14.330 SOIL MECHANICS Assignment #4: Soil Permeability.



Similar documents
CHAPTER: 6 FLOW OF WATER THROUGH SOILS

CONSTANT HEAD AND FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST

EXPERIMENT 10 CONSTANT HEAD METHOD

The University of Toledo Soil Mechanics Laboratory

LAPLACE'S EQUATION OF CONTINUITY

Area No. 8 Test Pit No. 191

GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

The University of Toledo Soil Mechanics Laboratory

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FORMULAS. A handy reference for use in geotechnical analysis and design

Appendix D.1. Testing Requirements for Infiltration, Bioretention and Sand Filter Subsoils

For Water to Move a driving force is needed

UNDER DRAINAGE AND FILTER DESIGN

Stormwater Management Design Brief. Proposed Commercial Redevelopment 5830 Hazeldean Road Ottawa (Stittsville), Ontario.

Determination of Thermal Conductivity of Coarse and Fine Sand Soils

METHOD OF TEST FOR DETERMINATION OF PERMEABILITY OF GRANULAR SOILS

Period #16: Soil Compressibility and Consolidation (II)

ENCE 4610 Foundation Analysis and Design

CHAPTER 2 HYDRAULICS OF SEWERS

Apr 17, 2000 LAB MANUAL PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS AASHTO Designation T 88 (Mn/DOT Modified)

Geotechnical Measurements and Explorations Prof. Nihar Ranjan Patra Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

PERMEABILITY TEST. To determine the coefficient of permeability of a soil using constant head method.

Lab 1 Concrete Proportioning, Mixing, and Testing

Laboratory and Field Performance Assessment of Geocomposite Alternative to Gravel Drainage Overliner in Heap Leach Pads

NOTE: FOR PROJECTS REQUIRING CONTRACTOR MIX DESIGN, THE DESIGN PROCEDURES ARE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT.

PART 3 DEFINITION OF ROCKFILL VERSUS EARTHFILL MATERIAL

Soil Mechanics. Soil Mechanics

Interpretation of clogging effects on the hydraulic behavior of ion treated geotextiles

Figure CPT Equipment

SECTION 623 CONCRETE BONDING COMPOUND, EPOXY MORTAR AND EPOXY POLYMER CONCRETE OVERLAY SECTION CONCRETE BONDING COMPOUND.

The Verdura Wall check with your local building department

PHYSICAL AND PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS

Specification Guidelines: Allan Block Modular Retaining Wall Systems

load on the soil. For this article s examples, load bearing values given by the following table will be assumed.

LECTURE 1: Review of pipe flow: Darcy-Weisbach, Manning, Hazen-Williams equations, Moody diagram

POWDER PROPERTIES LABORATORY

HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE NOTES ON SOIL TEST FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN

METHOD A10 (a) THE DETERMINATION OF THE IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY OF SOIL OR GRAVEL BY THE SAND REPLACEMENT METHOD

WEATHERING, EROSION, AND DEPOSITION PRACTICE TEST. Which graph best shows the relative stream velocities across the stream from A to B?

Technical Manual: Plastic Pipe Used in Embankment Dams

Drained and Undrained Conditions. Undrained and Drained Shear Strength

Construction sites are dewatered for the following purposes:

Chapter 1 Problems. To do all three sections of this problem, we can first convert the radius to kilometers. r = km 1000m = 6.

Trench Rescue by Buddy Martinette

SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME

Construction Dewatering and Ground Freezing

NJ Interception Drainage

9.00 THE USE OF HUNTER LAND DRAINAGE PERFORATED PIPES. Hunter Underground Systems

GRADATION OF AGGREGATE FOR CONCRETE BLOCK

Math Matters: Dissecting Hydrometer Calculations

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 3, No 3, 2013

Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) 1

The Manitoba Water Services Board SECTION Standard Construction Specifications PIPE EXCAVATION, BEDDING AND BACKFILL Page 1 of 11

GUIDELINES FOR SOIL FILTER MEDIA IN BIORETENTION SYSTEMS (Version 2.01) March 2008

GROUNDWATER FLOW NETS Graphical Solutions to the Flow Equations. One family of curves are flow lines Another family of curves are equipotential lines

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CEMENT-BENTONITE SLURRY TRENCH CUTOFF WALL

Module 1 : Site Exploration and Geotechnical Investigation. Lecture 5 : Geophysical Exploration [ Section 5.1 : Methods of Geophysical Exploration ]

VOLUME AND SURFACE AREAS OF SOLIDS

PART TWO GEOSYNTHETIC SOIL REINFORCEMENT. Martin Street Improvements, Fredonia, Wisconsin; Keystone Compac Hewnstone

State of Illinois Department Of Transportation CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR S CHECKLIST FOR STORM SEWERS

1.72, Groundwater Hydrology Prof. Charles Harvey Lecture Packet #2: Aquifers, Porosity, and Darcy s Law. Lake (Exposed Water Table)

SIENA STONE GRAVITY RETAINING WALL INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS. Prepared by Risi Stone Systems Used by permission.

Method Statement FOR. Soil Investigation

Erosion Resistance Performance Comparison Of Natracil, Stabilizer And Envirobond s Organic-Lock

Eurocode 7 - Geotechnical design - Part 2 Ground investigation and testing

Rational Method Hydrologic Calculations with Excel. Rational Method Hydrologic Calculations with Excel, Course #508. Presented by:

FUNDAMENTALS OF CONSOLIDATION

Course Plan Day 1: Introduction and Overview Hydrology & Fluvial Geomorphology Day 2: Fieldwork on the Braid Burn Alan Jones

Estimation of Compression Properties of Clayey Soils Salt Lake Valley, Utah

ACTIVITY: Finding a Formula Experimentally. Work with a partner. Use a paper cup that is shaped like a cone.

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF SEEPAGE THROUGH EMBANKMENT DAMS (CASE STUDY: KOCHARY DAM, GOLPAYEGAN)

STRUCTURES Excavation and backfill for structures should conform to the topic EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PA Test Method No. 632 Department of Transportation October Pages LABORATORY TESTING SECTION. Method of Test for

720 Contour Grading. General. References. Resources. Definitions

Part 9 SUBDRAIN DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Part 7 GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRICS

CIVL451. Soil Exploration and Characterization

CEEN Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Session 7 - Direct Shear and Unconfined Compression Tests

The Challenge of Sustainability in the Geo-Environment Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2008 ASCE New Orleans LA

Module 7 (Lecture 24 to 28) RETAINING WALLS

SOIL COMPACTION BASICS

Division 2 Section Section 02795

A Solution to Clogging of Porous Pavements

MEASUREMENT. Historical records indicate that the first units of length were based on people s hands, feet and arms. The measurements were:

High Strain Dynamic Load Testing of Drilled Shafts

Principles of groundwater flow

SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRECAST MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SYSTEM (revised 11/5/13)

METHOD A7 THE DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF GRAVEL, SOIL AND SAND

ON-SITE STORMWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM (OSDS) DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MINIMUM GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS

Standard Test Procedures Manual

Rain Gardens: Designing your Landscape to Protect Aquatic Resources. Curtis Hinman WSU Extension Faculty Watershed Ecologist

Chapter 16. Mensuration of Cylinder

HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT AND WATER DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS Vol. IV - Testing of Materials and Soils - F. Druyts

Attachment G-1: Pit Latrine Diagram. Fig E.1a: Pit Latrine. Fig E.1b: Plan View of Twin Pits

Physics Notes Class 11 CHAPTER 2 UNITS AND MEASUREMENTS

How To Prepare A Geotechnical Study For A Trunk Sewer Project In Lincoln, Nebraska

The entire document shall be read and understood before proceeding with a test. ISTA 3B Page 1 of 35

Transcription:

Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory One University Avenue Lowell, Massachusetts 01854 Edward L. Hajduk, D.Eng, PE Lecturer PA105D Tel: (978) 94 2621 Fax: (978) 94 052 e mail: Edward_Hajduk@uml.edu web site: http://faculty.uml.edu/ehajduk DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 14.0 SOIL MECHANICS Assignment #4: Soil Permeability. PROBLEM #1: GIVEN: Grain size distributions from seven (7) suppliers shown in Figure A and given in.csv file on website. D418 Testing Results: ML or MH silts. Figure A. Grain Size Distributions for Problem #1. REQUIRED: Determine the USCS classification and coefficient of permeability for each soil sample. Comment on any appreciable difference between these soils in terms of coefficient of permeability. 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 1 of 11

Comment on any appreciable difference between these soils based on the USCS. SOLUTION: Soil Classification: Table A. USCS Classification Summary (using data from Figure A and ASTM D2487). Pit % Fines % Gravel D 10 (mm) D 0 (mm) D 60 (mm) C c C u USCS Symbol USCS Name #1 2 0 0.155 0.295 0.48 1.17.10 SP Poorly Graded Sand #2 6 0.110 0.25 0.46 1.09 4.18 SP-SM # 6 1 0.108 0.268 0.57 1.17 5.28 SP-SM #4 5 7 0.140 0.410 0.81 1.48 5.79 SP-SM #5 5 16 0.10 0.280 0.66 0.91 5.08 SP-SM #6 6 2 0.108 0.240 0.46 1.16 4.26 SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt Poorly Graded Sand with Silt Poorly Graded Sand with Silt Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel Poorly Graded Sand with Silt #7 0 0.285 0.440 0.55 1.24 1.9 SP Poorly Graded Sand Since C u is less than 6 for all the soils, the soils are poorly graded (see Figure from ASTM D2487, provided in Figure B). Soils with 5% or greater fines are SP-SM (Poorly Graded Sand with Silt) with the noted exception of Pit #5, which is a SP-SM (Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel) due to having 16% gravel (i.e. % retained by #4 sieve). Coefficient of Permeability (k): Use Hazen (190) empirical formula relating effective grain size (D 10 ) to coefficient of permeability: 2 k( cm / sec) cd10 Where c = 1 to 1.5. Table B presents a summary of calculated k values using the effective diameter (D 10 ) from the grain size analysis and Hazen s formula. 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 2 of 11

Figure B. USCS Soil Classification Figure of ASTM D2487. Table B. Summary of calculated k values using D10. Pit No. D 10 (mm) k (cm/sec) c=1 k (cm/sec) c=1.5 1 0.155 0.024 0.06 2 0.110 0.012 0.018 0.108 0.012 0.017 4 0.140 0.020 0.029 5 0.10 0.017 0.025 6 0.108 0.012 0.017 7 0.285 0.081 0.122 Look at the calculated coefficients of permeability graphically with typical range of k values for various soils from Lecture Notes in Figure C. 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page of 11

Figure C. Ranges of calculated k values with respect to general ranges of k for different soils. From examination of Figure A, the soil samples are all primarily medium to fine sands. As shown above, these sands fit mainly towards the low end of the range for coarse sands. This makes sense, since medium sands are between coarse and fine in grain size. Notice the soil sample from Pit #7. It has less fines and a significantly greater effective size (D 10 ) than the other pit samples, which correlates to a greater k value by almost 1 order of magnitude. NOTE: These sands are all from the same geologic deposits in Carver, MA. All have similar grain size distributions, soil classifications, and calculated k values (with the noted exception of Pit #7). 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 4 of 11

PROBLEM #2: GIVEN: Constant head permeability test results: Length of Sample (L) = 12 inches Sample Diameter (cylindrical sample) = 2.0 inches Constant Head Difference = 2.5 feet Volume of Water Collected in 5 minutes: 20 cubic inches Soil USCS Classification: GC REQUIRED: Determine the coefficient of permeability for the tested soil. Does the calculated coefficient of permeability match the expected results from the soil classification? SOLUTION: For constant head permeability test: k QL Aht Where: Q = Quantity of water collected over time t = 20 in = 0.0116 L = Length of sample = 12 inches = 1 A = Area of Sample = (radius) 2 = (1 inches) 2 =.14159 in 2 = 0.0218 2 h = Constant head difference = 2.5 t = Time of test = 5 minutes k QL Aht (0.0116 )(1 ) 2 (0.0218 )(2.5 )(5min) 0.0426 /min k = 0.0426 /min = 0.0216 cm/sec = 0.00852 in/sec. The results of the constant head test are compared to typical ranges of k for soils as shown in Figure D. As shown in Figure D, the range of k calculated from the constant head test falls within the clean sands, clean sand and gravel mixtures range. Therefore, this IS reasonable for a GC soil. 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 5 of 11

Figure D. Constant Head k Test Results compared to typical Soil k Values (aer Casagrande and Fadum (1940) and Terzagi et al. (1996). 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 6 of 11

PROBLEM #: GIVEN: Figure 2. The coarse grain soil layer is from Pit #7 in Problem #1. Well 1 Well 2 1.5 10 25 CH (Impervious Layer) 9 Pit #4 Soil (from Problem #1) CL (Impervious Layer) Figure 2. Information for Problem # (NTS). REQUIRED: Determine the hydraulic gradient and rate of flow per time through the coarse grain soil layer. SOLUTION: 475 i h L 1.5 475 cos10 0.028 i = 0.028 Remember: L = Length of Water Flow, not horizontal distance! For low end of calculated k for Pit #4 (0.020 cm/sec = 0.094 /min): 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 7 of 11

q q q q kia (0.094 )(0.028)(9 )(cos10)(1 ) min 0.0098 /min/ 0.587 / hr / 14.1 / day / For high end of calculated k for Pit #7 (0.029 cm/sec = 0.0571 /min): q kia (0.0571 )(0.028)(9 )(cos10)(1 ) min q 0.0142 /min/ q 0.850 q 20.4 / hr / / day / ANSWER SUMMARY: i = 0.028 q low = 14.1 /day/ q high = 20.4 /day/ 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 8 of 11

PROBLEM #4: GIVEN: Flow net provided in Figure. Soil is homogeneous, isotropic sand (i.e. k x = k z ) with a coefficient of permeability of 1.0 x 10-1 cm/sec. The sand overlies a relatively impervious layer (i.e. solid bedrock). Elevation () 100.0 7 Water Table @ Ground Surface 7 C 6 D A B Figure. Cross-section for Problem #4. REQUIRED: Determine the total rate of seepage per unit length of the sheet pile wall ( /day/). Briefly explain why you might need to calculate this value. Calculate the water pressure at points 1 through 12 (see Figure ). Plot the water pressure distribution on both sides of the sheet pile wall. Determine the pore pressure (u) at points A, B, C, and D. Scale the drawing within the soil mass to determine the elevations of Point C and D. 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 9 of 11

SOLUTION: q = seepage loss = Where: HN k N d f K = Coefficient of permeability = 0.25 cm/sec = 709 /day H = Head Difference = 7 N f = Number of Flow Channels = 4 N d = Number of Drops = 10 HN q k N d f (709 / day)(7 ) 4 10 (1 ) 1985 / day / q = 1985 /day/. You would need this value in order to properly size dewatering equipment for the right side. Potential Drop per Equipotential Line = H/N d = 7/10 drops = 0.7/drop Table C presents a summary of the total head elevations of each point based on known elevations and potential drop per equipotential line. Height of water (h w ) is (total head elevation point elevation). Pore pressure (u) is h w w. See Figure E for Pore Pressure (u) with respect to Elevation for Points 1-12. Table C. Summary of Total Head and Pore Pressure calculations along Sheet Pile. Point Point Elevation () Total Head Elevation () Height of Water () u (psf) u rounded (psf) 1 100 100 0 0 0 2 9 100 7 47 45 91.4 99. 7.9 49 495 4 89.4 98.6 9.2 574 575 5 87.4 97.9 10.5 655 655 6 86. 97.2 10.9 680 680 7 86 96.5 10.5 655 655 8 86. 95.8 9.5 59 595 9 87.4 95.1 7.7 480 480 10 89.4 94.4 5.0 12 10 11 91.4 9.7 2. 144 145 12 9 9.0 0.0 0 0 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 10 of 11

Figure E. Pore Pressure (u) vs. Elevation at Point 1-12. Use same methodology to determine pore pressure at Points A, B, C, and D. Determine elevations of Points C and D by scaling drawing. A summary is presented in Table D. Table D. Summary of Total Head and Pore Pressure calculations at Points A D. Point Point Elevation () Total Head Elevation () Height of Water () u (psf) u rounded (psf) A 80 98.6 18.6 1161 1160 B 80 95.1 15.1 942 940 C 86.5 95.1 8.6 57 55 D 8 96.5 1.5 842 840 14.0 201 Assignment 4 Solution Page 11 of 11