An Experimental Study with CFD

Simulation of Horizontal Flow

Through Porous Media
Javed Alam and Mohd. Muzzammil
w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)

Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Aligarh Muslim University, India

Mohammad Kafi3 and Misbah ul Haque 4
3
Associate Professor, University Polytechnic, Aligarh Muslim University, India
4
Junior Research Assistant, Civil Engineering Department, Aligarh Muslim University, India
ABSTRACT
Permeability is an important characteristic of porous media suitable in dealing with problems associated with
drainage of water bearing strata, seepage through earthen dams, stability of earthen dams, and embankments
of canal bank affected by seepage, settlement underneath the hydraulic structures etc. Seepage below the
hydraulic structures which often becomes the cause of failure of such structures is a function of permeability. This
paper reports an experimental and software based investigation of the horizontal permeability of saturated
soils namely coarse sand, fine sand, fly ash and silt. Horizontal permeability of theses porous materials was
determined at 40% porosity, using a large 3-D custom designed permeameter using constant head method.
The observed permeability data was then compared with the permeability obtained from Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) simulation of horizontal flow through theses permeable materials using Fluent 14.0 software.
The observed and simulated permeability was found in close proximity for these materials.
Keywords: Saturated, Permeability, Porosity, Porous media and Fluent 14.0.

1. Introduction analysis of the permeability in vertical as well as horizontal

Permeability is the characteristic of porous media by
virtue of which it allows the seepage of water through
the interconnecting voids of the soil. The soil as present
in the earth crust is usually found in layers. The flow of
the seepage water takes place in vertical as well as in the
horizontal direction. Thus the determination of permeability
becomes important in both the directions. It is imperative
to study permeability, as any engineering structure if
founded on porous soil, may allow the percolation of water
beneath the foundation. This will reduce the shear strength
of the underlying soil. If earth dams are constructed with
pervious soil, the high rate of permeability may lead to the
phenomenon of piping, thus causing failure.
Many investigators across the world have studied this
property of soil as per their preferences. Aronovici and
Donnan (1946) gave a formula for the determination of
spacing of tile drains on the basis of permeability of soil. The
tile drains were used for irrigation of agricultural lands. They
determined the permeability in vertical as well as horizontal
direction. Reeve and Kirkham (1951) compared various
methods for determination of permeability in the field. The
undisturbed cone method can be used to find vertical as well
as horizontal permeability. The piezometer method, they
found suitable for field as it can measure permeability at
any depth. Likewise, Childs (1952) also gave a method to
determine field permeability. He used two bore wells for the
purpose and related the difference of head in the bore wells
to permeability. Evans (1962) carried out a mathematical
direction and proved that the hydraulic conductivity of
soils in horizontal direction is greater than that in vertical
direction. Wilkinson and Shipley (1972) found that process
of consolidation of soil was influence by permeability.
Chapuis et al. (1989) studied the effect of densification of
sand on permeability, when the flow was vertical as well as
horizontal. Burger and Belitz (1997) took undisturbed soil
samples and carried out studies on permeabilities in vertical
as well as horizontal directions. They found the permeability
was higher in 90% of the parallel oriented core samples.
T. F. Fwa et al. (1998) conducted experimental studies
on pavement base materials. Permeability in horizontal
direction was determined using constant head test and in
vertical direction by falling head method. They revealed a
unique relationship between falling head and constant head
tests. Moreover, they concluded that the relation between the
velocity and hydraulic gradient is not linear and contradicts
with the Darcy’s assumption. Chapuis and Aubertin (2003)
investigated the use of Kozney-Carman equation for
determination of permeability of soils. Earlier it was believed
that the said equation can be used only for sand and not for
clay. Handhel (2009) predicted the permeability of reservoir
in vertical and horizontal direction using ANN technique
and compared with observed values. The values were found
in close agreement. Dungca and Galupino (2016) devised
a new set up to determine the horizontal permeability of
soil mixed with fly ash. On the basis of experimental data,
he gave a relation between permeability and soil properties.
Dungca (2019) presented a new radial flow permeameter

48 WATER And ENERGY INTERNATIONAL June 2020

 to determine the horizontal permeability of fly ash based
geopolymer soil mix. The horizontal permeability obtained
was much higher as compared to vertical permeability.
Gupta et al. (2019) conducted experimental investigation and
simulation for finding vertical permeability perpendicular
to bedding plane and concluded that the CFD analysis is a
good substitute of extensive laboratory studies for finding
vertical permeability.

w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)

From the ongoing extensive literature review, it can be
saideffort
compactive that tolots of experimental
achieve the 40% porosity.and The theoretical
middle chamber works are
was completely
sealed. reported
Then water in wasthe fieldthrough
allowed of permeability.
the inlet to pass But thetime
for some validation
so that the soil
sample of
becomes fully saturated
experimental and the appears
results flow becomes to steady. The air
be least trapped in the
attempted. Inmould
was removed using air valve on top of the apparatus. After ensuring that no air is
thein present
entrapped voids of the study the horizontal
soil sample, permeability
test was started. of permeameter
For constant head single a
constantsoil
inletmedia has been
flow discharge determined
was obtained through experimentally, and tank
a constant head overhead the fitted
with a same
floating has
valvebeen
and the discharges
verified bywere collected for
simulation different
using head values
Fluent 14.0 for a
given time interval collected in a measuring beaker coming from a controlled outlet of the
software.
apparatus To time
for a desired achieve theThe
interval. aim of the present
experimentally study,
observed a largeis also
permeability
laboratory
simulated with the permeameter
help of a Fluentwas 14.0custom
softwaredesigned, fabricated
and the comparison between
experimental and simulated permeability was carried out.
and installed in the Laboratory as shown in Fig. 1 and 2.

Fig. 2 : Schmatic
Fig.2 Schematic diagram of Horizontal Permeameter
diagram of Horizontal Permeameter
3. Simulation using Fluent 14.0
2.1 Constant Head Method
The porous media model of the Fluent 14.0 can be used for a wide variety of single phase
Permeability
and of soilsincluding
multiphase problems, in laboratory is universally
flow through packed beds, determined
filter papers, perforated
plates etc. When this model is used, the cell zone has to be defined in which the porous
usingmodel
media theis applied
constant head
and the permeability
pressure drop in the flow test. This ontesting
is determined the basis of data
method
inputs. In is very useful
general, for14.0
the Fluent finding
porouspermeability
media model, of for transformed
both single phase and
multiphase, assumes that the porosity is isotropic, and it can vary with time and space.
or Superficial
The disturbedVelocity
soil samples. The constant
Porous Formulation headgood
generally gives permeability
representations of the
testpressure
bulk involves flow of
loss through water
a porous through
region. However,soil sample
since undervelocity
the superficial the values
constant head. The test is carried out in the permeability
cell, or permeameter, which can vary in size depending on
the grain size of the testing material. The testing apparatus
is equipped with an adjustable constant head tank and an
outlet tank which allows maintaining a constant head during
the test. Soil
the sample
testingis material.
kept betweenTheporous screens
testing in the
apparatus is equipped
permeameter. Before starting the flow measurements,
tank and an outlet tank which allows maintaining a c
however, the soil sample is fully saturated. During the test,
the amountsample is flowing
of water kept between
through theporous screens
soil sample is in the perm
measured for given time intervals. Knowing the length of is fully satura
measurements, however, the soil sample
water(ΔL),
the soil sample flowing through
the cross theare
sectional soil sample
of soil sample is measured for
Fig. 1 : Laboratory Horizontal Permeameter
Fig.1 Laboratory Horizontal Permeameter
(A), and length of thepressure
the constant soil sample (ΔL), the
head difference cross
(Δh), the sectional are o
volume ofpressure
water collected
head in a given time
difference interval
(Δh), the(Q), and of water col
volume
2. Methodology the time interval (Δt), one can calculate the permeability of
and the time interval (Δt), one can calculate the permea
Sieve analysis test for coarse sand, fine sand, fly ash and the sample as
silt was conducted as per IS: 2720 Part IV 1985. Specific
� Δ�
gravity of coarse sand and fine sand were determined using 𝑘= ...(1.0)
pycnometer method while for the fly ash and silt density � Δ� Δ�
bottle test were carried out as per IS: 2720 (part-III/sec-I) 2.2 Horizontal Permeability
1980. Permeability was determined by performing Constant 2.2 Horizontal Permeability
head permeability test in the hydraulics laboratory and the In order to conduct the experimental work for finding the
results were simulated using Fluent 14.0 software at civil horizontal permeability through different soil samples,
In order to conduct the experimental work
a large apparatus made up of 12mm thick Perspex sheet
for finding
engineering department, AMU, Aligarh. different soil samples, a large apparatus made up o
was fabricated having overall dimensions (Length ‘L’ =
fabricated having overall dimensions (Length ‘L’
Height/Depth ‘D’ = INTERNATIONAL
WATER And ENERGY 40cm) as shown in 2020
June Fig 1 and 49 2. T
chambers (inlet, outlet and middle). The middle chamb
,inlet chamber, used for supplying water to the porous
 90, Breadth ‘B’ = 25cm and Height/Depth ‘D’ = 40cm)
as shown in Fig 1 and 2. The permeameter comprises of
three chambers (inlet, outlet and middle). The middle
chamber, used for filling the soil samples ,inlet chamber,
used for supplying water to the porous media and the
outlet chamber, used for collecting the out flow from
the soil sample. Two perspex cylindrical pipes (having
internal diameter of 50mm) were mounted on the top
of the inlet and outlet chambers to measure the water
w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)
was obtained through a constant head overhead tank fitted
with a floating valve and the discharges were collected for
different head values for a given time interval collected in
a measuring beaker coming from a controlled outlet of the
apparatus for a desired time interval. The experimentally
observed permeability is also simulated with the help
of a Fluent 14.0 software and the comparison between
experimental and simulated permeability was carried out.

level difference on upstream (u/s) and downstream (d/s) 3. Simulation using Fluent 14.0
side. A flexible inlet pipe, through a constant head tank The porous media model of the Fluent 14.0 can be used for
is connected to the perspex cylindrical pipe mounted on a wide variety of single phase and multiphase problems,
the top of the inlet camber. While the perspex cylindrical including flow through packed beds, filter papers, perforated
pipe mounted on the top of outlet chamber is fitted with plates etc. When this model is used, the cell zone has to be
several outlet knobs at a constant vertical interval (50mm defined in which the porous media model is applied and the
centre to centre), for collecting the discharge. Porous pressure drop in the flow is determined on the basis of data
screen is provided at the both ends of the middle chamber inputs. In general, the Fluent 14.0 porous media model, for
to check the flow of soil particles into the inlet and outlet both single phase and multiphase, assumes that the porosity
chamber. Water is allowed to flow in the Inlet chamber is isotropic, and it can vary with time and space.
through a flexible pipe. With the progress of flow, the The Superficial Velocity Porous Formulation generally
water level in the Perspex pipe starts rising. After some gives good representations of the bulk pressure loss through
time, the water level in the left hand chamber rises and a porous region. However, since the superficial velocity
reaches the Perspex pipe above it. The level of water in values within a porous region remain the same as those
both the Perspex pipes is noted. The difference of the level within
porous aaregion,
outside thewithin porous
porous itregion
regionremain
cannot remain
predict the same
thethe same
velocityas those
as thoseoutsio
gives the head loss taking place through the soil sample. the
increase in the
porousvelocity
velocity increase
zones andincrease in
thus limits porous
in the
porous zones
accuracyzonesand and thus limth
of thethus limits
This head loss divided by the length of sample gives the Porous
within a media
porous are
region modeled
remain the by
samethe asaddition
those of aof
outside momen
the po
hydraulic gradient. As the water level rises in the Perspex
model. Porous media are modeled by the addition a mo
the flow
velocity increase
equations. in porous
The zones
source and thus limits the accura
pipe on the left hand side, water starts flowing out from Porous media flow
Porous are equations.
modeled
media by the
areterm.
modeled
The source
addition ofterm
a term
by the addition
is composed
momentum is composed
of a momentum sou
of two
source term inertial
inertial
to the loss
loss
standard term.
fluid flow equations. The source
the openings provided in the rising pipe. The volume of flow equations.
within The source
a porous region term
remain the is as
same composed of two
those outside parts:r
the porous
water is recorded for known interval of time. This gives term is inertial
composed lossofterm.
the velocity two parts:
increase a viscous
in porous zonesloss
andterm and an
thus limits the accuracy of t
µ 1
the discharge for the corresponding head loss. Velocity of inertial loss Sterm.
i = media
Porous − � µvarei+ C� ρ|v|v
modeled 1by thei �addition of a momentum source ter
Si =
flow µ − � viThe
�
equations. 1+ source
C�� ρ|v|v
term iis� composed of two parts: a visc
flow through the porous media is calculated using cross = − ��loss
Si inertial vi +� C ρ|v|v ��
section area of flow (soil sample) and a plot of hydraulic
term.
�� i ...(2.0)
Where Si is the source term for the ith (x, y or z) mom
Where Sj isWhere
the source term 1the source y
for
S+i Cissource the i (x, or z) momentum
term th
the ithfor (x, the (x, y oriner
z)e
th
gradient versus velocity of flow was plotted with the aim Siof= the velocity, α isterm
i � the forpermeability or iz)C�momentum
yand is the
µ
Where −S�i�is
vi the � � ρ|v|v
to check whether the experiment conducted followed the equation, |v|
of vis
through
of the the
velocity, magnitude
the velocity, α is theα
porous of the
is the the
media,
permeability velocity,
permeability
pressureα is
and C� is the the
and
drop inertialisresist
the
Cis� typica
Darcy’s law. The observed permeability of the soil sample permeability andporous
Si C is the inertial resistance factor. In
through
constant
through
Where is2 Cporous
the� can
sourcebe
media, media,
termconsidered
the for the
pressure
the i th
topressure
(x, be
drop
y orzero.
is
z) drop
Ignoring
typically
momentum is ty
con
propo
equatio
was determined from the slope of the best fit line drawn laminar constant
flows thethrough
ofporousvelocity,
can porous
be the media,
α isconsidered
permeability the
to bepressure
and
zero. is
C� to drop
the is convective
inertial
Ignoring resistance af
C media model then reduces
constant C� can be considered to be zero. Ignoring
� Darcy's Law:
over the velocity verses hydraulic gradient graph. typicallyporous
proportional
through to velocity
porous
media media,
model and
thenthe the constant
pressure
reduces drop Cis2 can
to Darcy's be proportiona
typically
Law:
porous
consideredconstant C� media
can
to be zero. model
be considered
Ignoring then reduces
to be zero.
convective Ignoring
acceleration to Darcy's acceler
convective
and Law:
2.3 Preparation of test bed porous media
diffusion, the porous model then reduces to Darcy's
media model then reduces to Darcy’sLaw:
µ
The locally available coarse sand, fine sand, fly ash and silt Law: ∇ p ∇ pµ = � (→)
= (→) v
were used for present experimental study. By measuring the �µ vµ
p =p =(→) (→)
∇∇ ...(3.0)
volume of the mould, specific gravity of material and soil � v� v
porosity, the dry weight of the soil samples was obtained. µ
∇p−=�µ−
∇p = � �v�→� v� ...(4.0)
During the experiments the porosity was kept constant as µ�→�
� v
∇p = −�
� �v→� v�
40%. Because it is the most achievable porosity in most � v µ
of the soils. After knowing the dry weights of the different The pressure ∇p = −that
drops �drops
�Fluent
→�that
v�14.0 computes in each of
The The
The pressure
pressure dropsvdrops
� that 14.0
Fluent Fluent
14.0 14.0 incomputes
computes each of theinthree
in each of theeac
materials the middle chamber of permeameter was then y pressure
the threedirections
(x, or z)within
coordinate
the
thatdirections
Fluent
porous
computes
within
region is the porous
then
directions
directions
region is then within
within the porous
the porous region is region
then is then
filled by the concerned material in layers with required The pressure drops that Fluent 14.0 computes in
compactive effort to achieve the 40% porosity. The middle � µµ ...(4.1)
�directions
ΔpΔp=
Δp� = �∑��=1
�∑
= �=1�∑ within
�v µ ���� the porous region
v ∆n
�� ��
∆n
v ∆n � is then
chamber was completely sealed. Then water was allowed � �=1
��
��
��� � �
through the inlet to pass for some time so that the soil
µ
sample becomes fully saturated and the flow becomes µ�
µ
Δp
ΔpΔp � =
� =�
=��=1
�∑
�∑ �∑
�=1
�
∆n� �v� ∆n� �
vv� ∆n
����=1 �� ...(4.2)
steady. The air trapped in the mould was removed using air � � � µ���
Δp� = �∑���=1 � v� ∆n� �
valve on top of the apparatus. After ensuring that no air is µ
��
Δp� = �∑��=1 µ v� ∆n� � ...(4.3)
entrapped in voids of the soil sample, test was started. For Δp� = �∑��=1 �����v� ∆nµ� �
constant head permeameter a constant inlet flow discharge Δp
Δp � = = �∑
�∑����=1 � v v∆n
µ
� ∆n ��
v� are� the velocity �� �
�=1 � components � � in the x, y, and z directions, and ∆n
��

50 WATER And ENERGY INTERNATIONAL June 2020 are the velocity

v� thicknesses components
of the medium in the in
x, y,the
andx,zy,directions
and z directions, a
respectively;
the pressureof drop
thicknesses the in the
medium soil
in sample
the x, in
y, the
and x,
z y, and z
directionsdirections
respec
v� are=the
Δp �∑ velocity
� µ components in the x, y, and z dire
thecoefficient
� �=1 �in v
of viscosity of� ∆n
fluid� �(water); 1/α is the Viscous Resistance
thicknesses of the medium in theinx,the
pressure
sample.
drop �� the soil sample y, x,and
y, zand z direc
direction
coefficient of viscosity of fluid (water); 1/α is the Viscous Res
 Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curve for Coarse Fig. 2 Grai
100
120 Sand.
90

V80j are the velocity components in the x, y, and z directions, 100

120 120
and
70
Δnx, Δny, and Δnz are the thicknesses of the medium in
Percentage Finer (%)

the x, y, and z directions respectively; Δpx, Δpy, and Δpz

Finer (%)Finer (%)

60 10080 100
are the pressure drop in the soil sample in the x, y, and z
directions
50 respectively; µ is the coefficient of viscosity of

Percentage Finer (%)

8060 80
fluid (water); 1/α is the Viscous Resistance Coefficient of

Percentage
40
the soil sample.
30 6040 60

Percentage
Analysis, Result and discussion

w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)

20
Based on the results of Particle size distribution test, particle 4020 40
10
size distribution curves (Fig. 1 to 4) were plotted for the
0
coarse
100 sand, fine sand, Fly 1000
ash and silt. Result of the test
10000 20 0 20
10 100 1000
show that coarse sand wasISfound slightly
Seive Size (µm) gap graded, fine
IS Sieve Size (µm)
sand was found uniformly graded, while the fly ash and silt 0 0
were found well graded in nature. 1 10 100 1000 1
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curve for Coarse Fig. 2 Grain size distribution curve for Fine IS Sieve Size (µm)
Table 1 shows the coefficient of uniformity and coefficient
Sand. Fig. 3 Fig.
Grain Sand.
size distribution curve for Fly ash Fig. 4 Grai
of curvature of soil samples used in the study based on the 3 : Grain size distribution curve for Fly ash
results of particle size distribution curves (Fig. 1 to 4). Table
2 shows values of specific gravity for coarse sand, fine sand,
120 120
fly ash and silt, calculated as per IS: 2720 (part-III/sec-I)
1980.
100 Table 1. Coefficient of uniformity and coefficient of c
100

100
porous media
Finer (%)
Percentage Finer (%)

80 80
120
90
S.No. Material 𝒅𝟏𝟎 𝒅𝟑𝟎 𝒅𝟔𝟎 C
60 80 60
100
Percentage

70
Percentage Finer (%)

(mm) (mm) (mm) u

(%)

40 60 80
40
Percentage Finer

50
60
20 20
40 1 Coarse Sand 0.25 0.36 1.1
30 40
0
120 10 100 1000
2 0
1
Fine sand
10
0.09
100
0.171000 0.22
IS Sieve Size (µm) 20 IS Sieve Size (µm)
10 3 Fly ash 0.015 0.047 0.105
Fig. 30 Grain size distribution curve for Fly ash Fig. 4 Grain size distribution curve for Silt.
0 Fig. 4 : Grain size distribution curve for Silt
100 1000 10000 4 10 Silt 100 0.012 0.03
1000 0.052
Experiments were conducted
IS Seive Size (µm)in order to find horizontal
IS Sieve Size (µm)
permeability of locally available coarse sand, fine sand,
Fig. 1 : Grain size distribution curve for Coarse Sand
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curve for Coarse fly Fig.ash2 Grain
and silt.size
Thedistribution
selected materialcurve samples
for Finewere
Table 1. Coefficient Sand. of uniformity and coefficient of
filled in the curvature
fabricated for
apparatus
Sand. the
one selected
after the other for
120 determination of horizontal permeability. The values of
porous media
permeability were determined when the flow was taking
100
120 place120in horizontal direction for each material. The
S.No. Material 𝒅𝟏𝟎 𝒅𝟑𝟎 𝒅
variation
𝟔𝟎 Coefficient
between hydraulic gradientCoefficient
and seepage velocity
of have been shown of in Fig. 5 to 8.
Finer (%)

10080 for different

100 soil samples
(mm) (mm) The
(mm) values of permeability
uniformity were then
curvature for the
determined
different
80 materials by calculating the slope of from Fig. 5 to
Percentage Finer (%)
Finer (%)

8060
(Cu) of permeability(Cc)
Percentage

8. The observed values for same materials

6040
were determined by using the Fluent 14.0 software and
1 Coarse Sand 0.25 0.36 1.1 60 in Table 3.4.4
shown The perusal of Table 0.53 shows that the
Percentage

observed as well as simulated values are in close proximity

2 4020 Fine sand 0.09 0.17 0.22
as shown in Fig. 9.2.4
40
1.5

10000 3 20 0
10
Fly ash 100
0.015 0.0471000 0.10520 7.0 1.4
IS Sieve Size (µm)
4 Silt 0 0.012 0.03 0.0520 4.3 1.4
1Fig. 2 : Grain size
10distribution curve100for Fine Sand 1000 1 10 100 1000
Coarse Fig. 2 Grain size distribution
IS Sieve Size (µm) curve for Fine IS Sieve Size (µm)
Fig. 3 Grain size distribution
Sand. curve for Fly ash Fig. 4 Grain sizeAnd
WATER distribution curve for Silt.June
ENERGY INTERNATIONAL 2020 51

120
 values of permeability were determined when the
direction for each material. The variation between
for different soil samples have been shown in Fig.
then determined for the different materials by calcu
Table 1 : Coefficient of uniformity and coefficient of curvature for the selected porous media
observed values of permeability for same material
S. No. Material d10 (mm) d30 (mm) d60 (mm) 14.0 software
Coefficient and shown
of uniformity in Table-3.
Coefficient The perusal of
of curvature
(Cu) (Cc)
as simulated values are in close proximity as shown
1 Coarse Sand 0.25 0.36 1.1 4.4 0.5
2 Fine sand 0.09 0.17 0.22 2.4 Table 3. data Showing
1.5 Horizontal Pe
3 Fly ash 0.015 0.047 0.105 7.0 1.4
4 Silt 0.012 0.03 0.052 4.3 Material Observed
1.4 Permeability
w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)

Table 2 : The specific gravity of soil samplesS.no.

used in present study (𝐤 𝐡 )
S. No. Material Specific Gravity
(cm/s)
1 Coarse Sand 2.60
2 Fine sand
1 2.66 Coarse Sand 1.550 x 10−�
3 Fly ash 2 2.10 Fine sand 1.050 x 10−�
4 Silt 2.60
3 Fly ash 7.550 x 10−�
Table 3 : Data Showing Horizontal Permeability “kh” at 27°C.
S. No. Material Observed Permeability (kh)
4
Simulated Permeability
Silt Percentage
1.970 x 10−�
(cm/s) (kh) (cm/s) Deviation (%)
1 Coarse Sand 1.550 x 10–2 Geometry
1.540 ofx 10laboratory
–2 permeameter
0.60 was modeled a
2 Fine sand 1.050 x 10–2
number of intervals in GAMBIT0.20
1.052 x 10–2
software. Then the m
boundary conditions were defined in the Fluent 14.0
3 Fly ash 7.550 x 10–4 7.560 x 10–4 0.10
viscous resistance coefficient (1/α) were obtained for t
4 Silt 1.970 x 10–4 1.960 x 10–4 0.50
plot between seepage velocity and the hydraulic gradie
Geometry of laboratory permeameter was modeled and in shows
Fig. 10-13 equation 5.0 and
the output 6.0.
result of The fileanalysis
the CFD was run in for optimu
meshed in finite volume in optimum number of intervals the formwere
of pressure difference contours along the direction
optimized. Fig. 10-13 shows the output result of
in GAMBIT software. Then the mesh file was imported in of flow. The simulated permeability then calculated by
difference contours along the direction of flow. The
Fluent 14.0. The boundary conditions were defined in the using the output pressure difference for the materials as per
Fluent 14.0 as given in Table 5 and 6. The values of viscous using
the equation 7.0.the output pressure difference for the materials a
resistance coefficient (1/α) were obtained for the selected
Δp µ
materials from the slope of the plot between seepage velocity = V ...(5.0)
and the hydraulic gradient for each material respectively as Δ� �
shown in equation 5.0 and 6.0. The file was run for optimum
1 ρ� Δh
number of iterations so that the results were optimized.
�
= { µ� ∑ni=1 � V i �}/n ...(6.0)
i

0.014 0.007

0.012 0.006
Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

0.010 0.005

0.008 0.004

0.006 0.003

0.004 0.002

0.002 0.001

0.000 0.000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Hydraulic Gradient (i) Hydraulic Gradient (i)

Fig.5
Fig. 5 :Variation between
Variation between Horizontal
Horizontal Velocity
Velocity and Hydraulic Fig.6
Fig. Variation between
6 : Variation between Horizontal
Horizontal VelocityVelocity
and Hydraulic
and Hydraulic Gradient for Coarse
Gradient for Coarse Sand Sand and HydraulicGradientGradient for Fine Sand
for Fine Sand

52 0.0008
WATER And ENERGY INTERNATIONAL June 2020 0.0003

0.0007
0.0002
s)

0.0006
)
 Hydraulic Gradient (i) Hydraulic Gradient (i)

Fig.5 Variation between Horizontal Velocity Fig.6 Variation between Horizontal Velocity
and Hydraulic Gradient for Coarse Sand and Hydraulic Gradient for Fine Sand
0.007
0.0008
where
0.0003
V = Seepage velocity (m/s); μ = Coefficient of
0.006 viscosity where
of water
V =(Ns/m
2
), ρ =velocity
Seepage Mass density
(m/s); µof=water
Coefficient of viscosi
0.0007 (kg/m ) density
3
1/α = Viscous
of water coefficient
(kg/m �
); 1/ resistance
α = Viscous(1/m2
);
coefficient resistance
(cm/s)

0.014 0.005 0.007 g =0.0002

Acceleration due to� gravity (m/s2); ΔL = Length of Soil
gravity (m/s ); ΔL = Length of Soil sample (m); Δhi /Vi is the hy

Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

0.0006
sample (m); Δhj/Vj is the hydraulic gradient for ith number
(cm/s)

0.012
0.004 0.006 of observations; n = number of observations.
0.0005 of 0.0002
observations; n = number of observations.
Velocity

Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

0.010
Velocity

0.005
0.003
0.0004 Δ�.V.�.ρ
k(Fluent) = Δp ...(7.0)
0.004

w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)

