IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA A Comparative Study on the Measured and Estimated Soil-Water Characteristic Curve of a Sandy Soil

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE MEASURED AND ESTIMATED

SOIL-WATER CHARACTERISTIC CURVE OF A SANDY SOIL

C. Malaya
Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati–780 139, India.
E-mail: m.chetia@iitg.ernet.in
S. Sreedeep
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati–780 139, India.
E-mail: srees@iitg.ernet.in

ABSTRACT: The unsaturated soil behavior is of prime importance in many of the geotechnical and geoenvironmental
applications. The characterization of the engineering behavior of unsaturated soil is entirely dependent on the Soil-Water
Characteristic Curve (SWCC), which is a graphical relationship between water content (either gravimetric or volumetric) or
degree of saturation and soil suction. The experimental procedures adopted for determining SWCC are time consuming and
cost-intensive. Therefore, recent researches have laid a major focus on the indirect estimation of SWCC. However, it is
essential to evaluate the preciseness of the SWCC estimation method used for a particular type of soil. With this in view, this
paper describes a comparison between measured and estimated SWCC for compacted sand. Measured SWCC has been obtained
using a tensiometer and a volumetric water content sensor and SWCC is estimated based on grain size distribution of the soil. The
details of the comparison are discussed in this paper.

1. INTRODUCTION
Recent emphasis on geoenvironmental problems associated
with landfill covers, contaminant spill remediation, mine
reclamation and the rapid expansion of infrastructure
development in arid regions has led to increased interest in
geotechnical engineering practice on unsaturated soils
(Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993, Rahardjo et al. 1995, Sreedeep
& Singh 2003, Sreedeep 2006). However, the factors such as
complexities in the behavior of unsaturated soil, its cost and
time intensive characterization, and the need of skilled
person for design and analysis of unsaturated soil situations
makes it challenging for the concepts to be put into practice
(Fredlund 1996, Power & Vanapalli 2008). Hence, during the
last few decades several researchers have stressed the need
for extensive research in this direction to simplify the concepts,
to develop cost and time effective characterization and facilitate
easy practice of unsaturated soil concepts.
The basic characterization of unsaturated soil is therefore,
based on the development of a graphical plot between soil
suction and water content (either gravimetric or volumetric)
or soil saturation (Aitchinson 1961, Richards 1974). Such a
graphical plot is popularly known as Soil-Water Characteristic
Curve (SWCC). The review of literature indicates that
unsaturated soil properties such as strength, compressibility,
flow of water/liquid/gas, contaminant transport, heat migration
are determined based on SWCC (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993,
Yang et al. 2004, Masrouri et al. 2008).
There are different methodologies adopted for determining
SWCC in the laboratory (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993, Rahardjo
et al. 1995, Sreedeep & Singh 2003, Sreedeep 2006). However,
the experimental procedures adopted for determining SWCC
are time consuming and cost-intensive. Therefore, a lot of
emphasis has been laid on the indirect estimation of SWCC.
Such an estimated SWCC can be used as initial guidelines for
planning important geotechnical and geoenvironmental
projects. It is therefore essential to evaluate the preciseness of
the SWCC estimation method used for a particular type of soil.
In this study, drying SWCC for a locally available sandy soil
corresponding to different initial compaction conditions were
obtained using a tensiometer (UMS GmbH, Munich) and a
volumetric water content sensor (Decagon Inc., USA). The
SWCC for the same soil was estimated based on soil texture
and soil bulk density by employing estimation software
“Rosetta” (Schaap et al. 2001). Rosetta can be used to obtain
the parameters of the van Genuchten SWCC equation (Leong
& Rahardjo 1997) based on the soil specific input parameters.
The study indicates that the estimated SWCC does not match
well with measured SWCC for the sandy soil considered in
this study.
1.1 Theoretical Background
Soil specific parameters for a typical drying (desorption)
SWCC are (Hillel 1980) (1) the volumetric water content at
saturation, ? s, which is the water content at which the soil is
completely saturated and typically depicts the initial condition
for the drying path (2) Air-Entry Value (AEV) which is
defined as the suction at which air starts entering the largest
pores present in the soil sample and (3) residual water

23
A Comparative Study on the Measured and Estimated Soil-Water Characteristic Curve of a Sandy Soil

content (? r) defined as the water content below which water with the soil. The tensiometer used in this study can measure
content changes are minimal as suction changes. matric suction up to 100 kPa and characterized by very short
response time. The small dimension of the T5 tensiometer
In this study, the SWCC is represented by van Genuchten
ensures minimal disturbance of the soil sample during its
(1980) equation represented by Eqn. 1,
insertion. This electronic pressure transducer tensiometer is
θ s − θr
θ ( h) = θr +
high resolution measuring device for the continuous
(1)
(
n  1− n
1 + (αh)
1 ) measurement of water tension in the soil. The changes in water
tension is captured electronically and converted to pressure
 
units in hPa (hecto pascal) or kPa. For logging the suction
where ?(h) is the volumetric water content at pressure h; ? s is measurement automatically, the tensiometer is connected to a
the saturated volumetric water content; ? r is the residual computer via data logger.
water content; a and n are empirical fitting parameters.
EC–TE capacitance-type sensors determine ‘?’ based on the
For estimating van Genuchten parameters using Rosetta dielectric constant or permittivity of the material in which
program the following hierarchical level of input data was they are inserted. The sensor works in the frequency range of
used: 70 MHz. The basic principle behind the working of the
Sand, silt, clay fraction, bulk density and water content at 33 sensor is the dielectric permittivity, e, of soil medium changes
kPa suction (SSCBDTH33)-input level 4. with its water content. The sensor measures the capacitance
property and gives the output in milliVolt (mV) (Decagon
devices Operator’s Manul 2006). This mV output designated
2. MATERIALS AND TEST METHODS as “Raw” is converted to ?, based on the general calibration
A locally available river sand designated as SA was used in equation given by the manufacturer (Decagon Inc. USA). A
this study. The soil is characterized for its specific gravity, detailed description of the technology of this sensor is
grain size distribution, and maximum and minimum void reported in Bogena et al. (2007) and Kizito et al. (2008).
ratios by following the guidelines presented in the literature The air-dried sand was mixed with required amount of
(IS 2720: Part III: Sec 2: 1980, IS 2720: Part 14: 1983, IS distilled water and compacted into the perspex mould of 11
2720: Part 4: 1985). The details of the characterization are cm diameter and 16 cm height, by giving different number of
listed in Table 1. It can be noted that the soil is poorly graded blows to achieve different packing dry unit weight (?d). The
sand with no fine (silt and clay) fraction. soil sample was then saturated by ponding it with distilled
water and further removing the excess water on top. After
Table 1: Physical Properties and Classification of the Soil SA saturating the soil sample, EC-TE and T5 sensors were
Property Soil SA inserted into the packed soil sample. The soil sample was
then allowed to air dry and the suction and volumetric water
Specific gravity 2.66
content of the sample continuously recorded using the
Particle Size Characteristics respective data loggers.
Coarse sand (4.75–2 mm) 1
Medium sand (2–0.425 mm) 39 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fine sand (0.425–0.075 mm) 60 The data obtained from the T5 and ECH2O–TE measurements
Silt size (0.075–0.002 mm) – were used to plot the SWCCs corresponding to different
Clay size (<0.002 mm) – compaction states for the soil SA, as depicted in Figure 1.
Effective diameter (D10 mm) .0047 0.5
Uniformity coefficient (CU) 3.90 w = 18.10 % , γ d = 15.10 kN/m
3

3
0.4 w = 18.10 %, γ d = 14.80 kN/m
Coefficient of curvature (CC) 0.83 3
w = 13.34 % , γ d = 13.10 kN/m
IS Classification* SP 0.3 w = 8.34 %, γ d = 13.90 kN/m
3

3
w = 7.27 %, γ d = 13.10 kN/m
θ

* IS 1498: 1970.
0.2
2.1 Drying Soil-Water Characteristic Curves Using a
Tensiometer and a Volumetric Water Content Sensor 0.1

A T5 tensiometer (UMS GmbH, Munich) and ECH2O-TE 0.0 0 1 2 3 4

10 10 10 10 10
volumetric water content sensor (Decagon Inc., USA), was
used to measure suction and volumetric water content, ψψm (kPa)
(kPa)
respectively, of dynamically compacted SA in the perspex Fig. 1: Measured SWCCs for the Soil SA Corresponding
mould. Sensors were secured in place to ensure proper contact to Different Compaction States

24
 A Comparative Study on the Measured and Estimated Soil-Water Characteristic Curve of a Sandy Soil

It can be noted from the figure that different initial paths are Figure 4 shows the measured and compacted SWCCs for SA
followed by the curves corresponding to different compaction soil sample with compaction bulk unit weight of 14.80
state. The initial portion of the SWCC shifts upwards with kN/m3 and initial water content of 13.34%.
the increase in initial compaction water content (w). Further,
0.4
it can be noted that all measured SWCCs coincides for matric
Predicted
suction, ? m > 10 kPa. Marinho & Stuermer (1999) have Measured
attributed this coinciding tendency of SWCC to the water 0.3
located into pores of similar size/shape. However, such an
observation requires further investigation. 0.2

θ
The van Genuchten SWCC model parameters obtained using
Rosetta are listed in Table 2. 0.1

Table 2: van Genuchten Model Parameters Obtained for 0.0 0 1 2 3

10 10 10 10
Different Initial Compaction Unit Weights ψmψ(kPa)
(kPa)
?b(kN/m3) ?r ?s log10a log10n Fig. 3: Comparison of Measured and Predicted SWCCs
17.80 0.0485 0.3094 –1.5337 0.454 for Soil Sample with Compaction Bulk Unit Weight
of 17.80 kN/m3
17.50 0.0485 0.3181 –1.5564 0.4425
14.80 0.0534 0.3956 –1.4794 0.5552 0.3
15.10 0.0534 0.3860 –1.4811 0.5605 Predicted
Measured
14.10 0.0536 0.4170 –1.4567 0.5517
0.2
?b: bulk unit weight.
θ

By putting these values in Eqn. 1, a relationship was established 0.1

between matric suction ? m and volumetric water content ? to
obtain the estimated SWCCs as shown in Figure 2. It can be
noted that the estimated SWCC does not follow the same 0.0 0 1 2 3
trend as that of measured SWCC for the different compaction 10 10 10 10
state investigated in this study. ψψ(kPa)
(kPa)
Fig. 4: Comparison of Measured and Predicted SWCCs
0.4 for Soil Sample with Compaction Bulk Unit Weight of
w = 18.10 %, γ d = 15.10 kN/m
3 14.80 kN/m3
3
w = 18.10 %, γ d = 14.80 kN/m
0.3 w = 13.34 %, γ d = 13.10 kN/m
3

3
The figure depicts that measured and estimated SWCCs
w = 8.34 %, γ d = 13.90 kN/m
w = 7.27 %, γ d = 13.10 kN/m
3 obtained are different for the soil sample. The predicted
0.2 SWCC overestimates the volumetric water content below a
θ

suction value of approximately 6 kPa and it underestimates

0.1 the volumetric water content values above a suction value of
6 kPa. Similar observations were obtained for the SA soil
samples with compaction bulk unit weight of 15.10 kN/m3
0.0 0
10 10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4 and 14.10 kN/m3. The study indicates that the measured
SWCC of poorly graded sand does not match satisfactorily
ψψm (kPa)
(kPa)
with the estimated SWCC. Therefore, further refinement is
Fig. 2: Estimated SWCCs Using Rosetta for the Soil SA required for the estimation procedure of SWCC for the type
Corresponding to Input Level 4 of soil considered in this study.

The comparison of measured and predicted SWCC is shown

in Figure 3 for SA soil sample with compaction bulk unit
weight of 17.80 kN/m3 and initial water content of 18.10%.
From the figure, it can be noted that measured and predicted
SWCCs follow the same trend. But for a particular value of
suction, the estimated SWCC underestimates the value of
volumetric water content. Similar trends were obtained for SA
soil sample with compaction bulk unit weight of 17.50 kN/m3.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The estimated and measured Soil-Water Characteristic Curve,
(SWCC), of a poorly graded sandy soil is compared in this
study. The measured SWCCs were obtained using T5 tensio-
meter and ECH2O-TE/EC-TM volumetric water content
sensor. The SWCC parameters of van Genuchten model was
estimated by using computer program Rosetta. The study

25
A Comparative Study on the Measured and Estimated Soil-Water Characteristic Curve of a Sandy Soil
indicates that the measured SWCC of poorly graded sand
used in this investigation does not match satisfactorily with
the estimated SWCC. Therefore, further refinement is required
for the estimation procedure of SWCC for the type of soil
considered in this study.
REFERENCES
Aitchinson, G.D. (1961). “Relationship of Moisture and
Effective Stress Functions in Unsaturated Soils”, Conf.
Pore Pressure and Suctions in Soils, London, 47–52.
Bogena, H.R., Huisman, J.A., Oberdorster, C. and Vereecken,
H. (2007). “Evaluation of a Low-Cost Water Content Sensor
for Wireless Network Applications”, Jl. of Hydrol., 344:
32–42.
Decagon Devices Operator’s Manual Version 2 ECH2OTE/
ECTM, Water Content, EC and Temperature Sensor Manual
2006, Decagon Devices, WA99163.
Fredlund, D.G. (1996). “Microcomputer and Saturated/ Un-
saturated Continuum Modelling in Geotechnical
Engineering”, Sym. on Computers in Geotech. Engg.,
Brazil, 2, 29–50.
Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993). “Soil Mechanics for
Unsaturated Soils”, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Hillel, D. (1980). “Fundamental of Soil Physics”, Academic
Press, Inc., San Diego, Calif.
IS: 1498: 1970. “Indian Standard Classification and
Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS: 2720: Part 14: 1983. “Indian Standard Methods of Test
for Soils, Determination of Density Index (Relative Density)
of Cohesionless Soils”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
IS: 2720: Part 4: 1985. “Indian Standard Methods of Test for
Soils”, Part 4 Grain Size Analysis, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
IS: 2720: Part III: Sec 2: 1980. “Indian Standard on Test for
Soils”, Part III Determination of Specific Gravity-Sec 2:
Fine, Medium and Coarse Grained Soils, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
26
Kizito, F., Campbell, C.S., Campbell, G.S., Cobos, D.R., Teare,
B.L., Carter, B. and Hopmans, J.W. (2008). “Frequency,
Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Analysis of a
Low-Cost Capacitance Soil Moisture Sensor”, Jl. of Hydrol.,
352: 367–378.
Leong, E.C. and Rahardjo, H. (1997). “Review of Soil-Water
Characteristic Curve Equations”, Jl. of Geotech. &
Geoenv. Engg., ASCE, 123: 1106–1117.
Marinho, F.A.M. and Stuermer, M.M. (1999). “The Influence
of the Compaction Energy on the SWCC of a Residual
Soil”, Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics, ASCE: 125–
141.
Masrouri F., Bicalho, K.V. and Kawai, K. (2008). “Laboratory
Hydraulic Testing in Unsaturated Soils”, Jl. of Geotech. &
Geo. Engg., Springer, 26: 691–704.
Power, K. and Vanapalli, S.K. (2008). “Influence of Matric
Suction on the Compressibility Behaviour of a Compacted
Unsaturated Fine-Grained Soil”, Proc. Can. Geotech. Conf.,
Ottawa.
Rahardjo, H., Chang, M.F. and Lim, T.T. (1995). “Shear
Strength and in-situ Matric Suction of a Residual Soil”,
Proc. Unsaturated Soils, 2: 637–643.
Richards, B.G. (1974). “Behavior of Unsaturated Soils”, Soil
Mechanics-New Horizons, American Elsevier, 112–157.
Schaap M.G., Leij, F.L. and van Genuchten M.Th. (2001).
“Rosetta: A Computer Program for Estimating Soil
Hydraulic Parameters with Hierarchical Pedotransfer
Functions”, Jl. of Hydrol. ASCE, 251: 163–176.
Sreedeep, S. (2006). “Modeling Contaminant Transport in
Unsaturated Soils”, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engg.,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India.
Sreedeep, S. and Singh, D.N. (2003). “Laboratory Measurement
of Soil Suction”, Ind. Geotech. Jl., 33: 279–290.
van Genuchten, M.T. (1980). “A Closed Form Equation for
Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated
Soils”, Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. Jl., 44: 892–898.
Yang, H., Rahardjo, H. and Fredlund, D.G. (2004). “Factors
Affecting Drying and Wetting Soil-Water Characteristic
Curves of Sandy Soils”, Can. Geotech. Jl., 41: 908–920.