ABDOLHAKEM O MOHAMED.
FK 2004 53
BY
ABDOLHAKEM 0 MOHAMED
June 2004
ABDOLHAKEM 0 MOHAMED
June 2004
Engineering
Db, organic matter, OM, or porosity, E,). However, the results from different
measuring techniques vary under different field conditions. In this study of
Serdang Series soils found in the Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) campus, soil K,
values were collected at different depths using three direct methods. Estimation of
K, were done using six empirical models. The direct methods were in situ
techniques of Guelph Permeameter (GP) and double ring infiltrometer (DRI), and
constant head pcrrneameters (SCHP), a laboratory technique on intact soil cores
extracted from the same site at different depths. Predictive models included models
of Cosby et al. ( 1 984); Brakensiek et al (1984); Saxton et a1 (1986); Vereccken et
al. (1990); Sabro (1992) and Amin et al. (1997). In this study of K, in the vadose
zone, the focus was towards comparison of measurements in the field to those of
extracted samples from the same site, but determined by laboratory testing, under
controlled condition, and those estimated from empirical models. In addition, a
model was developed for determining K, values based on seven basic soil
properties (sand, silt, clay, Db, moisture content (MC), E and OM). The results of
the comparison showed that the geometric mean of K, values obtained by the three
~ 1.315 x 1 02cm
experimental methods varied from 7.333 x 1o  to
SI
(6.34 x 1 o'
m I day to 11.36 m 1 day). The GP method yielded the widest range from 7.333 x
1 08to 1.654 x 1 03cm s' while the SCHP yielded the narrowest range from 4.4 x
10" to 1.315 x
for the SCHP compared to the GP method and were significantly different at all
depths. Measurements of Ks for the soil under consideration indicate that the DRI
and GP methods provided reasonable similar values at the topsoil layer (01 5 cm).
While the geometric mean Ks values measured by the DRI method was statistically
different from those obtained by SCHP method at 01 5 cm depth.
The laboratory technique yielded greater standard deviation (SD) at the 30 cm and
60 cni depths. Some soil cores may have more macropores than others. whereas the
coefficient of variation values were greater for the GP method. The GP produced
in situ calculation of Kfs in a relatively short time (25 to 90 minutes for a single
measurement) compared to DRI (1 201 80 minutes) and SCHP (1 5001 660
minutes).
The results of the multiplc regression analysis indicated that the significant Inter
relationship between K, and the input variables at each depth. These relationships
however were different at each depth. The best models found from this study at
depth of 0 15 cm, have silt. sand, E, and MC; at depths of 1530 cm have silt. sand,
and E;at depths of 3060 cm have clay, sand, OM, and MC: and at depths of 6090
cm silt. Db and E with values of R'= 0.57, 0.50, 0.41 and 0.74, respectively.
In this study the geometric mean error ratio (GMER) and geometric standard
deviation error ratio (GSDER) were used to evaluate the applicability of the
selected empirical models. The results showed that model o f Amin et a1 (1997)
produced noticeably best results with GMER closest to 1 (0.54) and the lowest
GSDER (7.64) of the models tested here. This is followed by the Jabro (1992)
model with GMER (0.43) and GSDER (10.22), then Brakensiek et a1 (1984) with
GMER (0.43) and GSDER (15.6). It consequently appeared, at least for this soil
(Serdang Series), that of the six models compared in this study. the Amin et a1
model was the model of choice for the prediction of K,. The second best model was
labro model whereas the model of Brakensiek et al. ranked third.
%fif'USTAKAAN U T A F I
WVE4lW WTRA L
U
U
W
Abstrak tesis yang dikcmukakan kepada Senat Universiti I'utra Malaysia sebagai
memenuhi keperluan untuk 1jazah Master Sains
ARDOLHAKEM O MOHAMED
Jun 2004
Pengurusi:
Fakulti:
Kejuruteraan
Ketertelapan tepu tanah (K,) adalah ukuran kemampuan tanah untuk mengalirkan
air dalam keadaan tepu. Penyerapan, saliran dan pencemaran air bawah tanah
sangat dipengaruhi oleh magnitud dan taburan spatial dilapaugan ketertelapan tepu
tanah (K,,) dalam zon vados. Ada beberapa kaedah bagi menganggarkan K,
antaranya ukuran terus dalam makmal atau di situ dan menggunakan data asas
bahan organik (OM) dan Keliangan tanah
tanah seperti tekstur, ketumpatan (Db),
(DRI) suatu teknik di situ, dan permeameter turus tetap (SCHP), suatu teknik
makmal ke atas teras tanah jrang tidak diganggu dan diperolehi di kawasan yang
sama pada kedalaman yang berbeza. Sementara model ramalan termasuk model
Cosby et al. (1984), Brakensiek et a]. (1984), Saxton et al. (1986), Vereecken ct al.
( 1990), Jabro et a]. ( 1992) dan Amin et al. ( 1997). Objektif utama kajian kc dalam
zon vados ini ialah untuk membandingkan K, di lapangan yang disctkan dcngan
sampcl yang diperolehi di lapangan yang sama, tctapi ditentukan oleh ujian
makmal, dan juga
hingga
menghasilkan jarak nilai paling kecil iaitu 7.33 x lo' hingga 1.654 x 1 o4 sm s",
sementara SCHP jarak nilai paling besar iaitu dari 4.4 x 10" hingga 1.31 5 x 10
'
sm sI. Purata nilai geometrik Ks adalah 27 hingga 360 kali lebih besar bagi SCHP
berbanding kaedah GP dan adalah berbeza secara bererti untuk semua kedalaman.
Kajian ini juga menunjukkan nilai K, yang diukur oleh kaedah DRI adalah tidak
berbeza secara statistik dengan nilai yang diperolehi oleh kaedah GP pada
kedalamam 0 15 sm tetapi berbeza secara statistik dengan yang diperolehi daripada
kaedah SCHP.
Teknik makmal menghasilkan sisihan piawai (SD) yang lebih besar pada
kedalaman 30 dan 60 sm. Kemungkinan ada teras tanah mempunyai lebih banyak
rongga daripada yang lain, sebaliknya nilai pekali perbezaan (CV) adalah lebih
besar untuk kaedah GP. Kaedah GP menghasilkan anggaran pengiraan Kl., di situ
dalam masa yang singkat secara relatif
pengwkuran) berbanding dengan DRI ( 1 20 1 80 minit) dan SCHP ( 1 500 1660
minit).
Dalam kajian ini purata kadar ralat geometri (GMER) d m kadar ralat sisihan
piawai (GSDER) digunakan untuk inenilai kebolehgunaan kaedah model ramalan
yang telah dipilih. Keputusan kajian ini menunjukkan model Amin et al. (1997)
menghasilkan keputusan terbaik dengan GMER menghampiri 1 (0.54) dan GSDER
(7.64) terendah diikuti oleh model Jabro (1992) dengan GMER (0.43) dan GSDER
(1 0.22) dan seterusnya Brakensiek et al. ( 1 984) dengan GMER (0.43) dan GSDER
(15.6). Dalan kajian ini setelah perbandingan dibuat ke atas enam model untuk
tanah siri Serdang, model Amin adalah model yang dipilih untuk menganggarkan
nilai K,. Model kedua terbaik adalah model Jabro sementara model Brakensiek
adalah yang kctiga.
Pcrbandingan antara kaedah tclah dihalang oleh beberapa factor. Adalah susah
untuk mernbezakan keberubahan K, secara spatial dan ralat yang berkait dengan
kaedah yang digunakan dan perbezaan isipadu sampcl serta bilangan sampel.
Perbandingan dibuat antara perbezaan ukuran dalam lapangan adalah bergantung
kepada perbezaan semulajadi tanah yang mungkin lebih besar daripada perbezaan
antara kaedah. Keputusan daripada kajian ini memberikan panduan awal
menggunakan kaedahkaedah tersebut khasnya pada tanah yang sama dan
kedalaman yang ditentukan. Kaedah yang paling sesuai untuk menentukan K, bagi
sejenis tanah yang paling prodiktif di sekitar Sin Serdang amatlah berguna kepada
sektor pertanian.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, all praise be directed to Allah (SWT) for making all
things possible, Alhamdulillah.
I am grateful to the People of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Omer Almukhtar University who provided me the scholarship for pursuing the Master
degree at Universiti Putra Malaysia. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to
Univeristi Putra Malaysia for some financial support to the study.
I certify that an Examination Committee met on 14Ih June 2004 to conduct the final
examination of Abdolhakem 0. Mohamed on his Master of Science thesis entitled
"Evaluation of Techniques for Determination of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in
the Vadose Zone" in accordance with Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (Higher Degree)
Act 1980 and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (Higher Degree) Regulations 1981. The
Committee recommends that the candidate be awarded the relevant degree. Members
of the Examination Committee are as follows:
ProfessodDeputy ~ e g n
School of Graduate Studies
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Date:
2 6 AUG 2004
This thesis submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has been
accepted as fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. The
members of the Supervisory Committee are as follows:
Date:
xii
1 0 SEP 2004
DECLARATION
I hercby declare that the thesis is based on my original work exccpt for quotations
and citations which have been duly acknowledged. I also dcclarc that it has not
bccn previously or currently submitted for any other d e g c e at Univcrsiti Putra
Malaysia or othcr institutions.
Date:
56
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
ACKNOWLEDGEMEKTS
APPROVAL
DECLARATION
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
LIST OF SYMBOLES
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
General
Statement of the Problem
Objectives of the Study
Thesis Organisation
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In Situ Vadose Zone Methods
Guelph Perrneameter
Double Ring Infiltrometer, DRI
Laboratory Method, SCHP
Comparison of Methods
Empirical Models
Theoretical considerations of the SCHP, DRI, and
GP methods
Laboratory method using SCHP
Ring Infiltrometer method, DRI
Guelph Permeameter method, GP
Factors Affecting Soil K Values
Soil Texture and Structure
Soil Heterogeneity
Smearing, remolding and siltation
Air Entrapment
Capillarity
Solution analysis methods
Summary
x
xi
...
Xlll
xvii
xix
xxi
xxii
I11
V1
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
BIODATA OF THE AUTHOR
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
4. 1
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4 .
102
4.10
4.1 1
sviii
170
LIST O F FIGURES
2.1
2.2
Schematic tcst setup for constant head and lalling head lest.\;
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
3.2
4.3
3.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.1 0
4.1 1
Measured Ks vs. predicted for coniplete date set of the stud) area. 160
4.12
4.13
;I
LIST OF PLATES
J'late
1';1gc
3.1
X4
3.2
01
3 . 3
3.4
4.1
Plate 4.1 through 4.4 show soil profiles at the study area
SSI
LIST O F SYMBOLS
Description
unit
Bulk Density
Real Density
Liquid density
Dynamic viscosity
Steady Discharge
Steady Discharge at hydraulic head ( H I )
Steady Discharge at hydraulic head (Hz)
Hydraulic conductivity
Intrinsic permeability
Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Field Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Geometric mean saturated hydraulic conductivity
Maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity
Minimum saturated hydraulic conductivity
Horizontal saturated hydraulic conductivity
Vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity
The hydraulic or potential gradient
Acceleration due to gravity
Sorptive number
Matric flux potential
Infiltration flux through (x, y, and z) directions
Depth of water level in the borehole
Hydraulic Head
Depth of water ponded at soil core surface
Infiltration Rate
Final infiltration rate
Measured cunlulative infiltration
Organic Mattes
Soil moisture content
Porosity
Number of samples or observations
Length of the intact sample
Crosssection area of the core or brass ring
Internal diameter of the brass ring
Radius of the brass ring
Volume of the cylindrical core
length of the cylindrical core
Time
Weight of the air dry soil
Rate of fall of' water level in GI' rcservois
Coefficient of \,ariation
Standard deviation
g Clll
g cm'
g c111'
ssii
i
poisc
c111.;sen1 ; s I
cn1;s I
cm s'
3
emem s  '
cm s I
Clll sI
cm
em's'
Clll
c ni
cI l l
cI l l
I
R?
v
S
Si
C'
SE
SII
GI1
C11WP
SCHP
AH
DRI
RI
I PM
DTM
WP
SWPT
SI
TI
FI
G1
PM
PTF
Hz02
GMER
GSDER
PSD
RMSE
RMSR
RMSD
UPM
FA0
USBR
LJSDA
Coefficient of n~ultipledcterniination
Correlation cocl'ficient
variance
Sand
Silt
Clay
Simultaneous 1:quation analysis
Single Head analysis
Guclph permeameter method
Constant Head Well Perniean~etermethod
Constant Head I'ernieametcr method
Auger hole method
Double Ring Inliltrometer method
Ring Infiltronieter
I~istantaneousprofile method
Double Tube Method
Wcll Permeameter
Shallow Water Pernieameter Technique
Sprinkler infiltrometer
Tension infiltrometer
Furrow infiltrometer
Guclpl~infiltrometer
Predictive Model
Pedotransfer function
H! drogen peroxide %
Gcometric mean error ratio
Gcometric standard deviation of error ratio
Paliiclesize distribution
Root mean squared error
Root mean squared of residuals
Root mean squared deviations
Ll~liversitiPutra Malaysia.
Food Agricultural Organization
U~litcdStates Bureau of Reclamation
llliitcd States Department of Agriculture
ssiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
General
Reliable application of most soil water flow theory and the reliability of the
results with numerical models developed for simulating water flow and chemicals
transport in the vadose zone is chiefly linked to the accuracy with which soil
hydraulic properties are determined. Therefore, accurate determination of soil
hydraulic properties such as K,, is considered crucial for successful groundwater
development, designing drainage and imgation systems, and management
practice. Obviously demand for accurate K data for field soils has increased as
related environmental issues have gained prominence, as the use of soil water
simulation models has also increased.
During the past years evaluation of soil K, has occupied the attention of
many researchers and considerable research has addressed on developing and
testing various methods and techniques for determining its value. They are various
methods or techniques used to measure or estimate soil K. They can be classified
as direct and indirect techniques. The direct methods fall into two types depending
on whether the soil was tested in situ or whether the soil samples were transported
to the laboratory for testing by either constant head or falling head technique.
In order to obtain more accuracy values of soil K,, field techniques are
preferable because the sensitivity of the soil K, to soil structure and generally the
soil sample volume is larger and less disturbed than laboratory techniques. Soil K
is determined in situ by means of a variety of techniques based on forcing water
into the soil (vadose zone area) or removing it under control (below water table).
The most accurate methods are those used in the field in the presence of a water
table such as auger hole (AH) method which is the only method that is possible to
be used in the field on all types of Malaysian soils. However, its implementation
for K, measurements rely on the presence of a shallow water table. Hence, it could
not be used to investigate soil K,, of the vadose zone area (deep water table) which
is needed to plan and design works for the future where the groundwater level is
expected to rise. Therefore, the AH method was not used in this study which
focused on the field measurements of Ks in the vadose zone.
Usually for field methods in the absence of shallow water table (vadose
zone region), a portion of the soil must be wetted before a measurement of Ks can
be done. These include ring infiltrometer methods (RI), double tube method (DT),
airentry permeameter method (AEP), and various well permeameter methods
(WP). These have been described in several monographs by Bouwer and Jackson
(1 974); Amoozegar and Warrick (1986), and Oosterbaan and Nijland (1994).
.~ER~USTAKAANN T W M@lk
m m WTW LUUy
instance, air entry permeameter is the most rapid method for the measurement of
K, of the v adose zone soil. However, this method tends t o become tedious for
deeper 1 ayers. The double ring infiltration m ethod (DM) h as b een used o n s oil
surface and subsoil, but it requires excavation of the upper soil layers (or
construction of a pit). Less destructive techniques such as DT (Bouwer, 1962) and
the percolation test (PT) (Kessler and Oosterbaan, 1974) have been used to
measure K,of subsoil in situ. However, measurements at depths greater than the
iength of the apparatus require construction of a pit. These methods also result in
fair to poor accuracy in the K, values due to largely undefined boundary
conditions.
The constant head well permeameter, CHWP, is the only field technique
that can be used to evaluate in situ I& of the vadose zone at deep depths. The early
designs of this method have been criticized for its serious drawbacks in the
techniques, and equipment used were subject to large operation and human errors,
time and water requirement and the theoretical background for calculation. So it
has been very little application in soil science over the past 30 years. However,
modified procedure and improvement apparatus, recently called Guelph
permeameter, GP, have increased the soil Ks reliability in less than one hour and
using little water.
The GP method, however, is the most useful field method where the water
table is deep (vadose zone case). It is widely used and the most promising
approach for assessment of soil's K s near saturation. Moreover, it is simple, easy
to employ, portable, durable, repeatable and allows rapid Kfs calculation. In
addition, the method also yields a combination of vertical Kfs and horizontal Kf,
representing the actual situation in the field and suitable for various types of soils
(Ragab and Cooper, 1990).
in the representing the physical system with the partial differential equations
selected. Furthermore, the method must optimize several interrelated factors,
including accuracy, speed, simplicity, portability, manpower, capital cost etc. (Lee
The criteria most often used for assessing the relative merits of a method
are the accuracy of the parameter estimates used, soil type, and various practical
constraints on the investigation. Another consideration would be the repeatability;
spatial resaturation and nondestructiveness, ease of operation, and time required
making several sets of K, measurements.
properties of the soil. Obviously. many of these prediction models have been
derived from regression analysis of data obtained from soils of a limited region:
therefore applying these models for predicting soil hydraulic conductivity in other
area is not always reliable and should be verified.
(2) To develop empirical model that describes the relationship between Ks and
other easily measured soil physical properties for Serdang Series soil representing
sandy clay to sandy clay loam range of soil physical properties.
(3) To evaluate existing empirical relationships for determining Ks by investigating
the consequences of different variables among clay, silt. sand, OM, Db and E on the
estimation of K, using different empirical models.
Thesis organization
this work concerned with the vadose zone soil K, the review is more concentrated
on the methods based on this approach.
Chapter I 1 1 discusses the methods and materials used in this study. This
chapter starts with a brief description of the study site and its soil type. Also, it
shows a brief description of principles and application of the GP method. CHWP
method, and DRI method.
Chapter IV presents and discusses the results of the study. It shows the
results of K, obtained directly using GP, SC and DRI methods or indirectly by the
empirical models. Also determination of the soil properties using different methods
is given. In addition. a comparison between the results of all methods and empirical
models for soil Ks and an extensive analysis of the result is performed in this
chapter. The summary and some conclusions from the work described in the
dissertation is given in chapter V.
CHAPTER I1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
as imgation and drainage system design (Bouwer and Jackson, 1974). In many of
the current models that s imulate movement of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers,
water and salts through soil to groundwater, the soil media are assumed to be
homogeneous and isotropic in their flow behaviour. However, most of field soils in
nature are seldom homogeneous, and their K, is one of several properties which are
strongly influenced by spatial and temporal variability (Warrick and Nielsen, 1980;
Lee et al, 1985; Kanwar et al, 1989; Mirjat and Kanwar 1994; Mohanty et a1
1994).
Over the past few decades, much research work have been done on
developing various methods and techniques used to measure or estimate soil
hydraulic conductivity (K). Soil K can be made by two ways, either directly by
passing a test fluid through the soil (hydraulic methods) or indirectly from easily
measured soils properties data that are related to soil K (correlation methods)
techniques (Oosterbaan and Nijland, 1994). Brief description of these methods,
their relative advantages and disadvantages, their applicability, main direction of
K, measurement and the approximate sample volume are presented in Table 2.1. In
general, direct methods and techniques fall into two types depending on whether
the soil was tested in situ (Boersma 1965; Bouwer and Jackson 1974) or whether
the soil samples (disturbed or undisturbed) were transported to the laboratory for
testing (Klute and Dirksen, 1986). The direct in situ assessment of soil Ks can be
done either with smallscale methods or with largescale methods. Within the types
of methods there are numerous variants that differ in suitability, equipment, water
consumption and time requirement.
1 able 2.1: Uriei description of methods for measuring the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity. Type. applicability. main direction
of K measurement and approximate sample volume (Adapted from .Tenssen. 1 990).
Method
Field
1,ab
I+
Direction
V
UD
Zone
measurenient
Time requirement
per test (h)
Amount of Water
used per test
Volume of sril
sample (cm')
Ilckrences
100 1, 1000 1,
AH
Nl A
GI'
< 1, 2 1,
DT
1c\\. L
I'M
NIA
PTM
NIA
CMTIIP
vP
I I,
IR
101,50L
AEP
10 l,
DOM
NIA
SCHI'
SFHP
PM
I{= horizontal: V= vertical: UD= undefined direction: S= saturated zone (below water table): IJ= unsaturated zone (above water table): CHWP= constanthead well
permeameter method; AH= auger hole method; GI' = Guelph pernieameter method: DT= Double tube niethod: PM= piezometer method: PTM= pump out method:
VP= velocity permeameter method; IK= infiltrometer ring method; MI'= airentry pernieameter method: I>OM= drainageoutflon niethod: SCHP= constanthead soil core
permearneter method: SCFP= Fallinghead soil core pernieameter method: and I'M= Predictive models.
and water table levels near the experimental tile line. However, he claimed that to
obtain sufficient resolution in layered profiles where a number of measurements at
different locations and at different depths will usually be required to adequately
characterize the hydraulic conductivity profile, techniques that measure K from a
relatively small soil regon might be preferable. Hoffman and Schwab (1 964) and
Skaggs (1 976) proposed methods of calculating soil K and drainable porosity from
drain outflow and water table drawdown measurements.
and further, such installations should ordinarily not be made without first making
penncability measurements.
In situ measurements of soil K, below the water table provide the most
reliable values for usc in calculations of ground water flows (Youngs, 199 1). Thcy
usually employ unlined or lined cylindrical holes made below the watcr table and
involve measurements of' flow into or out the boreholcs when the water levels in
them are perturbed from the equilibrium. Several certain reliable field methods
have been developed over the past 40 years or more for insitu measurement of K,
in the saturation zone. where the soil strata is located below a water table. The AH
and piezometer methods are the most common methods to determine the soil K,
(Amoozegar and Warrick, 1986). Field methods other than the two methods
mentioned before such as two wells flow method, multiple well point and the
pumped well method have been reported (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1965 and
1978; Bouwer and Jackson, 1974; Kessler and Oosterbaan. 1974; and Amoozegar
and Wamck, 1986).
The use of this test however, is limited to areas where a high goundwater
tablc occurs and to soil whcre a boring of' known shape can be maintained
throughout thc dcpth. Therefore, the method could not be used to investigate K, of
decp water table (the vadose zone arca). In addition, the soil K, measured by AH
method can be taken as average K, for the full depth of the hole being tested. In
reality, however. the calculated soil K, value reflects the K, value of the most
penneable layers. Despite the AH method samples a fairly large soil volume, but in
highly layered soils gives little information about individual layers (Rogers, et al.,
1985). Unfortunately, the reliability of the results from different measuring
methods vary under different field conditions (Mohanty et a]., 1994) and this
problem had been addressed by many researchers (e.g. Paige and Hillel, 1993;
Gupta et a]., 1993; Gallichand et al., 1990; Kanwar et al., 1989 and Lee et al.,
1985).
and Nijland. (1994) reviewed thc significant contributions made by early workers
and gave detailed descriptions of the procedure for applying these methods.
The common field methods that have been used for measuring K, of soil in
the vadose zone above the water table include ring infiltrometer (RI) methods,
double cylinder (DC) method, double tube (DT), airentry permeameter (AEP),
and various well permeameter (WP) methods. Each of these techniques is based on
certain approach and has some advantages and disadvantages. These techniques
have been described in several monographs by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(1978), Bouwer and Jackson (1974), Amoozegar and Warrick (1986), Youngs
( 1 99 1 ), and Oosterbaan and Nij land.(] 994). Many of these classical procedures
either do not provide realistic data or have been applied with varying degrees of
success. However. it is not obvious that any of these approaches will work under
all circumstances.
are encountered in loamy or clayey soils with macropores (Bouma, 1983). AEI'
method is designed to determine K, in vertical direction (Ksv) and has been
recommended as the most rapid and reliable method for surface and shallow
subsurface soil layers by Bouwcr and Jackson (1974). This method, however,
tends to become tedious for deeper layers and, additionally, it relies on the
presence of distinct airentry point on the wetting soil moisture characteristics
(Talsma and Hallam, 1980). Therefore, the method cannot be used for subsurface
K, determination. Less destructive techniques such as DT method and the PT
technique (Kessler and Oosterbaan, 1974) have been used to measure in situ soil K
of subsoil above the water table. The measurements at depths greater than the
length of the apparatus, however. require the construction of a pit. These methods
also result in fair to poor accuracy in the K values due to largely undefined
boundary conditions (Bouma et al.. 1982) as cited by Wilson et al. (1989).
Moreover, the DT method K, values influence by K, in both directions (Ksv and
KsH) with more in vertical direction. One of the other methods rather than these
methods has been used for measuring Ks of the vadose zone on soil surface and
subsoil is the double ring infiltration method (DRI). This method, however.
requires excavation of the upper soil layers (or construction of a pit).
111 and
(Kstl)(Stephens and Neuman. 1982a). These direct in situ methods for measuring
soil K, above the water table are relatively simple in concept and are potentially at
least, more reliable (accurate) than laboratory methods. Unfortunately, they also
have a number of limitations that restrict their practical use such as time
consuming, laborious, and expcnsive to perform and all these methods are
applicable in nonstratificd sandy soils, as the clay content increase, several
methods should perferably not be used. Moreover, vadose (unsaturated) soil K is
more difficult to measure. Yet in nature, steady state conditions are seldom
encountered. Many variants of the WP method, which is sometimes called, the
shallow water pumpin technique (SWPT), the dry auger hole, borehole infiltration
test, CHWP method are available both with respect to equipment and model for
calculation of the K, (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1 965 and I 978); Stephens and
Neuman, 1982a; and Jenssen, 1990). The simplest variant is measurement of the
rate of decline in water level in an unlined hole (Bouma, 1983). In this study the
attention confines to the CHWP in which the Guelph permeameter (GP) method is
one of its various types.
The CHWP is a simple method and not required any sophisticated or costly
apparatus. It is among the most attractive methods and widely used methods for
assessment K, of vadose (Reynolds et al.. 1983). This method relies on the
interpretation of infiltration theory and assuming that the infiltration rate results are
not influenced by entrapped air (Young 1 99 1 : Talsma 1987; and Amoozegar and
Warrick, 1986). The soil Ks values can be computed from approximated formulas
that are based borehole geometric (radius. length in contact with information).
constant head of water in the borehole. depth to water table, and steady infiltration
rate into the borehole (Talsma and Hallam, 1980).
Talsma and Hallam. ( 1 980) however, have removed the above practical
limitations. They developed more efficient an inhole Mariotte type apparatus that
is lightweight, simple, and inexpensive to construct, and can be operated by one
person. In addition, a measurement can be often made within 5 to 30 min, and up
to 2L or less of water were required depends upon soil type and soil condition. The
practical measurement range of Ks of their device, however, restricted to Ix 10" to
3 x 1 04cm s'. Talsma and Hallam found that steady recharge rate (Q,) for the WP
method was achieved within about 20 min for sandy soils. Reynolds and Elrick.
( 1 985) showed that equilibrium times were about 10 min. 1060 min, and 124
method, thc theoretical limitation remained. Reynolds et al., (1983) made some
refinements to this basic equipment and developed a constanthead well
permeameter that regulate the ponded head levels and measure the flux of water
into the soil from a small c~lindricalborehole. They claimed that the CHWP
efficiency and range of operation has been increased. In addition, Kf, from an "inhole" Mariotte type CHWP with these improvements in both theory and field
application studies has been found to be increased by approximately 60 %
(Reynolds et al.. 1983). However the refinements did not extent to account for the
influence of the unsaturated flow in the calculation of K,.
Guelph Permeameter
Ks.
Reynolds and Elrick ( 1 986 and 1987) redesigned this device and called it Guelph
Permeameter (GP). This apparatus has the potential to measure Kfs and matric
fluxes potential ($,,)
The G P was designed to infiltrate (slowly add) water into soil hole under
unsaturated soil conditions to provide data suitable for K, estimate near saturation.
It involves drilling a vertical borehole and determining the steady state discharge
of water when the water in the borehole is maintained at constant level. The
principle of the method and equipment required are discussed in materials and
methods chapter (Chapter I I I ) .
From the practical point of view, the advantages of the method include the
apparatus is simple to use, easily to operate by one person, durable and repeatable.
Moreover. it requires less time (560 minutes) and small volume of water (0.5 to 2
L) per measurement than other methods. In addition it has an advantage over other
methods for its ability to produce simple, economic and very quick in place
calculation of Ktj from a single determination. Also the method does not greatly
disturb the soil at the measurement site during the augering process ( e g Reynolds
and Elrick 1985; Reynolds and Elrick 1986; Ragab and Cooper, 1990; Elrick and
Reynolds. 1992).
1985; Stephens et al., 1984 and 1987, Talsma, 1987; Elrick et al., 1990). Although
the GP method gave variable values of soil Kss, once the determination are
repeated it is possible to get more reliable values.
Early studies by Lee et al., (1985) on Sour types of soils (sandy loam, fine
sandy loam, silt loam and clay soils) in Southern Ottawa Canada compared GP Kss
values with airentry and falling head permeameter method. They showed that
there was significant difference between some or all of the methods within each
site. The results also indicated that the Kfs values of GP for loamy sand, very fine
sandy loam, silt loam, and clay were 3.30 m day', 0.1 14 m day', 0.1 123 m day'
and 0.0073 m day". respectively and the CV% values ranged between 75 and
0.30 m deep and 0.031~1radius. This serious overestimation of KI, may be due to
the neglected capillanty. On the other hand, work by Stephens, ct. al., (1987)
showed that ticld applications of the borehole penneameter tests on sand, loam,
and sand clay soils under deep water table conditions provided useful results over
range of K, from 10"
Reynolds and Elrick (1987) found a mean K1.s value of 0.29 m day' for
loamy soil under corn and CV% between 40 to 120%. Ragab and Cooper (1993)
used the GP method on three lands (arable Land, grassland, and woodland) and
showed that the average values of Kss of each depth were 0.250.3 1 m day', 0.792.52 m day', and 0.691 2 3 m day' respectively and the average CV values ranged
from 37 to 60%, 50 to 75% and 59 to 13 1 % respectively.
Fieldwork using the GP method by Salverda and Dane (1993) showed that
the GP seems to work best on coarser, uniform soil and on finer uniform soil.
However, the smearing effects during the borehole soil preparation of fine uniform
have kept to a minimum, which is favored during dry soil conditions. They also
found that about 40% of the Ks values obtained by the GP method were negative
(unreasonable). Closed to this result (38.1%) have been obtained by Lee et al.,
( 1 985). Another study using GP in gassland, woodland, and arable land produced
about 55% 39%, and 34% negative values of Kfs respectively was presented by
Ragab and Cooper (1 993).
The negative values for Kf, might resulted from the small valucs of the
ratio between Q,I and
QS2
macro pores that may intercepted the holc within thc rangc of the large fixed watcr
hcad, the bottom of thc borchole lies on the interface between two layers or thc
holc contains two distmct layers (Ragab and Cooper. 1993) and randomly
occurring heterogeneity (Lee et al., 1985; Reynolds et a].. 1983. Elrick et a]., 1990;
Salverda and Dane. 1993). Negative values of K,, and
4,
obtained by GP using
Reynolds and Elrick (1985) discussed the negative values for Kk obtained
by using GP and they suggested that small head (H) level be used with extensive
heterogeneity and macroporosity soils. Several authors have suggested using single
head analysis as a possible alternative to multiple head analysis technique of the
GP method to avoid these negative values (Stephens and Neuman 1982a,b; Elrick
et al., 1987 and Elrick and Reynolds, 1993). Higher variability of Kss by applying
the SE analysis was found by Kanwar at al., (1989). Same result was also obtained
by other authors (Elrick and Reynolds, 1992 and Bagarello and Provenzano, 1996)
concluded that estimating of Kh variability based on the SE calculations are
generally unrepresentative of true field variability.
The method also yields a combination of vertical Kls and horizontal Kfs
rcprescnting the actual situation in the field and suitable for various types of soils.
Ragab and Cooper, 1993 pointcd out that the G P method has an advantage over
other methods for its ability to produce both parameters (saturated and unsaturated
Amin et a1 (2001) used the GP method and found that it is not suitable for
measuring K, in clay soils. However, it is a very useful tool in less or nonstructured clay soils, confirming the result that was obtained by Rogers et al.
( 1 957).
According to Ragab, ( 1 998) the GP method was not suitable for hcavy clay
soils with very low hydraulic conductivity values and for coarsc soils with very
high hydraulic conductivity values.
Time (t)
Figure 2.1 : infiltration rate of dry and wet soil. (Adapted from Miyazaki et al. 1993)
According to Rawls et al., (1 993) there are four types of infiltrometer: the
pondedwater ring or cylinder infiltrometer (RI), sprinkler infiltrometer (SI),
tension infiltrometer or disk infiltrometer (TI), and the furrow infiltrometer (FI).
These methods, however, suffers from potential or practical limitations for
example, Fl method although carried out under representative field conditions, the
method suffers from practical limitations such as large areas of prepared land and
large volumes of water are required (Landon, 1991).
Using the DRI method, the infiltration rate is determined by measuring the
time that it takes the level of water sitting on a soil to drop a fixed distance. This
rate changes with time as the soil pore space fills with water and reaches a steady
rate. This process is repeated and a plot of infiltration rate versus time is
constructed. By measuring infiltration over time, Ks can be calculated once steady
state flow has been reached. It is generally assumed that the hydraulic gradient in
transmission zone is asymptotically approaching unity and the final infiltration rate
(1,) equals Ks (Landon, 1991). The procedure for determining soil K, using a DRI
method is described in chapter 111.
The DRI method used as a way of measuring soil K, of the surface layer.
The DRI also has been used at successive depths in a soil pit to study the
difference in K of various layers. Measurements at depths greater than the length
of the apparatus however require excavation of the upper soil layers. Some
drawbacks of the DRI method are that it is very time consuming, particularly when
the soil is very dry and has expanding clay, also it requires large amount of water
depending on the texture and the type of the soil under investigation. In addition,
the practicality of the instr~~ment
is reduced by the fact the rings are extremely
heavy to move. It also rcquires a flat undisturbed surface, which sometimes is not
available. An air entrapment also may occur during the infiltration processes and
thereby reduce the real rate. Further, the DRI method is sensitive to the K, of the
soil in the vicinity of the inner ring where soil disturbance likely to occur during
the insertions of the rings (Youngs, 1991). On the other hand, the DRI method is
usually the most practical and simplest method for the soil surveyor (Landon,
1991). It is inexpensive to construct, easy to make and to operate and only small
area is needed for measurements. In addition, the method does not have water
requirement (Rawls et al., 1993).
Furthermore, having the two rings minimize the lateral spreading of water
originating from inner ring eliminates the problem of overestimating the hydraulic
conductivity in the field due to threedimensional flow (Landon, 1991). The outer
ring supplies water, which contributes to lateral flow, so as the inner ring is
contributing to the downward flow. Wherever vertical hydraulic conductivity is the
parameter of interest rather than horizontal K, the DRI method is one of the
methods to use.
the laboratory also is often only an estimate of the actual field conditions (Paige
and Ilillel. 1993). Because of soil K is a highly variable soil property, measured
values easily may vary by 10fold or more for a particular soil series. Infact soil K
values measured on soil samples taken within centimetres of one another may vary
by the same fold or more. Thus an extremely large number of core samples would
be required to provide reliable results (Camp, 1977).
In general, the soil core (SC) method is one of the classical techniques for
measuring K,. Like the GP method has potential limitation related to small sample
size, soil disturbance during core collection, and possible short circuit flow through
macropores or along the core wall (Youngs. 1991 and Reynolds, 1993a). The SC
method however, is simple. inexpensive, convenient, and based on a direct
application
K horizontally and soil K vertically and used for understanding how salt affects the
soil K and other soil physical properties. The laboratory measurements methods
have been used extensively by many investigators for studying the relationship
between solute. microorganism and other soil properties with soil hydraulic
conductivity. These methods arc particularly attractive because of the direct
availability of measuring devices and other facility as well as good control of
measuring procedure (Youngs, 199 1 ).
/
Falling head
Constant head
a 
Tailwater elevation
Figure 2.2: Schematic test setup for constant head and falling head tests. Use the
right side of the figure to identify terms used for the constant head test,
and the left side for the falling head test (Bowles, 1979).
Camp (1977) evaluated four methods (SC method, auger hole method,
calculation of soil K, value from drain outflow and drawdown measurements, and
calculation of K/f ratio from water table drawdown measurements) for an alluvial
soil in the lower Mississippi Valley. He found that the soil Ks values determined
using SC method (in the laboratory) were much lower and more variable than
those determined by AH method and those calculated from drain flow and water
table drawdown measurement. Moreover, Camp claimed that the drain flow and
water table drawdown measurement method provides the most reliable estimate
value for use in drainage equations. Talsma, (1960,1987) and Bouma, (1983)
reported that there are large variation between field and laboratory tests. Watt et
al., (1982) found that soil Ks values determined on soil cores could be up to 700
times greater than the soil K, determined by in situ techniques. On other hand, Wu
et al., (1993) observed that soil K, values from the detached core samples were
approximately twice that of the fieldmeasured K, values confirming the early
result observed by Bouwer (1 966).
Field investigations of three methods (AH, SWPT, and drain line method)
used to estimate soil Ks were conducted on fine textured, lacustrine soil by
DeBoer (1979). He concluded that the pumpin method soil Ks value was about
onehalf the AH method value. Ilowever, a composite pumpin method K, value
for the layered soil profile was about equal to the drain line soil K, value.
Reynolds and Elrick, (1986) by using the numerical solution, found that
the CH WP method produced estimate Ks values of a structureless sandy soil were
statistically equivalent to the estimates Ks value produced by AEP method. Park
and Yu. (1983) compared three methods for measuring soil Ks. There were
inverse auger hole method, infiltrometer method and core sample method. Park
and Yu concluded that the inverse auger hole method was highly correlated with
the infiltrometer method while the core sample method was greatly
underestimated in comparison with the values obtained by the other two methods.
Field study to evaluate three methods for determining K, for a loamy sand. a
fine sandy loam, a silt loam, and a clay loam soils in Southern Ontario was
reported by Lee et a1 (1985). The methods used were AEP method, GP method,
and falling head permeameter (SFHP) method. They found that there was
tremendous variability in the results. They indicated that although the techniques
were able to discriminate between the three soils types, the best choice of method
for any particular situation appear dependent on soil type, and the various practical
constraints on the investigator. Buckland et al. (1986) conducted a similar study
with four in situ methods (AH method, CHWP method, in situ FallingHead
Permeameter. FHP, and from single drain outflow and water recession) in southern
Alberta. They found that the AH and CHWP, and FHP methods provided
sufficiently reliable estimates of K, and they are practical for subsurface drainage
design.
Using the improvements in the field technique and theory of steady out
flow of water ponded to constant head in boreholes Talsma (1987) reevaluated
the WP method. He found that the soil Ks values obtained by WP method were
between 30% and 60% of the AH method values confirming the early conclusion
of Talsma (1960). Performance of the GP method and VP method for silt loam
soil in central Iowa was investigated by Kanwar et al., (1989). The results showed
that these two methods provided similar Ks values but tended to be much lower
than SCHP (laboratory method) values.
Similar study compared K, values of Ravenne silt loam and Hoyville silty
clay loaln soils obtained from GP method, V P method, a PT procedure, and A H
method was conducted by Dorsey, et al., (1990). The study showed that the GP
method gave significantly lower estimate than the other methods where their
results were within similar ranges. Evaluation study of four methods (GP method,
the SFHP method, and the single AH methods) by Gallichand et al., (1 990) in west
of Montreal, Canada showed that there was tremendous variability in the results.
They found that the SFHP method produced soil Ks values lower than the GP
method and the AH method (in two of three situations) gave higher soil K, values
than the GP method. They gave the following reasons that may are responsible for
the higher K, values of AH method: the large volume of soil sampled by AH
method. the layering of soil profile, and the direction of the flow. On the other
hand, a good agreement has been shown between field measurement of hydraulic
properties using GP method, Guelph Pressure method, tension infiltrometer
attachments and the SC method (Elrick et al., 1990).
Dorsey et al. (1 990) found the GP to yield mean soil Kfs values that were
factors of 4.5 and 83.3 lower than the corresponding AH values in a silt loam and a
silty clay loam, respectively. Another work by Gallichand et al. (1990) showed that
(for various depths) in heavy clay soil that the GP method yielded mean Kf, values
that ranged from factor of 1.43 higher to a factor 24 lower than corresponding AH
values. However, Reynolds and Zebchuk (1996) found the GP method soil Kfs
value was equivalent to corresponding AH values in a textural uniform silty clay
soil with stable but spatial variable structure.
infi ltrometer (GI)) in Ottawa Canada. Thcy reported 'that K, values obtained with
GP method and DRI method were statistically the same, but were significantly
lower than those determined by the RS and GI methods. Also Gupta et al. found
that the GP and GI field soils Kt, values were higher variable than those obtained
with DRI and RS methods and then, the GP and IG methods required a larger
number of measurements as compared to the others to achieve a mean Ks values
comparable.
loam, a Lucedale loam. and a Troup loamy sand. Their study. however, hardly
showed any agreement between the GP and the SCHP methods. Mirjat and
Kanwar (1994) conducted similar a study with the two method (GP method and
SCHP method) in loam soil of central Iowa and found the GP method (for various
depths) produced soil Krs values that range from 10 to 130 times smaller than
corresponding SCHP values.
and SCHP method for two soils in a Wisconsin glacialtill soil of the Des Moines
Lobe. They found that the GP method gave the lowest soil Kf., values while the
disk permeameter and the double tube gave the maximum values of soil Ks. They
concluded that lowest values of the GP might be due to the small sample size.
Reynolds et al., (2000); Paige and Hillel, ( 1 993); and Reynolds and Elrick,
(1985) used the soil core method as a standard of comparison with the IP, GP,
Tension infiltrometcr, TI, and singlering pressure intiltrometer PI, methods.
According to Reynolds et al., (2000) comparing techniques for measuring the K,
of natural soil is an imprecise, perhaps even dubious enterprise because there is no
independent soil K, datum or benchmark upon which evaluations and judgements
can be made. However, it is important to make such comparisons because they
provide one of the few sources of information that researchers can draw upon to
select soil K, measurement methods that are appropriate for their circumstances.
Empirical Models
Many of these empirical models have been derived and have been used
extensively to predict soil K and open promising prospects for estimating soil Ks
over largescale areas without extensive measuring program. All empirical models
have a strong degree of empiricism in that they contain model parameters that were
calibrated on existing soil hydraulic databases. These predictive estimate methods
are not depended on the created ideal experimental conditions. However,
usefulness of these models depends on the reliability of the correlation, the
availability and accuracy of the parameters data used in the model. Most of these
according to textural class (e.g. Wosten et al., 1995) or include linear or nonlinear
regression equations (e.g. Rawls and Brakensiek, 1985; Vereecken, eta1.1989;
Vereecken, 1995; Minasny et al., 1999). Porosity, PSD, and porous size
distribution are the most commonly used soil characteristics for estimating soil
hydraulic conductivity. Useful prediction of soil K, also was possible using field
texture, grade of structure, dispersion index, and horizon type (Mckenzie and
Jacquier, 1997). and by using initial moisture state, pedability, microporosity, and
root density (Lin et al., 1999).
methods from Cosby et al., ( 1 984), Brakensick et al., (1 984), Saxton et al., (1 986),
Vereeckenet al., (1990), Jabro (1992), and Amin et al. (2001). The second
approach based on developing a physicoempirical relationship between the PSD
and soil K, values Campbell (1985) approach. Based on the assumption that PSD is
approximately long normally distributed, Campbell (1985) proposed an empirical
equation to estimate K,. The third approach for estimate soil K, is based on scaling
techniques which can be used to estimate soil K at different locations in a
watershed from measurement of these parameters at one representative location
and limited data at other location (Ahuja et al. 1984).
Because only % clay, % silt, % sand, Db, E, and OM content are routinely
available from soil information systems, in this study soil K, was predicted on
bases of these parameters. Therefore. the last two approaches are not considered in
this study and the attention only is drawn to the first type approach. Since
prediction of soil K, values generally improved if more input data were used,
investigation of six models with the following levels of input data were selected:
( I ) soil PSD (% silt, % clay. and % sand content); (2) % silt. % clay, content and
soil Dh, (3) % sand, % silt, and % clay content and soil E. The six predictive
models Cosby et a1 (1984); Brakensiek, et.al., (1984); Saxton, et al., (1 986);
Vereecken et al., (1990); Jabro, (1992), and Amin et al., (2001) that based on
these parameters were evaluated.
PTF assessment has been made with respect to a data set of measured K, of
soils from Peninsula Malaysia. Except Jabro (1992) and Amin et al., (2001)
models, the above PTFs have yet to be verified against these data. PTFs such as
Vereecken et al., Cosby et al., Brakensiek et.al., Saxton, et al., and Jabro however,
have been derived from regression analysis of data obtained from soils of certain
regions; therefore, using these models for prediction beyond these regions is not
always reliable and should be verified (Ragab and Cooper 1993). Furthermore, an
independent evaluation can only be performed with data sets, which were not
previously used for the development of the PTFs (Schaap and Leij 1998; and
Wagner et al., 2001).
Gumbs (1 974) proposed simple linear regression between the soil I(, and
the sand coarse content (Ks = 0.62+0.11 % of coarse sand) and claimed it should
be adequate for soil survey work and for calculating drain spacing. In another
study, using one type of soil genesis with highly varying texture (1.442% clay
content), Puckett et al., (1985) were able to use particlesize fractions (sand, silt
and clay) to predict the soil hydraulic properties. They found that In (Ks) could be
predicted with clay content (r2= 0.77).
with drainable porosity (r2=0.77). Vereecken (I 990) published PTFs for K, with a
coefficient of determination of about 20% using clay and sand content, OM %, and
Db density as input soil data. This may show that PTFs still show a considerable
amount of unresolved variability in the estimates of K, (Vereecken 2002).
Jabro (1992) correlated soil Ks parameter with soil particle size distribution
(% silt and % clay) and soil Db density (as an implicit representation of the soil
structure) and developed multiple linear regression models to predict the soil K,
values. Comparison results with experimental data for Duffield silt loam at
Lancaster Country in Southeastern Pennslvania, Jabro found that the model
performed fairly well and gave a satisfactory validation versus the field measured
soil Ks data using undisturbed core samples. Using sand content, Db and OM
content data enable the estimation of soil Ks values with r2 value = 0.957 and the
models utilizing these easily measurable soil properties can be used for predicting
soil water characteristics curves and K, with a satisfactory level of accuracy (Singh
et al., 1992).
Ks
He concluded that the texturebased equation could predict those measured within
the same order of magnit~ldeonly for the coarsetexture soils. However, for the
finetextured soils it underestimated the measured values by approximately one
order of magnitude.
Tietje and Henniings (1996) tested six PTFs for predicting soil Ks values
using a German database of 1161 samples. They found that none of the tested
PTFs had consistently better prediction for all textural classes. In other study,
Schaap et al., (1998) used a data set of 1209 samples to evaluate neural networkbased PTFs models. Results of this study show that the neural network base PTFs
usually provided better prediction than PTFs published by Rawls and Brakensiek
(1 985); Vereecken et al. (1 989); Saxton et al. ( I 986); and Cosby (1984).
Amin et al.. (2001) examined the Jabro model and pointed out that. the
Jabro model K, values were very high compared to the Ks values measured by GP
and DRI methods. Based on similar form of Jabro, Amin et al. used soil PSD (%
silt: % clay) and Db and established an empirical relationship to predict K, values.
They claimed that their model [K, = 5.24  2.08(Db)0.029(% silt)0.025(% clay) ]
is an advantage over the costly and time consuming nature of field determination
and it is useful for estimating soil K, values for modeling, planning, and
management purposes where soil K, values are not available.
On the other hand, the PTFs are quicker. simple to apply, cheaper, and the
input variables can be measured more easily and, hence, are more widely available
than hydraulic properties. Moreover, in the cases of large areas with different soil
types and horizons, more in situ measurements will be required to represent the
spatial variability. Therefore the predictive models might look a more attractive
tool to use. Furthermore, it would therefore be useful if PTFs could accept input
data with varying degrees of detail and if PTF predictions could include reliability
measures.
Liquid in soils tends to flow from a location with highlevel energy to low
one. The total energy at any point in a porous media can be represented by the
hydraulic head h, which is, from Bernoulli equation, a function of pressure and
potential energy per u n i t weight of fluid, neglecting the kinetic energy and
assuming isothermal condition. Values of soil hydraulic conductivity, K are
usually calculated assuming that Laplace's equation on saturated conditions, or
Richards' equation in unsaturated soil conditions, with assumption that the soil is
uniform, hon~ogeneous,deep, implicity that Darcy's law describes the flow of
water. In fact there are two difficulties arise when simulating porous media flow,
where both saturated and unsaturated conditions exist. They are, the difficulty
concerns the governing equation, where a unified equation that governs porous
media flow under both saturated and unsaturated conditions is needed, and the
difficulty involves the quantification of a composite hydraulic conductivity for the
porous medium.
1985, 1992; Reynolds and Elrick 1985, 1987, 1990; Youngs. 1991; Elrick and
Reynolds 1987, 1992, Erick et al., 1993; Reynolds, 993a,b and Xiang 1994).
