See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350563425

Evaluation of empirical relationships to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of

borehole soil samples

Article  in  ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · April 2021

DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2021.1902872

CITATIONS READS

11 237

2 authors:

Abhishish Chandel Vijay Shankar

National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur
10 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigations on the hydraulic conductivity of flow through porous media: Evaluation & Modelling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhishish Chandel on 07 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

Evaluation of empirical relationships to estimate

the hydraulic conductivity of borehole soil samples

Abhishish Chandel & Vijay Shankar

To cite this article: Abhishish Chandel & Vijay Shankar (2021): Evaluation of empirical
relationships to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of borehole soil samples, ISH Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2021.1902872

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2021.1902872

Published online: 01 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tish20
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2021.1902872

Evaluation of empirical relationships to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of

borehole soil samples
Abhishish Chandel and Vijay Shankar
Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Hydraulic conductivity is a vital hydraulic property of porous media that influences the movement of Received 9 September 2020
water and the transport of dissolved contaminants. The present study investigates the influence of Accepted 10 March 2021
key parameters namely, grain size and porosity on the hydraulic conductivity of the borehole soil KEYWORDS
samples. Further, the applicability of various porosity functions, nine existing empirical relationships, Empirical relationship; grain
and the developed statistical model was assessed using experimentally measured values. size; hydraulic conductivity;
Experimental investigations show that an increase in the grain size and porosity values results in an porosity
increase in the value of hydraulic conductivity. Porosity function corresponding to the Kozeny-
Carman relationship provides the best fit with the measured hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic
conductivity computed using the Kozeny-Carman relationship indicates close agreement with the
measured values followed by Beyer, Hazen, and Alyamani and Sen relationships while other relation­
ships underestimate the hydraulic conductivity of the considered borehole soil samples. The values
obtained using the developed model indicate better agreement as compared to those based on the
empirical relationships, with the measured values of hydraulic conductivity. The reasonable values of
SI, Cc, RMSE, and MAE i.e., 0.012, 0.984, 0.001, and 0.001 respectively, postulate substantial perfor­
mance of the developed model in computing hydraulic conductivity.

1. Introduction
Flow through porous media is characterized by the term
hydraulic conductivity and is considered vital for ground­
water investigations and management practices (Pliakas and
Petalas 2011; Deb and Shukla 2012). The prediction of
hydraulic conductivity and its variations in porous media
i.e., borehole soil samples, consequence in a potential alter­
native for monitoring the availability of groundwater and the
movement of dissolved contaminants (Perkins 2011;
Anomohanran 2013). Hydraulic conductivity is a dominant
hydraulic property of the soil used for predicting the move­
ment of water through the interconnecting voids. It has
a significant role, in estimating the quantity of seepage
through earth dams and levees and conducting stability
analysis of earth structures subjected to seepage forces
(Kango et al. 2019). Saturated hydraulic conductivity of
porous media is important for modeling the flow of water
in the saturated and unsaturated zone (Singh et al. 2019; Riha
2020).
Hydraulic conductivity is influenced by various properties
of porous media i.e., porosity, structure alignment as well as
different properties of the fluid (Cirpka 2003; Pucko and
Verbovsek 2015). The hydraulic conductivity of granular
porous media is related to grain size characteristics (Boadu
2000; Song et al. 2009). This relationship is very convenient
for the estimation of hydraulic conductivity, in the initial
stages of aquifer investigation. The representative grain size
of porous media derived from the grain size analysis is help­
ful in the prediction of hydraulic conductivity (Alabi et al.
2010). Many standard field and laboratory methods have
been recommended to estimate hydraulic conductivity
(Todd and Mays 2005). However, in the field, authentic
estimation of hydraulic conductivity is limited by the lack
of precise knowledge of hydraulic boundaries and aquifer
geometry, whereas, laboratory method involving permea­
meters are also not be a feasible solution due to cost and
time restrictions (Odong 2007; Ishaku et al. 2011). Thus, to
overcome these problems, hydraulic conductivity estimation
using empirical relationships based on grain-size analysis is
used as an efficient substitute (Omojola et al. 2014). More
importantly, information about the textural properties of
porous media is easily obtained, resulting in a potential alter­
native for the assessment of hydraulic conductivity values
(Rosas et al. 2014; Chandel et al. 2021). Consequently,
groundwater professionals have tried for decades to establish
a relation between hydraulic conductivity and grain size, as
such relationships are comparatively less expensive and do
not depend on the geometry and hydraulic boundaries of the
aquifer (Riha et al. 2018).
The standard form of empirical relationships for the esti­
mation of hydraulic conductivity generally comes from
dimensional analysis which is based on the Darcy-
Weisbach equation (Vukovic and Soro 1992; Kasenow
2002). However, empirical relationships have been derived
for specific conditions and used within specified domains.
Also, the use of grain size analysis can results in an under­
estimation of hydraulic conductivity if a relevant empirical
relationship is not used (Cheng and Chen 2007). Various
researchers have derived different relationships based on
their research work such as Slichter (1899), Terzaghi
(1925), Mallet and Pacquant (1951), Beyer (1964), and
Alyamani and Sen (1993). Initially, a linear dependence
between hydraulic conductivity and porosity was given by
Hazen (1892), which does not consider the non-uniformity

CONTACT Abhishish Chandel abhishishchandel@gmail.com

© 2021 Indian Society for Hydraulics
2 A. CHANDEL AND V. SHANKAR
of porous media. Kozeny (1927) proposed a relation which
was then modified by Carman (1937), Carman, P. C (1956)
to become the Kozeny-Carman relationship.
The hydraulic conductivity values predicted using differ­
ent empirical relationships differ in the range of 10–20%
(Kasenow 2002). Carrier (2003) concluded that the Kozeny-
Carman relationship is the best estimator of hydraulic con­
ductivity as compared to the Hazen relationship. Odong
(2007) focused on the evaluation of hydraulic conductivity
for porous media using empirical relationships and con­
cluded that precise estimation of hydraulic conductivity is
based on the Kozeny-Carman equation, however other equa­
tions in the study overestimated the hydraulic conductivity
values. Rosas et al. (2014) estimated and compared hydraulic
conductivity with empirical relationships for 400 samples of
sediments with different grain size analyses. Cabalar and
Akbulut (2016) determined the hydraulic conductivity for
sand samples of different shapes and grain sizes and evalu­
ated them with empirical relationships. Investigations and
the analysis of unconsolidated aquifer materials were per­
formed by Hussain and Nabi (2016). An M5 model tree was
developed to predict hydraulic conductivity based on grain
size analysis by Naeej et al. (2017). Riha et al. (2018) evalu­
ated the applicability and reliability of the glass beads having
different diameters and assessed the value of hydraulic con­
ductivity for glass beads using empirical relationships. Hong
et al. (2020) revised the Kozeny-Carman relationship based
on porosity and specific surface area to predict the hydraulic
conductivity of the soil.
The literature revealed that different investigators used
the existing empirical relationships to estimate the hydraulic
conductivity values and vaguely defined their applicability
boundaries via the normal description of materials used
without suitable evaluation and quantification. This often
results in the inappropriate use of these relationships. The
present study has been focused to address this research gap.
The theoretical background of flow through porous media
was studied, and the dependence of hydraulic conductivity
on porosity function and grain size was investigated with the
main objectives as:
(1) To study the influence of key parameters i.e., grain
size and porosity on the hydraulic conductivity of the
borehole samples used in the study.
(2) To assess various porosity functions and evaluate nine
empirical relationships for hydraulic conductivity
estimation.
(3) To develop a statistical model based on regression
analysis to predict the hydraulic conductivity.
2. Materials and methods
In the present study, eleven representative soil samples were
collected during borehole drilling operation at the Rupnagar
district of Punjab in India. The study area has an average
elevation of 260 m and it lies within latitude 30°32ʹN & 31°
24ʹN and longitude 76°18ʹE and 76°55ʹE. Samples were col­
lected at every 3 m from the core material, obtained during
the drilling operation. It was difficult to collect undisturbed
soil samples i.e., those with invariant soil texture and soil
moisture. Hence, the disturbed soil samples were collected,
and to simulate the field conditions the collected samples
were appropriately repacked in the permeameter to
reestablish the original conditions. The grain size analysis
was performed on the collected samples using the standard
procedure to determine the grain size characteristics (ASTM
2007). The collected borehole samples composed of medium,
coarse and fine soil particles were subjected to dry sieve
analysis. Specific gravity studies were carried out using the
pycnometer method to determine the porosity of all the
samples. The temperature of the water was measured using
a digital thermometer at the beginning and the end of each
test run.
Investigations on the dependence of grain size, porosity,
and porosity function on the hydraulic conductivity of bore­
hole soil samples determined experimentally and using
empirical relationships were carried out. The hydraulic con­
ductivity of collected samples was determined using
a constant head permeameter having a diameter of 153 mm
as shown in (Figure 1). The permeameter is made of GI pipe
having a total length of 106 cm and a test length of 46.5 cm.
Four pressure taping points at an angle of 90° are provided
along the circumference of the permeameter at the start and
endpoints of the test length. This arrangement of tapping
points helps to measure the mean pressure for every section
by averaging out the manometer readings. The inlet to per­
meameter consisted of a pipe 2.54 cm in diameter. The
hydraulic conductivity of the borehole soil samples was
determined based on the methodology described by Rosas
et al. (2014) and ASTM (2006). The value of hydraulic con­
ductivity was obtained by multiplying the flow rate (cm3/sec)
with the specimen thickness (cm) and then dividing it by the
permeameter area (cm2) times the constant head (cm).
2.1. Theoretical background
Initially, the movement of flow through porous media was
studied by Henry Darcy (Fair and Hatch 1933). An attempt
was made in which a series of experiments were performed to
quantify the flow through a sand column. The concept of the
pores system was defined as the parallel tube system oriented
in the direction of flow, a notion stated as the ‘Hydraulic
radius model’ (Bear 1972). The head loss Δh along the tube
due to friction is defined by the Darcy-Weisbach equation
(Vukovic and Soro 1992).
βLV2
Δh ¼ (1)
2gD
where, L = tube length, D = tube diameter, V = cross-
sectional velocity, g = gravitational acceleration, and β =
friction loss coefficient. In case of laminar flow, β is calcu­
lated as:
64
β¼ (2)
Re
VD
Re ¼ (3)
#
where, Re = Reynolds number, and ʋ = kinematic viscosity.
The hydraulic gradient along the tube:
Δh
i¼ (4)
L
Substituting equations (1 to 3) into equation (4):
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. Experimental setup showing the hydraulic conductivity measuring apparatus.

32#V g
i¼ (5) K¼ � β � f ðnÞ � de2 (10)
gD2 #
where, β represents the properties of the porous media, com­
The average velocity in the pores can be stated using the
prising the constant from equation (8), and is also stated as the
Darcy law:
sorting coefficient.
K�i In the present study, borehole soil samples were used which
V¼ (6) contain irregular soil sediments. For non-uniform sediments,
na
Pavchich (VNIIG 1991) proposed an equation:
where, na = areal porosity, and K = hydraulic conductivity. p ffiffiffiffi n
Supposing areal porosity is equivalent to volumetric porosity de ¼ 0:455 � 6
U� � d17 (11)
(na = n) (Bear 1972), and combining equations (5) and (6), ð1 nÞ
the K can be expressed as: where, U = uniformity coefficient (d60/d10), and d17 = grain
1 g 2 diameter for 17% finer by weight.
K¼ � �D �n (7)
32 #
The tube diameter (D), when substituted with the character­ 2.2. Grain size analysis based empirical relationships
istic minimum pore diameter i.e., d0 = D (Vukovic and Soro
1992): Assessment of hydraulic conductivity from grain size analysis
is based on empirical relationships, depending primarily on
d0 ¼ λ � hðnÞ�de (8) the grain size, porosity, viscosity, and sorting coefficient.
Various researchers have endeavored to develop
where, λ = dimensionless coefficient (depends on the proper­ a correlation between these parameters, which take the stan­
ties of the porous medium i.e., grain shape, size, and uni­ dard form as presented in equation (10), whereas the porosity
formity), h(n) = porosity function, and de = effective grain function is determined mostly using equation (11). The list of
diameter. Then, equation (7) converts into: empirical relationships as shown in (Table 1) was assembled
g through the assessment and critical analysis of the available
K¼ � λ2 h2 ðnÞde2 � n (9) literature. Empirical relationships have been rewritten in the
32#
standard form as mentioned in equation (10), while the coeffi­
By introducing, f(n) = n*h2(n) for the porosity function, and cients have been presented in their standard units i.e., hydrau­
β = λ2 =32 (Song et al. 2009), equation (9) holds: lic conductivity in cm/sec and grain size in mm. The
4 A. CHANDEL AND V. SHANKAR

Table 1. Empirical relationship for hydraulic conductivity estimation.

Researcher Relationship β f(n) Applicability
Hazen (1892) KHazen ¼ g
# :β:½1 þ 10ðn 0:26Þ�:d210 6 × 10−4 ½1 þ 10ðn 0:26Þ� 0.1 mm < d10 < 3 mm
U<5
Slichter (1899) KSlichter ¼ g
# :β:n
3:287 2
:d10 1 × 10−2 n3:287 0.01 mm < d10 < 5 mm
� �2
� �2 10.7x10–3 for npffi0:13
ffiffiffiffiffi Large grain sand
3
Terzaghi (1925) KTerzaghi ¼ g npffi0:13
ffiffiffiffiffi :d210 smooth grains 1 n
# :β: 3 1 n 6.1x10–3 for
coarse grains
Kozeny-
Carman h i −3
h i d10 < 3.0 mm
g n3
(Kozeny 1927; KK C ¼ # :β: ð1 nÞ2 :d210 8.3 × 10 n3 suitable for gravel, sand,
ð1 nÞ2
Carman 1937; and silty soil
Carman, P. C
1956)
Harleman et KHarlemanetal: ¼ g 2
# :β:d10
6.54 × 10−4 1 Coarse and well-
al. (1963) distributed sample
−4
g 500 2 6 × 10 1 0.06 mm < d10 < 0.6 mm
Beyer (1964) KBeyer ¼ # :β: log U :d10
g 2:3 −4 1 < U < 20
USBR (Mallet KUSBR ¼ # :β:d20
4.8 × 10 1 U<5
& Pacquant Medium grained sand
1951)
Alyamani and KA=S ¼ β:½I þ 0:025ðd50 d10 Þ�2 1.504 1 Well distributed sample
Sen (A/S)
(1993)
2:35
n2:35
Chapuis et al. Kchapuisetal: ¼ β: ð1 nnÞ1:565 :d1:565
10
1.412
ð1 nÞ1:565
0.03 mm ≤ d10 ≤ 3 mm
(2005)
where, g = gravitational acceleration, ʋ = kinematic viscosity, β = sorting coefficient, n = porosity, f(n) = porosity function, d10, d20, & d50 = grain sizes,
U = uniformity coefficient, and I = line intercept in mm formed by d50 and d10 with the grain size axis.

temperature influence on hydraulic conductivity was included Pi

Z¼ ; Zmin ¼ minðZÞ; Zmax ¼ maxðZÞ (17)
in the kinematic viscosity (mm2/sec). Qi

where, Qi and Pi represent the measured and predicated

2.3. Statistical evaluation parameters hydraulic conductivity values respectively and N is the
� and P
number of observations. Q � are the mean values of
To evaluate the performance of the developed model in
measured and computed parameters, respectively.
computing hydraulic conductivity with reference to the
measured values, different statistical parameters, i.e., SI
(scatter index), Cc (correlation coefficient), RMSE (root
3. Results and discussion
mean square error), and MAE (mean absolute error) are
used. Lower values of SI, RMSE, and MAE and values Grain size analysis was performed on the samples to
closer to 1 for Cc indicate better agreement between the determine the grain size, uniformity coefficient, and
measured and computed parameters (Sepahvand et al. porosity values. The dependence of grain size, porosity,
2019; Sihag et al. 2019). The parameters are defined as: and porosity function on the hydraulic conductivity of
qffiffiffiffiP
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi borehole samples was studied. The variation between the
1
N i ¼ 1N ðPi Qi Þ2 friction factor and Reynolds number was studied to
SI ¼ �i (12) examine the flow regime. Evaluation of measured
Q
hydraulic conductivity values with those obtained using
PN empirical relationships and developed model was car­
ðQi Q � Þ ðP i P �Þ
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii¼1
CC ¼ qffiP ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiP
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffiffiffiffi (13) ried out.
N � Þ2 N ðP i P � Þ2
i¼1 ðQi Q i¼1

