University of Florida

Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering

Magna Cum Laude Honors Research Project

Horizontal Permeameter

The design, development and testing of a horizontal permeability laboratory test

Cody B. Smith (Undergraduate Student)

Dr. David Bloomquist (Project Advisor)

265 Weil Hall

Gainesville FL, 32611

December 2010

1

Abstract

Throughout modern soil laboratories, there are multiple variations of lab tests for determining the

general permeability, or hydraulic conductivity, of a soil sample. These tests all examine the flow of

water through a soil sample in the direction perpendicular to the compaction layering, essentially

determining permeability in the vertical direction of a soil stratum. Currently there are no laboratory

tests in soil engineering texts for determining horizontal permeability of a soil. Permeability in soils is

commonly anisotropic, or varies with direction. In groundwater analysis it is often assumed that

horizontal permeability is higher, especially in clays. The goal of this project was to design and test a

device for testing horizontal permeability, and compare the results with the standard “vertical”

permeability lab tests using two different soil types. A square shape was chosen for the device, since

the soil sample is packed vertically with water flowing horizontally through it, which could not be

accomplished with cylinder placed horizontally. Clear cast acrylic was used for the casing, with porous

plastic sheets were used as the flow membrane. A rubber mat with 4 springs was used to cap off and

seal the soil sample, and a flat top with a gasket sealed off the casing. The top is held in place by 4 bolts

attached to the base. As in the vertical tests, Darcy’s law was be used for determining the coefficient of

permeability/hydraulic conductivity k. Samples were tested with two different initial conditions; oven

dried and moist. The oven dried samples having a higher permeability in all cases, with the horizontal

direction being affected more noticeably. The A-2-4 silty sand sample had a higher ratio of horizontal to

vertical permeability rk compared to the A-3 sand sample. These results support the theory of

anisotropy and optimum packing moisture content. Overall the data from the new horizontal apparatus

were sound, and it performed successfully.

2

Table of Contents

Title Page

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………............................... 1

1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….3

11.1 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….……...4

2.0 Current Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………4

2.1 Vertical Rigid Walled Permeameters………………………………………………………….………………….……………4

2.1.1 Constant Head Test Method………………………………………………………………………………………...……….…5

2.1.2 Falling Head Test Method…..………………………………………………………………………………………….………..6

2.2 Limitations of Laboratory Testing……………………………………………………………………………………….……….8

3.0 Development of the Horizontal Permeameter..……………………………………………………………………….………8

3.1 Design Considerations………………………..……………………………………………………………………………….………8

3.2 Design Features…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….9

3.3 Testing Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….13

4.0 Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....16

4.1 Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16

4.2 Charts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..17

4.3 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..19

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………..…..….…20

5.1 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..…...20

5.2 Recommendations………………………………………………..…………….…………………………………………………….20

6.0 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23

6.1 Experimental Data…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23

6.2 Additional Images……………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………….25

6.3 References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………27

3

1.0 Introduction

Of the many properties of soils studied for engineering purposes, none is as variable and difficult to

quantify as permeability. Also known as hydraulic conductivity, the permeability of soils can vary over

many orders of magnitude, with coarse grained soils at the high end of the spectrum to fine grained and

clayey soils at the lower end. These values often vary even within a single deposit due to stratification

and layering of different soils. Permeability is important to engineers because it is needed to analyze

geotechnical problems such as seepage, consolidation, and stability. This can apply to the design of

everything from damns and earthen walls to landfills and foundations.

Permeability is controlled by many factors, such as void ratio, pore size, water content, degree

of saturation, confining pressure, electrolyte content and particle orientation. The fabric of a soil is

broken down into three levels; the microfabric, minifabric, and macrofabric. The microfabric consists of

regular aggregations of particles pores generally around 1µm in size and allows little water flow. The

minifabric consists of aggregations and pore spaces between the aggregations, generally 10’s of µm’s in

size. These larger channels have much less resistance to flow, and largely contribute to total

permeability values. The macrofabric consists of the cracks, fissures, and laminations, and is where the

greatest flow occurs. This usually dwarfs flow within the other layers, and is responsible for the

variations in permeability within a deposit (Mitchell, 1993). Understanding the composition of a soil’s

structure is very important regarding permeability, as variations in a soil of a constant void ratio can

yield very different values.

