The Application of Image Analysis Techniques to Microstructure Studies in Geotechnical Engineering

  • Shobha K. Bhatia
  • Aly Soliman
Part of the Frontiers in Sedimentary Geology book series (SEDIMENTARY)


The microstructure (fabric*) of granular soils is defined as the spatial arrangement of particles and associated voids (Brewer, 1964; Oda, 1972). Research has shown that the microstructure of granular soils play important roles in the soils’ engineering behavior and properties. It is also believed that the behavior of granular materials can be evaluated by studying their micro-structures. Techniques for studying microstructure of granular soils include nonoptical and optical methods. The nonoptical methods are mainly used to determine the pore size distribution and coordination number of granular materials (see Juang, 1981; Oda, 1977). For the optical methods, a microscope, either light or electron, is used to extract information from thin sections or photographs of thin sections. Quantitative analysis is performed manually using a microscope equipped with a mechanical stage and a point counter (Oda, 1976; Mitchell et al., 1976).


Thin Section Pore Size Distribution Gray Level Binary Image Void Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berryman, J.G., 1985. Measurement of spatial correlation functions using image processing techniques. Journal of Applied Physics, v. 57 (7), p. 2374–2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatia, S.K., and A. Soliman, 1990. Frequency distribution of void ratio of granular materials determined by an image analyzer. Soil and Foundation, March, v. 30, No. 1, p. 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatia, S.K., E. Nye, and A. Soliman, 1986. Image analysis application for soil fabric study. South Asian Regional Conference, December 3–6, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, R., 1964. Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils. Wiley, New York, 470 p.Google Scholar
  5. Childs, E.C., and N. Collis-George, 1950a. The permeability of porous materials. Proceedings Royal Society Series, A, v. 201, p. 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Childs, E.C., and N. Collis-George, 1950b. Movement of moisture in unsaturated soils. Transactions, International Congress Soil Science, Amsterdam, I, p. 1–4.Google Scholar
  7. Duda, R., and P. Hart, 1973. Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. Wiley, New York, 482 p.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrlich, R., S.K. Kennedy, S.J. Crabtree, andR.L. Cannon, 1984. Petrographic image analysis, image analysis of reservoir pore complexes. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 54 (4), p. 1365–1378.Google Scholar
  9. Etris, E.L., D.S. Brumfield, R. Ehrlich, and S.J. Crabtree, 1988. Relations between pores throats and permeabilities: a petrographic/physical analysis of some carbonate grainstone and packstones. Carbonates and Evaporates, v. 3 (1), p. 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Juang, C., 1981. Pore size distribution of sandy soils and the prediction of permeability. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  11. Marshall, T.J., 1958. A relationship between permeability and size distribution of pores. Journal of Soil Science, v. 9, p. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Masounave, J., R. Denis, and A.L. Rollin, 1980. Prediction of hydraulic properties of synthetic non-woven fabrics used in geotechnical work. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 17, p. 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millington, R.J., and J.P. Quirk, 1961. Permeability of porous solids. Transactions, Faraday Society, v. 57, p. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitchell, J.K., J.M. Chatoian, and G.C. Carpenter, 1976. The influence of sand fabric on liquefaction behavior. Report to U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
  15. Murphy, C.P., P. Bullock, andR.H. Turner, 1977. The measurement and characterization of voids in soil thin sections by image analysis. Part I, Principles and Techniques. Journal of Soil Science, v. 28, p. 498–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nye, E.S., 1985. An investigation into structure-permeability relations of an Ottawa sand. M.S. Thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
  17. Oda, M., 1972. Initial fabrics and their relations to mechanical properties of granular materials. Soils and Foundations, v. 12 (1), p. 17–36.Google Scholar
  18. Oda, M. 1976. Fabrics and their effects on the deformation behaviors of sand. Special Issue, Department of Foundation Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Saitama University, Japan.Google Scholar
  19. Oda, M., 1977. Co-ordination number of its relation to shear strength of granular material. Soils and Foundations, v. 17 (2), p. 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rollin, A.L., and G. Lombard, 1988. Mechanisms affecting long-term filtration behavior of geotextiles. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, v. 7, p. 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosen, D., 1984. Instruments for optical microscope-image analysis. In: Barer, R., and V.E. Cosslett, (eds.), Advances in optical and electron microscope, v. 9. Academic Press, London and New York, p. 323–354.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenfeld, A., and A.C. Kak, 1976. Digital picture processing. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Russ, C.J., 1985. Practical stereology, special printing for Dapple Systems, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Underwood, E.E., 1970. Quantitative Stereology. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shobha K. Bhatia
  • Aly Soliman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations