Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparing fracture openings in mortar using different imaging techniques Cover

Comparing fracture openings in mortar using different imaging techniques

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica
Volume 46 (2024): Issue 2 (June 2024)
By: Jonathan Marliot,  Stephen Hedan,  Marja Siitari-Kauppi,  Juuso Sammaljärvi,  Catherine Landesman,  Pierre Henocq and  Paul Sardini  
Open Access
|Mar 2024

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Comparison of two mortar samples’ XRCT images obtained from different vibration methods: 15 sec for tiers 1 and 2 and 1 min 15 sec for tier 3 (A) versus 1 min 15 sec per tier (B).
Comparison of two mortar samples’ XRCT images obtained from different vibration methods: 15 sec for tiers 1 and 2 and 1 min 15 sec for tier 3 (A) versus 1 min 15 sec per tier (B).

Figure 2:

The same area of the fracture in sample #39 visualised by optical microscopy (OM), magnification: x40 (A) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using the BSEi observation mode, magnification: x45 (B).
The same area of the fracture in sample #39 visualised by optical microscopy (OM), magnification: x40 (A) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using the BSEi observation mode, magnification: x45 (B).

Figure 3:

Tomographic slice of samples #5, #16 and #39.
Tomographic slice of samples #5, #16 and #39.

Figure 4:

Workflow employed for fracture segmentation. a) Greyscale tomographic slice of sample #16. b) Magnification of a region of interest of a). c) Mask image obtained by thresholding by boundaries, which is filtered in d) to remove structures which are not connected to the fracture. e) Skeletonised fracture. f) Checking the centre of the skeleton in relation to the fracture. g) View of grey-level profiles associated to the skeleton.
Workflow employed for fracture segmentation. a) Greyscale tomographic slice of sample #16. b) Magnification of a region of interest of a). c) Mask image obtained by thresholding by boundaries, which is filtered in d) to remove structures which are not connected to the fracture. e) Skeletonised fracture. f) Checking the centre of the skeleton in relation to the fracture. g) View of grey-level profiles associated to the skeleton.

Figure 5:

Mapping of the same fractured sample, #5, with X-ray computed tomography (XRCT) (A), A/A0 mapping obtained from 14C-PMMA autoradiography (B) and the normal strain (Ɛzz) obtained by heaviside-digital volumetric correlation (H-DVC) (C).
Mapping of the same fractured sample, #5, with X-ray computed tomography (XRCT) (A), A/A0 mapping obtained from 14C-PMMA autoradiography (B) and the normal strain (Ɛzz) obtained by heaviside-digital volumetric correlation (H-DVC) (C).

Figure 6:

Sample #5: Fracture aperture distribution, XRCT (blue), 14C-PMMA (orange) and H-DVC (black) methods. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size for XRCT and H-DVC methods: 54.6 µm and pixel size for the 14C-PMMA method: 10.6 µm.
Sample #5: Fracture aperture distribution, XRCT (blue), 14C-PMMA (orange) and H-DVC (black) methods. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size for XRCT and H-DVC methods: 54.6 µm and pixel size for the 14C-PMMA method: 10.6 µm.

Figure 7:

Sample #39: Fracture aperture distribution, XRCT (blue) and 14C-PMMA (orange) methods. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size for the XRCT method: 24.4 µm and pixel size for the 14C-PMMA method: 10.6 µm.
Sample #39: Fracture aperture distribution, XRCT (blue) and 14C-PMMA (orange) methods. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size for the XRCT method: 24.4 µm and pixel size for the 14C-PMMA method: 10.6 µm.

Figure 8:

Sample #16: Fracture aperture distribution, XRCT (blue) and 14C-PMMA (orange) methods. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size for the XRCT method: 24.4 µm and pixel size for the 14C-PMMA method: 10.6 µm.
Sample #16: Fracture aperture distribution, XRCT (blue) and 14C-PMMA (orange) methods. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size for the XRCT method: 24.4 µm and pixel size for the 14C-PMMA method: 10.6 µm.

Figure 9:

Fracture apertures of sample #16 obtained with XRCT. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size: 24.4 µm.
Fracture apertures of sample #16 obtained with XRCT. The distributions are displayed as probability density functions. Voxel size: 24.4 µm.

Figure 10:

Summary graphic of fracture opening obtained by the five methods. The black dots correspond to the artefact values for the XRCT and 14C-PMMA methods and for air bubbles for the OM and SEM methods.
Summary graphic of fracture opening obtained by the five methods. The black dots correspond to the artefact values for the XRCT and 14C-PMMA methods and for air bubbles for the OM and SEM methods.

Summary of average fracture opening obtained using X-ray computed tomography (XRCT), 14C-PMMA autoradiographs (14C-PMMA) and heaviside-digital volumetric correlation (H-DVC) methods_ The numbers of data used to calculate the average values are indicated in brackets_

#5 (µm)#39 (µm)#16 (µm)
XRCT21.2 ± 9.1 [585]32.1 ± 13.1 [1549]120.1 ± 68.3 [3685]
H-DVC18.6 ± 8.1 [741]--
14C-PMMA18.6 ± 5.7 [3414]26.1 ± 8 [3331]180.2 ± 72.4 [6051]

Comparison of fracture densities calculated using the XRCT and 14C-PMMA methods_ These results were obtained from the same data used to calculate the mean aperture values presented in Table 2, except for the 14C-PMMA method for sample #16 where all the data were considered_

Fracture densities (mm−1)
XRCT14C-PMMA
#53.3 ± 0.3 × 10−23.7 ± 0.4 × 10−2
#393.8 ± 0.4 × 10−23.5 ± 0.4 × 10−2
#169.1 ± 0.9 × 10−27.6 ± 0.8 × 10−2

Process duration and constraints for each method of aperture and density analysis_

Process durationDisadvantages
OMA few hoursManual analysis of few points / Difficulties of fracture observation
SEM1 dayManual analysis of few points / long analysis time
XRCT1 dayFracture detection depends on image resolution
H-DVCA few weeks / monthsFracture detection depends on image resolution / long process and analysis time, two image acquisitions
14C-PMMAA few monthsUse of radioactive tracer / long process time / semi-destructive method

Summary of average fracture opening obtained using microscopy methods: optical microscopy (OM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)_ The number of observation points is indicated in brackets_

#5 (µm)#39 (µm)#16 (µm)
OM15.6 ± 5.5 [12]29.3 ± 14.6 [80]131.8 ± 85.7 [33]
SEM15.8 ± 6.1 [59]25 ± 14.2 [121]129.5 ± 136.8 [137]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2024-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 77 - 90
Submitted on: Dec 15, 2023
|
Accepted on: Feb 23, 2024
|
Published on: Mar 30, 2024
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
mortar,
fracture apertures,
characterisation method,
process duration,
disadvantages
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Composites,
Porous materials,
Physics,
Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2024 Jonathan Marliot, Stephen Hedan, Marja Siitari-Kauppi, Juuso Sammaljärvi, Catherine Landesman, Pierre Henocq, Paul Sardini, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 46 (2024): Issue 2 (June 2024)Next article