UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

FCE 411

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING II

SOIL MECHANICS LABORATORY

F16/1585/2015

SAKWA IGNATIUS SHIUNDU

3RD MAY 2018

 F16/1585/2015

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST

Determination of the One Dimensional Consolidation Properties

SCOPE
This method covers the determination of the magnitude and rate of the consolidation of a saturated
or near saturated soil specimen in the form of a disc confined laterally, subjected to vertical axial
pressure, and allowed to drain freely from the top and bottom surfaces.

APPARATUS
Consolidation Apparatus (fixed ring type)
(1) A metal consolidation ring, which completely and rigidly confined and supported the soil
specimen laterally. A cutting edge was available to facilitate the preparation of the specimen. The
inside diameter of the ring was smaller than the size of the undisturbed tube sample to permit
trimming off of soil which may have been disturbed during the sampling operation.
The depth of the ring was such that the thickness of the specimen was not more than one-third
and not less than one-quarter of the inside diameter of the ring. The inner ring surface had a smooth
polish to minimize friction.

(2) Porous plates for placing at the top and bottom surfaces of the test specimen e.g. sintered fused
aluminium oxide. The plates were of suitable (coarse or medium) porosity and compressibility,
and care was taken to ensure they had plane upper and lower surfaces. The diameter of the top
porous plate was about 0.5mm smaller than the inside diameter of the consolidation ring to permit
free compression of the soil specimen. The bottom porous plate was large enough to support the
consolidation ring and its specimen adequately.

(3) A consolidation cell of suitable material within which was placed the test specimen assembly,
consisting of the test specimen held within the consolidation ring between the top and bottom
porous plates and resting centrally on the base of the cell. The cell was capable of being filled with
water to a level higher than the top of the upper porous plate.

(4) A micrometer gauge or other device, called the compression gauge, suitably supported for
measuring the vertical compression or swelling of the specimen throughout the test.

1
 F16/1585/2015

(5) A loading device having a rigid bed for supporting the consolidation cell. The device enabled
vertical force to be applied axially in suitable increments to the test specimen through a suitable
loading yoke, each load increment being constantly maintained by some form of stress control
method, while permitting increasing vertical compression of the test specimen e.g. by a
counterbalanced lever system and calibrated masses in suitable increments.
The force applied to the test specimen was applied centrally to a loading cap covering the top
porous plate through some form of spherical seating. The loading mechanism was capable of
applying the force instantaneously and without impact. The lever system had some convenient
magnification ratio and a range of masses was provided to enable suitable increments of load to
be applied to the test specimen.

Fig.1 Diagrammatic illustration of a typical consolidation cell

Apparatus for the preparation and testing of specimen
(1) A jig for holding the consolidation ring just above the top of the sampling tube for direct jacking
methods.
(2) A sharp, thin-bladed trimming knife such as a spatula, palette knife or scalpel.
(3) A metal straightedge such as a steel strip about 300mm long, 25mm wide and 3mm thick with
one bevelled edge.
(4) A flat glass plate.
(5) Means of measuring the height of the test specimen or depth of the consolidation ring to an
accuracy of 0.1mm e.g. a 25mm travel dial gauge mounted in a comparator.
(6) Apparatus for moisture content determination.
(7) Filter papers.
(8) A timing device.
(9) A supply of water at room temperature.
(10) A watch glass, or metal tray, somewhat larger in diameter than the consolidation ring.
(11) Apparatus for specific gravity determination.

2
 F16/1585/2015

PROCEDURE
Preparation of test specimen:
(1) The soil sample was examined for soil type.
(2) The consolidation ring and watch glass/metal tray were cleaned dried and weighed separately.
The ring was then slightly lubricated with grease.
(3) A representative sample for testing was extruded and cut off, care being taken to ensure that
the two plane faces of the disc of soil are parallel to each other. The thickness of the disc of soil
was somewhat greater than the height of the consolidation ring.
(4) Using the consolidation ring as a template, the edge of the disc was trimmed off carefully until
the ring just slid over the soil, the last fraction of the soil being pared away by the cutting edge of
the ring as it was pushed down slowly and evenly over the sample, with no unnatural voids against
the inner face of the ring. The top and bottom surfaces projecting above and below the edges of
the ring were trimmed off, using the thin-bladed trimming knife, until they were level and flush
with the top and bottom edges of the ring. Loss or gain of moisture by the sample was avoided at
all stages.

Assembly of apparatus:
The bottom porous plate was centred, dry, in the consolidation cell. The ring complete with
specimen was placed centrally on top of the porous plate with a filter paper against each face of
the specimen. The top porous plate and loading cap were placed centrally on top.
The consolidation cell was then placed in position on the bed of the loading apparatus and the
counterbalanced loading beam adjusted carefully into a level position with the appropriate load-
transmitting member in contact with the loading cap.
The gauge was clamped into position for recording the relative movement between the base of
the consolidation cell and the loading cap. The gauge was arranged at such a position in its travel
as to allow for a small amount of swelling of the specimen, the remainder of the range of travel
being taken to allow for compression.
A reading of the gauge and time was noted.

Loading sequence:
The loading sequence followed was taken from the following range of pressures (kN/m2):
10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200.

3
 F16/1585/2015

The initial pressure to be applied to the specimen was dependent upon the soil type and was
large enough to ensure that swelling of the specimen was avoided. For firm soils, the initial
pressure was somewhat less than the estimated present effective overburden pressure.
The initial pressure as determined above was applied to the specimen at a convenient moment
(zero seconds) as indicated by the timing device and a reading of the compression gauge taken.
Further readings of the compression gauge taken at suitable intervals of √time would facilitate
plotting of the time-compression curve. The readings were taken at intervals of 0, ¼, 1, 2¼, 4, 6¼,
9, 12¼, 16, 20¼, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81 and 100 minutes after the application of the pressure. The
consolidation cell was filled with water soon after the application of the pressure. If this caused
swelling of the specimen, the pressure was increased to the next higher value in the aforementioned
range.
If swelling continued, the pressure was further increased and readings of the compression
gauge again commenced and taken at the intervals suggested. If the specimen continued to
consolidate after the addition of water to the consolidation cell or on the application of further
pressure following swelling, the readings of the compression gauge were taken at suitable intervals
of the period during which pressure was maintained at that value. The compression gauge readings
were plotted versus the square root of elapsed time, and the nature of the curve as it became defined
was used to determine the spacing of later readings.
The pressure was maintained until the plotted readings indicated that primary compression had
occurred, and a 24-hour period was found appropriate. If the compression under the initial pressure
virtually ceased within a short time after application, the next higher pressure in the sequence was
applied.
An increment of load was then applied to increase the pressure on the specimen to the next
stage in the sequence and the procedure followed as previously. The test was performed using an
adequate number of loading stages (not less than 4) and the maximum pressure on the specimen
was greater than the effective pressure that would occur in situ due to the overburden and the
proposed construction.

Unloading:
Upon completion of the compression gauge readings under the maximum applied pressure, the
load was withdrawn from the test specimen and the consolidation cell removed from the apparatus.
The mass of the watch glass/metal tray was checked. The specimen in its ring was then removed
4
 F16/1585/2015

from the cell, the filter papers taken off the specimen, and the whole transferred to the oven on the
watch glass/metal tray.
The specimen was then dried in the oven to constant mass.
Precaution: Suitable provision was made to prevent penetration or loss of soil between the ring
and the porous plate by means of a filter paper cut accurately to size and placed at the top of the
specimen, and another at the bottom to prevent clogging of the pores of the plates.

RESULTS DATE: 3/05/2018

One Dimensional Consolidation Test
Apparatus No.: 6 Dial Gauge Factor: 0.01mm/div Wt. of Ring: 90.7g
Wt. of Ring + Specimen at Beginning of Test: 237.2g
Wt. of Ring + Specimen at End of Test: 242.8g (90.7+152.1)
Wt. of Dried Specimen at End of Test: 123.6g
Initial Ring Thickness: 19mm

Pre-consolidation results: (Date: 15/11/2016)

Soil type: Soil containing not less than 90% passing the 3/4in. (19mm) B.S. Sieve. (Determination
of Particle Size Distribution i.e. Sieve Analysis – 1FCE 311)
Specific Gravity, Gs ≈ 2.7 (Methods of Determining Specific Gravity of Soil – FCE 311)
Pre-compaction: (Dynamic Compaction Using a 2.5kg Rammer – FCE 311)
Maximum Dry Density, MDD ≈ 1.85g/cm3
Optimum Moisture Content, 2OMC ≈ 11%
(MDD and OMC obtained from Compaction Curve – FCE 311)

Quantities used:
Soil in ring = MDD × Ring Volume × (1 + NMC) × 395%
Water in ring = MDD × Ring Volume × (OMC − 4NMC)%

1
Experiment performed in Year 3.
2
OMC was established to help determine the requisite degree of saturation of soil specimen at end of consolidation.
3
Theoretical percentage passing through 19mm B.S. Sieve was adjusted upwards by 5%.
4
Natural Moisture Content before compaction.

5
 F16/1585/2015

DATA SHEET
CLOCK DIAL (div.)(per loading stage)
TIME, T
√𝑻 100 kN/m2
(MIN) 50 kN/m2 100 kN/m2 200 kN/m2 400 kN/m2
(flooded)
0.00 0 2300 2199 2124 2119 2040
0.25 0.5 2252 2145 2123 2063 1990
1.00 1.0 2249 2141 2122.5 2058 1981
2.25 1.5 2245 2139 2122.5 2056 1973
4.00 2.0 2241 2136 2122.5 2053 1970
6.25 2.5 2235 2135 2122.5 2051 1968.5
9.00 3.0 2228 2133.5 2122 2050 1965
12.25 3.5 2220 2132 2122 2049 1962
16.00 4 2215 2131 2121.5 2047.5 1957.5
20.25 4.5 2210 2130.5 2121.5 2046 1953
25 5 2206 2130 2121 2045 1949.5
36 6 2204 2129 2120.5 2043.5 1945
49 7 2202 2128 2120.5 2043 1943
64 8 2200 2126 2119.5 2042 1941
81 9 2199.5 2125 2119.5 2041 1939
100 10 2199 2124 2119 2040 1937

Post-consolidation results:
Metal Dish No.: 184 Soil Wet weight (SW)
Dish + Wet Soil (D + SW): 257.3g Soil Dry weight (SD)
Dish + Dry Soil (D + SD): 228.8g Water weight (WWT)
Dish weight (DWT): 105.2g Moisture Content (M.C)
= (D + SW) - DWT = 152.1g
= (D + SD) - DWT = 123.6g
= SW - SD = 28.5g
𝑊𝑊𝑇
= × 100% = 23.1%
𝑆𝐷

ANALYSIS
Compressibility Characteristics:
The specimen thickness, Hf in mm, was calculated for each load increment by subtracting the
compression of the specimen (reduction in thickness) as recorded by the compression gauge from
the initial thickness measurement.

6
 F16/1585/2015

The Coefficient of Consolidation, (cv):

The principal empirical method used for evaluating the consolidation coefficient was the square
root of time fitting method:

Square Root of Time Fitting Method:

The straight line which best fit the early portion of the plot between the compression gauge
readings and the square root of elapsed time was extended to intersect the ordinate of zero time,
and this intersection was considered the corrected zero point. A straight line was then drawn
through the corrected zero point, which, at all points, had abscissae 1.15 as great as those of the
best-fit line previously drawn. The intersection of this line and the curve drawn through the plotted
results was taken as the 90% primary compression point. Its abscissa√𝑡90 was read off from the
graph, and the coefficient of consolidation, cv in m2/year, computed from the following equation:
𝟎.𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑯𝒂𝒗 𝟐
𝒄𝒗 = 𝒕𝟗𝟎

where 𝐻𝑎𝑣 is the average thickness for the load increment (mm)
𝑡90 is expressed in minutes.

The compression ratios:

The initial compression ratio, ro, the primary compression ratio, rp, and the secondary compression
ratio, rs, were calculated from the following equations (Square root fitting method):
𝑑 −𝑑
𝑟𝑜 = 𝑑 𝑜−𝑑 𝑠
𝑜 𝑓

10(𝑑𝑠 −𝑑90 )
𝑟𝑝 = 9(𝑑𝑜 −𝑑𝑓 )

𝑟𝑠 = 1 − (𝑟𝑜 + 𝑟𝑝 )
where 𝑑𝑠 is the corrected zero point;
𝑑90 is the compression gauge reading at the 90% primary compression;
𝑑𝑜 is the compression gauge reading at zero time with a correction applied when
necessary for deformation due to elasticity of apparatus;
𝑑𝑓 is the final compression gauge reading.

7
 F16/1585/2015

CALCULATION OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSOLIDATION AND COMPRESSION RATIOS

100
PRESSURE RANGE kN/m2 50 100 200 400
(flooded)
INITIAL COMP. GAUGE READING (div) 𝑑𝑜 2300 2199 2124 2119 2040
FINAL COMP. GAUGE READING (div) 𝑑𝑓 2199 2124 2119 2040 1937
THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN BEFORE
𝐻𝑖 23.0 21.99 21.24 21.19 20.40
INCREMENT IS APPLIED (mm)
CHANGE IN THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN
∆𝐻 1.01 0.75 0.05 0.79 1.03
(mm)
FINAL THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN (mm)
𝐻𝑓 21.99 21.24 21.19 20.40 19.37
(𝑯𝒊 − ∆𝑯)
AVERAGE THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN
𝟏 𝐻𝑎𝑣 22.495 21.615 21.215 20.795 19.885
(mm) (𝑯𝒊 + 𝑯𝒇 )
𝟐

CORRECTED INITIAL COMP.

𝑑𝑠 2262.5 2144.5 2123.5 2060.5 1989
GAUGE READING (div)
COMP. GAUGE READING AT 90%
𝑑90 2204.5 2130.5 2119.5 2043.5 1944
CONSOLIDATION (div)

EQUIVALENT TIME FOR 𝒅𝟗𝟎

𝑡90 32.49 20.25 82.81 36.60 42.25
FROM CURVE (minutes)
√𝐭 fitting method

COEFFICIENT OF CONSLIDATION
𝑐𝑣 1.7 2.6 0.6 1.3 1.0
(0.111𝑯𝒂𝒗 𝟐 /𝒕𝟗𝟎 ) (m2/year)
(𝒅𝒐 − 𝒅𝒔 ) A 37.5 54.5 0.5 58.5 51
𝟏𝟎(𝒅𝒔 − 𝒅𝟗𝟎 )/𝟗 B 64.44 15.56 4.44 18.89 50.00
INITIAL COMP. RATIO (0.01A/∆𝑯) 𝑟𝑜 0.371 0.727 0.100 0.741 0.495
PRIMARY COMPRESSION RATIO
𝑟𝑝 0.638 0.207 0.889 0.239 0.485
(0.01B/∆𝑯)
SECONDARY COMP. RATIO
𝑟𝑠 -0.009 0.066 0.011 0.020 0.019
1-(𝒓𝒐 + 𝒓𝒑 )

DISCUSSION
Reporting of results:
The compression ratios and the coefficients of consolidation were related to each pressure
increment in the table above using the √t fitting method. Values of coefficient of consolidation
were reported to two significant figures.

8
 F16/1585/2015

In the plot of compression (strain) versus√time, the straight line drawn through the corrected
zero point, which at all points had abscissae 1.15 as those of the line-of-best-fit, was obtained by
multiplying any abscissae on the best fit line by 1.15 to obtain a new point with a different
abscissae for the same ordinate, and then drawing a straight line from the corrected zero point
through this new point to intersect the curve.
Furthermore, only the salient portion of the curve – the portion at which intersection at the
90% compression point occurred – was drawn. This was because the portion aforementioned was
the only relevant section of the curve in view of subsequent computations.
Values of t 90 were obtained by squaring the √t 90 values obtained from the graphs.

Experimental errors:
The significant scatter evident in the plots between compression (strain) and √time was caused by
random as well as systematic errors. The common random error was the human error of judgement
(parallax) especially when taking the dial gauge readings. The systematic errors in the data mainly
arose from lack of calibration of old machines as well as assumptions made in theory.
Mitigation: random errors could be eliminated by repeating the measurement several times and
taking an average. Systematic errors are difficult to detect (as they affect all results equally) and
can only be eliminated by checking and properly calibrating the instrument in which the error is
suspected against a known reliable instrument.

CONCLUSION
The one-dimensional consolidation properties of the soil specimen i.e. the coefficient of
consolidation, cv in m2/year, the initial compression ratio, ro, the primary compression ratio, rp,
and the secondary compression ratio, rs, were successfully established in relation to pressure
increment.

REFERENCES
BS 1377: 1975 Laboratory manual.
FCE 411 Lecture Notes.

9
 F16/1585/2015

FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST

SCOPE
This is the method of measuring the permeability of a soil using a Falling Head Permeameter, an
instrument in which water is passed through a soil sample and the hydraulic gradient and quantity
of water flowing through the sample are measured.
The instrument is used to measure the permeability of clays, silts, and fine sands.

APPARATUS
a) Standard Compaction Mould
b) Stand with screw
c) Stop watch or stop clock
d) Burette
e) Soaking tank
f) Water ruler
g) Washing bottle

METHOD
After the sample was trimmed in the mould, it was weighed and the moisture content determined.
The mould was then mounted into the cage with the gauze on the top and bottom and the cap
screwed down.
The mould was placed in a soaking tank, which was slowly filled with air-free distilled water.
The air-free water was carefully placed in the tank so that it was not aerated by agitation as the
tank was filled. The vacuum in the sample drew air from the sample and pulled air-free water up
into the sample, thus completely saturating it; the operation was carried out slowly so as not to
entrap air into the sample. The saturated sample was then connected up through tubing filled with
air-free distilled water to the burette that had also been filled with air-free distilled water. For the
start of the test, water was allowed to fall through the sample and times required for it to pass were
recorded. The burette was refilled with water and the test repeated many times each time being
recorded.

10
 F16/1585/2015

Computations:
The information from the test was recorded and Log H, where H is the head of water, plotted
against time.
The coefficient of permeability was obtained from the formula:-
2.3026a × L Log10 H1 − Log10 H2
K= ×
A t 2 − t1
where
K = Permeability coefficient (cm/sec)
a = Cross-sectional area of the manometer tube/burette (cm2)
L = Length/height of sample under test (cm)
A = Cross-sectional area of sample (cm2)
H1 = Initial head of water (cm)
H2 = Head of water in cm indicated at the end of a particular time period
t2 = time corresponding to H2 (sec)
t1 = start time (sec)
2.3026 = conversion factor, log to log10

RESULTS DATE: 3/05/2018

Falling Head Permeability Data Sheet
Height, L: 101mm Diameter: 105mm
Area of sample, A: 8659mm2 Area of burette, a: 95mm2

2.3026a×L Log10 H1 −Log10 H2

Formula: K = ×
A t2 −t1

Time, t (min) t*60 (sec) Head, H (cm) 𝐋𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 H

0 0 96.2 1.9832
1 60 94.2 1.9741
2 120 92.2 1.9647
3 180 90.2 1.9552

Log10 H1 −Log10 H2
Slope:
t2 −t1

11
 F16/1585/2015

ANALYSIS

Log H vs Time
1.985
1.9832

1.98

1.9741
1.975

1.97
LOG H

1.9647
1.965

1.96

1.9552
1.955

1.95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
TIME

From the graph above, the slope is:

1.9832 − 1.9552
slope = = 1.55 × 10−4 𝑠 −1
180𝑠𝑒𝑐

Therefore,
2.3026 × 95 × 101
K= × 1.55 × 10−4 = 3.955 × 10−4 𝑚𝑚/s
8659

= 3.955 × 10−5 𝑐𝑚/𝑠

DISCUSSION
The coefficient of permeability is the velocity of flow through soil under unit hydraulic gradient,
established by falling head method as 3.955×10-5cm/s. As such, it can only be determined under
laminar conditions in a saturated soil specimen.
The coefficient of permeability is among the factors influencing the degree of consolidation.

12
 F16/1585/2015

Typical values of coefficient of permeability of various soil types are listed as follows:
Table 2-1
Soil type Permeability coefficient, K (cm/sec)
Gravel 1-100
Sand 10-3-1
Silt 10-6-10-3
clay ˂10-6

From the results, the coefficient of permeability falls within the silt range, i.e.
10−6 < 3.955 × 10−5 < 10−3
Sources of error:
Errors inherent in the data may have arisen from parallax errors of judgement when taking readings
of head from a calibrated/graduated rule scale. They may also have come about as a result of
improper calibration of the falling-head permeameter or the lack of calibration altogether. Further
systematic error may have arisen due to the delay in starting and/or stopping a timing.
The random errors could be eliminated by repeating the measurement several times and
recording an average. Frequent and careful calibration of the permeameter as well as observing
proper practice when using a stopwatch may help mitigate against systematic errors.

CONCLUSION
The coefficient of permeability of the soil specimen was duly established, confirming the soil
sample to be silt; the soil specimen was, therefore, semi-impervious.

REFERENCES
BS 1377: 1975 Laboratory manual.
FCE 411 Lecture Notes, p41.

13
 F16/1585/2015

DETERMINATION OF THE PERMEABILITY OF GRANULAR SOIL:

TENTATIVE STANDARD METHOD USING A CONSTANT-HEAD PERMEAMETER

SCOPE
This method covers the determination of the coefficient of permeability for the laminar saturated
flow of water through granular soils such as sand and fine gravel containing not more than 10%
passing the No. 200 (0.75mm) sieve.

APPARATUS
a) Perspex cylinder with all the connections
b) Glass tube manometers
c) Clean water and a sink
d) De-airing tank and a vacuum pump
e) Stop watch, balance and various laboratory items
f) Clean gravels and measuring cylinder

PRINCIPLE OF METHOD
The method is based on measuring the volume of water flowing through a soil specimen in a certain
time, under conditions of constant head, steady flow, full saturation of the soil and direct
proportionality between the discharge velocity and hydraulic gradient (Darcy’s Law).
The discharge velocity is measured as the volume of water passing through the specimen per
unit time divided by the cross-sectional area of the soil. The coefficient of permeability is
determined as the slope of the curve representing the discharge velocity as a function of the
gradient.

PREPARATION FOR TEST

1. A sieve analysis of the soil to be tested was made, and the permeameter connections checked,
sealing gaskets; the cylinder was placed on the base and tightened down.
2. The cell was filled with de-aired water and the bottom part of the filter gravel submerged to a
thickness of about 5cm.
3. The soil was put into the permeameter and stirred with a rod to settle the soil particles. The soil
level was about 7cm from the top of the cylinder.
4. The upper filter gravel was also placed to a 5cm thickness and the top plate put on.

14
 F16/1585/2015

5. The 4kg weight was placed on the loading shelf and the height of the specimen measured.
6. The permeameter inlet was connected to the constant head tank and the permeameter topped up
with de-aired water, letting the air escape through the bleeder valve.

PROCEDURE
The de-airing tank was operated under high vacuum until it was filled with de-aired water. The
constant-head tank was filled with de-aired water and the vacuum disconnected. The connection
to the constant-head tank was then opened to let water overflow from the tank.
The permeameter inlet and outlet were opened and the level of the outlet tube adjusted to give
a mean head loss (∆h). The mean temperature was measured and recorded.
The filling of the measuring cylinder from the permeameter outlet was commenced starting the
stop watch at the same time. When the water had been collected enough, the water was stopped,
and the time (t) and volume of water (v) recorded.
The permeameter outlet was lowered to increase ∆H in steps and more readings obtained.

RESULTS and ANALYSIS DATE: 3/05/2105

Constant Head Permeability
Diameter of the cell: 100mm Area of the cell: 78.54cm2
Manometer outlets length, L: 300mm Specific gravity: 2.0

Manometer Head Loss Hydraulic Discharge

Time, Water Temp.
Reading (cm) (cm) Gradient, Velocity,
t Discharged, T
H1 - H2 - i v = V/At
(s) V (cm3) (ºC) H1 H2 H3 ∆H
H2 H3 (∆H/L) (cm/s)
0 0 22 96.0 96.0 96.0 0 0 0 0 0
60 70 22 89.8 69.2 26.0 20.6 43.2 31.9 1.063 0.015
120 110 22 91.6 73.9 37.2 17.7 36.7 27.2 0.907 0.012
180 136 22 91.0 75.3 42.3 15.7 33 24.35 0.812 0.010

15
 F16/1585/2015

Discharge Velocity vs Hydraulic

Gradient
0.016

0.015

0.014
DISCHARGE VELOCITY,V

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.01

0.009

0.008
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT, I

From graphical analysis above, the permeability coefficient, K, is given by:

0.015 − 0.01
K = slope = = 0.0199𝑐𝑚/𝑠
1.063 − 0.812

DISCUSSION
The constant of proportionality, K, is known as Darcy’s coefficient of permeability. When i = 1 in
the equation v = Ki, K = 1. As such, the coefficient of permeability can also be defined as the
velocity of flow through soil under unit hydraulic gradient, and has the same unit as the velocity.
From Table 2-1 in the Falling Head Permeability test, it was established that sand has K values
ranging between 10-3 and 1. The soil specimen used for the tentative standard method, using a
constant-head permeameter, to determine the permeability of granular soil had a permeability of
0.0199cm/s, implying that it was sandy. This finding confirms that indeed the soil was granular.
The clean gravels used were only intended for filtration and, as such, were in no way part of
the specimen.

16
 F16/1585/2015

Error sources:
Random errors in the data obtained may have arisen from parallax when taking the manometer
readings as well as readings of volume of water discharged into the measuring cylinder. The main
source of systematic errors in this experiment was the total lack of calibration of the old constant-
head permeameter.
The random errors could have been eliminated by repeating the measurement several times
and recording an average. Frequent and careful calibration of the permeameter as well as observing
proper practice when using a stopwatch may help mitigate against systematic errors.

CONCLUSION
The determination of the permeability of granular soil by the tentative standard method using a
constant-head permeameter was successfully performed. The coefficient of permeability of the soil
specimen was established as 0.0199cm/s.

REFERENCES
BS 1377: 1975 Laboratory manual.
FCE 411 Lecture Notes, p40&41.

17