Advertisement

Sensitivity Analysis of Pore Morphology Method and X-Ray CT Imaging in SWCC Predictions for Ottawa Sand

  • Mohmad Mohsin ThakurEmail author
  • Dayakar Penumadu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)

Abstract

The hydromechanical response of partially saturated soils at macroscale is a manifestation of fundamental physics associated with pore scale. The Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) is an important state variable which affects mechanical as well as transport properties in a multiphase porous media. In present work, X-ray CT imaging and Pore Morphology Method (PMM) are leveraged to demonstrate robustness of a predictive approach in enhancing understanding of multiphase flow in sands from a pore scale perspective. The 3D microstructure of the Ottawa sand assembly is obtained from attenuation contrast-based X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) which serves as an input to PMM-based predictions. PMM relies on Young Laplace equation and mathematical morphology to simulate drainage and imbibition processes on an actual pore space. This approach is computationally efficient in comparison to computational fluid dynamics approach where highly nonlinear Navier Stokes equation is solved on a computational grid. In addition, the effect of X-ray CT resolution on SWCC predictions for drainage and imbibition is investigated. The effect of the surface roughness on wettability is demonstrated in numerical predictions by varying contact angle of the three-phase system. The spatial distribution of air and water corresponding to different capillary pressures is presented which can be helpful in developing improved multiscale modeling approaches in partially saturated sands.

Keywords

SWCC Ottawa sand Pore morphology method X-ray CT imaging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Penumadu would like to acknowledge DTRA support from Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Grant HDTRA1-12-10045, managed by Dr. Douglas A. Dalton (Allen). The authors would also like to thank Dr. Sven Linden and Dr. Constantin Bauer from GeoDict for providing help with the GeoDict software.

References

  1. 1.
    Alshibli KA, Alsaleh MI (2004) Characterizing surface roughness and shape of sands using digital microscopy. J Comput Civ Eng 18(1):36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker J, Schulz V, Wiegmann A (2008) Numerical determination of two-phase material parameters of a gas diffusion layer using tomography images. J Fuel Cell Sci Technol 5(2):021006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blunt MJ (2017) Multiphase flow in permeable media. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cnudde V, Boone MN (2013) High-resolution X-ray computed tomography in geosciences: a review of the current technology and applications. Earth-Sci Rev Elsevier B.V. 123:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fredlund DG, Sheng D, Zhao J (2011) Estimation of soil suction from the soil-water characteristic curve. Can Geotech J 48(2):186–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hilpert M, Miller CT (2001) Pore-morphology-based simulation of drainage in totally wetting porous media. Adv Water Resour 24(3–4):243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houston S, Houston W, Wagner A (1994) Laboratory filter paper suction measurements BT—laboratory filter paper suction measurements. Geotech Test J 17(2):185–194Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishakoglu A, Baytas AF (2005) The influence of contact angle on capillary pressure-saturation relations in a porous medium including various liquids. Int J Eng Sci 43(8–9):744–755zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khaddour G, Riedel I, Andò E et al (2018) Grain-scale characterization of water retention behaviour of sand using X-ray CT. Acta Geotech 13(3):497–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim FH, Penumadu D, Hussey DS (2012) Water distribution variation in partially saturated granular materials using neutron imaging. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 138(2):147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu N, Kaya M, Godt JW (2014) Interrelations among the` soil-water retention, hydraulic conductivity, and suction-stress characteristic curves. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 140(5):04014007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manahiloh K (2013) Microstructural analysis of unsaturated granular soils using X-ray computed tomography. PhD Thesis, Washington State University, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manahiloh KN, Meehan CL (2017) Determining the soil water characteristic curve and interfacial contact angle from microstructural analysis of X-ray CT images. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 143(8):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin BE, Chen W, Song B, Akers SA (2009) Mechanics of materials moisture effects on the high strain-rate behavior of sand. Mech Mater 41(6):786–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Otsu N (1979) A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybern 9(1):62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park J-Y, Ha M-Y, Choi H-J, Hong S-D, Yoon H-S (2011) A study on the contact angles of a water droplet on smooth and rough solid surfaces. J Mech Sci Technol 25(2):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sahin H, Gu F, Lytton RL (2014) Development of soil-water characteristic curve for flexible base materials using the methylene blue test. J Mater Civ Eng 7(1):1–7Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schindler U, Müller L, Eulenstein F (2016) Measurement and evaluation of the hydraulic properties of horticultural substrates. Arch Agron Soil Sci 62(6):806–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulz VP, Becker J, Wiegmann A, Mukherjee PP, Wang C-Y (2007) Modeling of two-phase behavior in the gas diffusion medium of PEFCs via full morphology approach. J Electrochem Soc 154(4):B419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schulz VP, Wargo EA, Kumbur EC (2015) Pore-morphology-based simulation of drainage contact angle. Transp Porous Media 107(1):13–25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson PA, Robbins MO (1989) Simulations of contact-line motion: slip and the dynamic contact angle. Phys Rev Lett 63(7):766–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vanapalli SK, Nicotera MV, Sharma RS (2009) Axis translation and negative water column techniques for suction control. In: Laboratory and field testing of unsaturated soils, pp 33–48Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44(5):892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wargo EA, Schulz VP, Çeçen A, Kalidindi SR, Kumbur EC (2013) Resolving macro- and micro-porous layer interaction in polymer electrolyte fuel cells using focused ion beam and X-ray computed tomography. Electrochim Acta 87:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wildenschild D, Sheppard AP (2013) X-ray imaging and analysis techniques for quantifying pore-scale structure and processes in subsurface porous medium systems. Adv Water Resour 51:217–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang P, Lu S, Li J, Zhang P, Xie L, Xue H, Zhang J (2017) Multi-component segmentation of X-ray computed tomography (CT) image using multi-Otsu thresholding algorithm and scanning electron microscopy. Energy Explor Exploit 35(3):281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations