2016
DOI: 10.1139/cjss-2016-0064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Calibration of Whatman Grade 42 Filter Paper for Soil Suction Measurement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Weighing was carried out within 20 seconds to avoid possible evaporation. Finally, suction was calculated from the computed filter paper water content using the calibration equations provided by [8]. Eqs.…”
Section: Matric Suction Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Weighing was carried out within 20 seconds to avoid possible evaporation. Finally, suction was calculated from the computed filter paper water content using the calibration equations provided by [8]. Eqs.…”
Section: Matric Suction Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was however noted that the proposed equations can only be used when the wetting testing procedure is followed (starting out with dry filter papers). The calibration curve is relevant when the filter paper water content value is greater than 6.5% [8].…”
Section: Matric Suction Sample Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The calibration curves can be separated into three groups: (1) below the ASTM calibration curve (Leong, He, and Rahardjo 2002;Elgabu 2013) ; (2) at the ASTM D5298-16 calibration curve (Fawcett and Collis-George 1967;Greacen, Walker, and Cook 1987;Deka et al 1995;Marinho and Oliveira 2006;Kim, Prezzi, and Salgado 2017); and (3) above the ASTM D5298-16 calibration curve (Hamblin 1981;Chandler, Crilly, and Montgomery-Smith 1992;Power, Vanapalli, and Garga 2008). A closer examination shows that the calibration curve of Power, Vanapalli, and Garga (2008) agrees with the calibration curves of Leong, He, and Rahardjo (2002) and Elgabu (2013) within the suction range from 10 to 100 kPa, and the calibration curve of Hamblin (1981) agrees with the calibration curves of ASTM D5298-16; Fawcett and Collis-George (1967); Greacen, Walker, and Cook (1987); Deka et al (1995); Marinho and Oliveira (2006); and Kim, Prezzi, and Salgado (2017) within the suction range from 1 to 10 kPa. The calibration curve of Hamblin (1981) is based on their data and the averaged data from Fawcett and Collis-George (1967).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Greacen, Walker, and Cook (1987) calibration curve based on their own data was not adopted by ASTM D5298-16. The Kim, Prezzi, and Salgado (2017) calibration curve is based on the reinterpretation of the data from Fawcett and Collis-George (1967) and Graecen et al (1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[2013], Leong et al [2016] and Kim et al [2016], whereas for peat soils, the proposal for the calibration equation was presented by Griffith et al [1991]. These are usually equations describing two straight lines, developed for a range of low and high suction pressures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%