Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 1207–1216 | Cite as

Regression Models to Estimate Critical Porosity of Soils from Basic Soil Properties Based on Percolation Theory

  • Fred Kofi BoaduEmail author
Original paper
  • 111 Downloads

Abstract

The rigidity of geo-materials (e.g., soils and sediments) reduce significantly, as their porosity increases to a critical value, the critical porosity. Knowledge of critical porosity can be useful in assessing the deformational characteristics of these materials. Estimation of critical porosity from experiments can be challenging especially at low effective stress conditions. In this work an effort is made to estimate this characteristic porosity from the basic soil properties (textural and plastic properties) inherited from the parent rock using percolation theory. Uniaxial compression experiments were performed in a low-stress oedometer (up to 2.5 MPa) on field soil samples to estimate their percolation parameters, the critical porosity and critical exponent from their textures based on percolation theory. The textural properties including fines content, mean grain size, the fractal dimensions and the sand to clay ratio. Regression models were developed to predict the critical porosities from soil textural properties that significantly explained in the range 85–90% of the variability in the model. In addition, the relations between the consistency limits of the soils and their critical porosities were investigated and the results indicate that the liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index and clay content explained 82–85% of the variability with critical porosity. Textural properties explained 64–79% of variability with the critical exponent, while the consistency limits explained 65–75% of the variability and with clay content explaining 80% of the variability. The provided prediction models may be useful in providing first-hand information about the critical porosity of soils in the field environment.

Keywords

Critical porosity Percolation theory Soil properties 

References

  1. Boadu FK (1997) Fractured rock mass characterization parameters and seismic properties: Analytical studies. J Appl Geophys 36:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boadu FK (2000) Hydraulic conductivity of soils from grain size distribution: new models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:739–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boadu F (2015) Models for predicting compression index of soils using fractal scaling of particle size distributions. Int J Mod Eng 16(1):78–88Google Scholar
  4. Boadu FK, Long LT (1994a) The fractal character of fracture spacing and RQD. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 31:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boadu FK, Long LT (1994b) Statistical distribution of natural fractures and the possible physical generating mechanism. Pure Appl Geophys 142:273–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boadu FK, Owusu-Nimo F (2010) Influence of petrophysical and geotechnical engineering properties on the electrical response of unconsolidated earth materials. Geophysics 75(3):G21–G29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boadu FK, Owusu-Nimo F (2011) Exploring the linkages between geotechnical properties and electrical responses of sand-clay mixtures under varying effective stress levels. J Eng Environ Geophys 16(2):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho GC, Santamarina JC (2001) Unsaturated particulate materials-particle-level studies. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(1):84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chuhan FA, Kjeldstad K, Bjørlykke K, Høeg K (2003) Experimental compression of loose sands: relevance to porosity reduction during burial in sedimentary basins. Can Geotech J 40(5):995–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collision J (1994) Sedimentary deformational structures. In: Maltman Alex (ed) The geological deformation of structures. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta NC (2002) Geopressure prediction using seismic data: Current status and the road ahead. Geophysics 67:2012–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukue M, Minato T, Horibe H, Taya N (1999) The microstructures of clay given by resistivity measurements. Eng Geol 54(1–2):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jernot JP, Coster M, Chermant JL (1982) Model to describe the elastic modulus of sintered materials. Phys Status Solidi 72(1):325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  15. Lagaly G (2006) Colloid clay science. In: Bergaya F, Theng BKG, Lagaly G (eds) Handbook of clay science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Marion D, West C, Nur A (1988) Model of unconsolidated marine sediments, part I: sand-clay model and part II: applications in seismic processing. SEG Tech Program Expand Abstr 7:916–921Google Scholar
  18. Marquardt DW (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non-linear parameters. J Soc Ind Appl Math 11:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martins FB, Bressani LA, Coop MR, Bica AVD (2001) Some aspects of the compressibility behavior of a clayey sand. Can Geotech J 38(6):1177–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mavko G, Mukerji T, Dvorkin J (2009) The rock physics handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mondol NH, Bjorlykke K, Jahren J (2008) Experimental compaction of clays: relationship between permeability and petrophysical properties in mudstones. Pet Geosci 14:319–337. doi: 10.1144/1354-079308-773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monkul MM, Ozden G (2007) Compressional behavior of clayey sand and transition fines content. Eng Geol 89:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moyano B, Spikes KT, Johansen TA, Mondol NH (2012) Modeling compaction effects on the elastic properties of clay-water composites. Geophysics 77:D171–D183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nolen-Hoeksema RC, Wang Z, Harris JM, Langan RT (1995) High-resolution crosswell imaging of a west Texas carbonate reservoir: part 5-core analysis. Geophysics 60:712–726. doi: 10.1190/1.1443810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nur AM, Mavko G, Dvorkin J, Gal D (1995) Critical porosity: the key to relating physical properties to porosity in rocks. SEG Tech Program Expand Abstr 14:878–881Google Scholar
  26. Perfect E, Rasiah V, Kay BD (1992) Fractal dimensions of soil aggregate size distributions calculated by number and mass. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:1407–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peter JF, Berney ES (2010) Percolation threshold of sand-clay binary mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(2):310–318. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rucker ML (2004) Percolation theory approach to quantify geo-material density-modulus relationships. In: 9th ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 26–28Google Scholar
  29. Sahimi M (1994) Applications of percolation theory. Taylor & Francis, BristolGoogle Scholar
  30. Seabrook B, Boadu FK (2002) Relating electrical response and petrophysical properties of sands subjected to stress changes. J Environ Eng Geophys 7:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stauffer D, Aharony A (1994) Introduction to percolation theory. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Turcotte DL (1986) Fractals and fragmentation. J Geophys Res 91:1921–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tyler SW, Wheatcraft SW (1992) Fractal scaling of soil particle size distribution: analysis and limitations. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 56:362–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Int J Geotech Eng 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagh AS, Poeppel RB, Singh JP (1991a) Open pore description of mechanical properties of ceramics. J Mater Sci 26:3862–3868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagh AS, Poeppel RB, Singh JP (1991b) Open pore description of mechanical properties of ceramics. J Mater Sci 26(14):3862–3868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yin H (1992) Acoustic velocity and attenuation of rocks: isotropy, intrinsic anisotropy, and stress induced anisotropy. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmer MA (2003) Seismic velocities in unconsolidated sands: measurements of pressure, sorting, and compaction effects. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimmer M, Prasad M, Mavko G, Nur A (2007a) Seismic velocities of unconsolidated sands: part 1—pressure trends from 0.1 to 20 MPa. Geophysics 72:E1–E13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmer M, Prasad M, Mavko G, Nur A (2007b) Seismic velocities of unconsolidated sands: part 2—influence of sorting- and compaction-induced porosity variation. Geophysics 72:E15–E25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations