How to Perform Hydraulic Conductivity Upscaling in the Daily Practice of Geotechnical Modeler?

  • Vanessa A. GodoyEmail author
  • Lazaro Valentin Zuquette
  • J. Jaime Gómez-Hernández
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Although important for many geotechnical issues, hydraulic conductivity heterogeneity is rarely considered in geotechnical practice for two main issues. First, it is almost impossible to sample the entire area of interest. Second, it is very difficult to account for scale effects in our numerical models. In this paper, we divulgated an important result obtained in a previous work [1], where those two problems were faced. An innovative approach in geotechnics based on simple averaging process is showed. That approach incorporates spatial variability, multiscale data, and uncertainty treatment into a workflow that could be implemented in the daily practice of geotechnical engineers in order to perform hydraulic conductivity upscaling. The approach described allows a practical and reliable hydraulic conductivity upscaling for the studied soil, proving itself as a good solution for the daily practice of the geotechnical modeler.


Spatial variability Hydraulic conductivity Upscaling Simple averaging Laplace with skin 


  1. 1.
    Godoy VA, Valentin Zuquette L, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2018) Stochastic analysis of three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity upscaling in a heterogeneous tropical soil. Comput Geotech 100:174–187. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou H, Gómez-Hernández JJ, Hendricks Franssen H-J, Li L (2011) An approach to handling non-Gaussianity of parameters and state variables in ensemble Kalman filtering. Adv Water Resour 34:844–864. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deng H, Dai Z, Wolfsberg AV, Ye M, Stauffer PH, Lu Z et al (2013) Upscaling retardation factor in hierarchical porous media with multimodal reactive mineral facies. Chemosphere 91:248–257. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gómez-Hernández JJ, Fu J, Fernandez-Garcia D (2006) Upscaling retardation factors in 2-D porous media. In: Bierkens MFP, Gehrels JC, Kovar K (eds) Calibration and reliability in groundwater modelling: from uncertainty to decision making, proceedings of ModelCARE 2005 conference held Hague, Netherlands, 6–9 June 2005. IAHS Publication, pp 130–136Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang T, Liu HY, Tang CA (2017) Scale effect in macroscopic permeability of jointed rock mass using a coupled stress–damage–flow method. Eng Geol 228:121–136. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li L, Zhou H, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2011) A comparative study of three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity upscaling at the macro-dispersion experiment (MADE) site, Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi (USA). J Hydrol 404:278–293. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang J, Griffiths DV (2015) Determining an appropriate finite element size for modelling the strength of undrained random soils. Comput Geotech 69:506–513. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li L, Zhou H, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2011) Transport upscaling using multi-rate mass transfer in three-dimensional highly heterogeneous porous media. Adv Water Resour 34:478–489. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benson CH, Zhai H, Rashad SM (1994) Statistical sample size for construction of soil liners. J Geotech Eng 120(10):1704–1724. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narsilio GA, Buzzi O, Fityus S, Yun TS, Smith DW (2009) Upscaling of Navier-Stokes equations in porous media: theoretical, numerical and experimental approach. Comput Geotech 36:1200–1206. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang J, Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2010) probabilistic analysis of coupled soil consolidation. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 136:417–430. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang J, Griffiths DV (2010) One-dimensional consolidation theories for layered soil and coupled and uncoupled solutions by the finite-element method. Géotechnique 60:709–713. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gómez-Hernandez JJ (1990) A stochastic approach to the simulation of block conductivity fields conditional upon data measured at a smaller scale. Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Godoy VA (2018) Upscaling of water flow and mass transport in a tropical soil: numerical, laboratory and field studies. Universitat Politècnica de València.
  15. 15.
    Remy N (2004) SGeMS: stanford geostatistical modeling software. Softw Man, 1–87.
  16. 16.
    Gómez-Hernández JJ, Journel A (1993) Joint sequential simulation of multigaussian fields. In: Geostatistics Tróia 1992, vol 5, pp 85–94.
  17. 17.
    Journel A, Deutsch C, Desbarats A (1986) Power averaging for block effective permeability. Proc SPE Calif Reg Meet
  18. 18.
    Giacheti HL, Rohm SA, Nogueira JB, Cintra JCA (1993) Geotechnical properties of the Cenozoic sediment (In portuguese). In: Albiero JH, Cintra JCA (eds) Soil from Inter. São Paulo. ABMS, Sao Paulo, pp 143–175Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mahapatra IC, Singh KN, Pillai KG, Bapat SR (1985) Rice soils and their management. Indian J Agron, 1–41Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanessa A. Godoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lazaro Valentin Zuquette
    • 1
  • J. Jaime Gómez-Hernández
    • 2
  1. 1.Geotechnical Engineering Department, Sao Carlos School of EngineeringUniversity of Sao PauloSao CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Institute for Water and Environmental EngineeringUniversitàt Politécnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations