
 kPa was  applied to the specimens.  Hydraulic gradients ranged from; 8 to 16.  No
 backpressure was  used.  Termination criteria described in Section^ 4.4.1.3 were
 followed.

 4.4.2:   Laboratory Methods
 4.4.2.1 Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships          j
       Specimens that were compacted to determine the compaction qurves for the
 three  paper mill sludges  (Sec. 3.3.2)  were  used  to  determine the hydraulic
 conductivity-water content relationships.  The specimens were  placed in  rigid-wall
 compaction mold permeameters for saturation  and to measure their hydraulic
 conductivity. The rigid-wall permeameters contained a double ring in the base  plate to
 provide a check for sidewall  leakage.  The constant head-constant tailwater  method
 was used in accordance with methods described in the ASTM draft standard for rigid
 wall hydraulic conductivity tests. A lead weight was  placed on the! specimen to
 simulate  an overburden stress of 7 kPa during hydraulic conductivity  testing.
 Hydraulic  gradients ranging from 6 to 12 were applied, and tap water from Madison,
 Wisconsin was used as the permeant.                               ;
      Each test was terminated when the hydraulic conductivity was steady (change <
±25% and no increasing or decreasing trend) and the ratio of outflow jto inflow was
 between 0.75 and 1.25 for four consecutive readings.  The hydraulic conductivity was
 reported as the arithmetic mean of the last four measurements.         '
      Difficulties were encountered  when permeating  the paper mill sludge in  the
rigid-wail permeameters.  Gases produced as a result  of biological activity within the

                           ,.,.., 54                         !

-------
 paper mill sludge blocked inflow and increased outflow as a result of increased pore
 pressures within  the  specimens.  A venting  tube, similar to  those  used when
 permeating the pipe specimens (Sec. 4.4.1.3), was placed  in the top  plate of the
 perrneameter (Fig 4.21).  Use of the venting tube alleviated the problern and reduced
 testing time.             .                                        ;
                                                                i
                                                                i
 4.4.2.2 Standard Freeze-Thaw Tests                             . j
       Four specimens of sludge A and three specimens of  sludges B and  C were
 compacted at standard Proctor effort at water contents yielding the lowest hydraulic
 conductivities determined in Sec 4.4.2.1 (herein referred to as  "low-K" water contents)
 and at water contents at which they were received at the University! of Wisconsin-
 Madison (herein referred to  as "as-received" water contents).  Each specimen was
 compacted, sealed in its compaction mold using plastic wrap  to prevent desiccation,
 and stored until permeation.                                       \
      The  sludge  specimens were  placed  in   rigid-wall  compaction mold
 permeameters to determine their initial hydraulic conductivity (before exposure to
 freeze-thaw).  Test conditions  and termination criteria similar to those described in
 Sec. 4.4.2.1 were employed for the initial hydraulic conductivity tests.  After the initial
 hydraulic conductivity tests were complete, the excess water was drained from the
 permeameters and the entire perrneameter was placed in the laboratory freezer.
      The free-standing  procedure (Othman  et al.  1994) was used! to freeze the
 specimens in a closed system.  They were cooled to an ultimate temperature of -20°C.
 The specimens were left in the  freezer for at least 24 hours, at which point they were
 removed and allowed to thaw at room temperature (25°C).  After 24 hours of thawing,
 the specimens were placed back in the  freezer. This procedure was repeated until the
 desired number of freeze-thaw cycles was attained.  The hydraulic conductivity of each
 specimen was measured after-a various number of freeze-thaw  cycles (up to 5 cycles).
      Sidewall leakage was a  problem for the specimens exposed to freeze-thaw.
 Volume change of the specimen due to freezing and subsequent thawing resulted in a
 gap between the specimen and the wall of the compaction mold.  To;eliminate this
 problem, the specimens were extruded from  their compaction molds and placed in
flexible-wall permeameters for hydraulic conductivity testing.  The i falling head-
constant tailwater  method  for measuring  hydraulic conductivity Was used  for
specimens  which had been subjected to freeze-thaw.  An  average effeptive stress of
 1.0  kPa and hydraulic gradient of  12  were  used.  No backpressure; was applied.

                                     55                  ~ '      !

-------
Figure 4.20. Photograph of sliced sludge specimen for hydraulic conductivity testing
            in flexible-wall permeameter.           .                 ;
Figure 4.21. Test set-up  for hydraulic conductivity testing of compacted paper mill
      ,      sludge specimens.
                                      56

-------
  Hydraulic conductivity was measured subsequent to thawing.  Termination criteria
 similar to those described in Sec. 4.4.2.1 were used.                  ;

 4.4.2.3 Effective Stress Tests                                      \ •
       Tests were  performed  to  determine  the  relationship between  hydraulic
 conductivity and effective  stress for the three paper mill sludges.  One specimen of
 each sludge was compacted  at standard Proctor effort at the molding water content
 that yields the lowest hydraulic conductivity for that sludge (low-K water content, Sec.
 4.4.2.2). Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed in flexible-wall permeameters at
 effective stresses of 7, 35, 46, and 81 kPa and hydraulic gradients ranging from 6 to 9
 were used.  Termination criteria similar to those described in Sec. 4.4.2.1 were used.
 Following the completion of a test, the effective stress was increased by increasing the
 cell pressure in the permeameter and  the specimen was allowed to  consolidate for
 about 7 days after which,  the hydraulic gradient was applied. Hydraulic conductivity
 was measured by monitoring outflow from the specimens.             •

 4.4.2.4 Long-Term Hydraulic Conductivity Tests                      !
       Biological activity in compacted paper mill sludges has been reported in other
 experiments (NCASI 1989, Maltby and Eppstein 1994) and was observed for the three
 sludges tested in this project.  Therefore, hydraulic conductivity tests were performed
 on two specimens of each sludge to determine if the hydraulic conductivity of the three
 sludges is affected by time.                                         !
       Specimens were compacted at standard Proctor  effort. One specimen of each
 sludge was compacted at the  water content yielding the lowest hydraulic conductivity
 (iow-K water content, Sec.  4.4.2.2) and the other specimen was compapted at the as-
 received water  content (Sec.  4.4.2.2).  Double-ring compaction-mold  permeameters
were used to measure hydraulic conductivity of the specimens.  A lead weight was
placed on the  specimens during permeation to simulate an overburden  pressure
equal to  7 kPa.  A venting tube  was attached to the top plate of theipermeameter,
which was used to allow gases produced by biological activity in the sludge to escape.
A hydraulic gradient of 7 was applied across the specimens and termination criteria
similar to those described in Sec. 4.4.2.1 were used.
                                     57

-------
                                SECTION 5
                                                               \
                                                               i
                                 RESULTS
                                   CLAYS                     !

5.1   FIELD TESTS
5.1,1   Freeze-Thaw  Monitoring
      Temperatures were monitored  by CRREL personnel throughout the winter of
1992-93 in the Parkview and Valley  Trail test pads constructed for-the COLDICE
project. Freezing of the test pads began in November 1992 and was steady in mid- to
late December 1992. In mid- to  late March 1993, thawing became steady.  Complete
thaw of the test pads occurred by the first week in April 1993:  The test pads .remained
frozen for about 3.5 months (Erickson et al. 1994).       ,
      Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show frost zones in the test  pads over time.  Freezing
records show that once steady freezing was established, freeze-thaw cycling only
occurred in the overburden material and not in the compacted clay. It was determined
that the Parkview and  Valley Trail test pads were subjected to one freeze-thaw cycle
during the  winter of 1992-93 (Figs.  5.1 and 5.2).   The maximum depths of frost
penetration  in the  Parkview and Valley Trail test  pads were  0.70  and 0.55 m,
respectively.  An average freezing rate  of 0.03 mm/hr was measured for each test pad.

5.1.2:  In Situ  Box Infiltrometers
      In situ box infiltrometers were installed in the two  test pads constructed with
Parkview clay to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the test pads after exposure to
freeze-thaw.  Installation of the infiltrometers and measurement  of  hydraulic
conductivity were performed by personnel from CH2M Hill, Inc. No box infiltrometers
were Jnstalled in either of the Valley Trail test pads (Erickson et al. 1994).
      Erickson et al. (1994) made attempts to measure the hydraulic conductivity of
the Parkview test pad in spring  1993 by filling the PVC riser pipe in the top of the
infiltrometers with water and measuring the water level within the pipe.   Any water
which was added to the riser pipe immediately drained such that no measurement of
the water level could be made. The high flow rates were either the result of increased
hydraulic conductivity due to freeze-thaw or a leak in the infiltrometers.   The exact
cause of the high flow rates could not be determined (Erickson et al. 1994).
                                     58

-------
            o
                             20      40      60      80

                            Time (days since December 31, 1992)
100
 Figure 5.1.   Frost depth vs. time in the Parkview test pad (from Chamberlain  1994,
             personal communication).                             '
            o
            c

            f
                            20       40       60       80

                           Time (days since December 14, 1992)
100
Figure 5.2.  Frost depth vs. time in the Valley Trail test pad (from Chamberlain 1994,
            personal communication).
                                      59

-------
      Sand covering  one of the  infiltrometers  was removed and :the top  of the
infiltirometer was cut open by personnel from CH2M Hill, Inc. and the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.  Shovels were used to excavate and examine the compacted
clay. Figure 5.3 is a photograph of the soil at the surface of the Parkview test pad from
within one of the box infiltrometers. The soil appeared  blocky, containing  numerous
horizontal and vertical cracks.  This  type of structure  has  been observed in other
experiments examining the  effect  of  freeze-thaw on the hydraulic integrity of
compacted clays at field-scale  (Benson and Othman  1993, Erickson et  al. 1994,
Benson et al. 1995, Chamberlain et al. 1995).                      .
                                                              i  .
5.1.3  Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale  Hydraulic  Conductivity
      Hydraulic conductivity tests  were performed on specimens removed from the
Parkview and Valley Trail test pads as blocks, with thin-wall sampling tubes (Shelby
tubes), and as frozen  cores.  A  summary of the  results of the hydraulic conductivity
tests are shown in Fig.  5.4.                                       :

5.1.3.1 Block Specimens                                       ;
      Hydraulic  conductivity of the  block  specimens removed  in June 1993 from
COLDICE test pads PV-3 and VT-4 was measured in flexible-wall permeameters at the
University  of  Wisconsin-Madison.   Table 5.1  is  a  summary  of;  the  hydraulic
conductivities for specimens removed from the Parkview test pad. All of the specimens
removed before winter had hydraulic conductivities less than 1 x 10'9 m/s, whereas the
specimens removed from the test pad  after winter above  the maximum;frost  depth had
hydraulic conductivities greater than 1  x 10-7 m/s.  The specimen removed after winter
from below the maximum frost depth  had a hydraulic conductivity of 2.5 x  10-10 m/s
(Fig. 5.4).                                                     . j
      Similar results were obtained for block specimens  removed from;the Valley Trail
test pad (Table 5.2). The specimens removed from the test pad before winter and the
specimen  removed from the test pad  after winter below the  maximum frost depth all
had hydraulic conductivities less  than 1 x 10~9 m/s. The  hydraulic conductivities for all
of the specimens removed from  the Valley Trail pad after winter above the  maximum
frost depth were greater than 1 x  10-7 m/s (Fig 5.4).                 !
      After permeation, the block specimens were cut open to examine their structure.
The  specimens were opened  by pushing a screwdriver into the soil and prying  until
                                     60

-------
i-igure 5.3.   Photograph of soil inside box infiltrometerrParkview test pad.
                                 61

-------
           H
           o>
           Q
                               Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)
                         Maximum Frost Depth
      A
                                                     Block-Before F-T
                                                     Block-After F-T
                                                     Thin-Wall Tube-After F-T
                                                     Frozen Core       :
                               Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)
                             ID'10     10'9     ID'8
               10'7      10'6
                 0.0
                 0.1
                 0.2
                 0.3
                 0.4
                 0.5
                 0.6
                 0.7
                 0.8
-|	1 I I HIM	1	1 I I I IMI	1	1 I II
                        Maximum Frost Depth
          Block-Before F-T
          Block-After F-T
          Thin-Wall Tube-After F-T
          Frozen Core
Frigure 5.4.   Hydraulic conductivity  vs. depth for specimens  removed  from  the
             Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b) test pads.
                                          62

-------
Table 5.1.    Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on block specimens removed from
              the Parkview test pad.
Specimen1
PV-Block-Before-1 -
PV-Block-Before-2
PV-Block-Before-3
PV-Block-After-i
PV-Block-After-1-R2
PV-Block-After-2
PV-Block-After-3
Sample Depth
(m)
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
0-0.3
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
1.9xi10-10
2.2x:iO-10
4.5x!lO-10
2.7 x! 10-6
1.1 x10-6
4.4x!10-7
2.5x'lO-10
Notes:                                                  '              ,
1.   PV = Parkview clay; Block = Block specimen; Before = Sampled before winter; After = Sampled after
    winter; -1, -2, -3 = Specimen number.                                    ;
2.   R = Replicate specimen from depth of 0-0.3 m.                             i
Table 5.2.    Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on block specimens removed from
              the Valley Trail test pad.                                 ;     .
Specimen1
VT-Block-Before-1
VT-Block-Before-2
VT-Block-Before-3
VT-Block-After-1
VT-Block-After-1-R2
VT-Block-After-2
VT-Block-After-3
Sample Depth
(m)
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
0-0.3
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
i
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
9.8 xlO-11
1.6x10-1°
I.Sx'IO-10
3.3x!10'7
1.8xi10-7
2.6 Xi 10-7
2.2 x:10-10
Notes:                                                                ;
1.  VT = Valley Trail clay; Block = Block specimen; Before = Sampled before winter; After = Sampled after
   winter; -1, -2, -3 = Specimen number.                           •          ;
2.  R = Replicate specimen from depth of 0-0.3 m.                             i
                                          63

-------
the soil cracked.  This method prevents smearing of the soil, which-can mask the
internal structure.                                                i
      Figure 5.5 contains  photographs of specimens from the Parkview and Valley
Trail test pads removed before exposure to freeze-thaw.  The photographs in Fig. 5.5
are characteristic of the soil structure existing in both test pads before winter.  The soil
is dense and homogeneous and no  cracks are evident.  This structure is consistent
with the low hydraulic conductivity that was measured.               i
                                         .  ,           •  '       i  •
      In contrast, Fig. 5.6 contains photographs of the internal structure of specimens
removed from a depth of  0-0.3 m in the  Parkview and Valley Trail test pads after
exposure to  freeze-thaw.   The specimens appear  blocky  and contain numerous
horizontal and vertical cracks.  Horizontal cracks were  most likely the result of the
formation of ice lenses within the  soil.  Vertical cracks  were most likely caused by
desiccation incurred  by migration  of water during freezing of the soil.   The high
hydraulic conductivity  of  the specimens is attributed to the  existence of  these
horizontal and vertical cracks.                                     ;
      Figure 5.7 contains  photographs of the Parkview and Valley Trail specimens
                                                               !
removed from the test pads from  a depth  of  0.6-0.9 m.  These  sp'ecimens  were
collected from below the maximum depth of frost penetration, and thus were never
frozen.  None of the cracks that were present in the shallow specimens exist in these
specimens. The soil is a dense, homogeneous mass that appears similar to the soil as
it existed prior to freezing (Fig 5.5).  The absence of cracks and the homogeneity of the
soil structure is consistent with the low hydraulic conductivity of these specimens.

5.1.3.2 Specimens Collected in Thin-Wall Tubes
      Hydraulic conductivity was also measured on specimens removed in June  1993
from test pads PV-3 and VT-4 using thin-wall sampling tubes (Shelby tubes).  The
hydraulic conductivity tests were performed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Results of the tests are summarized in Fig. 5.4 and Table 5.3.  All of :the specimens
removed in thin-wall tubes had hydraulic conductivities less than 1 x 10-p m/s.
      Hydraulic conductivities measured on  specimens removed using thin-wall
sampling tubes after winter were similar to the  hydraulic conductivities measured on
block  specimens removed  before  winter,  but much  lower  than;the hydraulic
conductivities of block specimens removed after winter above the maximum frost
depth. The low hydraulic conductivities of these specimens were  most ilikely the result
of disturbance of the specimens during sampling and extrusion which masked the
                                     64

-------
Figure 5.5.   Interior of block specimens removed before winter from ithe Parkview
            (depth = 0-0.3 m) (a) and Valley Trail (depth = 0.6-0.9 m) (b):test pads.
Figure 5.6.  Interior of block specimens removed after winter from a depth of 0-0.3 m
            from the Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b) test pads.
                                       65

-------
                                      Park View
                                       (Bottom)
Figure 5.7.  Interior of block specimens removed after winter from a depth of 0.6-0.9
            m from the Parkview (a) and Valley Trail (b) test pads.
                                       66

-------
 Table 5.3.
Results of hydraulic conductivity  tests on thin-wall tube specimens
removed from the COLDICE test pads.
Specimen1
PV-TW-1
PV-TW-2
PV-TW-3
PV-TW-4
PV-TW-5
VT-TW-1
VT-TW-2
VT-TW-3
VT-TW-4
VT-TW-5
Sample Depth
(m)
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.45
0.52
0.07
0.15
0.25
0.45
0.52
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
1.0X'10-9
1.0x10-9
4.5 xlO-10
1.6x 10'10
1.6 x10-10,
4.0 x10-10
1.5x:10-10
1.5x10-10
1.5xi10-10
1.5 x10-10
 Note:
' 1.  PV = Parkview; VT = Valley Trail; TW = Thin-wall tube specimen; -1, -2, -3, -4, -5 = Specimen number,
                                       67

-------
  effects of freeze-thaw.  Figure 5.8 shows photographs of specimens removed from the
  Parkview and Valley Trail test pads after exposure to freeze-thaw.  [^either specimen
  contains  a crack network similar to those observed in the block specimens.  The
  absence of cracks is consistent with the low hydraulic conductivity of these specimens.
                                                                I
  5.1.3.3 Frozen Core Specimens                                  ;
        Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed  on  specimens removed from the
  Parkview and Valley Trail test pads in  March  1993 while they were frozen.  The tests
  were performed at the CRREL laboratory by CRREL personnel.  Four specimens were
  removed from the Parkview test pad at depths of 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 m and three
  were removed from the Valley Trail test pad at depths of 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 m
  (Chamberlain et al. 1995).  Results of the hydraulic conductivity tests are summarized
  in Fig.  5.4 and Table 5.4.
        The hydraulic conductivities of  the frozen core  specimens are similar to  the
.  hydraulic conductivities measured on the block specimens, and much; higher than the
  hydraulic  conductivities measured on  specimens removed using thin-wall sampling
 tubes having the same diameter (71  mm).                          •
        Figure 5.9 is a photograph of a frozen specimen removed from the Parkview test
 pad  using the CRREL core barrel.  The specimen contains cracks land ice lenses
 typically observed in compacted clays subjected to freezing. The  presence of cracks is
 consistent with the high hydraulic conductivities of these  specimens.

 5.1.3.4 Structure of Compacted Clay Subjected to Freeze-Thaw      \
       The increase in hydraulic conductivity for the Parkview and Valley Trail clays
 exposed to freeze-thaw is related  to the soil structure in  the test specimens. Test pits
 excavated in June 1993 revealed a structure  similar to  the structure observed in the
 box infiltrometers.  The soil  appeared blocky and contained numerous orthogonal
 cracks  (Fig. 5.10). Soil within the  test pits could be broken apart into chunks and was
 no longer a plastic, homogeneous  mass as it was before  winter.  The horizontal cracks
 were spaced  approximately 5-10 mm  apart  near the  surface of the test pad and
 increased  with depth.  Vertical  cracks  were spaced approximately 20-30 mm apart.
 The increase in hydraulic conductivity observed in block specimens and frozen cores
 (Tables 5.1, 5.2,  and 5.4) is a direct result of the existence of these! horizontal and
 vertical cracks.                                                  ;
                                      68

-------

                           Valley Trail
                                             Parkview
Figure 5.8.  Specimens removed after winter from the Parkview and Valley Trail test
            pads using a thin-wall tube (a) and their internal structure (b).
                                       69

-------
Table 5.4.  , Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on specimens removed from the
            COLDICE test pads with CRREL frozen core barrel (from Chamberlain
            1994, personal communication).                        ;
Specimen1 •
PV-CB-1
PV-CB-2
PV-CB-3
PV-CB-4
VT-CB-1
VT-CB-2
VT-CB-3
Sample Depth
(m)
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.15
0.25
0.35
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
8.5x10-8
1.3x!lO-6
1.7xi10-7
5.4x:10-7
8.0x!10-7
1.2x;10-8
8.5xi10-9
Note::                                                             i
1.  PV = Parkview; VT = Valley Trail; CB = CRREL core barrel specimen; -1, -2, -3, -4 = ;Specimen number.
                                      70

-------
Figure 5.9.
Specimen removed from Parkview test pad while frozen bsing CRREL
core barrel (from Erickson 1994, personal communication).:
Figure 5.10.  Test pit excavated in Valley Trail test pad showing blocky
            caused by freeze-thaw.
                                     71
                                                     soil structure

-------
5.2   LABORATORY TESTS                                    j
5.2.1   Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships   !
       Hydraulic conductivity  was measured on specimens of  Parkview and Valley
Trail clay compacted to determine compaction curves corresponding to standard and
modified Proctor effort (Sec.  3.1.2).  Results of the hydraulic conductivity tests are
shown in Figs. 5.11 and 5.12 and are summarized in Appendix A.     !
       The  hydraulic  conductivity of the  specimens decreases as the: molding water
content or  compactive effort increases (Figs. 5.11 and 5.12).  The  lowest hydraulic
conductivities occur at molding water contents slightly wet of optimum molding water
content for  both compactive efforts (see Figs. 3.3 and 3.4). These results are typical for
compacted clays (Mitchell et al. 1965, Benson and Daniel 1990, Daniel and  Benson
1990).                                                          :
                                       ....    ...    ...    :  .

5.2.2   Standard  Freeze-Thaw  Tests
       Three specimens of each clay were compacted using standard  Proctor  effort at
the molding water content at which  the Parkview and Valley  Trail test pads were
constructed (=16 and 21%, respectively). The specimens were subjected to freeze-
thaw using the  free-standing procedure (Sec. 4.1.2.2).   The hydraulic conductivity  of
each specimen  was measured after 0, 1, 3, and 5 freeze-thaw cycles.. Results of the
standard freeze-thaw tests are summarized in Figure 5.13 and Table 5.5.
      The  hydraulic  conductivity of both clays increased when subjected to freeze-
thaw (Fig.  5.13). The average initial hydraulic conductivity and average hydraulic
conductivity after five freeze-thaw cycles  for the Parkview specimens were 1.9 x 10'10
and ,2.5 x 10'8 m/s, respectively.   That  is, the average hydraulic conductivity of the
Parkview specimens  increased by more than two orders of magnitude1 after exposure
to five freeze-thaw cycles.                                         ;
      The  average initial  hydraulic conductivity and average hydraulic conductivity
after five freeze-thaw cycles for the Valley Trail specimens were  1.3 x J10-10 and 6.4 x
10~9 m/s, respectively, which corresponds to increase  in hydraulic conductivity by a
factor  of 50 as a result of freeze-thaw.  These results are consistent with results
reported in  other studies  (Chamberlain et al. 1990, Zimmie and LaPlante 1990, Kim
and Daniel  1992, Othman and Benson 1993,  Bowders and McClelland; 1994).
                                      72

-------
                10"
o
O
o
1
T>
                io-
                10'
               10
                 "10
                   5        10       15       20
                      Molding Water Content (%)
                                                               25
 Figure 5.11.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for Parkview clay.
          o
          3
          o
          O
          o
                10'7  r
               io
                 -10
               10
                 11
                              10         15         20
                                Molding Water Content (%)
                                                     25
Figure 5.12. Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for Valley Trail clay.
                                       73

-------
               10
                 ,-7
           CO

           E
           >   10'B  r
           C
           o
          O
          .y   io~* -
          CO
               10
                  -9
                 -10
                                          (a)
                                                   Specimen 1
                                                   Specimen 2
                                                   Specimen 3
                    0      1       2      3      4      5

                           Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles

               10
                 -7
               10
                 -8
o

"I   10
o
O
          to
          T3
          >*
                 -9
              10
                 -11
                                         Specimen 1
                                         Specimen 2
                                         Specimen 3
                    0      12      3      4      5

                           Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                                    6
Figure 5.13. Hydraulic conductivity vs. number of freeze-thaw cycles for Parkview (a)
            and Valley Trail (b) clay.     •                         ;
                                      74

-------
Table 5.5.    Results of freeze-thaw tests on specimens of Parkview and Valley Trail
              clay compacted in the laboratory.
Sample
Number1
PV-3D-1
PV-3D-2
PV-3D-3
VT-3D-1
VT-3D-2
VT-3D-3
Initial
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Ko
(m/s)
2.4 x10-10
2.0 x10-10
1.3x 10'10
2.2 x10-10
7.6x10-"
8.3 x10'11
Hydraulic Conductivity After n Freeze-
Thaw Cycles, Kn
(m/s)
Ki
1.0x10-8
7.4x10-9
6.1 x 10-9
2.2x10-9
3.2x10-9
3.8x10-9
K3
2.4x10-8
' 2.0x10-8
1.9 x 10-8
8.3x10-9
9.1 xlO-9
1.3x10-8
K5
2.6x10-8
2.6x10-8
2.2 x 10-8
3.4x10-9
7.1 xlO-9
8.8x10-9
K5(2) .
KO
108
130
169
15
93
106
Note:            •                                                       i  '
1.  PV = Parkview; VT = Valley Trail; 3D = Specimen was frozen and thawed three-dimensionally; -1, -2, -3
    = Specimen Number.                        _,
2.  KS/KQ = Hydraulic conductivity of specimen after exposure to 5 freeze-thaw cycles divided by hydraulic
    conductivity before exposure to freeze-thaw.                       •        i
                                           75

-------
 5.2.3   One-Dimensional  Freeze-Thaw  Tests
       To determine if differences in freezing rate affect the increase in  hydraulic
 conductivity caused by freeze-thaw, the relationship  between hydraulic conductivity
 and freezing  rate  was determined for three specimens of each clay.   Methods
 described in Sec. 4.1.2.3 were used. The specimens were subjected;to one freeze-
 thaw cycle so that they could be compared with the field data.         i
       Figures 5.14  and 5.15 show the relationship between hydraulic conductivity and
 freezing rate for each clay.  Laboratory  data from the  standard freeze-thaw tests and
 field data from the COLDICE project are also presented.  The hydraulic conductivities
 for the standard freeze-thaw tests are  the  averages  of three specimens.   No trend
 between hydraulic conductivity and freezing rate is evident.           ;

 5.3   COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST  RESULTS
       Summaries of results from  the hydraulic conductivity tests performed in the field
 and in the laboratory  on  clays  is  shown  in Tables  5.6. and 5.7.  An increase in
 hydraulic conductivity occurred as a result of freeze-thaw for both clays regardless of
 whether freeze-thaw  occurred  in the  field  or was  simulated  ope- or  three-
 dimensionally in laboratory tests.                                   ;
       Increases in hydraulic conductivity up to 4 orders of magnitude were observed
 for specimens removed from the COLDICE test  pads as  large blpcks.   Similar
 hydraulic conductivities were measured for specimens  removed from the test pads as
 frozen cores. However, an increase in hydraulic conductivity was  not observed for the
 specimens collected in sampling tubes.  Othman et al. (1994) and  Benson et al. (1995)
 report  that sampling as block specimens or frozen cores preserves the structure  of
 compacted clay subjected to freeze-thaw, whereas  sampling with thin-wall tubes
 disturbs the soil structure which results in a specimen that is not representative of the
 field condition.  The findings of this study are consistent with  those of^ Othman et al.
 (1994) and Benson etal. (1995).                                   ,          .
       Hydraulic  conductivities of the Parkview and Valley Trail specimens  frozen
 using the standard three-dimensional freeze-thaw method increased by factors of 130
 and  50,  respectively, after five cycles of freeze-thaw.  The  specimens frozen and
thawed using  the one-dimensional method increased in hydraulic conductivity by
factors of 62 to 140,  respectively, after one freeze-thaw cycle. In contrast, the hydraulic
conductivity  of the block specimens (which are assumed to  reflect field conditions)
increased in hydraulic conductivity more than three orders of magnitude in a single
                                     76

-------
1 U

5f <
.g. 10"6
&
1
3
1 10'7
o
O
.g
"3
CO . _Jt
•o 10*
I*
•m-9
....,,.,., , .,....,,...,.
O Field
D 1-D Specimens
O Standard Specimens
Hydraulic Conductivity Before
Freeze-Thaw = 2.9 x 10"10 m/s

-


- . D
'

r • . . o
: t
, , , , I , , , , 1 , , , , I , , , , I , I , , I , , ,
=
j
-
E
-

-=
-
;
*
-

—
.
"
10     20      30     40
       Freezing Rate (mm/hr)
                                                    50
60
 Figure 5.14. Hydraulic conductivity vs. freezing rate for Parkview clay.
1 U

(
CO
1. 10'7

1
"D -1 Q-8

0
O
g

"3
1 1°'9
in-10
••••!•••• 	 1 ' • • • 1 	 :
o Field I
D 1-D Specimens
O Standard Specimens
Hydraulic Conductivity Before ;
! D Freeze-Thaw = 1.4 x 10"'° m/s \

~ ~
; -
-
• ^ o -
a

- D " -=
— j — i — i — i — I — i — i — i — i — ! — i — i — i — i — 1 — i — i — i — i — I — i — i — i — i — I — i — i — i — i —














               0       10      20     30      40      50      60
                             Freezing Rate (mm/hr)


Figure 5.15. Hydraulic conductivity vs. freezing rate for Valley Trail clay.


                                  77

-------
 Table 5.6.    Summary of hydraulic conductivity tests performed on Parkview field and
               laboratory specimens.
Specimen^)
PV-Block
PV-Block
PV-Block
PV-TW-1
PV-TW-2
PV-TW-3
PV-TW-4
PV-TW-5
PV-CB-1
PV-CB-2
PV-CB-3
PV-CB-4
PV-Lab 3-D
PV-Lab 1-D
Sample Depth
(m)
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.45
0.52
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
N/A
N/A
Initial
Hydraulic
Conductivity*2)
(m/s)
1.9x 10'10
2.2 x 10'10
4.5 x 10'10
2.9x10-1o(4)
2.9x10-1°(4)
2.9x10-1°(4)
2.9x10-10<4)
2.9x10-1°(4)
2.9x10-10<4)
2.9x10-1°(4)
2.9 x 10-1°(4)
2.9 x 10-1°(4)
1 .9 x 1 0'10
1.9x10-10<6)
Final
Hydraulic
Conductivity(2)
(m/s)
1.9x 10'6
4.4 x 10'7
2.5 x 10'10
1.0x 10-9
1.0x 10-9
4.5 x 10-1o
1.6 x10-10
1.6 x10-10
8.5 x 10-8
1.3x 10'6
1.7x 10-7
5.4 x 10'7
2.5x1 0-8 (5)
1.2x10-8(7)
; K{ (3>
i Ki
10,000
2,000
0.56
1 0.35
'• 0.35
, 1.6
1 0.55
' 0.55
: 290
i 4,500
: 590
; 1 ,800
'130
; 62
Notes:                                                                     \
1.  PV = Parkview; Block = Block specimen(s); TW = Thin-wall tube specimen; CB = QRREL core barrel
    specimen; Lab 3-D  = Laboratory compacted specimens frozen three-dimensibnally; Lab 1-D =
    Laboratory compacted specimens frozen one-dimensionally; -1, -2, -3, -4, -5 = Specimen number
2.  Hydraulic conductivities are reported as averages for specimens  removed from the test pad from a
    depth of 0-0.3 m after winter (2 specimens) and for 3D and 1D laboratory compacted specimens (3
    specimens).                                                          .
3.  Change in hydraulic  conductivity (Kf/Kj) is defined as the final  hydraulic conductivity divided by the
    initial hydraulic conductivity.
4.  No specimens collected before winter in thin wall tubes or as frozen cores, thus;average hydraulic
    conductivity is reported as  the average hydraulic conductivity for the  block specimens collected
    before winter.
5.  Average hydraulic conductivity after 5 freeze-thaw cycles.
6.  Initial hydraulic conductivity tests were not performed on specimens frozen one-dimensionally.  The
    initial value is assumed to be similar to the average initial hydraulic conductivity of the specimens
    frozen three-dimensionally because they were compacted under identical condtions (compactive
    effort and molding water content).
                                            78

-------
Table 5.7.    Summary of hydraulic conductivity tests performed on Valley Trail field
               and laboratory specimens.
SpecimenO)
VT-Block
VT-Block
VT-Block
VT-TW-1
VT-TW-2
VT-TW-3
VT-TW-4
VT-TW-5
VT-CB-1
VT-CB-2
VT-CB-3
VT-Lab 3-D
VT-Lab 1-D
Sample Depth
(m)
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
0.07
0.15
0.25
0.45
0.52
0.15
0.25
0.35
N/A
N/A
Initial
Hydraulic
Conductivity^)
(m/s)
9.8 x10-11
1.6x10-10
1.5 x10'10
1.4x10-10<4)
1.4x10-1°(4>
1.4x10-10<4)
1.4x10-1°(4)
1.4x10-1°(4)
1.4x10-10(4)
1.4x10-1°(4)
1.4x10-1o(4)
1.3 x10'10
1.3x10-1°(6)
Final
Hydraulic
Conductivity^)
(m/s)
2.6 x 10-7
2.6 x 10'7
2.2 x 10'10
4.0 x10'10
1.5X-10-10
1.5 x10"10
1.5 x10'10
1.5x 10'10
1.2x10-8
8.0 x10-7
8.5 x 10-9
6.4 x 10-g(5)
1.8x10-8(7)
I ,
i
1 (V3>
! KI
2,600
. 1 ,600
! 1.5
I 2.8
1.1
; 1.1
. 1.1
'. 1.1
! 86
' 5,700
: 61
' 50
i 140
Motes:                                                                     ;
1.  VT = Valley Trail; Block = Block specimen(s); TW = Thin-wall tube specimen; CB = CRREL core barrel
    specimen; Lab 3-D = Laboratory compacted specimens frozen and thawed three-dimensionally; Lab
    1-D = Laboratory compacted specimens frozen one-dimensionally; -1, -2, -3, -A, -5 = Specimen
    number.                                                                !
2.  Hydraulic conductivities  are reported as averages for specimens removed from the test pad from a
    depth of 0-0.3 m after winter (2 specimens) and for 3D and 1D laboratory compacted specimens (3
    specimens).                                                             !
3.  Change in hydraulic conductivity (Kf/Kj) is defined as the final hydraulic conductivity divided by the
    initial hydraulic conductivity.                                               :
4.  Mo specimens collected before winter in thin wall tubes or as frozen cores, thus: average hydraulic
    conductivity is reported as the average hydraulic conductivity for the block specimens collected
    before winter.
5.  Average hydraulic conductivity after 5 freeze-thaw cycles.
6.  Initial hydraulic conductivity tests were  not performed on specimens frozen one-dimensionally. The
    initial value is assumed  to be similar to the average initial hydraulic conductivity of the specimens
    frozen three-dimensionally because they were compacted under identical conditions (compactive
    effort and molding water content).                                          •
                                             79

-------
cycle of freeze-thaw. Thus, for these soils the increase in hydraulic conductivity that
occurs in the  field is an order of magnitude larger than the increase  in hydraulic
conductivity measured  in the  laboratory using one-dimensional, or three-dimensional
freezing methods.  Benson and Othman (1993) reported a similar difference in their
field and laboratory tests.                                         '
      The cause of this difference is not clear.  However, the cracks occurring  in the
field were more  widely spaced and had larger aperture than those that occurred in
specimens frozen and thawed in the  laboratory (Figs. 5.7 and 5.10: vs. Fig.  5.16).
Furthermore, the ice lenses observed in the core specimens (Fig. 5.9) were more
randomly oriented than those  observed in the specimens frozen and thawed  in the
laboratory (Fig. 5.16).  However, without a more detailed study of changes in soil fabric
and structure, the  mechanism  responsible  for the difference in  the  increase in
hydraulic conductivity occurring in the  laboratory and field cannot be determined with
certainty.
                                      80

-------
Figure 5.16. Interior of Parkview specimen frozen and thawed in the laboratory.
                                   81

-------
                                SECTION  6                   ;

                                 RESULTS                    :
                       SAND-BENTONITE  MIXTURE
                                                               i
13.1  FIELD TESTS
6.1..1   Freeze-Thaw Monitoring                               ;    .
      Temperatures were monitored by CRREL personnel in the sand-bentonite test
pad constructed for the COLDICE project throughout the winter of 1992-93.  Freezing
of the test pad began in November 1992 and was steady in mid- to late December
1992. In, mid- to late March 1993, thawing became steady. Complete thaw of the test
pad had occurred by the first week in April 1993. The test  pad remained frozen for
                                                               I
about 3.5 months (Erickson et al. 1994).
      Figure 6.1 shows a profile of frost penetration over time.  Freezing records show
that once steady freezing was  established, freeze-thaw cycling  only pccurred in the
overburden material and not in the sand-bentonite mixture. Figure 6.1 shows that frost
had fully penetrated the test pad.  It was determined that the sand-bentonite mixture
was subjected to one freeze-thaw cycle during the winter of 1992-93 (Fig. 6.1).

6.1 .,2   In Situ Box Infiltrometers
      In situ hydraulic conductivity of the sand-bentonite test pad was measured by
personnel from CH2M Hill, Inc. after the test pad had been exposed to!two winters. A
box infiltrometer (Sec. 4.1.1.2) was used.  A hydraulic conductivity of 5 k 10'10 m/s was
                                                               i
measured in June and July 1994 (Erickson et al. 1994).  No measurement of field
hydraulic conductivity was made before the  test pad had frozen.  Therefore, no
comparison of hydraulic conductivity before and after winter couid be made. However,
visual examination of the soil during disassembly of the infiltrometer revealed that the
mixture was  soft and contained none  of  the  crack structures typically seen in
compacted clays  exposed to freeze-thaw.  Similar  structure was observed prior to
winter when the first set of block specimens was collected. Thus, it appeared that the
sand-bentonite mixture had not been affected by, freeze-thaw.
                                                               f
      Water content of the sand-bentonite  mixture was measured at three depths
within the box infiltrometer by personnel from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Samples were taken at depths of 0.07 m, 0.14 m, and 0.2 m.  The wateY contents were
42.1, 20.4,  and 18.2%, respectively.  These water contents were all higher than the
                                     82

-------
water content at which the test pad was compacted (=17%).  The high: water contents
near the surface of the test pad were probably the result of hydration and swelling of
the bentonite.  Also, the presence of high water contents in  the upper surface of the
test pad indicates that the  sand-bentonite mixture  was able to retain water after
exposure to freeze-thaw.                                          I
                                                                i
                                                                i
6.1.3   Laboratory Assessment  of Field-Scale Hydraulic  Conductivity
      Hydraulic conductivity tests  were performed at the  University of Wisconsin-
Madison on block specimens removed from the sand-bentonite test pad. Tests were
performed on three specimens removed before winter and three specimens removed
after  one winter of exposure.   Results  of  the hydraulic conductivity  tests  are
summarized in Table 6.1.
      Two of the specimens removed before winter (depths = 0-0.3 mjand 0.3-0.6 m)
had high hydraulic conductivity (> 1.0 x 10'8 m/s), whereas the third specimen (depth =
0.15-0.45 m) had very low hydraulic conductivity (3.1 x 10'11 m/s).  -The  specimen
having low hydraulic conductivity (intermediate depth (0.15-0.45 m) was permeated for
55 days before the test was terminated.  The specimen never met the outflow/inflow
criterion, but the hydraulic conductivity was  steady for most of the testijig period.  The
final outflow/inflow ratio was approximately 0.2.                      ;      ,
      The high hydraulic conductivity of the other two  specimens was 'caused by loss
of bentonite (i.e., "piping" of bentonite).  The effluent burettes for these specimens were
clouded with bentonite soon after testing was initiated.
      Piping of bentonite also  occurred in all three  specimens removed from  the
sand-bentonite test pad after winter.  Bentonite was  also  present in the effluent
burettes of all three specimens soon after the hydraulic conductivity testing began.
      Hydraulic conductivity tests were also performed at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison on specimens removed from the sand-bentonite test pad in June 1994 using
a thin-wall sampling tube (diameter = 71 mm).  Results of the tests are summarized in
Table 6.2.  The specimens  were removed from  a depth of 0-0.6 mj  The average
hydraulic conductivity for the four sand-bentonite specimens was 1.1  x 10-10 m/s.
      Hydraulic conductivity tests  were also performed at CRREUon specimens
removed from the test pad as 71 mm-diameter frozen cores. All of :the specimens
exhibited piping of bentonite.  Therefore,  no  laboratory assessment of post-winter
hydraulic conductivity could be made from the specimens removed as frozen cores or
those removed as blocks.               .
                                     83

-------
Table 6.1.   Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on block specimens removed from
             the sand-bentonite test pad.
Specimen^)
SB-BIock-Before-1
SB-Block-Before-2
SB-Block-Before-3
SB-Block-After-1
SB-Block-After-2
SB-Block-After-3
Sample Depth
(m)
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
0-0.3
0.3-0.6
0.6-0.9
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
1.2x10-7
3.1 x 10-11
2.4x10-8
6.6 xlO'7 :
2.4 x 10'7
5.7x10-8
Notes:                                                              !
1. SB = Sand-bentonite; Block = Block specimen; Before = Sampled before winter;  After = Sampled
   after winter; -1, -2, -3 = Specimen number.                                ;   '
Table 6.2.   Results  of  hydraulic  conductivity tests on thin-wall  tube specimens
             removed from the sand-bentonite test pad.               '•
Specimen^)
SB-TW-1
SB-TW-2
SB-TW-3
SB-TW-4
Sample Depth
(m)
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
1.3x 10-10
1.8x10-10
8.7 x 10-n
3.0 x 10-n
Note:                                                                i
1.  SB = Sand-bentonite; TW = Specimen sampled using a thin-wall tube; -1, -2, -3, -4 = Specimen
   number.                                         .                 ,
                                        84

-------
6.2   LABORATORY TESTS
6.2.1   Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships  i
      Hydraulic conductivity was  measured  for four specimens compacted with
standard Proctor effort and four compacted with modified Proctor effort (Fig. 6.2).
Results of the hydraulic conductivity tests are tabulated in Appendix A. ;
      Examination of Fig. 6.2 reveals that the  hydraulic conductivity of the sand-
bentonite mixture is less sensitive to molding water content  than the  hydraulic
conductivity of compacted clays  (e.g., Sec. 5.2.1).   The  results  also show that the
hydraulic conductivity of the sand-bentonite mixture is not sensitive; to  compactive
effort for. molding water contents dry of optimum, which  is in direct icontrast to the
behavior of most compacted clays.                                '
      One specimen (modified Proctor compactive effort, molding Water content =
7.3%) showed anomalously high hydraulic conductivity.  Bentonite was noticed in the
effluent burette during permeation. Examination of the specimen after lit was removed
from the permeameter showed a thin zone devoid of bentonite along trie entire side of
the specimen (i.e., "piping" of the bentonite had occurred).  This  piping  explains the
bentonite seen in the effluent and the high hydraulic conductivity that Was measured.
Other than the thin zone low in  bentonite, the specimen appeared jo be  a dense,
homogeneous, low-conductivity mass.                             i

6.2.2   Standard  Freeze-Thaw Tests                           !
      Three specimens were compacted at standard Proctor effort  at the water content
at which the sand-bentonite test pad was compacted for the COLDICE project (=17%,
see Fig. 4.12). The hydraulic conductivity of each specimen was measured after 0, 1,
3, and 5 freeze-thaw cycles. All of the specimens were permeated for a; minimum of 30
days. The hydraulic conductivity for each specimen  was steady when the test was
terminated. However, the outflow/inflow criterion was not met for any of the specimens
after any number of freeze-thaw cycles. Results of the freeze-thaw tests conducted on
the sand-bentonite mixture are summarized in Fig. 6.3  and Table 6.3.  :
      All three specimens exhibited piping of bentonite after three freeze-thaw cycles
and  one specimen exhibited piping of bentonite   after five freeze-thaw cycles.
Specimens that exhibited piping of bentonite were removed from their! permeameters
and examined.  A thin zone (=5 mm wide) appearing low  in bentonite was observed
along the side of each specimen, which was continuous from one end of the specimen
                                     85

-------
u.u
01
. I
00
.£.
E"
-o 0.3
nj
~ 0.4
= °-5
£ n R
g. °-6
^ 0,7

0.8
0.9
1 • • i • • • i • • • i • • ' i • ' • i ' ' '
Thaw occurring
from the top of
L the test pad ~^~ i
~\ , downward \
-\ \

_ * — W^^Y Frost Zone t
- V^^, - \ :
\ \
/
Test pad only 0.6 m-thick
— —
, , , 1 . . i 1 . . . ! . . . 1 . . . 1 . . i



i



i "
!
1
,
:

' '
\
i
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 !
Time (days since December 21, 1992) ;
Figure 6.1. Depth of frost penetration vs. time for the COLDICE sand-bentonite test
pad (after Chamberlain 1994, personal communication). ;
• . • - p i
1C'7

5f
.§, 10"8

•>
I
1 1 0'9
0
O
z>
W j _ -10
-o 1 0
' ir^
I
m-11

: ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' * 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' :
n , ,,
• h- ° Standard
- \ Q Modified
\
• Specimen Piped :

-
- -
• -
.
°" ^^^^—o
r- '"-O • ~
: D ""n -
': , ~~~ D :
, , , i , , , i , , , i , , , i , , ,
i

i


[
i

'!,
I


]-
i
                             8       12       16       20

                                Molding Water Content (%)
24
Figure 6.2.   Hydraulic  conductivity vs. molding water content for;sand-bentonite
             mixture.
                                       86

-------
to the other.  To correct the piping problem, a bentonite paste consisting of powdered
bentonite mixed with tap water was applied to these zones.   The specimens  were
placed in their permeameters and permeated again.  Addition of the bentonite paste
alleviated the piping problem.  One specimen piped again after 5 freeze-thaw cycles.
The same procedure was used to correct the problem with that specimen.
      Because zones low in bentonite were only observed on the sides of the
specimens, piping of bentonite is likely a result of particle movement under a high
hydraulic gradient (=30) while thawing and not a direct result of freeze-thaw.

6.3  COMPARISON  OF FIELD AND LABORATORY  TEST RESULTS
      A  summary of the results of the field and laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests
is shown in  Table 6.4.  A quantitative comparison of field- and laboratory-scale
hydraulic conductivities for the sand-bentonite is difficult because the quantity of field
data is sparse.  All but one of the block specimens removed from the itest pad before
winter piped  and all of the block specimens removed from the test pad after winter
piped.  Nevertheless,  a qualitative comparison between the effect of ifreeze-thaw on
sand-bentonite at field- and laboratory-scales is possible.
      Visual  examination of the soil within the box  infiltrometer revealed that  the
hydraulic integrity of the sand-bentonite mixture was not deleteriou;sly affected by
exposure to freeze-thaw.  The top of the sand-bentonite  within the box infiltrometer
was  soft and saturated, whereas soil within the box infiltrometer installed in the
                                                                i
Parkview clay test pad was cracked and did not prevent the flow of water (Sec. 5.1.2).
The high water contents, which decreased with depth (Sec. 6.1.2), occurred because
the sand-bentonite mixture restricted infiltration and  allowed the berjtonite to swell.
These conditions are consistent with the low hydraulic conductivity that was measured
by Erickson et  al.  (1994) after two winters of exposure and two freeze-thaw cycles
(Table 6.4).                                                      !
      The block specimens removed before and after winter exposure iwere examined
following permeation to observe their structure.  The specimens were opened by
prying them apart with a long screwdriver.  This method prevents smearing of the
specimen, which occurs with a saw or blade.  Zones rich in bentonite were found when
the specimens  were cut open (Fig 6.4), which are believed to be the result of poor
mixing of the sand and bentonite during preparation.  The high hydraulic conductivity
of the block specimens was most likely the result of insufficient mixing of the sand and
bentonite and not freeze-thaw, because high hydraulic conductivities were measured
                                      87

-------
 Table 6.3.
Results of freeze-thaw tests on sand-bentonite specimens compacted in
the laboratory.                                            ;
Specimen*1)
SB-3D-1
SB-3D-2
SB-3D-3
Initial
Hydraulic
Conductivity
KO
(m/s)
1.5 x10-11
1.4 x10-11
1.6 x10'11
Hydraulic Conductivity After n Freeze-
Thaw Cycles, Kn
(m/s)
Ki
2.2 x ID'11
1.7 x10-11
3.2 x10'11
K3
1.9X1CH1
1.6x 1CH1
1.8 x10'1-1
K5
5.1 X10'11
3.0 x 1CH1
2.1 x10'11
K5<2>
K0
3.4
2.1

 Notes:
 1.  SB = Sand-bentonite; 3D = Specimen was frozen and thawed three-dimensibnally -1  -2 -3 =
    Specimen number.
 2.  K5/K0 = Hydraulic conductivity of specimen after 5 freeze-thaw cycles divided by  the hydraulic
    conductivity before exposure to freeze-thaw.                               ;
      Table 6.4.    Summary of freeze-thaw test results for sand-bentonite mixture.

Before
Freeze-Thaw
After
Freeze-Thaw
KA/ (6)
/KB
Hydraulic Conductivity, K, by Sampling Method
(m/s) :
Box
Infiltrometers*1)
N/A(5)
<5x10-10
N/A
Block
Specimens*2)
3.1 x10-11
N/A
N/A
Thin-Walled
Tubes*3)
N/A
1.1 x10-10
N/A
Laboratory
Compacted
Specimens*4)
!1.5x 10-11
3.4 x10-11
! 2.3
Notes:
1. , Hydraulic conductivity was only measured after winter using a box infiltrometer (Erickson et al  1994)
2.  Elefore freeze-thaw value is for one specimen (depth = 0.15-0.45 m).  All of the specimens removed
    after winter piped.                                                       v
3.  Specimens were only collected in thin-wall sampling tubes after winter
4.  Values are averages for three specimens.  After freeze-thaw value is the average hydraulic
    conductivity of three specimens after 5 cycles of freeze-thaw
5.  N/A = not available.
6.  KA/KB is defined as the ratio of average before freeze-thaw hydraulic conductivity to average after
    freeze-thaw hydraulic conductivity.                                         !
                                            88

-------
                  conductivity
                  corresponds
                        than
 for specimens removed from the test pads before and after winter.
 block specimens also showed that exposure to freeze-thaw did not
 the sand-bentonite (Fig. 6.4) as was observed for the Parkview and
 (Sec. 5.1.3.4).
       The freeze-thaw tests performed on the specimens prepared
 also showed  that freeze-thaw did  not affect the hydraulic
 bentonite mixture (Fig. 6.3).  A two-tailed t-test was performed to
 hydraulic conductivity after  five freeze-thaw cycles and the mean
 conductivity. A confidence interval of 0.05 was used, which
 score (tcr) of 2.13. A t-statistic of 1.89 was calculated, which is less
 freeze-thaw had  no statistically significant effect on the hydraulic
 sand-bentonite mixture.  Furthermore, the  internal structure of the
 specimens showed no signs of cracking in  the frozen or thawed states
      The specimens collected in thin-wall tubes also had low
 One of the specimens was opened to reveal the soil  structure after
 thaw.. Figure 6.6  is a photograph of the opened specimen. A
 is evident; none of the crack structures typically seen in compacted
 freeze-thaw exist. Thus, based on  similar structures existing in the
 block specimens, thin-wall tube specimens, and laboratory compacted
the low hydraulic conductivity measured in both  the field  (box
 laboratory (laboratory compacted specimens), it is inferred that freeze
affect this sand-bentonite mixture.
                         Examination of the
                        result in cracking of
                          Valley Trail clays
                          in
                     hydraulic
                   homogeneo
                         clays
                          box
89
     the laboratory
      of the sand-
compare the mean
    initial hydraulic
      to a critical t-
     tCr- Therefore,
conductivity of the
    sand-bentonite
   (Fig.  6.5).
      conductivity.
exposure to freeze-
      ius soil mass
      subjected to
      infiltrometer,
    specimens and
 infiltrometer) and
   -thaw does not

-------
                 10*
            •52
            e,

            &    m
                 10
      ,-10
            o
            O

            4|    10
            |.
      -11
                - Specimen 1
                • Specimen 2
                • Specimen 3
                 •| Q   I—i—i—i—i—I—i—i—i—i—I—i  i i  i I
                                    _L
                              j—i—i—'ii'i'
Figure 6.3.
        0     .1      2      3      45      6   ;

                  Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles             '
                                                      i


Hydraulic conductivity  vs.  number  of freeze-thaw cycles for sand-
bentonite.                                             '
                                                       Bentonite
                                                   CJVfiddle)
Figure 6.4.  Photograph of sand-bentonite  block specimens before Exposure  to
            freeze-thaw (a) and after exposure to freeze-thaw (b) showing  internal
            structure and bentonite-rich zones.                       .:
                                      90

-------
                                     Sand-Bentonite
                                  Laboratory Compacted
                                       Specimen
                                    (after freeze-thaw)
Figure 6.5.   Photograph of internal structure of sand-bentonite specimen compacted
             in the laboratory and subjected to freeze-thaw.            ;
Figure 6.6.
                                    Sand-Bentonite
                                Thin-Wall Tube Specimen
                                   (after freeze-thaw)
Photograph of the internal structure of sand-bentonite specimen removed
from the COLDICE test pad after winter using a thin-wafl tube.
                                       91

-------
                                  SECTION 7

                                   RESULTS
                     GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINERS (GCLs)

 7.1  FIELD TESTS                                             ;
 7.1.1 GCL Test Ponds and Pans                               \
       Temperatures beneath the GCLs were monitored by CRREL personnel during
 the winters of 1992-93 and 1993-94 in the test ponds and over the winter of 1993-94 in
 the test pans (Fig. 7.1). From the temperature data, it was determined |that the GCLs in
 the test ponds underwent 2 freeze-thaw cycles (one each winter) andjthe GCLs in the
 test pans underwent 1 freeze-thaw cycle.   Hydraulic conductivity of the GCLs was
 measured in the GCL test pans before and after the winter of 1993-94 by monitoring
 outflow.   Hydraulic conductivity of the test ponds was not measured because of
 problems caused by leaks (Erickson et al. 1994).  Results of the hydraulic conductivity
 tests are summarized in Table 7.1.                                !
      Seepage was collected before winter from all but one of the test pans (Erickson
 et al. 1994).  The GCL test pan from which no seepage was collected apparently was
 still hydrating when seepage monitoring was terminated. Analysis of the seepage data
 showed that all of the GCLs had low hydraulic conductivity (=1.0 x  1CK10 to 2.8 x 10-"10
 m/s).
      All of the GCL test pans had measurable amounts of seepage after winter.  The
 average  post-winter hydraulic conductivities of the Bentomat® and Claymax® GCL test
 pans were 1.4 x 10-10 and 2.9  x 10-1°  m/s, respectively (Erickson et al. 1994).
      The  effect of freeze-thaw on the hydraulic  integrity of seamed GCLs can be
 examined by comparing the average-post-winter hydraulic conductivity of specimens
 containing seams with the post-winter hydraulic conductivity of the specimen without a
 seam for each GCL type. The average hydraulic conductivity of the seamed Bentomat®
 specimens after exposure to freeze-thaw was 1.7 x 10'10 m/s, which is slightly  higher
 than the post-winter hydraulic conductivity of the unseamed Bentomat® specimen (1.0 x
 10-''o m/s).   The two  seamed Claymax® specimens had an  average  post-winter
 hydraulic conductivity of 5.0 x 1Q-10  m/s, whereas the unseamed Claymax® specimen
 had a post-winter hydraulic conductivity of 2.8 x 10-10 m/s. Thus slightly higher post-
winter hydraulic conductivities were measured for the seamed specimens for both GCL
types.  Nevertheless, the change in  hydraulic conductivity is so small that it is safe to
                                                              i
                                  -   92                       :  '

-------
 O
 o	
 g>

 I
 8.

 I
 6



 4



 2



 0



-2



-4



-6
                    -   J
                                                       (a)-
                                       Bentomat*

                                       Claymax®
                                         _L
         0     20    40     60     80    100   120
             Time (days since December 20,  1992)
O
o
I
o
Q.
E
05
             10  20   30   40   50   60   70   80

             Time (days since December 19, 1993)
Figure 7.1.  Temperature vs. time beneath the GCLs in the COLDICE
 the winters of 1992-93 (a) and  1993-94  (b) (from Chamberlain 1994
 personal communication).
                                                   test ponds for
                         93

-------
 Table 7.1.
Summary of hydraulic conductivity test results for the GCL test pans used
in the COLDICE project (from Erickson 1994, personal communication).



Specimen
Bentomat®, 1 .8 m2
Bentomat®, 0.7 m2
Bentomat®, 0.7 m2
Claymax®, 1 .8 m2
Claymax®, 0.7 m2
Claymax®, 0.7 m2



Seam?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Before-Winter
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(m/s)
1.5x10-10
1.0 x 10'10
no outflow
2,8 x 10'10
2.0 x 10'10
2.4 x10-10
	
After-Winter
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(m/s)
1.9 x 10-10
1.4 x 10'10
1.0 x 10'10
7.0 x 10'10
3.0 x 10'10
2.8 x 10-10
, ' ' " ""'
: KA_ (1)
' KB

' 1.3
1 1.4
N/A(2)
: 25.0
• 1.5

Note:                                                                  i
1.  KA/KB  is defined as the  ratio of after-winter hydraulic conductivity to before-winter hydraulic
   conductivity.                                                         ,
2.  N/A = Not Applicable      '        ,                                  '  \
                                        94

-------
 conclude that the hydraulic integrity of these GCLs was not affected by exposure to
 freeze-thaw.                                           •        i

 7.1.2 Laboratory Assessment of Field-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity
       Hydraulic conductivity  was measured on GCL specimens  rerpoved from the
 COLDICE GCL test ponds after exposure to two winters (i.e., two freeze-thaw cycles).
 Methods described in Sec. 4.3.1.2 were followed.  The hydraulic conductivity tests
 required less than one week to meet the termination criteria. Results:of the tests are
 summarized in Table 7.2.                                        ;      '
       Hydraulic conductivity  was measured  on  two 0.45  m-diameter specimens of
 Claymax®  and  two 0.30 m-diameter specimens  of Bentomat®.  : Originally, the
 Bentomat® specimens had a diameter of 0.45 m.  However, very high'flow rates were
 measured when they were permeated.  To  determine the cause of the high hydraulic
 conductivity, rhodamine  dye was added to  the influent water to stain Ithe flow paths.
 Examination of the specimens after the permeameter was disassembled showed that
 sidewall leakage occurred because of short-circuiting through geotextile? near the edge
 of each specimen.  To eliminate this problem, the  Bentomat® specimens were trimmed
 to a diameter of 0.30 m and re-tested.
       The hydraulic conductivities of the Bentomat® specimens were 2.5 x 10-8 and 1.7
 x 10-1° m/s, whereas the  Claymax® specimens had hydraulic conductivities of 3.5 x 10-
 1° and 6.3 x 10-1° m/s (Table 7.2).  The high hydraulic conductivity for  the one 0.30 m-
 diameter Bentomat® specimen (BMT-PND-1) was measured after attempts were made
 to prevent sidewall leakage. The high hydraulic conductivity of specimen BMT-PND-1 is
 attributed to either sidewall leakage that could not be corrected  or disturbance during
 handling, but not freeze-thaw.
       Figure 7.2 is a  photograph  of the two  Bentomat® specimens 'after hydraulic
 conductivity testing. The  bentonite component of the Bentomat® specimen BMT-PND-1
 shows no structural changes often attributed  to freeze-thaw (e.g.,  cracks), and appears
 similar to the bentonite component of  the Bentomat® specimen  having low hydraulic
 conductivity (BMT-PND-2).                                        i
     <           - _-  --_     .      . -   ...,-,...._;     ..  . -  _ L        _ ; .  . . \
7.2 LABORATORY TESTS                                       i
7.2.1  Laboratory-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
      Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on three 0.15-m-diam0ter specimens
of Bentofix® and Bentomat® and four 0.15-m-diameter specimens of Claymax®.  Initial
                                                               i
                                     95                         I         . •

-------
Table 7.2.   Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on GCL specimens removed from
            the COLDICE test ponds.                         .     j
Specimen1
BMT-PND-1
BMT-PND-2
CMX-PND-1
CMX-PND-2
Diameter
(m)
0.30
0.30
0.45
0.45
Hydraulic Conductivity
(m/s)
' 2.5x10-8
1.7xiO-1o
3.5 x lO'10
6.3 x 10-10
Note:

1.  BMT = Bentomat®; CMX = Claymax®; PND = Specimen removed from test pond; 1-1, -2 = Specimen
   number.
                                     96

-------
Figure 7.2.  Photograph of the two Bentomat® specimens removed from the GCL test
           ponds at the COLDICE field site.                       :
                                   97