0.008 0.0001
Horizontal

0.0003
0.002 Table 5 : Data showing Simulation Parameters used in
Horizontal

0.006 0.003
0.0002
0.001 0.0001
CFD analysis
0.004 0.002
0.0001 S. Parameter TableInput
5. data showing Simulation Parameters
Values
0.000
0.002
0.0000 0 0.2
0.001
0.4 0.6 0.8 No.
0.0000
0.8
0 0.6 Parameter
0.8based,1Steady1.2
Pressure
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 0S.no.0.2
Solver 0.4
0.000 0.000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 flow Hydraulic
0.8
Gradient
0 (i) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Hydraulic
Hydraulic Gradient (i)Gradient (i)
1 Solver 3-D Pressure bas
Fig.6Gradient
Velocity Hydraulic Variation
(i) between HorizontalHydraulic Velocity
Gradient (i) 2 Computational
Fig.7
Fig. 7 Variation between
: Variation between Horizontal
Horizontal Velocity
Velocity and Hydraulic Fig.8 Variation
domain between
type Horizontal
domainVelocity
eig.5
Sand
Variation betweenand Hydraulic
Horizontal Gradient
Velocity
Gradient Fig.6
for Fly for Finebetween
Variation
ash Sand Horizontal Velocity2 Computational type 3-D
and Hydraulic
and Hydraulic Gradient for Coarse Sand
Gradient for Fly ash 3
and Hydraulic Gradient for Fine Sand
and Hydraulic
Viscous Model Gradient
Laminarfor Silt
3 Viscous Model Laminar
0.0003
0.0008 0.0003 4 Fluid
4 Fluid Water Water
5 Fluid Density 998.2 kg/m2 (at 27˚C)
0.0007 0.0002 0.018 5 Fluid Density 998.2 kg/m2
6 Fluid Viscosity 0.8568 Ns/m2 (at 27˚C)
Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

0.0002
Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

0.0006
6 Fluid Viscosity 0.8568 Ns/m
Horizontal Velocity (cm/s)

0.016
7 Operating Pressure 1bar (Standard
0.0005 0.0002
OperatingAtmospheric
Pressure Pressure)
0.0002
0.014
7 1bar (Standa
Simulated Permeability

0.0004
0.012 0.0001
8 Inlet Type Velocity Inlet
0.0001 8 Inlet Type Velocity Inle
0.0003
9 Inlet Flow Velocity 0.000000067 m/s to
0.010
0.0002 of9 Water range
Inlet Flow0.0001200
Velocity m/s
of Water range 0.000000067
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.008 10 Outlet Type Pressure Outlet
10 Outlet Type Pressure Out
0.0000 0.006 0.0000 11 Outlet Air Pressure 0.00 N/m2
0 0.2 0.0000
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 11
1.2 Outlet Air Pressure 0.00 N/m2
0.8 1 0 Table 6 : Data showing Viscous Resistance Coefficient
0.2 0.40.004 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Hydraulic Gradient (i) Hydraulic Gradient (i) (1/α) for different porous media
0.002
Hydraulic Gradient (i)
ig.7 Variation between Horizontal Velocity Fig.8 Variation between Horizontal Velocity Table 6. data showing Viscous Resistance Coefficient (1/α)
S. No. Material For horizontal direction
and HydraulicFig.8
Velocity Gradient for Flybetween
8 : Variation ashbetween
0.000 and Hydraulic
Horizontal Gradient for Silt
Velocity 0.018 “1/α” (m )
-2
Fig. Variation Horizontal
0 Velocity
0.002 and Hydraulic
0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 S.no.
0.012 0.014 Material
0.016 For horizontal d
ash and Hydraulic Gradient
Gradient for Silt for Silt 1
Observed Permeability Coarse Sand 7.33099e+10
2 1 Fine sand Coarse Sand 1.08409e+11 7.33
0.018

0.016
Fig.9 Variation between Observed v/s simulated
3 2 FlyHorizontal permeabilities
ash Fine sand 1.50795e+12 1.08
4 3 Silt Fly ash 5.80006e+12 1.50
0.014
Simulated Permeability

0.012 4 Silt 5.80

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Observed Permeability

Fig.9 Variation
Fig. 9 :Variation
between between
ObservedObserved
v/s simulated Horizontal
v/s simulated permeabilities
Horizontal
.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 permeabilities
0.014 0.016 0.018
Fig. 10Fig. 10 showing
: Contours
pressureshowing pressure drop of forCoarse
Horizontal
Observed Permeability Contours drop for Horizontal permeability Sand along the
permeability of Coarse Sand along the flow direction.
flow direction.

Observed v/s simulated Horizontal permeabilities WATER And ENERGY INTERNATIONAL June 2020 53
 Fig. 10 Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal permeability of Coarse Sand along the
flow direction.
w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)
Fig. 11 Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal Permeability of Fine Sand along the flow
Fig. 11 : Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal
direction.
Permeability of Fine Sand along the flow direction.
Fig. 12 Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal Permeability of Fly ash along the flow
Fig. 12 : Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal
direction.
Permeability of Fly ash along the flow direction.
Fig. 12 Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal Permeability of Fly ash along the flow
direction.
Fig. 13 Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal Permeability of Silt along the flow
direction.
Fig. 13 Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal Permeability of Silt along the flow
Fig. 13 : Contours showing pressure drop for Horizontal
direction.
Permeability of Silt along the flow direction.
54 WATER And ENERGY INTERNATIONAL June 2020
Conclusion
The horizontal permeability was determined for the
selected materials i.e. coarse sand, fine sand, fly ash and silt
experimentally and validated through Fluent 14.0 software.
The experimentally observed and simulated (through Fluent
14.0) values were found in close proximity to each other
with percentage deviation below 0.60% in all the cases.
The straight line variation between hydraulic gradient and
velocity indicates the validity of Darcy’s law.
Acknowledgement
The present study has been undertaken as part of a UPCST
Project entitled “An experimental study on permeability of
layered soils parallel to the bedding plane”. We would like to
give special thanks to UP Council of Science &Technology
for funding the project.
References
1. Aronovici and Donnan (1946), Soil-Permeability as a
Criterion for Drainage-Design, American Geophysical
Union Volume 27, Number I.
2. Reeve and Kirkham (1951), Soil Anisotropy and Some
Field Methods for Measuring Permeability, American
Geophysical Union Volume 32, Number 4.
3. Childs (1952), The Measurement of the Hydraulic
Permeability of Saturated Soil in situ. I. Principles of a
Proposed Method, The Royal Society, A Mathematical
Physical and Engineering Sciences, Proc. R. Soc.
London, U.K., A 1952 215, 525-535.
4. Evans (1962), A Note on The Average Coefficients of
Permeability for A Stratified Soil Mass, Ph.D. Thesis.
5. Wilkinson and Shiple (1972), Vertical and Horizontal
Laboratory Permeability Measurements in Clay Soils,
Development in Soil Science, Volume 2, 1972, Pages
285-298.
6. Chapuis et al., (1989), Laboratory permeability tests on
sand: influence of the compaction method on anisotropy.
Canada Geotech. Journal, volume 26, pages 614-622
(1989).
7. Burger and Belitz (1997), Measurement of anisotropic
hydraulic conductivity in unconsolidated sands: A case
study from a shore face deposit, Oyster, Virginia, Water
Resources Research, Vol. 33, No. 6, Pages 1515-1522,
June 1997.
8. T. F. Fwa et al. (1998), Permeability Measurement of
Base Materials Using Falling-Head Test Apparatus,
Transportation Research Record 1615, Paper No. 98-
0068.
9. Sivapullaiah et al. (2000), Hydraulic conductivity of
bentonite–sand mixtures, Canada Geotech. Journal,
Vol. 37: Pages 406–413.
10. Chapuis and Aubertin (2003), On the use of the
Kozeny–Carman equation to predict the hydraulic
conductivity of soils, Canada Geotech. Journal. Vol.
40: Pages 616–628.
11. Handhel (2009), Prediction of Reservoir Permeability
from Wire Logs Data Using Artificial Neural Networks,
Iraqi Journal of Science, Vol.50, No.1, 2009, PP. 67 –
74.
12. Raisinghani and Viswanadham (2010), Evaluation
of permeability characteristics of a geosynthetic-
reinforced soil through laboratory tests, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, Vol. 28, PP. 579–588.
13. Shen et al. (2015), Evaluation of hydraulic conductivity
for both marine and deltaic deposits based on piezocone
testing, Ocean Engineering 110 (2015) 174–182.
14. Dungca and Galupino (2016), Artificial Neural Network
Permeability Modeling of Soil Blended with Fly ash,
International Journal of GEOMATE, March, 2017, Vol.
12, Issue 31, pp. 77-82.
15. Dungca et al. (2019), Radial Flow Permeameter: A
Proposed Apparatus to Measure Horizontal Hydraulic
Gradient of Fly-Ash Based Geopolymer-Soil Mix,
International Journal of GEOMATE, June 2019, Vol.16,
w & e internatioNal (Water resources section)
Issue 58, pp. 218 -223.
16. Gupta et al (2019), An Experimental Investigation and
Simulation of Flow Through Porous Media Perpendicular
to Bedding Plane, W & E INTERNATIONAL (WATER
RESOURCE SECTION), November 2019, Vol.62/
RNI, No. 8, pp. 68 -74.
17. Fluent 14.0 user's guide.
WATER And ENERGY INTERNATIONAL June 2020 55