Only brief detail of theories of these methods as relevant to this study is repeated
here.
where Q is the volume of water collected per unit time, cm3 sec", (or the
discharge), i is the hydraulic or potential gradient or driving force, dimensionless,
K, is the sat~~rated
hydraulic conductivity (cm secI), and A is the crosssectional
area of the satnple (cm'). The negative s i g in the equation refers to the flow
moving in thc direction of decreasing head or dccrcasing potential. For a stationary
tlow in a saturated soil the hydraulic gadicnt (driving force), i, is equal to thc
gradient of the sum of the pressure and gravitational potentials so that if the
pressure head h is maintained on the top ot'a soil sample. L. then
and
KS=
OL
At(H, H,)
In which L is the length of the sample (cm), t is the time (s) and (H2  H I ) is the
difference in head between the top and bottom of the sample (cm) Q is the volume
of water of water passed in unit time, (cm3 sI), A is the area of the bed (cm'). L is
the thickness of the bed (cm). H is the height of water on top of the bed (cm) and
Infiltration is defined as the process by which water enters the soil. The
infiltration rate 1, of a soil was defined by Miyazaki et al. (1993) as the flux of
water across a land surface into the soil. The mathematical and physical analysis of
the infiltration process developed by Phillip (1957) separates the process into two
components. that caused by the matric potential force (suction) and that caused by
gravity. The early stage is dominated by soil suction, which for a specific soil is
determined by the moisture content. This component tends to vanish at large times
and the infiltration rate becomes equal to the Kfs. Thus as infiltration progresses,
the influence of the initial soil moisture content decreases and eventually becomes
negligible (Phillip, 1957). An ideal infiltration curve, based on theoretical analysis,
is illustrated in Figure 2.2. A given soil ends up with the same infiltration rate
whether the soil was initially dry or moist (Miyazaki et a1 1993).
physical methods. Rawls et al (1993) pointed out that most of the empirical and
approximate models treat the soil as a semiinfinite medium with the soil
saturating from surface down. On the other hand, physically based models specify
appropriate boundary conditions and normally require detailed data input. In
addition to the above strictly infiltration based models many consider rainfall
excess models which lump all losses (infiltration, depression, storage, interception)
together as infiltration models (Rawls et al., 1993). Empirical models generally
relate infiltration rate or volume to elapsed time modified by certain soil
properties. Parameters used in these models are commonly estimated from
measured infiltration ratetime relationships for a given soil condition. According
to Miyazaki et al.. (1993) and Rawls et al., (1 993) the three most well known
empirical equations are Kostiakov's equation, Horton's equation and Holton's
equation.
1  Kostiakov model: Kostiakov model is a simple infiltration model relating the
where B and n are constant which depend on the soil and initial conditions and
may be evaluated using the observed infiltration ratetime relationship (Rawls at
al., 1993).
2 Horton model: Horton (1 940) showed that when rainfall exceeds the infiltration
rate. water infiltrates surface soils at a rate that decreases with time. He presented a
1; is the
(the saturated soil infiltration rate) .fo is the initial infiltration rate at time equal
zero, K is a constant defines function f; and t is time. Wide scale application of
Horton's model is limited because of dependence of the parameters on specific soil
and moisture conditions (Rawls et al., 1993).
3 Holton model: Holton model was developed based on that the soil moisture
storage, surfaceconnected porosity. and the effect of root paths are dominant
factors influencing the infiltration capacity i,. Holton model may expressed (Rawls
et al., 1993) as:
in which f is the infiltration rate (inlh), GI is the growth index of crop in percent
maturity varying from 0.1 to 1.0 during the season, A is the infiltration capacity (in
'
hI) per (in)' of available storage and as index representing surface connected
porosity and the density of plant roots which affect infiltration S, is the available
storage in the surface layer in inches and f,is the constant infiltration rate when the
infiltration rate curve reaches steady infiltration rate (Figure 2.2).
On thc other hand, the GreenAmpt cquation and Philip model are the most
used physical modcls (Rawls ct al, 1993). GrecnAmpt lnodcl is the first equation
of infiltration based on a physical model (Miyazaki ct a1 1993), in which the
infiltration rate is given by:
I:
I = K,t+ Aln l + 
Philip model: Philip ( 1 957) shows that onedimensional infiltration under ponded
condition would be described by a simple and rapidly converging power series in
t'
'.
purely theoretical analysis that, for long infiltration times, the transmissivity term
( A ) is thc infiltration model:
where. Z is the measured cumulative infiltration (L). at time (T): S is the sorptivity
(LT' ') and A is the field transmissivity (LT')that approaches K,. Limitations to
this equation include it is not valid when the water flow is not linear. However.
deviation from linearity may be small in many cases, particularly in the later stage
of infiltration. And the equation can yield sufficiently accurate results (Landon,
1991).
rate, I, decreases with time. As the cumulative infiltration becomes large and the
depth o f wetting considerable, the infiltration rate should approach the value of the
hydraulic conductivity for the satiated condition. Both parameter A and S in the
equation above are functionally related to Ks and these parameter were determined
by fitting Eq. 2.12 to the experimental data. The results, expressed in terms of
accumulated infiltration Z, in mrn, for different time intervals. in minutes, are
plotted on loglog paper with time on the abscissa and of infiltration, Z on the
ordinate axes. If a straight line can be fitted through the points its slope be
determined. This will give the equation:
Lo@
= a log t
+ log
Then
The constant K I can be dctennined by substituting any pair of known values for Z
and t. This is the accumulated infiltration equation. If this function is
differentiated, the rate of infiltration, I, in rnm /h for different values of time can be
determined, as follows:
In the CHWP test. such as GP, steady flow out of well into surrounding soil
can be described in terms of pressure and gravity induced fluxes (e.g. Reynolds et
al.. 1985; Reynolds and Elrick, 1983). Refemng to Figure 2.3 water flow out of a
well by radial fluxes pressure (V,)
(V,,) through the base, and by gravitational flux (V,) through the base. Assuming
the flow out of the well to be steady state flow and the soil around the well to be
homogenous, isotropic. rigid porous medium borehole. Summary of the
approximate open borehole formulas in connection with water table condition can
be found in Stephens and Neuman (1982 a, b).
[LT'1
derived under the assun~ptionthat all flow in the soil away from the borehole was
Talsma and Hallam ( 1980) used Zangar's equation to calculate the soil K
from thc values of the steady infiltration rates into borchole. Q, the hole radius, r,
and the wetted depth as follows:
K = 3 0 ln ( H / r ) / n H ( 3 H
2s)
[2.17]
Saturated zone
Wetted unsaturated zone
Saturated bulbs
H2
I a1
wetting front
Figure 2.4: Illustrates the constant head borehole test (GP) in vadose unsaturated)
zone using two heads, H I and HZ. Where, a is the radius of the well and
GP represents Guelph Permeameter (Elrick, et al., 1993).
whcre Q is thc steady flow rate into thc borchole (L'TI); H is thc constant dcpth
of water in the boreholc (L); and HLl
(LLI)
This solution for calculation of the soil hydraulic conductivity, K,, from
constant head well permeameter methods were developed by ignoring the effects
of unsaturated flow (i.e capillarity). On the other hand, several authors have
reported that the flow rate from a cylindrical borehole above a water table can be
significantly affected by capillarity (e.g. Stephen and Neuman, 1982a; Reynolds et
al., 1985). According to Stephen and Neuman (1 982a, b) the wetted region in the
constant head penneameter test consists of a smallsaturated zone adjacent to a
well, surrounded by a much larger unsaturated envelope (see Figure 2.3).
Therefore the realistic description of the steadystate flux out of small well into
the vadose zone must take into account of the flow in the unsaturated zone that
enveloped the saturated zone
geometry,
unsaturated
soil
characteristics,
water
table
depth,
By the modification of the earlier work of Reynolds et al., (1983) that only
considers saturation flow. Reynolds et a]., (1985) proposed the sequential
measurement of steady state flux out of an borehole, Q [L'T'I, at two constant
heads levels, H [L] and using Richards equation to simultaneously solve for soil
Kt, [LT"] from thc two measurements. The relationship proposed by Rcynolds
where Q [L'T
soil. H [L] is the stcady depth of ponding (head of water) in the hole. a [L] is the
radius of the test borehole. C is a dimensionless parameter which is primarily a
function of the H/a ratio with second dependence on soil type Q,
[L'T'1
is the
where a*
texture properties of the soil. Tables, graphs and equations given in Soilmoistu
Equipment Corp, (1 987). Elrick and Reynolds. (1 992). Reynolds et ai. (1 992), a
Reynolds (1993) allow simple evaluations of both C and a* equal to 12 m'
compute the KI, was suggested by researchers (e.g. Reynolds and Zabchuk. 1'
Reynolds et al. 1992; Rc,vnolds, 1993b). Values a* may also be obtained by
the siinulteneous equation approach (Elrick, 1988). Steady state rates QI ar
were measured from the same borehole at H I and H 2 and the re:
simultaneous equations were solved for both Kfs and $, Then the value of a was
computed from the relationship:
R,
( A L / A ~ ) , = R , = cons tan
and Q ,
1;
i24
R,A
where R [LT'1 is the rate of fall of water level in the GP reservoir ( R I = transient
rate: R,= constant rate), A [L'] is the crosssection area of the reservoir. and L[L]
is the water level in the reservoir, and the t [TI is time. Steady state flow is
usually assumed when RI is estimated (R,) over four (i=4) consecutive time
intervals (At) (Soilmoisture Equipment Corp, 1987; Kanwar et al. 1989; Wilson et
al. 1989; Campbell and Fitton. 1994; Bagarello and Provenzano. 1996: and
Bagarello, 1997).
The equation proposed by Reynolds et al. (1 985) Eq. 2.19 was derived by
assuming a homogenous. isotrop. rigid soil characterized by a uniform yrl value
(Heinen and Raats. 1990: Reynolds and Elrick. 1987). Moreover. it is a solution of
a threedin~ensional.stead! state infiltration equation in which the first term on
the left side represents the water flow into the soil due to the hydrostatic pressure
of the water in the wcll. The second tenn represents the water flow through thc
bottom of thc well due to gavitational pull, whilc the third term represents the
water flow out of the well due to the capillary forces in the soll. Both thc first and
thc second tenn In the above equation represent the tieldsaturated component o l
flow out the well, whilc the third part represents the unsaturated flow components
(see Figure 2.3). The forces were also observed by Xiang, 1994; Elrick et al..
1990, 1993; Reynolds and Elrick, 1987, 1990: Elrick ad Reynolds, 1986. and
Re,vnolds et a]., 1985.
In two ponded height (HI and H2) technique (as in the case of the GP
method) producing two steady recharge Q I and Q?; Kcs, ,$,
S, and a* parameters
where
where Q,, and Qsz are the steadystate flow rate out of the well corresponding to
the steady depth of ponding, H I and H2, respectively, CI and C2 are the values
corresponding to H ,/a and H2ia, respective1y.
4,,,
(Reynolds et al., 1996; Wilson, 1989; Elrick and Reynolds 1992, 1993; Reynolds
et al.. 1992; Salverda and Dan, 1993; Wu 1993; Bagarello and Provenzano, 1996).
Soil heterogeneity may be the reason to cause the erroneous (negative) Kt, values.
On the other hand. the simultaneousequations approach (Elrick and Reynolds,
1986; and Soilmoisture Equipment Corp, 1987) works well only in homogenous
soil (e.g. Reynolds et al., 1983; Elrick and Reynolds 1992). Fortunately, several
approximate solutions that avoid the problem of negative values are available.
Among these solutions are the Laplace analysis (Reynolds and Elrick, 1985), the
regessionbased Richards analysis (Reynolds et al.. 1992) and the singlehead
Richards analysis (Elrick et al., 1993). The later solution was used in this study.
The single head (SH) approach that proposed by Elrick et al., (1989) for
determining Krs and $,
where H (L) is the constant height of ponded water in the well, a (L") is the well
~ = [ ( 2 n a ~ ' / ~ + n a+
~ 2) na H*/ C ] & ,
produce usable results, both the range and sensitivity of a* in porous media
should be small relative to those of Kfs and ,$, (Reynolds et al., 1992).
K, =P K r
where KR (m
SI)
of flow out of the well into the soil, H (L) is the steady depth (head) of ponded
water in the well, a (L) is the well radius, and C is dimensionless shape factor that
depend primarily on the H 1 a ratio. The
P and
least squares regression relationship between K I and Krs; where Kfs is determined
using the multiplehead procedure of Reynolds and Elrick (Soilmoisture
Equipment Corp. 1987).
Soil texture refers to the relative proportions of the various size groups of
individual soil. Soil structure on the other hand, reflects the way by which these
particles are arranged. The K, values are often well correlated with soil texture and
structure and greatly affected by the presence and characteristics of biopores (root
channels, wormholes and other small conduits left by biological processes in the
soil). The values of K, in soils vary within a wide range of several orders of
magnitude. It is perhaps the most important soil characteristic depending on the
soil fractions. Table 2.2 lists the range of expected values of K for various soil
texture several orders magnitude, depending on soil texture.
Table 2.2: Hydraulic conductivity values of saturated soils (after Youngs 1991)
Soil
Soil K, (m s')
< 0.10
0.10 10
Coarsetexture soils
> 10
The magnitude of the K,, which is the measure of soil hydraulic conductivity in
saturation condition generally. is high in sandy soils (Ks = 86.4 to 8.64 m day'
which is pervious or permeable, and is lower in loam soils, (Ks = 8.64 x lo' to
8.64 x 1 02 rn day I). In nonagricultural clay soils the Ks may lower than 8.64 x
m day'. When the soil K, is lower than 8.64 x lo4 m day' the soil may be
considered impervious or impermeable. F A 0 (1963) rates soils into six hydraulic
conductivity classes as shown in Table 2.3
On the other hand. Cliilds (1969) has shown that the Ks of the soil is
dependent on the soil structure. He concluded that it is hazardous to correlate the
conductivity to the soil texture alone. Furthermore, Reynolds and Zebchul (1996)
stated that the spatial changes in texture and structure could have a large
influence on Kfs.
Table 2.3: Classification of soil hydraulic conductivity values according to F A 0
Hydraulic conductivity ( K )
(m day')
< 0.2
0.2  0.5
0.5  1.4
1.4  1.9
1.9  3.0
> 3.0
conductivity class
( m m hI)
<8
8  20
20  60
60  80
80  125
> 125
Very slow
Slow
Moderate
Moderately rapid
Rapid
Very rapid
A more detailed list of relationships between the soil K, and soil texture, and soil
2 Soil heterogeneity
'able 2.4: Annroximate relationshins between texture. structure, and hvdraulic conductivitv (After Landon. 1991)
Soil structure
Soil texture
Single grain
Medium sand
Single grain
Bagarello and Provenzano (1996) have experimentally showed that the initial
water content significantly affected the GP results. They found that ISfs values
decreased when antecedent soil water content increased. They attributed that to the
smearing and/or compacting of well walls during the augering process.
4 Air Entrapment
lnfiltration into unsaturated soil has been known to entrap air in the pore
space (Reynolds and Elrick, 1985; and Lee et al.. 1985). The presence of
state flow rate (Q,). the persistence of capillarity in threedimensional flow, and
the range and resolution of the apparatus for measuring the flow (Elrick et al.,
1990; Talsma, 1987). Field, laboratory and theoretical works suggested the
neglected capillarity in the GP method analysis cause
K,to be overestimated by
factors ranging from 1.0 to more than 10 depending upon soil properties, soil
wetness, and source geometry (Talsma, 1987; Reynolds and Elrick, 1985; 1987).
Summary
measurements. However, it is not obvious that any of these mcthods will work
under all circumstances. Unfortunately, most of them havc bccn applied with
varying degrecs of success and often yicld substantially dissimilar soil K, values,
since the soil K, properties are highly variable. In addition, the problems of
detennmng the soil K by these mcthods, particularly field methods. is
compounded by the expense of experimentally obtained values, the equipment
required, the time involved and a large number of observations are required to
saturated hydraulic conductivity present than the ones mentioned here. However,
the success of the individual methods varies. Often a method does fairly well in a
localized area. No one method works really well for all soils. Sometimes,
measurement of the predictor variables is more difficult than measurement of
hydraulic conductivity. At present, there is not much agreement which
lneasuremcnt technique may be the best for a given purpose. Further. it is very
difficult to compare different technologies because there is no independent soil K,
datum or benchmark upon which evaluations or judbments can be made. The soil
researcher must use best judgment based on experience, local conditions and the
observed behavior of the particular soil.
CHAPTER 111
MATERIALS AND METHODS
I Site description
To meet the objectives of this study, field experiment and laboratory analysis
were carried out. About 1200 m2 experimental area consisting of five adjacent plots
measuring 20 m x 12 m was used for this study. Figure 3.1 and plate 3.1 show the
study area. Figure 3.2 shows the plot indicated as basin irrigation area at the Field
Station of the Department of Biological and Agriculture Engineering UPM.
The study was performed in a Serdang series soil classified according to the
soil taxonomy as a member of the fine loamy siliceous isohyperthermic family of the
Typic Paleudult (Paramananthan 1978). According to Abd. Manan (1 982) the series
was developed on sandstone parent material and occupy an extensive area in the
University farm. The soils of this series is one of the most extensive soils in Selangor
and occur on undulating and rolling to hilly land but mainly on rolling terrain (Wong
The soils have been mapped in every state in Peninsular Malaysia except for
the state of Perlis (Paramananthan 1978). They are characterized by the surface soils
with sandy loam to sandy clay loam in texture while in the subsoil is sandy clay loam
to sandy clay (Abd. Manan, 1982; Wong, 1970). The texture often becomes heavier at
depths around 1 111 (Paramananthan 1978).
KEY:
Figure 3.1 Soil map showing the location of Serdang series at UI'M campus (after Para~nanathanet a1 1979)
SKALA
800
Figure 3.2: Contour map of the Field Research Area Faculty of Engineering showing
the study area (Basin irrigation area)
They range in colour from uniform yellowish brown to brownish yellow and with
depths the colours may be strong brown, reddish yellow (Paramananthan 1978).
Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of Serdang Series soils at UPM indicated as
110.3. Four pits about 2.0
111
throughout the study area were excavated for soil description and collecting
undisturbed soil core samples for bulk density and K, measurements, (Figure 3.2).
2Experimental Design
located on the site as indicated in Figure 3.3 For the GP method about 109
measurements at four depths (0.15 m, 0.30 m, 0.60 m, and 0.90 m below the ground
surface) were made. Four measurements were carried out at 3 m intervals in each plot
at each depth (for a total of about 22 measurements site). About 70 undisturbed cores
soil samples at depths of 0.15. 0.3, 0.45. 0.60, and 0.90 nl from the soil profiles were
collected vertically for laboratory measurements of saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Two measurements for double ring were taken within an approximately 4 x 4 m area
on each plot (for a total of 10 measurements). Twelve core samples for bulk density
Figure 3.3: Symmetric plan showing the location of saturated hydraulic conductivity tests and sample collection;
the Guelph Penneameter, GP, measurements; for double ring infiltrometer, DRI, measurements. and
soil profiles location for cores samples collection
for
are
measurements were collected at each depth (for a total of 45 measurements for all
depths). The collected soil samples for bulk density measurements, laboratory
measurements of K, and from preparation of G P wells were used for texture,
porosity. and organic matter determination. The four pits were also used for soil
description.
Standard methods of soil analysis were followed for soil moisture content,
soil texture, bulk density, and porosity as recommended by Klute (1 986). The
determination of loss in ipition was used for detennining soil organic matter.
The standard methods were followed as shown in the Appendix A.
