Advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 161–170 | Cite as

Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity Using a Modified Cylindrical-Half-Spherical Piezocone Model

  • Mingfei Zhang
  • Li-yuan TongEmail author
Research paper

Abstract

To obtain more accurate values of in situ hydraulic conductivity, the present paper has outlined a new method based on the analysis and comparison of existing methods using piezocone data. Owing to results obtained from many numerical simulations and in situ tests, more substantial assumptions are proposed as being more suitable: (1) the flow surface of pore water is assumed to be cylindrical-half-spherical in shape, and (2) the negative exponential function rules the distribution of excess pore water pressure in the soil around the cone. A comparison is carried out between the proposed approach and existing methods based on the graphical and statistical analysis of test data obtained from Quaternary deposits in the Yangtze Delta region. According to the qualitative graphical analysis, the proposed method can evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of soil more accurately. Five different indices and a new graphical analysis using cumulative frequency can be utilized to assess the similar equations. In addition, the results revealed the accuracy and validity of the proposed method, with these methods. The reasonable assumptions, logical derivation, and mathematical analysis together indicate the academic value and application potential of the proposed method. This model and the graphical analysis using cumulative frequency have important guiding significance for the similar analysis.

Keywords

Hydraulic conductivity CPTU Cylindrical-half-spherical flow model Statistical assessment Cumulative frequency 

Abbreviations

a

Radius of the cone

Bc

The calculated BqQt

Bm

The measured BqQt

fs

Sleeve friction

ia

The hydraulic gradient at radius r = a

h

Height of filter ring

k

Hydraulic conductivity

kh

Hydraulic conductivity in the horizontal direction

\({{h}_{c}}\)

The hydraulic conductivity calculated from equations

\({{h}_{l}}\)

The hydraulic conductivity measured directly from tests

KD

Dimensionless hydraulic conductivity coefficient

n

The number of data points

qt

Cone resistance

SD

Standard deviation

U

The rate of cone penetration

ua

The absolute pore water pressure measured by the piezocone

us

The initial static pore water pressure

u0

Hydrostatic pressure

u2

Pore water pressure on the cone shoulder

\(\xi\)

A reduction factor

\(\theta\),\(\varepsilon\)

Soil parameter

μ,σ

The mean and standard deviation

\({{\sigma }_{v0}}\)

The total overburden stress

\(\sigma {{\prime }_{v0}}\)

The initial vertical effective stress

\(\Delta \dot{V}\)

The rate of volume penetration

Notes

Acknowledgements

Much of the research work described herein was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 4157020433) and Project of the National Twelve-Five Year Research Program of China (Grant No. 2012BAJ01B02). These financial supports are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Campanella RG, Robertson PK (1988) Current status of the piezocone test. In penetration testing 1988, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell JK, Brandon TL (1998) Analysis and use of CPT in earthquake and environmental engineering. Geotech Site Charact 1:69–96Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shen SL, Du SJ, Huang XC, Han J (2003) Laboratory studies on property changes in surrounding clays due to installation of deep mixing columns. Mar Georesour Geotec 21(1):15–35Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zeng LL, Hong ZS, Cai YQ, Han J (2011) Change of hydraulic conductivity during compression of undisturbed and remolded clays. Appl Clay Sci 51(1–2):86–93Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chai JC, Agung PMA, Hino T, Igaya Y, Carter JP (2011) Estimating hydraulic conductivity from piezocone soundings. Géotechnique 61(8):699–708Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ma L, Xu YS, Shen SL, Sun WJ (2014) Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers with piles. Hydrogeol J 22(2):371–382Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shen SL, Xu YS (2011) Numerical evaluation of land subsidence induced by groundwater pumping in Shanghai. Can Geotech J 48(9):1378–1392Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horpibulsuk S, Yangsukaseam N, Chinkulkijniwat A, Du YJ (2011) Compressibility and permeability of Bangkok clay compared with kaolinite and bentonite. Appl Clay Sci 52(1–2):150–159Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu YS, Ma L, Shen SL, Sun WJ (2012) Evaluation of land subsidence by considering underground structures that penetrate the aquifers of Shanghai, China. Hydrogeol J 20 (8):1623–1634Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu YS, Shen SL, Cai ZY, Zhou GY (2008) The state of land subsidence and prediction activities due to groundwater withdrawal in China. Nat Hazards 45(1):123–135Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu YS, Shen SL, Du YJ, Chai JC, Horpibulsuk S (2013) Modelling the cutoff behavior of underground structure in multi-aquifer-aquitard groundwater system. Nat Hazards 66(2):731–748Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Randolph MF, Wroth CP (1979) An analytical solution for the consolidation around a driven pile. Int J Numer Anal Met 3(3):217–229zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clarke BG, Carter JP, Wroth CP, Clarke BG, Wroth CP (1979) In situ determination of the consolidation characteristics of saturated clays. European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baligh MM, Levadoux JN (1980) Pore pressure dissipation after cone penetration Massachusetts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leroueil S, Jamiolkowski M (1991) Exploration of soft soil and determination of design parameters. Proceedings GeoCoast’91, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cai GJ, Liu SY, Tong LY, Du GY (2007) Study on consolidation and permeability properties of Lianyungang marine clay based on piezocone penetration test. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 26(4):846–857 (Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27(1):151–158Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robertson PK (2009) Estimating in-situ soil permeability from CPT and CPTU. Can Geotech J 46(1):442–447Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jefferies MG, Davies MP (1993) Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N60. Geotech Test J 16(4):11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elsworth D, Lee DS (2005) Permeability determination from on-the-fly piezocone sounding. J Geotech Geoenviro 131(5):643–653Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elsworth D, Lee DS (2007) Limits in determining permeability from on-the-fly uCPT sounding. Géotechnique 57(8):679–686Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang JP, Xu YS, MaL, Shen SL (2013) An approach to evaluate hydraulic conductivity of soil based on CPTU test. Mar Georesour Geot 31 (3):242–253Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang JP, Shen SL (2013) Determination of permeability coefficient of soil based on CPTU. Rock Soil Mech 11:3335–3339 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zou HF, Cai GJ, LIU SY (2014) Evaluation of coefficient of permeability of saturated soils based on CPTU dislocation theory. Chin J Geotech Eng 36(3):519–528 (Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gupta RC, Davidson JL (1986) Piezoprobe determination coefficient of consolidation. Soils Found 26(3):12–22Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robertson PK, Sully JP, Woeller DJ, Lunne T, Powell JJM, Gillespieet DG (1992) Estimating coefficient of consolidation from piezocone test. Can Geotech J 29(4):539–550Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Danziger FAB, Almeida MSS, Sills GC (1997) The significance of the strain path analysis in the interpretation of piezocone dissipation data. Géotechnique 47(5):901–914Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burns SE, Mayne PW (1998) Monotonic and dilatory pore pressure decay during piezocone tests in clay. Can Geotech J 35(6):1063–1073Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yi JT, Lee FH, Goh SH, Zhang XY, Wu JF (2012) Eulerian finite element analysis of excess pore pressure generated by spudcan installation into soft clay. Comput Geotech 42:157–170Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahmoodzadeh, H, Randolph, M F, and Wang, D (2014) Numerical simulation of piezocone dissipation test in clays. Géotechnique 64(8):657–666Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mahmoodzadeh H, Wang D, Randolph MF (2015) Interpretation of piezoball dissipation testing in clay. Géotechnique 65(10):831–842Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ceccato F, Simonini P (2016) Numerical study of partially drained penetration and pore pressure dissipation in piezocone test. Acta Geotech 1–15Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhu XL, Tang SD (1986) Theoretical analysis of the coefficient of consolidation in soft clay estimated by pore water pressure-cone of cone penetration test. Geotech Investig Surv (6):8–12Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhu XR, He YH, Xu CF, Wang ZL (2005) Excess pore water pressure caused by single pile driving in saturated soft soil. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 24 (2): 725–732 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tang SD, He LS, Fu Z (2002) Excess pore water pressure caused by an installing pile in soft foundation. Rock Soil Mech 23 (6): 725–732Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Elsworth D (1991) Dislocation analysis of penetration in saturated porous media. J Engng Mech Div 117(2):501–516Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shen SL, Wang JP, Wu HN, Xu XS, Ye GL (2015) Evaluation of hydraulic conductivity for both marine and deltaic deposits based on piezocone testing. Ocean Eng 110:174–182Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wroth CP (1984) Interpretation of in situ soil tests. Géotechnique 34(4): 449–489Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yi JT, Goh SH, Lee FH, Randolph MF (2012) A numerical study of cone penetration in fine-grained soils allowing for consolidation effects. Géotechnique 62(8): 707–719Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ma SZ, Tang YC, Meng GT (2007) Piezocone penetration test mechanism, methods and its engineering application. The China University of Geosciences Press, WuhanGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grima MA, Babuška R (1999) Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock Mech Min 36(3):339–349Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shahnazari H, Shahin MA, Tutunchian MA (2014) Evolutionary-based approaches for settlement prediction of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils. Int J Civ Eng 12(1):55–64Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Abedimahzoon N, Neshaei ML (2013) Investigation of the surf zone hydrodynamics in the vicinity of reflective structures by taking the nonlinearity of waves and wave-current interactions into account. Int J Civ Eng 11(4A):261–271Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tu KJ, Huang YW (2013) Predicting the operation and maintenance costs of condominium properties in the project planning phase: an artificial neural network approach. Int J Civ Eng 11(4A):242–250Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Briaud J, Tucker LM (1988) Measured and Predicted Axial Response of 98 Piles. J Geotech Eng 114(9):984–1001Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cherubini C, Orr TLL (2000) A rational procedure for comparing measured and calculated values in geotechnics. Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice, Yokohama, 1:261–265Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Giasi CI, Cherubini C, Paccapelo F (2003) Evaluation of compression index of remolded clays by means of Atterberg limits. Bull Eng Geol Environ 62(4):333–340Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Onyejekwe S, Kang X, Ge L (2015) Assessment of empirical equations for the compression index of fine-grained soils in Missouri. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(3):705–716Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering and Environmental SafetySoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations