Subject:

Lab #7 Hydraulic Conductivity

Executive summary
In this lab, a soil was tested using the Constant-Head Method as well as with the
Falling-Head Method of ASTM standard D2434. The same soil sample was used for
both tests to save time. The tests obtained the constant K, which is the coefficient of
permeability for a given soil. K determines the hydraulic conductivity of a soil, or the
ability of fluid to flow through a soil.
Through the Constant-Head Method, the soil sample was placed in an apparatus that
allows water to flow through the sample in a controlled manner. In this test, water is
allowed to flow through the soil while being timed. The elevation head of each trial is
controlled by the position of the tube that opens the container to the atmosphere. The
water level is measured before and after the flow. This reveals the amount of water that
passed in the given time. Using these measurements, the velocity of the flow and i, the
relationship between height change and length the fluid travels, are found. The
relationship between these two values are graphed. The slope of the line of best fit of
the data reveals the calculated K constant, which was found to be 0.0307 cm/s.
The Falling-Head Method uses the same apparatus and sample used as the ConstantHead Method. In this test, the elevation head is constantly falling as the tube that allows
air into the apparatus is no longer below the water level. The water is allowed to flow for
a given amount of time. The distance from the water level to the soil sample is
measured before and after the water flow. These values along with the time of flow and
Eq. 6 give the value of K. Two trials were done, and the average K was calculated to be
0.0307 cm/s.
Introduction
The purpose of this lab is to determine the hydraulic conductivity constant of a soil
sample. It is crucial to know the hydraulic conductivity of a soils, for this knowledge

gives insight on the behavior of water in the soil. This is an important soil parameter for
any engineering project where water flow is a concern. For example, seepage under a
dam or drainage from backfills. The higher the value of the hydraulic conductivity
constant, the greater the flow of fluid will be through the soil. The first part of this lab, the
Constant-Head Method, uses elevation heads and flow volumes to calculate flow
velocity and hydraulic gradient. The relationship between these two values is shown in a
scatterplot. The linear relationship reveals the K constant for the given soil. The second
part, the Falling-Head Method uses head differences and time to calculate K using Eq.
6.
This report contains the methods and results collected from the Constant-Head Method
as well as with the Falling-Head Method of ASTM standard D2434.
Methods and Materials
This lab resembles the Constant-Head Method as well as with the Falling-Head Method
of ASTM standard D2434.
To begin this lab, a dry sample of a granular soil is obtained. The soil is then placed in
the testing apparatus. The soil is held in place by two mesh screens on either side, one
will very small openings and one with larger openings to disallow the flow of soil along
with the water. The apparatus is sealed by rubber strips that are tightened by metal
bands on the exterior. The bottom of the apparatus is open to the atmosphere, while the
top is sealed, with the only opening being an adjustable tube with a stopper. The main
cavity of the device is filled with water and sealed.
The Constant-Head Test is then conducted. In this test, water is allowed to flow through
the soil while being timed. The elevation head of each trial is controlled by the position
of the tube that opens the container to the atmosphere. Since the elevation head needs
to remain constant, the tube must be below the water level at all times. The water level
is measured before and right after the flow. This reveals the amount of water that
passed in the given time. Using these measurements, the velocity of the flow and the

hydraulic gradient are found using Eq.1 Eq. 4. The measurement must be taken right
after the stopper has been replaced in the tube connecting the cavity to the open
atmosphere because the water line will continue to drop as the weight of the water
creates a vacuum in the open cavity. This process is repeated four times for a total of
five trials. The relationship between velocity and hydraulic gradient is then graphed. The
slope of the line of best fit of the data on this plot reveals the hydraulic conductivity
constant. The K for each trial is calculated using Eq. 5. All data and calculations for this
test are found in Table 1. The plot from this data is shown in Figure 1.
The Falling-Head Method uses the same apparatus and sample used as the ConstantHead Method. In this test, the elevation head is constantly falling as the tube that allows
air into the apparatus is no longer below the water level. The water is allowed to flow for
a given amount of time. The distance from the water level to the soil sample is
measured before and after the water flow. These distances are the initial and final
elevation heads. These values along with the time of flow and Eq. 6 give the value of K.
Two trials are done, and the average K can then be calculated from the results. The
data and calculations for this test are found in Table 2.
Equations
Hydraulic Gradient:
i=

(1)

L+ y 1
L

Where L is the length of the soil sample, and y1 is the elevation head of the trial
Discharge Volume:

(2)

Q = (ho hf) * a
Where h is the final and initial height of the water level and a is area of the reservoir

Flow Rate:
q = Q/t

(3)

Where Q is discharge volume and t is time

Velocity:

(4)

V = q/A
Where q is flow rate and A is soil cross sectional area
Hydraulic Conductivity Constant (Constant Head Test):

(5)

K = V/i
Where V is velocity and i is hydraulic gradient
Hydraulic Conductivity Constant (Falling Head Test):
K=

(6)

h1
2.3 aL
log
At
h2

) ( )

Where a is reservoir area, A is soil area, L is length of soil, t is time, and h is initial and
final elevation head

Results
Table 1: Constant Head Test Data
Test
#

y1
(cm)

i
(cm/c
m)

1.00

41.40

6.36

2.00

36.50

5.73

3.00

33.90

5.39

4.00

21.40

3.77

5.00

11.80

2.53

q
V
K
hi
hf
Q
(cm3/ (cm/ (cm/s
(cm) (cm) t (s) (cm3) s)
s)
)
54.7 47.5 42.0 324.7
0.16 0.026
0
0
5
27 7.722
9
6
47.0 40.1 48.0 311.1
0.14 0.024
0
0
7
97 6.474
2
8
39.1 32.0 57.5 320.2
0.12 0.022
0
0
8
17 5.561
2
6
30.9 23.8 91.6 320.2
0.07 0.020
0
0
1
17 3.495
7
3
22.8 15.8 146. 315.7
0.04 0.018
0
0
64
07 2.153
7
7

f(x) = 0.03x - 0.04

Figure 1: Hydraulic Conductivity Curve

As seen in Figure 1 above, the slope of the line of best fit is 0.0307. This means the
hydraulic conductivity constant from the Constant-Head Test Method is found to be
0.0307 cm/s.
Table 2: Falling Head Test Data
Trial

K
ho (cm)
dh (cm) h1 (cm)
h2 (cm)
t (s)
(cm/s)
1
14.20
4.20
18.10
13.90
66.78
0.0301
2
8.60
4.60
13.65
9.05
99.93
0.0313

From Table 2, the calculated K constants are used to find the average shown below.
(K1 + K2)/2 = 0.0307 cm/s
The calculated hydraulic conductivity constant from the Falling-Head Test Method is
found to be 0.0307 cm/s.

Discussion
This lab determined the hydraulic conductivity constant of a soil sample using the
Constant-Head Method as well as with the Falling-Head Method of ASTM standard
D2434. This value determines the ability of the soil to allow fluid to flow through the soil.
With civil engineering projects, this fluid is typically water. The Constant-Head Method
produced a plot which related flow velocity to hydraulic gradient for the soil sample. This
linear relationship could then be used to fine the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. The
slope, and therefore K constant, was found to be 0.0307 cm/s for this test. The FallingHead Method provided two calculations for K which were averaged to be 0.0307 cm/s.
It is unusual that these two tests produced the same value for K because error is always
present. The reaction time between stopping the timer and removing/replacing the
rubber stopper in both tests may effect the data by altering the true value of time used in
the calculations. If t were smaller than the actual value, the calculated K would be larger
than the actual constant because they are inversely proportional. The human error of
reading the measurements of h are also present as it is difficult to accurately determine
this value using only the eye and meter stick, especially because after the stopper is
replaced, the water level continues to drop as a vacuum is created. An error in any
recorded h could result in a calculated K higher or lower than the true value.
This calculated K may not be indicative of the true value of K for the natural soil. This is
because in the lab, water is flowing vertically. However, in the field water may flow
horizontally or in any direction for that matter. Permeability may vary depending on
direction of flow. The soil sample also may not behave the same as the soil in the
natural state as it may be compacted differently. Compaction decreases void space,
which in result decreases permeability. As the trials continued and water passed
through the soil, it is expected that the sample be compacted to some degree. This
differentiates the trials, and also explains the decrease of calculated K for each trial as
seen in Table 1. This is why a line of best fit is preferred over an average of the data
from each trial.

Conclusion
The hydraulic conductivity constant from the Constant-Head Test was found to be
0.0307 cm/s, and from the Falling-Head Test was also found to be 0.0307 cm/s.
Although it is odd that the two tests resulted in identical values considering the many
sources of error, it is reassuring that the tests produced similar outcomes. This value
determines the ability of the soil to allow fluid to flow through the soil. The higher the
value of the hydraulic conductivity constant, the greater the flow of fluid will be through
the soil. This constant is a necessary value to know for engineering practices that
involve water flow because it gives insight on how the water will behave around the
structure.
Results from other lab groups were not obtained, so comparisons could not be made.
The lab method under ASTM standards is consistent and precise, however additional
trials and class comparison would better determine the reliability of the results.

References
ASTM, 2007 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
Copyright, American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.