Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
Determination of the Permeability of Organic Soils using the Piezocone
Dissipation Test
VAN BAARS, S.
University of Technology Delft, The Netherlands
VAN DE GRAAF H.C.
Lankelma Geotechniek-Zuid, The Netherlands
Abstract
Nowadays the piezocone is often used for a preliminary evaluation of the soil structure and
deformation parameters. Using the results of the piezocone testing, formal site investigation,
consisting of cone penetration tests (CPTs), borings and laboratory testing, can be optimized.
The coefficient of consolidation and the hydraulic conductivity, which are needed tot predict
time-dependent settlement, can be estimated using a piezocone dissipation test. The
piezocone dissipation test is based on the fact that the rate of decay of the large excess pore
water pressures generated during penetration of the piezocone through saturated clays and
silts depends on the hydraulic conductivity of the material. However, interpretation of the
dissipation curve is often problematic as existing analysis methods assume a continuous
decrease of pore pressure with time, whereas actual dissipation curves often exhibit non-
standard behavior, the interpretation of which is more complex.
This paper presents a new method of interpretation that can be used to estimate the hydraulic
conductivity regardless of the shape of the dissipation curve. Examples of results using the
new analysis method are compared with results obtained using laboratory oedometer testing.
Introduction
In a piezocone test, the surrounding soil is compressed by the penetration of the cone tip,
which creates an excess pore water pressure. At the same time, the shearing of the soil by the
cone tip may also result in dilitant behavior, which results in a negative pore pressure.
Depending on the relative magnitudes of the pore pressures created by the compression and
shearing actions, the resultant excess pore pressure may be less than, equal to or greater than
the initial hydrostatic pressure. In clean sands and gravels, essentially drained response is
observed and measured pore pressures are hydrostatic. In most other cases, an initial
undrained response occurs that is followed by drainage. Once penetration has stopped, the
excess pressures will decay with time and eventually reach the pre-test hydraustatic value. As
the rate which the pressures decay depends on the hydraulic conductivity of the surrounding
medium, the pressure dissipation curve can be used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of
the medium.
1
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
However, the shape of the pressure dissipation vs. time curve depends on several factors
including the geometry of the cone tip, the location of the pore-pressure sensor on the cone
(Figure 1) and the dilatancy of the soil. Consequently, a wide range of dissipation curves can
be obtained as shown in Figure 2.
fs = side friction
u2 = shoulder sensor
u1 = mid-face sensor
qc = tip resistance
Figure 1. Piezocone with mid-face and shoulder pore-pressure sensors
time [s] time [s]
pore-water pressure [kPa]
pore-water pressure [kPa]
a) b)
time [s]
time [s]
pore-water pressure [kPa]
pore-water pressure [kPa]
c) d)
Figure 2. Different types of pore water pressure dissipation curves
2
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
pore-water pressure [MPa]
u0
time [s]
Figure 3. Difference between the measured pressure of the mid-face and the shoulder
elements (after Shiyo et al., 1994)
As shown in Figure 3, the response also depends on whether the pore-pressure sensor is
located on the mid-face of the cone (u1), or on the shoulder behind the cone (u2). As shown,
the excess pore-pressure measured at the shoulder is typically less than that measured at he
mid-face location. This observation can be explained as follows:
• The soil is more compressed adjacent to the cone tip than at other locations
• Due to symmetry, soil below the cone tip is not subject to shear, which it is adjacent to
the rods.
• As the distance from the cone tip increases, the dissipation of the pressure and
deformations induced by the cone tip increases.
Calculation of the hydraulic conductivity
The question is in which uniform manner all these different results can lead to a hydraulic
conductivity k or a consolidation coefficient cv. As shown in Figure 3, the pressure can vary a
lot over a small distance in the beginning of the measurement. That is why it is better not to
use the pressures at the beginning of the curve for the calculation of the coefficients. It is
better to use the obtained information leading to the final equilibrium, where the pressures
are the same for all measuring points around the cone.
Sometimes the measurements are stopped before the final equilibrium is reached, especially
in the case of a low permeable soil when the dissipation time may exceed 24 hours, which
might make the dissipation test economically unattractive. Figure 2b and Figure 3 are
examples of unfinished, and therefore, less useful dissipation tests. For these curves an
approximation of the equilibrium pore pressure u0 must be obtained by other tests or
calculations (see Figure3).
3
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
Pore water pressure dissipation consists of two phenomenon, which are the groundwater flow
and the conservation or storage of water. The groundwater flow can be described by the
equation of Darcy:
q = − ki where: q = Q / A and: i = ∆h / ∆x (1)
(q = specific discharge, i = hydraulic gradient, Q = total discharge, A = cross section, h =
hydraulic head, x = flow distance)
The hydraulic head depends in the following way on the pressure:
h = p / γ w + z so: ∆h = ∆p / γ w ( 2)
( γ w = unit weight of water, z = vertical coordinate of hydraulic head location)
Equations (1) and (2) together give the relation between pressure and specific discharge:
k ∂p
q=− ( 3)
γ w ∂x
The increase of the water volume in an incremental volume ∆V is for a small time step:
∆I = −∇q ⋅ ∆V ⋅ ∆t ( 4)
In the same area, storage of water can be obtained by the compressibility of water:
∆B = − n ⋅ ∆V ⋅ β ⋅ ∆p ( 5)
The storage capacity depends on the change in pressure ∆p, the compressibility of water β,
and the rate of water in the soil, which is the porosity n.
Considering the Law of Conservation of Mass, the sum of (4) and (5) must be zero:
0 = ∆I + ∆B
( 6)
0 = −∇q ⋅ ∆V ⋅ ∆t − n ⋅ ∆V ⋅ β ⋅ ∆p
For a one-dimensional groundwater flow ( ∇q = ∂q / ∂x ) the volume element ∆V can be
defined as:
∆V = ∆x ⋅ A ( 7)
By inserting equation (7) in (6) we find:
∂q
0 = − ∆x ⋅ A ⋅ ∆ t − n ⋅ ∆ x ⋅ A ⋅ β ⋅ ∆ p ( 8)
∂x
By substituting equation (3) in (8) this changes to the following diffusion equation:
k ∂2 p ∆p
0= − nβ ( 9)
γ w ∂x 2
∆t
or:
dp ∂2 p k
= cd 2 where : cd = (10)
dt ∂x nβ γ w
The dissipation constant cd is a diffusion coefficient which determines the rate of the excess
pore water dissipation.
For two-dimensional axisymmetric (radial) groundwater flow (r = x), the relation is identical,
except that the flow cross-section A depends on the distance r from the origin, the angle α (in
radius) and the height b:
A = α ⋅ b ⋅ r so: ∆A = α ⋅ b ⋅ ∆r (11)
For a constant specific discharge q and a small time step ∆t, the difference between the
discharge entering the area and leaving the area is q ⋅ ∆A ⋅ ∆t . This gives for axisymmetric
groundwater flow:
4
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
∂q
0=− ∆r ⋅ A ⋅ ∆t − n ⋅ ∆r ⋅ A ⋅ β ⋅ ∆p − q ⋅ ∆A ⋅ ∆t
∂r
(12)
dp ∂ 2 p 1 ∂p k
= cd 2 + where: cd =
dt ∂r r ∂r nβ γ w
For three-dimensional groundwater flow around the cone tip, the flow cross-section is:
A = αδ r 2 so : ∆A = αδ ( 2r ∆r ) (13)
This gives the following diffusion equation:
dp ∂ 2 p 2 ∂p k
= cd 2 + where: cd = (14)
dt ∂r r ∂r nβ γ w
α
q
u2 2D
u1 3D
q
Figure 4. Groundwater flow 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional
The groundwater flow next to the cylindrical cone shaft (a linear element) will be axial-
symmetrical. The groundwater flow below the tip of the cone however, will be point-
symmetrical, as shown in Figure 4. Near the shoulder element at the shaft (u2) the dissipation
process will be approximately the average of the 2-D and 3-D processes. This average is:
dp ∂ 2 p 1.5 ∂p k
= cd 2 + where: cd = (15)
dt ∂r r ∂r nβ γ w
The solution to this differential equation consists of Bessel functions. In order to obtain a
practical solution for a relation between the halftime and the dissipation constant cd, it is best
to use a numerical approach. As the solution is a function of the radius from the cone r, it is
found that especially at the start of the dissipation the results depend strongly on the position
of the pore pressure element, see Figure 5. As the distance from the origin increases, the pore
pressure change decreases and the maximum pressure change occurs at a progressively
longer delay from the onset of the test.
5
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
1.00
0.90
Pore Pressure (U/Umax) [-]..
0.80
0.70
0.60 r = 0.0 cm
0.50 r = 1.5 cm
0.40 r = 2.5 cm
0.30 r = 4.0 cm
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 10 100 1000
t (s)
Figure 5. Relative pore pressure as a function of the distance from the origin
0.25
Pore Pressure (U / Umax) [-]..
0.20
0.15
0.10
1×cd
2×cd
0.05 4×cd
0.00
1 10 100 1000
t (s)
Figure 6. Relative pore pressure as a function of the dissipation constant (r = 2.5 cm)
The distribution in time depends linearly on the dissipation constant, see Figure 6. That is
why the tangent of the descending part of the curve can be used to calculate the dissipation
constant. An example is given in Figure 7.
t [s]
t100% = 1514 s
pore pressure [kPa]
uo
Figure 7. Determination of the dissipation constant
6
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
The dissipation constant cd is related to the intersection point of the diagonal tangential line
with the horizontal line of the pore water pressure at equilibrium u0. Please note that the
corresponding time of this intersection point, which is called t100%, does not actually
represent 100% dissipation, as the pore pressure approaches the initial value asymptotically.
The reciprocal value of this time t100% depends linearly on the dissipation constant.
Therefore:
cd = X / t100% in which: X ≈ 0.0013 m 2 (16)
In this case, the value of the constant X was derived from equation 15 (shown in Figure 5 and
6) in a numerical way. With a calibration of the CPT cone this value can be determined more
precisely.
The diffusion process of a dissipation test looks very similar to a one-dimensional
compression test. However, the dissipation constant cd is different from the consolidation
coefficient cv:
k
cd =
nβ γ w
(17)
k
cv =
( mv + nβ ) γ w
The similarity is that both coefficients depend linearly on the permeability and the unit
weight of water. The greatest difference is that the one-dimensional compression test
depends mainly on the compressibility of the soil mv. The dissipation process does not,
because during this test the cone is stationary and the soil is not being compressed. The
dissipation process depends linearly on the porosity n, and the compressibility of the pore
water β.
X
k= nβ γ w
t100%
(18)
X nβ
cv =
t100% ( mv + nβ )
From comparison of the two relationships in equation 18, it is clear that the consolidation
coefficient can also be estimated if the compressibility of the soil mv is known. This can be
found for example with a one-dimensional compression test, which is unfortunately not an in
situ test. In situ tests for determining the compressibility of the soil are the Menard-test and
empirical CPT-correlations.
In the calculation of the permeability from the dissipation time, there can be some
inaccuracy. First, because the in situ porosity is not known, although one can assume roughly
for sand n ≈ 0.4 , for clay n ≈ 0.6 , and for peat n ≈ 0.8 . This can lead to errors of about 10%
or 20%, which is acceptable regarding the total accuracy. Second, the in situ compressibility
of the pore water is not known. The compressibility β depends on the degree of saturation S
and the pressure p, according to Verruijt (2005):
β = S β0 +
(1 − S ) (19)
p
If there is no air (or methane for peat) in the soil then the compressibility of the pore water is
β 0 = 0.5 × 10−9 m 2 /N . If there is 1% air or methane in the water then the compressibility is
7
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
β = 1.0 ×10−7 m 2 /N (for shallow samples close to atmospheric conditions: p = 100 kPa). This
means that a small amount of (non-dissolved) air or methane can change the compressibility
and the permeability of the soil by a factor 200.
The problem is not as bed as it sounds. The amount of non-dissolved air and methane in
organic materials is mostly below 1%. Non-organic materials (pure clay and sand) have
almost no air in the pore water, which results in a compressibility approaching β0.
This approach is demonstrated in the following three examples. No sands or pure clays are
tested. In fact, only organic silty clays are tested.
Example 1: Pannerden
Figure 8. shows a dissipation curve made near Pannerden in The Netherlands for a new train
line. Borings show a silty organic clay layer at a depth of NAP –18 m (NAP is the average
sea level). Although no actual measurement data is available, the amount of non-dissolved air
and methane in the silty organic clay is estimated to be low, about 0.2%, which results in a
compressibility of about β = 2.0 ×10−8 m 2 /N . According to a one-dimensional compression
test (log-t method) the permeability of this layer is about k = 5.9 ⋅10−8 cm/s (boring 28). A
nearby dissipation test showed a dissipation time of t100% = 210 s (see Figure 8). Using
equation 18 yields an estimated hydraulic conductivity of:
X 0.0013
k= nβ γ w = ⋅ 0.5 ⋅ 2 ⋅10−8 ⋅ 9.8 ⋅103
t100% 210
k = 6.1 ⋅10−8 cm/s
This value is within the range of the value of the one-dimensional compression test, although
it depends highly on the estimated amount of non-dissolved air and methane.
pore pressure u1 [kPa]
uo
t100% = 210 s
t [s]
Figure 8. Dissipation test in Silty Organic Clay near Pannerden
Example 2: Rijswijk
8
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
Figure 9. shows a dissipation curve made near Rijswijk in The Netherlands. Both u1 and u2
dissipation tests were carried out on the same silty organic clay. Both tests resulted in a
hydraulic conductivity of:
X 0.0013
k= nβ γ w = ⋅ 0.6 ⋅ 2 ⋅10−8 ⋅ 9.8 ⋅103
t100% 300
k = 5.1 ⋅10−8 cm/s
This value is between the values from the one-dimensional compression test obtained using
the log-t method ( k = 3.6 ⋅10−8 cm/s ) and the √-t method ( k = 6.7 ⋅10−8 cm/s ).
