Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

CORRELATION BETWEEN GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE AND
UNSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CURVE OF SOILS


C. Malaya, Assistant Professor, Assam Engineering College, gogoi_chetia@yahoo.co.in
S. Sreedeep, Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, srees@iitg.ac.in


ABSTRACT: Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (k
unsat
) of soil is considered to be the most important parameter
for modeling flow process in unsaturated soil. Measurement of k
unsat
is a challenging task and requires costly and
skilled experimentation. Therefore, the normal practice is to estimate the k
unsat
from the measured soil-water
retention curve (SWRC) of soil. But the measurement of SWRC is also a costly and tedious procedure. The SWRC
can also be estimated using grain size distribution curve (GSDC) of a soil. There is a possibility of having a close
relationship between GSDC and k
unsat
. Therefore, an effort has been made to investigate the correlation between
GSDC and k
unsat
curve. The k
unsat
curve is the graphical relationship between the soil suction and k
unsat
. Such a
correlation would be of great help in predicting the k
unsat
of soil by knowing its GSDC. In this study, GSDC and
k
unsat
curve have been obtained for three locally available soils. The k
unsat
curves have been determined from the
measured SWRC of the soils. The study describes the relationship between GSDC curve and k
unsat
curve parameters
of soil.


INTRODUCTION
The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (k
unsat
)
curve of soil is defined as the relationship between
the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (k
unsat)
and
the soil suction () or volumetric water content ()
[1]. To model the flow of water in an unsaturated
soil, it is necessary to define the relationship
between the k
unsat
and [2]. The k
unsat
curve is
considered to be the most vital parameter required
when performing seepage analysis for unsaturated
soil. The k
unsat
curve is required in the analysis of
the triggering of landslides due to rainfall
infiltration and the modeling of flow and volume
change in collapsing soils, compacted soils, and
expansive clays. It is also required when modeling
contaminant migration in vadose zone and in the
design of capillary barriers and cover systems.
Existing field and laboratory methods of
determining the k
unsat
curve are either time
consuming, tedious, or have other logical
difficulties [3]. Therefore, empirical permeability
equations have been developed by a number of
researchers [4,5] to determine soil hydraulic
conductivity, assuming that the soil follows a
particular relationship between the k
unsat
and the
[6,7] and (or) water content [8,9]. However, the
disadvantage of this approach is that it requires
several measured permeability data to determine

the parameters of the permeability equation [2].
Moreover, each empirical permeability equation is
soil specific and based on a limited amount of data.
Therefore, such permeability equation cannot be
applied directly to other soils without
characterizing it [10].
In such a situation, estimation procedures are
generally used to predict k
unsat
curve using the soil-
water retention curve (SWRC) of soil [2]. The
SWRC is a graphical relationship between water
content (gravimetric, w, or volumetric water
content, ) and measured suction (matric suction,

m
, or total suction, ). Estimation techniques have
particularly found widespread usage in the area of
saturatedunsaturated seepage modeling where the
permeability functions are estimated from SWRC
of soil [11]. The experimental procedures adopted
for determining SWRC are time consuming and
costly [12]. Some of the studies have utilized
devices that are quite elaborate in nature and, apart
from being initially expensive, require much
expenditure in terms of their maintenance and
working costs. Therefore, the focus of unsaturated
soils research has been towards development of
empirical, semi-empirical or computational
procedures to predict or estimate SWRC [13-16].
This indirect approach is less time-consuming,
Page 1 of 6



Malaya, C. & Sreedeep, S.
simple, and more economical [16]. Fredlund et al.
(2002) [13] proposed a method for estimating the
SWRC from grain size distribution of soil. There is
a possibility of having a close relationship between
grain size distribution curve (GSDC) and k
unsat
curve. Therefore, an effort has been made to
investigate the correlation between GSDC and
k
unsat
curve. This study highlights the variation of
GSDC and k
unsat
curve parameters.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A typical k
unsat
curve is presented in Fig. 1.

10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-12
10
-11
1x10
-10
1x10
-9
1x10
-8
1x10
-7
1x10
-6
1x10
-5
1x10
-4
1x10
-3
1x10
-2
1x10
-1

k
unsat
P(
AEV
,k
sat
)
k
sat

AEV


k
u
n
s
a
t

(
m
/
s
e
c
)
Suction, (kPa)


Fig. 1 Idealized unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
curve and its details

Following can be some of the key points that are
relevant for k
unsat
curve:
1. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil,
k
sat
, when the soil is completely saturated. This
depicts the initial state of the k
unsat
curve when
soil suction, is negligible.
2. The air-entry value (AEV),
AEV
, is the suction
at which air first enters the largest pore present
in the soil sample during a drying process [7].
3. Slope of the k
unsat
curve (SL
kunsat
) is the ratio of
change in k
unsat
value (k
unsat
) and change in
soil suction () as shown in Fig. 1.

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Three cohesionless soils were used in the present
study and the soils have been designated as S1, S2
and S3. Soils have been characterized for its
specific gravity and grain size distribution by
following the guidelines provided in the literature
[17,18]. According to USCS [19] all the samples
are poorly graded (SP). The grain size distribution
curves of the samples are shown in Fig. 2. The
results of these characterizations are presented in
Table 1.

10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
0
20
40
60
80
100


%

F
i
n
e
r
Particle size (mm)
S1
S2
S3
Fig. 2 Grain size distribution curves of S1, S2 and
S3

In the Table 1, C
c
is the coefficient of curvature, C
u

is the uniformity coefficient and SL
GSDC
represents
the slope of the grain size distribution curve
(GSDC) and it is determined by using the Eq. 1.

SL
GSDC
=(60 % - 10 %)/(Log D
60
-Log D
10
) (1)

where, D
60
=a size in mm that 60% of the particles
are finer than that size; and D
10
=a size in mm that
10% of the particles are finer than that size.

Determination of SWRC
The matric suction (
m
) and volumetric water
content () of S1, S2 and S3 samples have been
measured by using a T5 tensiometer (T5) [20] and
an EC-5 volumetric water content sensor [21],
respectively. The detailed working methodology of
T5 and EC-5 has been discussed in the literature
[22]. The test set up employed for the present study
consists of a perspex container of 120 mm diameter
and 150 mm height into which soil samples are
compacted. T5 tensiometer and EC-5 probe is
inserted into the compacted soil sample. A sharp
Page 2 of 6



Correlation between grain size distribution curve and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curve of soils
edge dummy rod and a dummy probe (dimension
slightly less than EC-5) were used to facilitate easy
insertion into compacted samples. The connecting
cable of T5 and EC-5 is connected to a computer
through respective data loggers for continuous
measurement of
m
and . When tensiometer is
inserted into soil sample, the water present in the
tensiometer shaft tries to equilibrate with the pore
water suction of soil through ceramic cup interface
[23]. This process of equilibration ensures that the
measured suction in the shaft is equal to the
m
in
the soil sample.

Table 1 Physical properties and classification of
the samples used in this study
Property Soil
S1 S2 S3
Specific gravity 2.66 2.45 2.12
Particle size characteristics
(%):

Sand (4.75-0.075 mm) 98 94 34
Coarse sand (4.75-2.0 mm) 0 0 0
Medium sand (2.0-0.425 mm 38 1 0
Fine sand (0.425-.075 mm) 60 93 34
Silt (0.075-0.002 mm) 2 6 66
Clay (<0.002 mm) 0 0 0
C
c
0.69 1.22 0.74
C
u
4.38 2 2.24
SL
GSDC
0.78 1.66 1.43
Classification SP SP-
SM
SM

The air-dried soil sample was mixed with required
quantity of distilled water, packed in a polythene
cover and stored in air-tight container for 6 hrs to
ensure sufficient maturation and uniform
distribution of moisture. The matured soil samples
were then compacted into perspex mold in three
layers by providing sufficient number of blows
using a circular hand held rammer of weight 600
gm to achieve desired dry unit weight (
d
) as listed
in Table 2. In the table, w is the gravimetric water
content,
d
is the dry unit weight and S
r
is the
saturation of the compacted soil sample before
ponding.


Table 2 Details of compaction state of soil samples
used for SWRC measurement







The soil sample was then ponded with distilled
water and excess water on top of the sample has
been removed. This was done to achieve near zero

m
as the initial state of SWRC. EC-5 and T5
tensiometer were then inserted into the soil sample
to the same depth and allowed to air dry. For
continuous measurement, the entire
m
versus
relationship is obtained from the drying of the
same sample. During the drying process,
m
and
has been recorded continuously as a function of
time. The measured data were then used to plot
continuous drying SWRCs corresponding to
different initial compaction state of soils listed in
Table 2. It must be noted that each of these
measurements have been performed in triplicate to
ensure repeatability of the results. It was noted that
the variation in results are less than 1%. The
volume change during drying is considered
negligible for all the soil samples.

Estimation of Unsaturated Hydraulic
Conductivity Curve from SWRC
The measured SWRCs of soils have been used to
establish the variation of k
unsat
with
m
using the
computer code, RETC [24,25]. RETC uses the
parametric models of Brooks-Corey (1964) [7] and
van Genuchten (1980) [26] to represent the SWRC,
and the theoretical pore-size distribution models of
Burdine (1953) [27] and Mualem (1976) [28] to
estimate the k
unsat
curve from the observed SWR
data. The van Genuchten (1980) [26] SWRC model
and Mualem (1976) [28] hydraulic conductivity
model were used in this study to estimate the
variation of k
unsat
with
m
. It must be noted that the
SWRC parameters are required to estimate k
unsat
curve.




Parameter
Soil
S1 S2 S3
w (%) 18.1 17.7 27.25

d
(kN/m
3
) 15.9 13.2 13.1
S
r
(%) 72 50 93
Page 3 of 6



Malaya, C. & Sreedeep, S.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data obtained from the continuous
measurements were used to determine drying
WRCCs corresponding to different compaction
states of S1, S2 and S3 as depicted in Fig. 3. Each
set of
m
and data points presented in Fig. 3
correspond to the same logging time.

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
S1
S2
S3

m
(kPa)


Fig. 3 SWRCs for S1, S2 and S3

k
unsat
Curve from SWRC
The SWRCs depicted in Fig. 3 have been used to
establish the variation of k
unsat
with
m
using the
computer code RETC. The van Genuchten water
retention model (1980) [26] and Mualem hydraulic
conductivity model (1976) [28] have been selected
for this purpose. The k
unsat
curves obtained for
continuous SWRCs are presented in Fig. 4. From
these figures,
AEV
and SL
kunsat
have been obtained
as listed in Table 3. An attempt was made to check
whether a relationship exists between k
unsat
curve
parameters,
AEV
and SL
kunsat
, with the GSDC
parameters, SL
GSDC
, C
c
and C
u
.

10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
1.0x10
-6
1.0x10
-5
1.0x10
-4
1.0x10
-3
1.0x10
-2


H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

k
u
n
s
a
t

(
c
m
/
s
e
c
)
Suction,
m
(kPa)
S1
S2
S3

Fig. 4 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curve of
S1, S2 and S3

Table 3 Details of
AEV
and SL
kunsat
values obtained
from k
unsat
curves






Figure 5 shows the variation of
AEV
with GSDC
parameters. It has been observed from the figure
that
AEV
value initially increases with the increase
in the GSDC parameters and then it decreases.
However, no correlation correlation could be
established between these parameters. Figure 6
depicts the variation of SL
kunsat
with the GSDC
parameters. The figure shows that SL
kunsat
initially
increases with the increase in the GSDC
parameters and then it decreases. No relationship
could be obtained between these parameters.
Therefore, it can be said that though there is a high
possibility of having a close relationship between
GSDC and k
unsat
curve, but SL
GSDC
, C
c
and C
u
are
not only the parameters of GSDC to predict the
k
unsat
curve parameters. There may be some other
parameters of GSDC that should be considered in
addition to those parameters considered in this
study to estimate the k
unsat
curve parameters.

Parameter
Soil
S1 S2 S3

AEV
(kPa) 1.2 1.9 75.7
SL
kunsat
4.7 4.8 9.4
Page 4 of 6



Correlation between grain size distribution curve and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curve of soils
0.1 1 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
SL
GSDC
-
AEV
relationship
C
c
-
AEV
relationship
C
u
-
AEV
relationship
SL
GSDC
, C
c
, C
u

A
E
V

(
k
P
a
)

Fig. 5 Variation of
AEV
with GSDC parameters for
S1, S2 and S3


0.1 1 10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10


S
L
k
u
n
s
a
t
SL
GSDC
, C
c
, C
u
SL
GSDC
-SL
kunsat
relationship
C
c
-SL
kunsat
relationship
C
u
-SL
kunsat
relationship

Fig. 6 Variation of SL
kunsat
with GSDC parameters
for S1, S2 and S3

CONCLUSIONS
The study deals with an investigation on the
correlation between GSDC parameters and k
unsat

curve parameters of soils. Soil-water retention
curves (SWRCs) of three cohessionless soils have
been obtained using a T5 tensiometer and ECH
2
O-
EC-5 volumetric water content sensor. The k
unsat

curves have been determined from the measured
SWRC of the soils. An effort has been made to
obtain a relationship between GSDC and k
unsat
curve. Such a correlation would be of great help in
estimating the k
unsat
of soil by knowing its GSDC.
It has been observed that the GSDC parameters
have influence on the k
unsat
curve parameters.
However, it was not possible to establish a
relationship between GSDC and k
unsat
curve. There
may be some other parameters of GSDC that
should be considered in addition to those
parameters considered in this study to estimate the
k
unsat
curve parameters.

REFERENCES
1. Gribb, M.M., Kodesova, R. and Ordway, S.E.
(2004), Comparison of soil hydraulic property
measurement methods, Jl. of Geotech. and
Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE, 130(10), 1084-
1095.
2. Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A. and Huang, S. (1994),
Predicting the permeability function for
unsaturated soils using the soil-water
characteristic curve, Can. Geotech. Jl., 31, 533-
546.
3. Stephens, D.B. (1996), Vadose zone hydrology,
CRC Press Inc. Lewis Publishing, New York.
4. Mualem, Y. (1986), Hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils: Prediction and formulas.
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and
mineralogical methods. Second edition.
Agronomy. Edited by A. Klute. American
Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science of
America, Inc. Madison, WI, USA, 799-823.
5. Rawls, W.J ., Gish, T.J . and Brakensiek, D.L.
(1991), Estimating soil water retention from
soil physical properties and characteristics,
Advances in Soil Science, 6, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 213-234.
6. Gardner, W.R. (1958), Some steady state
solutions of the unsaturated moisture flow
equation with application to evaporation from a
water table, Soil Science, 85, 228-232.
7. Brooks, R.H. and Corey, A.T. (1964),
Hydraulic properties of porous medium,
Hydrology paper No. 3, Civil Engineering
Department, Colorado State University, Colo.
8. Averjanov, S. F. (1950), About permeability of
subsurface soils in case of incomplete
saturation, English collection 7, In The Theory
of Ground Water Movement, 19-21.
9. Campbell, J .D. (1973), Pore pressures and
volume changes in unsaturated soils, Doctoral
Page 5 of 6



Malaya, C. & Sreedeep, S.
Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, ILL.
10. Zaradny, H.K. (1993), Groundwater flow in
saturated and unsaturated soil, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Brookfield.
11. Thieu, N.T.M., Fredlund, M.D., Fredlund, D.G.
and Vu, H.Q. (2001), Seepage modeling in a
saturated/unsaturated soil system, Intl. Conf. on
Management of the Land and Water Resources,
Hanoi, Vietnam, Edited by N. T. Tien, 49-56.
12. Fredlund, D.G. and Houston, S.L. (2009),
Protocol for the assessment of unsaturated soil
properties in geotechnical engineering practice,
Can. Geotech. Jl., 46(6), 694-707.
13. Fredlund, M.D., Wilson, G.W. and Fredlund,
D.G. (2002), Use of grain size distribution for
estimation of the soil water characteristic
curve, Can. Geotech. Jl., 39(5), 1103-1117.
14. Fredlund, D.G. and Pham, Q.H. (2006), A
volume-mass constitutive model for
unsaturated soils in terms of two independent
stress state variables, 3
rd
Intl. Conf. on
Unsaturated Soils, Vol. 1, 105-136.
15. Sreedeep, S. and Singh, D.N. (2006),
Methodology for determination of osmotic
suction of soils, Jl. of Geotech. and Geol.
Engineering, Springer, 24(5), 1469-1476.
16. Chin, K.B., Leong, E.C. and Rahardjo, H.
(2010), A simplified method to estimate the
soil-water characteristic curve, Can. Geotech.
Jl., 47(2), 1382-1400.
17. ASTM D854-06 (2006), Standard test method
for specific gravity of soil solids by water
pycnometer, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
18. ASTM D422-63 (2007), Standard test method
for particle-size analysis of soils, Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.









19. ASTM D2487-10 (2010), Standard practice for
classification of soils for engineering purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System), Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
20. UMS GmbH (2001), T5 user manual, Version
1.8, Munich.
21. Decagon Devices (2006), Operators manual
version 5, ECH
2
O soil moisture sensor,
Decagon Devices, Inc. 950 NE Nelson Court,
Pullman, A99163, U. S. A.
22. Malaya, C. and Sreedeep, S. (2010), A study on
the influence of measurement procedures on
suction-water content relationship of a sandy
soil, Jl. of Test. and Eval., 38(6), 9 pages.
23. Sreedeep, S. and Singh, D.N. (2005), A study
to investigate influence of soil properties on its
suction, Jl. of Test. and Eval., 33(1), 579-584.
24. Van Genuchten, M.Th., Leij, F.J . and Yates,
S.R. (1991), The RETC code for quantifying the
hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils, US
EPA, ADA, EPA/600/2-91/065, 85p.
25. Yates, S.R., van Genuchten, M.Th., Warrick,
A. and Leij, F.J . (1992), Analysis of measured,
predicted and estimated hydraulic conductivity
using the RETC computer program, Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 56, 347-
354.
26. Van Genuchten, M.Th. (1980), A closed-form
equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils, Soil Science
Society of America Jl., 44, 892-898.
27. Burdine, N.T. (1953), Relative permeability
calculations from pore size distribution data,
Petroleum Transaction, AIME, 198, 71-77.
28. Mualem, Y. (1976), A new model for
predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated porous media, Water Resource
Research, 12, 513-522.
Page 6 of 6