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3.1. Grain size analysis

PN
i¼1 ðQi P i Þ2 Grain size analysis was performed using the standard
RMSE ¼ (14)
N mechanical sieving technique for the collected borehole
samples used in the present study. Figure 2 shows the
1X N grain size analysis curve for different borehole samples.
MAE ¼ jQi Pi j (15) From the grain size curve, samples were categorized
N i¼1
based on their particle size as shown in (Table 2)
Further, to numerically assess the agreement rate,
P the sum of (ASTM 2010).
the standardized squares of the residuals ( ω) and the From the grain size analysis curve, the grain size at 10%,
agreement ratio (Z) are also computed. 17%, 20%, 50%, & 60% cumulative weight was determined.
(Table 3) represents the summary of various dimensional
X X
N
ðQi P i Þ2 parameters such as grain size, uniformity coefficient, poros­
ω¼ (16)
i¼1 ðQi Þ2 ity, and hydraulic conductivity.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 5

Figure 2. Grain size analysis curve for different borehole soil samples.

Table 2. Classification of samples based on grain size distribution curve.

Sample Composition Classification findings of Pliakas and Petalas (2011). The experimental
1 6% medium gravel, 20% fine gravel, 35% coarse Gravelly and empirical relationships-based hydraulic conductivity
sand, 25% medium sand, and 14% fine sand sand values were plotted against experimentally obtained por­
2 12% fine gravel, 40% coarse sand, 43% medium Coarse sand osity values, as shown in (Figure 3(b)). The variation
sand, and 5% fine sand
3 2% coarse sand, 84% medium sand, and 14% fine Medium indicates that hydraulic conductivity increases with the
sand sand increase in the porosity of borehole samples and is in
4 48% medium sand and 52% fine sand Fine sand line with the findings of Qiu and Wang (2015).
5 4% medium gravel, 15% fine gravel, 40% coarse Gravelly
sand, 30% medium sand, and 11% fine sand sand
6 16% fine gravel, 35% coarse sand, 45% medium Coarse sand
sand, and 4% fine sand 3.3. Variation between hydraulic conductivity and
7 42% medium sand and 58% fine sand Fine sand porosity function
8 6% coarse sand, 75% medium sand, and 19% fine Medium
sand sand Initially, the porosity functions f(n) for different empirical
9 20% fine gravel, 45% coarse sand, 30% medium Coarse sand relationships were determined as mentioned in (Table 1).
sand, and 5% fine sand
10 3% medium gravel, 18% fine gravel, 34% coarse Gravelly (Figure 4) shows the variations between f(n) and hydrau­
sand, 30% medium sand, and 15% fine sand sand lic conductivity. The results of only best fit empirical
11 40% medium sand and 60% fine sand Fine sand relationships are presented in (Figure 4). Based on equa­
tion (10), a linear relation between hydraulic conductivity
and f(n) was assumed. Determination coefficients were
Table 3. Summary of dimensional parameters. used to evaluate the best fit. Porosity function corre­
Standard sponding to the Kozeny-Carman relationship i.e., n3/
Basic properties Minimum Maximum Average deviation (1-n)2 results in providing the best fit (R2 = 0.98) with
d10 (mm) 0.166 0.310 0.236 0.057 the measured hydraulic conductivity, whereas those per­
d17 (mm) 0.175 0.175 0.304 0.100 taining to Slichter (1899) and Chapuis et al. (2005) pro­
d20 (mm) 0.188 0.438 0.315 0.100
d50 (mm) 0.220 1.080 0.640 0.338 vide only a satisfactory fit with the measured data
d60 (mm) 0.225 1.560 0.884 0.529 resulting in R2 values of 0.89 and 0.92 respectively as
U (Uniformity coefficient)* 1.355 5.032 3.424 1.464 shown in (Figure 4).
n (Porosity)* 0.378 0.422 0.401 0.017
K (Hydraulic conductivity) 0.052 0.152 0.102 0.040
(cm/sec)
3.4. Variation between Friction factor (Fr) and Reynolds
(* represents the dimensionless properties)
number (Re)
To validate the flow regime, the variation between the
dimensionless quantities i.e., Fr and Re for eleven borehole
3.2. Variation of hydraulic conductivity with grain size samples were studied. A logarithmic plot between the Fr and
and porosity Re was plotted as shown in (Figure 5). Fr and Re are given as:
A linear variation between measured hydraulic conduc­ 2igd50
tivity and effective grain size (d10) was observed as Fr ¼ (18)
V2
shown in (Figure 3(a)). From this, it is concluded that
as the value of effective grain size increases the hydraulic Vd50
conductivity also increases. The variation falls on the Re ¼ (19)
υ
same lines for other grain sizes i.e., (d20, d50, & d60).
The results of the study are in close agreement with the where, g = gravitational acceleration, i = hydraulic gra­
dient, V = average velocity of flow through pores, d50 =
6 A. CHANDEL AND V. SHANKAR

Figure 3. Variation of hydraulic conductivity with (a) Grain size (b) Porosity.

Figure 4. Variation between hydraulic conductivity and porosity function.

mean grain diameter, and ʋ = kinematic viscosity of regime of flow having Re value less than 1 thus confirming the
fluid. laminar regime (Alabi et al. 2010; Chandel et al. 2021).
A straight-line variation between the friction factor and
Reynolds number for all borehole samples, signifies the linear
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 7

Figure 5. Variation between Fr and Re for borehole samples.

Table 4. Hydraulic conductivity estimation using empirical relationships.

Kmeasured KHazen KSlichter KTerzaghi KK-C KHarleman et al. KBeyer KUSBR KA/S Kchapuis et al.
Sample (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec)
1 0.152 NA 0.062 0.110 0.199 0.070 0.128 NA 0.113 0.070
2 0.128 0.130 0.046 0.081 0.144 0.056 0.106 NA 0.104 0.054
3 0.072 0.056 0.018 NA 0.054 0.027 0.056 0.020 0.038 0.025
4 0.052 0.041 0.013 NA 0.037 0.020 0.047 0.011 0.028 0.019
5 0.146 0.151 0.056 0.099 0.178 0.064 0.117 NA 0.105 0.064
6 0.118 0.111 0.039 0.069 0.121 0.049 0.093 NA 0.107 0.047
7 0.068 0.053 0.017 NA 0.050 0.026 0.055 0.018 0.035 0.024
8 0.054 0.041 0.013 NA 0.036 0.020 0.047 0.013 0.029 0.019
9 0.144 0.147 0.054 0.094 0.168 0.063 0.115 NA 0.109 0.061
10 0.124 0.116 0.041 0.072 0.125 0.051 0.096 NA 0.100 0.049
11 0.064 0.050 0.016 NA 0.046 0.024 0.053 0.017 0.032 0.022
where, NA = Not Applicable

3.5. Estimation of hydraulic conductivity using
empirical relationships
Initially, the hydraulic conductivity of borehole samples was
determined using permeameter. Different key parameters
i.e., grain size (d10, d17, d20, d50, & d60), uniformity coefficient
(U), and intercept (I) obtained from grain size analysis were
used to compute the hydraulic conductivity for all the sam­
ples using nine empirical relationships, considered in the
study. A value of sorting coefficient i.e., β is given by various
researchers except for the Terzaghi relationship, for which an
average value of β (8.4 × 10−4) is used in the study. The value
of kinematic viscosity i.e., 0.885 mm2/sec derived at
a temperature of 27°C was used in the estimation of hydrau­
lic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity value for all the
samples using empirical relationships is given in (Table 4).
Hazen and USBR relationships are irrelevant to estimate
the hydraulic conductivity of sample 1 because the value of
U is greater than 5. For samples 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 Terzaghi’s
relationship was not used because it is not applicable to the
medium and fine sand particles (Ishaku et al. 2011). Also, the

Figure 6. Comparison of measured and computed hydraulic conductivity.

8 A. CHANDEL AND V. SHANKAR

USBR relationship is valid only for the medium grain sand hydraulic conductivity. Kozeny-Carman, Beyer, Hazen, and
and thus irrelevant for samples 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Alyamani and Sen relationships result in the minimum and
maximum Z value nearly equal to 1 signifying an acceptable
fit between measured and computed hydraulic conductivity,
3.6. Comparison of measured and empirically whereas other relationships result in a poor agreement. The
computed hydraulic conductivity comparison indicates that computed values from empirical
(Figure 6) shows the comparison of measured hydraulic con­ relationships i.e., Slichter, Terzaghi, Harleman et al., USBR,
ductivity of borehole soil samples with the values computed and Chapuis et al. result in poor agreement with measured
using the empirical relationships. Slichter, Terzaghi, Harleman hydraulic conductivity. This may be attributed to the fact
et al., USBR, and Chapuis et al. relationships underestimate that for borehole soil samples the decrease in the grain size
the hydraulic conductivity values, which is consistent with the from gravelly to fine sands result in increasing the surface
findings of Cheng and Chen (2007). The hydraulic conductiv­ tension (Riha et al. 2018). The effect on hydraulic conductiv­
ity values computed using the Kozeny-Carman relationship ity due to variation in surface tension relative to the change
for all borehole samples have a closer agreement with the in grain size is represented by effective porosity. This estab­
measured hydraulic conductivity values followed by Beyer, lishes the necessity of including effective porosity as
Hazen, and Alyamani & Sen relationships. The Kozeny- a parameter in the porosity function instead of normal por­
Carman relationship is more precise as compared to other osity while calculating hydraulic conductivity using empiri­
relationships because it depends on various parameters that cal relationships for borehole soil samples.
describe complete characteristics of the porous media i.e., the
grain shape, void ratio, and particle size distribution (Carrier 3.7. Development of a statistical model
2003). The variation between measured and computed
hydraulic conductivity is due to the substantial differences Firstly, correlation analysis has been performed to find out
between the empirical relationships i.e., some are geometri­ which grain size parameters influence the dependent para­
cally justified, whereas others meter i.e., the hydraulic conductivity. (Table 6) represents
Pare regression-based.
Further, the values of ω and Z were determined to the results of the correlation analysis of the dimensional
examine the agreement rate between the measured and com­ parameters. The uniformity coefficient and mean grain size
P
puted hydraulic conductivity. The smaller values of ω (d50) predominantly affect the hydraulic conductivity
(≈0) signify a better agreement between the measured and because these parameters are highly correlated with the
computed hydraulic conductivity. Kozeny-Carman hydraulic conductivity. Also, the porosity significantly influ­
P and
Beyer relationships result in lower values of ω and ences the hydraulic conductivity (Yoon et al. 2015) as is
hence substantiate a reasonable agreement between the mea­ evident from the correlation value of 0.84 between the por­
sured and computed hydraulic conductivity. Whereas, osity and hydraulic conductivity. Hence, a multiple linear
P other
empirical relationships result in higher values of ω i.e., regression analysis was performed between the mean grain
(>1) which signifies an unsatisfactory agreement between size, uniformity coefficient, and porosity to develop a model
measured and computed hydraulic conductivity as shown for computing the hydraulic conductivity.
in (Table 5). The data set of 11 borehole samples were examined using
To gain more clarity about the agreement rate, the agree­ the multiple linear regression approach using the data ana­
ment ratio i.e., the ratio of computed and measured hydrau­ lysis toolbox in MS Excel 17 to develop a statistical model
lic conductivity was determined. A value of Z (=1) represents composed of mean grain size, uniformity coefficient, and
the best fit obtained between measured and computed porosity to predict the hydraulic conductivity. The boundary
conditions of the dimensionless variables i.e., the uniformity
coefficient and porosity are mentioned as in equation (20).
Table 5. Sum of standardized squared deviation and agreement ratio of
measured and computed values.
The proposed model provides an efficient tool to predict the
hydraulic conductivity of porous media.
Agreement
Sum of standardized ratio (Z)
P squared Kmodel ¼ d50 �0:112
8 þ U�0:003 n�0:108 9
Relationship deviation ( ω) Zmin Zmax
< 1:35 � U � 5:03 =
Hazen 1.26 0.76 1.04
Slichter 5.24 0.24 0.41 þ 0:064 0:37 � n � 0:42 (20)
: ;
Terzaghi 5.78 0.58 0.72 0:22 � d50 � 1:08
Kozeny-Carman 0.59 0.67 1.30
Harleman et al. 3.87 0.37 0.46 where, d50 = mean grain size (mm), U = uniformity coeffi­
Beyer 0.67 0.77 0.89 cient, and n = porosity
USBR (Mallet & 8.80 0.22 0.28
Pacquant) (Figure 7) shows the comparison between the measured
Alyamani and Sen 1.43 0.50 0.85 and developed model-based hydraulic conductivity values. It
Chapuis et al. 4.10 0.35 0.46 can be seen that the data points are focused more on the
Developed model 0.001 1.01 1.02
agreement line as compared to (Figure 6). Further, to check
the performance of empirical relationships and the devel­
Table 6. Correlation analysis of dimensional parameters. oped model, various statistical parameters were determined.
U d50 n K Among the nine empirical relationships, the Kozeny-
U 1 Carman relationship results in lower values of SI, RMSE,
d50 0.92* 1 and MAE i.e., 0.220, 0.020, and 0.015 respectively, and a Cc
n 0.95 0.87 1
K 0.97* 0.94* 0.84* 1 value of 0.922, which shows that the Kozeny-Carman rela­
*Correlation coefficient is statistical significance (p < 0.05) tionship performs relatively well as compared to the other
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 9

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and developed model hydraulic conductivity.

Table 7. Statistical parameters for empirical relationships and developed model.

Statistical Parameters Hazen Slichter Terzaghi Kozeny- Carman Harleman et al. Beyer USBR Alyamani and Sen Chapuis et al. Developed Model
SI 0.460 0.693 0.541 0.220 0.613 0.244 1.031 0.299 0.624 0.012
Cc 0.852 0.641 0.740 0.922 0.690 0.902 0.650 0.780 0.743 0.984
RMSE 0.047 0.071 0.055 0.020 0.063 0.024 0.105 0.030 0.064 0.001
MAE 0.022 0.068 0.054 0.015 0.059 0.021 0.095 0.029 0.061 0.001

empirical relationships. (Table 7) indicates that the SI,
RMSE, and MAE values have largely reduced for the devel­
oped model, whereas the Cc value isP high as 0.984. Also, it
can be seen from (Table 5) that the ω for the developed
model is 0.001 and the Z value is nearly equal to 1, which
indicates a high agreement rate. The performance evaluation
based on the statistical parameters and the high agreement
rate establishes, the efficacy of the developed model in com­
puting hydraulic conductivity of porous media.
values as compared to those from other empirical
relationships. For the developed model, the SI, Cc,
RMSE, and MAE values i.e., 0.012, 0.984, 0.001, and
0.001 respectively, indicate a respectable agreement
between computed and measured values.
(4) The study emphasizes further research on the use of
effective porosity instead of normal porosity in com­
puting hydraulic conductivity.

4. Conclusions
The present study aimed to evaluate nine empirical relation­
ships and the development of a statistical model for estimat­
ing the hydraulic conductivity of porous media. The study
also investigates the influence of key parameters i.e., grain
size and porosity with specific reference to ‘porosity func­
tion’ on hydraulic conductivity. The friction factor and
Reynolds number variation indicate the laminar regime of
flow. Based on investigations, the following conclusions have
been drawn:
(1) Experimental investigations postulate that with an
increase in the grain size and porosity, the hydraulic
conductivity of borehole soil samples, increases.
Porosity function inbuilt in the Kozeny-Carman rela­
tionship provides the best fit with the measured
hydraulic conductivity.
(2) The estimated hydraulic conductivity values using the
Kozeny-Carman relationship indicate a close agree­
ment with the experimentally measured values fol­
lowed by Beyer, Hazen, and Alyamani and Sen
relationships whereas, Slichter, Terzaghi, Harleman
et al., USBR, and Chapuis et al. underestimate the
hydraulic conductivity of borehole soil samples.
(3) The hydraulic conductivity predicted using the devel­
oped model significantly agrees with the measured
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Abhishish Chandel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3082-2721
Vijay Shankar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9509-6804
References
Alabi, A.A., Bello, R., Ogungbe, A.S., and Oyerinde, H.O. (2010).
“Determination of groundwater potential in Lagos State University,
Ojo; using geoelectric methods (vertical electrical sounding and
horizontal profiling).” Rep. Opin., 2(5),68–75.
Alyamani, M.S., and Sen, Z. (1993). “Determination of hydraulic con­
ductivity from complete grain-size distribution curves.” Ground
Water, 31(4),551–555. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1993.tb00587.x
Anomohanran, O. (2013). “Geophysical investigation of groundwater
potential in Ukelegbe, Nigeria.” J. Appl. Sci., 13(1),119–125.
doi:10.3923/jas.2013.119.125
ASTM (2006). “Standard D2434 - Permeability of granular soils
(Constant head).” West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2007). “Standard D422 - Particle-size analysis of soils.” West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM (2010). “Standard D2487 - Classification of soils for engineering
purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).” West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
Bear, J. (1972). Dynamics of fluids in porous media, Elsevier Publishing
Company, Amsterdam, 1–764.
10 A. CHANDEL AND V. SHANKAR
Beyer, W. (1964). “On the determination of hydraulic conductivity of
gravels and sands from grain-size distributions.” Wasserwirtschaft-
wassertechnik., 14(6),165–169.
Boadu, F.K. (2000). “Hydraulic conductivity of soils from grain-size
distribution: New models.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126
(8),739–746. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:8(739)
Cabalar, A.F., and Akbulut, N. (2016). “Evaluation of actual and esti­
mated hydraulic conductivity of sands with different gradation and
shape.” SpringerPlus, 5(1), 820. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2472-2
Carman, P.C. (1937). “Fluid flow through granular beds.” Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng., 15, 150–166.
Carman, P. C. (1956). “Flow of gases through porous media.”
Butterworths Scientific Publications, London.
Carrier, W.D. (2003). “Goodbye, hazen; hello, kozeny-carman.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(11),1054–1056. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:11(1054)
Chandel, A., Shankar, V., and Alam, M.A. (2021). “Experimental inves­
tigations for assessing the influence of fly ash on the flow through
porous media in Darcy regime.” Water Science and Technology :
A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution
Research, 1–11. doi: 10.2166/wst.2021.042. 83 1
Chapuis, R.P., Allaire, V., Marcotte, D., Chouteau, M., Acevedo, N.,
and Gagnon, F., (2005). “Evaluating the hydraulic conductivity at
three different scales within an unconfined sand aquifer at
Lachenalia, Quebec.” Can. Geotech. J., 42 (4), 1212–1220.
doi:10.1139/t05-045
Cheng, C., and Chen, X. (2007). “Evaluation of methods for determina­
tion of hydraulic properties in an aquifer–aquitard system hydro­
logically connected to a river.” Hydrogeol. J., 15(4),669–678.
doi:10.1007/s10040-006-0135-z
Cirpka, O.A. (2003). “Environmental fluid mechanics I: flow in natural
hydrosystems.” J. Hydrol., 283, 53–66.
Deb, S.K., and Shukla, M.K. (2012). “Variability of hydraulic conduc­
tivity due to multiple factors.” Am. J. Environ. Sci., 8(5),489–502.
doi:10.3844/ajessp.2012.489.502
Fair, G.M., and Hatch, L.P. (1933). “Fundamental factors governing the
streamline flow of water through sand.” J. Am Water Works Assn., 25
(11), 1551–1563. doi:10.1002/j.1551-8833.1933.tb18342.x
Harleman, D.R.F., Melhorn, P.F., and Rumer, R.R. (1963). “Dispersion-
permeability correlation in porous media.” J. Hydraul. Div., 89
(2),67–85. doi:10.1061/JYCEAJ.0000863
Hazen, A. (1892). “Some physical properties of sands and gravels, with
special reference to their use in filtration.” Massachusetts State Board
of Health, 24th Annual Report, 539–556.
Hong, B., Li, X.A., Wang, L., Li, L., Xue, Q., and Meng, J. (2020). “Using the
effective void ratio and specific surface area in the Kozeny–Carman
equation to predict the hydraulic conductivity of loess.” Water, 12
(1),1–24.
Hussain, F., and Nabi, G. (2016). “Empirical formulae evaluation for
hydraulic conductivity determination based on grain size analysis.”
Int. J. Res. Env. Std., 3(3),26–32.
Ishaku, J.M., Gadzama, E.W., and Kaigama, U. (2011). “Evaluation of
empirical formulae for the determination of hydraulic conductivity
based on grain-size analysis.” J. Geol. Min. Res., 3(4),105–113.
Kango, R., Shankar, V., and Alam, M.A. (2019). “Evaluation of hydrau­
lic conductivity based on grain size distribution parameters using
power function model.” Water Supply, 19(2),596–602. doi:10.2166/
ws.2018.106
Kasenow, M. (2002). “Determination of hydraulic conductivity from
grain size analysis.” Water resources publication, LLC, Highland
Ranch, CO, USA, 1–83.
Kozeny, J. (1927). “Via capillary conduit the water in the ground.”
R. Acad. Sci. Vienna Proc. Class I., 136, 271–306.
Mallet, C., and Pacquant, J. (1951). “Earth dams.” Editions Eyrolles,
Paris, 1–345.
Naeej, M., Naeej, M.R., Salehi, J., and Rahimi, R. (2017). “Hydraulic
conductivity prediction based on grain-size distribution using M5
model tree.” Geomech. Geoeng., 12(2),107–114. doi:10.1080/
17486025.2016.1181792
View publication stats
Odong, J. (2007). “Evaluation of empirical formulae for determination
of hydraulic conductivity based on grain-size analysis.” J. Am. Sci., 3
(3),54–60.
Omojola, A.D., Akinpelu, S.J., Adesegun, A.M., and Akinyemi, O.D.
(2014). “a micro study to determine porosity, hydraulic conductivity,
permeability and the discharge rate of groundwater in Ondo State
Riverbeds, Southwestern Nigeria.” Int. J. Geosci., 5(11),1254–1262.
doi:10.4236/ijg.2014.511104
Perkins, K.S. (2011). “Measurement and modeling of unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity.” In: Elango L. (ed), Hydraulic conductivity–issues, deter­
mination and applications, Intech, Rijeka, Croatia, 419–434.
Pliakas, F., and Petalas, C. (2011). “Determination of hydraulic con­
ductivity of unconsolidated river alluvium from permeameter tests,
empirical formulas and statistical parameters effect analysis.” Water
Resour. Manage., 25(11),2877–2899. doi:10.1007/s11269-011-9844-8
Pucko, T., and Verbovsek, T. (2015). “Comparison of hydraulic
conductivities by grain-size analysis, pumping, and slug tests in
Quaternary gravels, NE Slovenia.” Open Geosci., 7(1),308–
317.
Qiu, Z.F., and Wang, J.J. (2015). “Experimental study on the anisotropic
hydraulic conductivity of a sandstone–mudstone particle mixture.”
J. Hydrol. Eng. (ASCE), 20(11), 04015029. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
HE.1943-5584.0001220
Riha, J. (2020). “Groundwater flow problems and their modelling.” In
Zelenakova M., Fialova J., Negm A. (eds), Assessment and protection
of water resources, Springer, Cham, Czech Republic, 175–199.
Riha, J., Petrula, L., Hala, M., and Alhasan, Z. (2018). “Assessment of
empirical formulae for determining the hydraulic conductivity of
glass beads.” J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 66(3),337–347. doi:10.2478/
johh-2018-0021
Rosas, J., Lopez, O., Missimer, T.M., Coulibaly, K.M., Dehwah, A.H.,
Sesler, K., Lujan, L.R., and Mantilla, D. (2014). “Determination of
hydraulic conductivity from grain-size distribution for different
depositional environments.” Ground Water, 52(3),399–413.
doi:10.1111/gwat.12078
Sepahvand, A., Singh, B., Sihag, P., Nazari Samani, A., Ahmadi, H., and
Fiz Nia, S. (2019). “Assessment of the various soft computing tech­
niques to predict sodium absorption ratio (SAR).” ISH J. Hydrol.
Eng., 1–12. doi:10.1080/09715010.2019.1595185
Sihag, P., Singh, V.P., Angelaki, A., Kumar, V., Sepahvand, A., and
Golia, E. (2019). “Modelling of infiltration using artificial intelligence
techniques in semi-arid Iran.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 64(13), 1647–1658.
doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1659965
Singh, B., Sihag, P., Pandhiani, S.M., Debnath, S., and Gautam, S.
(2019). “Estimation of permeability of soil using easy measured soil
parameters: Assessing the artificial intelligence-based models.” ISH
J. Hydrol. Eng., 1–11.
Slichter, C.S. (1899). “Theoretical investigation of the motion of
ground waters.” The 19th Ann. Rep., US Geophys Survey,
304–319.
Song, J., Chen, X., Cheng, C., Wang, D., Lackey, S., and Xu, Z. (2009).
“Feasibility of grain-size analysis methods for determination of ver­
tical hydraulic conductivity of streambeds.” J. Hydrol., 375(3–4),
428–437. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.043
Terzaghi, K. (1925). “Principles of soil mechanics.” Eng. News-Record,
95(19–27), 19–32.
Todd, D.K., and Mays, L.W. (2005). Groundwater Hydrology. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
VNIIG, (1991). “Recommendations on the laboratory methods of
investigation of the permeability and filtration stability of soils.”
P 49-90/VNIIG. The B. E. Vedeneev All-Russia Research Institute
of Hydraulic Engineering, JSC, Leningrad, 1–93.
Vukovic, M., and Soro, A. (1992). “Determination of hydraulic
conductivity of porous media from grain-size composition.”
Water resources publications, Littleton, CO, 71–76.
Yoon, S., Lee, S.R., Kim, Y.T., and Go, G.H. (2015). “Estimation of
saturated hydraulic conductivity of Korean weathered granite soils
using a regression analysis.” Geomech. Eng., 9(1),101–113.
doi:10.12989/gae.2015.9.1.101