Permeability From Grain Size Distribution PDF

PREDICTING THE PERMEABILITY OF SANDY SOILS FROM
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science
by
Emine Mercan Onur
May, 2014
Thesis written by
Emine Mercan Onur
B.S., Middle East Technical University, 2009
M.S., Kent State University, 2014
Approved by
___________________________________, Advisor
___________________________________, Chair, Department of Geology
___________________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... xiv
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Factors affecting Permeability ................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 Effect of Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution ...................................................... 5
1.2.2 Effect of Density and Void Ratio............................................................................... 7
1.2.3 Effect of Soil Texture and Structure .......................................................................... 7
1.3 Previous Investigations ........................................................................................... 7
1.4 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................... 13
2.1 Sample Collection and Preparation ....................................................................... 13
2.2 Laboratory Investigations ..................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Grain Size Distribution Test .................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Compaction Test ...................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 18
2.3.1 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Modeling of Data ..................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3: DATA PRESENTATION ......................................................................... 22
3.1 Grain Size Distribution ......................................................................................... 22

iii
3.1.1 Grain Size Distribution by Sieve Analysis .............................................................. 22
3.1.2 Grain Size Distribution by the Camsizer Video Grain Size Analyzer ..................... 24
3.1.3 Comparison of Sieve Analysis and the Camsizer Video Grain Size Analyzer ........ 26
3.2 Compaction Test Data........................................................................................... 32
3.3 Permeability Data.................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER 4: EFFECT OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY ON
PERMEABILITY ............................................................................................................. 41
4.1 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................ 41
4.1.1 Statistical Evaluation of Data................................................................................... 41
4.1.2 Bivariate Analysis .................................................................................................... 44
4.1.3 Multiple Regression Analysis .................................................................................. 51
4.2 New Permeability Index ....................................................................................... 57
4.3 3-D Prediction Model ........................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 68
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS ..................................... 766
6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 76
6.2 Recomendations .................................................................................................. 777
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 788
APPENDIX A: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOTS ................................................ 81
APPENDIX B: COMPACTION AND PERMEABILITY DATA ................................ 922
APPENDIX C: HISTOGRAMS OF NON-TRANSFORMED DATA .......................... 944
APPENDIX D: HISTOGRAMS AND P-P PLOTS OF TRANSFORMED DATA ........ 99
iv
APPENDIX E: BIVARIATE ANALYSIS PLOTS OF NON-TRANSFORMED DATA
....................................................................................................................................... 1088
APPENDIX F: CALCULATION OF NEW PERMEABILITY INDEX ..................... 1166
APPENDIX G: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DENSITY, PERMEABILITY, AND
NEW PERMEABILITY INDEX DATA FOR THE THREE SOILS (#7 AND 8) USED
FOR VALIDATION PURPOSE .................................................................................... 119
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Typical grain size distribution curve with commonly used grain size indices ..6
Figure 1.2: Particle shape characterization: (a) chart for visual estimation of roundness
and sphericity (from Krumbein and Sloss, 1963). (b) Examples of particle
shape characterization (from Powers, 1953) ......................................................8
Figure 1.3: Diagram showing horizontal flow through grains (From Das, 2008) ...............8
Figure 2.1: Six sandy soils used in the study .....................................................................14
Figure 2.2: (a) Camsizer video grain size analyzer for grain size distribution analysis; (b)
close up view of grains before falling ..............................................................16
Figure 2.3: Standard compaction test apparatus ................................................................17
Figure 2.4: Constant head permeability test set up ............................................................17
Figure 3.1: Grain size distribution of six soil samples by sieve analysis ..........................23
Figure 3.2: Grain size distribution curves by Camsizer video grain size analyzer. Soil 3,
results of Brooks study, was not available to test by camsizer ........................25
Figure 3.3: Comparison of D10 values by sieve analysis and Camsizer video grain size
analyzer ............................................................................................................27
analyzer ............................................................................................................27
analyzer ............................................................................................................28
Figure 3.6: Comparison of Cu values by sieve analysis and Camsizer methods ...............28
vi
Figure 3.7: Comparison of Cc values by sieve analysis and Camsizer video grain size
analyzer ...........................................................................................................29
Figure 3.8: Comparison of %C values by sieve analysis and Camsizer video grain size
analyzer ...........................................................................................................29
Figure 3.9: Comparison of %M values by sieve analysis and Camsizer video grain size
analyzer ...........................................................................................................30
Figure 3.10: Comparison of %F values by sieve analysis and Camsizer video grain size
analyzer ...........................................................................................................30
Figure 3.11: Comparison of Hazen permeability (kHazen) values by using D10 values both
fromsieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size analyzer ......................31
Figure 3.12: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 1 .....................34
Figure 4.1: Matrix of bivariate scatterplots of non-transformed data. Numbers on left of
the matrix represent the row numbers and numbers at the bottom of the
matrix are the column numbers. Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) values
are shown in red on the top of the individual plots ........................................45
Figure 4.2: Matrix of bivariate scatter plots of transformed data with Pearsons
correlation coefficients (r) value shown on the top of each plot ....................46
vii
Figure 4.3: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of medium sand size (%M) at different
densities. Red square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry
density (MDD) ...............................................................................................48
Figure 4.4: (a) Permeability vs. D10 at different densities. Red square represents loose
state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD) ................................49
Figure 4.5: Transformed data of permeability vs. percentage of medium sand size(%M).50
Figure 4.6: Transformed data of permeability vs. D10 .......................................................51
Figure 4.7: Frequency distribution of standardized residual values ..................................55
Figure 4.8: Scatter plot of standardized residual and predicted values..............................55
Figure 4.9: Measured versus predicted values of permeability .........................................56
Figure 4.10: Grain size distribution of soil 5 for calculation of new permeability index ..58
Figure 4.11: Relationship between permeability index and permeability with a prediction
equation; Ln (Permeability) =1.19 0.22 (Permeability Index) + 0.006
(Permeability Index) 2 ....................................................................................60
Figure 4.12: Measured versus predicted values of permeability for all density based on
Equation 8. Soil 7 and 8 used for validation are represented by the red points.
........................................................................................................................62
Figure 4.13: Measured versus predicted values of permeability for average density. Soil 7
and 8 used for validation are represented by the red point.. ...........................63
Figure 4.14: 3-D plot of permeability index, density, and permeability. The color scale
represents permeability values in 10-3 cm/sec units .......................................64
viii
........................................................................................................................66
and 8 used for validation are represented by the red point .............................67
Figure 5.1: Measured versus predicted values of permeability based on Equation 1 ........73
Figure A-1: Grain size distributions of soil 1 replicates ....................................................82
Figure A-6: Comparison of grain size distributions of soil 1 by sieve analysis and
Camsizer video grain size analyzer ................................................................87
ix
Figure C-1: Frequency distribution of permeability and density .......................................95
Figure C-2: Frequency distribution of D10 and Cu, ...........................................................96
Figure C-3: Frequency distribution of Cc and %C ............................................................97
Figure C-4: Frequency distribution of %M and %F ..........................................................98
Figure D-1: Frequency histograms (left) and p-p plots (right) of transformations of
permeability with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP), and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS) ..........................................................100
density with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP), and
Figure D-3: Frequency histograms (left) and p-p plots (right) of transformations of D10
with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP), and
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson
test score (DP), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS) .........................103
x
coefficient of curvature (Cc) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test
score (DP), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS) ................................104
percent of coarse sand size (%C) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson
percent of medium sand size (%M) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-
Pearson test score (DP), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS) ...........106
percent of fine sand size (%F) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson
Figure E-1: (a) Permeability vs. all measured density. Red square represents loose state
permeability; (b) permeability vs. maximum dry density (MDD) ...............109
Figure E-2: (a) Permeability vs. D10 at all density. Red square represents loose state
permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD) ......................................110
Figure E-3: (a) Permeability vs. coefficient of uniformity (Cu) at all density. Red square
represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD) ...111
Figure E-4: (a) Permeability vs. coefficient of curvature (Cc)at all density. Red square
represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD) ...112
xi
Figure E-5: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of coarse sand size (%C) at all density. Red
square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density
(MDD) ..........................................................................................................113
Figure E-6: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of medium sand size (%M) at all density. Red
(MDD) ..........................................................................................................114
Figure E-7: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of fine sand size (%F) at all density. Red
(MDD) ..........................................................................................................115
Figure G-1: Grain size distribution of soil 7 for calculation of new permeability index.120
Figure G-2: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 7 ....................121
Figure G-3: Grain size distribution of soil 8 for calculation of new permeability index.121
Figure G-4: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 8 ....................123
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Grain size distribution indices based on results of sieve analysis ....................23
Table 3.2: Grain size distribution indices based on Camsizer grain size analyzer. Note
grain size index data for soil 3, tested by Brooks (2001), are not available ....25
Table 3.3: Optimum water content and maximum dry density of soil samples with
corresponding permeability values ..................................................................33
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of all variables ................................................................42
Table 4.2: Transformation functions..................................................................................43
Table 4.3: Model summary and Anova of stepwise multiple regression analysis .............52
Table 4.4: Coefficients of independent variables for the three models .............................53
Table 4.5: An example of permeability index calculation for soil 5 .................................58
Table 4.6: Residuals of predicted vs. measured permeability values for average density.63
Table 4.7: Residuals of predicted vs. measured permeability values for average density.67
Table B-1: Compaction and permeability data ..................................................................93
Table F-1: Calculation of permeability index values .......................................................117
Table G-1: New permeability index calculation for soil 7 ..............................................120
Table G-2: New permeability index calculation for soil 8 ..............................................122
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr.
Abdul Shakoor for his guidance, patience, help and support in every stages of this thesis.
Without the support, encouragement and advices of him this thesis would not be possible.
I would also like to thank to my committee members Dr. Ortiz and Dr. Hacker for their
valuable advices, suggestions and comments.
I am grateful to Dr. Kazim Khan for contributions in mathematical modeling. My
sincere thank goes to Dr. Neil Well for his time and helping me to improve my
background in statistical analysis. I would like to thank to Merida for her help on
technical issues.
Funding for this project was generously provided by the Turkish Petroleum
Pipeline Corporation. I am indebted to the company for their financial supports in this
masters project.
At last but not the least, I would like to express to my gratitude to my parents
Fatos Mercan and Koksal Onur, to my sister Selcan Onur and to my friend Yinal Huvaj.
My parents have been my best friends all my life and thank them for all their advice,
encouragements, and support.
xiv
ABSTRACT
Permeability is one of the most important and frequently used properties of soils.
Grain size distribution and density are known to influence the permeability of sandy soils.
Although the relationships between grain size distribution and permeability has been
quantified in previous studies, the influenced of density has not been quantified. The
objective of this research was to investigate the quantitative relationships between
permeability and grain size distribution indices such as effective particle size (D10),
coefficient of uniformity (Cu), coefficient of curvature (Cc), percentage of coarse sand
fraction by weight of sample (%C), percentage of medium sand fraction by weight of
sample (%M), and percentage of fine sand fraction by weight of sample (%F) to
determine whether these relationships could be used for reliable estimates of
permeability. Six samples of sandy soils, ranging from well graded to poorly graded,
were tested in the laboratory to determine their grain size distribution, maximum dry
density (MDD), and optimum water content (OWC). The D10, Cu, Cc, %C, %M, and %F
values for each soil were calculated from the grain size distribution plots. Based on the
compaction curves, five replicate samples of each soil were prepared at varying dry
density values and tested for permeability using the constant head permeability test.
Results show that the lowest permeability for sandy soils is achieved at or slightly
on the dry side of OWC. To investigate the relationship between permeability and grain
size distribution indices, bivariate and step-wise regression analyses were performed.
1
2
The results show that D10, density, and %M have the strongest correlation (Adjusted R2 =
0.67) with permeability, explaining 67% of the variability in permeability.
Permeability depends on the sizes and shapes of interconnections between
adjacent pores which, in turn, are influenced by the entire grain size distribution. This
research proposes a new grain size distribution index for predicting permeability,
designated as the new permeability index. In addition to considering the entire grain
size distribution, the new permeability index assigns different weights to different size
fractions in the soil with the finest fraction having the maximum weight and the coarsest
fraction having the least weight. The new permeability index values for the six soils were
correlated with their corresponding permeability values, resulting in a second order
quadratic equation with an R2 value of 0.76. This relationship can reliably be used to
predict permeability as is indicated by the small amount of residuals between measured
and predicted values of permeability.
A 3-D model was developed to show the combined effect of the new permeability
index and density on permeability.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of grain size distribution on
the permeability of sandy soils and to evaluate grain size distribution indices as predictors
of permeability.
1.1 Background
Permeability, also known as hydraulic conductivity, is the property that represents
the ease with which water flows through porous media (Jabro, 1992; Alyamani and Sen,
1993; Holtz et al., 2011; Salarashayeri and Siosemarde, 2012). It 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 in geotechnical engineering (Das, 2008). Additionally,
information about permeability 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). However, permeability is also one of the most
3
4
variable properties, varying in both horizontal and vertical directions (Jabro, 1992). This
is particularly true for glacial soils which are heterogeneous in nature. 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). To overcome this problem, field pumping tests are generally used
for major engineering projects. However, performing a series of field pumping tests is
both expensive and time consuming (Shepherd, 1989; Jabro, 1992). Also, in situ methods
usually measure horizontal permeability (DeGroot et al., 2012). Because of these
limitations of laboratory and field methods, many researchers (Hazen, 1892; Kozeny,
1927 and Carmen, 1956; Terzagi and Peck, 1964; Kenney et al., 1984; Alyamani and
Sen, 1993) have attempted to develop empirical equations for predicting permeability
from grain size distribution parameters.
1.2 Factors affecting Permeability
Permeability is a complex property that is controlled by physical properties of
both the soil and the permeating fluid (DeGroot et al., 2012). At a constant temperature of
20C, the common room temperature, the viscosity and unit weight of water remain
5
constant. Therefore, physical properties such as grain size distribution, density, void ratio,
and soil texture and structure affect the magnitude of permeability.
1.2.1 Effect of Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution
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 ( C u D60 ), coefficient of

D10
2
curvature ( C c D 30 ), particle sizes, D10, D30, and D60, where D10, D30, and D60 are
D10 D 60
particle sizes, in mm, of 10%, 30%, and 60%, by weight of soil, passing the respective
sieve sizes (Figure 1.1). 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.

6
Figure 1.1: Typical grain size distribution curve with commonly used grain size indices.
7
1.2.2 Effect of Density and Void Ratio
Dry density () is the ratio of the mass of the solids in a soil to its total volume,
the sum of volume of solids and volume of voids. Void ratio (e) is defined as the ratio of
the volume of voids to the volume of solids (Das, 2008). Density and void ratio are
inversely related. Permeability decreases as density increases or void ratio decreases.
1.2.3 Effect of Soil Texture and Structure
Texture and structure relate to size, shape, and arrangement of particles in a soil
mass. Particle shape has an important effect on permeability as it influences the size and
shape of interconnection between particles (Figure 1.2). The more angular the grains are,
the smaller the voids and more tortuous the flow paths will be (Figure 1.3). This is
because edges and corners of angular grains can fit into voids; i.e. there is a greater
degree of interlocking (Holtz et al., 2011).
1.3 Previous Investigations
In addition to laboratory and field measurements, permeability can be empirically
predicted from grain size distribution indices. Some researchers (Hazen, 1892; Kozeny,
1927 and Carmen, 1956; Terzagi and Peck, 1964; Kenney et al., 1984; Alyamani and
Sen, 1993) have attempted to correlate various indices of grain size distribution with the
permeability of granular soils. Hazens formula (Hazen, 1892) given below, is most
frequently encountered in the literature and is the most commonly used empirical
relationship to determine permeability:

8
Figure 1.2: Particle shape characterization: (a) chart for visual estimation of roundness
and sphericity (from Krumbein and Sloss, 1963). (b) Examples of particle shape
characterization (from Powers, 1953).
Figure 1.3: Diagram showing horizontal flow through grains (From Das, 2008).
9
k C(D10 ) 2 (1)
Where:
k = coefficient of permeability (cm/sec)
C = constant ranging from 0.4 to 1.2, typically assumed to be 1.0.
D10 = grain size corresponding to 10% by weight passing, also referred to as the
effective size (mm).
The advantage of Hazens formula is that D10 from a large number of samples at a
given site can be quickly and easily determined to compute permeability. This helps
evaluate the variability of permeability at a given site in a quick and cost effective
manner. However, a major limitation of Hazens formula is that it is more reliably valid
for clean sands with D10 ranging from 0.1 to 3.0 mm (Holtz et al., 2011). Additionally,
this method is based on only one size fraction, D10, which represents the percentage of
fine material in a granular soil.
Another empirical equation for predicting permeability from grain size
distribution, originally proposed by Kozeny (1927) and modified by Carman (1937,
1956), to become the Kozeny-Carman equation is given below. This equation is not
appropriate for soils with effective particle size (D10) greater than 3 mm or for clayey
soils (Carrier, 2003).

10
g n3
k 8.3x10 3 D10
2
v (1 n )
2 (2)
Where:
k = permeability (cm/sec)
g = the acceleration due to gravity (cm/sec2)
v = kinematic viscosity (mm2/sec)
n = porosity
D10 = grain size corresponding to 10% by weight passing (mm).
Terzaghi and Peck (1964) developed the following empirical equation for
predicting permeability of course grained sands (Cheng and Chen, 2007).
2
g n 0.13 2
k Ct D10 (3)
v (1 n )1/ 3
Where:
k = permeability (cm/sec).
g = the acceleration due to gravity (cm/sec2).
v = kinematic viscosity (mm2/sec).
Ct = sorting coefficient, ranging between 6.1x10-3 and 10.7x10-3.
n = porosity.
Kenney et al. (1984) proposed the following equation for estimating permeability
using only a single point from the grain size distribution curve of the soil.
11
k (0.005)D5
2
(4)
Where,
k = permeability (cm/day).
Alyamani and Sen (1993) proposed the following equation which is more
applicable to well-graded soils (Odong, 2007).
k 1.5046I 0 0.025(D50 D10 )

2
(5)
Where:
k = permeability (m/day)
I0 = the x intercept of the slope of the line formed by D50 and D10 of the grain-size
distribution curve (mm)
D10 = grain size corresponding to10% by weight passing (mm).
None of the equations presented above considers the effect of the entire grain size
distribution on the permeability of soils. Since grain size distribution controls the nature
of interconnections between pores, the entire grain size distribution, rather than a single
point on the grain size distribution curve, needs to be considered to reliably estimate the
permeability of granular soils. Furthermore, none of the previously developed equations
considers the effect of soil density on permeability.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this research are as follows:

12
1. To investigate the relationships between permeability of sandy soils and their
corresponding values of D10, Cu, and Cc to determine if these grain size
distribution indices can be used to reliably predict permeability while considering
the effect of density.
2. To develop a prediction model relating permeability to grain size distribution and
density.
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODS
2.1 Sample Collection and Preparation
Five sandy soils, exhibiting different grain size distribution curves, were collected
for this research from locations around Kent, Ohio. A sixth sandy soil, previously tested
by Brooks (2001), was added to the samples used in this study. Figure 2.1 shows the six
soils used in the study. All soil samples were oven dried at 105C for 24 hours. The oven-
dried samples were stored in five gallon plastic buckets with covers.
2.2 Laboratory Investigations
Laboratory tests performed on the six soils included grain size distribution,
standartd Proctor, and constant head permeability tests. All tests were conducted
according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications (ASTM,
1996).
2.2.1 Grain Size Distribution Test
This test was used to determine the percentages of different grain sizes present in
each of the six soils in order to establish the grain size distribution curves and determine
the grain size distribution indices such as effective grain size (D10), coefficient of
uniformity (Cu), and coefficient of curvature (Cc). These indices are shown in Figure 1.1
13
14
Figure 2.1: Six sandy soils used in the study.

15
of Chapter 1. Sandy soils are classified as well-graded when the Cu values are greater
than 6 and the Cc falls between 1 and 3. If these criteria are not met, the sandy soils are
classified as poorly-graded. Using these criteria, the six sandy soils were classified
according to Unified Soil Classification System (Holtz et al., 2011).
In addition to sieve analysis, the Camsizer video grain size analyzer was used to
determine grain size distribution to evaluate the importance of a different method for
determining grain size distribution indicies. The results obtained by the two methods
were compared. Sieve analysis is the ASTM procedure for determining grain size
distribution; the Camsizer technique is not a standardized procedure. Camsizer video
grain size analyzer is a digital imaging process that has two cameras: a zoom video that
analyzes smaller grains and a wide angle video that analyzes larger grains (Figure 2.2.).
2.2.2 Compaction Test
The standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698); (ASTM, 1996) was performed on all
soil samples to establish their compaction curves and to determine their maximum dry
density (MDD) and optimum water content (OWC) values. The standard Proctor test
equipment is shown in Figure 2.3.
2.2.3 Constant Head Permeability Test
The constant head permeability test (ASTM D 2434); (ASTM, 1966) was used to
determine the permeability of the six soils (Figure 2.4). Five or six samples of each sandy
soil were compacted at different density values and tested for permeability. The quantity
16
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.2: (a) Camsizer video grain size analyzer; (b) close up view of grains before
falling.
17
Figure 2.3: Standard compaction test apparatus.
Figure 2.4: Constant head permeability test set up.

18
of water passing through the sample in 5 minutes (300 seconds) was collected in a
graduated cylinder to compute permeability in accordance with Darcys law (Holz, et
al.,2011). The test was repeated five times for each sample and average permeability
values were computed and reported in cm/sec.
2.3 Data Analysis
Microsoft Excel 2010 was used to generate smooth line plots showing grain size
distribution curves, density versus water content relationships, and density versus
permeability relationships for each soil.
2.3.1 Statistical Analysis
An unpublished computer program, written by Dr. Neil Wells, Department of
Geology, Kent State University, and SPSS program were used for statistical analysis.
Statistical analyses were performed in three steps: univariate, bivariate, and step-
wise regression analyses. In the first step, distribution properties of each variable were
analyzed by univariate analysis. In the second and third steps, bivariate and step-wise
regression analyses were perfomed to investigate the relationships between permeability
as the dependent variable and density and various grain size distribution indices as the
independent variables.
Multiple regressions can be simultaneously or hierarchically performed. In
simultaneous multiple regression analysis, all independent variables are entered into the
equation at one time, whereas, in hierarchical multiple regression, independent variables

19
are entered in different steps. The important difference between these two types of
regression analysis is that hierarchical regression is helpful in understanding the effect of
each variable. Variations of hierarchical regression analysis include backward
elimination, forward selection, and stepwise regression analysis (Dielman, 2001). Step-
wise regression, including both backward elimination and forward selection, was used to
evaluate the importance of the independent variables by adding the variable according to
their partial F statistic (Dielman, 2001). Regression started with the variable that had the
largest partial F statistic. When a new variable was entered to the model, partial F statistic
values with other variable were recalculated. The importance of each variable was
evaluated. Based on their importance, variables were re-entered or removed from the
model. The significance level (partial F value) of a variable should be less than 0.05 for it
to enter the model and the significance level of a variable should be more than 0.1 to
remove it from the model to the model and the significance level of a variable should be
more than 0.1 to remove it from the model. When the regression procedure was finalized,
the most important variables contributing to variation in dependent variable stayed in the
model whereas the least important variables were excluded from the model (Dielman,
2001).
Two important assumptions of multiple regression analysis are that the
relationship is linear and is based on a Gaussian (normal) distribution (Kokoska, 2011;
Ghasemi, and Zahediasl, 2012). Therefore, it was important to evaluate the normality of
data both visually and by various statistical tests. Frequency distribution histograms, Q-Q
plots, and P-P plots were used as visual methods whereas the DAgostino-Pearson (DA-
20
P) test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test were used as statistical means of testing
normality. In DAgostino-Pearson test, both skewness and kurtosis deviations from
Gaussian are used to calculate the DA-P score. A deviation of zero is desirable for both
skewness and kurtosis but a score of less than 6 is considered acceptable for 0.05
significance level. If the score exceeds this value at a significance level of 0.05, the
distribution will not be Gaussian (Wells 2013, [unpublished]). In the Kolmogorov
Smirnov test, the largest vertical difference between the data and a Gaussian curve is
measured on a cumulative curve. A zero value is also the best for Kolmogorov-Smirnov
value. If the deviation in the KS test exceeds 0.238, the data distribution may differ
markedly from Gaussian distribution at a significance level of 0.05 (Wells 2013,
[unpublished]). Since the K-S test is sensitive to extreme values, it should not be the first
choice for testing normality.
Although the importance of the effect of fine grains on permeability is known, the
entire grain size distribution should be taken into account to predict permeability. For this
purpose, the use of a new index, designated as permeability index, representing the
entire grain size distribution of a soil, was investigated. Non-linear regression analysis
between permeability and the new index was performed to establish the relationship and
to develop a prediction equation.
2.3.2 Modeling of Data
The relationships between permeability, density, and the new index were
investigated in three dimensions by using the Matlab software program (MathWorks,

21
2012). The program generated a combined surface among the three mutually
perpendicular axes representing permeability, density, and the new index.

CHAPTER 3
DATA PRESENTATION
This chapter presents the laboratory test data for the properties given below for
the six soils used in the study: effective grain size (D10), coefficient of uniformity (Cu),
coefficient of curvature (Cc), percentage of coarse sand fraction by weight of sample
(%C), percentage of medium sand fraction by weight of sample (%M), percentage of fine
sand fraction by weight of sample (%F), compaction water content (w), dry density (d),
and permeability (k) values.
3.1 Grain Size Distribution
Grain size distribution tests of the soil samples were used to classify the soils
according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and to determine grain size
distribution indices for each soil.
3.1.1 Grain Size Distribution by Sieve Analysis
The average grain size distribution curves for the six soils, based on seive analysis
data, are shown in Figure 3.1. Replicates of grain size distribution for each sample are
shown in Appendix A . Table 3.1 provides a summary of the grain size distribution
indices including D10, D30, D60, Cc, Cu, %C, %M, and %F. According to USCS (Holtz et
al.).
22
23
Figure 3.1: Grain size distribution of six soil samples by sieve analysis.
Table 3.1: Grain size distribution indices based on results of sieve analysis.
Soil D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc %C %M %F

Sieve Analysis
1 0.19 0.34 0.93 4.89 0.65 18.18 43.81 36.37

2 0.17 0.22 0.33 1.94 0.86 0.35 31.13 67.65
3 0.19 0.30 0.80 4.21 0.59 13.64 39.09 40.91
4 0.34 0.42 0.46 1.35 1.13 0 64.83 35.17
5 0.14 0.40 1.25 8.93 0.91 21.29 42.08 27.21
6 0.31 0.80 2.35 7.33 0.97 26.48 40.49 13.88
24
2011), well-graded sands have Cu values greater than 6 and Cc values falling between 1
and 3. Based on the grain size distribution curves shown in Figure 3.1 and the Cc and Cu
data provided in Table 3.1, Soils 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be classified as poorly-graded sands
(SP) and soils 5 and 6 can be classified as close to being well-graded sands (SW), with
their Cc values being just below 1 instead of 1.
Table 3.1 shows that soil 4 has the highest D10 value of 0.34 mm and soil 5 has
the lowest D10 value of 0.14 mm. Soil 6 has the highest percentage (26.5%) of coarse
sand and soil 2 has the highest percentage (67.7%) fine sand. Percentages of coarse and
fine sand as well as D10 are expected to influence the permeability of sandy soils.
Additionally, well-graded soils with high Cu values are expected to have low
permeability values compared to poorly-graded soils with low Cu values.
3.1.2 Grain Size Distribution by the Camsizer Video Grain Size Analyzer
In addition to sieve analysis, Camsizer video grain size analyzer was used to
determine grain size distribution of the six soils and the results were compared with the
sieve analysis method. The purpose was to evaluate the influence of test method on grain
size distribution indices. Figure 3.2 shows grain size distributions of the six soils by the
Camsizer video grain size analyzer method and Table 3.2 provides the values of various
grain size distribution indices.

25
Figure 3.2: Grain size distribution curves by the Camsizer video grain size analyzer. Soil
3, results of Brooks study, was not available to test by camsizer.
Table 3.2: Grain size distribution indices based on the Camsizer video grain size
analyzer. Note grain size index data for soil 3, tested by Brooks (2001), are not available.
Soil D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc %C %M %F

Camsizer Analysis
1 0.27 0.48 1.17 4.29 0.71 17.50 50.00 23.90

2 0.20 0.31 0.46 2.29 1.06 0.40 46.60 52.90
3 - - - - - - - -
4 0.58 0.67 0.78 1.35 1.01 0 98.90 1.10
5 0.31 0.53 1.25 4.03 0.73 19.40 52.20 19.90
6 0.42 0.80 2.67 6.37 0.57 21.80 44.00 10.50
26
3.1.3 Comparison of Sieve Analysis and the Camsizer Video Grain Size Analyzer
The grain size distribution curves obtained by the two methods for the five soils
were compared (Appendix A). The plots show that the two methods yield similar results
for the coarse and medium size fractions of the soil samples. Plots of measured values
both from seieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size analyzer for all grain size
distribution indicies including D10, D30, D60, Cu, Cc, %C, %M, and %F, are shown in
Figures 3.3 to Figures 3.10. Although the Camsizer video grain size analyzer
overestimate D10, D30, and D60 values, differences between sieve analysis and the
Camsizer values decrease from D10 to D60. The Camsizer video grain size analyzer
underestimates %C and %F values and overestimate %M values. The highest differances
are seen in D10 and %F with a high scatter. The two methods provide different
percentages of the finer fractions. For example, D10 values by the two methods are quite
different. Thus, when Hazens formula (Hazen, 1892) was used to predict permeability,
the differences in permeability values by the two methods, seen in Figure 3.11, are
significant. The comparison shows that the Camsizer video grain size analyzer plots
generally underestimate the percent passing for a given grain size, as compared to the
sieve analysis. However, this differences can be attributed to the fact that sieve analysis
measures the percentage of particles, by weight, passing a given size where as, Camsizer
video grain size analyzer digitially measures percentage of number of particles of a given
size compare to the total number of particles.

27
Figure 3.3: Comparison of D10 values by sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size
analyzer.
analyzer.
28
analyzer.
Figure 3.6: Comparison of Cu values by sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size
analyzer.
29
Figure 3.7: Comparison of Cc values by sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size
analyzer.
Figure 3.8: Comparison of %C values by sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size
analyzer.
30
Figure 3.9: Comparison of %M values by sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain
size analyzer.
Figure 3.10: Comparison of %F values by sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain
size analyzer.
31
Figure 3.11: Comparison of Hazen permeability (kHazen) values by using D10 values both
from sieve analysis and the Camsizer video grain size analyzer.
32
3.2 Compaction Test Data
Appendix B provides the compaction test data for the six soils. Figures 3.12 to
3.17 show the compaction curves for all six soils. The compaction curves were used to
determine the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum water content (OWC) values
for each soil as summarized in Table 3.3. The table shows that soils 5 and 6, being nearly
well-graded (Figure 3.1), have the highest maximum dry density values of 1.92 Mg/m3
and 1.89 Mg/m3, respectively, whereas soils 2 and 4, being uniformly-graded (Figure
3.1), have the lowest maximum dry density values of 1.62 Mg/m3 and 1.64 Mg/m3,
respectively. As will be demonstrated later, density has a significant influence on the
permeability of sandy soils.
3.3 Permeability Data
Permeability values for the six soils were measured on samples compacted to
different states of density during the compaction test discussed above. Figures 3.12 to
3.17 show the variation of permeability with varying density values. Since a given state
of density is achieved at a specific water content, the plots in Figures 3.12 to 3.17 show
the relationships between compaction water content and permeability for different
samples of the same soil. In these figures, a comparison of the permeability curves on top
with the compaction curves at the bottom shows that permeability of sandy soils
decreases with increasing density, reaching its minimum value at the OWC or slightly on
the dry side of OWC. After reaching its minimum value, the permeability increases as the
density decreases on the wet side of the OWC. It should be noted that soil 4 is a
33
uniformly graded soil with nearly round grains. Therefore, the compaction curve for this
soil is relatively flat, showing negligible variations in density with varying water content.
The flat nature of the compaction curve for soil 4 can be attributed to the fact that the
smaller grains required to fill the voids between larger grains are not present in this soil.
Also, the interlocking of grains that reduces pore space, is absent due to the rounded
nature of the grains.
Table 3.3: Optimum water content and maximum dry density of soil samples with
corresponding permeability values.
Max Dry
Optimum Water Permeability at MDD* x 10-3
Soil Density
Content (%) (cm/sec)
(Mg/m3)
1 8.40 1.81 1.66
2 6.00 1.62 0.32
3 11.40 1.85 0.59
4 3.80 1.62 3.00
5 8.50 1.92 0.27
6 7.30 1.80 1.37
*MDD stands for maximum dry density.
The permeability versus density relationships shown in Figures 3.12 to 3.17
clearly demonstrate the influence of density on permeability. Therefore, any equations
used for predicting permeability from grain size distribution indices alone, such as those
proposed by Hazen (1892), Kozeny (1927), Kozeny and Carmen (1956), Terzagi and
Peck (1964), Kenney et al. (1984), and Alyamani and Sen (1993), ignoring the role of
density, are of limited application.

34
Figure 3.12: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 1.
35
36
37
38
39
Figure 3.17: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 6
40
As stated previously, Figures 3.12 to 3.17 show that the minimum permeability
for granular soils is achieved at or slightly on the dry side of the OWC. This finding is
contrary to the permeability behavior of fine-grained soils which exhibit minimum
permeability values at water contents on the wet side of the OWC (Holtz et al., 2011).
CHAPTER 4
EFFECT OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY ON PERMEABILITY
This chapter focuses on investigating the effect of grain size distribution and
density of granular soils on their permeability. Various statistical analyses were
performed to investigate any relationship permeability might have with grain size
distribution indices and density as individual, independent variables. The software
program, Matlab, was used to study the combined effect of grain size distribution and
density on permeability.
A new grain size distribution index, designated as new permeability index, is
introduced as a possible predictor of permeability.
4.1 Statistical Analysis
4.1.1 Statistical Evaluation of Data
In many statistical investigations, data distributions are assumed to be Gaussian
(Kokoska, 2011; Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). For statistical analysis to be more
meaningful, it is important to evaluate the normality of data either visually or by various
statistical tests. Results of descriptive statistics for all variables can be seen in Table 4.1.
Percentage of fine sand (%F) exhibits the highest standard deviation, 16.91. Density, Cc,
and %C have negative skewness values, indicating that data distributions for these
41
42
parameters are skewed to the right where mean is smaller than median. Percentage of
medium sand (%M) has the highest skewness value, 1.09. Frequency histograms of
permeability, density, and grain size distribution indices (D10, Cu, Cc, %C, %M, %F)
were plotted to examine the data distribution and are provided in Appendix C. Based on
visual evaluation of the frequency histograms, the data show only a small deviation from
normal distribution. Permeability, density, and %F have DAgostino-Pearson (DA-P)
scores less than 6 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) scores less than 0.24 indicating that
their distributions may be Gaussian. DA-P scores of D10, Cu, Cc, %C, and %M are more
than 6. Therefore, based on DA-P test, distributions of D10, Cu, Cc, %C, and %M are
non-Gaussian. However, K-S scores of D10, %C, and %M indicates non-Gaussian
distribution whereas distribution of Cu and Cc are evaluated as Gaussian based on their K-
S scores (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics of all variables.
Permeability Density D10

Cu Cc %C %M %F
x10-3 cm/sec Mg/m3 mm
Maximum 0.29 1.92 0.34 8.93 1.13 26.48 64.83 67.65

Minimum 3.05 1.50 0.14 1.35 0.59 0 31.13 13.88
Median 1.32 1.77 0.19 4.21 0.86 13.64 40.49 36.37
Mean 1.47 1.73 0.22 4.68 0.85 12.90 43.17 37.86
Std. Deviation 0.89 0.11 0.074 2.71 0.18 10.15 10.38 16.91
Skewness 0.50 -0.27 0.61 0.26 -0.074 -0.19 1.09 0.53
Kurtosis -1.10 -1.16 -1.40 -1.41 -1.25 -1.62 0.19 -0.62
D'A-P score 5.26 5.38 13.93 12.6 6,83 27.23 6.42 1.97
K-S score 0.10 0.13 0.34 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.31 0.23
43
Once distributions of variables were evaluated, transformations were applied as
needed to provide more Gaussian distribution appropriate for further statistical tests.
Table 4.2 summarizes the equations used for transformations. Frequency plots and z
score plots of reciprocal (inverse), logarithm, square root, and z transformations (the
rescaled original data; mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1) of each variable are shown
in Appendix D. Square root transformation resulting in highest R2 of 0.94, lowest
skewness of 0.27, and lowest KolmogorovSmirnov test score of 0.08, is the best
transformation for permeability data. The reflected reciprocal transformation is the best
for density data with highest R2 of 0.96 and lowest skewness of -0.016. Reciprocal
(inverse) transformation is the best for D10 with highest R2 of 0.81, and lowest skewness
of 0.54. The best transformation for Cu, %M, and %F is the square root transformation
whereas the reflected square root transformation is best for Cc and the reflected z
transformation is best for %C.
Table 4.2: Transformation functions
Transformation Equations
Inverse 2 -[1 /(X+1-Min)]
Straight Logarithm log(X+10-Min)
Square root (X+1-Min)1/2
Inverse 1-[1/(1+Max-Min)]+[1/(1+Max-X)]
Reflected Logarithm 1+log(10+Max-Min)-log(10+Max-X)
Square root 1+ (1+Max-Min)1/2 - (1+ Max-X)1/2

44
4.1.2 Bivariate Analysis
The effects of each grain size distribution indices and density on the permeability
of the soils tested were analyzed separately using bivariate analysis. The matrix shown in
Figure 4.1 represents all bivariate relations between non-transformed variables. The
independent variables representing the horizontal axes of the plots are shown along the
diagonal of the matrix. The plot in the first row and second column shows the
permeability (k) versus density relationship where permeability is plotted along the
vertical axis and density is plotted along the horizontal axis. The plot of k versus D10 is
shown in the first row, third column, and so on. The plots below the diagonal are the
same as those above the diagonal, except that the axes are switched. The red numbers on
top of the plots are Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) values for raw (non-transformed)
data. The first row of the matrix shows the correlations grain size distribution indices and
density have with the property of permeability. As can be seen from the plot between
permeability and density, permeability is inversely correlated with density with an r value
of -0.37. The low correlation coefficient value can be attributed to soil 2 acting as an
outlier even though it shows the same correlation trend as other soils. %M and D10
exhibit the strongest correlations with permeability with r values of 0.78 and 0.75,
respectively. The correlation plots of permeability and grain size distribution indices in
Figure 4.1 (row 1, columns 3-8) show vertical distributions. These vertical variations
indicate the effect of density. Effects of grain size distribution and density also were
evaluated at maximum dry density and optimum water content. Figure 4.2 shows the
scatter plot matrix for transformed variables; square root of permeability, reflected
45
Figure 4. 1: Matrix of bivariate scatterplots of non-transformed data. Numbers on left of
the matrix represent the row numbers and numbers at the bottom of the matrix are the
column numbers. Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) values are shown in red on the top
of the individual plots.

46
Figure 4.2: Matrix of bivariate scatter plots of transformed data with Pearsons
correlation coefficients (r) value shown on the top of each plot.

47
inverse of density, inverse of D10, square root of Cu, reflected square root of Cc, square
root of %M, and square root of %F, where the distributions are more Gaussian. The plots
of permeability versus %M and D10, exhibiting the strongest correlations, are shown in
Figures 4.3a-b and Figures 4.4a-b, respectively. Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 confirm these
relationships for the transformed data. Large-size plots of all other bivariate analyses of
non-transformed and transformed variables, both at maximum density and at all density
values, are provided in Appendix E.
The plots show that D10, Cc, and %M are directly related to permeability whereas
density, Cu, %C, and %F are inversely related to permeability. The presence of a
correlation between permeability and Cu, Cc, and %F is expected. The strong positive
correlation between D10 and permeability, both for non-transformed and transformed
variables, also is expected. This is because the fines fill the pore spaces between larger
particles and thus reduce permeability. Generally, one would expect that the larger the
proportion of coarser sand, the higher would be the permeability. However, it is not clear
why %C exhibits a negative correlation with permeability. Such unexpected trends
indicate the complex nature of permeability and suggest that sizes and shapes of
interconnections between pores, which control permeability, are influenced by more than
one parameter. This further indicates the need to use the entire grain size distribution of a
soil to predict its permeability, rather than a given point on the grain size distribution
curve or only a portion of the curves, such as %C or %F.

48
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.3: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of medium sand size (%M) at different
densities. Red square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density
(MDD).
49
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.4: (a) Permeability vs. D10 at different densities. Red square represents loose
state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD).

50
Figure 4.5: Transformed data of permeability vs. percentage of medium sand size (%M).
Figure 4.6: Transformed data of permeability vs. D10.

51
4.1.3 Multiple Regression Analysis
The percent coarse sand (%C) variable had a considerably high correlation with
density and Cu. Therefore, to avoid a colinearity problem, %C was not included in
stepwise regression analysis. Step-wise regression analysis between permeability,
density, D10, Cu, Cc, %M, and %F was performed. The square root of permeability was
used as the dependent variable. The independent variables are: reflected inverse of
density, inverse of D10, square root of Cu, reflected square root of Cc, square root of %M,
and square root of %F. Three different models generated during analysis are shown in
Table 4.3. D10 was evaluated in model 1 and resulted in an R2 value of 0.54. Addition of
%M and density increased the R2 value increased by 0.11 and 0.06, in models 2 and 3
respectively. Adjusted R2 value of 0.67 for model 3 shows that it explains about 67% of
the variance in permeability. Significance levels of D10, %M, and density were found to
be less than 0.05 whereas Cu, Cc, and %F had higher significance levels. Therefore, Cu,
Cc, and %F did not contribute to the stepwise regression. D10 explains the most variability
in permeability.
52
Table 4.3: Model summary and Anova of stepwise multiple regression analysis
Summaries of Models
R Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R
Square Square Estimate
a
1 .736 .54 .52 .26
2 .807b .65 .62 .23
c
3 .840 .71 .67 .22
a. Predictors: (Constant), D10 (inverse)
b. Predictors: (Constant), D10 (inverse), %M (square root)
c. Predictors: (Constant), D10 (inverse), %M (square root), Density
(reflected inverse)
ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 2.37 1 2.37 34.27 .000b
1 Residual 2.00 29 0.07
Total 4.37 30
Regression 2.85 2 1.42 26.13 .000c
2 Residual 1.53 28 0.05
Total 4.37 30
Regression 3.08 3 1.03 21.49 .000d
3 Residual 1.29 27 0.05
Total 4.37 30
a. Dependent Variable: Permeability (square root)
b. Predictors: (Constant), D10 (inverse)
c. Predictors: (Constant), D10 (inverse), %M (square root)
d. Predictors: (Constant), D10 (inverse), %M (square root), Density (reflected
inverse)
53
Table 4.4: Coefficients of independent variables for the three models.
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model t Sig.
Std.
B Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
(Constant) 2.10 0.17 12.44 0.00
1 D10
-0.19 0.03 -0.74 -5.85 0.00 1.00 1.00
(Inverse)
(Constant) .457 0.57 0.79 0.433
D10
-0.128 0.04 -0.50 -3.59 0.00 0.65 1.53
2 (Inverse)
%M
(Square 0.204 0.07 0.41 2.96 0.01 0.65 1.53
Root)
(Constant) 1.35 0.67 2.01 0.05
D10
-0.08 0.04 -0.32 -2.09 0.05 0.47 2.12
(Inverse)
%M
3 (Square 0.26 0.07 0.51 3.73 0.00 0.58 1.73
root)
Density
(Reflected -1.28 0.58 -0.27 -2.22 0.04 0.72 1.38
Inverse)
54
As discussed in Chapter 2, assumptions of the step-wise regression model should
be met. Frequency plot of regression standardized residuals was used to evaluate the
normality of disturbance. Figure 4.7 shows that the residuals have a normal frequency
distribution. Moreover, the scatter plot of residuals also shows the model assumptions
were met. It does not show any clear trend (Figure 4.8).
The following regression equation, based on model 3, can be used to predict
permeability from D10, %M, and density.
Sqrt(k) 1.35 0.085(InvD10 ) 0.256(Sqrt%M) 1.28(RInvDensity) (6)
Where:
Sqrt(k) = Square root of permeability x10-3 (cm/sec).
InvD10 = Inverse of D10.
Sqrt%M = Square root of %M.
RInvDensty = Reflected inverse of density.
Figure 4.9 shows the plot of measured versus predicted values of permeability for
the six soils at varying density values. The residuals (differences between measured and
predicted values) appear to be large, with the maximum residual value being 0.00136
cm/sec which amounts to 74% of the measured value. This large variation in the
predicted value is due to the complex nature of the factors that control permeability.
Additional data from future research can help improve the prediction equation and reduce
the residuals between measured and predicted values.

55
Figure 4.7: Frequency distribution of standardized residual values.
Figure 4.8: Scatter plot of standardized residual and predicted values.

56
Figure 4.9: Measured versus predicted values of permeability.

57
4.2 New Permeability Index
As stated in Chapter 1, permeability is a property that is controlled by the entire
grain size distribution of a soil. Therefore, there is a need to find a new index that
represents the effect of the entire grain size distribution on permeability. Furthermore, the
new index needs to take into account the effect of the silt and clay size fraction (material
passing sieve #200) present in the soil as it has the greatest effect on permeability. A new
index considering the relative effect of different size fractions on permeability was
developed in this study and is designated as the New Permeability Index. It is defined
as follows:
n Fj
New Permeability Index 7 ( MS j 0.075) (7)
j1 100
Where:
n = Total number of sieve used in grain size distribution test.
Fj = Percentage of the amount of material passing the sieve j.
MSj = Middle size between sieve j and j-1.
In the above equation, Fj is for the percentage of the amount of material passing
the sieve j and dominator of the equation represents the relative weights assigned to
different size fraction. For example, six sieves were used to establish the grain size
distribution curve for soil 5. Thus, an n value is 6 and j ranges from 1 to 6. Value of j is 1
for sieve #200; j is 2 for sieve #100 and so on until one reaches 3/8 inch sieve for which j
is 6. Thus, for soil 5, F(1), percent passing through #200 sieve, is 4.67. MSj in the new
permeability index represent the Midsize, the middle size of j and j-1 sieves.
58
Figure 4.10: Grain size distribution of soil 5 for calculation of new permeability index.
Table 4.5: An example of the calculation of new permeability index for soil 5.
Middle size
Sieve Percent
Sieve (MSJ) MSj- Permeability
size passing j Fj / 100[7*(Mj-0.075)]
# [(Mj + Mj-1) 0.075 index
(mm) (%) Fj
/2]
0.375 9.51 100 6 7.13 7.06 1.70E-97
4 4.75 95.25 5 3.38 3.30 6.01E-45
10 2 73.96 4 1.21 1.14 8.79E-15
40 0.425 31.88 3 0.29 0.21 0.03 16.53
100 0.149 10.48 2 0.11 0.04 3.18
200 0.075 4.67 1 0.04 -0.03 13.31
0.01 0 Sum 16.53
59
For instance, MS(1) is the average size between #200 (0.075 mm) and minimum sieve
sizes (0.01 mm). Figure 4.10 shows the grain size distribution of soil 5 for a new
permeability index calculation. Table 4.5 summarizes the calculation of a new
permeability index for soil 5. A hydrometer test was not performed to measure the exact
minimum size of each soil; therefore, minimum size is considered as 0.01mm because
most sandy soils do not contain particles smaller than 0.01 mm (Holtz et al., 2011). MS(2)
represents the average of the 0.15 and 0.075 (sieves #100 and #200, respectively). Tables
showing details of new permeability index calculations for the 6 samples can be found in
Appendix F.
It is important to consider not only the entire grain size distribution but also the
relative importance of different grain sizes. The proposed new permeability index pays
attention to this relative importance. The higher the percentage of finer grains, the lower
the permeability value because the finer fraction fills the pore space between the coarser
particles. For instance, percentage of fine sand is important for the grains retained on
sieve #40 (medium sand size). Also, the effect of each finer fraction is greater than the
fraction that is just coarser than the finer fraction. That is, the effect of silt and clay is
greater than the effect of fine sand. This effect of relative sizes is incorporated in the new
permeability index equation by the exponent 7 in the dominator. The effect from one
sieve to the next larger sieve decreased by a factor of 1007 for the soils studied.
Figure 4.11 shows the correlation between the new permeability index and
permeability. The data points along the vertical lines represent different density values at
60
Figure 4.11: Relationship between new permeability index and permeability with a
prediction equation; Ln (Permeability) =1.19 0.22 (Permeability Index) + 0.006
(Permeability Index) 2.
61
which permeability values were measured. Regression between ln of permeability and the
new permeability index, with a quadratic equation, was performed and the correlation
coefficient was calculated. The regression equation, a second order quadratic equation,
has a statistically significant R2 value of 0.76 (Johnson, 1984);
Ln (Permeability) =1.19 0.22 (Permeability Index) + 0.006 (Permeability Index) 2 (8)
Predicted versus measured values of permeability were plotted to evaluate
reliability of the equation. Plots showing predicted versus measured values of
permeability considering all densities and average densities are shown in Figure 4.12 and
4.13, respectively. In these plots the vertical distances of data points from 1:1 line
represent the residuals. Figure 4.13 shows that the predicted values are close to the
measured values, with a maximum residual value of 0.37 below the 1:1 line (Table 4.6).
Although the entire grain size distribution is taken into account, the effect of density on
permeability can be seen in Figure 4.11. The vertical distribution of data illustrates the
density effect. Therefore, this effect needs to be considered to predict the permeability.
For this purpose, data distribution of permeability, density, and new permeability index
were modeled in 3-D as discussed in the following section.

62
63
and 8 used for validation are represented by the red point.
Table 4.6: Residuals of predicted vs. measured permeability values for average density.
Predicted Measured
Deviation
Soil Permeability x10-3 Permeability x10- Residuals
3 (%)
(cm/sec) (cm/sec)
1 1.39 1.76 -0.37 21.02
2 0.81 0.88 -0.07 7.95
3 1.06 1.04 0.02 1.92
4 3.26 3.00 0.26 8.67
5 0.45 0.70 -0.25 35.71
6 1.25 1.50 -0.25 16.67
7* 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00
8* 2.20 1.99 0.21 10.55
*Soil 7 and 8 are used for validation.
64
4.3 3-D Prediction Model
As discussed earlier, density has considerable effect on permeability.
Permeability index, representing grain size distribution, density, representing state of
compaction, and permeability were plotted along three mutually perpendicular axes to
generate a 3-dimensional plot. The relationship between density and permeability is
linear (first order quadratic) and the relationship between permeability index and
permeability is nonlinear (second order quadratic). The following equation was generated
for the regression surface by Matlab software.
Ln (Permeability) = 1.65 - 0.27 (Density) 0.22 (Permeability index) + 0.006
(Permeability Index) 2 (9)
Regression surface given by the above equation is plotted and shown in Figure
4.14. The color scale in Figure 4.14 represents the permeability values for different color
ranges. Red areas represent the lower permeability whereas blue and pink areas represent
higher permeability values. The relationship between new permeability index and
permeability in Figure 4.11 can also clearly be seen on a curvature of the surface in
Figure 4.14. The higher the new permeability index, the lower is the permeability. The
colors change as one move towards increasing density on the surface. For example,
yellow changes into red with increasing density values indicating a decrease in
permeability.
Figure 4.15 shows a plot of predicted values of permeability, based on equation 9,
versus the measured permeability values considering all density values. Figure 4.16
shows a similar plot considering average density.

Figure 4.14: 3-D plot of permeability index, density, and permeability. The color scale represents permeability values in 10-3
cm/sec units.
66
67
and 8 used for validation are represented by the red point.
Table 4.7: Residuals of predicted vs. measured permeability values for average density.
Predicted Measured
Deviation
Soil Permeability x10-3 Permeability x10-3 Residuals
(%)
(cm/sec) (cm/sec)
1 1.39 1.76 -0.37 21.02
2 0.81 0.88 -0.07 7.95
3 1.06 1.04 0.02 1.92
4 3.26 3.00 0.26 8.67
5 0.45 0.70 -0.25 35.71
6 1.25 1.50 -0.25 16.67
7* 0.54 0.55 -0.01 1.82
8* 2.22 1.99 0.23 11.56
*Soil 7 and 8 are used for validation.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Permeability is a complex property that depends upon the sizes and shapes of
interconnection between particles in a soil mass. It is the sizes and shapes of
interconnections that control the rate of movement of groundwater. The factors which
influence the nature of interconnections include grain size distribution, particle shape,
and density (degree of compaction). Because of the complex nature of permeability and a
number of factors influencing it, it is not possible to develop a predictive equation that
can explain 100% variability of permeability among different sandy soils.
The effect of density on permeability is clear from Figures 3.12 to Figure 3.17.
These figures show that permeability of sandy soils decreases as density increases, with
the minimum permeability occurring at either maximum dry density or slightly on the
dry side (1-2 %) of the optimum water content. The relationship between density and
permeability of granular soils is different than that of cohesive soils which exhibit their
lowest permeability values on the slightly wet side (1-2 %) of the optimum water content
(Holtz et al.,2011).
The effect of grain size distribution on permeability is intuitively obvious. Coarse-
grained soils have larger pores, as well as larger interconnections between the pores,
whereas fine-grained soils have smaller pores and narrower interconnections between the
68
69
pores. Moreover, smaller grains fill the pore spaces between larger grains in well-graded
soils thereby reducing the void sizes and the associated interconnections. For example,
soil 5 has the lowest permeability because of its well-graded nature as compared to soil 4
which is uniformly-graded. Although the entire grain size distribution controls the
permeability of a sandy soil, the findings of this research demonstrate that the amount of
fines (silt and clay size particles) present has the most significant effect on permeability.
Thus, the weight of different size fractions in influencing permeability cannot be
considered equal. Therefore, in order to develop an equation for predicting permeability,
it is essential to have a grain size distribution index that takes into account the influencing
weights of different size fractions present within the overall grain size distribution of a
soil. The new permeability index, discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.2, is a preliminary
attempt, the first of its kind, at developing such an index.
Figure 4.11 shows the relationship between permeability index and permeability.
Density variations are included in the plot in Figure 4.11, although the relative effect of
density is less than the relative effect of grain size distribution, especially the amount of
fines presents. The regression curve in the figure passes through data points representing
average density values for the soils studied. The prediction equation, a second order
quadratic equation, takes into account the range of density values falling above the curve.
The equation 7 can be expressed as follows:
Ln (Permeability) =1.19 0.22 (Permeability Index) + 0.006 (Permeability Index) 2
In spite of the above listed limitations, the prediction equation developed in this
study can be used with a reasonable degree of confidence as indicated by the small values
70
of residuals between predicted and measured values (Table 4.6). The equation was further
validated by using two additional soils, not included in the six soils used for developing
the equation. The grain size distribution, permeability index, and permeability of these
soils (soil 7 and soil 8), at varying density values, were determined using the same
procedures as for the other six soils. Appendix G provides the grain size distribution
curves and the new permeability index calcualtions for the two soils. The new
permeability index values were then used to predict permeabilities for the two soils. The
predicted values of permeability for the two soils at varying density values are shown in
Figure 4.12, whereas Figure 4.13 shows the predicted permeability values at average
density values. As can be seen from Figure 4.12, the predicted permeability values for the
two soils used for validation purpose fall on both side of 1:1 line, reflecting the variations
in density values. However, the predicted permeability values computed at average
density values are close to the measured permeability values as seen in Figure 4.13.
The best way to check the combined influence of grain size distribution and
density on permeability of a sandy soil is to develop a 3-D model incorporating all three
parameters. Figure 4.14 shows such a model where density, permeability index, and
permeability are plotted along three mutually perpendicular axes. Color changes in Figure
4.14 represent variations in permeability. The color changes from blue to red as
permeability decreases with increasing permeability index. The effect of changing
density on permeability can also be seen from the gradual alteration of one color into
another color. For example, for a new permeability index of 8, change of light orange into
dark orange or red indicates decreasing permeability with increasing density.

71
Equations proposed in this study (Equations 6, 8, and 9) have two main
limitations as listed below;
1. Equations 6, 8, and 9 are based on a small population of six soils. They are
subject to modifications as additional data become available in future research.
2. The proposed equations need to be validated further by testing additional soils.
It is important to check the aplicability of same of the previously established
equations using the data from this study. Figures 5.1 5.4 shows the measured versus
predicted values of permeability based on Equations 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the six soils used in
this study. As we can see from figures, Equation 1,2, and 3 overestimate the permeability
and equation 4 underestimates the permeability. The large deviations from 1:1 lines in
these figures may be because of the respective limitations of these equations, because of
different types of soil used, and because of the lack of validations.
A number of previous studies (Hazen, 1892; Kozeny, 1927 and Carmen, 1956;
Terzagi and Peck, 1964; Kenney et al., 1984; Alyamani and Sen, 1993) have attempted to
develop equations for predicting permeability from grain size distribution indices. The
research presented herein is different from those previous studies in the following
respects:
3. It demonstrates that density has a significant influence on permeability which
cannot be ignored in developing a prediction equation.
4. It shows that the influence of density on permeability of sandy soils is different
than that of cohesive soils.

72
5. It proposes a new grain size distribution index designated as the permeability
index for predicting permeability. This index assigns different weights to
different size fractions within the range of grain size distribution for a given soil
because finer fractions play a greater role in influencing permeability than coarser
fractions.
73
Figure 5.1: Measured versus predicted values of permeability based on Equation 1.

74

75
6. It generates a 3-D surface showing the relationship between density, grain size
distribution, and permeability.

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The results of this study can be summarized as follows;
1. Based on bivariate and step-wise multivariate analyses, effective particle size
(D10), density, and percentage of medium sand by total weight of sample (%M)
show the best correlation with permeability, explaining 67% of the variability in
permeability.
2. The relationship between density and permeability shows that sandy soils achieve
their minimum permeability values at water contents on the dry side of the
optimum water content, i.e. at a density value of slightly less than the maximum
dry density values. Any predictive model regarding permeability must consider
the effect of density.
3. Permeability index, a parameter accounting for the entire grain size distribution of
sandy soils and emphasizing the importance of finer fractions of the soil, can be
used to predict permeability. The relationship between permeability index and
permeability can be expressed in the form of a second order quadratic equation.
76
77
4. A 3-D model, showing the relationship between the entire grain size distribution,
density, and permeability, can be used to simultaneously evaluate the effect of
both grain size distribution and density on the property of permeability.
6.2 Recomendations
1. This study should be validated using additional sandy soils from different
locations.
2. The concept of permeability index should be verified and refined using additional
soils.
REFERENCES
Alyamani, M. S. and Sen, Z., 1993, Determination of hydraulic conductivity from grain
size distribution curves: Ground Water, Vol. 31, pp. 551-555.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1996, Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Soil and Rock (1): V. 4.08, Section 4, 1000p.
Carmen, P.C., 1937, Fluid flow through a granular bed: Transaction of the Institution of
Chemical Engineers, Vol. 15, pp. 150-156.
Carmen, P.C., 1956, Flow of gases through porous media: Academic press, New York.
182 p.
Carrier, W.D., 2003, Goodbye, Hazen; hello, Kozeny-Carman: Journal of Geotechnical
and Geo environmental Engineering.
Cheng, C. and Chen, X., 2007, Evaluation of methods for determination of hydraulic
properties in an aquifer-aquitard system hydrologically connected to river:
Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 669-678.
Das, B.M., 2008, Advanced soil mechanics: Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, 567 p.
DeGroot, D.J., Ostendorf, D.W., and Judge, A.I., 2012, In situ measurement of hydraulic
conductivity of saturated soils: Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS
& AGSSEA, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 63-72.
Deilman, T.E., 2001, Applied Regression Analysis for Business and Economics:
Duxbury Thomson Learning, California, 647 p.
78
79
Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Ghasemi, A., and Zahediasl, S., 2012, Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for
non-statisticians: Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 486-489.
Hazan, A., 1892, Some physical properties of sands and gravels: Mass. State Board of
Health, Ann. Rept. pp. 539-556.
Holtz, R.D., Kovacks, W. D. and Sheahan, T. C., 2011, An introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering: Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 853 p.
Jabro, J.D., 1992, Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils from particle
size distribution and bulk density data: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 557-560.
Johnson, R., 1984, Elementary Statistics: Duxbury Press, Boston, MA, pp. 86-106
Kenney, T.C., Lau, D. and Ofoegbu, G.I., 1984, Permeability of compacted granular
materials: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 726-729
Kokoska, S., 2011, Introductory statistics a problem-solving approach: W. H. Freeman
and Company, New York, NY, 709 p.
Krumbein, W.C. and Sloss, L.L., 1963, Stratigraphy and Sedimentation: Second Edition,
W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, p. 660.
Kozeny, J., 1927, Uber kapillare leitung des wassers im boden: Sitzungsber. Acad. Wiss.
Wien, Vol. 136, pp. 271-306.

80
Mitchell, J.K., and Soga, K., 2005, Fundamentals of Soil Behavior: John Wiley & Sons
Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 592 p.
Odong, J., 2007, Evaluation of the empirical formulae for determination of hydraulic
conductivity based on grain size analysis: Journal, American Science, Vol. 3, pp.
54-60.
Powers, M.C., 1953, A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 117-119.
Salarashayeri, A.F., and Siosemarde, M., 2012, Prediction of soil hydraulic conductivity
from particle-size distribution: World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 61, pp. 454-458.
Shepherd, R.G., 1989, Correlations of Permeability and Grain size: Ground Water, Vol.
27, No. 5, pp. 633-638.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., 1964, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice: John Wiley
and Son, New York.

APPENDIX A
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOTS
81
82
Figure A-1: Grain size distributions of soil 1 replicates.

83

84

85

86

87
Camsizer video grain size analyzer.

88

89

90

91

APPENDIX B
COMPACTION AND PERMEABILITY DATA
92
93
Table B-1: Compaction and permeability tests data.
Water Dry
Permeability x10-3
Soil Number Content density
(cm/sec)
(%) (Mg/m3)
a 1.93 1.77 2.61
b 3.58 1.78 1.50
1 c 5.58 1.80 1.22
d 8.40 1.81 1.76
e 9.80 1.77 2.10
a 1.85 1.50 1.77
b 3.76 1.55 1.15
c 4.20 1.56 0.88
2
d 5.46 1.62 0.35
e 6.80 1.58 0.50
f 7.90 1.55 0.72
a 5.70 1.78 1.69
b 8.70 1.80 0.61
3 c 11.40 1.81 0.59
d 14.80 1.80 0.80
e 17.50 1.79 1.04
a 1.90 1.62 3.05
b 2.87 1.62 3.00
4 c 3.80 1.64 2.98
d 5.40 1.63 3.00
e 6.32 1.62 3.00
a 2.75 1.87 1.32
b 4.97 1.87 0.70
5 c 7.19 1.90 0.36
d 9.10 1.92 0.29
e 14.60 1.87 0.42
a 3.90 1.71 2.35
b 5.00 1.74 1.55
6 c 7.32 1.80 0.96
d 9.95 1.75 1.35
e 11.76 1.72 1.84
APPENDIX C
HISTOGRAMS OF NON-TRANSFORMED DATA
94
95
Figure C-1: Frequency distribution of permeability and density.

96
Figure C-2: Frequency distribution of D10, and Cu .

97
Figure C-3: Frequency distribution of Cc and %C.

98
Figure C-4: Frequency distribution of %M, and %F.

APPENDIX D
HISTOGRAMS AND P-P PLOTS OF TRANSFORMED DATA
99
100
permeability with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP), and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS).

101
density with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP), and Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test score (KS).

102
Figure D-3: Frequency histograms (left) and p-p plots (right) of transformations of D10
with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test score (KS).

103
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score
(DP), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS).

104
coefficient of curvature (Cc) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score (DP),
and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test score (KS).

105
percent of coarse sand size (%C) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score

106
percent of medium sand size (%M) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score

107
percent of fine sand size (%F) with r2, skewness (Sk), DAgostino-Pearson test score

APPENDIX E
BIVARIATE ANALYSIS PLOTS OF NON-TRANSFORMED DATA
108
109
(a)
(b)
Figure E-1: (a) Permeability vs. all measured density values. Red square represents loose
state permeability; (b) permeability vs. maximum dry density (MDD).

110
(a)
(b)
Figure E-2: (a) Permeability vs. D10 at all density values. Red square represents loose
state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD).

111
(a)
(b)
Figure E-3: (a) Permeability vs. coefficient of uniformity (Cu) at all density values. Red
square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD).
112
(a)
(b)
Figure E-4: (a) Permeability vs. coefficient of curvature (Cc) at all density values. Red
square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD).
113
(a)
(b)
Figure E-5: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of coarse sand size (%C) at all density values.
Red square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD).
114
(a)
(b)
Figure E-6: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of medium sand size (%M) at all density
values. Red square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density
(MDD).
115
(a)
(b)
Figure E-7: (a) Permeability vs. percentage of fine sand size (%F) at all density values.
Red square represents loose state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD).
APPENDIX F
CALCULATION OF NEW PERMEABILITY INDEX
116
Table F-1: Calculation of new permeability index values.
Sieve Percent
Sieve Middle size Permeability
Soil size passing j Mj-0.075 7*(Mj-0.075) 100[7*(Mj-0.075)] Fj / 100[7*(Mj-0.075)]
# [(Mj + Mj-1) /2] index
(mm) (%) Fj
0.375 9.51 100 6 7.13 7.01 49.39 5.89E+98 1.70E-97
4 4.75 99.39 5 3.38 3.30 23.10 1.59E+46 6.27E-45
10 2 81.21 4 1.21 1.14 7.96 8.41E+15 9.65E-15
1 40 0.425 37.41 3 0.29 0.21 1.48 928.97 0.04 4.44
100 0.149 4.73 2 0.11 0.04 0.26 3.30 1.44
200 0.075 1.04 1 0.04 -0.03 -0.22 0.35 2.97
0.01 0 Sum 4.44
4 4.75 100 5 3.38 3.30 23.10 1.59E+46 6.31E-45
10 2 99.7 4 1.21 1.14 7.96 8.41E+15 1.19E-14
40 0.425 72.13 3 0.29 0.21 1.48 928.97 0.078
2 8.23
100 0.149 8.56 2 0.11 0.04 0.26 3.30 2.60
200 0.075 1.95 1 0.04 -0.03 -0.23 0.35 5.56
0.01 0 Sum 8.23
0.375 9.51 100 6 7.13 7.06 49.39 5.89E+98 1.70E-97
4 4.75 95.65 5 3.38 3.30 23.10 1.59E+46 6.04E-45
10 2 81.74 4 1.21 1.14 7.96 8.41E+15 9.72E-15
3 40 0.425 42.73 3 0.29 0.21 1.49 944.06 0.05 6.18
100 0.15 3.18 2 0.11 0.04 0.26 3.35 0.95
200 0.075 1.82 1 0.04 -0.03 -0.23 0.35 5.19
0.01 0 Sum 6.18
Table F-1 (Continued): Calculation of new permeability index values.
20 0.841 100 7 0.67 0.60 4.17 217270117.9 4.60E-07

35 0.5 77.35 6 0.46 0.39 2.71 266072.51 0.0003
40 0.425 35.17 5 0.39 0.32 2.20 25292.98 0.0014
45 0.354 12.05 4 0.30 0.23 1.59 1506.61 0.008
4 0.036
60 0.25 0.77 3 0.20 0.13 0.87 55.34 0.014
100 0.149 0.04 2 0.11 0.04 0.26 3.30 0.01
200 0.075 0 1 0.04 -0.03 -0.23 0.35 0
0.01 0 Sum 0.036
0.375 9.51 100 6 7.13 7.06 49.39 5.89E+98 1.70E-97
4 4.75 95.25 5 3.38 3.30 23.19 1.59E+46 6.01E-45
10 2 73.96 4 1.21 1.14 7.96 8.41E+15 8.79E-15
5 40 0.425 31.88 3 0.29 0.21 1.48 928.97 0.034 16.53
100 0.149 10.48 2 0.11 0.04 0.26 3.30 3.18
200 0.075 4.67 1 0.04 -0.03 -0.23 0.35 13.31
0.01 0 Sum 16.53
0.5 12.7 100 7 11.11 11.03 77.21 2.63E+154 3.80E-153
0.375 9.51 99.5 6 7.13 7.06 49.39 5.89E+98 1.69E-97
4 4.75 82.33 5 3.38 3.30 23.10 1.59E+46 5.20E-45
10 2 55.86 4 1.21 1.14 7.96 8.41E+15 6.64E-15
6 5.12
40 0.425 15.37 3 0.29 0.21 1.48 928.97 0.017
100 0.149 2.81 2 0.11 0.04 0.26 3.30 0.85
200 0.075 1.49 1 0.04 -0.03 -0.23 0.35 4.25
0.01 0 Sum 5.12
APPENDIX G
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DENSITY, PERMEABILITY, AND NEW

PERMEABILITY INDEX DATA FOR THE THREE SOILS (#7 AND 8) USED FOR
VALIDATION PURPOSES
119
120
Figure G-1: Grain size distribution of soil 7 for calculation of new permeability index.
Table G-1: New permeability index calculation for soil 7.
Sieve Percent Middle size

Sieve M j- Fj / 100[7*(Mj- Permeability
Soil size passing j [(Mj + Mj-1) 0.075)]
# 0.075 index
(mm) (%) Fj /2]
4 4.75 100 6 3.38 3.30 6.31E-45

10 2 85 5 1.42 1.35 1.24E-17
20 0.841 65 4 0.63 0.56 1.00E-06
7* 40 0.425 40 3 0.29 0.21 0.04 12.23
100 0.149 12 2 0.11 0.04 3.64
200 0.075 3 1 0.04 -0.03 8.55
0.01 12.23
* Soil 7 used for validation
121
Figure G-2: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 7.
122
Figure G-3: Grain size distribution of soil 8 for calculation of new permeability index.
Table G-2: New permeability index calculation for soil 8.
Middle
Sieve Percent Fj /
Sieve size Mj- Permeability
Soil size passing j 100[7*(Mj-
# [(Mj + 0.075 0.075)] index
(mm) (%) Fj
Mj-1) /2]
4 4.75 100 6 3.38 3.30 6.31E-45
10 2 97 5 1.42 1.35 1.41E-17
20 0.841 80 4 0.63 0.56 1.23E-06
8* 1.93
40 0.425 45 3 0.29 0.21 0.048
100 0.149 1.5 2 0.11 0.04 0.455
200 0.075 0.5 1 0.04 -0.03 1.426
0.01 1.93
*Soil 8 used for validation
123
Figure G-4: Permeability (top) and compaction (bottom) curves for soil 8.

Permeability From Grain Size Distribution PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Permeability From Grain Size Distribution PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREDICTING THE PERMEABILITY OF SANDY SOILS FROM

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Science

Emine Mercan Onur

Emine Mercan Onur

B.S., Middle East Technical University, 2009

M.S., Kent State University, 2014

___________________________________, Chair, Department of Geology

___________________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Factors affecting Permeability ................................................................................ 4

1.2.1 Effect of Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution ...................................................... 5

1.2.2 Effect of Density and Void Ratio............................................................................... 7

1.2.3 Effect of Soil Texture and Structure .......................................................................... 7

1.3 Previous Investigations ........................................................................................... 7

1.4 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................... 13

2.1 Sample Collection and Preparation ....................................................................... 13

2.2 Laboratory Investigations ..................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 Grain Size Distribution Test .................................................................................... 13

2.2.2 Compaction Test ...................................................................................................... 15

2.3 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 18

2.3.1 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................... 18

2.3.2 Modeling of Data ..................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3: DATA PRESENTATION ......................................................................... 22

3.1 Grain Size Distribution ......................................................................................... 22

3.2 Compaction Test Data........................................................................................... 32

3.3 Permeability Data.................................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER 4: EFFECT OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY ON

4.1 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................ 41

4.1.1 Statistical Evaluation of Data................................................................................... 41

4.1.2 Bivariate Analysis .................................................................................................... 44

4.1.3 Multiple Regression Analysis .................................................................................. 51

4.2 New Permeability Index ....................................................................................... 57

4.3 3-D Prediction Model ........................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 68

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS ..................................... 766

6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 76

6.2 Recomendations .................................................................................................. 777

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 788

APPENDIX A: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOTS ................................................ 81

APPENDIX B: COMPACTION AND PERMEABILITY DATA ................................ 922

APPENDIX C: HISTOGRAMS OF NON-TRANSFORMED DATA .......................... 944

APPENDIX D: HISTOGRAMS AND P-P PLOTS OF TRANSFORMED DATA ........ 99

APPENDIX F: CALCULATION OF NEW PERMEABILITY INDEX ..................... 1166

APPENDIX G: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION, DENSITY, PERMEABILITY, AND

FOR VALIDATION PURPOSE .................................................................................... 119

shape characterization (from Powers, 1953) ......................................................8

Figure 2.1: Six sandy soils used in the study .....................................................................14

close up view of grains before falling ..............................................................16

Figure 2.3: Standard compaction test apparatus ................................................................17

Figure 2.4: Constant head permeability test set up ............................................................17

results of Brooks study, was not available to test by camsizer ........................25

Figure 4.1: Matrix of bivariate scatterplots of non-transformed data. Numbers on left of

are shown in red on the top of the individual plots ........................................45

density (MDD) ...............................................................................................48

state permeability; (b) at maximum dry density (MDD) ................................49