What can we learn from compressibility experiments?

Lynn S. Bennethum
Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado at Denver, USA

ABSTRACT: Here we examine typical experiments performed on saturated soils (swelling and non-swelling
porous materials) which can be performed on any liquid-solid porous material and relate them to thermodynamic
quantities. Compressibility experiments typically take a porous material sample and control two of the following
four parameters: electro-chemical potential (or pressure for a non-swelling porous material) of the liquid phase,
pressure of the sample, volume of the sample, and mass of liquid leaving the porous material. The other two
variables are measured at equilibrium. In this paper a framework is established which rigorously determines
these compressibility terms with thermodynamic quantities, allowing us to determine the relationships between
what is measurable (compressibility coefficients) and thermodynamic quantities such as the compressibility of
each phase or the change in energy with respect to moisture content. This framework allows us to extend flow
and deformation or wave propagation models to compressible porous materials or for swelling porous materials
such as montmorillonite. Because minimal assumptions are made the results are applicable to modeling wave
propagation or flow and deformation in soils, bio-materials, and bone.

1 INTRODUCTION and held constant (temperature is not considered an

For soils, several compressibility moduli are generally
defined (Wang 2000): drained, undrained, jacketed,
unjacketed, etc. These moduli are defined by the exper-
iment used to measure them and they are then used
in the effective stress principal to model deformation
and in large-scale tectonic calculations. However pre-
vious theoretical formulations for the compressibility
moduli (e.g. (Zimmerman 1991; Biot 1941; Biot and
Willis 1957)) assume that the volume of the medium is
only a function of the liquid pressure and differential
pressure (the difference between the overburden pres-
sure and liquid pressure). It is also generally assumed
that both phases are incompressible. In this paper we
propose a framework which extends this work to incor-
porate compressibility (liquid and/or solid phase) and
allows compressibility coefficients to be defined for
a swelling porous material. This is done by carefully
defining which independent variables the energy of
the system is a funcion of, and then carefully relating
the compressibility definitions with well-defined ther-
modynamic quantities such as the compressibility of
each phase.
For pedagogical reasons, we make the following
assumptions: (1) only uniform pressures and defor-
mations are considered and hence shear stresses are
neglected, (2) the soil is isotropic (which is consistent
with assumption (1), (3) there is only a liquid and a
solid phase (trapped liquid is considered to be a part
of the solid phase), and (4) temperature is uniform
independent variable).
2 COMPRESSIBILITY IN POROUS MEDIA
In porous materials, there are several definitions for
compressibility, depending on whether one takes the
measurement allowing the liquid phase to drain or not,
or whether one measures the liquid pressure or loading
pressure, or the change in volume of the porous mate-
rial, or the change in volume of the liquid phase only.
If the liquid phase is allowed to drain, the experimen-
tal setup for determining the compressibility is given
in Figure 1. The porous material, which has a total
volume composed of the sum of the volume of the liq-
uid phase, V l , and solid phase V s , is confined by an
impermeable membrane except at one location where
the liquid is allowed to leave the system.If the liquid
phase is continuous so that the liquid can flow freely,
then the pressure of the liquid in the porous material is
given by pl and this can either be imposed or measured
indirectly by changing plA . The uniform pressure on
the system is sometimes referred to as the confining
pressure, or as we term here, the total pressure, p. It
can be shown by summing the momentum equations
that p = l pl + s ps (Bennethum and Weinstein 2002)
where l is the volume fraction of the liquid phase,
V l /(V l + V s ), and s = 1 l is the volume fraction
of the solid phase (Bennethum and Weinstein 2004).

617
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
 p the fluid energy changes with moisture content. For
confining liquid
soil
sample
plA
pl ps
semi-permeable
membrane
Figure 1. Experiment for compressibility.
There are four variables which vary and are directly
observable: the total pressure, p, mass of the liquid in
the porous material, M l , the volume of the bulk mate-
rial, V = V l + V s , and the pressure, plA , of the liquid
phase as measured outside the porous material. For
non-swelling porous material plA is equal to the pres-
sure of the liquid inside the porous material, plA = pl ,
but for a swelling material, it is the Gibbs potential
or chemical potential, G l , which is constant across
the semi-permeable membrane, i.e. G l = G lA (Callen
1985; Castellan 1983).
We note that for a non-swelling porous material, the
Helmholtz potential of the liquid phase is a function
of liquid volume and liquid mass, i.e. Al = Al (V l , M l )
or Al = Al (l ), where Al has units of energy of the
liquid phase per unit mass of the liquid phase and l
has units of mass of liquid phase per unit volume of
liquid. For a swelling porous material, in which the
thermodynamic properties of the liquid are a func-
tion of the moisture content (or volume fraction of
liquid) we have Al = Al (l , l ). Thus, using the fact
2
that pl = ((l ) Al /l )|l (Callen 1985; Bennethum
andWeinstein 2004) (and similarly for plA ) the bal-
ance of the Gibbs potentials at the semi-permeable
membrane implies that
where l is the swelling potential (Bennethum and
Weinstein 2002), i.e. it is a measure of how much
618
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
a porous material in which there is little interaction
between the liquid and solid phase (e.g. sandstone),
l = 0, and we obtain the equivalence of a balance
of the Gibbs potential and pressures (assuming that
the density of the liquid phase is the same within the
porous medium and out).
In this experiment one usually prescribes two of the
quantities {plA , p, V , M l } and measures the response
of the other two. If the liquid phase is not allowed
to drain, then the compressibility is termed undrained
and is determined by measuring the change in pressure,
p, with respect to (bulk) volume, V .
There are many bulk compressibilities, and here we
mention a few. In measuring the drained compressibil-
ity the liquid is allowed to drain from the system as it
is being compressed so that the liquid pressure is held
constant. Thus measurements are made at constant
liquid pressure with no solid leaving the system:
where M s is the total mass of the solid phase. Thus we
are implicitly assuming that p = p(V , plA , M s ), i.e. that
the external pressure is a function of the total volume,
liquid phase Gibbs potential, and the mass of the solid
phase.
To obtain the unjacketed compressibility the soil
sample in Figure 1 is not confined so that the bulk liq-
uid pressure (and hence confining pressure) and pore
liquid are the same, (plA = p). Thus measurements are
made keeping plA p and M s fixed:
The undrained compressibility is measured allowing
no fluid or solid to leave the system, so that the total
mass of fluid and solid is held fixed. Thus
This implicitly assumes p = p(V , M l , M s ), i.e. the
external pressure is a function of the total volume and
the total mass of the the liquid and solid.
Other compressibilities include, respectively, the
drained pore compressibility, pseudo-bulk compress-
ibility, and pore compressibility (Zimmerman 1991).
We note here that if both phases are compressible
these compressibility coefficients are not welldefined,
even for a non-swelling porous material. To see why,
note that in terms of intensive variables we have
pl = pl (l ) and ps = ps (s , s ), and p = l pl + s ps .
This implies that p = p(l , l , s ). In terms of exten-
sive variables, this implies that p = p(V l , V s , M l , M s )
which implies that the confining pressure is a func-
tion of 4 independent variables. Yet all the measurable
compressibility coefficients assume there are only
three independent variables: For example, the drained
compressibility assumes that p = p(V , plA , M s ). The
problem persists if the solid phase is assumed incom-
pressible, for in this case we have that the drained
compressibility is a function of two independent vari-
ables, V and plA , while the thermodynamics tells us
that it should be a function of 3 independent vari-
ables: V l , V s , M l . If both phases are incompressible
then the discrepency is resolved as there are now only
two indendent variables. The primary goal of this paper
is to explain a framework for which we can make use
of these compressibilities for porous materials which
may be swelling and/or have at least one compressible
phase.
3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR
NON-SWELLING POROUS MATERIAL
We define a non-swelling porous material as one in
which the properties of the fluid phase do not change
with moisture content. Typically sandstone is consid-
ered non-swelling while montmorillonite is considered
swelling. Thus for a non-swelling porous material
we consider the total pressure to be a function of
independent variables as follows:
Note that though the liquid pressure is not consid-
ered a function of moisture content (volume fraction
of liquid), the solid phase pressure is, since the con-
figuration of the solid phase (how the solid portion is
arranged geometrically) affects the pressure. Although
the volume fraction cannot capture all the geomet-
ric effects, it is one of the principle factors which
we will consider. Also note that for a non-swelling
porous material, plA = pl as explained in the previous
section. The details of the following calculations (in
this section) are available in (Bennethum 2005).
To begin with, lets define the quantities which will
be used in this section; here refers to phase where
= l for liquid or = s for solid:
In regards to Table 1, g(l ) is the change in liquid
content as measured by changing the liquid volume
for the drained test (in which the liquid pressure is
held fixed). The variables g( l ), g(
l ), g(
l ) are also
a measure of change in liquid volume with respect to
solid volume, but for different tests. Note that although
l ), and g(
g(l ), g( l ) are measurable, g(
l ) is not mea-
surable (there is no mass leaving the system to be
measured). This will limit the usefulness of this theory
619
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Table 1. Definition of variables.
to a porous material composed of at least one liquid
phase it does not apply to composite materials where
no material leaves the system. However we shall con-
tinue to include the results for the undrained test for
completeness.
K is the compressibility coefficient for each phase.
In general the compressibility of, e.g. water, is a
function of volume fraction, it is likely difficult to
measure this dependence, so it is generally assumed
that the compressibility is the same as the pure
material.
The term (ps /s )|s is a measure of change of
pressure with respect to solid phase configuration.
If the solid phase is considered incompressible then
changing the solid-phase pressure changes the volume
fraction i.e. the solid phase will re-arrange itself so
as to minimize its energy. The thermodynamic defini-
tion of pressure is in terms of the Helmholtz potential
(one can think of this as a form of internal energy) is
standard and can be found in a textbook on physical
chemistry (Castellan 1983).
The terms defined in the last two rows of Table 1 are
well defined in the sense that within this framework
there are no other independent variables. This means
that once a constitutive relationship is determined for
these variables this constitutive relationship will hold
for a variety of conditions. This is not true of the
unjacketed compressibility and other compressibility
coefficients. For example consider the undrained com-
pressibility, (7). This definition assumes p is a function
of V , M l , and M s . However as already explained, p is a
function of l , l , and s , or, in terms of extensive vari-
ables, p is a function of V l , V , M l , and M s . This means
that the undrained compressibility could depend upon
an additional variable, and thus when doing an experi-
ment the value measured may change because there is
an unaccounted for dependence. The same argument
can be made for the other compressibilities as well as
the change in moisture content variables g(l ), g( l ),
l ) (note that g(
and g( l ) is well defined). The goal of
this work is to relate what is well-defined (the terms
in the last two rows of Table 1), with what is measur-
able (the compressibilities and the change in moisture
content variables).
 Relating these variables for a non-swelling porous
material has already been accomplished (Bennethum
2005) so here we present some results without
derivation:
There are a couple of checks that can be per-
formed to verify these formulas. One is to assume
the solid phase is incompressible, in which case V s
is constant so that g(l ) = g(
l ) = g(
l ) = 1. The result
should have no dependency upon K s . Another check
is to compare the results with what has been derived
by Zimmerman (Zimmerman 1991; Wang 2000). As
explained in (Bennethum 2005), these results can be
obtained by assuming g(l ) = g( l ) = g(
l ) = l . This
too also checks. Its a little more difficult to compare
this formulation with Biot (Biot 1941; Biot and Willis
1957), but this may also be done (see (Bennethum
2005)).
4 EXAMPLE OF FRAMEWORK:
UNJACKETED COMPRESSIBILITY
We go through in some detail the derivation of the
equivalent relationship for the unjacketed compress-
ibility, (6), for a swelling porous material. This is quite
a bit more involved for a couple of reasons. One is
that there is an additional independent variable, i.e. we
620
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Table 2. Definition of variables.
assume that Al = Al (l , l ) = Al (M l , V l , V ). The sec-
ond is that at the vicinal water bulk water interface it
is not the liquid pressure which is continuous but the
Gibbs potential. Neverthe less, it is possible.
We again use the quantities defined in Table 1, but
now we have a couple of additional variables. Again
refers to phase where = l for liquid or = s for
solid:
In regards to Table 1 g( l ) is the change in liq-
uid content as measured by changing volume for the
unjacketed test. If the liquid phase is not incompress-
l ) is the change
ible this is not directly measurable. h(
in liquid content as measured by mass. This is directly
measurable if the liquid phase is compressible or for
swelling media. Pressure, p , is defined as before, and
now we have two additional quantities, the swelling
potential, l , and the change in liquid pressure with
respect to volume fraction. The swelling potential can
be directly measured via a reverse-osmotic swelling
test if the solid phase itself cannot support tension
(such as a well-layered montmorillonite sample). It
is zero for a non-swelling porous material (in which
the energy of the liquid is not a function of mois-
ture content) and very high for expansive soils. When
the pressure in the liquid phase changes, it is due to
a change in volume fraction, density, or both. The
compressibility coefficient K l measures the change in
pressure due to density changes only, and pl /l |l is
a measure of the change due to changing the volume
fraction only.
We begin with the definition of compressibility and
try to re-write it in terms of the variables listed in
Tables 1 and 2. To begin, we use the fact that plA = p,
and equations (1) and (4) we have
Using equations (1) and (4) for dG l we have
 Since pl is not a function of l pl directly, we need to
convert the last partial derivative. Beginning with the
total derivative of pl = pl (l , l ) we have

Using l =V 1 /V we have

Substituting (22) into (20), then substituting this result

into (20) and simplifying gives
so that after some simplification equation (13)
becomes

Now we work on the term pl /V |plA p,M s . We begin by

calculating the total differential of pl = pl (V l , M l , V ), Substituting (23) into (15) we finally have
which gives

Finally we need to determine the relationship between

l ). This requires equating plA /V and
l ) and h(
g(
p/V keeping plA p and M s fixed. After pages of
calculations similar to those above we get

We now convert the derivatives in terms of extensive

variables V l , M l , and V into derivatives of intensive
variables: Since V l is held fixed

Similarly

621
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
There are at least two checks we can perform on the
combined (24) and (25). The first is to see if, upon
simplifying to a non-swelling porous material, we
recover(10). Thus we set l =pl /l 0, lA = l ,
and since for the non-swelling porous material the
unjacketed test requires pl = p we also have pl = ps .
Simplifying (24) and (25) using these assumptions
shows we indeed recover (10). The second test is to
assume the liquid and solid phases are incomopress-
ible. In this case g( l ) = l , and lA =l . In
l ) = 1, h(
this case we should eliminate the dependence of K
constitutive relationship is determined for these quan-
upon K l , and it does.
Because (24) and (25) are quite complicated addi-
tional simplifying assumptions are necessary before
these equations become tractible. However now we
know what assumptions are being assumed explic-
itly. For the case where the liquid phase is considered
incompressible(24) becomes
which is very tractible.
5 CONCLUSIONS
We note that quantities defined in terms of only
three extensive variables (the compressibility coeffi-
cients and the measure of change of liquid content:
l ), etc.), are not well-defined quantities in
g(l ), g(
the sense that it is very possible that these quanti-
ties could depend on a fourth independent extensive
variable. So for example, the drained compressibility
assumes the total or confining pressure is a function
of V , pl , and M s . Since liquid pressure is at least
a function of density, we have that p is a function
of p = p(V , l , M s ). Dividing through by V to change
over into intensive variables, we have p = p(l , s s ).
However even for a non-swelling porous material we
have p = p(l , l , s ) so that the drained compress-
ibility is not well-defined in the sense that it is a
function of an additional internal variable which is not
accounted for. This dependence on an additional vari-
able is also not directly measurable. This means that
measuring e.g. the drained compressibility in the same
system for the same value of 3 independent variables
(e.g. V , l , M s for the drained compressibility) could
result in different measurements due to e.g. a changed
622
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
volume fraction. Thus if there is a dependence on all 3
intensive variables a constitutive equation which will
be valid in general is not obtainable for these variables.
To resolve these issues several new, well-defined
variables are defined: the compressibilities of each
phase, K l and K s , the swelling potential, l , and
the change in pressures with respect to volume frac-
tion, (pl /l )|l and (ps /s )|s . These quantities are
welldefined in the sense that they take into account
additional dependencies. This implies that once a
tities in terms of the independent variables, it should
remain unchanged (assuming the assumptions of this
framework are valid). However they are not directly
measurable. In this paper a framework for the relation-
ship between what is measurable (compressibilities
and change in liquid content quantities, g(l ), etc.)
and what is well-defined is determined. The relation-
ship has been obtained for the non-swelling porous
materials and an example of the calculations required
is shown for a swelling porous material. It is hoped
that by performing a variety of compressibility exper-
iments the constitutive expressions for the welldefined
quantities can be determined and thus these quantities
can be reliably used in models involving a deforming
porous material.
REFERENCES
Bennethum, L. S. (2005). Compressibility moduli for porous
materials incorporating volume fraction. submitted.
Bennethum, L. S. and T. Weinstein (2002). Pressures
in swelling clay soils. In C. Di Maio,T. Hueckel, and
B. Loret (Eds.), Chemo-Mechanical Coupling in Clays,
from Nano-Scale to Engineering Applications, pp. 135
148. Tokyo: A. A. Balkema Publishers.
Bennethum, L. S. and T. Weinstein (2004). Three pressures
in porous media. Transport in PorousMedia 54(1), 134.
Biot, M. A. (1941). General theory of three-dimensional
consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics 12, 155164.
Biot, M. A. and D. G. Willis (1957). The elastic coefficients of
the theory of consolidation. J .Appl. Mech. 24, 594601.
Callen, H. B. (1985). Thermodynamics and an Introduction
to Thermostatistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Castellan, G. W. (1983). Physical Chemistry.Menlo Park, CA:
The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.
Wang, H. F. (2000). Theory of Linear Poroelasticity with
Applications to Geomechanics and Hydrogeology. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press.
Zimmerman, R. W. (1991). Compressibility ofSandstones.
New York: Elevier.