-------
 saturation of the specimens required 3 to 4 weeks.  During this period, the hydraulic
 conductivity decreased and the ratio of outflow to inflow increased, both slowly, as the
 bentonite hydrated. Hydraulic conductivity tests  conducted after freeze-thaw required
 about 1 to 2 weeks before the termination criteria were met.  In contrast to the tests
 performed before freezing, the hydraulic conductivity was essentially steady from the
 onset for the GCLs exposed to freeze-thaw and the outflow/inflow ratio fell between 0.75
 and 1.25 immediately following initiation of the tests.
       Results of the hydraulic conductivity tests are summarized in Figs.  7.3-7.5 and
 Table 7.3. All of the hydraulic conductivities are low, ranging between 2.9 x 1CH1 m/s
 and 4.9 x 10-11 m/s for the initial condition and 1.7 x 10-"11 m/s and 3.3 x 1iO-11 m/s for the
 specimens exposed to 20 cycles of freeze-thaw.  In the initial condition, the Bentomat®
 GCLs had slightly lower hydraulic conductivity (3.0 x 10'11 m/s), on average, relative to
 the Bentofix® (4.5 x 10'11 m/s) and Claymax® (4.0 x 10-11 m/s) GCLs. After 20 cycles of
 freeze-thaw, the Bentomat® GCLs still had slightly lower hydraulic conductivity (1.8 x
 10-11 m/s), relative to the Bentofix® (2.6 x 10'11 m/s) and Claymax® (2.8 x 1Q-11 m/s)
 GCLs.  Furthermore,  for all three GCLs, a small decrease in hydraulic conductivity
 apparently occurred as a consequence of freeze-thaw (Figs. 7.3-7.5). This decrease in
 hydraulic  conductivity  is likely the result of thaw  consolidation  (Chamberlain and Gow
 1979) or rearrangement of the bentonite particles.                     \
      The slight  decrease  in hydraulic conductivity that occurs is evident in the ratio
 K2o/Ko, which is defined as the hydraulic conductivity of a specimen after 20 cycles of
 freeze-thaw divided by its  initial hydraulic conductivity (Table 7.2). The  ratio varies
 between 0.55 to 0.66 for the Bentomat® GCLs, 0.45 to 1.10 for the Bentofix® GCLs, and
 0.57 to 0.89 for the Claymax® GCLs.  That is, for all but one of the GCL specimens, a
 slight decrease in hydraulic conductivity occurred after 20 cycles of freeze-thaw. The
 one  specimen that exhibited an increase in hydraulic conductivity after 20 freeze-thaw
 cycles (Bentofix®-1) showed  a decrease in hydraulic conductivity after 1, 3, and  5
 freeze-thaw cycles, relative to its initial hydraulic conductivity.           i
      To  determine if the apparent decrease in hydraulic conductivity was statistically
 significant, a t-test was conducted to compare the  mean initial hydraulic conductivity and
the mean hydraulic conductivity after 20 cycles of freeze-thaw for each  GCL.  The
comparison was made at a significance level of 0.05, with a corresponding critical t (tcr)
of 1.96. .Results of the  test indicate that the reduction in hydraulic conductivity is
significant for each GCL,  with t-statistics of 14.7 (Bentomat®), 3.2 (Bentofix®), and 2.2
(Claymax®); i.e., t > tcr for each GCL.
                                       98

-------
                                                        - Specimen 1
                                                        - Specimen 2
                                                        - Specimen 3
             -t   ID'10  \r
             •o
             s
             —    rr11
                  10
                   ,-12
                             -i	,	L
                      0
               5          10          15

               Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                                                  20
 Figure 7.3.   Results of freeze-thaw tests on specimens of Bentofix® frozen and thawed
              in the laboratory.
                 10'
                   .-10
             1
             1
             o
             O
             .o

             -11
                 10'1
                                                        Specimen 1
                                                        Specimen 2
                                                        Specimen 3
                                 5         10         15

                                Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                               20
Figure 7.4.  Results of freeze-thaw tests on specimens of Bentomat® frozen and
             thawed in the laboratory.                                  ;
                                         99

-------
           10
             -9
     .w
          10
     TO

     o
     O
            ,-10
            1-11
~°
x*


      10
            ,-12
                                                  Specimen 1
                                                  Specimen 2
                                                  Specimen 3
                                                  Specimen 4
                            5           10           15

                           Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                                           :  20
Figure 7.5.   Results of freeze-thaw tests of specimens of Claymax® frozen and thawed
            in the laboratory.                                      '
                                     100

-------
 c:
 CD

 E

 'o
 CD
 Q.
 CO
 o
 jQ
 _CO
_
O
a
 CO
 a>
 N
 CD
 o
 CO
 E
 E
CO
CO


v*
co
0)
o
>,
O
5
r5
k
N
0)
£
u.
c-ST
£^
<
>,
•*— *
>
o

o
o
o
5
•o
>%


o
«.i
-t— iz
|1"£




°lv^
. *:!*

c
^

ID
i£


co
^




^

>i

>
"o o^
f*t
Q
0
® 0
Q..Q
E E
03 3
CO Z
O

O
X
C\
CO
a
E
p
t
a
0
c

i
X
CO
•s


i
X
0
CO


o
X
O
V
8>
X
2
CD
00
LO
•^
o

o
X
OJ
CM

1
X
c\

1
X
CO
f\


1
X
CD



0
X
CD
^t
CM
i
®
X
5
o
00
LO
"N
0

t
X
in
c\

o
X
CD
CO

1
X
LO
co


o
X



o
X
to
10
CO
8)
X
5
CD
LO
LT
O

o
X
r^

o
X
CO

'•
X
00
r\


i
X
o
CM


0
X
CO
i
g>
a
5
CD
CD
C£
O

O
X
CO

i
X
LO
CM

'•
X
•<3-
r\


O
X



o
X
CO
CM
g)
3
5
CD
CO
CD
CD
0

0
X
a>

o
X
LO

i
X
'St
T"~


1
O
X
CO
*"


o
X
a>
CM
CO
®
co
5
5
en

CM


o
X
00
CO
©
X
CO
•>>
CO
O
CJ
r^<
o

o
X
CM

i
X
CD
CO

'•
X
CM


O
X
NJ-
CM


O
X
O)
CM
CM
i
g>
X
CO
CO
o
r^-
LO
o

i
X
•3-
c\

o
X
CM
CO


X
•sj-
oo


1
X
LO
CO


O
X
CM
••tf
CO
©
X
to
CO
0
sj
o
.
o
X
CO
rf

b
X
•*
•*'

1
o
X
CM
CO


1
o
X
-tf


b
X
O)
•f
*i-
@
X
CO
>,
CO
o
                        101

-------
  7.2.2 Structure of Frozen Specimens
        -1                         '*         -,i   K>-                  '         '
        The  structure  of the GCLs  was examined to determine why the hydraulic
  conductivity of GCLs does not change when they are frozen and thawed,  whereas an
  increase in hydraulic conductivity .is generally observed for compacted clays subjected
  to freeze-thaw. The increase in hydraulic conductivity occurring in compacted clays is
  attributed primarily to cracking (e.g., Fig. 5.10) that occurs during freezing (Chamberlain
  et al. 1990, 1994, Othman  and Benson 1993).
       A band saw was used to cut open hydrated specimens of each GCL while they
  were frozen.  Two cuts were made; the first cut was made along the diameter of the
  specimen to obtain a  vertical cross-section, the second cut was macje parallel to the
  geosynthetic layers to obtain a horizontal cross-section. A razor blade was used to
  remove smeared soil that formed during sawing.  The exposed frozen  faces were
  examined and photographed.
       Small ice crystals in a random orientation existed in the face of each specimen
  (Fig. 7.6).  However, large ice lenses and distinct cracks, such as those observed in
 frozen compacted clays by Othman and Benson (1993) and Chamberlain et al. (1990,
  1994),  did not exist in the GCLs.  The lack of such cracks is consistent with the low
 hydraulic conductivity measured after thawing.                       '-.
       Figure 7.7 is a photograph of two hydrated GCL specimens.  One of the
 specimens has been exposed to 20 cycles of freeze-thaw and the other has  never been
 exposed to any freeze-thaw (initial saturation condition).  Both specimens in Fig. 7.7
 have similar structure.  Their nearly identical structure, which is devoid of cracks, is
 consistent with the similarity of their hydraulic conductivities.  Apparently, the voids
 containing ice lenses collapse as the bentonite returns to its soft, highly plastic condition
 during thawing.                                                  i
                                                                I
 7.2.3 Bentonite in Effluent
      Bentonite was observed in the graduated cylinders used to collect effluent during
 hydraulic conductivity testing,  Bentonite appeared from the Bentofix® specimens after 3
,freeze-thaw cycles, from the Bentomat® specimens after 5 freeze-thaw cycles, and from
 the Claymax®  specimens  after 20 freeze-thaw cycles.  Migration of'bentonite from
 Claymax® and  Bentomat® GCLs has also been reported by Estornell and Daniel (1992)
 in large  bench-scale tests.  In this study, migration of the bentonite probably occurred as
 a consequence of particle movement that occurred during freezing and thawing.
                                      102

-------
                          Clay ma
           Figure 7.6.  Photograph of section of frozen Claymax® GCll
                                             After 20
                                           Freeze-Thaw
                                              Cycles
Figure 7.7.  Photograph of hydrated Bentomat® specimens before and after freeze-
           thaw.                                           '•
                                 103

-------
       The presence of the bentonite in the  effluent was a concern, because  if  a
sufficient quantity of bentonite was lost, an increase in hydraulic conductivity could
result. However, the quantity of expelled bentonite was small (about 0.4% of the mass
of the effluent, <0.01% of the mass of the GCL specimen) and had no influence on the
overall hydraulic integrity of the GCLs (Figs. 7.3-7.5).                 j

7.3 COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
       In general, the hydraulic conductivities measured in the field (or in the laboratory
with specimens removed from the field) were greater than those measured in  the
laboratory, regardless of whether the tests were conducted before or after freezing. The
higher hydraulic conductivities observed in the field were likely the result  of different test
conditions. For example, the effective stress and hydraulic gradient were lower in the
field, which has been shown to result in higher hydraulic conductivity of GCLs (Estornell
and Daniel  1992).   These conditions  are  difficult to simulate in flexible-wall
permeameters.  More important,  however, is that no significant increase in hydraulic
conductivity was observed in the field  or laboratory tests.   The lack of change in
hydraulic conductivity is consistent with the lack of change in structure bbserved in the
field and laboratory specimens (Figs. 7.2 and 7.7). That is, no cracks were present in
any of the GCLs that had been subjected to freeze-thaw.
       The GCL specimens tested in the field that contained seams had slightly higher
hydraulic conductivities than the  GCLs without seams, both  before arid after freeze-
thaw.   The higher hydraulic conductivity of the seamed specimens may  have been
caused by the construction methods that were used or freeze-thaw. Additional research
regarding how freeze-thaw affects GCL seams should be conducted.   ;
                                     104

-------
                                  SECTION 8

                                  RESULTS
                           PAPER  MILL  SLUDGES
 8.1   FIELD TESTS
 8.1.1  Compaction of Pipe Specimens
       Pipe specimens were constructed by compacting paper mill sludge in large
 PVC pipes (diameter = 0.35 m, length = 0.6 m).  Six specimens were constructed (two
 specimens per sludge) using a compactive energy equal to  standarjj Proctor effort
 (592.5 kJ/m3). Molding water contents of 90, 120, and 130% were used for sludges A,
 B, and C, respectively.  These water contents correspond to the water contents
 yielding the lowest hydraulic conductivities for specimens used to'determine the
 hydraulic conductivity-water content relationship for each sludge (see Sec. 8.2.1).
       Ensuring uniform water content within each specimen was difficult.  The paper
 mill sludges were dried to the molding water contents from their as-|received water
 contents  in a large, forced-air walk-in oven in  the Structures and Materials Testing
 Laboratory at the  University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The  oven ternperature was
 approximately 70°C.  Approximately 100 kg  of each  sludge was dried at one time
 using large pans.  Mixing of the sludge to ensure uniform drying was difficult because
 of the volume of sludge being dried.  To alleviate this problem,  the! partially dried
 sludge was homogenized in sealed  high density  polyehtylene. (HOPE)  drums for 48
 hours prior to compaction.  This ensured a more uniform distribution of water in the
 sludge; however, the water content still varied  within each specimen by up to 20%.
 Nonetheless, the water content of each lift was  greater than the target water content
 corresponding to  low hydraulic conductivity of the laboratory-compacted specimens
 (see Sec.  8.2.1), which also results in low hydraulic conductivity (< 1 x 10-9 m/s).

 8.1.2  Freeze-Thaw Monitoring of  Field  Specimens
      The field specimens were buried in the ground outside the Environmental
Geotechnics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on December 1,  1993.
Air temperature, relative humidity, and  temperatures within the  specimens were
recorded every hour throughout the winter of 1993-94 using  a Campbell Scientific
CR10 Datalogger. A photograph of the  monitoring system is shown in Fig. 4.18.  The
                                    105

-------
other three specimens (control specimens) were permeated in the laboratory using the
procedure described in Sec. 4.4.1.3.                              ',
      Freezing began in mid-December 1993 and was steady later that same month.
Thawing began in early February 1994 and complete thaw of the ^specimens had
occurred by mid-March 1994.  Figures  8.1-8.3 show the temperature distribution in
each of the sludge specimens over time.  One freeze-thaw cycle occurred  in each
specimen, and frost penetrated the entire thickness of each specimen (Figs. 8.1-8.3).
The pipe  specimens were  removed from  the ground  immediately 'after thaw was
complete in spring 1994.

8.1.3  Hydraulic Conductivity of  Pipe  Specimens
       Two methods were used to measure the hydraulic conductivity of each pipe
specimen  (field and control specimens).   First, the specimens were permeated  in the
PVC pipes, as if the pipes were rigid-wall permeameters. Permeation of the control
specimens was conducted immediately following compaction, whereas permeation of
the field specimens was conducted soon after they were removed from the  ground.
Second, after permeation, specimens were removed from  the pipes in slices and
permeated in flexible-wall permeameters.   Details of the  testing procedures are
described in Sec. 4.4.1.3.  Results of hydraulic conductivity tests performed on the pipe
specimens are summarized in Table 8.1.                           \

8.1.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity Measured in Pipes
      For each sludge, higher hydraulic conductivities were measured for the control
specimens than for the specimens exposed to freeze-thaw.   The control specimens
had hydraulic conductivities ranging from 1.2 x 10'9 to 8.2 x 10-9 m/s, whereas the field
specimens exposed to one cycle of freeze-thaw had hydraulic conduptivities  ranging
from 3.0 x 1CH0 to 4.1 x 10'10 m/s. That is, the hydraulic conductivity1 of each sludge
decreased by at least one-half order of magnitude after exposure to freeze-thaw.
These results suggest that the hydraulic integrity of these paper mill sludges is not
deleteriously affected by freeze-thaw.

8.1.3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Measured in Flexible-Wall Permeameters
                                                              !
      After permeation, each  pipe specimen was sliced horizontally so that two
specimens  were  obtained  for  hydraulic conductivity testing  in  flexible-wall
                                    106

-------
                    10
             o
             o

             2

             I

             I
             I
                    -5
                  -10
 Depth=0.1 m
- Depth=0.2 m
- Depth=0.3 m
- Depth=0.4 m
• Depth=0.5 m
    _L
                             20      40     60      80     100

                              Time (days since December 15, 1993)
          120
 Figure 8.1.   Temperature vs. time at various depths within field specimen consisting
              of paper mill sludge A.                               .    i     •
                   10
             o
             8.
                   -5  -
                  -10
                                                   	 - Depth=0.2 m
                                                   — — - Depth=0.3 m
                                                        Depth=0.4 m
                                                        Depth=0.5 m
                      0      20      40      60     80     100
                             Time (days since December 15,1993)


Figure 8.2.   Temperature vs. time at various depths within field
             of paper mill sludge B.
                                         107
          120
         specimen  consisting

-------
           10
    o
    o

    I
    i
    o
    0.
    e
           -5  -
          -10
                                                  — - Depth=0.3 m
                                                     Depth=0.4
                                                     Depth=0.5 m
                      20       40      60       80      100
                       Time (days since December 15, 1993)
Figure 8.3.   Temperature vs. time at various depths within field specimen consisting
   ;         of paper mill sludge C.
                                     108
120

-------
permeameters. The specimens were either 0.30 m or 0.15 m in diameter (Table 8.2).
Details of the testing procedure are summarized in Sec. 4.4.1.4.      ;
      Results of the hydraulic conductivity tests are summarized in Table 8.2.  The
hydraulic conductivities varied widely, ranging from 7.3 x  10"11 m/s (sludge A, no
exposure to  freeze-thaw) to 6.2 x  10'9  m/s (sludge A,  exposed to freeze-thaw).
Furthermore, the hydraulic conductivities of the specimens exposed to:freeze-thaw are
higher than those for the corresponding control specimens, which is in direct contrast
to results of the hydraulic conductivity tests performed directly on the;pipe specimens
(Sec. 8.1.3.1). Also, all of the control specimens tested in flexible-wal permeameters
have lower hydraulic conductivities than the hydraulic conductivities measured directly
in the pipes, whereas the hydraulic conductivities of the specimens exposed to freeze-
thaw that were tested in  flexible-wall permeameters are higher than the  hydraulic
conductivities measured directly in the pipes from which they  were rernoved.  The only
exception is sludge C, where the hydraulic conductivities are essentially the same.
      Two hypotheses  are provided for this behavior.  First, disturbance may have
occurred when pipe  specimens exposed to freeze-thaw were  removed  from the
ground  or sliced for testing  in flexible-wall permeameters.  That is, ^cracks  or other
macroscopic defects may have been opened when the specimens were transported
inside the laboratory or when specimens were removed from the pipes.  Second, the
effective stress in the pipes (1.6 kPa) was lower than the  effective; stresses in the
specimens tested in the flexible-wall permeameters (18  kPa).  Thus,  the  pipe
specimens should have higher hydraulic conductivity (see Sec.  8.2.3). However, this
second  hypothesis only explains the  behavior of the control specimens.
      As a result of these ambiguities, the results of the small-scale field tests are
inconclusive, in  that  exposure to freeze-thaw  resulted in  a decrease in  hydraulic
conductivity  for  the  pipe specimens and  resulted  in an increase  in hydraulic
conductivity for specimens tested in flexible-wall permeameters.  The results of the
tests conducted directly in the pipes are  probably more  representative of the field
condition.  Nonetheless, a larger field study is needed to adequately address how
freeze-thaw affects the in situ hydraulic conductivity of paper mill sludges.
                                      109

-------
Table 8.1.    Results of hydraulic conductivity tests on paper mill sludge conducted in
              the pipes.                                                i
Sludge
A
B
C
Hydraulic conductivity of
Control Specimen
(no exposure to
freeze-thaw), Kc
(m/s)
1.2x10-9
8.2x10-9
1.2x10-9
Hydraulic Conductivity of
Field Specimen
(exposure to
freeze-thaw), Kf
(m/s)
3.5 x10-10
3.0 x10'10
4.1 x10-10
Change in
Hydraulic
Conductivity^1)
! Kf
i Kc
0.29
' 0.037
; 0.34
Note:                                                                   I
1.  Change in hydraulic conductivity is defined as the hydraulic conductivity of the^field specimen (Kf)
    divided by the hydraulic conductivity of the control specimen (Kc).
Table 8.2.    Results  of hydraulic conductivity tests  on sludge specimens tested  in
              flexible-wall permeameters.
Specimen^)
SLA-Control-T
SLA-Control-B
SLB-Control-T
SLB-Control-B
SLC-Control-T
SLC-Control-B
SLA-Field-T
SLA-Field-B
SLB-Field-T
SLB-Field-B
SLC-Field-T
SLC-Field-B
Specimen
Diameter
(m)
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.30
0.15
0.30
0.30
Hydraulic
Conductivity,
Kfiex
(m/s)
8.9 x10'11
7.3 x10'11
2.8 x10-10
3.1 x10-10
1.0 x10-10
1.6 x10-10
6.2x10-9
5.0x10-9
1.1 X10-9
1.2x10-9
5.5 x10'10
1.8 x10-10
Hydraulic :
Conductivity of
Parent Pipe
Specimen, Kp !
(m/s)
1.2x10-9 ;
8.2x10-9 ;
. 1.2x10-9
3.5x10-1°
i
3.0 xio-1° :
4.1 x 10'10 !
Kflex(2)
• KP
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.13
18
14
3.7
4.0
1.3
0.4
Notes:                                                                  |
1. SLA = Sludge A; SLB = Sludge B; SLC = Sludge C; Control = Specimen taken from control pipe
   specimen (no freeze-thaw exposure); Field = Specimen taken from field pipe specimen (exposure to
   freeze-thaw); T= Specimen was taken from top of pipe specimen (depth < 0.3 m); B = Specimen was
   taken from bottom of pipe specimen (depth > 0.3 m).
2- Kf|ex/Kp = Hydraulic conductivity of specimen tested in flexible-wall permeameter divided by hydraulic
   conductivity of parent pipe specimen (taken from Table 8.1)
                                           110

-------
8.2  LABORATORY TESTS
8.2.1   Hydraulic Conductivity-Water Content Relationships
      Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on the specimens compacted to
                                                              !
obtain  the  compaction curves  described in Sec. 3.3.2.  Figures 8.4-8.6 show  the
relationship between hydraulic conductivity and molding water content for sludges A,
B, and C,  respectively.  Individual  results  of the hydraulic  conductivity tests  are
tabulated in Appendix A. The tests required up to 45 days to reach steady conditions.
      The  hydraulic conductivity of each sludge is sensitive to molding water content
(Figs. 8.4-8.6); i.e.,  the specimens compacted at  molding water contents dry of
optimum  have high hydraulic conductivities, whereas specimens compacted wet of
optimum  have  low hydraulic conductivities.  Furthermore,  wet of ioptimum water
content, hydraulic conductivities less than 1 x 10'9 m/s were obtained for each sludge.
This behavior was also observed for the two clays used in this study (Sec. 5.2.1) and is
characteristic of most clayey soils. The high percentage of fines in paper mill sludge
(Sec. 3.3.1) is likely responsible for the similarity in  hydraulic behavior of paper  mill
sludge and compacted clay.

8.2.2   Standard  Freeze-Thaw Tests
                                                             - i
      Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on six specimens of sludge A and
five specimens of sludges  B and C after a various  number of freeze-thaw cycles.
Specimens of each sludge were compacted using standard Proctor effort at water
contents yielding the lowest hydraulic conductivities ("low-K" water content) and at the
water contents at which the sludges were received at the University "of  Wisconsin-
Madison  ("as-received" water  contents).  Four specimens of sludge A and three
specimens  of sludges B and C were compacted at their low-K water contents and two
specimens of each sludge were  compacted at their  as-received  water contents.
Results of  the hydraulic conductivity tests on  these  specimens are i summarized in
Table 8.3 and Figs. 8.7-8.9.                                      5

8.2.2.1 Low-K Molding  Water Contents                            j            _
      Some of the low-K specimens of sludge A showed an increase  in  hydraulic
conductivity after exposure to freeze-thaw, whereas others did not (Fig. 8.7). The two
low-K specimens of sludge  A frozen and thawed five times without permeation after
each freeze-thaw cycle  showed an  increase in average  hydraulic conductivity
hydraulic conductivity (27  times),  whereas the two  identical specimens  permeated
                                     111

-------
             ""
             o



             o
                  10"
                  10
                  10'
                  10"
                 10"
                    10
                     50        100        150

                      Molding Water Content (%)
                                                                  200
Figure 8.4.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for paper mill sludge A.
                  ID"
            «    10
            1

            .£•
%


o
O
o


I
•o
                  10-
                  1C'7
                  10'8
                  10'9 b-
                 10
                   -10
                                              "As-Received" Water Content  -
                        < i  , ,  i ,  , ,  i i  , Q i ,  i ,  i ,  , i  i , ,  i  i
                             50     100     150     200    250

                                  Molding Water Content (%)
                                                     300
Figure 8.5.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for paper
                                                           mill sludge B.
                                         112

-------
     0
     ]5
     •o
     o
     O
     I
     I
           10
             -2
           10
             ,-4
10
  -5
10
           10"
  -7
               0
                                            "As-Received" Water Content:
              50        100       150      200
                  Molding Water Content (%)
250
Figure 8.6.   Hydraulic conductivity vs. molding water content for paper mill sludge C.
                                     113

-------
 CO
 CD
 CO
 0)

i
 8
 0
CO
E
E
u
CO
CO
00
^)
JO


c
"XI
V)
£
O
(X)
JZ
1™
CD
N
CD
CD
ul
C "7n
Jl
<
^
>
tS
•o
O
O
.g
CO
|


g
<0 m
•*- »;:
"X



c\T
*1*°

1C
k:


•^j-
*:


£



CM
^


X.

£.
> ^
'•tt f.'tn
f *£
O
O
cu *""
"o. CD
C JD
cB £
wi
00
CO
c*5"
Q.

o
r-
6
X
r-.
c\i
o
T—
6
X
o>
CO
CD
6
X
CM
T~
o>
CD
X
CD
CO
T—
T—
6
X
CM
l<
T_
^
5
CO
CD
CO
CD
n
z

o
6
X
o
CO
o
T—
6
X
•*
CD
6
X
CO
T~
0
6
X
o>
^
o
T—
6
X
-a-
00
CM
*
5
CO
o
CO
O)
6
X
CO
00
n
z:

Q_
z
1-


n
z:

n


0
r—
b
X
00
cvi
CO
X.
_j
5
CO
in
CM
o>
6
X
CO
00
n
z

Q_
Z
h-


n
z

n
z

0
T—
b
X
CO
CO
M-
*1
5
CO
OJ
o
0
b
X

b
X
CO
cvi
T—
CC
<
3
CO
CO
0
T—
b
X
m
co'
Q.
z

Q_
Z


n
z

o
T—
b
X
in

o
0
X
0
•*

b
X
p
CM
^
_l
CQ
_l
CO
CD
^f
op
b
X
h»
•^l-
Q.
Z
h-

op
b
X
CM
*"
oo
O
X
^
T~
0
b
X
"3-
CO
o
b
X
CO
o>
CO
^
CD
_J
CO
00
O)
op
b
X
to
•<*
00
b
X
m
CD
00
b
X
"
b
X
co
^
,_
CC
<
CO
CO
m
O5
op
b
X
O)
CO
op
b
X
m
CO
00
b
X
CO
CM
oo
O
X
T~
q>
b
X
o>
CO
en
b
X
^
CM
CC
<
CD
CO
CM
O)
op
b
X
CM
T~
°P
O
X
CM
oo
b
X
m
CM
oo
O
X
h-
CM
Op
b
X
•*
T~
o>
b
X
CO
T_
X.
3
CO
CO
co
b
X
CM
°P
O
X
CO
'•"
00
b
X
N.
1—
co
O
X
(•>-
CM
Op
b
X
o
T~
O)
b
X
CO
(M
X.
O
CO
0
1"~
O>
b
X
O)
o
b
X
O)
Tt
n
Z
H

oo
b
X
CO
r~
o>
b
X
0)
CO
0
T—
b
X
CD
00
CO
^
_l
O
CO
CD
CM
eo
b
X
00
CM
op
b
X
CO
"•"
05
b
X
CO
N-
CO
o
X
m
CM
9
o
X
m
CM
o
i—
b
X
00
CD
T—
CC
<
3
CO
00
co
b
X
•*
CM
CO
b
X
CO
op
b
X
CO
CM
00
O
X
m

-------
              10
                -11
                               Specimen-1     o   Specimen-3
                               Specimen-2     A   Specimen-4
                   0        1        2       3       4       5  :
                          Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                                 Specimen-1
                                                 Specimen-2
                            1        2       3       4
                          Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Figure 8.7.   Hydraulic  conductivity  vs.  number of freeze-thaw cycles  for low-K
            specimens (a) and as-received specimens (b): paper mill sludge A.
                                     115

-------
                           1        2       3       4
                          Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                                                Specimen-1
                                                Specimen-2
                   0       1        23       4       5
                          Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Figure 8.8.  Hydraulic conductivity vs.  number of  freeze-thaw  cycles
           specimens (a) and as-received specimens (b): paper mill
                                    116
     for  low-K
sludge B.

-------
                         I  I——I—1—I—1——1—I—1—I——I—I—i—i——i—i—i—i—:
                                                  Specimen-1
                                                  Specimen-2
                                                - Specimen-3
                   0        12       3       4

                           Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
                         I—1——I—I—I—I——i—i—I—I——i—i—i—I——I—i—I—i—
                                                 Specimen-1
                                                 Specimen-2
                            1        2       3       4

                          Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
5  :
Figure 8.9.   Hydraulic conductivity vs.  number of freeze-thaw cycles for  low-K
            specimens (a) and as-received specimens (b): paper mill sludge C.
                                     117

-------
 after  each freeze-thaw  cycle  showed a  slight  decrease  in average hydraulic
 conductivity after exposure to freeze-thaw.                         :
       All of the low-K specimens of sludge B showed an  increase in hydraulic
 conductivity of approximately 2 orders of magnitude  after being exposed to freeze-
 thaw (Fig. 8.8).  One of the low-K specimens was frozen and thawed five times without
 intermediary permeation.  The hydraulic conductivity of this specimen also increased
 approximately two orders of magnitude.  Similar results were  obtained for the other
 two low-K specimens of sludge.B that were permeated after 0, 1, 2, 3, and 5 freeze-
 thaw cycles.                                                    :
       All of the low-K specimens of sludge C showed an  increase in hydraulic
 conductivity  after exposure to  freeze-thaw  (Fig. 8.9).   All of the  low-K sludge  C
 specimens were permeated after each freeze-thaw cycle, up to fivejexcept for one
 specimen which was not permeated after its third cycle.  The average hydraulic
 conductivity of the three low-K sludge specimens increased approximately one order
 of magnitude as a result of freeze-thaw.

