Abstract
Penetration testing is a popular and instantaneous technique for subsurface mapping, contaminant tracking, and the determination of soil characteristics. While the small footprint and reproducibility of cone penetrometer testing makes it an ideal method for in-situ subsurface investigations at contaminated sites, the effects to local shallow groundwater wells and measurable influence on monitoring networks common at contaminated sites is unknown. Physical and geochemical parameters associated with cone penetrometer testing were measured from a transect of shallow groundwater monitoring wells adjacent to penetrometer testing. For wells screened above the depth of cone refusal, the physical advancement and retraction of the cone had a significant effect (p < 0.01) on water level for several pushes within 10 meters of a monitoring well, and a measured increase in specific conductivity. No effect on geochemistry or water level was observed in continuous monitoring data from wells screened below the depth of cone refusal, but variability in specific conductivity from these wells during penetration testing was only a fraction of the natural variation measured during precipitation events. Continuous measurements of specific conductivity and water level demonstrated that the effects of penetration testing have limited spatial and temporal distributions with a null effect post-testing.
Highlights
Soil core recovery and penetration testing methods are popular techniques for measuring soil compaction, behavior, stratigraphy, porosity, and permeability for a variety of geotechnical and engineering applications
Effects of Cone Penetrometer Testing acting on the cone divided by projected area of the cone which is recorded as cone tip resistance qc (MPa), and total force acting on the friction sleeve divided by the area of the friction sleeve recorded as sleeve friction fs (MPa)
Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) methodologies are optimized for various sediment types including the variably compacted soft sediments (Schmertmann, 1978; Robertson, 1986; Campanella et al, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Doskey and Cespedes, 2006; Robertson, 2010) like the residuum and back fill found at this site (Campanella et al, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Hatcher et al, 1992; Sutton Jr and Field, 1995; Robertson, 2010; American Society for Testing and Materials, 2020), but some may be hesitant to use these techniques since the spatiotemporal effects of penetration on pre-existing monitoring networks are largely unknown
Summary
Soil core recovery and penetration testing methods are popular techniques for measuring soil compaction, behavior, stratigraphy, porosity, and permeability for a variety of geotechnical and engineering applications. CPT methodologies are optimized for various sediment types including the variably compacted soft sediments (Schmertmann, 1978; Robertson, 1986; Campanella et al, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Doskey and Cespedes, 2006; Robertson, 2010) like the residuum and back fill found at this site (Campanella et al, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Hatcher et al, 1992; Sutton Jr and Field, 1995; Robertson, 2010; American Society for Testing and Materials, 2020), but some may be hesitant to use these techniques since the spatiotemporal effects of penetration on pre-existing monitoring networks are largely unknown.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