140
u1
1 and u2 [kPa]
120
100
U1 & U2u[kPa].....
u2
80
pore pressure
60
40 uo
20
0
1 10 100 1000
t100%=300 s
t [s]
[s]
Figure 9. Dissipation test in Silty Organic Clay near Rijswijk
Example 3: Rotterdam
In Rotterdam in The Netherlands a u2 dissipation test was carried out on silty organic clay by
Kort (2002). Figure 10 is a plot of the results. The water content w was measured to be about
50%, which results in a porosity of n = 0.57. There is about 14 m of peat and organic clay,
producing methane, below the depth tested. During excavation of a building pit, methane was
even bubbling up from the ground. Therefore the amount of non-dissolved gas was estimated
at around 1%. Equation 19 gives an estimation of the pore water compressibility of:
1− S 1 − 0.99
β = S β0 + = 0.99 × 0.5 ×10−9 +
p0 (100 + 13) ×103
β = 8.85 × 10−8
Based on this assumed compressibility and based on the dissipation time of 1210 s, the
dissipation test results in a permeability of:
X 0.0013
k= nβ γ w = ⋅ 0.57 ⋅ 8.85 ⋅10−8 ⋅ 9.8 ⋅103
t100% 1210
k = 5.3 ⋅10−8 cm/s
This value agrees well with the values obtained from the one-dimensional compression test
according to both the log-t and the √-t method ( k = 5.2 ⋅10−7 mm/s ), despite the rough
estimation of the amount of gas.
9
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
60
50
40
u2
2 [kPa]
U2 u[kPa]
30
pore pressure
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
tt [s]
[s] t100%=1210 s
Figure 10. Dissipation test in Silty Organic Clay in Rotterdam
Comparison between the new interpretation method and the classical interpretation
methods
The new method differs fundamentally from the known methods, which are presented by
Lunne, et all. (1997). The new method is based on the concept of dissipation of the excess
pore pressure for a constant soil volume. The soil volume is constant because the penetration
has stopped at the beginning of the dissipation test. In this way, the dissipation time depends
on the permeability. The classical methods, at analysis, are all based on an assumed changing
volume during the test (which is incorrect) in such a way that the dissipation time depends on
the consolidation coefficient. The hydraulic conductivity and the consolidation coefficient
are fundamentally different parameters. Therefore it is impossible to compare the results of
the two different approaches.
At the same time another point is of interest. The classical methods can only directly interpret
curves that continuously descend in time. To evaluate other curve shapes requires a trial-and-
error approach (Mayne, 2002). The new method however can be used to directly obtain the
hydraulic conductivity for all dissipation curve shapes.
Conclusions
The new interpretation method for the dissipation test, presented in this article, can be used
for all curve shapes to determine the hydraulic conductivity, which is not the case for the
classical interpretation methods. Another point is that the new method results in a hydraulic
conductivity instead of a consolidation coefficient, which is theoretically speaking more
correct because during the cone penetration test the cone is stationary and the soil is not
being compressed.
The values of the hydraulic conductivity obtained with this new method correspond well with
values obtained from one-dimensional compression tests, although the number of available
test data was limited and sandy and pure clay soils were not tested. Therefore one should be
precautious about using this method for non-organic soils.
10
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 2006
References
D.A. Kort (2002), Rotterdam sheet pile wall field test, CUR Publication 207, Gouda: CUR,
ISBN 90 376 0192 8
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. & Powell, J.J.M. (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical
practice, Blackie Academic and Professional, ISBN 0-751-40393-8
Mayne, P.W. (2002) Flow properties from piezocone dissipation tests.
www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys
Shiyo Chen, B. & Mayne, P. W. (1994), Profiling the overconsolidation ratio of clays by
piezocone tests, Rep. no. GIT-CEEGEO-94-1, National Science Foundation, August
1994, Arlington Virginia
Van Baars, S. & Van de Graaf, H.C. (2005), L’utilisation du piézoncône pour la
determination de la perméabilité des sols compressibles, International Symposium
Geoline, Lyon, France, ISBN 2-7159-2982-X, May 2005
Van De Graaf, H.C. (2002). Le piézocône pour l'interprétation de paramètres de sol: faut-t-il
mesurer u1 ou u2?. PARAM 2002, Magnan (ed.), presses de l'ENPC/LCPC, Paris
Verruijt, A. (2005) Grondmechanica, VSSD, Delft, The Netherlands, ISBN 90-71301-45-1
Key words: cone penetration test, dissipation, permeability, piezocone, site investigation
11
