Thesis

STUDY ON EFFECT OF NON UNIFORMITY OF SEDIMENTS ON
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF POROUS MEDIA
A THESIS SUBMITTED BY
JANMEET SINGH
IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

MASTER OF ENGINEERING
IN
WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
CHANDIGARH
INDIA, 2015
CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the work which is being presented in the thesis, “STUDY ON EFFECT OF
NON UNIFORMITY OF SEDIMENTS ON HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF POROUS
MEDIA”, in the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Master of Engineering
in WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING and submitted in the Civil Engineering Department
of the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh is an authentic record of my own work carried out
during the period from June 2014 to May 2015 under the supervision of Prof. M.A. Alam, Associate
Professor, P.G. Water resource engineering Department, PEC University of Technology,
Chandigarh.
The matter presented in this thesis has not been submitted by me for the award of any
other degree for this or any other University/Institute.
Date: Janmeet Singh
This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Mohd. Afaq Alam

Associate Professor
Department of Water resource engineering
PEC University of Technology
Chandigarh-160012, India
Date:
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
With an overwhelming sense of legitimate pride , I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
my guide , Prof M.A. Alam , Associate Professor , Department of Civil Engineering for his
meticulous planning , benevolent guidance and careful supervision throughout the thesis work .
It makes this academic endeavour , on my part a truly memorable event .
I am thankful to Head ,Civil Engineering Department for his continous encouragement and
necessary help at all stages of my thesis work.
I am highly thankful to Dr. Manoj Arora ,Director , PEC University of Technology for providing
the necessary funds and facilities in the laboratory .
I would also like to thank my peers for their overreaching help in the most desired way .I also
acknowledge the sincere help rendered by S. Dalbir Singh during the lab work .
I will always be thankful to my family members who have supported me in all my decisions .
Meer words cannot express my feelings towards them . Lastly I want to thank all the great people
I have met throughout my post graduation for making this academic journey a memorable one .
Needless to say errors and omissions are mine .
Janmeet Singh
ii
ABSTRACT
Hydraulic conductivity is one of the most important physical properties of soil which governs the
quantitative evaluation of groundwater resources . It depends upon large number of variables such
as particle size , porosity of the packing , shape of the individual particles , size distribution of
particles in the packing , arrangement of particles in the bed with respect to each other , particle
surface roughness and permeameter walls . In common practice the coefficient of permeability is
usually obtained by constant head permeability test as it is easy to apply however it is not easy to
obtain for undisturbed sand specimens from field . It is desirable to predict the hydraulic
conductivity (permeability) value of same shape group particles of different sizes and mixed
randomly for a knowledge of their statistical size distribution . However , a comprehensive study
of the effects of non uniformity of sediments on permeability of the porous materials is not
available .
Hence, to investigate the effect of non uniformity of sediments on hydraulic conductivity through
porous media, the present study has been conducted on constant head permeameter with
appurtenances to measure discharge , pore pressure differences and temperature. Sand samples
are collected from bore holes of Jalandhar area and are having mean diameter 0.0425 cm , 0.05cm
, 0.06 cm , 0.0425 cm , 0.03 cm ,0.05 cm . Each sand sample were used independently to prepare
sediment mixture having standard deviation varying between ranges of 1 to 3 . Three tests
namely sieve analysis test , specific gravity test and hydraulic test are conducted .
The experiments have been conducted in laminar range . All the results have been corrected to a
constant porosity of 40% using Kozeny's equation . On the basis of experimental results a positive
correlation between permeability (K) , standard deviation (σ) and mean diameter (d50) has been
iii
developed . The equation developed can be used for the estimation of permeability involving
porous media with same shape group particles with reasonable accuracy . When compared with the
analytical equations proposed by various researchers , there is a large variation of coefficient of
permeability for high value of standard deviation and at low values of standard deviation , the
variation is minimum.
The equation developed on the basis of data observed can be used for estimating the permeability
value of non uniform material for small range of standard variation .
iv
CONTENTS
CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION……………………………………………………..i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………………...ii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..iii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..ix
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………....xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS…………………………………………………………………..xiii
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….……...…..1
1.1 General………………………………………………………………………………….1
1.2 Hydraulic conductivity……………………………………………………….…………2

1.3 Hydrogeological concepts………………………………………………………………3
1.4 Regimes of flow through porous media………………………………..........................5
1.4.1 Linear regime………………………………………………………......................5
1.4.2 Post- linear regime………………………………………………………………..6
1.4.3 Pre- linear regime…………………………………………………………….…...6
1.4.4 Validity of Darcy law……………………………………………………….….....6
1.5 Factors affecting hydraulic conductivity ( Permeability)……………........................8

1.6 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………11
1.7 Limitation of present study…………………………………………….......................11
1.8 Plan of present study…………………………………………………………………...11
1.9 Thesis organisation and presentation…………………………………........................12
2. Literature review………………………………………………………….………………...13
2.1 General…………………………………………………………………………………13
2.2 Hydraulic conductivity correlation…………………………………….......................15
v
2.2.1 Allen Hazen formula………………………………………………….………….15
2.2.2 Slitcher formula…………………………………………………..........................16
2.2.3 Terzaghi formula…………………………………………………........................15
2.2.4 Kozeny Carman model…………………………………………….………...…...17
2.2.5 Bakhmeteff and Feodoroff formula……………………………….…………….18

2.2.6 Krumbein and Monk …………………………………………….………………18
2.2.7 Sectheim formula…………………………………………………........................18
2.2.8 Drag force model………………………………………….....................................19
2.2.9 Samarasinghe , huang and Drnevich………………………….………………...19
2.2.10 Chapuis…………………………………………………………………………..20
2.2.11 Justice Odong …………………………………………………………………...20

2.2.12 Rezanezhad et al…………………………………………………………………20
2.2.13 Tiejun Wang ,David Wedin and Vitaky A.Zlotnik……………........................20
2.2.14 Hydraulic conductivity of MSW in Landfills…………………........................21
2.2.15 Ishaku , Gadzama and U.Kaigama…………………………………………….21
2.2.16 Seyed Hamid Ahmadi and Ali Raza Sepaskhah……………….......................21
2.2.17 A.F.Salarashayeri and M.Siosemarde…………………………………………22

2.2.18 N.Jarvis ,J Koestal , I Messing , J.Moeys and A. Lindahl………...................22
2.2.19 Rebecca.T. Barnes, Morghan E Gallaghar……..……………………………...22
2.3 Effect of standard deviation on hydraulic conductivity ……...…………………….. 23
2.3.1 Theoretical Developments……………………………………………………….23
3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE………………………………………....27

3.1 General………………………………………………………………………………….27
3.2 Experimental equipment……………………………………………….........................27
3.2.1 Permeameter……………………………………………………………………...27
3.2.2 Discharge measurement………………………………………………………….29
vi
3.2.3 Weighing balance………………………………………………………………...29
3.2.4 Pycnometer……………………………………………………………………….29
3.2.5 Manometer………………………………………………………………………..29
3.2.6 Thermometer……………………………………………………………………..29
3.2.7 Source of supply………………………………………………………………….29

3.2.8 Oven………………………………………………………………………………29
3.3 Materials Used………………………………………………………………….………30
3.4 Experimental Procedure……………………………………………………………….32
3.4.1 Sieve analysis test………………………………..……………………………….32
3.4.2Media preparation…………………………………………………………..……33
3.4.3 Specific gravity test………………………………………………………......…..39

3.4.4 Hydraulic test………………………………………..…………….......................42
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS…………………………………………………..………….44
4.1 General…………………………………………………………………………………44
4.2 Parameters used in the analysis………………………………………………………44
4.2.1 Standard deviation………………………………………………………………44

4.2.2 Porosity…………………………………………………………….......................44
4.2.3 Reynolds number………………………………………………………………..45
4.2.4 Friction factor…………………………………………………………………....45
4.2.5 Porosity function………………………………………………………………...46
4.3 Results from hydraulic test……………………………………………………………46
4.4 Variation of i vs Re…………………………………………………………………….47

4.5 Variation of K with σ………………………………………………………………….68
4.6 Variation of Fr with Re…………………………………………………......................68
4.7 Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and standard deviation…………….68
4.8 Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity………………………………………………83
vii
4.9 Accuracy of the Experimental results………………………………………..............99
4.9.1 Errors in porosity determination ……………………………………………...99
4.9.2 Observational errors……………………………………….................................101
5. Conclusion and suggestions for further studies……….…………………………….…..102

5.1 General……………………………………………………………………………… .102
5.2 Conclusions,,………………………………………………………………………….102
5.3 Application of present study…………………………………………………………103
5.4 Suggestion for further studies……………………………………………………….104
REFERENCES…………..…………………………………………………………………..105
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 : Sketch of flow of fluid through cylindrical element as discussed in Drag force model…...……..24
Figure 3.1 : Experimental Set up ………………………………………………………………...………………..28
Figure 3.2 : Grain size distribution of sand samples……………………………………………………………...29
Figure 3.3 : Grain size distribution of sand sample (0.0425 cm ) having different standard deviation……….32
Figure 3.4 : Grain size distribution of sand sample (0.05 cm )having different standard deviation………….33
Figure 3.5 : Grain size distribution of sand sample (0.06 cm ) having different standard deviation…………34
Figure 3.6 : Grain size distribution of sand sample (0.0425 cm ) having different standard deviation………35
Figure 4.1 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.0425cm)………………………………….50
Figure 4.2 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.05cm)…………………………………….53
Figure 4.4 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.0425cm)…………………………………60
Figure 4.7 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.0425 cm )……………………………………..70
Figure 4.8 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.05 cm )……………………...…………………71
Figure 4.9 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.06 cm )…………………………………….….72
Figure 4.10 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.0425 cm )…………………………………….73
Figure 4.11 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.03 cm )……………………………………....74
Figure 4.12 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.05 cm )……………………………………….75
Figure 4.13 : Relationship between Hydraulic conductivity and standard deviation ………………………….76
Figure 4.14 (a) : Variation of K with σ (0.0425 cm)………………………………………………………………77
Figure 4.14 (b): Variation of K with σ (0.05 cm)………………………………………………………………….78
Figure 4.14 (c): Variation of K with σ (0.06 cm)………………………………………………………………….79
Figure 4.14 (d): Variation of K with σ (0.0425 cm)……………………………………………………………….80
Figure 4.14 (e): Variation of K with σ (0.03 cm)………………………………………………………………….81
ix
Figure 4.14 (f): Variation of K with σ (0.05 cm)…………………………………………………………………..82
Figure 4.15 (a) : Variation of Kp with σ (0.0425 cm)……………………………………………………………...77
Figure 4.15 (b): Variation of Kp with σ (0.05cm)…………………………………………………………………78
Figure 4.15 (c): Variation of Kp with σ (0.06 cm)………………………………………………………………....78
Figure 4.15 (d): Variation of Kp with σ (0.0425 cm)……………………………………………………………...80
Figure 4.15 (e): Variation of Kp with σ (0.03 cm)…………………………………………………………………81
Figure 4.15 (f): Variation of Kp with σ (0.05 cm)…………………………………………………………………82
Figure 4.16 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.0425cm with various models……..…87
Figure 4.22 Comparison of measured and estimated hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.0425 cm …………….93
Figure 4.23 Comparison of measured and estimated hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.05 cm ……………….94
Figure 4.25 Comparison of measured and estimated hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.0425 cm …………….96
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 : Material Specification………………………………………………………………………………….30
Table 3.2 : Grain size diameter and standard deviation for sand sample(1)………………………………….,.33
Table 3.8 : Specific gravity of sand sample for 0.0425 cm diameter ………………….…………………………39
Table 3.9 : Specific gravity of sand sample for 0.05 cm diameter …………………………….…………………40
Table 3.10 : Specific gravity of sand sample for 0.06 cm diameter …………………………...…………………40
Table 3.11 : Specific gravity of sand sample for 0.0425 cm diameter …………………………...………………41
Table 3.12 : Specific gravity of sand sample for 0.03 cm diameter …………………………………...…………41
Table 3.13 : Specific gravity of sand sample for 0.05 cm diameter ………………………………………...……42
Table 4.1 : Value of porosity function ……………………………………………………………………………..46
Table 4.2 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=1)…………………...……………47
Table 4.3 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=1.367)……………………………48
Table 4.4 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=1.554)……………..……………..48
Table 4.5 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter(σ=2.0187)…………………………...49
Table 4.6 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter(σ=2.421…….……………………….49
Table 4.7 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=1)…………………………………...51
Table 4.8 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=1.41)………………………………..51
Table 4.9 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=1.65)……...………………………...52
Table 4.10: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=2.31)………...……………………..52
Table 4.11: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=2.93)……………………………….53
Table 4.12: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.06 cm diameter (σ=1)……………...…………………...54
Table 4.13: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.06 cm diameter (σ=1.37)……………………...………..55
Table 4.14: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.06 cm diameter (σ=1.59)………………………...……..55
xi
Table 4.15: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.06 cm diameter (σ=2.257)…………...…………………56
Table 4.16 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.06 cm diameter (σ=2.812)…………...………………...56
Table 4.17: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=1)……………………………......58
Table 4.18: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=1.21)…………...………………..58
Table 4.19: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=1.4)…………………...…………59
Table 4.20: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=2.05)…………………...………..59
Table 4.21: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter (σ=2.83)……...……………………..60
Table 4.22: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.03 cm diameter (σ=1)………………...……………...…61
Table 4.23: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.03 cm diameter (σ=1.29)…………………...………......62
Table 4.24: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.03 cm diameter (σ=1.63)………………...……………..62
Table 4.25: Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.03 cm diameter (σ=2.39)……………………………….63
Table 4.26 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.03 cm diameter (σ=2.61)………………………...…….63
Table 4.27 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=1)………………………………….65
Table 4.28 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm dameter (σ=1.307)……………………………...65
Table 4.29 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=1.472)……………………………..66
Table 4.30 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=2.11)………………...…………….66
Table 4.31 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.05 cm diameter (σ=2.63)……..…………….………….67
Table 4.32 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.0425cm with various models……..…83
Table 4.33 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.05cm with various models..………….84
Table 4.34 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.06cm with various models ….………84
Table 4.35 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.0425cmwith various models…………85
Table 4.36 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.03cm with various models...…………85
Table 4.37 : Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity of sediment size 0.05cm with various models …………..86
Table 4.38 : Residuals and Deviation of measured and estimated values of K for sand 0.0425 cm dia……….93
Table 4.39 : Residuals and Deviation of measured and estimated values of K for sand 0.05 cm dia………......94
Table 4.40 : Residuals and Deviation of measured and estimated values of K for sand 0.06 cm dia………….95
Table 4.41 : Residuals and Deviation of measured and estimated values of K for sand 0.0425 cm dia……….96
xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
A Cross-Sectional area of flow including solids & voids.
AS Cross sectional area of solids
AV Cross sectional area of voids
a, b constant coefficient
C Constant of Allen Hazen’s approximate formula
Ct Sorting coefficient
d Geometric mean diameter of particles in Krumbein & Monk

equation
dp Diameter of permeameter
d10 Effective diameter of particles
d50 Mean diameter of particles
D Average size of grain
dA Cross-sectional area of the element
ds Length of cylindrical element
dg Geometric mean diameter
dvsm Volume surface mean diamete
dvm Volume mean diameter
dvs volume surface diameter
e void ratio
Fr Friction factor
f A function of porosity
xiii
GS Specific gravity of sediment
g Acceleration due to gravity
h,H Piezometric head
i Hydraulic gradient
K Coefficient of permeability
Kp Coefficient of percolation
L Distance of percolation
l Length of the soil sample
n porosity of the porous bed
P Pressure force
Q Rate of flow through the bed
Re Reynolds number
T Temperature in oC
t Time
U Average gross velocity
V Mean velocity of flow
Vc Lower critical velocity in the pipe
Vs seepage velocity
VV Volume of voids
VT Total volume of the permeameter
Wd Dry weight of soil sample
xiv
WS Weight of material filled in the permeameter
W1 The weight of pycnometer
W2 The weight of pycnometer + dry soil
W3 The weight of pycnometer + dry soil + water
W4 The weight of pycnometer + water
γ, γf Specific weight of fluid
γs Specific weight of solid
γw Specific weight of water
μ Coefficient of dynamic viscosity of fluid
ν Kinematic viscosity of fluid
ρ Mass density of fluid
θ Sand shape factor
σ geometric Standard deviation
`α , β constants
λ Shape factor
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
The crisis of access to adequate and safe water for drinking, agriculture and livelihood activity
has gained due attention in recent years as it grapples with the problem of water shortage in
many of its regions. Due to rapid development, increasing population and inadequate distribution
of water, the demand for this natural resource far outweighs its supply. Effective access to water
is seen to be dependent on the availability of water to a particular user—which, in turn, is
affected by physical, economic, political, and social factors. So much so that the sustainable
development and efficient management of water is becoming an increasingly complex challenge
. Therefore it will be necessary to manage the conjunctive development of water resources to
achieve maximum water - user benefits whilst minimising the associated environmental impacts.
Usable water availability can be increased by tapping water that otherwise would have run-off to
the sea . Water storage above ground through dams and diversion through weirs are the
conventional means . However , water can also be stored underground by enhancing percolation
through artificial recharge . Rain water harvesting in many small ponds through construction of
bunds can also add to water availability . Inter - basin transfer of water through inter-linking of
rivers can substantially expand availability .
All these considerations and other make it necessary to study the behaviour of water through soil
and to evaluate properties such as hydraulic conductivity (K) , one of the most important
parameters required for predicting the movement of water through soil. The percolation of fluids
through porous media is an important phenomenon that occurs appreciably in many physical
situations such as flow through aquifers and in situations where packing material is contained
within structures like ground water extraction by drilling through the strata, cooling towers,
sewage treatment plants and chemical reactors. Hydraulic conductivity is an essential
quantitative measure of fluid transmissibility in the linear, prelinear and post linear regimes. It
1
depends on both the physical properties of flowing liquid such as density and viscosity at the
temperature and pressure involved as well as the characteristics of the transmitting medium such
as particle size, porosity of the packing, shape of the individual particles, size distribution of the
particles in the bed with respect to each other, particle surface roughness and permeameter walls
Hydraulic conductivity is one of the most important physical properties of soil used in geotechnical
engineering. The rate of settlement of saturated soils under load, the stability of slopes and
retaining structures, the design of filters made of soil, and the design of earth dams are some of the
examples of applications of permeability(hydraulic conductivity) in geotechnical engineering
(Das, 2008). Additionally, information about hydraulic conductivity is necessary to estimate the
quantity of seepage that will occur through earth dams and levees and through their foundations, to
solve problems involving pumping seepage water from construction excavations, to determine
spacing and depth of drains for lowering the water table under roads and highways, and to conduct
stability analyses of earth structures and earth retaining walls when they are subjected to seepage
forces (Das, 2008) .
Because of the variability of the soil K- value, it is better to determine it from large scale
experiments (e.g from the beginning of existing drainage systems ) rather than from small scale
experiments . But in-situ determination of K is not always possible due to various constraints
such as time, labour and economy. As such various empirical formulae have been devised along
with laboratory tests to overcome these constraints and estimate the value of hydraulic
conductivity of different soils with reasonable accuracy.
1.2 Hydraulic conductivity
In the field of hydrogeology, it is important to know how easy water (or other fluids) can move
through a porous media, i.e. hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic conductivity or permeability is the
rate at which soil will transmit water under a unit hydraulic gradient . Various factors such as
fluid properties , grain-size distribution , void ratio, roughness of mineral particles and degree of
2
soil saturation affect the hydraulic conductivity . Hydraulic conductivity can be estimated by
using methods based on grain size analysis or determined by the use of experimental in situ- or
laboratory methods. The grain-size methods use coefficients that are estimated from empirical
data, as well as some kind of representative value of the grain size. The experimental methods
measure the flow in a soil material and calculate the hydraulic conductivity or transmissivity
from the flow in different ways.
1.3 Hydrogeological concepts
Estimation of a number of soil properties, such as hydraulic conductivity, that affects the
retention and movement of water and dissolved substances through soils has being one of the
major requirements in engineering and soil management applications dealing with forestry,
agriculture, terrestrial ecosystem management and land reclamation (Balland et al. 2008). It is
one of the important inputs of water flow and chemical transport models and a relevant tool in
forecasting soil carbon turn-over rates and retention (Balland et al. 2008). Measurement of
hydraulic conductivity of soils (a term used to describe permeability in soils) dates back to 1856
when a French engineer, Henry Darcy, developed a mathematical law, popularly known as
Darcy’s law, which described the flow of water through a porous medium.
To understand the principles of hydraulic conductivity, some basic concepts are presented in this
section. The flow of groundwater in a soil is determined by the material properties of the soil, as
well as basic physical laws.
Darcy’s law
Henry darcy a French hydraulic engineer investigated the flow of water through the horizontal
beds of sand to be used for water filtration . On the basis of experiments, Darcy in 1856 indicated
that for laminar flow conditions the velocity of flow through saturated porous media is
proportional to the hydraulic gradient . It is universally known as Darcy's law which may be
expressed as
V =K i (1.1)
3
where,
V = velocity of flow
K = coefficient of permeability
i = hydraulic gradient
Further since ,
𝑄
V=𝐴
Therefore, Q =K i A
where
Q = rate of flow ( or discharge)
A = total cross sectional area of the porous media
perpendicular to the direction of flow .
When describing ground water flow, Darcy’s law is altered to describe all three dimensions.
Often, this is simplified to describe 2-dimensional flow. Depending on type of aquifer, different
partial differential equations are used to describe the flow, like the Laplace equation. To solve
these equations analytically, idealized cases are used and the boundary conditions of the aquifer
must be known. By using a conceptual model of a ground water system, reality can be translated
and simplified into a manageable model.
Velocity given in equation 1.1 is known as Darcy velocity or specific discharge or discharge
velocity . It is an apparent velocity representing the velocity at which water would move through
an aquifer if the aquifer were an open channel . However the cross-sectional area of flow through
porous media is actually much smaller than the dimensions of the flow passage because the flow
is actually limited to the pore space only . The cross-sectional area of the flow is equal to to the
product of the effective porosity of the porous material and the cross-sectional area of the flow
passage . The effective porosity is that portion of the pore space through which the flow occurs
when it is saturated . The velocity at which the water is actually moving through porous media is
given by
4
Q
VS = (1.2)
nA
or
V
VS = (1.3)
n
where , n is the effective porosity
K
Kp  (1.4)
n
where ,
Kp = coefficient of percolation
n = effective porosity
1.4 Regimes of flow through porous media
Flow through porous media can be divided into following three categories
 Laminar / Linear flow regime
 Post linear regime
 Pre linear regime
1.4.1 Linear Regime
The linear flow regime is also known as Darcy’s flow regime. In this regime viscous forces
predominate whereas the effect of inertial forces is negligible. A plot between dimensionless
quantities i.e. Friction factor, Reynolds number as adopted for flow through straight pipes, will
be a straight line. The limits of validity of this regime have been reported by various researchers.
5
1.4.2 Post-Linear Regime
Post linear regime is the one in which the inertial forces are of significant magnitude.
Depending upon this magnitude of the inertial forces, this regime can further be sub divided into
two categories.
(a) Transitional Regime - Because inertial forces become dominant, Darcy’s law no
longer remains valid in this regime and a plot drawn between ‘Re’ and ‘Fr’ starts
deviating from the linear law. In this regime both the inertial and viscous forces
are approximately of the same order.
(b) Turbulent Flow Regime - As the magnitude of inertial forces becomes
considerably more than the viscous forces, at higher values of Re, the flow
becomes turbulent. The transition from laminar to turbulent flow is gradual.
1.4.3 Pre-Linear Regime
Beside there being an upper limit for laminar flow regime, there is a lower limit as well
beyond which Darcy’s law is again not valid. The reason for this is the presence of molecular
forces between the particles, which are quite significant in very fine materials such as clays.
1.4.4 Validity Of Darcy Law
Flow of water or a fluid is characterised as laminar or turbulent depending upon the pattern of
travel of fluid particles . If all the particles travel in definite paths which never intersect each
other flow is called laminar . If flow is haphazard and irregular it is termed as turbulent . Reynold
found from his experiments that there exists a limiting value of velocity below which flow will
always be laminar under given set of conditions . This critical velocity is inversely proportional
to th diameter of pipe and is given by reynold number expressed as
Vc.D. w
 2000 (1.5)
 .g
Where,
6
Vc = lower critical velocity in pipe (cm/sec)
D = diameter of pipe (cm)
γW = density of water (gm/ml)
μ = viscosity of water (gm-sec/cm2)
g = acceleration due to gravity ( cm/sec2 )
Based on analogy that the flow through the porous media may be assumed to depend upon the
diameter of the pores, larger the pore diameter greater is the chance of flow becoming turbulent .
Pore dimension themselves depend upon size of the grains or particle size and particle size
distribution . So in fine grained soils due to smaller pores the laminar flow is exhibited where as
in coarse grained soils ,due to larger pore diameter the flow may become turbulent under certain
condition . Based on this analogy and from the experimental results it is possible to fix the
Darcy's law 's validity limits in terms of particle size , flow velocity and hydraulic gradient .
Francher, Lewis and Barnes (Francher , et al 1933) demonstrated experimentally that flow
through porous sands remain laminar and Darcy's law hold good as long as the Reynold number
expressed in the form below is equal to or less than unity .
γW .d.V/μ.g<1
where V= velocity of flow

d = diameter of average particle
γW = density of water
This expression is based on a very conservative limitation of Reynolds number upto unity .
Scheidegger's(1957) collected data shows that the critical Reynolds number is quite variable,
ranging from 0.1 to 0.75 . Such a wide variation may be partly due to the different interpretations
given to the equation for Reynolds number .
There is a lot of controversy in establishing the upper and lower limits of Darcy’s law which
clearly indicates that ‘Re’ is not a good criterion for finding the beginning of the turbulence in
porous media because Re=(ρvD/μ) is not dependent on the porosity and the shape of grains,
which the real critical Reynolds no. presumably is.
7
Thus the Darcy’s law is valid for a wide range of materials and flow conditions both for coarse-
grained and fine-grained soils. But it is rather difficult to precisely define the validity limits for a
specific set of conditions without performing extensive permeability tests. For the ground water
flow occurring in nature and normally encountered in soil engineering, the law is generally
within its validity limits.
1.5 Factors affecting hydraulic conductivity (permeability) -
Permeability is a complex property that is controlled by physical properties of both the soil and the
permeating fluid (DeGroot et al., 2012).
 Grain size and arrangement of partices

These are the most significant factors affecting K since they decide the void ratio pore channel
specifications and geometry . The grain size distribution of a soil is one of the soil mechanic
properties that affect the hydrogeological conductivity. Soil with larger grains has a high
hydraulic conductivity. If a sediment contains a mixture of grain sizes, a more multi-graded soil,
the porosity will be lowered, and thus the hydraulic conductivity (Fetter, 2001). This is because
the void between the larger grains is filled up with smaller grains.
Grain size distribution of granular soils affects their permeability (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
There are several ways to characterize grain size distribution of a granular soil. Commonly used
indices include coefficient of uniformity (Cu), coefficient of curvature (Cc), particle sizes, d10,
d30, and d60, where d10, d30 and d60 are particle sizes, in mm, of 10%, 30%, and 60%, by weight of
soil, passing the respective sieve sizes . Cu is an important shape factor that represents the degree
of sorting of a soil and indicates the slope of the grain size distribution curve (Mitchell and Soga,
2005). Larger Cu values indicate well-graded soils and smaller Cu values indicate uniformly-
graded soils (Holtz et al., 2011). Poorly-graded soils have higher porosity and permeability
values than well-graded soils in which smaller grains tend to fill the voids between larger grains.
Cc is another important shape factor representing the grain size distribution that takes into
account three points on the grain size distribution curve, reducing the possibility of considering a
gap-graded soil as well-graded.
8
Natural soil formations are generally non - uniform in structure being or more less stratified .
The average permeability along stratification is always greater than that in the direction
perpendicular to stratification. Even in man made deposits , the horizontal permeability tends to
be larger than vertical one . This is because the usual methods of placement and compaction tend
to build up stratification into embankments and fills . Wind blown sands and silts are often more
permeable in the vertical direction because of tubular voids belived to be left by grass roots.
 Degree of saturation
Darcy law presumes a fully saturated state of soil . Air which may be originally entrapped in the
soil pores or may get deposited from flowing water cause an obstruction to flow . A hundred
percent saturated state usually not exists in natural ground water flow and drainage . However,
Darcy law still remain valid for degree of saturation greater than 85%.
 Porosity
Porosity is defined as the relationship between the pore volume and the total volume, i.e. the air
voids in a soil (Larsson, 2008). The porosity can be calculated indirectly by knowing the
compact density of the soil and the dry density (Knutsson & Morfeldt, 2002). When calculating
hydraulic conductivity, the interesting parameter is the effective porosity, the volume of the
pores where water can move freely, as opposed to total porosity where closed pores also are
calculated.
A large number of porosity functions have been proposed by various workers. Kozeny
proposed a porosity function as
(1  n) 3 M
Fr ∝ (1.8)
n
where
M = 1 for laminar flow
= 2 for turbulent flow
Fr = f riction factor
n = porosity
9
 Degree of compaction
The porosity depends on the degree of compaction. The dry density of a soil compared to the
maximum dry density where the material has been compacted in a laboratory is called the degree
of compaction (Fagerström, 1973). Different degrees of compaction give different optimal water
content, where the bulk density is the highest.
 Grain shape
Hydraulic conductivity is also determined by the systems formed by the voids between the grains
(Fetter, 2001). Well-rounded grains may be almost perfect spheres, but grains can also be very
irregular. Different grain shapes create different ways for the water to move through . In theory,
grains are usually assumed to be spherical, which can become a source of error in estimations of
hydraulic conductivity if the grains are very angular. If other variables are constant , the
resistance of the bed changes with the shape of the constituents .
 Particle surface roughness

Surface roughness of the particle has two effects . Firstly it effects the bed porosity for a random
packing i.e if the material is filled in a container in the same way, smooth particles will give a
denser bed than rough particles , because friction between the particles increase the settling of
the bed . Secondly roughness of particles leads to a direct increase in the resistance in the
resistance coefficient in the transitional and turbulent regime of flow.
 Effect of viscosity and temperature

Since both the viscosity and unit weight of a permeant vary with temperature , value of k will be
affected by changes in temperature . The variation in unit weight with changein temperature is
much less important for soils where water is common permeant . Viscosity effects are more
important . Greater the viscosity , lower the permeability . It is common practice to note the
temperature of water during permeability determination and reduce the computed permeability
value to the value corresponding to 250C .
10
1.6 Objectives
The present study is an attempt to investigate the effect of non uniformity of sediments on
hydraulic conductivity . The aim of the present study are :-
 To conduct the hydraulic tests on bore hole samples and to determine the friction factor and
Reynold's number.
 To conduct the hydraulic tests on bore hole samples in order to determine the hydraulic
conductivity .
 To study the variation of hydraulic conductivity with standard deviation in laminar regime .
 To establish the empirical relationship between hydraulic conductivity and standard
deviation .
 To compare the experimental results with the empirical models and recommend the
suitability of the specific model applicable to experimental observations .
1.7 Limitations of the Present Study
 The effect of friction due to the periphery wall of the permeameter has not been taken into
account (wall effect).
 The equation is valid for a range of porosity, varying from 0.35 to 0.43 only.
 Sand samples collected are having limited variation in geometric standard deviation .
 Only 10.16 cm diameter permeameter has been used in the present study.
 The empirical relations used in the present study are valid only for a certain range of particle
sizes used in the study .
1.8 Plan of present study
The present study has been conducted on sand samples collected from bore holes in and around
jalandhar area (Punjab ) , detail description of which has been given in chapter 3. From these
samples, variation of hydraulic conductivity with respect to standard deviation , grain size
distribution and size of particles have been conducted in the Post graduate department of Water
11
resource engineering , PEC University of Technology . In this study, sand samples collected are
having different mean diameter (0.0425cm , 0.03 cm ,0.05 cm , 0.06 cm , 0.0425 cm,0.05 cm )
and by using each sand sample effect of non uniformity have been studied by varying the
standard deviation ranges between 1 to 3 which have been discussed in Chapter 4. Three tests
namely sieve analysis test, specific gravity test and hydraulic test are conducted . To measure the
hydraulic conductivity , permeameter of diameter 10.16 cm has been used in each sample .
Hydraulic conductivity test are conducted within laminar range . After conducting the
experiment on all samples, experimental results are compared with the empirical models and
establish a relationship between hydraulic conductivity with geometric standard deviation .
1.9 Thesis organisation and presentation
Several experiments were conducted , various results were found and they have been analysed
during the course of this study . Their findings have been summarised in this thesis and arranged
as follows:
Chapter 1- This chapter outlines the study of hydraulic conductivity and its need ,
hydro -geological flow regime problems in general and factors affecting the
hydraulic conductivity in porous media .
Chapter 2 - This chapter deals with literature review , established empirical formula ,
effect of standard deviation on hydraulic conductivity described through
theoretical developments .
Chapter 3 - This chapter is meant to describe the experimental set up and the procedure
used to carry out the thesis work .
Chapter 4 - In this chapter the data observed had been analaysed and results obtained
have been discussed and compare it with analytical models .
Chapter 5 - This chapter deals with the conclusion and application of present study and
further suggestions .
12
Chapter -2
Literature review
2.1 General
Hydraulic conductivity is a parameter describing the ease with which flow takes place through a
porous medium . The same author also stated that experiments have shown that hydraulic
conductivity depends on both properties of the porous medium and the fluid (for example density
and viscosity). Knowledge of hydraulic conductivity values and their distribution is an essential
step towards conducting accurate and reliable analyses of hydraulic systems . Hydraulic
conductivity is affected by various parameters such as particle size, particle size distribution , non
uniformity of sediment ,porosity , shape of the particle and arrangement of particles in the bed .
Various investigators have tried to correlate these properties of porous media with the
permeability and various formula have been obtained, Most of the properties of porous media are
the combination of geometrical arrangement of pores and grain diameter . Since the grain size of
porous media affects permeability , many investigators have attempted to relate the hydraulic
conductivity directly to an average grain diameter d50 or d10 . Many attempts have been made to
correlate the hydraulic conductivity with other properties such as porosity , size distribution and
shape factor .
Hydrogeologists always look for reliable techniques to determine hydraulic conductivity of

aquifers with which they are concerned for better groundwater development, management and
conservation . Many techniques for the determination of hydraulic conductivity under laboratory
or field conditions have been described in Freeze and Cherry (1979); Todd (1980); Todd and May
(2005). According to Uma et al. (1989), accurate estimation of hydraulic conductivity in the field
environment is limited by the lack of precise knowledge of aquifer geometry and hydraulic
boundaries. Economic consideration associated with field operations and well construction may
also be a limiting factor. Alternatively, methods of estimating hydraulic conductivity from
empirical formulae based on grain-size distribution characteristics have been developed and used
to overcome these problems . Compared to aquifer tests, statistical grain-size methods are less
13
expensive and less dependent on the geometry of porous media and hydraulic boundaries of the
aquifer but reflects almost all the transmitting properties of the media (Alyamani and Sen, 1993)
Researches from numerous investigators such as Hazen (1893), Krumbein and Monk (1942),
Terzaghi and Peck (1964), Masch and Denny (1966), Wiebega et al. (1970), Shepherd (1989),
Uma et al. (1989) and Alyamani and Sen (1993) were considered in this study.
Bases on the premise that the grain size distribution and properties determined from settling
analysis correctly reflect the hydraulic characteristics of the sand sample , Kench and Mclean
(1997) examined the interpretative use of results for sediment transport models developed for
silicate sand . While the equivalent diameter determined from settling analysis better represents
calcareous sediment in suspension , motion initiation and bed -load transport are more
appropriately described by the nominal diameter , which relates to the weight of the particles and
use of these sediment size parameters to predict the response of tropical island beaches to waves
and currents .
In a laboratory, permeability is usually measured on small samples which do not represent the
heterogeneity of soils in the field (Holtz et al., 2011). No matter how many samples are tested in
the laboratory, one cannot reliably estimate permeability. In addition, reliability of laboratory test
results depends on the quality of undisturbed soil samples collected in the field (Holtz et al.,
2011). Since undisturbed samples cannot be obtained for granular soils, the accuracy of
permeability test results for such soils depends on how well the soil structure and density of
laboratory samples represent the natural state of soil in the field (DeGroot et al., 2012).
The hydraulic conductivity of unconsolidated material has been related emipically to particle size
distribution by a number of investigators like Hazen (1893) , Krumbein and Monk (1942) ,
Harleman et al (1963) . Details on some of these method and limitations have been reviewed by
Egboka and Uma (1986) and Uma et al (1989) . The common aspect of these studies is the
determination of an empirical relationship between hydraulic conductivity and some statistical
parameter like standard deviation.
14
2.2 Hydraulic conductivity correlation
Numerous investigators have studied this relationship and several formulae have resulted based
on experimental work. Kozeny (1927) proposed a formula which was then modified by Carman
(1937, 1956) to become the Kozeny-Carman equation. Other attempts were made by Hazen
(1892), Shepherd (1989), Alyamani and Sen (1993), Terzaghi and Peck (1964). The applicability
of these formulae depends on the type of soil for which hydraulic conductivity is to be estimated.
Moreover, few formulas give reliable estimates of results because of the difficulty of including all
possible variables in porous media. Vukovic and Soro (1992) noted that the applications of
different empirical formulae to the same porous medium material can yield different values of
hydraulic conductivity, which may differ by a factor of 10 or even 20.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) can be estimated by particle size analysis of the sediment of interest,
using empirical equations relating either K to some size property of the sediment. Vukovic and
Soro (1992) summarized several empirical methods from former studies and presented a general
formula
g
K  C  f ( n)  d e
2
(2.1)

where
K = hydraulic conductivity
g = acceleration due to gravity
ν = kinematic viscosity
C = Sorting coefficient
de = effective grain diameter
f(n) = porosity function
The value of C, f(n) and de are dependent on the different method used in the grain - size analysis
2.2.1 Allen Hazen Formula (1892) :
Hydraulic conductivity of saturated porous media K is a function of the geometrical

characteristics of the solid matrix. Hazen defined the sediment diameter in terms of the effective
15
grain diameter d10 which is the size such that 10% of the material by weight is finer than this size .
Based on this experiments on filter sands of particle size between
.1 mm and 3.0 mm having coefficient of uniformity less than 5 , Hazen has established an
empirical relation :
K = C.d102 (2.2)
or
K = g × 6 × 10-4 {1+10(n-.260)}d102 (2.3)
Where C = constant approximately equal to 100

d10= Diameter for which 10% material is finer
K= coefficient of permeability .
g = acceleration due to gravity .
2.2.2 Slitcher Formula ( 1904)
Slitcher stated that permeability is a function of grain diameter and porosity . This formula is most
applicable for grain size between 0.01mm and 5mm.
g
K= × 1× 10-2 n3.287 d102 (2.4)
v
2.2.3 Terzaghi formula (1925)
Terzaghi developed the formula for permeability of sand in which hydraulic conductivity is
expressed as
2
g  n  0.13
K   Ct     d10 2 (2.5)
v  1  n 3 
1
 
Where , Ct = sorting coefficient and 6.3×10 -3 ˂ Ct˂ 10.7×10-3
16
Basic assumption in this equation is that in void channels the diameter of widest part of the
channel is atleast five time the diameter of the narrow part of the channel .
2.2.4 Kozeny Carman model (1927)
Relation was proposed by Kozeny (1927) and later modified by carman (1937,1956) . The
resulting equation is largely known as Kozeny - carman (KC) euation . This equation was
developed after considering a porous material as an assembly of capillary tubes for which the
equation of Navier Stokes can be used . It is not effective for either soil with effective size above
3 mm or for clayey soils ( carrier , 2003)
Porous material is considered to consist of bundle of capillary tubes. Kozeny developed a theory
for a series of capillarity tubes of equal length and obtained the equation .Carman verified the
Kozeny equation ,introduced the notion of hydraulic radius and expressed the specific surface per
unit mass of solid .Further more Carman considered that water does not move in straight channels
but around irregularly shaped solid particles. He tried to take this into account by introducing
angular deviation of 45 o from the mean straight trajectory . For non uniform sediments it yielded
the hydraulic conductivity k as
g n3
K  8.3  10 3 
2
.d10 (2.6)
v (1  n) 2
or
e
2
g n3
K  2 
2
.d50 (2.7)
v  (1  n) 2
180
Where n = porosity
λ = Shape Factor
ν = Kinematic viscosity of fluid
d50 = mean diameter
σ = geometric standard deviation
17
2.2.5 Bakhmeteff and Feodoroff formula (1937)
Bakhmeteff and Feodoroff gave the following formula :

K = 2 d2 Ѳ / c δ (2.8)
where
K = coefficient of permeability
d = diameter of particle
Ѳ = sand shape factor
δ = mean density of fluid
c = constant equal to 100
2.2.6 Krumbein and Monk ( 1942)
Krumbein and monk have performed experiments in which glacial outwash sand was sieved and
recombined into size mixture of derived grain size distribution to evaluate the effect of average
size and size uniformity of the sand grains . The results of this study showed that the permeability
and certain size parameters could be related by the following expression
K = b.d2.e-a . σφ (2.9)
where
K = specific permeability (darcy limit )
d = geometric mean diameter (mm)
σφ = geometric standard deviation (φ limit)
a,b = constants
2.2.7 Sectheim formula ( 1957)
Sectheim found an empirical relation between particle size and permeability as follow
K = 95.6 d2 (2.10)
18
where
K = coefficient of permeability ( inch/sec)
d = average size of grains (inch)
2.2.8 Drag force model (1966)
Drag force on individual particles comprising the strata is integrated to obtain the relationship
between mean velocity of head and piezometric gradient .
Hydraulic conductivity is given as
 n2 g
K    e 3 .d50
2 2
(2.11)
 (1  n) v
Where
β includes the effect of neighbouring particles on the drag of a particle
d50 = median diameter
σ = geometricStandard deviation
K = hydraulic conductivity
n = porosity
2.2.9 Samarasinghe , Huang and Drnevich (1982)
Samarasinghe et al suggested that the hydraulic conductivity of normally consolidated clays can
be given by
K = C (en/1+e ) (2.12)
where
C and n are constants to be determined empirically and e is the void ratio .
19
2.2.10 Chapuis (2004 )
Chapuis proposed the following relationshipfor the hydraulic conductivity .
.7825
e3
K = 2.4622 D102 1+e (2.13)
2.2.11 Justine Odong (2007)
Justine Odong evaluated hydraulic conductivity using grain size distribution of unconsolidated
aquifer materials extracted from test holes during ground water investigation project . He used
several empirical equations to calculate the hydraulic conductivity after performing the particle
size distribution characteristics restricted to only four test samples .He mentioned that all these
empirical formulae are to be used strictly within their domain of applicability
2.2.12 Rezanezhad et al (2009)
Rezanezhad et al mentioned that the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated peat soils is controlled
by the peat structure which affect the air filled porosity ,pore size distribution and shape . Their
investigations quantify that how the size and shape of porous structures affect the flow of water
through peat soils . Estimates of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity were made for the purpose of
testing the sensitivity of pore shape , affected due to low pressure head .
2.2.13 Tiejun Wang, David Wedin, and Vitaly A. Zlotnik (2009)
Field evidence shows that negative correlation between saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil
carbon in a sandy soil exists . Soil organic matter (SOM) is generally assumed to be positively
correlated with saturated hydraulic conductivity (KS). However, recent studies of pedotransfer
functions suggest a possible negative KS-SOM relationship that still needs independent
verification. Field KS study of sandy soils in a semiarid region provides such in situ evidence of a
negative KS-SOM relationship, which is nonlinear and is strongest at the lowest levels of soil
20
carbon (0.1%) . The low SOM content and large particle size of sand may explain the limited
effect of SOM on soil aggregation processes in the examined soils.
2.2.14 Hydraulic Conductivity of MSW in Landfills (2009)
Krishna R. Reddy et al did a laboratory investigation of hydraulic conductivity of municipal solid

waste MSW in landfills and provides a comparative assessment of measured hydraulic
conductivity values with those reported in the literature based on laboratory and field studies. A
series of laboratory tests was conducted using shredded fresh and landfilled MSW from the
Orchard Hills landfill Illinois, United States using two different small-scale and large-scale rigid-
wall permeameters and a small-scale triaxial permeameter. The published field MSW hydraulic
conductivities are found to be higher than the laboratory results. Landfilled MSW possesses lower
hydraulic conductivity than fresh MSW due to increased finer particles resulting from
degradation. The decreasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing dry unit weight is expressed
by an exponential decay function.
2.2.15 Ishaku , Gadzama and U.Kaigama (2011)
They used several empirical formulae to determine the hydraulic conductivity of aquifer
materials. According to them the results indicate that the best estimation of hydraulic conductivity
is based on Terzaghi equation followed by Kozeny Carman , Hazen, Breyer and Slitcher
equations respectively . The syudy is restricted to find the hydraulic conductivity of porous media
by using only one parameter .
2.2.16 Seyed Hamid Ahmadi and Ali Reza Sepaskhah (2012)
Prediction of saturated hydraulic conductivity of compacted soils was done using empirical
scaling factors . A new empirical-based scaling method is introduced to predict saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of compacted soils. This method is an improvement of the former
non-similar media concept (NSMC) model that is generalized for tilled and untilled conditions. In
this method, geometric mean particle size diameter (dg), geometric standard deviation (σ) and
21
saturated soil water content (total porosity) are successfully incorporated in the empirical-based
scaling factor of Ks. Results showed that the scaled model overestimated Ks by *18%, whereas
the NSMC model underestimated Ks by *21%. However, the scaled model based on the similar
media concept (SMC) failed to predict Ks.
2.2.17 A.F .Salarashayeri and M. Siosemarde (2012)
They used soil samples with sand texture and analysed the data using multiple linear regression
(R2 = 0.52) , developed a correlation between saturated hydraulic conductivity (m/day) with
particle diameters such as d10 ,d50 and d60 . The results show approximately success in predicting
hydraulic conductivity from particle diameters only .
2.2.18 N. Jarvis, J. Koestel, I. Messing, J. Moeys, and A. Lindahl (2013)
Due to inadequate data support, existing algorithms used to estimate soil hydraulic conductivity,
K, in (eco) hydrological models ignore the effects of key site factors such as land use and climate
and underplay the significant effects of soil structure on water flow at and near saturation. These
limitations may introduce serious bias and error into predictions of terrestrial water balances and
soil moisture status, and thus plant growth and rates of biogeochemical processes. To resolve
these issues, new global database of hydraulic conductivity measured by tension infiltrometer
under field conditions were collated . The results of analyses on this data set contrast markedly
with those of existing algorithms used to estimate K. The data also clearly demonstrates that clay
soils have smaller K in the soil matrix and thus a larger contribution of soil macropores to K at
and near saturation.
2.2.19 Rebecca .T. Barnes, Morghan E Gallaghar ( 2014)
Biochar-Induced Changes in Soil Hydraulic Conductivity and Dissolved Nutrient Fluxes

Constrained by Laboratory Experiments . The addition of charcoal (or biochar) to soil has
significant carbon sequestration and agronomic potential, making it important to determine how
this potentially large anthropogenic carbon influx will alter ecosystem functions. They used
22
column experiments to quantify how hydrologic and nutrient-retention characteristics of three
soil materials differed with biochar amendment. Compared three homogeneous soil materials
(sand, organic-rich topsoil, and clay-rich Hapludert) to provide a basic understanding of biochar-
soil-water interactions was done .. The change in K for sand was not predicted by the
accompanying physical changes to the soil mixture; the sand-biochar mixture was less dense and
more porous than sand without biochar.
2.3 Effect of standard deviation on hydraulic conductivity
Soil sediments are generally composed of non uniform sediment mixture . Therefore in order to
understand the impact of non uniformity of sediment ,variation of hydraulic conductivity with
standard deviation have been discussed as below :
2.3.1 Theoretical Developments
Flow through porous media can be analysed using models like Kozeny Carman model (1927),
drag force model . The commonly used model is the Kozeny - Carman model in which the porous
material is considered to consist of a bundle of capillary tubes . In other model , known as drag
force model also known as drag model, the drag force on individual particles comprising the
strata is integrated to obtain the relationship between superficial mean velocity of flow and
piezometric gradient . This approach was initiated by Emersleben and later developed in detail by
Rumer and Drinker .
The capillary tube model (Kozeny- Carman model) is developed starting from a relationship
between microscopic velocity and piezometric gradient in a form similar to Hagen-Poiseuilles
equation . Kay has shown that using capillary tube model for uniform non spherical particles , the
expression for piezometric gradient is
h (1  n) 2 v.U
  180.2 . . (2.14)
s n2 g.d s
2
Comparing this equation with Darcy equation
23
2
g n3 d
K  2  s . (2.15)
v  (1  n) 180
2
If the sediment is non uniform equation (2.15) suggests the use of volume surface mean diameter
dvsm instead of ds . Hence for non uniform sediments equation become
2
g n3 d
K  2  vsm (2.16)
v  (1  n) 2
180
Where , dvsm - Volume surface mean diameter
The drag force model has been discussed by Rumer and Drinker . Considering the steady flow of
a fluid through a cylindrical element of area dA and length ds , filled with uniform sediment of
characteristic size d ( Fig 2.1) drag force on each particle is
U
fr   .d (2.17)
n
Figure 2.1
For an assembly of particles , β will also include effect of neighbouring particles on the drag of a
particle since,total resistance offered by solid particles Fr = Nfr
where β is a coefficient taking effect of shape , Reynold's number and neighbouring particles
24
Therefore expression for piezometric gradient is
h  (1  n) 2 v.U
  . (2.18)
s  n g.d
2
Comparing equation (2.18) with Darcy law , an expression is obtained as
 n2 g.d 2
K   (2.19)
 (1  n) v
For non uniform sediments a volume - mean diameter should be used thus equation becomes

2
n2 g.d vm
K   (2.20)
 (1  n) v
where dvm - Volume mean diameter
However dvsm and dvm are difficult to obtain for non - uniform sediment mixture. Assuming the
particle size in a non-uniform sediment mixture, follows log normal distribution in a sample . The
distribution of sediment is supposed to be log normal when log of the diameters is plotted against
the probability of occurrence of various percentages finer by weight of sediments gives a straight
line on log probability paper .
Kay has shown that for log normal distribution :

2

Volume surface mean diameter : dvsm = d50 e 2 (2.21)
3 2

2
Volume mean diameter : dvm = d50 e (2.22)
Where :
d50 = median diameter
25
Volume surface mean diameter - It is the diameter of a particle having a ratio of volume to
surface equal to the average for the mixture.
Volume mean diameter - It is the diameter of the particle having the average volume of all the
particle in the mixture .
Substituting the value of dvsm and dvm in equation (2.16) and (2.20) expression of K in terms of σ
as:
e 
2
g n3
K  2 
2
.d 50 for capillary tube model (2.23)
v  (1  n) 180
2
 n2 g
K    e 3 .d 50
2 2
for drag force model (2.24)
 (1  n) v
From the equation (2.23) and (2.24) it is clearly observed that hydraulic conductivity is related to
non uniformity of sediments as a function of standard deviation .
On observing the capillary tube model and drag force model , it is also found that if λ,β and n
Kv
kept constant 2
should be a function of standard deviation .
g.d 50
Kv
2 = f(σ) (2.25)
g .d 50
Thus the purpose of present thesis is to study the variation of hydraulic conductivity with standard
deviation . For this an experiment was conducted on sand samples detail description of which has
been given in chapter 3. After this results were analysed critically and variation of hydraulic
conductivity is plotted against standard deviation . A detailed description of these are discussed
in chapter 4.
26
Chapter- 3
Experimental set up and procedure
3.1 General
This chapter deals with a brief description of the experimental equipment , procedure and
materials used in this investigation. The experimental procedure involves tests namely sieve-
analysis test , specific gravity test , hydraulic test on sand samples so that correlation between the
hydraulic conductivity and standard deviation can be studied .
3.2 Experimental Equipment
The experimental equipment consists of the following items:

a) Permeameter
b) Discharge measuring device
c) Weighing Balance
d) Pycnometer
e) Manometer
f) Thermometer
g) Source of supply
h) Oven
3.2.1 Permeameter
The constant head vertical flow type permeameter was used for hydraulic tests in this work. The
main permeameter section consisted of a 10.16 cm internal diameter GI tube with a total length
of 1.06 m and a test length of 46.5 cm.
Four pressures tapping making an angle of 90o to each other were provided along the
circumference of permeameter at the starting and ending points of the test length. This
arrangement of tapping points was adopted to ensure the mean pressure at the section under
27
consideration.The inlet to permeameter consisted of a pipe 1 inch diameter and rate of flow
through permeameter was controlled with the help of an outlet tapof 1/2 inch diameter . I.S. 45
micron mesh screen was used in the filter for resisting the porous media. For filling and
removing of the material, the permeameter was detached from its supports each time.
Figure 3.1: Constant head permemeter
28
3.2.2 Discharge measurement
The discharge was measured by volumetric method. The water was collected in a bucket for a
certain period, which was recorded with a stopwatch and collected water was then measured with
the help of a 2000 cc capacity glass jar. Volume of water collected at a particular duration will
give the discharge.
3.2.3 Weighing balance
Electronic weighing balance were used for measuring the weight during specific gravity test
3.2.4 Pycnometer
I.S. pycnometer is used in the specific gravity test.
3.2.5 Manometer
To cover the desired range of flow, two types of manometer were used:
(i) Air-water manometer: Simple graduated glass tubes connected with pressure tapping points
on the permeameter with the rubber tubes were used as manometer to ensure the head losses of
about 5cm to 100 cm of water . The manometer has a least count of 5 mm of water .
(ii) Paraffin water manometer: Inverted U-tube paraffin water differential manometers were
used to measure low head losses. The manometers were supported on a wooden board with a
graduated scale in cm, giving a correct reading of manometer up to one mm.
3.2.6 Thermometer
I.S. Mercury Thermometer measuring temp from 0 oC to 80oC was used for measuring the
temperature of water.
3.2.7 Source of supply

The permeameter receives its water supply from an overhead tank at a height of 2.65 m above
the permeameter outlet. The tank receives its supply from a recirculating tank so that a constant
head is maintained in the overhead tank.
29
3.2.8 Oven
Oven was used to dry out the soil samples collected from different boreholes before doing the
sieve analysis.
3.3 Materials Used
Natural sand samples collected from different boreholes of Jalandhar area exhibiting different
grain size distribution curve were used in the present study . Each sand sample were used to
prepare sediment mixture with different standard deviation . The details of sample have been
discussed below :
TABLE 3.1 Source and location of Sand Samples

SAMPLE NO. Source and location from where collected Depth below ground level
(feet)
1 Village - Wadala (Jalandhar) 240
2 Tower enclave Phase-1 (Jalandhar) 220
3 Bhai bhano ji nagar (Jalandhar) 225
4 Village - Wadala (Jalandhar) 260
5 Nakodar chowk (Jalandhar) 230
6 Tower enclave phase -1 (Jalandhar) 225
30
Study area - All samples used in the presnt study are collected from bore holes from
Jalandhar area ,description of which has been given in table no. 3.1 and area marked is shown
in the below figure :
31
3.4 Experimental Procedure
The various tests and procedure conducted during the course of this study have been discussed
below .
3.4.1 Sieve analysis tests

The various samples used in the present investigation are collected from borehole samples of
different regions of Jalandhar area. The sediments were sieved through the following available
sieves numbered 2.36mm , 1.18 mm , 850μ ,600 μ, 500μ, 425μ ,300μ ,250μ , 212μ, 180 μ,125 μ,
90 μ ,75 μ, 45 μ and sediments retained on each sieve were stocked separately . Proper sieving of
about 10 minutes were allowed to shake the material in each case so that uniform size material is
allowed to pass through one sieve and retained in another sieve. This material was weighted from
each sieve and the percentage finer was calculated , thereafter a plot between grain size and
percentage finer on semi log graph paper was drawn which is shown in figure 3.2
120
100
80
% Finer by wt.
60
40
20
0
10 100 1000 10000
Diameter in micron (μ)
0.0425 cm 0.05 cm 0.06 cm 0.0425 cm 0.03 cm 0.05 cm
Figure 3.2 Grain size distribution graphs of sand samples
32
3.4.2 Media Preparation
In this study to find the effect of non uniformity of sediment on hydraulic conductivity, different
media sample was prepared for various predetermined standard deviation for the samples used .
Standard deviation is a measure to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data
values . In other words it is a parameter used to measure the non uniformity of sediment . After
precalculated Geometric standard deviation of each sample , media was prepared by mixing the
particles around median diameter in order to obtain the required standard deviation as shown in
figure 3.3 to 3.8. Table 3.2 to 3.7 illustrates the value of standard deviation which was used in
this study .
Table 3.2 Grain size diameter and standard deviation for sand sample 1
Sample No. d50 (cm) Standard deviation (σ)
1 0.0425 Uniform
1 0.0425 1.367
1 0.0425 1.554
1 0.0425 2.019
1 0.0425 2.424
100
90
80
70
% Finer by wt.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1000 10000
σ =1 σ =1.367 σ =1.554 σ =2.0187 σ =2.421
Figure 3.3-Grain size distribution curve for sand sample (1) 0.0425 cm diameter having
different standard deviation.
33

2 0.05 Uniform
2 0.05 1.41
2 0.05 1.65
2 0.05 2.31
2 0.05 2.93
100
90
80
70
% Finer by wt.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1000 10000
σ =1 σ =1.41 σ =1.65 σ =2.31 σ =2.93
different standard deviation
34

3 0.06 Uniform
3 0.06 1.37
3 0.06 1.59
3 0.06 2.257
3 0.06 2.82
100
90
80
70
% Finer by wt.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1000 10000
σ =1 σ =1.37 σ =1.59 σ =2.257 σ =2.82
35

4 0.0425 Uniform
4 0.0425 1.21
4 0.0425 1.4
4 0.0425 2.05
4 0.0425 2.83
100
90
80
70
% Finer by wt.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1000 10000
σ =1 σ =1.21 σ =1.4 σ =2.05 σ =2.83
36

5 0.03 Uniform
5 0.03 1.29
5 0.03 1.63
5 0.03 2.39
5 0.03 2.61
100
90
80
70
% Finer by wt.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1000 10000
σ =1 σ =1.29 σ =1.63 σ =2.39 σ =2.61
37

6 0.05 Uniform
6 0.05 1.307
6 0.05 1.472
6 0.05 2.11
6 0.05 2.63
100
90
80
70
% Finer by wt.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 100 1000 10000
σ =1 σ =1.307 σ =1.472 σ =2.11 σ =2.63
38
3.4.3 Specific gravity test
The specific gravity test were conducted on material to know the porosity to be filled in
permeameter for hydraulic tests . The tests were carried out using Pycnometer method and the
following equation was used for calculating specific gravity GS.
The four observations in the pycnometer method are taken as below:

i) Weight of Empty pycnometer = W1 gm.
ii) Weight of Pycnometer+ dry material. = W2 gm.
iii) Weight of pycnometer + dry material+ water = W3 gm.
iv) Weight of pycnometer+ Water = W4 gm.
W2  W1
Specific gravity = Gs =
(W2  W1 )  (W3  W4 )
The specific gravities obtained for different sizes of materials have been tabulated in
3.8 to 3.13 :
Table 3.8 - Specific Gravity of sand sample (1) for 0.0425 cm diameter
Size Standard Specific

W1 W2 W3 W4
SNO. 'd50' Deviation Gravity
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
(cm) 'σ' GS
1 0.0425 Uniform 501.1 724 1652.1 1511.2 2.718
2 0.0425 1.367 501.1 719 1648.2 1511.2 2.692
3 0.0425 1.554 501.1 720 1648.1 1511.2 2.67
4 0.0425 2.019 501.1 847.5 1725.8 1511.2 2.63
5 0.0425 2.424 501.1 849.2 1723 1511.2 2.55
39

W1 W2 W3 W4
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
(cm) 'σ' GS
1 0.05 Uniform 501.1 650 1605.1 1511.2 2.71
2 0.05 1.41 501.1 710 1642.3 1511.2 2.69
3 0.05 1.65 501.1 685 1626 1511.2 2.66
4 0.05 2.31 501.1 690 1627.7 1511.2 2.61
5 0.05 2.93 501.1 718 1644.7 1511.2 2.60
SNO. Size Standard W1 W2 W3 W4 Specific

'd50' Deviation (gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) Gravity
(cm) 'σ' GS
1 0.06 Uniform 501.1 727 1656 1511.2 2.78
2 0.06 1.367 501.1 650 1606 1511.2 2.75
3 0.06 1.554 501.1 683 1626.2 1511.2 2.72
4 0.06 2.019 501.1 708 1641 1511.2 2.68
5 0.06 2.424 501.1 726 1650.3 1511.2 2.62
40

W1 W2 W3 W4
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
(cm) 'σ' GS
1 0.0425 Uniform 501.1 724 1654 1511.2 2.78
2 0.0425 1.21 501.1 652 1607 1511.2 2.74
3 0.0425 1.4 501.1 686 1628 1511.2 2.72
4 0.0425 2.05 501.1 689 1629 1511.2 2.68
5 0.0425 2.83 501.1 706 1637.5 1511.2 2.61

W1 W2 W3 W4
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
(cm) 'σ' GS
1 0.03 Uniform 501.1 730 1655.6 1511.2 2.71
2 0.03 1.29 501.1 690 1629 1511.2 2.66
3 0.03 1.63 501.1 686 1625.6 1511.2 2.62
4 0.03 2.39 501.1 655 1605 1511.2 2.56
5 0.03 2.61 501.1 710 1637 1511.2 2.51
41

W1 W2 W3 W4
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
(mm) 'σ' GS
1 0.05 Uniform 501.1 715 1646.4 1511.2 2.72
2 0.05 1.307 501.1 710 1642.3 1511.2 2.69
3 0.05 1.472 501.1 638 1596.8 1511.2 2.67
s4 0.05 2.11 501.1 689.6 1627.7 1511.2 2.62
5 0.05 2.63 501.1 690 1627.7 1511.2 2.61
3.4.4 Hydraulic tests

The hydraulic tests were conducted to study the effect of resistance to flow of water in a given
sample of material. The method of carrying out these tests are as follows.
Preparation of the Bed: Before filling the permeameter with the material to be tested, the inlet
portion of the permeameter was taken off. It was proposed in the present study to keep the
porosity constant for all runs of the materials. Therefore, the weight of the material needed to fill
the permeameter was calculated as:-
𝑊𝑠 = (1-n) 𝑉𝑇 𝐺𝑆 𝛾𝑤 (3.1)
Where
𝑊𝑠 = weight of the material
n = porosity
𝑉𝑇 = volume of the tube
𝐺𝑆 = specific gravity of the material
𝛾𝑤 = specific weight of the water
42
In order to get a uniformly packed bed throughout the length of the permeameter, the necessary
quantity of material was divided into ten equal parts. Each part was thrown gently over the whole
cross-section of the tube, and compacted by steel rod, after the surface was leveled. The packing
method was same for all the runs. The number of blows for compacting the material varied for
various materials. After packing the tool and leveling the top of the material, the coupling was
fitted. After fixing the permeameter in the vertical position and connecting to the water supply
system, the outlet and inlet values were completely opened to make the material saturated for 5
to 6 minutes. Then the outlet valve was slowly closed so that the water entered the manometeric
tubes. Before starting the test, air in the permeameter tube as well as in manometer tubes was
removed. After removing the air, the outlet value was completely opened to start the test with
maximum discharge.
TEST RUN: This involved three main operations

1) Measuring the discharge through the permeameter.
2) Reading the pressure drop across the test length of the material.
3) Reading the temperature of water

In all the runs, observations were taken in receding order of magnitude of discharge and
hydraulic gradient. The test was started with maximum discharge so that if there was any
settlement of the bed due to the impact of the jet of incoming water, it was secured in the
beginning. The bed was then checked at the end of each run for settlement, if any. The porosity
of the bed was determined after making due allowances for settlement. The discharge was
measured by collecting the water in a bucket for a certain period, which was recorded with a
stopwatch. The flow was then reduced for the next observation of the run. This operation was
continued till the discharge was decreased from maximum to a certain measurable minimum
discharge. For each discharge two observations were recorded to make sure that flow was steady
for each set of observation. For higher discharge as the pressure drop was higher, the air-water
manometer was used. And for low discharge paraffin-water manometer was used. The
manometer readings from paraffin-water manometer were converted to head of water.
The temperature of water was recorded at the beginning and the end of each run. After data were
collected for one run, the procedure was repeated.
43
Chapter 4
Discussion of results
4.1 General
This chapter focuses on investigating and developing a relationship between the permeability (K)
of the materials used , their mean diameter (d50) and standard deviation . The results of the
experimental investigation on the different materials used in the present study are presented as
Friction factor (Fr) vs Reynold's number (Re) on log-log scale . Furthermore the experimental
values of hydraulic conductivity have been compared with the theoretical values obtained from
different empirical equations proposed by various researchers , based on grain size analysis . A
discussion of results in relation to the different aspects of the problem studied is given below :
4.2 Parameters Used in the Analysis
4.2.1 Standard deviation (σ)

Standard deviation is a measure to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data
values . In this study geometric standard deviation is used which describes how spread out are a
set of particles whose preffered average is the geometic mean. Geometric standard deviation is a
multiplicative factor and thus is a dimensionless quantity .
4.2.2 Porosity (n)

The porosity of a given soil sample is the ratio of volume of voids to the total volume of the
given soil mass.
VV
n= (4.1)
V
Porosity is calculated from the following equation.
Ws
n = (1 - G ) ×100 (4.2)
s γw V T
Where,
Ws = total weight of the material contained in the permeameter (gm).
44
Gs = specific gravity of sediment
VT = volume of the tube (cm3).
γw = volume of sample in the permeameter in cm3.
All the result reported in this work has been corrected to 40% porosity with the help of the
porosity function proposed by Kozeny.
4.2.3 Reynolds number (Re)

It is a dimensionless parameter and defined as the ratio of inertial force to the viscous force i.e.
V.d
Re = (4.3)
ν
where,
V = average velocity of flow through pores.
d= mean diameter
ν = kinematic viscosity of fluid.
4.2.4 Friction Factor (Fr)

Friction factor is a direct measure of resistance to flow and is calculated from Darcy-Weisbach
equation:
Fr .L.V 2
hL = (4.4)
2gd
2gid
Fr= (4.5)
V2
where,
g = acceleration due to gravity.
i = hydraulic gradient (hL/L)
d= mean diameter
v = velocity of flow
Fr= friction factor
45
4.2.5 Porosity function (M)
All the results reported in this work have been corrected to 40% porosity with the help of a
porosity function proposed by Kozeny (1927) as:
(1−n)3−M
Fr α (4.6)
n3
where,
M = 1 for Laminar regime.
M = 2 for completely Turbulent flow.
Average values of M for different Reynolds number are given in Table 4.1.
Table 4. 1: Values of Porosity Function
REYNOLDS NUMBER VALUE OF M
<4 1
4 – 10 1.2
11 – 50 1.3
51 – 100 1.55
101 – 500 1.7
501 – 1000 1.81
1001 – 10000 1.88
10000 – 100000 1.94
4.3 Results From Hydraulic Tests
Hydraulic test is the most important part of the experimental work. Hydraulic tests were
conducted to study the effect of resistance to the flow of water in a given sample of material. The
procedure of carrying out these tests is given in Chapter 3. It mainly involves three observations
for each run, namely discharge measurements, pressure drop and temperature. All these are
corrected to a constant porosity using porosity function given by Kozeny explained in section
4.2.5.
46
4.4 Variation of i vs Re
All the data were initially plotted in the form i against Re on log log scale ,as shown in the figure
4.1 for material having mean diameter 0.0425 cm. It is seen that hydraulic gradient is
proportional to first power of velocity as per Darcy Law . This result found that flow is in
laminar regime . All the observation values have been tabulated in Table 4.2 to 4.6
TABLE 4.2 Hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.0425 cm diameter ( σ=1)
SIZE (d50) = .0425 cm Weight of Material =12.92 Kg
Standard deviation σ= Uniform Temperature of fluid =25oC
Porosity ( n) = 41.4 % Test Length (L) = 46.5 cm
Specific Gravity (GS) =2.718 Area of permeameter (Ap)= 81.07 cm2
Size of Permeameter (dp) =10.16 cm Kinematic viscosity (ν) = 8.85x10-3 cm2/sec
S.NO Q V Vs H I Re Fr Fr40% K Kp
. (cm3/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm) (H/L) (V*d/ν) (2*i*g*d)/V2 Corrected (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
at 40%
1
3.5 0.043 0.104 17.9 0.385 0.206 17245.0 20523.1 0.112 0.271
2
3.3 0.041 0.099 17.4 0.373 0.196 18793.5 22366.1 0.109 0.263
3
3 0.037 0.089 15.9 0.343 0.177 20864.3 24830.5 0.108 0.261
4
2.5 0.031 0.075 13.3 0.286 0.148 25037.1 29796.6 0.108 0.261
5
1.55 0.019 0.046 8.5 0.182 0.091 41536.2 49432.1 0.105 0.254
47
TABLE 4.3 Hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.0425 cm diameter ( σ=1.367)
Standard deviation σ= 1.367 Temperature of fluid =25oC
S.NO Q V Vs H i Re Fr Fr40% K Kp
at 40%
1 3.17 0.039 0.098 35.0 0.752 0.187 41009.6 40856.1 0.052 0.130
2
2.83 0.035 0.088 33.8 0.727 0.168 49764.6 49578.3 0.048 0.120
3
2.25 0.028 0.070 27.5 0.591 0.134 63924.6 63685.3 0.047 0.118
4
1.88 0.023 0.058 22.9 0.493 0.110 76505.5 76219.1 0.047 0.118
5
1.42 0.017 0.043 19.9 0.427 0.082 116111.7 115677.0 0.041 0.103
Porosity ( n) = 39 % Test Length (L) = 46.5 cm
at 40%
1 2.88 0.035 0.089 41.3 0.888 0.167 58680.7 51757.6 0.04 0.103
2
2.42 0.028 0.074 36.5 0.786 0.143 73510.5 64837.6 0.038 0.097
3
1.83 0.023 0.059 27.6 0.594 0.108 97210.6 85741.6 0.038 0.097
4
1.58 0.019 0.049 23.8 0.513 0.094 112592.0 99308.3 0.038 0.097
5
1.33 0.016 0.041 20.6 0.443 0.079 137370.9 121163.8 0.037 0.095
48
Standard deviation σ=2.0187 Temperature of fluid =25oC
at 40%
1
2.42 0.029 0.076 47.9 1.029 0.143 96324.1 75807.4 0.029 0.076
2
2 0.025 0.066 39.6 0.851 0.118 116552.1 91726.9 0.029 0.076
3
1.83 0.023 0.060 36.2 0.778 0.110 127379.3 100248.0 0.029 0.076
4
1.58 0.019 0.05 31.3 0.672 0.094 147534.3 116110.0 0.029 0.076
5
1 0.012 0.032 19.8 0.425 0.059 233104.2 183453.9 0.029 0.076
TABLE 4.6 Hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.0425 cm diameter( σ=2.421)
at 40%
1
2.92 0.036 0.101 76.1 1.637 0.173 105230.7 59994.1 0.022 0.062
2
2.33 0.029 0.081 63.6 1.369 0.139 138157.0 78766.0 0.021 0.059
3
1.92 0.024 0.067 52.4 1.128 0.115 167659.3 95585.9 0.021 0.059
4
1.67 0.021 0.059 45.6 0.981 0.101 192758.0 109895.1 0.021 0.059
5
1.42 0.017 0.048 40.7 0.876 0.082 238028.9 135705.0 0.02 0.056
49
10
i (hydraulic gradient)
0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.367 σ =1.554 σ =2.0187 σ =2.421
Fig 4.1 Variation of i against Re for sample (1) 0.0425 cm diameter
Observation value of sand sample having mean diameter 0.05 cm have been tabulated in Table
4.7 to 4.11 . Data obtained were initially plotted in the form i against Re on log log scale ,as
shown in the figure 4.2 for material having mean diameter 0.05 cm. It is seen that hydraulic
gradient is proportional to first power of velocity as per Darcy Law . This result found that flow
is in laminar regime .
50
at 40%
1 3.25 0.04 0.098 14.7 0.315 0.226 19263 21287.8 0.127 0.311
2 3.2 0.039 0.097 14.4 0.311 0.22 19349.1 21620.4 0.127 0.311
3 2.9 0.036 0.088 13.5 0.29 0.203 22116.4 24434.2 0.124 0.304
4 2.1 0.025 0.063 9.4 0.203 0.146 30789.6 34016.8 0.123 0.302
5 1.9 0.023 0.057 8.9 0.193 0.132 34593.6 38219 0.121 0.296
at 40%
1 3.17 0.039 0.098 41.3 0.889 0.22 57018.7 56451.2 0.044 0.110
2 2.9 0.036 0.089 37.8 0.813 0.203 62327.3 61707.0 0.044 0.110
3 2.25 0.028 0.070 30.0 0.645 0.158 82201.2 81383.0 0.043 0.108
4 1.95 0.024 0.060 26.6 0.573 0.136 97105.8 96139.3 0.042 0.105
5 1.42 0.017 0.043 19.4 0.417 0.098 133349.5 132022.3 0.042 0.105
51
. (cm3/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm) (H/L) (V*d/ν) (2*i*g*d)/V2 Corrected at (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
40%
1 2.93 0.036 0.093 52.5 1.129 0.203 84822.6 72950.2 0.032 0.082
2 2.88 0.035 0.09 53.3 1.146 0.198 89078.9 76610.7 0.031 0.080
3 2.42 0.028 0.072 44.8 0.963 0.168 106011.3 91173.1 0.031 0.080
4 1.58 0.019 0.049 29.2 0.629 0.107 162371.7 139644.9 0.031 0.080
5 1.4 0.017 0.045 25.9 0.557 0.096 183248.1 157599.2 0.031 0.080
40%
1 2.73 0.034 0.089 71.2 1.531 0.192 132417.0 99032.5 0.022 0.058
2 2.42 0.029 0.077 63.1 1.357 0.164 149379.5 111718.4 0.022 0.058
3 1.8 0.022 0.059 49.2 1.057 0.124 210396.0 157351.6 0.021 0.056
4 1.5 0.018 0.049 41.0 0.881 0.105 252475.1 188821.9 0.021 0.056
5 1.3 0.016 0.042 37.3 0.802 0.09 305883.3 228765.0 0.02 0.053
52
40%
1 2.83 0.035 0.096 81.2 1.745 0.198 140511.8 90062.5 0.02 0.055
2 2.6 0.032 0.088 74.6 1.604 0.181 152941.7 98029.6 0.02 0.055
3 2.2 0.027 0.074 66.4 1.428 0.153 190262.4 121950.6 0.019 0.052
4 1.8 0.022 0.061 54.3 1.169 0.124 232542.9 149050.8 0.019 0.052
5 1.37 0.017 0.046 43.7 0.939 0.096 322504.7 206712.8 0.018 0.049
10
i ( hydraulic gradient)
0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.41 σ =1.65 σ =2.31 σ =2.93

53
TABLE 4.12 Hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.06 cm diameter( σ=1)
40%
1 6.2 0.076 0.185 15.7 0.337 0.518 6781 8070 0.227 0.548
2 5 0.062 0.149 12.7 0.273 0.418 8446 10051 0.226 0.546
3 4.2 0.052 0.125 10.7 0.229 0.351 10054 11966 0.226 0.546
4 3.2 0.039 0.095 8.1 0.174 0.268 13138 15636 0.227 0.548
5 3 0.037 0.089 7.6 0.164 0.251 14076 16752 0.226 0.546
54
40%
1 5 0.062 0.152 31.2 0.670 0.418 20746.9 22638.4 0.092 0.226
2 4.3 0.053 0.130 26.8 0.577 0.360 24124.3 26323.7 0.092 0.226
3 3.8 0.047 0.115 24.0 0.515 0.318 27598.5 30114.7 0.091 0.224
4 3.4 0.042 0.103 21.4 0.461 0.284 30845.4 33657.6 0.091 0.224
5 2.2 0.027 0.067 13.9 0.298 0.184 47670.1 52016.3 0.091 0.224
Specific Gravity (GS) = 2.7 Area of permeameter (Ap)= 81.07 cm2
40%
1 6.5 0.080 0.205 51.1 1.098 0.544 20112.9 18192.6 0.073 0.186
2 5 0.062 0.157 39.3 0.845 0.418 26146.7 23650.4 0.073 0.186
3 4.1 0.051 0.129 32.2 0.693 0.343 31886.3 28842.0 0.073 0.186
4 3.2 0.039 0.101 25.1 0.541 0.268 40854.3 36953.8 0.073 0.186
5 2 0.025 0.063 15.7 0.338 0.167 65366.9 59126.0 0.073 0.186
55
40%
1 3.1 0.038 0.100 41.4 0.889 0.259 71594.6 57795.6 0.043 0.112
2 2.9 0.036 0.093 38.7 0.832 0.243 76532.2 61781.5 0.043 0.112
3 2.1 0.026 0.068 28.0 0.602 0.176 105687.3 85317.3 0.043 0.112
4 1.4 0.017 0.045 18.7 0.402 0.117 158530.9 127976.0 0.043 0.112
5 1.2 0.015 0.039 16.0 0.344 0.100 184952.7 149305.3 0.043 0.112
40%
1 2.9 0.036 0.098 57.4 1.234 0.243 113478.7 71799.4 0.029 0.080
2 2.4 0.030 0.081 47.5 1.021 0.201 137120.1 86757.6 0.029 0.080
3 1.8 0.022 0.061 35.6 0.766 0.151 182826.8 115676.9 0.029 0.080
4 1.1 0.014 0.037 21.8 0.468 0.092 299171.2 189289.4 0.029 0.080
5 .98 0.012 0.033 19.4 0.417 0.082 335804.4 212467.7 0.029 0.080
56
i ( hydraulic gradient) 10
0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.37 σ =1.59 σ =2.257 σ =2.812
Fig4.3 Variation of i against Re for sample (3) 0.06 diameter
Observation value of sand sample having mean diameter 0.0425 cm have been tabulated in
Table 4.17 to 4.21 . Data obtained were initially plotted in the form i against Re on log log scale
,as shown in the figure 4.4 for material having mean diameter 0.0425 cm. It is seen that hydraulic
57
40%
1 5 0.062 0.146 25.2 0.541 0.296 11859.6 15501.2 0.114 0.27
2 4.2 0.052 0.123 21.3 0.468 0.248 14243.6 18617.1 0.113 0.268
3 3.5 0.043 0.102 17.8 0.382 0.207 17092.3 22340.4 0.113 0.268
4 3 0.037 0.088 15.5 0.333 0.177 20300.3 26533.5 0.111 0.263
5 2 0.024 0.059 10.3 0.222 0.118 30450.5 39800.3 0.111 0.263
40%
1 4.5 0.055 0.134 36.3 0.781 0.266 21158.1 24473.5 0.071 0.172
2 3.7 0.045 0.110 29.4 0.633 0.219 25375.5 29351.7 0.072 0.174
3 3.1 0.038 0.092 25 0.538 0.183 30713.4 35526.1 0.071 0.172
4 2.2 0.027 0.065 18.2 0.393 0.130 44532.4 51510.5 0.069 0.167
5 1.1 0.013 0.032 9.3 0.199 0.065 90374.6 104536.1 0.068 0.165
58
40%
1 6.5 0.08 0.2 65.4 1.406 0.385 18245.6 18222.8 0.057 0.142
2 5 0.061 0.154 50.3 1.082 0.296 23719.3 23689.7 0.057 0.142
3 3.1 0.038 0.095 31.7 0.682 0.183 38940.2 38891.5 0.056 0.140
4 1.5 0.018 0.046 15.3 0.330 0.088 80476.4 80375.9 0.056 0.140
5 0.75 0.009 0.023 7.8 0.168 0.044 163879.3 163674.6 0.055 0.137
40%
1 3.1 0.038 0.098 57.3 1.233 0.183 70343.6 61035 0.031 0.079
2 2.7 0.033 0.085 51.6 1.110 0.159 83457.0 72413.1 0.03 0.077
3 2.1 0.025 0.066 40.1 0.863 0.124 107301.9 93102.5 0.03 0.077
4 1.53 0.018 0.048 29.2 0.629 0.091 147277.2 127787.9 0.03 0.077
5 1.2 0.014 0.038 23.7 0.516 0.071 194253.5 168547.8 0.029 0.074
59
40%
1 2.9 0.035 0.096 79.2 1.703 0.171 111002 77867.19 0.021 0.056
2 2.4 0.029 0.079 65.5 1.409 0.142 134127.4 94089.52 0.02 0.056
3 1.8 0.022 0.059 51.6 1.110 0.106 187778.4 131725.3 0.018 0.053
4 1.1 0.013 0.036 33.2 0.714 0.065 323446 226895.3 0.02 0.051
5 .98 0.012 0.032 28.1 0.604 0.058 344899.1 241944.5 0.02 0.053
10
0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.21 σ =1.4 σ =2.05 σ =2.83
60
40%
1 3.8 0.046 0.111 26.6 0.572 0.158 15313.8 20015.8 0.082 0.194
2 3.1 0.038 0.09 21.7 0.466 0.129 18771.8 24535.5 0.082 0.194
3 2.2 0.027 0.064 15.6 0.335 0.091 26777.7 34999.6 0.081 0.192
4 1.8 0.022 0.052 12.7 0.274 0.075 32728.3 42777.3 0.081 0.192
5 1.3 0.016 0.038 9.3 0.200 0.054 45882.5 59970.5 0.08 0.190
61
SIZE (d50) = .03 cm Weight of Material =13 Kg
40%
1 3.50 0.043 0.109 57.4 1.234 0.146 38953.3 37517.8 0.035 0.088
2 2.91 0.036 0.090 47.7 1.026 0.122 46851.1 45124.5 0.035 0.088
3 2.43 0.030 0.076 39.8 0.856 0.102 56105.6 54038.0 0.035 0.088
4 1.80 0.022 0.056 29.5 0.634 0.075 75742.5 72951.3 0.035 0.088
5 1.30 0.016 0.040 21.3 0.458 0.054 104874.3 101009.5 0.035 0.088
40%
1 2.92 0.036 0.094 72.8 1.566 0.122 71050.9 56632.8 0.023 0.060
2 2.54 0.031 0.082 63.3 1.362 0.106 81680.6 65105.4 0.023 0.060
3 1.80 0.022 0.058 46.9 1.009 0.075 120499.5 96047.0 0.022 0.058
4 1.50 0.019 0.048 39.1 0.841 0.063 144599.4 115256.4 0.022 0.058
5 1.30 0.016 0.042 35.5 0.764 0.054 174790.5 139320.9 0.021 0.055
62
40%
1 2.50 0.031 0.085 79.7 1.713 0.105 106039.6 67092.6 0.018 0.049
2 2.13 0.026 0.072 67.9 1.460 0.089 124459.6 78747.2 0.018 0.049
3 1.75 0.022 0.059 59.0 1.270 0.073 160396.0 101484.6 0.017 0.047
4 1.10 0.014 0.037 37.1 0.798 0.046 255175.4 161452.7 0.017 0.047
5 0.96 0.012 0.033 32.4 0.697 0.040 292388.5 184997.9 0.017 0.047
40%
1 2.9 0.036 0.102 97.8 2.104 0.121 96790.7 51134.8 0.017 0.049
2 2.6 0.032 0.092 93.2 2.004 0.109 114706.3 60599.7 0.016 0.046
3 1.9 0.023 0.067 72.7 1.562 0.079 167430.9 88454.2 0.015 0.043
4 1.1 0.014 0.039 42.1 0.905 0.046 289198.8 152784.6 0.015 0.043
5 0.75 0.009 0.026 28.7 0.617 0.031 424158.2 224084.1 0.015 0.043
63
10
0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.29 σ =1.63 σ =2.39 σ =2.61
Fig4.5 Variation of i against Re for sample (5) 0.03 cm diameter
64
40%
1 3.35 0.041 0.101 15.9 0.342 0.233 19620.0 22221.2 0.121 0.295
2 3.2 0.039 0.096 15.3 0.329 0.223 20710.9 23456.7 0.120 0.293
3 2.9 0.036 0.087 14.0 0.301 0.202 23045.4 26100.8 0.119 0.290
4 2 0.025 0.060 9.6 0.207 0.139 33415.8 37846.1 0.119 0.290
5 1.6 0.020 0.048 7.8 0.169 0.112 42483.8 48116.3 0.117 0.285
Porosity ( n) = 40.0% Test Length (L) = 46.5 cm
S.NO. Q V Vs H i Re Fr Fr40% K Kp
(cm3/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm) (H/L) (V*d/ν) (2*i*g*d)/V2 Corrected at (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
40%
1 3.12 0.038 0.096 32.5 0.700 0.217 46346.0 46346.0 0.055 0.138
2 2.8 0.035 0.086 29.7 0.640 0.195 52599.0 52599.0 0.054 0.135
3 2.25 0.028 0.069 23.9 0.514 0.157 65456.5 65456.5 0.054 0.135
4 1.95 0.024 0.060 20.7 0.445 0.136 75526.8 75526.8 0.054 0.135
5 1.4 0.017 0.043 14.9 0.320 0.098 105198.0 105198.0 0.054 0.135
65
40%
1 2.85 0.035 0.090 45.4 0.977 0.199 77514.3 69236.3 0.036 0.092
2 2.72 0.034 0.086 44.6 0.959 0.190 83539.6 74618.1 0.035 0.090
3 2.42 0.030 0.076 40.8 0.878 0.169 96657.4 86335.0 0.034 0.087
4 1.45 0.018 0.046 24.5 0.526 0.101 161317.8 144090.2 0.034 0.087
5 1.3 0.016 0.041 24.1 0.517 0.091 197344.1 176269.1 0.031 0.079
TABLE 4.30 Hydraulic conductivity for sand 0.05cm diameter( σ=2.11)
40%
1 2.71 0.033 0.088 62.2 1.337 0.189 117387.0 90060.9 0.025 0.066
2 2.42 0.030 0.079 57.8 1.244 0.169 136931.3 105055.6 0.024 0.063
3 1.8 0.022 0.059 44.9 0.965 0.125 192100.7 147382.3 0.023 0.061
4 1.2 0.015 0.039 31.3 0.673 0.084 301248.8 231122.3 0.022 0.058
5 1.1 0.014 0.036 30.0 0.646 0.077 344284.3 264139.8 0.021 0.055
66
40%
1 2.78 0.034 0.093 75.9 1.633 0.194 136227.6 89603.7 0.021 0.057
2 2.6 0.032 0.087 71.0 1.527 0.181 145658.7 95807.0 0.021 0.057
3 2.1 0.026 0.071 57.4 1.234 0.146 180339.4 118618.2 0.021 0.057
4 1.8 0.022 0.060 49.2 1.057 0.125 210396.0 138387.9 0.021 0.057
5 1.4 0.017 0.047 38.2 0.822 0.098 270509.1 177927.3 0.021 0.057
10
I ( hydraulic gradient)
0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.307 σ =1.472 σ =2.11 σ =2.63
Fig4.6 Variation of i against Re for sample (6) 0.05 cm diameter

67
4.5 Variation Of K with σ
To study the effect of non uniformity of sediments on hydraulic conductivity , variation of K has
been plotted against standard deviation . Figures 4.14(a) to 4.14(f) shows the variation of K
with σ for sample sizes ranging from 0.0425 cm , 0.05 cm ,0.06 cm,0.0425cm , 0.03 cm and 0.05
cm respectively . Figures 4.15(a) to 4.15(f) shows the variation of Kp with σ .From the graph
it is clear that as value of σ increases , hydraulic conductivity decreases . This shows that as non
uniformity of sediment increases , hydraulic conductivity decreases .
4.6 Variation of Fr with Re
Figures 4.7 to 4.12 shows the variation of Fr with Re for non uniform materials having different
grain diameter and standard deviation .A straight line variable is observed which shows that
flow is in the laminar regime .
4.7 Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and Standard deviation
The permeation of fluids through porous masses depends on a number of variables as mentioned
in chapter1. The results of experimental investigation for different boreholes samples are plotted
on log-log graph as Friction factor vs Reynold's number as shown in Figure 4.7 to 4.12. The
variation was found to follow a straight line which shows that the flow is in laminar regime
.These results follow an equation of the form:
C1
Fr 
Re
2 gid C
Or  1
V 2
Vd

As per Darcy Law
V =Ki
68
Putting this value ,we get
K 2
2

gd C1
where C1= constant for given porosity depends on the standard deviation for given
sample .
ν = kinematic viscosity of fluid
d = mean diameter of sediment
K = coefficient of permeability ( hydraulic conductivity )
As discussed in theoretical development in section 2.3.1 it is derived that K is related to

standard deviation as shown in equation 4.7
K
= f(σ) (4.7)
gd 2
K
Therefore in order to find out the relation between K and σ , value of against σ has been
gd 2
plotted on log log scale which is shown in figure 4.13 . On the basis of experimental data , an
empirical relation was developed which is shown as
K
2
= 4×10-4 σ-1.701 (4.8)
gd
where
K = Coefficient of permeability in cm/sec
d = mean diameter
69
1000000
100000
Friction factor (Fr)
y = 2834.7x-1.515
10000
1000
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.367 σ =1.554 σ =2.0187 σ =2.421
FIGURE - 4.7 Friction factor (Fr) vs Reynolds number (Re) for sand sample(1) 0.0425 cm diameter
70
1000000
100000
y = 3762.8x-1.647
10000
1000
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.41 σ =1.61 σ =2.31 σ =2.93
71
1000000
100000
y = 4363.2x-1.586
10000
1000
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.37 σ =1.59 σ =2.257 σ =2.812
72
1000000
100000
y = 4264x-1.327
10000
1000
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.21 σ =1.4 σ =2.05 σ =2.83
73
1000000
100000
y = 3114.6x-1.24
10000
1000
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.29 σ =1.63 σ =2.39 σ =2.63
74
1000000
100000
y = 4237.5x-1.544
10000
1000
0.01 0.1 1
Reynolds No. (Re)
uniform σ =1.307 σ =1.472 σ =2.11 σ =2.63
75
0.01
0.001
K ν/g.d502
y = 0.0004x-1.701
0.0001
0.00001
1
Standard deviation (σ)
0.0425 cm 0.05 cm 0.06 cm 0.0425 cm 0.03 cm 0.05 cm Power (combined)
Figure 4.13 . Relationship of Hydraulic conductivity with standard deviation
76
0.12 0.3
0.1 0.25
0.08 0.2
K p (cm/sec)
K (cm/sec)
0.06 0.15
0.04 0.1
0.02 0.05
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Standard deviation (σ) Standard deviation (σ)
FIGURE 4.14 (a) FIGURE 4.15 (a)
Figure 4.14(a) and Figure 4.15(a) - Variation of K with σ and Kp with σ for sand smaple (1) 0.0425 cm dia respectively
77
0.14 0.35
0.12 0.3
0.1 0.25
K p (cm/sec)
K (cm/sec)
0.08 0.2
0.06 0.15
0.04 0.1
0.02 0.05
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
FIGURE 4.14(b) FIGURE 4.15(b)
Figure 4.14(b) and Figure 4.15(b) - Variation of K with σ and Kp with σ for sand smaple (2) 0.05 cm dia respectively
78
0.25 0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
K p (cm/sec)
0.15
K (cm/sec)
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIGURE 4.14(c) FIGURE 4.15 (c)
Figure 4.14(c) and Figure 4.15(c) - Variation of K with σ and Kp with σ for sand smaple (3) 0.06 cm dia respectively
79
0.12 0.3
0.1 0.25
0.08 0.2
K p (cm/sec)
K (cm/sec)
0.06 0.15
0.04 0.1
0.02 0.05
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIGURE 4.14 (d) FIGURE 4.15(d)
Figure 4.14(d) and Figure 4.15(d) - Variation of K with σ and Kp with σ for sand smaple (4) 0.0425 cm dia respectively
80
0.09 0.25
0.08
0.07 0.2
0.06
K p (cm/sec)
0.15
K (cm/sec)
0.05
0.04
0.1
0.03
0.02 0.05
0.01
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIGURE 4.14(e) FIGURE 4.15(e)
Figure 4.14(e) and Figure 4.15(e) - Variation of K with σ and Kp with σ for sand smaple (5) 0.03 cm dia respectively
81
0.14 0.35
0.12 0.3
0.1 0.25
K p (cm/sec)
K (cm/sec)
0.08 0.2
0.06 0.15
0.04 0.1
0.02 0.05
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
σ σ
FIGURE 4.14(f) FIGURE 4.15(f)
Figure 4.14(f) and Figure 4.15(f) - Variation of K with σ and Kp with σ for sand smaple (6) 0.05 cm dia respectively
82
4.8 Comparison of Hydraulic conductivity
Table 4.32 to 4.37 shows the comparison of experimental result with empirical models namely
Kozeny Carman model, Drag force model , Allen Hazen model and Terzaghi model for each
sample used in this study . The comparison of results are shown in the Figures 4.16 to 4.21
Kv
where variation of 2
is plotted against σ2 on a semi log graph . Different model as discussed
gd 50
in Chapter 2 suggests that if porosity,shape factor are constant ,a straight line relationship
between the above parameters are obtained which can be shown in figures 4.16 to 4.21 . Table
4.38 to 4..43 gives the residuals and derviation of measured and estimated values of hydraulic
conductivity ,the comparison have been shown in the figure 4.22 to 4.27.
Table 4.32-Comparison of hydraulic conductivity for sample (1) 0.0425 cm diameter with
various models
D50 σ Expermental Kozeny Carman Drag force Allen Hazen Terzaghi

model model model model
(cm) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
0.0425 1 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.096 0.061
0.0425 1.367 0.047 0.039 7.39×10-3 0.038 0.022
0.0425 1.554 0.038 0.020 1.35×10-3 0.021 0.013
0.0425 2.0187 0.029 3.58×10-3 8.72×10-9 3.89×10-3 2.24×10-3
0.0425 2.421 0.021 4.45×10-4 3.45×10-11 5.78×10-4 2.96×10-4
83
Table 4.33- Comparison of hydraulic conductivity for sample (2) 0.05 cm diameter with
various models

0.05 1 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.115 0.071
0.05 1.41 0.043 0.042 6.03×10-3 0.041 0.024
0.05 1.65 0.031 0.018 6.18×10-4 0.018 0.011
0.05 2.31 0.021 1.16×10-3 2.25×10-7 1.3×10-3 7.1×10-4
0.05 2.93 0.019 3.92×10-5 1.21×10-11 4.82×10-5 2.46×10-5
various models

0.06 1 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.202 0.128
0.06 1.37 0.091 0.087 0.016 0.082 0.05
0.06 1.59 0.073 0.039 2×10-3 0.04 0.023
0.06 2.257 0.043 2.7×10-3 8.5×10-7 2.96×10-3 1.62×10-3
0.06 2.82 0.029 1.25×10-4 1.42×10-10 1.55×10-4 7.9×10-5
84
Table 4.35-Comparison of hydraulic conductivity for sample (4) 0.0425 cm diameter with
various models

Model model model model
0.0425 1 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.096 0.062
0.0425 1.21 0.07 0.064 0.03 0.058 0.036
0.0425 1.4 0.05 0.034 6.5×10-3 0.034 0.02
0.0425 2.05 0.03 0.003 6.73×10-6 0.003 1.93×10-3
0.0425 2.83 0.02 5.95×10-5 6.59×10-11 7.2×10-5 3.69×10-5
various models

model model model model model
0.03 1 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.074 0.046
0.03 1.29 0.035 0.031 0.01 0.036 0.022
0.03 1.63 0.022 0.012 4.69×10-4 0.013 6.99×10-3
0.03 2.39 0.017 4.45×10-4 4.32×10-8 5.48×10-4 2.78×10-4
0.03 2.61 0.016 1.26×10-4 1.44×10-9 1.7×10-4 8.07×10-5
85
various models

model model model model model
0.03 1 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.108 0.068
0.03 1.307 0.054 0.053 0.013 0.0514 0.031
0.03 1.472 0.034 0.03 3.17×10-3 0.031 0.018
0.03 2.11 0.023 2.69×10-3 3.07×10-6 3×10-3 1.64×10-3
0.03 2.63 0.021 2×10-4 1.73×10-9 2.4×10-4 1.25×10-4
86
0.01
0.001
0.0001
K ν/g.d502
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
σ2
experimental Drag force model Kozeny Carman model Allen Hazen model Terzaghi model
y = 0.0005x-0.874 y = 0.1628e-4.85x y = 0.0016e-1.119x y = 0.0013e-1.044x y = 0.0009e-1.085x
Kv
Figure 4.16 - Comparison of hydraulic conductivity showing variation of 2
plotted against σ2 for sample (1) 0.0425 cm
gd 50
diameter
87
0.01
0.001
0.0001
K ν/g.d502
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
σ2
y = 0.0003x-0.844 y = 0.0088e-3.036x y = 0.0012e-1.061x y = 0.0011e-1.026x y = 0.0007e-1.05x
Kv
Figure 4.17- Comparison of hydraulic conductivity showing variation of 2
gd 50
diameter
88
0.001
0.0001
K ν/g.d502
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
σ2
experimental Drag force model Kozeny carman model Allen Hazen model Terzaghi model
y = 0.0005x-0.938 y = 0.0116e-3.048x y= 0.0016e-1.072x y= 0.0014e-1.033x y = 0.0009e-1.064x
Kv
Figure 4.18- Comparison of hydraulic conductivity showing variation of 2
gd 50
diameter
89
0.01
0.001
0.0001
K ν/g.d502
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
σ2
experimental Drag force model Kozeny carman model Allen Hazen model Terzaghi
y = 0.0122e-3.043x
y = 0.0005x-0.801 y = 0.0015e-1.067x y = 0.0013e-1.025x y = 0.0008e-1.059x
Kv
Figure 4.19 Comparison of hydraulic conductivity showing variation of 2
gd 50
diameter
90
0.01
0.001
K ν/g.d502
0.0001
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
σ2
experimental Drag force model Kozeny carman model Allen Hazen model Terzaghi model
y = 0.0165e-3.063x
y = 0.0006x-0.777 y = 0.0022e-1.093x y = 0.0021e-1.042x y = 0.0013e-1.083x
Kv
gd 50
diameter
91
0.01
0.001
0.0001
K ν/g.d502
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
σ2
y = 0.0003x-0.874 y = 0.0088e-3.054x y = 0.0012e-1.077x y = 0.0011e-1.033x y = 0.0007e-1.064x
Kv
gd 50
diameter
92
Table 4.38 Residuals and Deviation of Measured and Estimated values of hydraulic
conductivity for sand sample (1) 0.0425 cm diameter
Standard Measured Estimated Residuals Deviation (%)

deviation Hydraulic Hydraulic
conductivity conductivity
1 0.108 0.092 0.016 14.81
1.367 0.047 0.026 0.021 44.68
1.554 0.038 0.016 0.022 57.89
2.0187 0.029 0.0056 0.023 80.68
2.421 0.021 0.000329 0.021 98.43
0.12
0.1
Estimated value of K
0.08
R² = 0.9028
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Measured value of K
Figure 4.22 Comparison of measured and estimated hydraulic conductivity for sand sample
(1) 0.0425 cm diameter
93
Table 4.39 Residuals and Deviation of Measured and Estimated hydraulic conductivity
values for sand sample (2) 0.05 cm diameter
Standard Measured Estimated Residuals Deviation(%)

1 0.124 0.109 0.015 12.09
1.41 0.043 0.025 0.018 41.86
1.65 0.031 0.0127 0.018 59.03
2.31 0.021 0.0023 0.0187 89.04
2.93 0.019 0.000297 0.0187 98.43
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
R² = 0.9153
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Measured value of K
94

1 0.227 0.194 0.033 14.53
1.37 0.091 0.055 0.036 39.56
1.59 0.073 0.036 0.037 50.68
2.257 0.043 0.0056 0.037 86.97
2.82 0.029 0.0000897 0.029 99.69
0.25
0.2
0.15
R² = 0.9004
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Measured value of K
95

1 0.112 0.093 0.019 16.96
1.21 0.07 0.048 0.022 31.42
1.4 0.05 0.027 0.023 46
2.05 0.03 0.0053 0.025 82.33
2.83 0.02 0.0000421 0.019 99.78
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
R² = 0.884
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Measured value of K
96

1 0.081 0.072 0.009 11.11
1.29 0.035 0.022 0.013 37.14
1.63 0.022 0.0075 0.0145 65.90
2.39 0.017 0.0021 0.0149 87.64
2.61 0.016 0.000297 0.0157 98.143
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
R² = 0.9096
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Measured value of K
97

1 0.119 0.104 0.015 12.60
1.307 0.054 0.037 0.017 31.48
1.472 0.034 0.016 0.018 52.94
2.11 0.023 0.00434 0.019 81.13
2.63 0.021 0.00226 0.019 89.23
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
R² = 0.8915
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Measured value of K
98
4.9 Accuracy of the Experimental Results
The observed values of pressure drop through the permeameter are affected by two main sources
of error :
1. Those involved in determining the porosity of the bed, and
2. Those involved in recording the pressure , discharge etc.
4.9.1 Errors in porosity determination
The porosity of the packet bed is given by
WS
n = 1- (4.9)
G S .VT
where ,
WS = dry weight of solids in the permeameter
GS = specific weight of solids
VT = total volume of the permeameter
From eq (4.9)
n = φ (WS,VS,VT) (4.10)
dn  dWS VS dVS V dV 
   S T  (4.11)
n  GS (VT  VS ) GS (VT  VS ) (VT  VS ) 
Where ,
VS = volume of solid in the sample
In filling the permeameter, the material was weighed in ten trays . Each tray was weighed up to
an accuracy of 0.001 kg . Since the total weight required to fill the permeameter was divide in
ten equal parts , therefore the total probable error in the weight = +0.01 kg i.e dWS = +10 gm .
The specific gravity of the various materials was determined up to an accuracy of +0.0005.
99
It was found easy to level the material with the top flange of the permeameter . But the average
error of +0.5 cm was possible
Therefore,
dVT = ( 0.5 × the area of the cross-sectional of the permeameter )
= 0.5 × 81.713 cm2
Therefore , from equation (4.11) ,at 40 % porosity
dn  10 0.6  VT  0.001 0.6VT 0.5  81.073 

     
n  2.645  0.4  VT 2.645  0.4VT VT 0.4VT 
or
dn  10 1.5  0.01 0.6  0.5  81.073 

 40  
n  2.645  0.4  8.1073  10
3
2.645 0.4  8.1073  10 3 
dn = 0.5734 %
Since ,
VT = 8.1073 ×103 cm3
A = 81.073 cm2
GS = 2.645 (For muddy M3)
An error of 1% in porosity results in about 8% error in permeability ,therefore the probable error
in experimental results due to porosity
= 8×0.5734 %
= 4.5872%
100
4.9.2 Observational error
The friction factor
2.i.g.d
Fr = (4.12)
V2
= φ (i , VS)
Since g and d are constant
dFr  di 2dVS 
    100 (4.13)
Fr i VS 
The above mentioned error will in fact vary from observation to observation
a) Air-water differential manometer was used
The accuracy of the manometer reading in this case was +0.1 , since the maximum
head of 150 cm was read up to an accuracy of +0.1 cm
b) Discharge was collected and measured using measuring cylinder and stop watch .
5000 cc of water was collected over a period of 25 sec with an accuracy of +10 cc
Therefore from equation ( 4.11 ) , percentage error in Fr due to observational errors
 0.1 10  2 
= 100  
 150 5000 
= + 0.47 %
Therefore , error =(4.5872 + 0.47 ) = 5.0572 %
Thus , accuracy of experimental vary within + 5.0572%
101
Chapter-5
Conlusions and suggestions for further studies
5.1 General
The present study has been conducted with an aim to study the variation of non uniformity of
sediment size with hydraulic conductivity . Further a relationship between hydraulic
conductivity and standard deviation for non uniform sediment size was developed from the
experimental data .This equation can be effectively used to estimate the coefficient of
permeability for non uniform sands .
5.2 Conclusions
On the basis of critical analysis of various graphs following conclusion have been presented
below :
1. Hydraulic resistance increases as standard deviation increases thus decreasing the

hydraulic conductivity
2. On the basis of experimental results , the relationship between coefficient of permeability(K) ,

mean diameter (d50) and geometric standard deviation (σ) developed are as under :
K
2
= 4×10-4 σ-1.701
gd
This proposed equation is applicable for same shape group particles of different sizes at a
porosity of 40% and temperature 250C .
3. It has been observed on the basis of available data that a good correlation exists between
measured and estimated values of permeability for low value of standard deviation . More
deviation in value of permeability have been found for large variation in standard deviation
.Therefore the equation developed has been used for estimating the permeability value for small
range of standard deviation.
102
4. The plots of Friction factor and Reynold's number on log-log scale shows a linear variation at
low Reynold's number . It has been observed that the resistance of bed decreases as Reynold's
number increases .
5 While comparing the experimental result with the empirical equation , following
conclusions can be drawn :
a) The results indicate that value of hydraulic conductivity calculated from the empirical models
can be justified only for small value of standard deviation .
b) The study shows that Kozeny Carman model tends to follow experimental points more closely
followed by Allen Hazen model for small values of standard deviation . Terzaghi model
underestimated the value of hydraulic conductivity whereas drag force model shows rapid
variation in change of hydraulic conductivity with standard deviation
c) The reason for deviation from analytical results may be the violation of important assumption
that resistance to flow is proportional to the first power of velocity . At large standard deviation
the flow around particles deviates from the laminar flow.
5.3 Application of the present study
In the field of hydrogeology it is important to know how easy water can move through a porous
media . The availability of vast underground supplies of ground water and petroleum depends
primarily on the hydraulic conductivity of soil. It is an important phenomenon that occurs
appreciably in many physical situations such as flow through aquifers and in situations where
packing material is contained within structures like ground water extraction by drilling through
the strata, cooling towers, sewage treatment plants and chemical reactors.Moreover , many of the
difficulties faced in the design and construction of hydraulic structures and other engineering
works involving drainage are due to extreme variation of hydraulic conductivity of sediment
particles .So in the present study an attempt has been made to know the variation of hydraulic
conductivity with standard devation which can be useful to understand the behaviour of porous
media.
103
5.4 Suggestions for further studies
The following suggestions are made for further work on the problem of hydraulic conductivity
(permeability) through porous media
a) Material with large variation in standard deviation can be used to know the behaviour of
porous media and its variation with hydraulic conductivity .
b) In the present study emphasis has been given to linear regime of flow . Therefore it is
suggested to investigate the problem in transition as well as turbulent regimes of flow .
c) Effect of shape factor for various grain sizes can be investigated.
d) Different size and shape of permeameter can be used for various regime condition .
104
References
Alyamani., M. S. & Sen., Z ,1993 ,Determination of hydraulic conductivity from complete grain size
distribuition curves, Ground Water, 31(4), pp. 551-555.
Bakhmeteff, B. A. & Feodoroff, N. V.,1937, Flow through granular media'. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 4(A).
Barnes, B. B., Ahuja, L. R. & Cassel, R. R. , 1989, Evaluation of spatial distribution of hydraulic
conductivity using effective porosity data'. Soil Science, 148(6), pp. 404-411.
Rebecca T Barnes et al ,2014, Biochar-Induced Changes in Soil Hydraulic Conductivity and Dissolved
Nutrient Fluxes Constrained by Laboratory Experiments
Boadu, F. K. ,2000 ,Hydraulic Conductivity of Soils from Grain-Size Distribution: New Models,.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
Carman, P. C. ,1937, Fluid Flow through Granular Beds.In: Trans.Inst.Chem. Eng.. s.l.:s.n., pp. 15,150.
Carman, P. C. ,1956, Flow of Gases through Porous Media, London: Butterworths Scientific
Publications.
Carrier, W. D ., 2003, Goodbye, Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, p. 1054.
Cheng, C. & Chen, X. ,2007, Evaluation of Methods for Determination of Hydraulic Properties in an
Aquifer- Aquitard System Hydrologically Connected to River, Hydrogeology Journal, Volume 15, pp.
669-678.
Cirpka, O. ,2003,Environmental Fluid Mechanics I, In: Flow in Natural Hydrosystems. s.l.:s.n.
Corey, A. T. & Brooks, R. H. , 1964,Hydraulic properties of porous media,Colorado State University,

Fort Collins,Colorado,. Hydrology Papers, Issue 3.
Dallavalle, J. M .,1940, Micrometrics- The Technology of Fine Particles,New York: Pitman Publishing
Corporation.
Das, B. M ., 1994, Principles of Geotechnical Engineering ,Third ed. Boston: PWS Publishing Company.
Das, B. M.,2008, Advanced Soil Mechanics, In: New York: Taylor & Francis, p. 567.
DeGroot, D. J., Ostendorf, D. W. & Judge, A. I., 2012 ,In situ measurement of hydraulic conductivity of
saturated soils, Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 43(4), pp. 63-72.
Francher, G. H., Lewis, J. A. & Barnes, K. B., 1933, Some physical characteristics of oil sand
,USA, Mineral Industries Experiment Station, Bulletin 12, Pennsylvania State College.
Freeze, R. A. & Cherry, J. A. ,1979,Groundwater, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc..
105
Harleman D.R.F, Mehlorn M.P.F and Rumer Jr R. R .,1963,Dispersion -Permeability Correlation in
porous media , Journal Hydraulics Division , Proceedings of ASCE , vol 89
Hatch, G. M. & Fair, L. P. , 1933,Fundamental factors governing the stream-line flow of water through
sand J. Am. Water Works Assoc., Volume 25, p. 1551–1565.
Hazen, A. , 1892,Some Physical Properties of Sands and Gravels, with Special Reference to their Use in
Filtration 24th Annual Report, Massachusetts State Board of Health,Pub.Doc. No.34, pp. 539-556.
Holtz, R. D.et al., 2011 ,In: An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering , Upper Saddle River,NJ:
Prentice-Hall, p. 853.
Jabro, J. D., 1992, Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils from particle size distribution and
bulk density data ,Journal of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 35(2), pp. 557-560.
Jarvis .N et al .,2013,Influence of soil, land use and climatic factors on the hydraulic conductivity of soil
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 5185–5195, 2013
Kay , J.M .,1957, An introduction to fluid mechanics and heat transfer' , Cambridge university press ,
New York , p 241
Kozeny, J., 1927 , Uber Kapillare Leitung Des Wassers in Boden. Sitzungsber Akad. Wiss.Wien
Math.Naturwiss.Kl. (In German), Volume 2, pp. 136,271-306.
Krishna R. Reddy et al .,2009 ,Hydraulic Conductivity of MSW in Landfills , JOURNAL OF

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING ASCE / AUGUST p 677-683
Krumbein, W. C. & Sloss, L. L., 1963,Stratigraphy and Sedimentation,Second ed. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Leva, M. et al.,1957 ,Fluid flow through packed and fluidised systems, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Volume
504, p. 149.
McLaughlin, J. F. & Goetz, W. H.,1955, Permeability, Void Content and Durability of Bituminous
Concrete, Washington D.C., Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting.
McNown, J. S. & Malaika, J.,1950 ,Effect of Particle Shape on Settling Velocity at Low Reynold's
Number American Geophysical Union, 31(1), pp. 74-81.
Mora, C. F. & Kwan, A. K., 2000,Sphericity, shape factor, and convexity measurement of coarse
aggregate for concrete using digital image processing' Cement and Concrete Research, 30(3), pp. 351-
358.
Nielsen, D. R., Biggar, J. W. & Erh, K. T., 1973, Spatial Variability of field measured soil-
water properties,42(3), pp. 215-260.
Pentland, A., 1927, A method of measuring the angularity of sands, MAG. MN. A.L. Acta Eng. Dom.
Transaction of the Royal Society of Canada, 21(3), p. 93.
Pinder, G. F. & Celia, M. A.,2006 ,Subsurface Hydrology , Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons Inc..
R R Rumer Jr and Drinker Philip.A .,1966 ,Resistance to laminar flow through porous media , Journal of
hydraulic division proceeding of ASCE vol 92
106
Salarashayeri, A. F. & Siosemarde, M., 2012, Prediction of Soil Hydraulic Conductivity from Particle-
Size Distribution, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 6, pp. 395-399.
Scheidegger A E.,1957 , Physics of flow through porous media , University of Toronto Press , p 91
Shepherd, R. G. ,1989 , Correlations of Permeability and Grain size, Ground Water, 27(5), pp. 633-638.
Shepherd, R. G.,1989, Correlations of Permeability and Grain Size, Ground Water, 27(5), pp. 663-638.
Taylor D.W ., 1948 ,Fundamentals of soil mechanics , John wiley and sons , Inc, NewYork , p111
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B., 1964,Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, New York: Wiley.
Todd, D. K. & Mays, L. W., 2005, Groundwater Hydrology ,New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Uma, K. O., Egboka, B. C. & Onuoha, K. M., 1989,New statistical grain-size method for evaluating the
hydraulic conductivity of sandy aquifers , Journal of Hydrology, Volume 108, pp. 343-366.
Vukovic, M. & Soro, A.,1992,Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity of Porous Media from Grain-
Size Composition ' Colorado: Water Resources Publications, Littleton.
Wadell, H.,1932, Volume, Shape, and roundness of rock particles, Journal of Geology, Volume 40, pp.
443-451.
Wadell, H., 1933,Sphericity and roundness of rock Particles, Journal of Geology, 41(3), pp. 310-331.
Wadell, H., 1934, Shape determination of large sedimental rock fragments'The Pan-American
Geologist, Volume 61, pp. 187-220.
Wadell, H.,1935, Volume, shape, and roundness of quartz particles Journal of Geology, Volume 43,
pp. 250-179.
Wang, T., D. Wedin, and V. A. Zlotnik .,2009, Field evidence of a negative correlation between
saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil carbon in a sandy soil, Water Resource. Res., 45, W07503,
doi:10.1029/2008WR006865.
107

Thesis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Thesis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

STUDY ON EFFECT OF NON UNIFORMITY OF SEDIMENTS ON

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF POROUS MEDIA

IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Date: Janmeet Singh

Mohd. Afaq Alam

analytical equations proposed by various researchers , there is a large variation of coefficient of

value of non uniform material for small range of standard variation .

1.2 Hydraulic conductivity……………………………………………………….…………2

1.5 Factors affecting hydraulic conductivity ( Permeability)……………........................8

2.2.5 Bakhmeteff and Feodoroff formula……………………………….…………….18

2.2.11 Justice Odong …………………………………………………………………...20

2.2.17 A.F.Salarashayeri and M.Siosemarde…………………………………………22

3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE………………………………………....27

3.2.7 Source of supply………………………………………………………………….29

3.4.3 Specific gravity test………………………………………………………......…..39

4.2.1 Standard deviation………………………………………………………………44

4.4 Variation of i vs Re…………………………………………………………………….47

5. Conclusion and suggestions for further studies……….…………………………….…..102

Figure 3.1 : Experimental Set up ………………………………………………………………...………………..28

Figure 3.2 : Grain size distribution of sand samples……………………………………………………………...29

Figure 4.1 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.0425cm)………………………………….50

Figure 4.2 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.05cm)…………………………………….53

Figure 4.3 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.06cm)…………………………………….57

Figure 4.4 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.0425cm)…………………………………60

Figure 4.5 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.03cm)…………………………………….64

Figure 4.6 : Variation of hydraulic gradient vs Reynold number (0.05cm)…………………………………….67

Figure 4.7 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.0425 cm )……………………………………..70

Figure 4.8 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.05 cm )……………………...…………………71

Figure 4.9 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.06 cm )…………………………………….….72

Figure 4.10 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.0425 cm )…………………………………….73

Figure 4.11 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.03 cm )……………………………………....74

Figure 4.12 : Variation of Friction factor vs Reynold number (0.05 cm )……………………………………….75

Figure 4.14 (a) : Variation of K with σ (0.0425 cm)………………………………………………………………77

Figure 4.14 (b): Variation of K with σ (0.05 cm)………………………………………………………………….78

Figure 4.14 (c): Variation of K with σ (0.06 cm)………………………………………………………………….79

Figure 4.14 (d): Variation of K with σ (0.0425 cm)……………………………………………………………….80

Figure 4.14 (e): Variation of K with σ (0.03 cm)………………………………………………………………….81

Figure 4.15 (a) : Variation of Kp with σ (0.0425 cm)……………………………………………………………...77

Figure 4.15 (b): Variation of Kp with σ (0.05cm)…………………………………………………………………78

Figure 4.15 (c): Variation of Kp with σ (0.06 cm)………………………………………………………………....78

Figure 4.15 (d): Variation of Kp with σ (0.0425 cm)……………………………………………………………...80

Figure 4.15 (e): Variation of Kp with σ (0.03 cm)…………………………………………………………………81

Figure 4.15 (f): Variation of Kp with σ (0.05 cm)…………………………………………………………………82

Table 3.1 : Material Specification………………………………………………………………………………….30

Table 4.1 : Value of porosity function ……………………………………………………………………………..46

Table 4.5 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter(σ=2.0187)…………………………...49

Table 4.6 : Hydraulic conductivity for sand sample 0.0425 cm diameter(σ=2.421…….……………………….49

A Cross-Sectional area of flow including solids & voids.

AS Cross sectional area of solids

AV Cross sectional area of voids

C Constant of Allen Hazen’s approximate formula

d Geometric mean diameter of particles in Krumbein & Monk

d10 Effective diameter of particles

d50 Mean diameter of particles

D Average size of grain

dA Cross-sectional area of the element

ds Length of cylindrical element

dg Geometric mean diameter

dvsm Volume surface mean diamete

dvm Volume mean diameter