Quantification of the pore size distribution of soils

Assessment of existing software using tomographic and synthetic 3D images

A. N. Houston , W. Otten, R. Falconer, O. Monga, P. C. Baveye, S. M. Hapca (Lead / Corresponding author)

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    7 Citations (Scopus)
    29 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The pore size distribution (PSD) of the void space is widely used to predict a range of processes in soils. Recent advances in X-ray computed tomography (CT) now afford novel ways to obtain exact data on pore geometry, which has stimulated the development of algorithms to estimate the pore size distribution from 3D data sets. To date there is however no clear consensus on how PSDs should be estimated, and in what form PSDs are best presented. In this article, we first review the theoretical principles shared by the various methods for PSD estimation. Then we select methods that are widely adopted in soil science and geoscience, and we use a robust statistical method to compare their application to synthetic image samples, for which analytical solutions of PSDs are available, and X-ray CT images of soil samples selected from different treatments to obtain wide ranging PSDs. Results indicate that, when applied to the synthetic images, all methods presenting PSDs as pore volume per class size (i.e., Avizo, CTAnalyser, BoneJ, Quantim4, and DTM), perform well. Among them, the methods based on Maximum Inscribed Balls (Bone J, CTAnalyser, Quantim4) also produce similar PSDs for the soil samples, whereas the Delaunay Triangulation Method (DTM) produces larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by small pores, and Avizo yields larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by large pores. By contrast, the methods that calculate PSDs as object population fraction per volume class (Avizo, 3DMA, DFS-FIJI) perform inconsistently on the synthetic images and do not appear well suited to handle the more complex geometries of soils. It is anticipated that the extensive evaluation of method performance carried out in this study, together with the recommendations reached, will be useful to the porous media community to make more informed choices relative to suitable PSD estimation methods, and will help improve current practice, which is often ad hoc and heuristic.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)73-82
    Number of pages10
    JournalGeoderma
    Volume299
    Early online date6 Apr 2017
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

    Fingerprint

    software
    soil
    triangulation
    methodology
    computed tomography
    tomography
    X-radiation
    soil sampling
    method
    geometry
    soil science
    porous media
    estimation method
    heuristics
    void
    porous medium
    bone
    statistical analysis
    bones
    sampling

    Keywords

    • Porous media
    • Soil
    • Pore size
    • Distribution
    • Computed tomography
    • X-ray

    Cite this

    Houston , A. N. ; Otten, W. ; Falconer, R. ; Monga, O. ; Baveye, P. C. ; Hapca, S. M. / Quantification of the pore size distribution of soils : Assessment of existing software using tomographic and synthetic 3D images. In: Geoderma. 2017 ; Vol. 299. pp. 73-82.
    @article{8a28b8c5d7024bf59a08da97a9670017,
    title = "Quantification of the pore size distribution of soils: Assessment of existing software using tomographic and synthetic 3D images",
    abstract = "The pore size distribution (PSD) of the void space is widely used to predict a range of processes in soils. Recent advances in X-ray computed tomography (CT) now afford novel ways to obtain exact data on pore geometry, which has stimulated the development of algorithms to estimate the pore size distribution from 3D data sets. To date there is however no clear consensus on how PSDs should be estimated, and in what form PSDs are best presented. In this article, we first review the theoretical principles shared by the various methods for PSD estimation. Then we select methods that are widely adopted in soil science and geoscience, and we use a robust statistical method to compare their application to synthetic image samples, for which analytical solutions of PSDs are available, and X-ray CT images of soil samples selected from different treatments to obtain wide ranging PSDs. Results indicate that, when applied to the synthetic images, all methods presenting PSDs as pore volume per class size (i.e., Avizo, CTAnalyser, BoneJ, Quantim4, and DTM), perform well. Among them, the methods based on Maximum Inscribed Balls (Bone J, CTAnalyser, Quantim4) also produce similar PSDs for the soil samples, whereas the Delaunay Triangulation Method (DTM) produces larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by small pores, and Avizo yields larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by large pores. By contrast, the methods that calculate PSDs as object population fraction per volume class (Avizo, 3DMA, DFS-FIJI) perform inconsistently on the synthetic images and do not appear well suited to handle the more complex geometries of soils. It is anticipated that the extensive evaluation of method performance carried out in this study, together with the recommendations reached, will be useful to the porous media community to make more informed choices relative to suitable PSD estimation methods, and will help improve current practice, which is often ad hoc and heuristic.",
    keywords = "Porous media , Soil, Pore size, Distribution, Computed tomography, X-ray",
    author = "Houston, {A. N.} and W. Otten and R. Falconer and O. Monga and Baveye, {P. C.} and Hapca, {S. M.}",
    note = "RF, PB, OM and WO received support from the French ANR (projects ANR-09-SYSCOM MEPSOM and ANR-15-CE01-0006 Soilµ-3D).",
    year = "2017",
    month = "8",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.025",
    language = "English",
    volume = "299",
    pages = "73--82",
    journal = "Geoderma",
    issn = "0016-7061",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    Quantification of the pore size distribution of soils : Assessment of existing software using tomographic and synthetic 3D images. / Houston , A. N.; Otten, W.; Falconer, R.; Monga, O.; Baveye, P. C.; Hapca, S. M. (Lead / Corresponding author).

    In: Geoderma, Vol. 299, 01.08.2017, p. 73-82.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Quantification of the pore size distribution of soils

    T2 - Assessment of existing software using tomographic and synthetic 3D images

    AU - Houston , A. N.

    AU - Otten, W.

    AU - Falconer, R.

    AU - Monga, O.

    AU - Baveye, P. C.

    AU - Hapca, S. M.

    N1 - RF, PB, OM and WO received support from the French ANR (projects ANR-09-SYSCOM MEPSOM and ANR-15-CE01-0006 Soilµ-3D).

    PY - 2017/8/1

    Y1 - 2017/8/1

    N2 - The pore size distribution (PSD) of the void space is widely used to predict a range of processes in soils. Recent advances in X-ray computed tomography (CT) now afford novel ways to obtain exact data on pore geometry, which has stimulated the development of algorithms to estimate the pore size distribution from 3D data sets. To date there is however no clear consensus on how PSDs should be estimated, and in what form PSDs are best presented. In this article, we first review the theoretical principles shared by the various methods for PSD estimation. Then we select methods that are widely adopted in soil science and geoscience, and we use a robust statistical method to compare their application to synthetic image samples, for which analytical solutions of PSDs are available, and X-ray CT images of soil samples selected from different treatments to obtain wide ranging PSDs. Results indicate that, when applied to the synthetic images, all methods presenting PSDs as pore volume per class size (i.e., Avizo, CTAnalyser, BoneJ, Quantim4, and DTM), perform well. Among them, the methods based on Maximum Inscribed Balls (Bone J, CTAnalyser, Quantim4) also produce similar PSDs for the soil samples, whereas the Delaunay Triangulation Method (DTM) produces larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by small pores, and Avizo yields larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by large pores. By contrast, the methods that calculate PSDs as object population fraction per volume class (Avizo, 3DMA, DFS-FIJI) perform inconsistently on the synthetic images and do not appear well suited to handle the more complex geometries of soils. It is anticipated that the extensive evaluation of method performance carried out in this study, together with the recommendations reached, will be useful to the porous media community to make more informed choices relative to suitable PSD estimation methods, and will help improve current practice, which is often ad hoc and heuristic.

    AB - The pore size distribution (PSD) of the void space is widely used to predict a range of processes in soils. Recent advances in X-ray computed tomography (CT) now afford novel ways to obtain exact data on pore geometry, which has stimulated the development of algorithms to estimate the pore size distribution from 3D data sets. To date there is however no clear consensus on how PSDs should be estimated, and in what form PSDs are best presented. In this article, we first review the theoretical principles shared by the various methods for PSD estimation. Then we select methods that are widely adopted in soil science and geoscience, and we use a robust statistical method to compare their application to synthetic image samples, for which analytical solutions of PSDs are available, and X-ray CT images of soil samples selected from different treatments to obtain wide ranging PSDs. Results indicate that, when applied to the synthetic images, all methods presenting PSDs as pore volume per class size (i.e., Avizo, CTAnalyser, BoneJ, Quantim4, and DTM), perform well. Among them, the methods based on Maximum Inscribed Balls (Bone J, CTAnalyser, Quantim4) also produce similar PSDs for the soil samples, whereas the Delaunay Triangulation Method (DTM) produces larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by small pores, and Avizo yields larger estimates of the pore volume occupied by large pores. By contrast, the methods that calculate PSDs as object population fraction per volume class (Avizo, 3DMA, DFS-FIJI) perform inconsistently on the synthetic images and do not appear well suited to handle the more complex geometries of soils. It is anticipated that the extensive evaluation of method performance carried out in this study, together with the recommendations reached, will be useful to the porous media community to make more informed choices relative to suitable PSD estimation methods, and will help improve current practice, which is often ad hoc and heuristic.

    KW - Porous media

    KW - Soil

    KW - Pore size

    KW - Distribution

    KW - Computed tomography

    KW - X-ray

    U2 - 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.025

    DO - 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.025

    M3 - Article

    VL - 299

    SP - 73

    EP - 82

    JO - Geoderma

    JF - Geoderma

    SN - 0016-7061

    ER -