See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245403463

Factors Affecting the Filter Paper Method for Total and Matric Suction
Measurements

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · September 2002

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ11094J

CITATIONS READS

218 3,311

5 authors, including:

E. C. Leong H. Rahardjo
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
367 PUBLICATIONS   10,440 CITATIONS    417 PUBLICATIONS   16,802 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of density on SWCC View project

Advanced Moisture Sensing Technology for Urban Greenery and Monitoring of Slope Stability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by E. C. Leong on 27 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Leong, E. C., He, L., and Rahardjo, H., “Factors
Affecting the Filter Paper Method for Total and
Matric Suction Measurements,” Geotechnical Testing
Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 25, No. 3, September 2002, pp.
321–332.

1
 Leong et al. (2002)

ABSTRACT: The filter paper method is used as an indirect means of measuring soil

suctions. The advantages of the method include its simplicity, its low cost and its ability to

measure a wide range of suctions. The filter paper method has also been used in the field to

measure soil suctions. However, the simplicity of the filter paper method has led to an

inadequate understanding of the method and therefore, improper usage. Recent findings have

highlighted the need for more precautions in the use of the filter paper method for suction

measurements. This paper presents a literature review of the factors affecting the accuracy of

the filter paper method and identifies gaps in the current knowledge of the method. An

experimental study is also conducted to clarify some of the factors affecting the response of

the two most commonly used filter papers for suction measurements, Whatman No. 42 and

Schleicher & Schuell No. 589. Calibration curves of the filter papers show that the water

content-suction relationships are different for total and matric suctions. The total suction

calibration curve is not very sensitive to applied suctions less than 1000 kPa. The calibration

curves obtained for total suction are different from those recommended in ASTM D5298-94,

suggesting that the ASTM D5298-94 equations should not be used for total suction. Instead

of existing bilinear equations, new equations are proposed to describe the total and matric

suction calibration curves. All the equations were evaluated using the filter paper method to

measure the suction of soil specimens of known matric suctions.

KEYWORDS: Filter paper, total suction, matric suction, osmotic suction, soil suction,

calibration, unsaturated soil, suction measurement.

 Leong et al. (2002)

Introduction

The use of filter paper as a soil suction sensor was developed in soil science and has been

recommended as a standard test method for measurement of soil potential (suction) in ASTM

D5298-94. The test procedure is simple, straightforward and does not require any special

equipment. The method involves the placement of filter papers in an airtight container

together with a soil specimen for seven days. The seven-day period is required in order to

reach equilibrium condition among the vapor pressure of the pore-water in the soil specimen,

the vapor pressure of the pore-water in the filter paper and the partial vapor pressure of the

water in the air inside the container. The water content of the filter paper is then determined

and the suction of the soil specimen is obtained from a calibration curve of the filter paper

water content with suction. The test method also provides the calibration procedure of filter

paper where filter papers are suspended above salt solutions or using the pressure membrane

(ASTM D3152-72) and the ceramic plate (ASTM D2325-68).

Studies of the filter paper method cited in the references of ASTM D5298-94 include

McQueen and Miller (1968a, 1968b), Fawcett and Collis-George (1967) and Greacen et al.

(1987). The filter paper method for soil suction measurement has also been investigated by

Gardner (1937), Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974), Hamblin (1981), McKeen (1985), Sibley and

Williams (1990), Ridley (1993), Marinho (1994) and Swarbrick (1995). More recent

investigations include those of El-Ehwany and Houston (1990), Lee and Wray (1992),

Houston et al. (1994) and Harrison and Blight (1998). El-Ehwany and Houston (1990)

reported that their calibration curve for total suction is significantly different from the

calibration curves by McKeen (1988). Lee and Wray (1992) found that for the non-contact

method, the filter paper tends to overestimate suction when the McKeen (1985) calibration

curve was used. Houston et al. (1994) cautioned that although filter paper suction

measurement is simple and not labor-intensive, misleading results can be obtained if

 Leong et al. (2002)

appropriate precautions are not taken. Harrison and Blight (1994) found that both the contact

and non-contact filter paper methods show scattered results, with the non-contact filter paper

method results being more scattered and contradictory. This paper attempts to clarify some of

the confusion regarding application of the filter paper method for soil suction measurements.

Background

The idea to use filter paper for soil suction measurement can be traced back to the work of

Schull in 1916 (Marinho, 1994). The discovery of the semi-permeable properties of seed

coats by Brown (1907) and Schröder (1911) led Schull to use specially selected seeds as an

absorbent material to measure soil suction. Schull calibrated the seeds by measuring the

equilibrium water content of the air-dried seeds over different concentrations of sulfuric acid.

Equilibrium was achieved in 15 days. Use of the seeds to measure soil suction follows

essentially the same procedure as the filter paper method described in ASTM D5298-94.

Hansen (1926) used blotting paper strips saturated with different concentrations of

sugar solutions to measure soil suction. The osmotic suctions of four different concentrations

of sugar solutions were determined in advance. The blotting paper strips were placed in

airtight containers with soil samples to establish moisture equilibrium. If there is a difference

in suction between the soil sample and the blotting paper, moisture exchange between soil

sample and blotting paper will take place. The paper strip that showed no change in weight

was assumed to represent the suction of the soil sample. Stocker (1930) used a similar

procedure but with a larger number of sugar solution concentrations to obtain better accuracy.

Gradmann (1934) improved the method by first calibrating the blotting paper strips. Strips of

blotting paper were soaked in a salt solution and their weights were calibrated against

suctions. These paper strips were sealed in a container with the soil samples until equilibrium
 Leong et al. (2002)

was achieved. The paper strip that shows no change in weight was assumed to represent the

suction of the soil sample.

Gardner (1937) was probably the first to use filter paper to measure soil suction.

Gardner also developed the first calibration curve for Schleicher & Schuell No. 589 (S&S

589) white ribbon filter paper. The filter papers were not soaked in any solution. For

calibration at low water contents, both wet and dry filter papers were equilibrated above

sulphuric acid solutions in closed chambers. For calibration at high water contents, the filter

papers were equilibrated by centrifugal forces to obtain the desired suctions. Since then the

use of filter paper for suction measurements has become more widespread. S&S 589 filter

paper has been used by a number of researchers (McQueen and Miller 1968b; Al-Khafaf and

Hanks 1974; McKeen 1980; Harrison and Blight 1998). Whatman No. 42 filter paper is also

commonly used (Fawcett and Collis-George 1967; Hamlin 1981; Chandler and Gutierrez

1986; Chandler et al. 1992; Harrison and Bight 1998). El-Ehwany and Houston (1990) used

Whatman No. 1 filter paper, Miller and Nelson (1992) used Thomas Scientific No. 4705-F10

filter paper and Houston et al. (1994) used Fisher quantitative coarse (9.54 A) filter paper.

Sibley and Williams (1990) evaluated five different absorbent materials (Whatman

No. 42, unwashed dialysis tubing, washed dialysis tubing, Millipore MF 0.025pm and

Millipore 0.05pm) for suction measurements in the range 0 to 200 MPa (pF 0 to pF 6.3). The

sensitivities of the materials were different for different suction ranges. Based on the test

results, Sibley and Williams (1990) suggested that Whatman No. 42 filter paper was the most

appropriate for use over the entire range of suction investigated.

ASTM D5298-94 covers the two most commonly used filter papers, Whatman No. 42

and S&S 589. The response of these filter papers in suction measurement is the subject of this

paper.
 Leong et al. (2002)

Total Versus Matric Suction

The total suction, ψ, of a soil is made up of two components, matric suction, (ua - uw) and

osmotic suction, π:

ψ = ( ua − uw ) + π (1)

where ua = pore-air pressure and uw = pore-water pressure. Matric suction is the equivalent

suction derived from the measurement of the partial pressure of the water vapor in

equilibrium with the soil water, relative to the partial pressure of the water vapor in

equilibrium with a solution identical in composition with the soil water. Osmotic suction is

the equivalent suction derived from the measurement of the partial pressure of the water

vapor in equilibrium with a solution identical in composition with the soil water, relative to

the partial pressure of water vapor in equilibrium with free pure water (Aitchison, 1964).

Houston et al. (1994) simplified the definition of matric suction to the affinity a soil has for

water in the absence of any salt content gradients. Osmotic suction arises from the salt

content in the soil pore water, and osmotic potential arises from variation in salt content from

one point to another.

Filter paper can be used to measure either total or matric suction. The filter paper

method is based on the premise that a filter paper will come to equilibrium with respect to

moisture flow with a soil having a specific suction. When the filter paper is placed in direct

contact with the soil, water will flow from the soil into the filter paper until equilibrium is

achieved. When the filter paper is not in contact with the soil, only water vapor flow will

occur. In the contact method, the filter paper measures matric suction and in the non-contact

method, the filter paper measures total suction. The filter paper method measures suction

indirectly and the measurement accuracy is dependent on the moisture-suction relationship of

the filter paper. In essence, the filter paper functions in a manner similar to a psychrometer
 Leong et al. (2002)

when used to measure total suction, and to soil moisture blocks and thermal conductivity

sensors when used to measure matric suction.

Calibration Procedure

Since the accuracy of the filter paper method is dependent on its moisture-suction

relationship, the calibration procedure for the filter paper is very important. Gardner (1937)

used filter paper for suction measurements as he believed the better control in the production

process of the filter paper would render it more uniform in quality than the blotting paper,

and therefore make it a “repeatable” sensor. However, different researchers have suggested

different calibration curves for the same filter paper. The equations for the calibration curves

of Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers suggested by various researchers are tabulated

in Table 1 and plotted in Fig. 1.

The differences in the calibration curves may be attributed to several factors: quality

of filter paper, suction source used in calibration, hysteresis and equilibration time. A series

of experiments using Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers was conducted by the

authors to evaluate these factors in addition to review of data from the literature. The data

from the experiments are denoted as “Authors’ data” in the figures.

Quality of Filter Paper

Differences in filter paper quality may result in different calibration curves for the same filter

paper. Hamblin (1981) examined the calibration curves of batches of Whatman No. 42 filter

paper produced two years apart and found that the calibration curves were almost identical.

The calibration data were also in good agreement with the calibration data of Fawcett and

Collis-George (1967). Chandler and Gutierrez (1986) and Swarbrick (1995) also found

similar agreement between their calibration data and Fawcett and Collis-George (1967).
 Leong et al. (2002)

Calibration data using suction plate, pressure plate or pressure membrane for low suctions

(less than 1000 kPa) and vapor pressure generated by salt solutions at high suctions (greater

than 1000 kPa) were compared to determine if differences in the quality of the filter paper is

indicated. The authors calibrated Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers using pressure

plate and the salt solution methods. The calibration data for Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589

filter papers from the literature and from the authors are shown in Figs. 2a and 2b,

respectively. The data are confined in a narrow band despite the fact that the data were

obtained by different researchers, at different times with different batches of filter paper. The

Whatman No. 42 data are more consistent than the S&S 589 data. These results suggest that

filter paper quality is not a problem.

Another issue of concern is deterioration of filter paper with time, primarily due to

bacterial and algal growth. Gardner (1937) pretreated S&S 589 filter papers with 0.2% HgCl2

to prevent contamination by soil organisms prior to installation. Fawcett and Collis-George

(1967) pretreated Whatman No. 42 filter papers with 0.005% HgCl2 and subsequently oven

dried them at 105oC. McQueen and Miller (1968b) pretreated S&S 589 filter papers with a

3% solution of pentachlorophenol in ethanol. Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974) pretreated S&S

589 filter papers in the same manner as McQueen and Miller (1968b). Hamblin (1981)

pretreated one batch of Whatman No. 42 filter papers with 0.005% HgCl2. Hamblin (1981)

and Chandler and Gutierrez (1986) suggested that there was no need to pretreat the filter

papers. The authors found no reports in the literature of serious problems with bacterial or

algae growth on filter papers when they were used for soil suction measurements. The

duration for suction measurement using filter paper may be too short for fouling of this nature

to be significant.
 Leong et al. (2002)

Suction Source

Several methods are available to generate suction for filter paper calibration. The different

methods of generating suction for filter paper calibration and the researchers who have used

them are tabulated in Table 2. Ridley (1995) suggested that calibration of the filter paper be

performed under conditions that are reasonably close to expected experimental conditions.

Several methods for obtaining soil samples of “known” suction have been attempted. Soil

samples at known heights above the groundwater table can be obtained but these are usually

of low suctions, below 20 kPa (Gardner 1937; McQueen and Miller 1968; Al-Khafaf and

Hanks 1974). Alternatively, soil samples can be consolidated in an oedometer or triaxial

apparatus and then unloaded rapidly. The matric suction generated in the soil samples is

assumed to be equal to the mean effective stress, and suctions up to 2000 kPa can be

generated in this way (Gutierrez 1985; Chandler and Gutierrez 1986; Duran 1986; Chandler

et al. 1992). Matric suctions in soil samples can also be generated using a pressure membrane

extractor, pressure plate, or suction plate (McQueen and Miller 1968; Al-Khafaf and Hanks

1972; Hamblin 1981; Chandler et al. 1992). Calibration data of the filter papers Whatman

No. 42 and S&S 589 using soil samples of “known” matric suctions are plotted in Figs. 3a

and 3b, respectively. The data exhibit greater scatter than those plotted in Figs. 2a and 2b,

which is attributed to the uncertainty in the suction of the soil samples. Therefore, care

should be exercised when using soil samples for calibration of filter paper as discrepancy is

usually caused by the uncertainty in the suction of the soil sample.

Hysteresis

The drying and wetting of a porous medium shows hysteresis, and filter paper is also

expected to exhibit hysteretic behaviour during drying and wetting. Williams and Sedgley

(1965) and Fawcett and Collis-George (1967) have shown experimental evidence of
 Leong et al. (2002)

hysteresis in filter paper. Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974) noted that since filter paper was

always wetted up during suction measurement, the filter paper should also be calibrated in

the same manner to avoid problem of hysteresis. Sibley and Williams (1990) and Swarbrick

(1995) suggested that soil suction measurements should be conducted under the same

conditions as the calibration process. Ridley (1995) showed some matric suction calibration

data for Whatman No. 42 filter paper where hysteresis was noticeable. Harrison and Blight

(1998) showed calibration data of both Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers for both

drying and wetting exhibiting hysteretic behaviour. However, Houston et al. (1994) reported

no measurable differences between the wetting and drying calibration curves for matric

suctions between 8 kPa and 2500 kPa. The authors also conducted drying and wetting

calibrations of the Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers. The authors’ data together

with those found in the literature for drying and wetting of filter papers Whatman No. 42 and

S&S 589 are shown in Figs. 4a and 4b, respectively. The data shown were obtained by either

suspending the filter paper above salt solutions (non-contact method) or by placing the filter

paper in contact with the suction plate, pressure plate or pressure membrane (contact

method). Details on working principles of the suction plate, pressure plate and pressure

membrane can be found in Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993). Measurement of suction using

filter paper method by van der Raadt et al. (1987) indicated that for suctions above 1000 kPa,

both contact and non-contact filter papers gave similar suction values. Therefore, only data

from the non-contact method for total suctions above 1000 kPa, and data from the contact

method for matric suctions below 1000 kPa, were plotted as indicated by the demarcation line

and arrows in Figure 4.

The hysteresis of Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers on drying and wetting

as used in the non-contact (total suction) measurement was investigated by the authors. Three

methods were used: distilled water in a vacuum desiccator (equivalent suction = 0 kPa), salt
 Leong et al. (2002)

solution in a vacuum desiccator (equivalent suction = 9700 kPa), and in air (relative humidity

= 60%, equivalent suction = 70000 kPa). The changes in the filter paper water contents with

time under the three conditions are shown in Figs. 5a and 5b for Whatman No. 42 and S&S

589, respectively. Hysteresis can be observed in the filter paper responses. Both types of

filter paper show a 12% difference in water content for the distilled water method, a 1%

difference for the salt solution method and a 0.5% difference in the air method. The

equilibration times for drying were longer than those needed for wetting. In the case of the

distilled water method, the equilibration time was about 28 days for drying compared with

about 14 days for wetting. It is obvious that inadequate equilibration time will lead to larger

hysteresis in the wetting and drying responses of the filter paper.

The equilibrium drying and wetting filter paper water contents of Whatman No. 42

and S&S 589 filter papers over salt solutions of different concentrations obtained by the

authors are shown in Figs. 6a and 6b, respectively. The equilibrium filter paper water content

was taken as the water content of the filter paper where there were no measurable changes in

the weight of the filter paper with time. The hysteresis observed is small, between 1% and

5% in the water content of the filter paper where the largest differences are observed for

suctions less than 100 kPa. Therefore, hysteresis appears to be minor when equilibration time

is sufficient.

Equilibration Time

Various equilibration times have been used when making suction measurements using filter

paper as listed in Table 3. ASTM D5298-94 recommends a minimum equilibration time of

seven days.

In examining equilibration time of the filter paper with a suction source, two points

must be remembered. The first is with respect to the equilibration time between the
 Leong et al. (2002)

environment and suction source. In a closed container containing a salt solution or soil

sample, the water vapor pressure in the air space will take some time to reach equilibrium.

This is especially crucial when calibrating filter papers using salt solutions. The second

involves the equilibration time between the filter paper and the suction source. If a piece of

filter paper is placed inside a closed container containing a salt solution, the water vapor in

the air space will reach equilibrium first and then the filter paper will come to equilibrium

with the water vapor in the air space. If a filter paper is placed in a pressure plate apparatus,

the matric suction is applied immediately and the equilibration time is the time the filter

paper takes to achieve equilibrium with the applied matric suction. The equilibration time of

the filter paper is dependent on suction source, contact condition and suction level, which

explains the differences in equilibration times reported by different researchers (Table 3).

The equilibration of water vapor pressure with the suction source in an enclosed

environment becomes crucial only when the suction source is a soil specimen, as water will

be lost or gained from the soil specimen to the environment to establish an equilibrium

condition. In this regard, a smaller enclosed environment will enable the equilibrium

condition to be established more rapidly and will minimize the change in water content of the

soil and hence the soil suction (McQueen and Miller, 1968). Hamblin (1981) observed that

the equilibration time of filter paper in contact with soil depends on the number of filter

papers used. Crilly et al. (1991) showed that the equilibrium water content of filter papers

used in the field using the non-contact method decreased with the number of filter papers

used. This suggests that when filter paper is used, the water content of the soil specimen and

hence its soil suction will change. In the wetting-up method to measure soil suction, the filter

paper will absorb water from the soil specimen and the soil specimen becomes drier and

hence exhibits a higher suction.

 Leong et al. (2002)

The equilibration times of Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers (wetting-up

method) in a pressure plate, over salt solutions and over distilled water in a 500-ml container

were examined by the authors and the results are plotted in Fig. 7. Equilibration times were

observed to be between two and five days. The upper limit of an equilibration time of 14 days

was observed for filter paper over distilled water (Fig. 7).

Total and Matric Suction Calibration Curves

The authors developed total and matric suction calibration curves for Whatman No. 42 and

S&S 589 filter papers. Total suction data were obtained by calibrating initially dry filter

papers over salt solutions of various concentrations in vacuum desiccators. Matric suction

data for initially dry filter papers were obtained using the pressure plate apparatus. The

calibration data shown in Fig. 8 indicated that the filter paper responses are different for total

and matric suctions as also observed by Houston et al. (1994) and Harrison and Blight

(1998). The total suction data indicate that for suctions below 1000 kPa, the water content of

the filter paper is less sensitive to suction level as compared with the matric suction data.

Above 1000 kPa, the total and matric suction data seem to converge. Houston et al. (1994)

found that filter paper buried in a soil has essentially the same water content as a suspended

filter paper for suction values of about 98.1 MPa. Fredlund (1992) and Al-Khafaf and Hanks

(1974) also reported that matric suction curves were essentially the same as total suction

curves for high suction values. Field measurements of soil suction using filter paper by van

der Raadt et al. (1987) showed that filter paper used in the contact and non contact methods

were similar for suctions above 1000 kPa but were different for suctions less than 1000 kPa

(Fig. 9). These studies suggest that at high suctions greater than 1000 kPa most of the

moisture movement occurs through vapor transfer rather than capillary transfer. Thus up to

1000 kPa suction, the contact filter paper method can be used to measure matric suction
 Leong et al. (2002)

reliably while the non-contact method can be used to measure total suction. Beyond 1000 kPa

suction, the filter paper method measures only total suction, regardless if the contact or the

non-contact procedure is used.

A number of equations have been suggested for Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter

papers calibration curves over the years (Table 1). Hamblin (1981) suggested that for

Whatman No. 42 filter paper, the calibration equations by other workers can be used unless

particular accuracy demands recalibration. The filter paper method is an attractive method of

suction measurement if the tedious work of calibration can be avoided. Comparison of the

curves shown in Fig. 1 indicates that the curves for the Whatman No. 42 filter paper are more

consistent than those of S&S 589 filter paper. The calibration curve is usually represented by

two equations which represent different sensitivities of the filter paper response in the higher

and lower suction range. All the equations presented in Table 1, except that of Hamblin

(1981), are of the form:

log ψ = a − bw f (2)

where log ψ is the logarithm of suction in base 10, a and b are constants, and wf is the filter

paper water content in percent. Hamblin (1981) used a double log equation. The experimental

evidence from the literature and the authors’ work indicate that separate equations should be

used for the filter paper for the contact and non-contact methods. The authors’ total and

matric suction calibration data were fitted with equations of the form of Equation 2 below

and shown in Fig 8:

For Whatman No. 42 filter paper,

Matric suction: log ψ = 2.909 − 0.0229w f wf ≥ 47

log ψ = 4.945 − 0.0673w f wf < 47 (3a)

 Leong et al. (2002)

Total suction: log ψ = 8.778 − 0.222w f wf ≥ 26

log ψ = 5.31 − 0.0879 w f wf < 26 (3b)

For S&S 589 filter paper,

Matric suction: log ψ = 2.659 − 0.018w f wf ≥ 54

log ψ = 5.438 − 0.069w f wf < 54 (4a)

Total suction: log ψ = 8.778 − 0191w

. f wf ≥ 32

log ψ = 5.26 − 0.0705w f wf < 32

(4b)

The use of these and other equations of the form of Equation 2 requires two equations to

describe the change in sensitivity of the filter paper over different suction ranges. Soil-water

characteristic equations suggested by van Genuchten (1980) and Fredlund and Xing (1994)

were also used to fit the total and matric suction calibration data to provide a single equation

for use over the entire suction range.

Using the van Genuchten (1980) equation for Whatman No. 42 filter paper,

0.473
⎡⎛ 248⎞ 9.615 ⎤
Matric suction: ψ = 0.051⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ (5a)
⎢⎣⎝ w f ⎠ ⎥⎦
2 . 361
⎡⎛ 37 ⎞ 0.44 ⎤
Total suction: ψ = 56180⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ (5b)
⎢⎣⎝ w f ⎠ ⎥⎦

For S&S 589 filter paper,

0.896
⎡⎛ 251⎞ 5.621 ⎤
Matric suction: ψ = 0.048⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ (5c)
⎢⎣⎝ w f ⎠ ⎥⎦
2 .516
⎡⎛ 44 ⎞ 0.464 ⎤
Total suction: ψ = 64940⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ (5d)
⎢⎣⎝ w f ⎠ ⎥⎦
 Leong et al. (2002)

Using the Fredlund and Xing (1994) equation for Whatman No. 42 filter paper,

2 .101
⎡ ⎛⎜ 268 ⎞⎟ 0.629 ⎤
Matric suction: ⎢
ψ = 0.23 e ⎝ wf ⎠
− e⎥ (6a)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2 .248
⎡ ⎛⎜ 37 ⎞⎟ 0.242 ⎤
Total suction: ⎢
ψ = 18500 e ⎝ wf ⎠
− e⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
(6b)

For S&S 589 filter paper,

0.779
⎡ ⎛⎜ 282 ⎞⎟ 1.071 ⎤
Matric suction: ⎢
ψ = 0.844 e ⎝ wf ⎠
− e⎥ (6c)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2 .058
⎡ ⎛⎜ 42 ⎞⎟ 0.246 ⎤
Total suction: ⎢
ψ = 20000 e ⎝ wf ⎠
− e⎥ (6d)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Equations 5 and 6 require only one equation for either matric or total suction and are plotted

against the test data in Fig. 10.

The sum of squared residuals (SSR) for Equations 3 – 6 when measured against the

calibration data are summarized in Table 4. In the calibration, two pieces of filter paper were

used for each suction level. The residual is the difference in the measured filter paper water

content and that given by the equation. The SSR value is a qualitative measure of the

goodness-of-fit where a smaller value indicates a better fit. A comparison of the goodness-of-

fit for the bilinear, Fredlund and Xing and van Genuchten equations shows that the van

Genuchten equations (Eq. 5) gave the best fit for total suction for both filter papers. For

matric suction, the bilinear equation (Eq. 3a) gave the best fit for Whatman No. 42 filter

paper and the Fredlund and Xing equation (Eq. 6c) gave the best fit for S&S 589 filter paper.

For total suction, the bilinear equations (Eq. 3) gave the worst fit for both filter papers.
 Leong et al. (2002)

Soil Suction Measurement

To evaluate the performance of Equations 3 - 6 for soil suction measurements, matric

suctions were induced in soil specimens of residual soils from the Jurong sedimentary

formation of Singapore using a pressure plate apparatus. The grain size distribution and the

drying soil-water characteristic curve of the soil are shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively.

The index properties of the soil are listed in Table 5. Air-dried Whatman No. 42 filter papers

were used for the suction measurement.

The soil specimens, 7 cm in diameter and 4 cm high, were brought to equilibrium at

matric suctions of 200 kPa, 500 kPa and 1400 kPa using a pressure plate apparatus. The soil

specimen was then transferred to a 500-ml container with a piece of Whatman No. 42 filter

paper placed at the bottom of the soil specimen and another non-contacting piece of filter

paper placed above the soil specimen using a PVC ring as a separator. The sealed container

was left in an insulated container for 14 days. At the end of 14 days, the water contents of the

filter papers and the soil specimen were determined. The suction in the soil specimen was

inferred from the filter paper’s water content using Equations 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the equations

recommended by ASTM D5298-94 (see Table 1). The measured water content of the soil

specimen was also used to determine its matric suction from its soil-water characteristic

curve. The difference between the induced matric suction and that obtained from the soil-

water characteristic curve was found to be less than 5%.

Table 6 shows that the inferred matric and total suctions using filter paper in the

contact and non-contact methods, respectively, vary depending on the calibration equation

used. The differences between measured and induced matric suctions range from -20.9% to

+16.2% when using the filter paper in the contact method. The bilinear equations, Equation

3a and ASTM D5298-94, are adequate for matric suction measurements but two equations
 Leong et al. (2002)

are needed to describe the calibration curve. Equation 6a gave the lowest average absolute

error for the three matric suction values investigated (5%). For total suction measurements,

the non-contact filter paper method generally yielded suction values that were much higher (-

1% to +464%) than the induced matric suction, as expected since total suction is the sum of

matric and osmotic suctions. For 200 kPa and 500 kPa matric suctions, Equations 3a and 6a

give errors of less than 10% while for 1400kPa total suction, Equations 5b and 6b give errors

of less than 10%. The ASTM D5298-94 equations performed the poorest, with an average

absolute error of about 235% for the total suction measurements made on the soil specimens.

The osmotic suction of the soil specimens computed as the difference between the total and

matric suctions inferred from the various equations is shown in Table 7. As can be observed,

only Equation 6 shows that osmotic suction remains almost constant which is consistent with

the findings of Fredlund (1992) and Houston et al. (1994). The other equations showed

osmotic suction increasing as the matric suction of the soil specimen increases.

Conclusions

The differences in filter paper calibration curves for suction measurement in the literature

were examined in terms of quality of filter paper, suction source used in calibration,

hysteresis and equilibration time. To clarify these issues, experiments were also conducted on

the Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers. By examining the calibration data from the

literature and that performed by the authors, filter paper quality was found to be relatively

uniform but the performance of Whatman No. 42 filter paper was more consistent than S&S

589 filter paper. The differences in the filter paper calibration curves in the literature were

attributed to the suction source used in the calibration and equilibration time. The use of soil

samples of “known” suctions for calibration purposes and inadequate equilibration time

contribute to the large scatter in the calibration curves. Hysteresis was present in the
 Leong et al. (2002)

calibration curves but the effect is small if equilibration time is adequate, between 1% and

5% of the filter paper water content, and is not responsible for the large scatter observed by

others. Hysteresis was less prominent for the Whatman No. 42 filter paper. Equilibration time

of the filter paper is dependent on the suction source, contact condition and suction level. A

seven-day equilibration time may not be sufficient. However, the upper limit of equilibration

time was found to be 14 days when the filter paper is wetted up.

Total and matric suction calibration curves were obtained for Whatman No. 42 and

S&S 589 filter papers. The total and matric suction calibration curves are different, but the

difference between the matric suction and total suction calibration curve is small for suctions

above 1000 kPa. The total suction calibration curve of the filter paper is less sensitive to total

suctions below 1000 kPa. The bilinear, van Genuchten (1980) and Fredlund and Xing (1994)

equations can be used to describe the total and matric suction calibration curves of the filter

papers. For total suction, the van Genuchten equations (Eq. 5b and 5d, respectively) gave the

best fit to the calibration data for both Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers. For matric

suction, the bilinear equation (Eq. 3a) gave the best fit to the calibration data for Whatman

No. 42 filter paper while the Fredlund and Xing equation (Eq. 6c) gave the best fit to the

calibration data for S&S 589 filter paper. The van Genuchten and Fredlund and Xing

equations are more convenient as only a single equation is needed to describe the entire

matric or total suction calibration curve.

A series of soil suction measurements using both contact and non-contact filter paper

methods was performed for three Jurong formation residual soil specimens at induced matric

suction values of 200 kPa, 500 kPa and 1400 kPa. The filter paper used is Whatman No. 42.

For the non-contact filter paper method, the inferred total suction using the ASTM D5298-94

equation for Whatman No. 42 showed large differences from the expected total suctions of

the three residual soil specimens. However for the contact filter paper method, the ASTM
 Leong et al. (2002)

D5298-94 equation for the Whatman No. 42 filter paper give reasonably good agreement

with the induced matric suctions of the three residual soil specimens. Preferably, a batch of

filter paper should be calibrated before use. The soil suction measurements have shown that

the Whatman No. 42 filter paper can be used with the ASTM D5298-94 equation to obtain

matric suction of the soil via the contact method reliably. But the ASTM D5298-94 equation

should not be used to obtain total suction for the non-contact filter paper method. Using the

appropriate matric or total suction calibration curves, the bilinear, van Genuchten and

Fredlund and Xing equations give reasonably good agreement with the induced matric or

expected total suction values of the three residual soil specimens. It appears that only the

Fredlund and Xing equations give the most reasonable estimate of the osmotic suction of the

three residual soil specimens. Independent measurements of osmotic suction were not

performed in this study. It will be useful to compare osmotic suction measurements using

other methods with that inferred using the filter paper method to further evaluate the

equations suggested in this study.

Acknowledgements

This work is part of a research project supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education,

Singapore, Grant No. ARC 12/96. The authors would also liked to thank the reviewers for

their helpful suggestions.

References

Aitchison, G.D., 1964, “Engineering Concepts of Moisture Equilibria and Moisture Changes

in Soils,” Statement of Review Panel, Ed., in Moisture Equilibria and Moisture Changes

in Soils Beneath Covered Areas, A Symp.-in-print (Australia), Butterworths, pp 7-21.

 Leong et al. (2002)

Al-Khafaf, S. and Hanks, R.J., 1974, “Evaluation of the Filter Paper Method for Estimating

Soil Water Potential,” Soil Science, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 194-199.

ASTM 1997, “D2325-68 Standard Test Method for Capillary-Moisture Relationships for

Coarse- and Medium-Textured Soils by Porous-Plate Apparatus,” Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock (1): D420-D4914, pp. 195-197.

ASTM 1997, “D3152-72 Standard Test Method for Capillary-Moisture Relationships for

Fine-Textured Soils by Pressure-Membrane Apparatus,” Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock (I): D420-D4914, pp. 311-316.

ASTM 1997, “D5298-94 Standard Test Method for the Measurement of Soil Potential

(Suction) Using Filter Paper,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.09, Soil and

Rock (II): D4943-latest, pp. 157-162.

Brown, A.J. 1907, “On the Existence of Semipermeable Membrane Enclosing the Seeds of

Some of the Gramineae,” Ann. Botany, Vol. 21, pp. 79-87.

Chandler, R.J., Crilly, M.S., and Montgomery-Smith, G., 1992, “A Low Cost Method of

Assessing Clay Desiccation for Low-Rise Buildings,” Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp 82-89.

Chandler, R.J. and Gutierrez, C.I., 1986, “The Filter-Paper Method of Suction

Measurement,” Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 265-268.

Crilly, M.S., Schreiner, H.D. and Gourley, C.S., 1991, “A simple field suction measurement

probe,” Proceedings of the 10th African Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Foundation Engineering, Lesotho, pp. 291-298.

Duran, A.J.G., 1986, “Study of Effect of Contact on the Filter Paper Technique in the

Measurement of Soil Suction,” M.Sc. dissertation, Imperial College, London.

El-Ehwany, M. and Houston, S.L., 1990, “Settlement and Moisture Movement in Collapsible

Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 10, pp. 1521-1535.
 Leong et al. (2002)

Fawcett, R.G. and Collis-George, N., 1967, “A Filter-Paper Method for Determining the

Moisture Characteristics of Soil,” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and

Animal Husbandry, Vol. 7, pp. 162-167.

Fredlund, D.G., 1992, “How Negative Can Pore-Water Pressures Get?” Geotechnical News,

Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 44-46.

Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H., 1993, Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, John Wiley &

Sons Inc.

Fredlund, D.G. and Xing, A., 1994, “Equations for the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve,”

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 533-546.

Gardner, R., 1937, “A Method of Measuring the Capillary Tension of Soil Moisture over a

Wide Moisture Range,” Soil Science, Vol. 43, pp. 277-283.

Gasmo, J.M., 1997, “Stability of Unsaturated Residual Soil Slopes as Affected by Rainfall”,

Master Thesis, Nanyang Technological University.

Greacen, E.L., Walker, G.R., and Cook, P.G., 1987, “Evaluation of the Filter Paper Method

for Measuring Soil Water Suction,” International Conference on Measurement of Soil and

Plant Water Status, pp. 137-143.

Gradmann, M., 1934, “Über die Messung von Bodensaughkräften,” Jahrb. Wiss Bot., Vol.

80, pp. 92-111.

Gutierrez, C.I.G., 1985, “Assessment of Filter Paper Technique for the Measurement of Soil

Water Suction,” M.Sc. dissertation, Imperial College, London.

Hamblin, A.P., 1981, “Filter-Paper Method for Routine Measurement of Field Water

Potential,” Journal of Hydrology, Vo. 53, pp. 355-360.

Hansen, H.C., 1926, “The Water-Retaining Power of the Soil,” Journal of Ecology, Vol. 14,

pp 92-111.
 Leong et al. (2002)

Harrison, B.A. and Blight, G.E., 1998, “The Effect of Filter Paper and Psychrometer

Calibration Techniques on Soil Suction Measurements,” Proceedings of the Second

International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, International Academic Publishers,

Beijing, China, Vol. 1, pp. 362-367.

Houston, S.L., Houston, W.N. and Wagner, A.N., 1994, “Laboratory Filter Paper Suction

Measurements,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 185-194.

Lee, H.C. and Wray, W.K., 1992, “Evaluation of Soil Suction Instruments,” Proc. 7th

International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, USA, pp 307-312.

Marinho, F.A.M., 1994, “Shrinkage Behaviour of Some Plastic Clays,” Ph.D. thesis,

University of London.

McKeen, R.G., 1980, “Field Studies of Airport Pavements on Expansive Soils,” 4th

International Conference on Expansive Soils, pp. 242-261.

McKeen, R.G., 1985, “Validation of procedures for pavement design on expansive soil

behaviour,” Report No. DOT/FAA/PM-85/15. Washington, DC, USA.

McKeen, R.G., 1988, “Soil characterization using suction measurements,” 25th Proc. Paving

and Transp. Conf., University of Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.

McQueen, I.S. and Miller, R.F., 1968a, “Determination of a Soil Moisture Potential,” Water

in the Unsaturated Zone, Rijtema, P.E. and Wassink, H. (Eds), International Association

of Science and Hydrology Publication No. 82, pp. 147-155.

McQueen, I.S. and Miller, R.F., 1968b, “Calibration of a Wide-Range Gravimetric Method

for Measuring Moisture Stress,” Soil Science, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 225-231.

Miller, D.J. and Nelson, D., 1992, “Osmotic Suction as a Valid Stress State Variable in

Unsaturated Soils,” Proc. 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, USA,

pp 179-184.
 Leong et al. (2002)

Ridley, A.M., 1993, “The Measurement of Soil Moisture Suction,” Ph.D. thesis, University

of London.

Ridley, A.M., 1995, “Discussion on ‘Laboratory Filter Paper Suction Measurements’ by

Sandra L. Houston, William, N. Houston, and Anne-Marie Wagner,” Geotechnical Testing

Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 391-396.

Schröder, H., 1911, “Über die selektiv permeable hülle des weizenkornes”, Flora, Vol. 102,

pp. 186-208.

Sibley, J.W. and Williams, D.J., 1990, “A New Filter Material for Measuring Soil Suction,”

Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 381-384.

Sibley, J.W., Smyth, G.K. and Williams, D.J., 1990, “Suction-Moisture Content Calibration

of Filter Papers from Different Boxes,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 13,

No. 3, pp. 257-262.

Stocker, O., 1930, “Über die Messung von Bodensaughkräften und ihren verhältnis Suden

Wurzelsaughräften,” Z. Bot., Vol. 23, pp. 27-56.

Swarbrick, G.E., 1995, “Measurement of Soil Suction Using the Filter Paper Method,”

Unsaturated Soils: Proc. 1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, A.A.

Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 653-658.

van Genuchten, M.T., 1980, “A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting Hydraulic Conductivity

of Unsaturated Soils,” Journal of Soil Science Society of America, Vol. 44, pp. 892-898.

van der Raadt, P., Fredlund, D.G., Clifton, A.W., Klassen, M.J. and Jubien, 1987, “Soil

Suction Measurement at Several Sites in Western Canada,” Transportation Res. Rec.

1137, Soil Mech. Considerations in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas, Transportation Res. Board,

Washington, DC, pp. 24-35.

 Leong et al. (2002)

William, O.B. and Sedgley, R.H., 1965, “A Simplified Filter Paper Method for Determining

the 15-Atmosphere Percentage in Soils,” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

and Animal Husbandry, Vol. 5, pp. 201-205.

 Leong et al. (2002)

TABLE 1. Calibration curves for Whatman No. 42 and Schleicher & Schuell No. 589 filter
papers

(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

References Calibration Curves*
Hamblin (1981) log ψ = 8.022 - 3.683 log wf
Chandler and Gutierrez (1986) log ψ = 4.84 - 0.0622 wf wf < 47
Chandler et al. (1992) log ψ = 6.05 - 2.48 log wf wf ≥ 47
Greacen et al. (1987) log ψ = 5.327 - 0.0779 wf wf < 45.3
ASTM (1997) log ψ = 2.413 - 0.0135 wf wf ≥ 45.3
(b) Scheicher & Schuell No. 589 filter paper
References Calibration Curves*
McQueen and Miller (1968) log ψ = 5.238 - 0.0723 wf wf < 54
log ψ = 1.8966 - 0.01025 wf wf ≥ 54
Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974) log ψ = 4.136 - 0.0337 wf wf < 85
log ψ = 2.0021 - 0.009 wf wf ≥ 85
McKeen (1980) log ψ = 4.9 - 0.0624 wf wf < 66
log ψ = 1.25 - 0.0069 wf wf ≥ 66
Greacen et al. (1987) log ψ = 5.056 - 0.0688 wf wf < 54
ASTM (1997) log ψ = 1.882 - 0.0102 wf wf ≥ 54
*Note: ψ = suction in kPa, wf = filter paper water content in %
 Leong et al. (2002)

TABLE 2. Suction generation method used for filter paper calibration

Suction generation Suction Range References

method
Suction plate, pressure 0 - 1.5 MPa Fawcett and Collis-George (1967)
membrane extractor, McQueen and Miller (1968)
pressure plate Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974)
McKeen (1980)
Hamblin (1981)
Greacen et al. (1987)
Sibley and Williams (1990)
Sibley et al. (1990)
Houston et al. (1994)
Harrison and Blight (1998)
Salt Solutions 0 - 340 MPa Gardner (1937)
Fawcett and Collis-George (1967)
McQueen and Miller (1968)
Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974)
McKeen (1980)
Hamblin (1981)
Chandler and Gutierrez (1986)
El-Ehwany and Houston (1990)
Sibley and Williams (1990)
Sibley et al. (1990)
Houston et al. (1994)
Harrison and Blight (1998)
Field soil samples 0 - 2 MPa McQueen and Miller (1968)
Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974)
Odeometer & Triaxial 0.1 - 2 MPa Gutierrez (1985)
samples Duran (1986)
Chandler and Gutierrez (1986)
Chandler et al. (1992)
Centrifuge 0.1 - 3.1 MPa Gardner (1937)
 Leong et al. (2002)

TABLE 3. Equilibration times for filter paper method

References Equilibration time Filter paper method

Fawcett and Collis-George (1967) 6-7 days contact
McQueen and Miller (1968b) 7 days contact
Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974) 2 days contact and uncertain contact
Hamblin (1981) minutes - 36 days contact
Chandler and Gutierez (1986) 5 days contact
Duran (1986) 7 days non-contact
Greacen et al. (1987) 7 days contact
Sibley and Williams (1990) 3 days contact
10 days non-contact
Lee and Wray (1992) 14 days contact and non-contact
Houston et al. (1994) 7 days contact and non-contact
Harrison and Blight (1998) 7-10 days wetting and non-contact
21 days drying and non-contact
10 days wetting and contact
25-30 days drying and contact

TABLE 4. Sum of squared residuals for Equations 3 to 6 from calibration data for Whatman
No. 42 and Scheicher & Schuell No. 589 filter papers.

(a) Whatman No. 42 Filter paper

Suction No. of Bilinear equation van Genuchten Fredlund and Xing
type data points type equation type equation
Matric 20 159.8 (Eq. 3a) 229.0 (Eq. 5a) 189.5 (Eq. 6a)
Total 19 17.4 (Eq. 3b) 10.1 (Eq. 5b) 10.7 (Eq. 6b)

(b) Scheicher & Schuell No. 589 filter paper

Suction No. of Bilinear equation van Genuchten Fredlund and Xing
type data points type equation type equation
Matric 14 138.3 (Eq. 4a) 207.5 (Eq. 5c) 135.5 (Eq. 6c)
Total 17 23.3 (Eq. 4b) 16.2 (Eq. 5d) 19.2 (Eq. 6d)
 Leong et al. (2002)

TABLE 5. Index properties of Jurong sedimentary formation residual soil sample (data from
Gasmo 1997)

Plastic limit 26

Liquid limit 47

Plasticity index 21

Specific gravity 2.67

Bulk density (g/cm3) 2.14

Void ratio 0.75

USCS classification CL
 Leong et al. (2002)

TABLE 6. Soil suction measurements for Jurong sedimentary formation residual soil specimens

Induced Matric Suction Measurement Total Suction Measurement Determined

Matric (contact method) (non-contact method) from
Suction SWCC
(kPa) wf (%) Eq. 3a Eq. 5a Eq. 6a ASTM wf (%) Eq. 3b Eq. 5b Eq. 6b ASTM (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
200 39 209 230 218 194 29.2 198 305 323 1128 210
(+4.5%)* (+15%) (+9%) (-3%) (-1%) (+52.5%) (+61.5%) (+464%)
500 32.9 538 498 518 581 27.1 578 606 623 1644 520
(+7.6%) (-0.4%) (+3.6%) (+16.2%) (+15.6%) (+21.2%) (+24.6%) (+128.8%)
1400 27.6 1223 1107 1365 1503 23.8 1652 1479 1471 2972 -
(-12.6%) (-20.9%) (-2.5%) (+7.4%) (+18%) (+5.6%) (+5.1%) (+112.3%)
209 − 200
• % error computed in terms of induced matric suction, i.e. x100% = +4.5%
200
TABLE 7. Osmotic suction of Jurong sedimentary formation residual soil specimens

Induced Matric Osmotic Suction = Total Suction – Matric Suction

Suction (kPa)
(kPa) Eq. 3 Eq. 5 Eq. 6 ASTM
200 -11 75 105 934
500 40 108 105 1063
1400 429 372 106 1469

31
 1E+6
Hamblin (1981)

1E+5 Chandler and Gutierrez (1986)

Chandler et al. (1992)

1E+4
Suction (kPa)

Greacen (1987), ASTM (D5298-94)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Filter paper water content (%)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper
1E+6
McQueen and Miller (1968)

1E+5 Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974)

McKeen (1980)
1E+4
Suction (kPa)

Greacen (1987), ASTM (D5298-94)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Filter paper water content (%)
(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 1 Calibration curves for filter papers

32
 1E+6
Authors' data
Fawcett and Collis-George (1967)
1E+5 Hamblin (1981)
Chandler & Gutierrez (1986)
1E+4 From solution Sibley and Williams (1990)
Ridley (1995)
Suction (kPa)

Harrison and Blight (1998)

1E+3

1E+2 From suction plate, pressure plate,

and pressure membrane extractor

1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Filter paper water content (%)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

1E+6
Authors' data
Gardner (1937)
1E+5
McQueen and Miller (1968)

From solution Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974)

1E+4
Suction (kPa)

Harrison and Blight (1998)

1E+3

1E+2 From suction plate, pressure plate,

and pressure membrane extractor

1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Filter paper water content (%)
(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 2 Calibration data for filter papers

33
 1E+6
Fawcett and Collis-George (1967)
Hamblin (1981)
1E+5 Gutierrez (1985)
Duran (1986)
1E+4 Chandler & Gutierrez (1986)
Suction (kPa)

Chandler et al. (1992)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Filter paper water content (%)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

1E+6
Gardner (1937)
1E+5 McQueen and Miller (1968)

1E+4 Al-Khafaf and Hanks (1974)

Suction (kPa)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Filter paper water content (%)
(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 3 Calibration data of filter papers using soil samples of "known" matric suctions

34
 1E+6
Ridley (1995) - drying
Ridley (1995) - wetting
1E+5 Harrison and Blight (1998) - drying
From solution
Harrison and Blight (1998) - wetting
1E+4 Authors - drying
Suction (kPa)

Authors - wetting
1E+3

1E+2

1E+1 From suction plate, pressure plate,

and pressure membrane extractor

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Filter paper water content (%)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

1E+6
McQueen and Miller (1968) - drying
From solution McQueen and Miller (1968) - wetting
1E+5 Harrison and Blight (1998) - drying
Harrison and Blight (1998) - wetting
Authors - drying
1E+4
Authors - wetting
Suction (kPa)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1 From suction plate, pressure plate,

and pressure membrane extractor
1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Filter paper water content (%)

(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 4 Drying and wetting responses of filter papers

35
 160
Distilled water (0 kPa)- drying
140 Distilled water(0 kPa) - wetting
Salt solution (9700 kPa) - drying
Filter paper water content (%)

120 Salt solution (9700 kPa) - wetting

In air (70000 kPa)- drying
100
In air (70000 kPa)- wetting
80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Duration (days)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

160
Distilled water (0 kPa)- drying
140 Distilled water (0 kPa)- wetting
Salt solution (9700 kPa) - drying
Filter paper water content (%)

120 Salt solution (9700 kPa) - wetting

In air (70000 kPa)- drying
100 In air (70000 kPa)- wetting

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Duration (days)
(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 5 Drying and wetting behavior of filter papers under three different conditions

36
 1E+5
Drying
Wetting
1E+4
Suction (kPa)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Filter paper water content (%)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

1E+5
Drying
Wetting
1E+4
Suction (kPa)

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Filter paper water content (%)
(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 6 Drying and wetting responses of filter paper over different concentrations of salt
solutions in desiccators at 24±0.2oC

37
 80
Pressure plate - 20 kPa
Pressure plate - 40 kPa
70 Pressure plate - 60 kPa
Pressure plate - 100 kPa
Pressure plate - 1000 kPa
Filter paper water content (%)
60 Pressure plate - 1500 kPa
Salt solution - 910 kPa
50 Salt solution - 1810 kPa
Salt solution - 3190 kPa
Salt solution - 9700 kPa
40 Distilled water - 0 kPa

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Duration (days)
(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper
80
Pressure plate - 1000 kPa
Pressure plate - 1500 kPa
70 Salt solution - 910 kPa
Filter paper water content (%)

Salt solution - 1810 kPa

60 Salt solution - 3190 kPa
Salt solution - 9700 kPa
50 Distilled water - 0 kPa

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Duration (days)
(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 7 Equilibration of filter papers in pressure plate apparatus, over salt solutions and over
distilled water in 500-ml containers

38
 1E+6
Matric suction test data
Equations 3a
1E+5
Total suction test data
Equations 3b
1E+4
Suction (kPa)

1E+3
Matric suction
1E+2
Total suction
1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Filter paper water content (%)

(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

1E+6
Matric suction test data
Equations 4a
1E+5
Total suction test data
Equations 4b
1E+4
Suction (kPa)

1E+3
Matric suction
1E+2
Total suction
1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Filter paper water content (%)

(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 8 Total and matric calibration curves of Whatman No. 42 and S&S 589 filter papers
with authors’ data

39
FIG. 9 Suction profile versus depth obtained using thermal couple psychrometers and the
filter paper method (from van der Raadt et al. 1987)

40
 1E+6
Matric suction test data
Sibley and Williams (1990)
1E+5 Equation 5a
Equation 6a
Total suction test data
1E+4
Equation 5b
Suction (kPa)

Equation 6b
1E+3
Matric suction
calibration curves
1E+2
Total suction
calibration curves
1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Filter paper water content (%)

(a) Whatman No. 42 filter paper

1E+6
Matric suction test data
Equation 5c
1E+5 Equation 6c
Total suction test data
1E+4 Equation 5d
Suction (kPa)

Equation 6d

1E+3
Matric suction
1E+2 calibration curves
Total suction
calibration curves
1E+1

1E+0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Filter paper water content (%)

(b) S&S 589 filter paper

FIG. 10 Possible equations for total and matric suction calibration curves of Whatman No. 42
and S&S 589 filter papers

41
 100
90
80
Percent finer (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain diameter (mm)

Sand
Silt or Clay
Medium Fine

FIG. 11 Grain size distribution for residual soil (data from Gasmo, 1997)

42
 35
Water content (%)

30

25

20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Matric suction (kPa)

FIG. 12 Drying soil-water characteristic curve of residual soil from pressure plate test (data
from Gasmo, 1997)

43

View publication stats