Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
cos
where
w
[MT
2
] is the surface tension of water (
w
=
0.073 N/m at 20 C),
w
[] is the contact angle between wa-
ter and the tube surface (
w
= 0 for quartz and glass), and
w
[ML
2
T
2
] is the unit weight of water (
w
= 9.8 kN/m
3
at
20 C).
Equation [1] indicates that capillary rise is inversely pro-
portional to the diameter of the tube. When applied to pore
space in soils above the phreatic surface, this equation helps
to understand why there can be a much greater water rise in
fine-grained soils where the voids (somewhat similar to cap-
illary tubes) are small, than in coarse-grained soils where the
voids are typically larger. In soils, however, the pore size is
not uniform so h
c
is not easily defined with eq. [1]. This
pore system can be substituted by a system of regular chan-
nels with a diameter expressed as the equivalent hydraulic
pore diameter, d
eq
[L], defined as (Bear 1972; Kovcs 1981):
[2] d
V
A
eq
v
v
= 4
where V
v
[L
3
] and A
v
[L
2
] are the volume and surface of the
voids, respectively. In practice, A
v
approximately corre-
sponds to the surface area, A
G
[L
2
], of the solid grains. By
relating A
G
to the massic specific surface area S
m
[L
2
M
1
],
eq. [2] can be transformed as (Scheidegger 1974):
[3] d
e
S
eq
s m
= 4
cos
This is one of the fundamental equations from which the
MK model is built. As it will be indicated below, h
co
is
somewhat equivalent (at least for granular soils) to the
height of the capillary fringe above the still water table in a
homogeneous deposit, as defined in many geotechnique text-
books (e.g., Lambe and Whitman 1979; Bowles 1984).
Although S
m
can be directly measured by various tech-
niques (e.g., Lowell and Shields 1984; Igwe 1991), in most
practical cases, the value of S
m
is not readily available to ap-
ply in eq. [4]. For coarse-grained soils, the specific surface
area can nevertheless be estimated from the grain-size distri-
bution using the following expression (Kovcs 1981):
[5] S
D
m
s H
=
cos
where subscript G stands for granular (low-plasticity, low-
cohesion) materials, as opposed to fine-grained materials
(which will be discussed below). In this equation,
w
will be
taken as zero (e.g., Marshall et al. 1996).
2003 NRC Canada
1106 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 40, 2003
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:40 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
In granular soils, S
m
(and D
H
) can be evaluated by subdi-
viding the grain-size curve based on standard mesh sizes
(Chapuis and Lgar 1992). For practical geotechnical appli-
cations, the value of D
H
can also be approximated using the
following function (Aubertin et al. 1998; Mbonimpa et al.
2000, 2002):
[7] D
H
= [1 + 1.17 log (C
U
)]D
10
where D
10
[L] is the diameter corresponding to 10% passing
on the cumulative grain-size distribution curve, and C
U
[] is
the coefficient of uniformity (C
U
= D
60
/D
10
).
For the equivalent capillary rise in granular soils, eq. [6]
is then expressed as follows:
[8] h
b
eD
co,G
=
10
with
[9a] b
C
=
+
w w
U w
[1.17 log (
cos
) ] 1
For the values of ,
w
,
w
and
w
given above, with h
co
and D
10
expressed in cm, eq. [9a] becomes:
[9b] b
C
=
+
0 75
1
.
) 1.17 log (
U
According to eq. [9], for a sand with D
10
= 0.01 cm, C
U
=
5, and e = 0.5, then b = 0.412 cm
2
and the equivalent capil-
lary rise in a granular material, h
co,G
, is about 83 cm; for a
silt with D
10
= 0.0005 cm, C
U
= 20 and e = 0.5, and b =
0.297 cm
2
, h
co,G
would be approximately 1190 cm. These
values of h
co,G
are in the same range of magnitude as the
height of the capillary fringe obtained from the simplified
expression proposed by Bowles (1984), which only consid-
ers the influence of D
10
.
For some plasticcohesive soils, the above equations do
not provide reliable estimates of S
m
and h
co
, particularly
when the liquid limit, w
L
(%), is above about 30% to 40%.
For such fine-grained soils, other factors such as surface ac-
tivity influence their water retention capacity (lets recall
here that the effect of internal microstructure due to loading
history is not explicitly taken into account in this presenta-
tion). For these soils, S
m
(in eq. [4]) is better estimated using
the relationship that exists between the specific surface area
and w
L
. The following empirical expression, recently pro-
posed by Mbonimpa et al. (2002), is used here:
[10] S w
m L
=
where [L
2
M
1
] and (unitless) are material parameters.
Using a relatively large number (78) of test results from var-
ious sources, it has been established that 0.2 m
2
/g and
1.45 for materials with 22 m
2
/g S
m
433 m
2
/g and
18% w
L
127% (see details in Mbonimpa et al. 2002).
Combining eqs. [4] and [10] gives:
[11] h
e
w
co,P L
1. 45
=
where subscript P stands for plasticcohesive materials.
From the previous developments, parameter [L] can be
expressed as:
[12a]
=
w w
w
s
cos
For values of
w
given in N/m,
w
[],
w
in kN/m
3
,
in m
2
/g, and
s
in kg/m
3
, eq. [12a] becomes:
[12b] 0.15
s
From eqs. [11] and [12], one can calculate that for a fine-
grained soil with w
L
= 40%,
s
= 2700 kg/m
3
, and e = 0.8,
then = 405 cm and h
co,P
= 106 500 cm; for w
L
= 80%,
s
=
2700 kg/m
3
, and e = 0.8, one obtains = 405 cm and h
co,P
=
290 968 cm.
The WRC equations
The MK model uses h
co
as a reference parameter to define
the relationship between the degree of saturation, S
r
(or vol-
umetric water content, ), and matric suction, (expressed
here as a pressure head). As mentioned above, both the orig-
inal Kovcs (1981) model and the MK model assumes that
water is held by capillary forces, responsible for capillary
saturation, S
c
, and by adhesive forces, causing saturation by
adhesion, S
a
. In these models, both components act simulta-
neously, and are thus, included in measurements made to
determine the relationship.
The S
c
component equation is obtained from a cumulative
pore-size distribution function, while the equation of S
a
is
given by an interaction law with van der Waals type attrac-
tion between grain surface and water dipoles. The S
c
compo-
nent is more important at relatively low suction values,
while the S
a
component becomes dominant at higher suction
when most capillary water has been withdrawn.
The proposed set of equations for the MK model is writ-
ten as follows for the degree of saturation:
[13] S
n
S S S
r c a c
= = +
*
( ) 1
In this equation, a truncated value of the adhesion compo-
nent, S
a
*
, is introduced in place of S
a
used in the original
model, to make sure that the adhesion component does not
exceed unity at low suction (0 S
a
*
1); it is expressed as:
[14] S S
a a
*
= 1 1
where represents the Macauley brackets ( y = 0.5(y +
*y*)); for S
a
1, S
a
*
= 1, and for S
a
< 1, S
a
*
= S
a
(defined be-
low).
The contributions of the capillary and adhesion compo-
nents to the total degree of saturation are defined as func-
tions of h
co
and using eqs. [15][17].
[15] S h m h
m
c co co
= + 1 1
2 2
[( / ) ] exp[ ( / ) ]
[16] S a C
h
e
a c
co n
n
=
/
( / )
( )
/
/ /
2 3
1 3 1 6
with
[17] C
=
+
+
1
1
1
0
ln( / )
ln( / )
r
r
Equation [15], providing the expression to evaluate S
c
(0
S
c
1) is a generalization of the one developed by Kovcs
(1981), in which the statistical exponential function has been
2003 NRC Canada
Aubertin et al. 1107
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:40 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
expanded to better reflect the influence of pore-size distribu-
tion through the distribution parameter m. The statistical
distribution expression used for S
c
is one that can also be ap-
plied for grain-size curves, as there is a well-known similar-
ity between the latter and the WRC (e.g., Aubertin et al.
1998). On the WRC, parameter m influences the air entry
value
a
(or AEV), which theoretically corresponds to the
suction when the largest pores start to drain, and also the
rate of decline beyond
a
in the capillary range (Aubertin et
al. 2003). For practical applications, the value of m will be
expressed as a function of basic geotechnical properties.
Equation [16] is based on Kovcs (1981) developments
made from approximations used in theoretical physics, in
which a sixth-order hyperbola is used to relate the adhesion
saturation (due to the film of water adsorbed on grain sur-
faces) to suction. In this equation, a
c
is the adhesion coeffi-
cient (dimensionless) and
n
is a normalization parameter
introduced for unit consistencies (
n
= 1 cm when is given
in cm, corresponding to
n
10
3
atmosphere). Parameter
C
r
is also equal to the water entry value, WEV, when no dis-
tinction is made between drainage and wetting path. As will
be shown below,
r
can be defined from basic soil properties
(as is the case with
a
and h
co
).
Figures 1a and 1b show typical curves drawn from the
MK model in a semi-log S
r
plane, illustrating the contri-
butions of S
c
and S
a
*
for granular (Fig. 1a) and plastic
cohesive (Fig 1b) materials. Hypothetical (but representa-
tive) values for D
10
, C
U
, e, w
L
,
s
, h
co
, m, a
c
, and
r
have
been used for these sample plots. The parameters
r
and
a
are also shown on Figs. 1a and 1b, together with
90
and
95
to define suctions for preset degrees of saturation (of 90%
and 95%, respectively). Suctions
90
and
95
are compared
to
a
in the discussion. The effect of varying parameters m,
a
c
, and
r
on the WRC is presented graphically in a compan-
ion technical report (Aubertin et al. 2003).
Parameter determination and model
applications
The MK model presented above includes a set of equa-
tions that provides an estimate of the WRC from full satura-
tion (S
r
= 1, = n) to complete dryness (S
r
= 0 = ). To apply
the model however, three parameters in the constitutive
equations have to be defined explicitly: parameter m in
eq. [15], a
c
in eq. [16], and
r
in eq. [17]. Based on investi-
gations carried out by the authors on a diversity of soils and
particulate media (identified in Tables 1 and 2), it has been
found that the values of m, a
c
and
r
can be predetermined
from basic geotechnical properties.
The experimental data used here for granular materials
have been taken from various investigations performed on
sands, low plasticity silts, and tailings. The authors results
have been obtained with either plate extractors or Tempe
cells according to procedures described in Aubertin et al.
(1995, 1998), while some others have been taken from the
literature (see Table 1). All the experimental results on fine-
grained materials have been taken from the literature (see
Table 2). However, to limit the possibility of significant
shrinkage during testing (see Discussion), results on fine-
grained soils cover a relatively small range of liquid limit
and porosity values.
Residual suction
The residual suction
r
introduced in the expression for
C
0 86
1 2
1 74
.
.
.
e
w
Parameters a
c
and m
Once
r
was determined for each material in the database
(see Tables 1 and 2), the remaining parameters (a
c
and m)
were evaluated from a fitting procedure, so that calculated
WRCs match experimental data as closely as possible (with
the MK model). Figures 410 compare typical fitted curves
2003 NRC Canada
1108 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 40, 2003
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:41 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
2003 NRC Canada
Aubertin et al. 1109
Fig. 1. (a) Illustration of the capillary and adhesion saturation contributions to the total degree of saturation for a noncohesive
(low plasticity) soil, showing the WRC obtained with the MK model (for D
10
= 0.006 cm, C
U
= 10, e = 0.6;
r
= 190 cm, m = 0.1
and a
c
= 0.01);
a
is the pressure (suction) corresponding to the air entry value (AEV),
r
is the pressure corresponding to the resid-
ual water content (also called water entry value, WEV), and
90
and
95
are suctions corresponding to a degree of saturation, S
r
, of
90% and 95%, respectively. (b) Illustration of the capillary and adhesion saturation contributions to the total degree of saturation for a
cohesive (plastic) soil, showing the WRC obtained with the MK model (for w
L
= 30%, e = 0.6,
s
= 2700 kg/m
3
,
r
= 9.7 10
5
cm,
m = 3 10
5
, and a
c
= 7 10
4
);
a
is the pressure (suction) corresponding to the air entry value (AEV),
90
and
95
are suctions
corresponding to a degree of saturation, S
r,
of 90% and 95%, respectively.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:41 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
(identified as MK model best-fit) using experimental
data on different granular and fine-grained materials; basic
properties (D
10
, C
U
, and e for granular materials; w
L
, e, and
r
s
for plasticcohesive soils) are also given in each figure.
The values of a
c
and m that lead to the best-fit curves pre-
sented in Figs. 410 are given in Table 3.
Further investigations have been conducted to relate the
parameter values m and a
c
to basic geotechnical properties.
For granular soils, where h
co,G
is given by eq. [8], the value
of the pore-size distribution parameter m can be closely ap-
proximated by the inverse of the uniformity coefficient: m =
1/C
U
. When C
U
= 1, m = 1 and Kovcs (1981) original
equation for S
c
is then recovered from the MK model. For
these same granular materials, analysis shows that a
c
can be
considered approximately constant, with a
c
= 0.01.
For fine-grained (plasticcohesive) soils, for which h
co,P
is
given by eq. [11], both m and a
c
values can be taken as con-
stants (with m = 3 10
5
and a
c
= 7 10
4
) in the predictive
applications. In this case, the influence of grain-size distri-
bution appears to be somewhat superseded by the dominant
effect of the surface activity (defined here through the w
L
dependency).
Sample results
The relationships and parameter values defined above are
used to evaluate the WRC of various materials. Tables A1
and A2, in the Appendix, give detailed calculation results to
show explicitly how the presented set of equations are used
to obtain the WRC with the MK model. Figures 410 com-
pare representative fitted curves (with best-fit a
c
and m val-
ues) and predicted curves (with preset a
c
and m values). As
can be seen on these figures, there is generally a good agree-
ment between the predicted and the measured WRC, despite
the differences sometimes observed between the best-fit and
predicted parameter values (especially with m for loose or
fine-grained materials). Such good agreement is obtained
with the majority of results identified in Tables 1 and 2.
The proposed set of equations has also been successfully
used by the authors on actual field projects (e.g., Aubertin et
al. 1999; Nastev and Aubertin 2000) where in situ data and
2003 NRC Canada
1110 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 40, 2003
Source Material D
10
(cm) C
U
() e ()
Sydor (1992) Coarse sand 0.05800 1.3 0.750
Borden sand 0.00910 1.7 0.590
Modified Borden sand 0.00800 1.8 0.640
Bruch (1993) Beaver Creek sand consolidated at 5 kPa 0.00930 2.6 0.269
Beaver Creek sand consolidated at 10 kPa 0.00930 2.6 0.267
Ricard (1994) Tailings Bevcon 0.00035 11.4 0.674
0.00035 11.4 0.710
0.00035 11.4 0.795
Tailings Senator 0.00031 11.9 0.798
0.00031 11.9 0.929
Tailings Sigma 0.00033 14.6 0.695
0.00033 14.6 0.746
0.00033 14.6 0.802
Tailings Sigma + 10% bentonite 0.00010 35.0 0.698
0.00010 35.0 0.944
Kissiova (1996) Tailings Bevcon 0.00038 11.1 0.570
0.00038 11.1 0.680
0.00038 11.1 0.920
Tailings Sigma 0.00034 14.7 0.660
0.00034 14.7 0.720
Sacrete sand 0.01450 3.5 0.570
0.01450 3.5 0.630
MacKay (1997) London Silt 0.00060 5.5 0.634
Ottawa sand 0.00937 1.7 0.587
Lim et al. (1998) Beaver Creek sand consolidated at 5 kPa 0.00930 2.6 0.618
Rassam and Williams (1999) Tailings at 50 m 0.00600 5.0 0.637
Tailings at 150 m 0.00184 9.5 0.637
Authors results Tailings Sigma (fine) 0.00040 9.8 0.720
0.00040 9.8 0.740
Tailings Sigma (coarse) 0.00040 8.6 0.640
0.00040 8.6 0.710
0.00040 8.6 0.780
Till 0.00035 4.5 0.620
0.00035 4.5 0.700
0.00035 4.5 0.720
0.00035 4.5 0.790
Table 1. Nature, origin, and basic geotechnical properties of the granular materials.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:42 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
laboratory independent measurements have confirmed that
the predicted WRCs correspond well to actual values. It has
also been validated recently during additional investigations
(including ongoing graduate student projects on other soils,
using column tests); these additional results will be the ob-
ject of future publications.
The MK model can equally be used in a more classical
(descriptive) manner to derive the WRC from a few relevant
testing results. In this instance, the model can then be
applied to evaluate the expected influence of changing prop-
erties on the WRC, such as varying grain size, porosity, or
liquid limit.
Despite the encouraging results obtained so far, there are
nevertheless some limitations and expected discrepancies be-
tween the predicted curves and actual data; some factors are
discussed below.
2003 NRC Canada
Aubertin et al. 1111
Fig. 2. Relationship between the residual suction,
r,exp
, determined from the experimental data, the void ratio, e, and the equivalent
grain-size diameter, D
H
, for granular materials identified in Table 1 (D
H
is defined by eq. [7]).
Fig. 3. Relationship between the residual suction,
r,exp
, determined from the measured data, and the equivalent capillary rise, h
co,G
(eq. [8]), for granular materials.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:42 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Discussion
Recent updates to the MK model
The proposed model presented above provides a simple
means to estimate the WRC for granular and fine-grained
soils, as well as for other particulate media. The MK model
equations have been developed as an extension of the
Kovcs (1981) model, which was selected initially because
of its physical bases regarding water retention phenomena
(Ricard 1994; Aubertin et al. 1995, 1998). The model makes
2003 NRC Canada
1112 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 40, 2003
Fig. 4. Application of the MK model to a coarse, uniform, and relatively loose sand (data from Sydor (1992)).
Source Material w
L
(%) D
r
() e ()
Alimi-Ichola and Bentoumi (1995) Gault clay 40 2.650 0.942
Vanapalli et al. (1996) Sandy clay till (consolidated at 200 kPa) 35.5 2.730 0.430
Sandy clay till (consolidated at 25 kPa) 35.5 2.730 0.540
Sandy clay till (consolidated at 25 kPa) 35.5 2.730 0.545
Huang et al. (1998) Silty sand PPCT11 22.2 2.680 0.536
Silty sand PPCT21 22.2 2.680 0.502
Silty sand PPCT16 22.2 2.680 0.463
Silty sand PPCT26 22.2 2.680 0.425
OKane et al. (1998) Till cover 40 2.770 0.493
Vanapalli et al. (1998) Guadalix Red silty clay 33 2.660 0.480
Fredlund (1999) Record 3713 35.5 2.65 0.545
Record 3714 35.5 2.65 0.545
Record 3715 35.5 2.65 0.449
Record 3716 35.5 2.65 0.474
Record 3717 35.5 2.65 0.474
Record 3718 35.5 2.65 0.518
Record 3720 35.5 2.65 0.546
Record 3728 35.5 2.65 0.438
Record 55 35.5 2.65 0.475
Record 65 35.5 2.73 0.546
Record 66 35.5 2.73 0.438
Record 70 35.5 2.73 0.444
Record 71 35.5 2.73 0.518
Record 72 35.5 2.73 0.472
Record 73 35.5 2.73 0.545
Record 75 35.5 2.73 0.430
Record 76 35.5 2.73 0.372
Table 2. Nature, origin, and basic geotechnical properties of the plasticcohesive materials.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:42 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
a distinction between capillary and adhesive forces responsi-
ble for moisture retention; this helps to understand the some-
what different approaches taken here to define the material
parameters for granular (S
c
dominated; see Fig. 1a) and
plasticcohesive (S
a
dominated; see Fig. 1b) materials. Re-
cent efforts have been aimed at developing the necessary re-
lationships so that the evaluation of these two components
for predictive purposes could be accomplished using only
basic geotechnical properties, such as the grain size (through
D
10
, C
U
), porosity, n (or void ratio e), solid grain density
(
s
), and liquid limit (w
L
).
The main modifications included in this generalized ver-
sion of the model, compared to the previous (Aubertin et al.
1998) version, can be summarized as follows:
(1) The equivalent capillary rise, h
co
, is defined explicitly
using eqs. [8] and [11], and its physical meaning is
better understood in terms of capillary fringe and resid-
ual suction.
2003 NRC Canada
Aubertin et al. 1113
Fig. 5. Application of the MK model to a fine, uniform, and dense sand (data from Bruch (1993)).
Fig. 6. Application of the MK model to tailings Sigma (silty material, well-graded, and loose) (data from authors).
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:43 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
2003 NRC Canada
(2) The specific surface, S
m
, is evaluated with more explicit
equations for granular (eq. [5]) and fine-grained
(eq. [10]) soils. The former equation was already in-
cluded in the previous version, while the latter expres-
sion stems from the authors recent work on hydraulic
conductivity functions (Mbonimpa et al. 2002). Equa-
tion [10] extends the use of the MK model to some
fine-grained (plasticcohesive) soils for which the WRC
does not seem to be significantly influenced by com-
pressibility and internal structure.
(3) Instead of a fixed value for the residual suction,
r
(15 000 cm), the updated model uses a variable
r
in the
C
90
are, respectively, the suction for a degree of saturation of
95% and 90% (defined on the WRC obtained from the MK
model; see Fig. 1a).
For plasticcohesive materials, the authors have not yet
been successful at developing an acceptable correlation
between
a
and basic geotechnical properties. The approach
relating the AEV to
95
and
90
in the MK model appears to
be applicable in this case, but too few data have been ana-
lyzed at this stage to fully support this preliminary assump-
tion.
The equivalent capillary rise, h
co
The equivalent capillary rise, h
co
, constitutes a central pa-
rameter in the MK model. This parameter value is obtained
by eqs. [8] and [9] for granular materials and by eqs. [11]
and [12] for plasticcohesive soils. Here, this parameter the-
oretically represents the capillary head in a pore with a dia-
meter equal to the equivalent hydraulic diameter, d
eq
,
defined according to eq. [3]. As shown in Fig. 3, h
co
is rela-
tively close, but typically somewhat lower than
r
. Hence, it
1116 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 40, 2003
Fitted WRC Predicted WRC
Material m a
c
m a
c
Coarse, uniform and relatively dense sand (data from Sydor (1992); see Fig. 4) 0.827 0.007 0.769 0.01
Fine and dense sand (data from Bruch (1993); see Fig. 5) 0.091 0.013 0.388 0.01
Tailings Sigma (silty material, coarse and loose) (Authors data, see Fig. 6) 0.161 0.010 0.102 0.01
Tailings Sigma mixed with 10% bentonite (Ricard (1994); see Fig. 7) 0.019 0.009 0.029 0.01
Guadalix Red silty clay (data from Vanapalli et al. (1998); see Fig. 8) 3.610
6
7.610
4
3.010
5
7.010
4
Till (data from OKane et al. (1998); see Fig. 9) 8.110
6
6.510
4
3.010
5
7.010
4
Indian Head Till (Record 728; data from Fredlund (1999); see Fig. 10) 1.010
9
7.010
4
3.010
5
7.010
4
Table 3. Parameters m and a
c
leading to the best-fit, for WRC shown in Figs. 4-10, and the selected values for predictive purposes.
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:44 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
can be seen as representative of the height of the capillary
fringe in homogeneous soils.
A recent investigation furthermore indicates that for gran-
ular materials, one can relate h
co,G
to the AEV using the fol-
lowing relationship (Aubertin et al. 2003):
[22] h b
x
co,G a
=
2
2
a
()
C
correction factor ()
C
U
uniformity coefficient () (C
U
= D
60
/D
10
)
d diameter of a tube (cm)
D
10
diameter corresponding to 10% passing on the cumula-
tive grain-size distribution curve (cm)
D
60
diameter corresponding to 60% passing on the cumula-
tive grain-size distribution curve (cm)
d
eq
equivalent pore-size diameter (cm)
D
H
equivalent grain-size diameter for a heterogeneous mix-
ture (cm)
D
r
relative density of the solid particles ()
e void ratio ()
h
c
capillary rise in a tube (cm)
h
co
equivalent capillary rise in a porous material (cm)
h
co,G
equivalent capillary rise in a granular material (cm)
h
co,P
equivalent capillary rise in a plasticcohesive material
(cm)
k
r
relative hydraulic conductivity ()
k
s
saturated hydraulic conductivity [LT
1
]
k
u
unsaturated permeability function [LT
1
]
m pore-size distribution parameter in the MK model ()
n porosity ()
S
a
adhesion component of the degree of saturation ()
S
a
*
truncated adhesion component of the degree of satura-
tion ()
S
c
capillary component of the degree of saturation ()
S
m
specific surface area per unit mass of solid (m
2
/g)
S
r
degree of saturation ()
u
a
air pressure (cm)
u
w
water pressure (cm)
V
v
volume of the voids (cm
3
)
w gravimetric water content ()
w
L
liquid limit (%)
x
1
coarse-grained material parameter to estimate
a
()
x
2
coarse-grained material parameter to correlate h
co,G
and
a
()
y open variable
shape factor ()
w
contact angle ()
w
unit weight of water (kN/m
3
)
volumetric water content ()
material parameter used to estimate S
m
(m
2
/g)
plasticcohesive material parameter required to calcu-
late h
co,P
(cm)
osmotic suction
s
solid-grain density (kg/m
3
)
w
surface tension of water (N/m)
material parameter used to estimate S
m
()
suction (cm)
0
suction at complete dryness (S
r
= 0) (cm)
90
suction corresponding to a degree of saturation of 90%
(cm)
95
suction corresponding to a degree of saturation of 95%
(cm)
a
air entry value or AEV (cm)
a,exp
air entry value determined from the experimental data
(cm)
a,MK
air entry value determined from the WRC predicted
with the MK model (cm)
m
matric suction
n
normalization parameter
r
residual suction (corresponding to the residual water
content) (cm)
r,exp
residual suction determined from the experimental data
(cm)
2003 NRC Canada
Aubertin et al. 1121
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:46 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Appendix A: Sample calculations
2003 NRC Canada
1122 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 40, 2003
Suction
(cm)
S
c
(eq. [15])
()
C
(eq. [17])
()
S
a
(eq. [16])
()
S
a
*
(eq. [14])
()
S
r
(eq. [13])
()
Predicted
(eq. [13]) ()
Measured
()
1 1.000 1.000 1.264 1.000 1.000 0.419 0.419
10 1.000 1.000 0.861 0.861 1.000 0.419 0.401
141 0.999 0.996 0.552 0.552 1.000 0.418 0.392
281 0.793 0.992 0.490 0.490 0.895 0.374 0.381
422 0.455 0.989 0.456 0.456 0.704 0.295 0.306
563 0.254 0.985 0.433 0.433 0.577 0.242 0.266
703 0.148 0.982 0.416 0.416 0.502 0.210 0.24
844 0.090 0.978 0.402 0.402 0.456 0.191 0.213
984 0.058 0.975 0.391 0.391 0.426 0.178 0.195
1125 0.038 0.972 0.381 0.381 0.405 0.169 0.183
1266 0.026 0.968 0.372 0.372 0.389 0.163 0.171
1406 0.019 0.965 0.365 0.365 0.376 0.158 0.157
1688 0.010 0.959 0.351 0.351 0.358 0.150 0.146
2110 0.004 0.951 0.336 0.336 0.339 0.142 0.138
1.010
4
0.000 0.850 0.231 0.231 0.231 0.097
1.010
7
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Note: D
10
is 0.0004 cm; e is 0.72 (); C
U
is 9.8 (); b (eq. [9]) is 0.347 cm
2
; h
co,G
(eq. [8]) is 1206 cm;
r
(eq. [18]) is 4603 cm;
0
(fixed) is 1 10
7
cm;
n
(fixed) is 1 cm; a
c
(fixed) is 0.01 (); m = 1/C
U
= 0.102 ().
Table A1. Typical calculation results to predict the WRC of granular materials: Case of Sigma tailings (see Fig. 6).
Suction (cm)
S
c
(eq. [15])
()
C
(eq. [17])
()
S
a
(eq. [16])
()
S
a
* (eq.[14])
()
S
r
(eq. [13])
()
Predicted
(eq. [13]) ()
Measured
()
1 1.000 1.000 2.790 1.000 1.000 0.305 0.305
9.8 1.000 1.000 1.908 1.000 1.000 0.305 0.305
196 1.000 1.000 1.158 1.000 1.000 0.305 0.305
392 0.993 1.000 1.031 1.000 1.000 0.305 0.295
784 0.716 1.000 0.919 0.919 0.977 0.298 0.268
1 176 0.428 1.000 0.859 0.859 0.919 0.280 0.267
1 568 0.270 0.999 0.818 0.818 0.867 0.264 0.263
1 960 0.182 0.999 0.788 0.788 0.827 0.252 0.254
2 940 0.085 0.999 0.737 0.737 0.759 0.231 0.247
3 920 0.049 0.999 0.702 0.702 0.716 0.218 0.232
4 900 0.032 0.998 0.676 0.676 0.686 0.209 0.227
5 880 0.022 0.998 0.656 0.656 0.663 0.202 0.220
7 840 0.012 0.997 0.624 0.624 0.629 0.192 0.215
43 120 0.000 0.986 0.465 0.465 0.465 0.142 0.175
372 400 0.000 0.892 0.293 0.293 0.293 0.089 0.075
838 880 0.000 0.783 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.069 0.055
1 486 660 0.000 0.663 0.173 0.173 0.173 0.053 0.040
2 916 480 0.000 0.471 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.033 0.024
1 0000 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Note: w
L
is 35.5%; e is 0.438;
s
is 2659 kg/m
3
; (eq. [12b] is 397.5 cm; h
co,P
(eq. [11]) is 160 581 cm;
r
(eq. [20]) is 1 518 208 cm;
0
is 1 10
7
cm;
n
(fixed) is 1 cm; a
c
(fixed) is 7 10
4
(); m (fixed) is 3 10
5
().
Table A2. Typical calculation results to predict the WRC of plasticcohesive soils: Case of Indian Head Till (see Fig. 10).
I:\cgj\CGJ40-06\T03-054.vp
October 8, 2003 9:38:47 AM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen