Comparisons between geotextile pore sizes obtained from capillary flow and dry sieving tests

Nuzhath Fatema, Shobha K Bhatia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In the United States of America, two standard methods of measuring the largest pore size of a geotextile have been accepted: Dry Sieving Test (ASTM D4751, Standard Test Methods for Determining Apparent Opening Size of a Geotextile) and Capillary Flow Test (ASTM D6767, Standard Test Method for Pore Size Characteristics of Geotextiles by Capillary Flow Test). Despite several drawbacks of Dry Sieving Tests, such as the amount of time required; tendency of glass beads to become trapped, including trapping of glass beads inside the geotextiles; likelihood of imprecise preparation of glass beads; and potential electrostatic effects, the largest pore size (apparent opening size [AOS], O95) results obtained from Dry Sieving Test still determines many filtration criteria. Although the Capillary Flow Test was approved in 2002, it is still not widely adopted, despite the fact that it provides the largest pore size (Bubble Point, O98) and a complete pore size distribution of a geotextile. Decades of analyses searched for a correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results; however, none of them have been widely accepted because of the limited number of geotextiles used and a lack of proper calibration. The current study investigates a possible correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results with 51 woven, nonwoven, and composite geotextiles. The Capillary Flow Porometer was calibrated using four thin metal plates with known pore openings and two membranes. This study describes the challenges experienced during the Capillary Flow Test and factors affecting the test results. One finding is that the cleaning of calibration materials and equipment with Methanol plays an important role in the Capillary Flow Test results. The use of different shape factors, contact angles, and wetting liquids in the analyses are also considered. The outliers of Capillary Flow Test results were removed from the analysis using a box plot and whisker diagram, and a good correlation between AOS and Bubble Point (R2 = 0.78) was established.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalGeotechnical Testing Journal
Volume43
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 12 2019

Fingerprint

Capillary flow
Geotextiles
sieving
geotextile
Pore size
Glass
glass
Calibration
comparison
test
Plate metal
bubble
Contact angle
Wetting
calibration
Electrostatics
Cleaning
Methanol
Membranes
outlier

Keywords

  • Apparent opening size
  • Bubble Point
  • Capillary Flow Porometer
  • Capillary Flow Test
  • Dry Sieving Test
  • Geotextiles

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology

Cite this

Comparisons between geotextile pore sizes obtained from capillary flow and dry sieving tests. / Fatema, Nuzhath; Bhatia, Shobha K.

In: Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, 12.07.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ce192531896349378f80f69805fb401a,
title = "Comparisons between geotextile pore sizes obtained from capillary flow and dry sieving tests",
abstract = "In the United States of America, two standard methods of measuring the largest pore size of a geotextile have been accepted: Dry Sieving Test (ASTM D4751, Standard Test Methods for Determining Apparent Opening Size of a Geotextile) and Capillary Flow Test (ASTM D6767, Standard Test Method for Pore Size Characteristics of Geotextiles by Capillary Flow Test). Despite several drawbacks of Dry Sieving Tests, such as the amount of time required; tendency of glass beads to become trapped, including trapping of glass beads inside the geotextiles; likelihood of imprecise preparation of glass beads; and potential electrostatic effects, the largest pore size (apparent opening size [AOS], O95) results obtained from Dry Sieving Test still determines many filtration criteria. Although the Capillary Flow Test was approved in 2002, it is still not widely adopted, despite the fact that it provides the largest pore size (Bubble Point, O98) and a complete pore size distribution of a geotextile. Decades of analyses searched for a correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results; however, none of them have been widely accepted because of the limited number of geotextiles used and a lack of proper calibration. The current study investigates a possible correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results with 51 woven, nonwoven, and composite geotextiles. The Capillary Flow Porometer was calibrated using four thin metal plates with known pore openings and two membranes. This study describes the challenges experienced during the Capillary Flow Test and factors affecting the test results. One finding is that the cleaning of calibration materials and equipment with Methanol plays an important role in the Capillary Flow Test results. The use of different shape factors, contact angles, and wetting liquids in the analyses are also considered. The outliers of Capillary Flow Test results were removed from the analysis using a box plot and whisker diagram, and a good correlation between AOS and Bubble Point (R2 = 0.78) was established.",
keywords = "Apparent opening size, Bubble Point, Capillary Flow Porometer, Capillary Flow Test, Dry Sieving Test, Geotextiles",
author = "Nuzhath Fatema and Bhatia, {Shobha K}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1520/GTJ20180203",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
journal = "Geotechnical Testing Journal",
issn = "0149-6115",
publisher = "American Society for Testing and Materials",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons between geotextile pore sizes obtained from capillary flow and dry sieving tests

AU - Fatema, Nuzhath

AU - Bhatia, Shobha K

PY - 2019/7/12

Y1 - 2019/7/12

N2 - In the United States of America, two standard methods of measuring the largest pore size of a geotextile have been accepted: Dry Sieving Test (ASTM D4751, Standard Test Methods for Determining Apparent Opening Size of a Geotextile) and Capillary Flow Test (ASTM D6767, Standard Test Method for Pore Size Characteristics of Geotextiles by Capillary Flow Test). Despite several drawbacks of Dry Sieving Tests, such as the amount of time required; tendency of glass beads to become trapped, including trapping of glass beads inside the geotextiles; likelihood of imprecise preparation of glass beads; and potential electrostatic effects, the largest pore size (apparent opening size [AOS], O95) results obtained from Dry Sieving Test still determines many filtration criteria. Although the Capillary Flow Test was approved in 2002, it is still not widely adopted, despite the fact that it provides the largest pore size (Bubble Point, O98) and a complete pore size distribution of a geotextile. Decades of analyses searched for a correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results; however, none of them have been widely accepted because of the limited number of geotextiles used and a lack of proper calibration. The current study investigates a possible correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results with 51 woven, nonwoven, and composite geotextiles. The Capillary Flow Porometer was calibrated using four thin metal plates with known pore openings and two membranes. This study describes the challenges experienced during the Capillary Flow Test and factors affecting the test results. One finding is that the cleaning of calibration materials and equipment with Methanol plays an important role in the Capillary Flow Test results. The use of different shape factors, contact angles, and wetting liquids in the analyses are also considered. The outliers of Capillary Flow Test results were removed from the analysis using a box plot and whisker diagram, and a good correlation between AOS and Bubble Point (R2 = 0.78) was established.

AB - In the United States of America, two standard methods of measuring the largest pore size of a geotextile have been accepted: Dry Sieving Test (ASTM D4751, Standard Test Methods for Determining Apparent Opening Size of a Geotextile) and Capillary Flow Test (ASTM D6767, Standard Test Method for Pore Size Characteristics of Geotextiles by Capillary Flow Test). Despite several drawbacks of Dry Sieving Tests, such as the amount of time required; tendency of glass beads to become trapped, including trapping of glass beads inside the geotextiles; likelihood of imprecise preparation of glass beads; and potential electrostatic effects, the largest pore size (apparent opening size [AOS], O95) results obtained from Dry Sieving Test still determines many filtration criteria. Although the Capillary Flow Test was approved in 2002, it is still not widely adopted, despite the fact that it provides the largest pore size (Bubble Point, O98) and a complete pore size distribution of a geotextile. Decades of analyses searched for a correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results; however, none of them have been widely accepted because of the limited number of geotextiles used and a lack of proper calibration. The current study investigates a possible correlation between the Dry Sieving and Capillary Flow Test results with 51 woven, nonwoven, and composite geotextiles. The Capillary Flow Porometer was calibrated using four thin metal plates with known pore openings and two membranes. This study describes the challenges experienced during the Capillary Flow Test and factors affecting the test results. One finding is that the cleaning of calibration materials and equipment with Methanol plays an important role in the Capillary Flow Test results. The use of different shape factors, contact angles, and wetting liquids in the analyses are also considered. The outliers of Capillary Flow Test results were removed from the analysis using a box plot and whisker diagram, and a good correlation between AOS and Bubble Point (R2 = 0.78) was established.

KW - Apparent opening size

KW - Bubble Point

KW - Capillary Flow Porometer

KW - Capillary Flow Test

KW - Dry Sieving Test

KW - Geotextiles

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071306703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071306703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1520/GTJ20180203

DO - 10.1520/GTJ20180203

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85071306703

VL - 43

JO - Geotechnical Testing Journal

JF - Geotechnical Testing Journal

SN - 0149-6115

IS - 4

ER -