Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement

The Granular Matrix Sensor (GMS) is an indirect method for soil suction measurement. Since GMS is comparatively inexpensive, robust and usually provide continuous soil suction data, it is a natural candidate for civil engineering practice. The sensor has been used mainly for irrigation purposes, and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vettorello Danilo L., Marinho Fernando A. M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: EDP Sciences 2021-01-01
Series:MATEC Web of Conferences
Online Access:https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2021/06/matecconf_PanAm-Unsat2021_01014.pdf
id doaj-221f91b878b947f08877b0c7e844e149
record_format Article
spelling doaj-221f91b878b947f08877b0c7e844e1492021-05-04T12:21:53ZengEDP SciencesMATEC Web of Conferences2261-236X2021-01-013370101410.1051/matecconf/202133701014matecconf_PanAm-Unsat2021_01014Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurementVettorello Danilo L.0Marinho Fernando A. M.1Universidade de São Paulo, Instituto de GeociênciasUniversidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Geociências, Departamento de Geologia Sedimentar e AmbientalThe Granular Matrix Sensor (GMS) is an indirect method for soil suction measurement. Since GMS is comparatively inexpensive, robust and usually provide continuous soil suction data, it is a natural candidate for civil engineering practice. The sensor has been used mainly for irrigation purposes, and also for some civil engineering activities. Questions about its effectiveness and reliability are still posed, making studies about this topic desirable. This study presents a laboratory comparison between Watermark and an ordinary tensiometer during an equilibrium period and for a wetting procedure performed in a compacted sandy silt soil (residual soil of gneiss). The results yielded that GMS may provide tensiometer equivalent suction values in a context of no significant water content variation. However, it takes a longer time to obtain stabilized suction values. During the wetting procedure, GMS presented a delay of about 2 h in detecting water while tensiometer detection was almost instantaneous.https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2021/06/matecconf_PanAm-Unsat2021_01014.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vettorello Danilo L.
Marinho Fernando A. M.
spellingShingle Vettorello Danilo L.
Marinho Fernando A. M.
Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement
MATEC Web of Conferences
author_facet Vettorello Danilo L.
Marinho Fernando A. M.
author_sort Vettorello Danilo L.
title Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement
title_short Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement
title_full Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement
title_fullStr Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of time response of GMS for soil suction measurement
title_sort evaluation of time response of gms for soil suction measurement
publisher EDP Sciences
series MATEC Web of Conferences
issn 2261-236X
publishDate 2021-01-01
description The Granular Matrix Sensor (GMS) is an indirect method for soil suction measurement. Since GMS is comparatively inexpensive, robust and usually provide continuous soil suction data, it is a natural candidate for civil engineering practice. The sensor has been used mainly for irrigation purposes, and also for some civil engineering activities. Questions about its effectiveness and reliability are still posed, making studies about this topic desirable. This study presents a laboratory comparison between Watermark and an ordinary tensiometer during an equilibrium period and for a wetting procedure performed in a compacted sandy silt soil (residual soil of gneiss). The results yielded that GMS may provide tensiometer equivalent suction values in a context of no significant water content variation. However, it takes a longer time to obtain stabilized suction values. During the wetting procedure, GMS presented a delay of about 2 h in detecting water while tensiometer detection was almost instantaneous.
url https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2021/06/matecconf_PanAm-Unsat2021_01014.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT vettorellodanilol evaluationoftimeresponseofgmsforsoilsuctionmeasurement
AT marinhofernandoam evaluationoftimeresponseofgmsforsoilsuctionmeasurement
_version_ 1721478952343568384