Soils are also generally anisotropic, meaning that permeability varies between the vertical and

horizontal direction. This is most common in clays, which have an average ratio of horizontal to vertical

permeability of two, but can range from less than one up to seven (Mitchell, 1993). This is a result of the

orientation of the elongated plate-like particles that are characteristic of clays, allowing much more flow

4

in the direction parallel to the platelets than in the perpendicular direction. Clays can be virtually

impermeable in the perpendicular direction with the right conditions, which is why they are used in

waste containment applications. Knowledge of these ratios can be applied to help predict rates of

groundwater flow and consolidation within a soil deposit.

Table 1.1: Typical values for Hydraulic Conductivity k

Hydraulic Conductivity k (cm/sec)

Soil type Particle Diameter

(mm) Permeability Range

1 to 10¯³ Gravel 10 to 2 High

10¯² to 10¯⁵ Clean sand 2 to 5x10¯²

Medium

10¯³ to 10¯⁷ Silty Sand Medium to low

10¯⁵ to 10¯⁹ Silt 5x10¯² to 5x10¯³ Low to very low

10¯⁹ to 10¯¹² Clay 5x10¯³ to 1x10¯⁴ Practically Impervious Based on USBS (Niing and Likos, 2004, pg.332)

1.1 Problem Statement

Due to the importance of hydraulic flow characteristics of a soil, various field and laboratory

tests have been developed to measure permeability. While there are many lab tests available for testing

general permeability of soils in the vertical direction perpendicular to layering, no test is currently

available in soil engineering texts for determining horizontal permeability. The standard tests will be

referred to as vertical permeability tests in this paper. The goal of this project is to design and test such

an apparatus which can be easily integrated into the standard vertical permeability lab tests, and to

determine if tests yield accurate results.

2.0 Current Procedures

2.1 Vertical Rigid Walled Permeameter

The common vertical permeability lab tests are comprised of a cylindrical casing held in place by

a metal base and head. The base has an intake port for water inflow, and an outflow port in the head. A

5

water source is held at a desired elevation with a funnel rod, routed to the base with clear rubber

tubing. The soil sample is capped at each end in the cylinder with a porous membrane for even fluid

distribution. Pressure is applied on the top membrane with a spring to prevent expansion of the sample

and to simulate pressure conditions. The soil sample is compacted as desired. The two variations of this

test, the constant head method and the falling head method, are applicable to different levels of

permeability.

2.1.1 Constant Head Test Method

The constant head test is recommended for soils having permeability values greater than 10¯³

cm/s. The constant head test utilizes a funnel with an inflow from a water source and an overflow port

to maintain the constant elevation of the water surface (Figure 2.1.1). These lab test while are based on

Darcy’s law, with the flow rate (q) through a sample being directly proportional to the cross-sectional

area of the sample (A), elevation difference of the reservoirs (Δh), and coefficient of permeability (k),

while inversely proportional to sample length (L). This can be seen in Equation (2.1) (Soils Lab Manual).

After the soil is in place and the chamber is sealed the outflow is connected to a vacuum pump

for five minutes, then the intake is slowly opened allowing the sample to fully saturate under a vacuum.

Once water starts coming out of the outflow the pump is turned off and the water is allowed to flow

through the sample for five more minutes. This is to ensure that all void spaces are filled with water,

since air bubbles restrict water flow and decrease permeability. For the constant head test the water

supply is adjusted to remain level, and the beaker is used to collect water samples over a measured time

(t). The water sample is then weighed, with the initial weight of the beaker subtracted, and this is

recorded as the mass flow of water over a given time. This is repeated for a total of five trials (Soils Lab

Manual)

6

2.1.2 Falling Head Test Method

The falling head test is usually used with soils having coefficient of permeability values that are

less than 10¯³ cm/s. It follows the same procedure as the constant head test, but instead of maintaining

a constant supply water elevation the source is cut off for the trial and the time is recorded for the

elevation to change over a known distance. A clear glass burette with markings is usually used (Figure

2.1.2). These initial and final elevations are used with the same sample values in the constant head test

to determine the coefficient of permeability using Equation (2.2). The temperature of the water is also

measured and recorded, which is used to adjust the coefficient of permeability the standard at 20°C

using the ratio of dynamic viscosities (µ) of water at the two temperatures in Equation (2.3) (Soils Lab

Manual).

Figure 2.1.1: Constant Head Test

7

Figure 2.1.2: Falling Head Test

HAt

QLk

Equation 2.1

f

i

H

H

At

aLk ln Equation 2.2

𝑘20℃ = 𝜇𝑇

𝜇20℃ 𝑘𝑇 Equation 2.3

𝑟𝑘 =𝑘ℎ

𝑘𝑣 Equation 2.4

8

2.2 Limitations of Laboratory Testing

The laboratory sample temperature, pressure, hydraulic gradient, and pore fluid chemistry

should simulate field conditions for the most accurate results, but this is difficult to replicate. Moisture

content and compaction rate is a very important factor in simulating the field conditions, and can greatly

vary the results of a sample. Compaction of a dry sample allows particles to flocculate resulting in a high

resistance to rearrangement and larger pores, while compaction of a moist sample disperses particles

and results in weaker particle groups that are less resistant to rearrangement with smaller pores. Tests

have shown that the re-molding of undisturbed soft clays can decrease horizontal permeability by a

factor of four (Mitchel).

While Darcy’s law is appropriate for low flow regimes and has been accepted as valid for such

applications, it has its limitations. Hydraulic gradients used in laboratory tests are often much greater

than those experienced in the field, which is because the long amounts of time required to test such

small gradients are often not economical. Tests have shown that at these low gradients the flow rate is

not always directly proportional in clays, with the presence of a threshold gradient when below no flow

exists. However this error is attributed to undetected experimental errors and equipment

contamination (Mitchel).

3.0 Development of the Horizontal Permeameter

3.1 Design Considerations

The vertical permeability testing methods discussed have been used successfully by many

scientists and engineers; however it accounts only for fluid flow in the direction parallel to the

compaction force and perpendicular to the soil layering. The proposed horizontal permeameter

operates under the same principles as the vertical permeameter, but allows for determination of fluid

9

flow in the direction perpendicular to the compaction force and parallel to the soil layering. It is

designed to use the same basic equipment as the vertical test so it can be easily and efficiently

integrated into laboratory testing.

3.2 Design Features

Since the compaction of the soil sample is now in the direction parallel to flow with a horizontal

sample, a cubic shape was chosen. This allows for even compaction of the sample, which cannot be

accomplished with a cylindrical shape. The operation of the horizontal permeameter is the same as the

vertical in that the soil sample is capped at each end with a porous membrane, in this case having a

square shape. A ¼” thick, 4”x4” Porous plastic sheet from GenPore® with a 100 micron pore size was

chosen as the material due to its ease of cutting, since the porous stones used in the vertical tests are

not available in a square shape. Water flows into a ¼” gap where it then comes into contact with the

porous plastic, allowing for even fluid flow. The inflow and outflow ports were chosen near the top of

the porous plastic to help provide even flow of water through the entire sample and not just a portion.

The soil sample is filled to the top of the porous plastic sheet, and is capped with a ¼” thick black rubber

mat. This is meant to seal the top of the sample prohibiting the flow of water above the sample, while at

the same time conforming to the contours of the top of the sample to prevent flow across the top of the

sample. This serves the same purpose as the flexible walled permeameter, yielding more accurate

results. The rubber mat is held in place with four springs, keeping the sample in place and simulating

applied pressures, and can be varied accordingly. Clear cast acrylic was chosen as the body material

because of ease of cutting and its clear properties. The prototype model was constructed using 4-40

stainless machine screws and clear epoxy. A cross-section of the model can be seen below.

10

Figure 3.2.1: 3d Image of Horizontal Permeameter

Figure 3.2.2: Different Drawing Views of Horizontal Permeameter

11

Figure 3.2.3: Cross-Section View of Horizontal Permeameter

12

Image 3.2.4: Horizontal Permeameter with A-2-4 Soil Sample

Image 3.2.5: Horizontal Permeameter with A-3 Soil Sample

13

3.3 Testing Procedures

Since the horizontal permeameter is designed in a similar manner as the vertical, testing

procedures are very similar. The only difference is the preparation of the sample. The soil is poured into

the chamber from the top in layers and compacted to the desired density. The soil is to be filled to the

top of the white porous sheets, as seen in image 3.3.1. The sample has ¼’ give for where the sample

stops, because the rubber mat is ¼” thick and the sample cannot be placed above the porous sheets.

Once the soil has been flattened out, the rubber mat can be inserted on top of the sample. This is shown

in images 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. The rubber mat is forced down along the edges to ensure a good seal, and to

conform to the soil layer. Next the four springs are placed appropriately on top of the rubber mat, as

seen in image 3.3.4. Next the edge of the opening is cleaned of debris, and the gasket is lubricated and

placed around the opening. The first square top is then pushed down until it is in contact with the gasket

and the springs are not in prohibiting full closure. While the top is being held down with one hand, the

support top is placed over the top and fastened with the provided wing nuts. This is shown in image

3.3.5. The wing nuts only need to be hand tightened, ensuring an even seal.

Next the procedure follows the same steps as the vertical tests, with the application of the

vacuum pump and slow saturation of the sample. The user should maintain carefully control of the

intake flow to allow even saturation. Once the soil is saturated and water is coming through the outflow,

the intake can be slowly opened to the full position and the vacuum pump can be disconnected for

testing. When calculating the cross-sectional area of the sample, the base is constant at 10.31 cm, with

the height measured using a caliper. The length of the soil sample is also constant at 10.32 cm. the

elevation head is measure from the centerline of the outflow as in the vertical test. The same equation

is used as in the vertical tests.

14

Image 3.3.1: Placement of Sample

Image 3.3.2: Filling of the Sample to the Appropriate Level

15

Image 3.3.3: Placement of Rubber Mat Image 3.3.4: Placement of Springs

Image 3.3.5: Placement of Top and Top Support Image 3.3.6: Vacuum Pump Connection

16

4.0 Results

4.1 Tables

Table 4.1.1: Results for A-3 Fine Sand

A-3 Fine Sand

Vertical Coefficient of Permeability kv (cm/s)

Horizontal Coefficient of Permeability kh (cm/s)

Moist Dried Moist Dried

1.277 E-02 1.429 E-02 4.819 E-03 1.015 E-02

Horizontal-Vertical Ratio rk moist 0.38

Horizontal-Vertical Ratio rk dried 0.71

Horizontal dry-moist ratio 2.11

Vertical dry-moist ratio 1.12

Table 4.1.2: Results for A-2-4 Silty Sand

A-2-4 Silty Sand

Vertical Coefficient of Permeability kv (cm/s)

Horizontal Coefficient of Permeability kh (cm/s)

Moist Dried Moist Dried

3.171 E-03 4.999 E-03 1.595 E-03 5.603 E-03

Horizontal-Vertical Ratio rk moist 0.50

Horizontal-Vertical Ratio rk dried 1.12

Horizontal dry-moist ratio 3.51

Vertical dry-moist ratio 1.58

17

4.2 Charts

Chart 4.2.1: A-3 Fine Sand

Chart 4.2.2: A-2-4 Silty Sand

0.0 E+00 5.0 E-03 1.0 E-02 1.5 E-02 2.0 E-02

Coefficient of Permeability k (cm/s)

A-3 Fine Sand Permeability Results

Vertical - Moist

Vertical - Dry

Horizontal - Moist

Horizontal - Dried

0.0 E+00 1.0 E-03 2.0 E-03 3.0 E-03 4.0 E-03 5.0 E-03 6.0 E-03

Coefficient of Permeability k (cm/s)

A-2-4 Silty Sand Permeability Results

Vertical - Moist

Vertical - Dry

Horizontal - Moist

Horizontal - Dried

18

Chart 4.2.3

Chart 4.2.4

0.38

0.50

0.71

1.12

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

A-3 Fine Sand A-2-4 Silty Sand

Horizontal/Vertical Pereamability Ratio rk

rk moist rk Dried

2.11

3.51

1.12

1.58

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

A-3 Fine Sand A-2-4 Silty Sand

Ratio of Dried/Moist Permeabilities

Horiztonal Dried/Moist Ratio Vertical Dried/Moist Raio

19

4.3 Data Analysis

Standard vertical permeability lab tests in conjunction with horizontal permeability tests were

conducted on two soil groups, A-3 fine sand and A-2-4 silty Sand. Tests were conducted with initially

moist and initially oven dried samples for determination of the effect of water content. Results for the

coefficient of permeability k for the A-3 fine sand can be seen in Table 4.1.1 and Chart 4.1.1. Values in

the vertical direction were 1.227x10¯² cm/s for the moist sample and 1.429x10¯² cm/s for the dry

sample. Values in the horizontal direction were 4.819x10¯³ cm/s for the moist sample and 1.015x10¯²

cm/s for the dry sample. These values are within the appropriate range, although at the high end, for

the given soil type. The horizontal values were very similar to the vertical values, showing that the

prototype horizontal permeameter yields usable results. For both the moist and dry cases the vertical

permeability was greater, and was more significant in the moist condition. The moist rk ratio was 0.38,

compared to a dry rk ratio of 0.71. These ratios rk can be seen in Table 4.1.1 and Chart 4.1.3. The effect

of initial moisture content was more pronounced in the horizontal tests, with values greater in the dry

condition by a factor of 2.11 compared to 1.12 for the vertical tests. These horizontal to vertical ratios

can be seen in Table 4.1.1 and Chart 4.1.4.

The A-2-4 silty sand was also tested in the same manner. These results can be seen in Table

4.1.2 and Chart 4.1.2. Values in the vertical direction were 3.171x10¯³ cm/s for the moist condition and

4.999x10¯³ cm/s for the dry condition. The horizontal tests yielded 1.595x10¯³ cm/s for the moist

condition and 5.603x10¯³ cm/s for the dry condition. These values were similar for both directions and

also fell within the appropriate range for the soil. As seen in the A-3 sand tests, the value of horizontal to

vertical permeability rk was much lower for the moist condition, yielding a value of 0.50. The dry

condition yielded an rk value of 1.12. These values can be seen in Table 4.2 and Chart 4.3. Both moist

20

and dry rk values for the A-2-4 sample were greater than that of the A-3 sample. Although only slightly

higher, this reflects the theoretical effect that the presence of silt particles has on rk.

The initial moisture content seemed to have a greater effect on the variability of permeability in

both directions for the A-2-4 sample. The vertical dry to moist permeability ratio was 1.58 for the A-2-4

compared to 1.12 for the A-3 sample, an increase of 41%. The horizontal dry to moist permeability ratio

was even greater, with a value of 3.51 compared to 2.11 for the A-3 sample, an increase of 66%. These

results can be seen in Chart 4.1.4. In both samples the permeability in the horizontal direction was

influenced more by the differences in initial moisture content.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

Initial tests of the horizontal permeameter proved successful, generating similar results to the

standard vertical test. Variations in horizontal and vertical permeability were logical and followed

theory. The A-2-4 silty sand samples proved to have higher ratios of horizontal to vertical permeability

rates than the A-3 Fine sand, while for both samples the moisture content at compaction lowered

horizontal permeability rates more than the vertical. However further test should be done with various

soil samples of different silt and clay contents to further investigate the importance of the horizontal

permeability test and its future in the soil engineering laboratory.

5.2 Recommendations

Since the design is a prototype, some flaws in the design were noticed during testing. Since the

cuts were made on a band saw and not a mill, there are some rough edges resulting in small leaks that

needed to be filled with epoxy. When the vacuum pump was connected to the sample it caused small

21

separations despite the epoxy, and required additional plugging. The structure can be reinforced with

the incorporation of interlocking grooves for the panels, or even cast in once piece. The rubber mat was

also not cut perfectly, and led to some water leaking over the top of the mat. This did not seem to affect

the data however, because the vacuum allowed the water to enter but once the chamber was filled the

water did not seem to spill out the other side. This can be seen in image 5.2.1. The top seal performed

well, as the addition of a small layer of grease prevent any leakage out of the assembly. Overall the

prototype performed very well with reasonable results.

Due to the effects of gravity, during the tests the saturation step saw the water moving

approximately in a 45⁰ front through the soil, as seen in image 5.2.2. Test should be done to see if this

results in even saturation of the entire sample cross-section. One way to overcome this is by placing the

apparatus vertically during the saturation stage, allowing an even movement of the water through the

entire soil area. If this is done careful attention must be given to maintaining the same height of the soil

sample and to prevent expansion and the formation of cracks in within the soil. Once more tests are run

it can be determined which is the best manner to conduct the tests.

Image 5.2.1: Water Leaking Across Top of Rubber Mat

22

Image 5.2.2: Progression of Water Front through Sample during Saturation

23

6.0 Appendices

6.1 Experimental Data

A-2-4 Silty Sand - Falling Head Test

Vertical Sample 1 - Compacted Moist

Raw Data

Di (cm) A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) hi (cm) hf (cm) di (cm)

6.36 31.77 13.31 422.86 109 67 1.4225

a (cm²) T (°C) M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

1.589 24 708.3 1675.03

Calculations

Trial Time (s) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 90.91 0.003560 0.000911 0.001003 0.003233137

2 91.72 0.003528 0.000911 0.001003 0.003204584

3 92.81 0.003487 0.000911 0.001003 0.003166948

4 93.50 0.003461 0.000911 0.001003 0.003143577

5 94.58 0.003422 0.000911 0.001003 0.003107681

3.171 E-03 cm/s

Vertical Sample 2 - Compacted Oven Dried

Raw Data

Di (cm) A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) hi (cm) hf (cm) di (cm)

6.36 31.77 12.694 403.29 109 67 1.4225

a (cm²) T (°C) M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

1.589 24 632.13 1567.44

Calculations

Trial Time (s) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 56.47 0.005465 0.000911 0.001003 0.004964076

2 56.25 0.005487 0.000911 0.001003 0.004983491

3 56.00 0.005511 0.000911 0.001003 0.005005739

4 56.03 0.005508 0.000911 0.001003 0.005003058

5 55.66 0.005545 0.000911 0.001003 0.005036316

4.999 E-03 cm/s

Horizontal Sample 1 -Compacted Moist

Raw Data

A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) hi (cm) hf (cm) di (cm) a (cm²)

105.162 10.32 1085.27 112 70 1.4225 1.589

T (°C) M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

24 1817.86 1675.03

Calculations

Trial Time (s) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 41.04 0.001784 0.000911 0.001003 0.001620198

2 40.75 0.001797 0.000911 0.001003 0.001631729

3 43.28 0.001691 0.000911 0.001003 0.001536343

4 42.37 0.001728 0.000911 0.001003 0.00156934

5 41.15 0.001779 0.000911 0.001003 0.001615867

1.595 E-03 cm/s

Horizontal Sample 2 - Compacted Oven Dried

Raw Data

A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) hi (cm) hf (cm) di (cm) a (cm²)

101.03 10.32 1042.63 113.75 71.75 1.4225 1.589

T (°C) M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

24 1728.74 1658.06

Calculations

Trial Time (s) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 12.69 0.005887 0.000911 0.001003 0.005347466

2 12.25 0.006099 0.000911 0.001003 0.005539538

3 11.91 0.006273 0.000911 0.001003 0.005697678

4 11.97 0.006242 0.000911 0.001003 0.005669118

5 11.78 0.006342 0.000911 0.001003 0.005760555

5.603 E-03 cm/sAverage k20°c

Average k20°c

Average k20°c

Average k20°c

24

A-3 Fine Sand - Constant Head Test

Vertical Sample 1 - Compacted Moist

Raw Data

A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) h (cm) T (°C) ρw @24°C M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

31.77 13.11 416.50 71.00 24.00 0.99730 646.76 1554.01

Calculations

Trial Time (s) Flow (g) Flow (ml) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 90.13 212.564 213.140 0.013744 0.000911 0.001003 0.012483609

2 90.97 218.468 219.060 0.013996 0.000911 0.001003 0.012711871

3 92.43 227.852 228.470 0.014366 0.000911 0.001003 0.013048506

4 90.06 220.452 221.050 0.014265 0.000911 0.001003 0.012956961

5 91.94 219.834 220.430 0.013935 0.000911 0.001003 0.012656417

1.277 E-02 cm/s

Vertical Sample 2 - Compacted Oven Dried

Raw Data

A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) h (cm) T (°C) ρw @24°C M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

31.77 12.26 389.50 62.00 24.00 0.99730 573.60 1472.66

Calculations

Trial Time (s) Flow (g) Flow (ml) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 56.18 140.150 140.530 0.015569 0.000911 0.001003 0.014141201

2 56.41 141.490 141.874 0.015654 0.000911 0.001003 0.014218199

3 55.46 140.310 140.690 0.015789 0.000911 0.001003 0.014341141

4 55.84 141.250 141.633 0.015787 0.000911 0.001003 0.014338971

5 55.41 141.040 141.422 0.015886 0.000911 0.001003 0.014428762

1.429 E-02 cm/s

Horizontal Sample 1 - Compacted Moist

Raw Data

A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) h (cm) T (°C) ρw @24°C M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

102.79 10.32 1060.80 90.00 24.00 0.99730 1669.76 1574.05

Calculations

Trial Time (s) Flow (g) Flow (ml) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 25.41 117.160 117.478 0.005157 0.000911 0.001003 0.004684359

2 24.56 115.130 115.442 0.005243 0.000911 0.001003 0.004762507

3 23.31 111.610 111.913 0.005356 0.000911 0.001003 0.004864479

4 24.31 115.800 116.114 0.005328 0.000911 0.001003 0.004839484

5 24 116.840 117.157 0.005446 0.000911 0.001003 0.004946019

4.819 E-03 cm/s

Horizontal Sample 2 - Compacted Oven Dried

Raw Data

A (cm²) L (cm) V (cm³) h (cm) T (°C) ρw @24°C M (g) ρ (kg/m³)

98.35 10.32 1014.97 76.00 24.00 0.99730 1546.76 1523.94

Calculations

Trial Time (s) Flow (g) Flow (ml) k24°c (cm/s) µw24° (g/ml) µw20° (g/ml) k20°c (cm/s)

1 13.06 105.940 106.227 0.011230 0.000911 0.001003 0.010200041

2 14.72 117.420 117.738 0.011043 0.000911 0.001003 0.010030426

3 12.65 103.420 103.700 0.011318 0.000911 0.001003 0.010280142

4 13.44 107.990 108.283 0.011124 0.000911 0.001003 0.010103443

5 13.75 110.970 111.271 0.011173 0.000911 0.001003 0.010148176

1.015 E-02 cm/s

Average k20°c

Average k20°c

Average kh20°c

Average k20°c

25

6.2 Additional Images

Image 6.2.1: A-2-4 Vertical Sample, Falling Head Test Setup

Image 6.2.2: A-3 Sample, Constant Head Test Setup

26

Image 6.2.1: A-2-4 Horizontal Sample Falling Head Test

27

6.3 References

1) Department of Civil Engineering, comp. Soils Mechanics Laboratory Manual. Gainesville: University of

Florida, Gainesville. Print.

2) Tindall, James A., and James R. Kunkel. Unsaturated Zone Hydrology for Scientists and Engineers.

Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1999. Print.

3) Lu, Niing, and William J. Likos. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Print.

4) Mitchell, James K. Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. Second Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993.

Print.

5) Bloomquist, David, Adrian A. Viala, and Mike Gartner. "Vertical and Horizontal Insitu Permeameter."

Thesis. University of Florida, 2007. Print.