Hydraulic Conductivity

Tests for Soils

Hsin-yu Shan
Dept. of Civil Engineering
National Chiao Tung University

Purpose
Why do we need to know the hydraulic
conductivity of soil?

Challenges with Hydraulic

Conductivity Measurement
Hydraulic conductivity of soil/rock varies
over a very large range
Both very high and very low hydraulic
conductivity values are difficult to be
measured
Homogeneity and anisotropy have huge
influence

Ranges of Hydraulic
Conductivity
Material

Intrinsic
Permeability
(darcy)

Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)

Clay

10-6 10-3

10-9 10-6

Silt, sandy silts,

clayey sands, till
Silty sands, fine
sands
Well-sorted sands,
glacial outwash

10-3 10-1

10-6 10-4

10-2 1

10-5 10-3

1 102

10-3 10-1

Well-sorted gravel

10 103

10-2 1

Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity

Tests
Types of permeameters
Flexible-wall permeameter
Rigid-wall permeameter
Compaction mold
Thin-wall tube

Consolidation cell

Pressure/Flow Control Devices

Pressure control panel + (air
compressor/pressurized gas bottle)
Water columns/reservoir
Both can be used to run constant head or
variable head tests

Pressure/Flow Condition
Constant Head Method
Falling Head Method
Rising/Falling Head Method
Constant Rate of Flow

Pressure/Flow Control Panel

Cell P. H.W.
Compressor

T.W.

Tailwater
Headwater
Water
PID

Vacuum
Permeant

Deaired
Water

Permeameter
Control Panel

Cell pressure

Constant-Head Method

Falling Head Method

Influencing Factors of Lab Test

Effective stress
Hydraulic gradient
Degree of saturation
Chemistry of permeation liquid
Volume of flow

Non-representative samples
Sample size
Fissures

Voids formed during sample preparation

Only becomes a problem for flexible-wall tests

Smear zones
Normally ~ 1/16 in

Growth of micro-organisms
Temperature
Viscosity and density

Effective Stress

k
e

Selection of Effective Stress

Based on the field condition
Unit weight of soil ~ 16 kN/m3 (130 pcf)
Unit weight of solid waste ~ 5.5 kN/m3 (45 pcf)

Based on the test standards

No specific stress level is specified in ASTM
D5084

Hydraulic Gradient
Large hydraulic gradient will cause:
Finer particles to migrate downstream and
clogged the pores
Particle distribution specimen becomes not
uniform

Hydraulic gradient should be

comparable to that in the field
low

usually

Using low hydraulic gradient is timeconsuming

ASTM D5084 suggests a maximum
hydraulic gradient of 30 for soils with k
x 10-7 cm/s

Degree of Saturation

Sr

100%

Air bubbles reduce the effective area to

conduct flow
Apply backpressure to saturate the
specimen
ASTM D5084 does not specify the
magnitude of backpressure
Usually apply backpressure up to 300
400 kPa (~ 40 - 60 psi)

Chemistry of Pore Liquid

Effect of diffuse double layer
Concentration of electrolyte
Valence of cations
Dielectric constant of liquid

Importance of hydration liquid

Chemical Attack of Chemicals to

Clays
Double Layer Principles
Permeation liquids
Solution of salts
Acid and Base
Dissolutioning of finer particles

Solutions of dilute organic chemicals

NAPL
Landfill leachate

Thickness of DDL
T
Negatively charged clay particle
T
Distance
controlling k

Flow
T

Principle of Diffuse Double

Layer
D = dielectric Constant of liquid
n0 = concentration of electrolyte
v = valence of cations

D
n0 v2

k = hydraulic conductivity

n0 v 2
D

Pore Volumes of Flow

Pore Volume, P.V. = total volume of voids
of the specimen
Must allow enough liquid to flow through
the specimen to be sure that the
interaction between the soil and the pore
liquid has stabilized

Termination Criteria
The test should be conducted long enough
in order to obtain reliable results
Basic requirements are:
Reasonable outflow/inflow ratio (qout/qin)
[ASTM D5084: 0.75 - 1.25]
Stable k over a certain period
Neither increasing nor decreasing
ASTM D5084: 2 to 4 consistent k values

In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity Tests

Borehole k test
Porous Probes
Infiltrometer
Open single/double ring infiltrometer
Sealed single/double ring infiltrometer

Lysimeter

Two-Stage Borehole Test

Developed by Boutwell (Soil Testing
Engineers, 1983)
Two testing stages, each its own bulb of
saturation
Obtain different rate of infiltration

Can determine hydraulic conductivity in

both vertical and horizontal direction

Two Stages of Testing

First stage
Casing is driven to the bottom of the
borehole
Obtain hydraulic conductivity k1 by falling
head test

Second stage
The casing is driven deeper and then the
infiltrometer is reassembled
Obtain hydraulic conductivity k2 by falling
head test

Determine parameter m from k1 and k2

Determine hydraulic conductivity kv and kh
k2
k1

L
ln[
D
mL
ln[
D

kv

1
k1
m

L 2
1 ( ) ]
D
m
mL 2
1 ( ) ]
D

kh

mk1

Advantages
Inexpensive ( < US$2000 )
Easy to install
Can determine both vertical and horizontal
hydraulic conductivity
Can be used for soils of low hydraulic
conductivity ( 10-9 cm/s)
Can be conducted on slope

Disadvantages
The volume of soil tested is small
The absorption of water by soil is not
taken into account when the soil is
unsaturated
Long test period required (it takes several
days to weeks for the flow to become
steady when k < 10-7 cm/s)

Constant-Head Borehole
Permeameter
Guelph Permeameter (Reynolds and
Elrick 1985, 1986; Soilmoisture Equipment
Corp.)
Similar to borehole tests
The absorption of water by soil is taken
into account (sorptive number )

(a) Guelph permeameter

(b) Bulb of saturation

Important assumptions:
The soil is homogeneous and isotropic
The soil is saturated
No volume change occurred during testing

The assumption of isotropy may lead to

significant

Advantages
Inexpensive equipment ( < US$3000 )
Easy to install and assemble
The absorption of water by soil is taken
into account
Relatively short testing period (a few hours
to a few days)
Relatively good for measuring vertical
hydraulic conductivity
Can measure hydraulic conductivity of soil
at a little deeper depth

Disadvantages
The volume of soil tested is small
Not suitable for determining horizontal
hydraulic conductivity
Not suitable to be used for soils of low
hydraulic conductivity (k < 10-7 cm/s)

Porous Probe
Porous probes have been used to
measure in-situ k for quite some time
BAT permeameter (Torstensson 1984)
was designed for unsaturated, low
permeability soil
Flow rate and pore pressure are computed
using Boyles law

Assumptions:
Soils are homogeneous, isotropic, and
incompressible
Neglect the adsorption of water
Temperature is constant through out the test
Hvorslevs (1949) equations is valid

Advantages
Easy to install
Short testing time for soils of higher hydraulic
conductivity (usually a few minutes to a few hours)
Pore pressure can be measured at the same time
Can be used for soils of low hydraulic conductivity ( 1010 cm/s)
Suitable for determining vertical hydraulic conductivity
Can measure hydraulic conductivity of soil deeper below
ground surface

Disadvantages
The equipment is relatively expensive ( >
US$6000)
The volume of soil tested is very small
Not suitable for determining horizontal
hydraulic conductivity
The absorption of water by soil is not
taken into account when the soil is
unsaturated

Air-Entry Permeameter
The test is performed on the ground
surface
Assumptions:
Soils are homogeneous, isotropic, and
incompressible
Soils behind the wetting front are saturated

Advantages
Moderate cost ( < US$ 3000 )
Short testing time (reached equilibrium
within a few hours to a few days)
Can be used for soils of low hydraulic
conductivity ( 10-9 - 10-8 cm/s)
Suitable for determining vertical hydraulic
conductivity

Disadvantages
Volume of soil tested is relatively small
The wetting front is within a few centimeters
below the ground surface

Cannot be performed on slope

Ring Infiltrometer
Has been used to determine hydraulic
conductivity of shallow soil for a long time
Four types of setup:
Open single- or double- ring infiltrometer
(most frequently used)
Sealed single- or double- ring infiltrometer

Hydraulic gradient is often assumed to be

1

Open, Single-Ring Infiltrometer

Most simple infiltrometer
Assumptions:
Soils are homogeneous, isotropic, and
incompressible
Soils behind the wetting front are saturated
No leakage between the ring and soil

The flow of water for single-ring

infiltrometer is not one-dimensional
over estimate hydraulic conductivity
Not suitable for soils with k < 10-7 10-6
cm/s due to the relative amount of
evaporation

Tensiometer

H
D

Advantages
Low equipment cost ( < US$ 1000 )
Easy to install
Can manufacture large-size infiltrometer to
test larger volume of soil
Suitable for determining vertical hydraulic
conductivity

Disadvantages
Not suitable for soils with k < 10-7 10-6 cm/s
Need to correct for evaporation
Need to correct for non-one-dimensional flow
Relatively long testing time (a few weeks to a
few months for soils with k < 10-7 10-6 cm/s)
Cannot be performed on steep slope

Open, Double-Ring Infiltrometer

Most often infiltrometer
Assumptions:
Soils are homogeneous, isotropic, and
incompressible
Soils behind the wetting front are saturated
No leakage between the ring and soil
Flow of water from inner ring is onedimensionally downward

Not suitable for soils with k < 10-7 10-6

cm/s due to the relative amount of
evaporation
Use the flow rate of inner ring to compute
infiltration rate and hydraulic conductivity

Tensiometer

H
D

Advantages
Inexpensive equipment ( < US$ 1000 )
Suitable for measurement of vertical
hydraulic conductivity
The flow of water from inner ring can be
treated as one-dimensional

Disadvantages
Not suitable for soils of low hydraulic
conductivity (< 10-7 cm/s)
Need to correct for evaporation
Relatively long testing time (a few days to
a few weeks for soils with k < 10-7 10-6
cm/s) [shorter than single-ring infiltrometer]
Cannot be performed on steep slope

Sealed, Single-Ring
Infiltrometer
Same basic assumptions as those for open ring
infiltrometers
The inner ring is seal
Do not need to
correction for evaporation
Particularly suitable for soils low hydraulic
conductivity
Need to correct for non-one-dimensional flow

H
D

Advantages
Relatively low cost ( < US$ 1000 )
Only suitable for determining vertical
hydraulic conductivity
Suitable for soils low hydraulic conductivity
(10-9 10-8 cm/s)

Disadvantages
Volume of soil tested is still small
the
diameter of the ring is less than 1 m
Need to correct for the flow direction of
infiltrating water
Relatively long testing time (a few weeks
to a few months)
Not suitable for sloping ground surface

Sealed Double Ring Infiltrometer,

SDRI
Same basic assumptions as those for open ring
infiltrometers
Do not need to consider the volume change of
soil before the flow rate becomes stable
The inner ring is seal
Do not need to
correction for evaporation
Particularly suitable for soils low hydraulic
conductivity

Measure vertical hydraulic conductivity

Do not need to correct for direction of flow
flow from inner ring can be treated as
one-dimensionally downward

Tensiometer

H
D

Advantages
Moderate cost ( < US$ 2500 )
Suitable for low permeability soils (< 10-8
cm/s)
Flow of inner ring can be treated as onedimensional
Dimension of outer ring is relatively large

Disadvantages
Relatively long testing time (a few weeks
to a few months)
Not applicable on sloping ground surface

Underdrain
Installed underneath the soil of which
hydraulic conductivity is to be measured
Collect water infiltrated through the soil to
compute hydraulic conductivity
Only suitable for test pad constructed of
compacted soil

Large area of water ponds on the soil

errors caused by assumption of onedimensional flow is small
Water in the soil can be assumed to be
under positive pressure
the hydraulic
gradient is better defined

Advantages
Low equipment cost
Applicable for determining vertical
hydraulic conductivity
Larger volume of soil tested
Does not disturb the soil sample

Disadvantages
Need construction work for installation
Relatively long testing time (a few days to
a few weeks for soils with k < 10-7 10-6
cm/s)

Lab Test vs. In-Situ Test

Advantages of lab test
Particularly relevant for compacted soils
Can conveniently test with different boundary
conditions
Economical to perform
Many tests can be performed at the same
time

Disadvantages of lab test

Small specimen size
Problems with sample selection
Tend to select good sample for testing

Effect of sample disturbance

Flow may be in the direction that is not the
most critical

Grain shape and orientation can affect the isotropy or

anisotropy of a sediment

Advantages of in-situ test

Test a large volume of soil
Minimized sample disturbance
More appropriate flow direction, more relevant
results

Disadvantages of in-situ test

Expensive to perform
Time consuming
Test procedure is ill-defined
Problems with data reduction

Generalized Comments on k
Tests
Samples should be representative
Orient flow direction properly
Constant head test is preferable (constant
volume during testing)
Min. edge voids and smear zones
Use relevant pore liquid

Avoid getting air bubbles

Avoid the growth of micro-organism
Use appropriate hydraulic gradient
Monitor stress-induced volume change

Hydraulic Conductivity of
Compacted Soils
Earth dams
Landfill liners (bottom liners and final
covers)
Surface impoundment liners
Lining of canals

Compaction Curves
Modified Proctor

Zero air voids curve

d

Standard Proctor

Zero air voids curve

Sr = 100%
d

50%

70% 80%

Line of optimums

Types of Compaction
Impact
Proctor compaction test (lab)
Dynamic compaction (field)

Kneading Remolded
Harvard miniature compaction (lab)
Sheepfoot roller (field)
Padfoot roller (field)

Static Piston
Smooth wheel roller (field)
Rubber tire roller

Vibratory - Vibrator
Vibratory smooth wheel roller (field)

Effect on Undrained Shear

Strength
d

w%
wopt
q
u

w%

wopt
q
u

w%
w%
u

(-)

Stress-Strain Behavior
C

B
d
A
w
opt

w%

d
A

w%
w
opt

log
A

w%
wopt

w%