 8.2.2.2 As-Received Molding Water Contents
       One of the specimens of  sludge A compacted at its as-received water content
 showed a decrease in hydraulic conductivity after exposure  to freeze-thaw.  This
 specimen was permeated after each freeze-thaw cycle. The other specimen of sludge
 A was permeated after 0, 1, and 5 freeze-thaw cycles and showed a slight  (1.6  times)
 increase in hydraulic conductivity as a result of freeze-thaw.
       The two  specimens of sludge  B compacted at the as-received water content
 were permeated after each freeze-thaw cycle.  These specimens, had a higher
 average initial hydraulic conductivity than the low-K  specimens, but had a similar
 hydraulic conductivity (-4.0 x 10-8 m/s) after five freeze-thaw cycles.    i           '
       Both of the specimens of sludge C compacted at the as-received water content
 were permeated after each freeze-thaw-cycle.  The initial hydraulic conductivity and
the hydraulic conductivity after five freeze-thaw cycles was essentially  the same.
 However, at  an intermediate number of freeze-thaw cycles  (1,  2, Is, and 4) the
 hydraulic conductivities of the  specimens varied;  i.e.,  one specimen showed an
increase in hydraulic conductivity after two freeze-thaw cycles and no increase after
subsequent cycles,  whereas the  other specimen showed a steady  increase in
hydraulic conductivity with each freeze-thaw cycle (Fig. 8.9).          ]
                                     118

-------
  8.2.3   Effective Stress  Tests                                 I
        Hydraulic conductivity  were performed on one specimen of each  sludge
  compacted with standard proctor effort at the low-K water content (Sec. 8.2.1).  The
  specimens were  placed in flexible-wall permeameters and permeated at effective
  stresses of 7, 35, 46, and 81 kPa.  Approximately one week of consolidation occurred
  between  each stage  of  permeation.   Results of the effective stress  tests  are
  summarized in Fig. 8.10.                              •           ;
        The hydraulic conductivity  of  all three sludges decreased' as a  result of
  increasing the  effective stress. However, after an effective stress!of 46  kPa,  the
  subsequent decrease in hydraulic conductivity was small (Fig. 8.10). Similar behavior
  (decreasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing effective stress) was observed for a
  paper mill sludge tested by Zimmie et al. (1994).
       The hydraulic conductivities  of sludges A and C were essentially the same at
  each effective stress,  whereas the hydraulic conductivity of sludge  B was slightly
  higher.  The hydraulic conductivity of each sludge was less than  1 x ib-9 m/s at every
  effective stress tested, except for the specimen  of sludge B permeated at an effective
  stress of 7 kPa.                                                  ;
                                                                l

 8.2.4  Long-Term Hydraulic  Conductivity  Tests               I
       Hydraulic conductivity was  measured on two specimens of each paper mill
 sludge compacted at standard  Proctor effort over  a  period of at least 90 days  to
 determine whether or not biological decay of the paper mill sludge would adversely
 impact  hydraulic conductivity.  One specimen of each sludge was compacted at the
 low-K water content and the other  was compacted at the as-received water content
 (Sec. 4.4.2.2).  Results of the long-term hydraulic conductivity tests are shown in Figs.
.8.11-8.13.
      The two specimens of sludge B had  higher hydraulic conductivity than the
 specimens of sludges A and C compacted at their respective low-K and as-received
 water contents. Examination of Figs. 8.11-8.13 shows that the hydraulic conductivity of
 each specimen decreased  slightly over the time interval during  which the tests were
 performed.  Thus, biological decay  appears to have no adverse impact on  hydraulic
 conductivity, at least for the test period used in this study.
                                     119

-------
                    10"
               C
               o
               o


               I   10-10
                   10'1
                                                              Sludge A

                                                              Sludge B

                                                              Sludge C
J	,	.  i
                               15      30      45      60



                                       Effective Stress (kPa)
                               75
                                       90
Fig. 8.10.     Hydraulic conductivity vs. effective stress for paper mill sludges A, B, & C.
                  10"
            •f    10*


            1

            c
            o
            O


            I   io-10
                 10'1
                                              • "Low-K" Water Content

                                              • "As-Received" Water Content
                              30
        60        90


         Time (days)
                                                          120
150
         Figure 8.11.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. time for paper mill sludge A.
                                         120

-------
   o
   o
         10
         10-*
           -7
        10
          ,-10
                                     "Low-K" Water Content
                                     "As-Received" Water Content
               ' '	1	'  '	i	1	1	1	1	L-
                     30
60       90

 Time (days)
120      150
Figure 8.12.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. time for paper mill sludge B.
        1Q-8  F
   i
   f    10'9
   •a
   o
   O
   =     ID'
        10'1
          10
                      30
                                     "Low-K" Water Content
                                     "As-Received" Water Content
60        90

 Time (days)
120      150
Figure 8.13.  Hydraulic conductivity vs. time for paper mill siujdge C.
                                 121

-------
      Hydraulic conductivity tests performed on specimens compacted in compaction
molds to construct the compaction curves for each sludge indicate that low hydraulic
conductivities (<  1  x 10'9  m/s)  can be achieved for each sludge. ! Based on this
behavior, paper mill sludge could  be used as an alternative to compacted clays for use
in landfill final covers. However, results of the hydraulic conductivity tests performed
on the specimens compacted and frozen in the laboratory indicate that the hydraulic
conductivity of some paper mill sludges (e.g., sludges  B and C) can be affected by
exposure to freeze-thaw.  Nevertheless, it appears that some  sludges (e.g., sludge A)
may be frost  resistant, depending  on  the  hydrologic conditions to iwhich they are
exposed.  For example, the hydraulic conductivity of sludge A depends on whether or
not it is permeated after each freeze-thaw cycle.  That is, a decrease  in  hydraulic
conductivity occurs when  the specimen  is permeated,  whereas an  increase in
hydraulic conductivity occurs if it is not permeated.                   !
      Effective stress tests performed on the three paper mill sludges indicate that the
hydraulic conductivity of the sludges decreases with increasing effective stress up to a
certain effective stress, after which no  significant decrease in hydraglic  conductivity
occurs.  Hydraulic conductivities as low as 1  x 1CH0 m/s were  observed for specimens
of sludges A and C at effective stresses greater than 46 kPa.  Thus, extra overburden
placed to protect paper mill sludge from  frost penetration used in final covers may also
reduce the  hydraulic conductivity of the sludge substantially.
      Long-term  hydraulic conductivity tests  performed  on the1 three sludges
compacted at two different  water contents indicate  that the hydraulic conductivity
slightly decreased over the test period. The  decrease  in hydraulic conductivity is likely
the result of consolidation under the 7 kPa overburden stress  induced  by the lead
weight.   Maltby and Eppstein (1994)  observed consolidation and; a  decrease in
hydraulic conductivity over time in their large-scale field study.  Based on the results
obtained in this project and the experiments of others, paper mill sludges are likely to
perform well for a long period of time provided they are protected against detrimental
stresses such as freeze-thaw.

8.3   COMPARISON  OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
      Because the  results of the hydraulic  conductivity tests performed  on the pipe
specimens and the  specimens removed from the pipes were inconclusive, no direct
comparison between field and laboratory test results can be made.i However, the
                                     122

-------
results of the field and laboratory tests performed on the paper mill: sludges warrant
discussion.                                                     !
      The structure of the sludge within the pipe specimens was noted during slicing
and trimming of the specimens for hydraulic conductivity testing  in  flexible-wall
permeameters. All of the sludges that were exposed to freeze-thaw (field specimens)
were less homogeneous and had a more gravel-like structure  than;the sludges that
had not been exposed to freeze-thaw (control specimens).  The specimens would fall
apart when being trimmed for flexible-wall tests.  Thus, based on visual observation,
freeze-thaw had affected the structure of the compacted paper mill sludges.  However,
given the results of the hydraulic conductivity tests performed in the pipes after freeze-
thaw, it is not clear whether these structural changes, which were iobserved during
trimming, had adversely affected hydraulic conductivity. Thus, to ascertain the true
impact of freeze-thaw on the field  hydraulic conductivity of paper mill sludges,  field
tests similar to the one  described by  Maltby  and Eppstein (1994) need to be
conducted.                                                     :
                                     123

-------
                                 SECTION  9

                      SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS

      The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect that freezing
and thawing has on the hydraulic conductivity of two clays and three alternative barrier
materials (a sand-bentonite mixture, three geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), and three
paper industry sludges) under field and laboratory conditions.  A battery of hydraulic
conductivity tests was performed  on specimens  prepared in the laboratory under
conditions which yield low hydraulic conductivity.   The hydraulic conductivity of each
specimen was measured before and after exposure to a number of freqze-thaw cycles.
Results from the laboratory tests on the clays, sand-bentonite mixture, and GCLs were
then  compared  to hydraulic conductivities measured during the GOLDICE/CPAR
project,  a recent large-scale field  study conducted by the U. S. Army Corps  of
Engineers Cold Regions Research  and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), CH2M Hill,
Inc. and a suite of industrial partners.  Results of hydraulic conductivity tests  performed
on  the paper mill sludges were compared to results obtained from a small-scale field
study performed as part of this project.
                                                               !
                                                               . i
9.1   COMPACTED CLAYS                                   j
      Increases in hydraulic conductivity of two orders of magnitude;were observed
for clay specimens compacted and frozen and thawed  in the laboratory, whereas
increases in hydraulic conductivity up to four orders of magnitude were observed for
specimens removed from the COLDICE test  pads after winter. The observed increase
in hydraulic conductivity of the field and laboratory specimens  was; attributed to a
macroscopic network of cracks caused by the formation of ice lenses land desiccation
induced by freezing.  Extensive cracking of the soil was observed in  the field and
laboratory experiments.  In contrast, no  increase in hydraulic  conductivity was
observed for specimens removed  from the tests pads after  winter using thin-wall
sampling tubes.  Apparently,  disturbance during sampling and extrusion masked the
crack structure caused by freeze-thaw.                             !
      Two factors that potentially could have caused the increase in  hydraulic
conductivity to be larger in the field than in the laboratory were: (1) the dimensionality
of freezing (e.g., one-dimensional  vs. three-dimensional) and  (2) that the in situ
freezing rate was smaller than that used in the standard (three-dimensional)  laboratory
                                     124

-------
 tests.  Thus, specimens were frozen in the laboratory one-dimensionally at controlled
 freezing rates to assess whether dimensionality of freezing or freezing rate affected the
 increase in  hydraulic conductivity.  Results of the tests showed that there was  no
 relationship  between hydraulic conductivity and freezing rate.  Also, the freezing rates
 occurring in the field  were smaller than the lowest freezing rates; that could  be
 simulated in the laboratory, whereas the increase in hydraulic conductivity measured
 in  the  field  was two orders, of  magnitude greater than  the increase in hydraulic
 conductivity  measured on specimens frozen in the laboratory.  Thus, dimensionality of
 freezing and freezing rate were probably not the cause of the discrepancy between the
 laboratory- and field-measured hydraulic conductivities. Differences in soil structure
 prior to freezing may  have been  responsible for  the differences in  the field and
 laboratory behavior.  However,  sufficient data were not  available tq evaluate this
 hypothesis.

 9.2  SAND-BENTONITE  MIXTURE                          .   !
       No increase in hydraulic conductivity was observed for the specimens of sand-
 bentonite compacted and frozen -three-dimensional.!/ in the  laboratory.  Low post-
 winter hydraulic conductivities were also observed  in the field and  measured  in the
 laboratory for specimens  removed from the test pad using  thin-wall sampling tubes.
 The field hydraulic conductivity  and the  hydraulic  conductivities of the specimens
 collected in sampling tubes were  slightly higher than the hydraulic conductivity of the
 laboratory-compacted specimens.   The  difference in hydraulic conductivity was
 attributed to  heterogeneities in the  sand-bentonite  mixture and, for the specimens
 collected in tubes, to disturbance during extrusion.
      In contrast, high  hydraulic  conductivities were measured for all but one of the
 block specimens removed from the sand-bentonite test pad before winter and on all  of
 the block specimens removed after winter.  Examination of the structure of the block
 specimens revealed  bentonite-rich  zones.  Based on this  observation, the high
 hydraulic conductivities of the block specimens were attributed to insufficient mixing
 and not to environmental stresses, such as freeze-thaw.               \
      Examination  of the soil within  the box infiltrometer installed in the  sand-
 bentonite test pad showed that the soil had retained water and that a network of cracks
was non-existent.  Similarly, examination of the internal  structure iof specimens
removed from the test  pad  after winter using tubes and the laboratory-compacted
specimens exposed to freeze-thaw revealed none of the cracks typically observed in

                                      125         .               :

-------
 compacted clays exposed to freeze-thaw. The absence of cracks is consistent with the
 low hydraulic conductivities measured for the sand-bentonite specimens.

 9.3  GEOSYNTHETIC  CLAY  LINERS (GCLs)
       Laboratory  tests  performed on  three  GCLs (Bentofix®,  B^entomat®, and
 Claymax®) showed that their hydraulic conductivity was  low (typically: about 2 x 10'11
 nn/s) and that the hydraulic conductivity decreased slightly as a result of freeze-thaw.
 Results of t-tests  indicated that the slight  decrease in hydraulic conductivity was
 statistically significant.
       Low hydraulic conductivity was also measured on  large undisturbed specimens
 removed from the COLDICE GCL test ponds after exposure to two winters of freeze-
 thaw. Hydraulic conductivities less than 1 x 10-9 m/s were  measured for all but one
 specimen.   The high hydraulic conductivity of that specimen  was attributed  to
 disturbance during handling.  Similar results were reported by Erickson et al. (1994)
 for the  GCLs tested in the COLDICE test pans. For each of the COLDICE  tests,
 hydraulic conductivities less than  1  x 10-9 m/s were  measured before and after
 exposure to  freeze-thaw.  Erickson  et al. (1994) did report, however, that the field
 hydraulic conductivities of the seamed GCLs were slightly higher than those for the
 unseamed GCLs. No seamed specimens were tested in this study. Additional study of
 the hydraulic  integrity of GCL seams exposed to freeze-thaw is recommended.

 9.4   PAPER MILL  SLUDGES                                  !
      Results of hydraulic conductivity tests performed on paper mill sludges showed
 that conductivities less than 1 x 10-9 m/s can be achieved for each type of sludge when
 compacted wet of optimum water content. Slightly lower hydraulic conductivities were
 obtained for  sludges A and C (the two combined sludges) relative to sludge B  (a
 primary sludge).  The lower hydraulic conductivities of sludges A and C :were attributed
to the existence of additional biological material from  secondary wastewater treatment
processes.
      Freeze-thaw affected each sludge differently. For specimens of sludge  A
compacted at the  low-K  water content, no  change in  hydraulic  conductivity was
observed for specimens permeated after each freeze-thaw cycle, whereas an increase
in hydraulic conductivity  was  observed for specimens that  were not  permeated
between freeze-thaw  cycles. Also, for specimens of sludge  A compacted at the as-
                                    126

-------
received water content,  no increase in  hydraulic conductivity was observed after
exposure to freeze-thaw.                      .                    ''•           •  '
      Increases in hydraulic conductivity of approximately one order of magnitude
were observed for all specimens of sludge B, regardless of the molding water content
or whether the specimen was permeated  between freeze-thaw cycles.;  This increase
in hydraulic conductivity is similar to the increase measured for the compacted clays
studied in this project.  Similar behavior was observed for sludge C.    :
      Results of the hydraulic conductivity tests conducted on the pipe specimens
were inconclusive; a  decrease  in  hydraulic conductivity after  freeze-thaw was
observed when the sludges were permeated in the pipes, whereas ian increase  in
hydraulic conductivity was observed in the slices tested in flexible-wall permeameters.
Examination of the sludge in the pipes revealed that exposure to freeze-thaw resulted
in a blocky structure that fell apart easily during trimming. Nevertheless,' it could not be
determined whether formation of the  blocky structure had an adverse impact on the
hydraulic conductivity of the  sludges.   Large-scale field tests including morphological
investigations are  recommended to fully  assess the impact of freeze-thaw on the
hydraulic conductivity of paper mill sludges.
                                     127

-------
                                 REFERENCES



                       ^^                                                    o,
                               ^


      J. Trautwein, Eds., Amer. Soc. for Test, and Mat'ls., Philadeiphfa PA       P
Chamberlain, E. J., Erickson, A. E.( and Benson, C. H. (1995)  "Effects
                            '

                                    128

-------
                   Estorne'1' P-  M- 0990),  "Compilation of information on alternative
                                          EPA 600^002,^ Environment
        Mad,son Waste Conference,  Sept. 21-22,  Dept. of Engineering ProfesS
        Development, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison Wl.  ng rr°Tessional

                oK^
       solWsoonnrMTh                    and              9<  *•
       sows content,  M. S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wl.





                                               f Bentomat'"
                                                               i

 HaU9> ^n?" *dtW°n9' L c- (1992), "Impact of molding water content on hydraulic
       conductivity of compacted sand-bentonite," Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 29, pj ,. Iss?


 Kenney, TO. van Veen, W. A., Swallow, M. A., and Sungalia, M. A. (1992) "Hydraulic
       pp  364-374   C0mpacted bentonite-sand mixtures," Can. Geotech. 'j. Vol 29?


 Kim, W. and Daniei/D. E.  (1992),  "Effects of freezing on the hydraulic oonductivitv of
       compacted clay,'' J. of Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. Ill, X 7 ^ PP  1083 ?1097

 Maltby ,C. V,, and I Eppstein  L  K. (1993), "A field-scale study of the!  use of paper
       industry sludges as hydraulic barriers in  landfill cover systems " Hvdrauffc
       ConductMty and Waste Contaminant Transport in Soils^ASTM STP1142

            E                     J- Tr                             Py
Mitchell, J.  K., Hooper, D. R., and Campanella, R. G  (1965)  "
                      '            " Mechanics and
                                    129

-------
 NCASI (1989), "Experience with and laboratory studies of the use of pulp and paper
      mill solid wastes in landfill  cover systems," National Council of the Pulp and
      Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Technical Bulletin No.
      559, New York, NY.

 NCASI (1992), "Chemical composition of pulp and paper industry landfill leachates,"
      National Council of the  Pulp and  Paper  Industry  for  Air and Stream
      Improvement (NCASI) Technical Bulletin No. 643, New York, NY.

 Othman, M.  A. (1992), "Effect of freeze-thaw on the structure and hydraulic conductivity
      of compacted clays," Ph.D.  Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
      Madison, Wl.                                             '

 Othman, M. A., and Benson, C. H. (1991), Influence of freeze-thaw on the hydraulic
      conductivity of a compacted  clay," Proc.,  14th International Madison Waste
      Conference, Sept. 25-26,  Dept. of Engineering Professional Development,
      University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wl.

 Othman, M. A., and Benson, C. H.  (1993a),  "Effect of freeze-thaw on the hydraulic
      conductivity of three compacted clays from Wisconsin," Transportation Research
      Record, No. 1369, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC., pp. 118-
      125.

 Othman, M. A., and Benson, C. H.  (1993b),  "Effect of freeze-thaw o!n the hydraulic
      conductivity and morphology of compacted clay," Can. GeotechJ J., Vol. 30, No.
      2, pp. 236-246.

 Othman, M. A.,  Benson, C. H.,  Chamberlain, E. J., and Zimmie; T. F. (1994),
      "Laboratory testing to evaluate changes in hydraulic conductivity caused by
      freeze-thaw: State-of-the-art," in Hydraulic Conductivity and Waste Contaminant
      Transport in Soils, ASTM STP 1142, David E. Daniel and Stephen J. Trautwein,
      Eds., Amer. Soc. for Test, and  Mat'ls, Philadelphia, in press.    :

 Robert L. Nelson  and Associates,  Inc. (1993), "Report of Bentomat® freeze/thaw test
      results,"  report to CETCO, Inc. by Robert L.  Nelson and  Associates,  Inc.,
      Schaumburg, IL.                                         • ;      •

 Shan, H. Y. (1990), "Laboratory tests  on bentonitic blanket," M. S. Thesis, University of
      Texas, Austin, TX.

 Shan,  H. Y.,  and  Daniel,  D. E.   (1991),  "Results  of laboratory  tests  on  a
      geotextile/bentonite  liner material,"  Geosynthetics '91, Industrial Fabrics
      Association International, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 2, pp. 517-535.
Taylor, K. R., Hansen, J. S., and Andrews, D. W. (1994), "The potential
use of pulp and
      paper mill sludge in landfill closure," Proc., Practical Application of Soil Barrier
      Technology, Maine Section ASCE 1994 Technical Seminar.
                                     130

-------
Wong, L., and Haug, M. (1991), "Cyclical  closed-system freeze-thaw permeability
      testing of soil liner and cover materials," Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.
      784-793.                                                ;

Zirnmie, T. F., and LaPlante, C. (1990), "The effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the
      permeability of a fine-grained soil," Proc.,  22nd Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste
      Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 24-27, pp. 580-593.

Zirnmie, T., Moo-Young, H., and LaPlante, K. (1993), "The Use of Waste Paper Sludge
      for  Landfill  Cover Material,"  Green '93:  Waste Disposal by Landfill, An
      International Symposium on Geotechnics related to the Environment,  Bolton
      Institute, Bolton, UK., Vol. 2, pp. 11-19.
                                     131

-------
                       APPENDIX A
 1    •                          -                i

RESULTS  OF COMPACTION  AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
     PERFORMED ON LABORATORY-COMPACTED SPECIMENS
                           132

-------
Table A.1.   Results of compaction  and hydraulic conductivity tests performed  on
             Parkview clay.                                         :
Specimen^)
PV-S-1
PV-S-2
PV-S-3
PV-S-4
PV-S-5
PV-S-6
PV-S-7
PV-S-8
PV-S-9
PV-S- 10
PV-S-11
PV-S- 12
PV-M-1
PV-M-2
PV-M-3
PV-M-4
PV-M-5
PV-M-6
PV-M-7
PV-M-8
PV-M-9
PV-M-10
PV-M-1 1
Molding Water
Content
(%)
10.5
10.6
10.7
12.1
13.4
13.4
15.3
16.1
16.3
17.7
19.6
20.1
4.1
4.5
5.3
7.4
7.9
10.9
12.8
13.9
14.0
18.3
19.1
Dry Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
17.06
17.30
16.81
17.37
18.52
18.69
18.25
18.34
18.33
17.72
17.07
17,01
19.45
19.27
19.63
20.70
20.47
20.63
19.73
19.37
19.63
17.48
17.34
Hydraulic
Conductivity
;(m/s)
2.1 x 10-7
7.6 x 10'7
1.7 x10'7
2.1 x10-7
2.0x1 0'8
2.1 x10'8
4.5 X10'9
2.4 x10-10
2.6 x10-10
4.9 x10-10
1.1 x10-9
3.9 x10-10
TNP(2)
^TNP
5:1 X10'9
:TNP
1.4x10-9
5.7 x10-11
' TNP
5.1 x10-10
TNP
TNP
3.1 x10-10
 Notes:                                                                        „
 1.  PV = Parkview clay; -S = Compacted at standard Proctor effort; -M = Compacted jat modified Proctor
    effort;-1..-12 = Specimen number.
 2.  TNP = Test not performed.       .                                    <
                                         133

-------
Table A.2.   Results  of  compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests  performed on
             Valley Trail clay.
SpecimenO)
VT-S-1
VT-S-2
VT-S-3
VT-S-4
VT-S-5
VT-S-6
VT-S-7
VT-S-8
VT-S-9
VT-S-10
VT-S-11
VT-S-1 2
VT-S-1 3
VT-S-1 4
VT-S-1 5
VT-M-1
VT-M-2
VT-M-3
VT-M-4
VT-M-5
VT-M-6
VT-M-7
VT-M-8
VT-M-9
Molding Water
Content
(%)
10.4
12.9
14.4
14.7
16.1
16.1
19.0
19.3
19.4
20.2
20.2
20.7
20.8
22.7
23.3
7.8
11.3
11.4
13.4
13.5
13.7
17.0
17.8
18.9
Dry Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
16.18
15.77
16.37
16.66
17.12
16.71
16.87
16.82
17.18
17.04
17.03
16.54
16.68
16.13
15.85
18.39
18.63
18.69
18.97
19.01
19.05
18.20
18.22
17.86
Hydraulic
Conductivity
, (m/s)
1:6x10-8
9.5x10-8
3.4x10-8
6.9x10-8
7.5 x 10-8
1'.4x10-8
1.6x10-9
1;.8x10-9
7.|2x10-11
7.6 x10-11
8.3 x10-11
1.2 x10-10
2:2 x10-10
2J5x10-10
3.9 x10-10
4.8x10-9
2.6 x 10-9
TNP(2)
TNP
TNP
2.1 x10-10
8.1 x10-11
TNP
TNP
Notes:
1.  VT = Valley Trail clay; -S = Compacted at standard Proctor effort; -M = Compacted at modified Proctor
    effort; -1 ..-15 = Specimen number.
2.  TN P = Test not performed.
                                         134

-------
Table A.3.   Results  of  compaction and hydraulic conductivity tests performed  on
             sand-bentonite.                                         :
Specimen^)
SB-S-1
SB-S-2
SB-S-3
SB-S-4
SB-S-5
SB-S-6
SB-S-7
SB-S-8
SB-S-9
SB-S-1 0
SB-S-11
SB-S-12
SB-S-13
SB-S-1 4
SB-S-1 5
SB-S-1 6
SB-S-1 7
SB-S-1 8
SB-S-19
SB-S-20
SB-M-1
SB-M-2
SB-M-3
SB-M-4
SB-M-5
SB-M-6
SB-M-7
SB-M-8
SB-M-9
SB-M-1 0
SB-M-1 1
SB-M-12
SB-M-1 3
SB-M-1 4
Molding Water
Content
(%)
7.9
8.1
8.4
11.4
12.7
13.9
15.1
15.9
16.5
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
19.3
19.7
20.3
7.1
7.1
7.3
10.0
10.6
10.7 •
12.3
12.4
13.4
15.4
16.3
16.5
17.9
18.4
Dry Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
17.05
16.88
16.99
17.17
17.06
17.26
17.23
17.09
17.31
17.50
17.26
17.31
17.37
17.47
17.28
17.39
17.50
16.81
16.70
16.62
18.01
18.71
18.57
18.79
18.75
18.63
18.85
18.85
18.68
18.13
17.84
18.09
17.36
17.14
Hydraulic
Conductivity
! (m/s)
1.7x10'10
TNP(2)
TNP
iTNP
iTNP
1.7X10'10
TNP
TNP
1.2 x10-10
:TNP
TNP
TNP
TNP
TNP
iTNP
TNP
TNP
1.0 x10-10
:TNP
TNP
'TNP
'TNP
5.3x10-8
TNP
!TNP
6.9 x10'11
TNP
:TNP
5.9 x10-11
TNP
4.3 x10-11
TNP
TNP
TNP
Notes:
1.  SB = Sand-bentonite; -S = Compacted at standard Proctor effort; -M = Compacted at modified Proctor
   effort; -1 ..-20 = Specimen number.
2.  TNP = Test not performed.
                                        135

-------
 Table A.4.   Results  of compaction and  hydraulic conductivity tests performed  on
             paper mill sludge A.
SpecimenO)
SLA-S-1
SLA-S-2
SLA-S-3
SLA-S-4
SLA-S-5
SLA-S-6
SLA-S-7
SLA-S-8
SLA-S-9
SLA-S-10
SLA-S-11
SLA-S-1 2
SLA-S-1 3
SLA-S-1 4
SLA-S-1 5
SLA-S-1 6
SLA-S-1 7
SLA-S-1 8
SLA-S-1 9
SLA-S-20
SLA-S-21
SLA-S-22
SLA-S-23
SLA-S-24
SLA-S-25
SLA-S-26
SLA-S-27
Molding Water
Content
(%)
17.0
31.4
43.6
47.2
58.7
72.4
72.8
82.8
85.6
88.3
89.0
89.6
90.4
91.2
92.3
93.1
93.3
94.8
95.9
97.4
102.1
122.1
149.2
150.0
152.8
185.1
185.3
Dry Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
8.32
8.68
8.66
8.54
8.41
7.53
7.61
7.22
7.25
6.73
6.68
6.67
6.68
6.62
6.60
6.56
6.54
6.48
6.63
6.41
6.41
5.61
4.78
4.78
4.72
3.98
3.96
Hydraulic
Conductivity
: (m/s)
6.6x10-6
3.7X10-6
TNP(2)
1,3x10-6
1.0 x10-9
7.2 x10-10
2.5x10-9
6.2 x10-10
5.5 x10-10
'TNP
TNP
,TNP
TNP
TNP
TNP
2.8 x 10-™
7.0 x10-10
TNP
8.0 x10-10
3.3 x10-10
4.4 x TO-10
1.2x10-9
2.3x10-9
4.0 x10-10
2.3 x 10-9
TNP
,TNP
Notes:
1.  SLA = Paper mill sludge A; -S = Compacted at standard Proctor effort; -1 ..-27 = :
2.  TNP = Test not performed.
Specimen number.
                                       136

-------
 Table A.5.    Results of compaction and  hydraulic conductivity tests performed on
              paper mill sludge B.                                    :
Specimen^)
SLB-S-1
SLB-S-2
SLB-S-3
SLB-S-4
SLB-S-5
SLB-S-6
SLB-S-7
SLB-S-8
SLB-S-9
SLB-S-1 0
SLB-S-11
SLB-S-12
SLB-S-13
SLB-S-14
SLB-S-15
SLB-S-16
SLB-S-17
SLB-S-1 8
SLB-S-1 9
SLB-S-20
SLB-S-21
SLB-S-22
SLB-S-23
SLB-S-24
SLB-S-25
Molding Water
Content
(%)
13.3
57.3
86.7
89.8
115.9
116.9
117.7
119.0
121.1
121.7
123.7
123.9
124.1
124.5
124.7
126.8
126.8
200.1
239.5
252.9
255.9
256.0
259.7
259.9
262.7
Dry Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
5.60
5.83
5.91
5.94
5.77
5.67
5.74
5.60
5.56
5.58
5.49
5.47
5.47
5.49
5.52
5.45
5.41
3.73
3.27
3.13
3.11
3.16
3.10
3.11
3.10
Hydraulic
Conductivity
;(m/s)
1.9x 10-5
1.5x10-5
1.0x 10-9
3.2 x 10-9
TNP(2)
1.4x 10-10
TNP
TNP
TNP
TNP
1.0x10-9
9.6 x10-10
TNP
TNP
3.0x10-9
TNP
5.9 x 10-9
1.8x 10-9
TNP
4.1 x 10-9
4.6 x 10-9
5.0 x 10-9
TNP
TNP
TNP
Notes:
1.  SLB = Paper mill sjudge B; -S = Compacted at standard Proctor effort- -1 -25 = :
2.  TNP = Test not performed.
Specimen number.
                                       137

-------
Table A.6.   Results of compaction  and hydraulic conductivity tests performed on

             paper mill sludge C.                                   ;             •
Specimen^)
SLC-S-1
SLC-S-2
SLC-S-3
SLC-S-4
SLC-S-5
SLC-S-6
SLC-S-7
SLC-S-8
SLC-S-9
SLC-S-10
SLC-S-1 1
SLC-S-12
SLC-S-13
SLC-S-14
SLC-S-15
SLC-S-16
SLC-S-1 7
SLC-S-18
SLC-S-19
SLC-S-20
SLC-S-21
SLC-S-22
Content
(%)
5.8
33.9
55.4
97.3
120.9
121.0
121.7
124.4
126.4
132.2
135.2
135.5
135.9
145.0
156.0
159.0
165.0
189.9
191.6
207.5
226.2
227.9
Dry Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
5.64
6.24
6.13
5.31
5.49
5.47
5.47
5.36
5.30
5.22
5.00
5.12
5.11
4.78
4.51
4.64
4.37
• 3.84
3.77
3.54
3.40
3.36
Hydraulic
Conductivity
: (m/s)
1.4x10-5
1 iO x 1 0'5
8.7x10-6
7iOx10-7
TNP(2)
TNP
ITNP
TNP
TNP
4.6 x10'10
8.9 x10-10
;TNP
: TNP
9.4 x10'10
8.9 x10-10
1.2x10-9
1.6x 1C-9
1.3x1 0-9
9.8 x 10-10
TNP
7.0 X10'10
TNP .
Notes:


1 '  ™£ = £aper mil1 sludge C; ~S =
2.   I NP = Test not performed.
                                     at standard Proctor effort; -1 ..-22 = Specimen number

                                                                               '
                                      138

-------
                       APPENDIX B

  GRAPH OF AIR TEMPERATURE VS. TIME FOR THE WINTER OF
1993-94 FOR  THE  BURIED SMALL-SCALE FIELD PIPE SPECIMENS
                          139

-------
             20.0
       O
       o_
       2

       I
           -30.0  -
           -40.0
                         20      40      60      80      100
                          Time (days since December 15, 1993)
120
Figure B.1.   Air temperature vs. time during freezing of buried small-scale field pipe
            specimens.                                            ;
                                    140

-------