In this study, soil hydraulic conductivity. refers to the rate of water moving
downward through a soil as measured by the Guelph permeameter method, GP,
the constant head as a laboratory method. SCHP, using undisturbed soil cores and
the infiltration ring. Also the SCHP method was conducted at depths of 15, 30,45,
60, and 90 cm below the ground surface. Saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, was
also estimated fiom other soil properties using various empirical models
Guelph permeameter (GP) is one of various types of the constant head well
penneameter (CH WP) which operates on the Maniott siphon principle to pond the
constanthead of water in the borehole and measure the water rate flowing out thc
borehole (Reynolds and Elrick, 1985). The permeameter is constructed of two
concentric acrylic tubes where the inner air inlet tube provides the air supply, and
the outer tube provides the water reservoir and the outlet into the well. Water flows
out of the outlet tubc through a funnel shaped part located immediately above the
permeameter tip. The GP method provides a quick and simple method for in situ
field measurement of saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kk). It involves augering a
small diameter cylindrical borehole of radius 3 cm to the desired depth and
measuring the steady state flow rate of water into the hole while maintaining a
constant head of water inside the borehole.
and compaction of thc borehole walls. To avoid the possibility of alteration in well
characteristics each measurement was carried out immediately after having
prepared the borehole. Soil samples were collected when holes were being
prepared at each site for each depth to determine the soil particle size distribution
(% sand, % silt and % clay).
After the system was assembled, filled with water, placed in the prepared
borehole, and adjusting vertically, reading procedure was carried out first by
slowly raising the air inlet tip (by grasping the upper air tube) to establish the first
prescribed level of 5 cm. The reading of water level in the GP reservoir were taken
at constant time interval of 2 minutes. in some cases, variable time intervals were
used, until steadystate (Q,,) was obtained (i.e. R
= constant
for consecutive 3 to 4
times). The air tube inlet tip was then raised to establish the second head height
(HI) of I0 cm, and the same procedure was repeated again same as described for
the 5 cm head and reading continued until steadystate (Qs2)was obtained. Finally,
and
$,,, = (0.0571 ) (A' )
( F ,)
 (0.0237 )
( K)
(X)
Plate 3.2: (A) Guelph Permeameter (GP) kit and (B) GP setup in the study area
.
.
 .
 
K 1,
(0 .OO4l ) ( Y )( F 2)
(0.004 ) ( Y )
(q)
and
Where
Kk is the fieldsaturated hydraulic conductivity (cm s')
Rland RZare the steadystate rate of fall in the reservoir corresponding to HI and H2
respectively and converted to cmlsec.
and where:
Qs is the steady state flow rate corresponding to the water head (H)
4,
In this study, also Kfs estimated from the Eq. 3.5 using a* value equal
12 m' Table 3.1, as suggested by Reynolds et a]., (1992); Reynolds, (1993); and
Reynolds and Zebchuk, 1996). According to Reynolds (1993); Reynolds and
Zebchuk (1996) there was no compensation made for the possible water viscosity
or air entrapped effects on Kfs.
Figure 3.4: Shape factors (C) for use in the constanthead well permeameter
method. H is the depth of water in the well, a is the well radius, 0 :
a* 2 12 cm", x: a* = 0.04 cm' and H: a* = 0Olcm
(After
Reynolds, 1993b)
'
Table 3.1: Porous media categories used for estimating a* in the singlehead well
permeameter analysis of Elrick et al (1989) as cited by Reynolds et al
Infiltration rate can be measured by observing the fall of water within two
concentric cylinders driven vertically into the soil surface layer. The double ring
infiltrometer method as described by Bouwer, (1986) and Landon (1991), with
measurement confined to the inner ring, was used to estimate Ks. The double ring
infiltrometer cylinders, which are made of galvanized steel with the bottom edge
beveled from the outside to the inside, used had dimensions of inner and outer ring
of 30.5 cm in diameter by 30 cm height and 60.5 cm in diameter by 30 cm height
respectively (Plate 3.3). On each plot two infiltration runs were carried out within
I Omdiameter area (for a total of I0 sets of measurements). The woody materials
were removed from the selected locations. Then the rings were placed
concentrically on the area to be tested. The rings were driven uniformly and
straight down into the soil to approximately 10 cm depth, just far enough to
prevent lateral leakage when water was ponded in them, by a falling weight type
hammer striking on heavy timber placed on the top. The timber was rotated every
few blows and the penetration was then checked (i.e. uniform and vertically). The
inner ring was driven first followed by the outer ring. After the driving was
completed, the disturbed soil adjacent to the ring on the inside was stamped firm.
Both rings were filled with water to just above the reference mark; the time was
noted and the water level in the inner ring was measured using a vertical scale
fixed to a leveled beam sitting on the top of the outer ring and then recorded. The
water level measurements were taken inside the inner ring at regular intervals; the
levels were measured and recorded immediately before and immediately after each
refill. Each infiltration test run lasted for 2 to 3 hours by which time the steady
infiltration rates had been attained.
During the experiment, the water in the outer ring was kept as approximately the
same level as in the inner one to eliminate the lateral movement of the infiltrate
water in the soil, thus maintaining a onedimensional flow condition. The
infiltration rate as a function of time was found using refill of the rings to a fixed
level at suitable time intervals. Usually the measurements were continued for one
hour after steady state appeared to have been reached. Observations of cumulative
infiltration versus time were recorded and subsequently converted to the
corresponding infiltration rates for elapsed times from the start of each experiment.
asymptotically approaching unity and the final infiltration rate (1,) equals K,.
Where:
Because of the required size (8.89 cm 0 . D and 8.5 cm I.D. size) of the thin
walled brass steel cylinder were not readily available within the laboratory, the
cylinders samplers tubes therefore. were machined from 8.89 cm (3.5" inch) 0 . D
and 7.62 cm 1.D tubing using an engineers lathe. A sharpened cutting edge was
also machined on one end of the sampling cylindrical metal tube. About 50
undisturbed soil cores were sampled from four freshly dug pits at depths of 15, 30,
45. 60 and < 75 cm. Three replicate samples were collected from two adjacent
faces of the pit at each depth (for a total of 15 cores samples per pit). The sampling
cylinders were lubricated with cooking oil and then inserted into the soil layers by
hammering gently on the top of the cylinder up to the established depth as showed
in the Plate 3.4
As the sampling cylinder was forced into the soil the surrounding soil was
removed to lessen resistance to passage. When the required sample was contained
in the cylinder. the surrounding soil was dug away to a greater depth to allow a
cutting plate to be jacked underneath, separating the cylinder sample from the soil
beneath. All cores were collected from a vertical orientation, and care was
exercised in the collection of the samples to limit the distortion of the natural soil
structure. Furthermore. the soil cores were carefully examined in the field for
cracks and other samplinginduced disturbance and cores with such features were
discarded, only samples free from any visible defects were chosen from the depth
interval. Once extracted from the soil, the soil adhering to the outside of the
cylinders was removed, and the cores were bagged in a plastic bag immediately
and brought to the laboratory.
In the measurements, the soil was cleaned from around the upper end of the
sample and a cylinder of the same diameter was connected to the top of the core to
allow imposition of the head and a filter paper was placed on the top of the sample.
The core samples were transferred and fixed onto the prepared system (see Figure
3.5). and water was gently added to give a hydraulic head in the extended cylinder.
The constant head above the soil surface was established using an overflow
technique and no significant head fluctuations were observed when the apparatus
was tested. Then the apparatus was allowed to attain steady state flow conditions
for one hour before outflow volumes were measured. The volume of percolation
Plate 3.4: View of the undisturbed soil core samples collected for bulk density, A,
and saturated hydraulic conductivity, B, in the laboratory.
water through the soil core in a set period of time was collected (using funnel) and
recorded. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K,) for each core samplc was
calculated Srom the flow and the head recorded by the standard constant hcad
equation (Darcy's equation 1856) as:
where V (ml) is the volume of water collected in time t (s). L is the length of
sample (cm). A is the crosssectional area of the sample (cm'), and AH is the head
difference causing the flow between the top and the bottom of the sample (cm).
Acrylic Cylinder
7'
Am/
Water Trough
Graduated Cylinder
Figure 3.5: The components of a laboratory constant head permeameter
5.1Jabro model
log(ks)
 4.64(bulk density )
Where
In the second method Saxon equation in which K, is a function of sand and clay
content, and can be computed using the following equation;
K , = exp
20 .62  0 . 9 6 x l n ( ~ )  0 . 6 6 x l n ( ~ )
 0 . 4 6 x In (m )  8.43 xb D
(cm/day
where
X = 19.52348 P8.9684;LO.O282l3C+O.OOOl8lO?S*SO.OOO94l26C.C
8.395215P~P+0.077718S~P0.00298S.S.P~P0.01949~C~C.P.P
+0.0000173S.S.C+0.02733C.C.P+0.001434S.S.P0.0000035C.C.S
Where P is the porosity (m3m3),S is sand content (%), C is clay content (%)
13.131
KS = 5.24
2.08(DB
) 
Where
Ks is saturated hydraulic conductivity in cmlh, DB is the bulk density in g/cm3' St
is percent silt, and C is percent clay content.
6Statistical Analysis
6.1Statistical Distribution
All the data of K1:,and $,, were transformed to logarithms (logloK,,) scale.
Using transformation to a loglo scale rather than a log, scale enables easier
interoperation (a loglo 10
1, loglo 100
deviation (SD), Skewness, and Kurtosis coefficients of the parameters mean field
Kt:,; mean laboratory Ks and mean K, estimated from the models and their logarithmetic transforms were evaluated. The Skewness and Kurtosis coefficients
were used to verify the statistical distribution of the data. The Skewness coefficient
approaches to zero for a normally distributed variable. The kurtosis coefficient, a
dimensionless measure of the flatness of the distribution is 3 for a normally
distributed random variable. Hence, the closer the calculated kurtosis to 3, the
greater is the tendency toward normality. Probability plot was used to determine if
that Kfs was lognormally distributed. All statistical analyses were conducted using
loglo( Kfs). For lognormally distributed data, the Fand ttests were conducted on
the logtransformed data. However, when two X values were found to be
significantly different the corresponding Ks values were also significantly
different. The F and ttests were conducted at the 1 % level or 5 % level of
significance.
Statistics for all data were performed using StatGgraphics (SPlus) and
SPSS statistical packages for Windows version Release 3 and 1 1 , respectively.
First, average (p) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for untransfonned
K, values. Then geometric mean value was calculated for a lognormal distribution
of K, from the average of transformed loglo (K,) values. Stepwise regression
procedure was used to dctermine the best relationship between the independent
variables (sand, silt, clay. bulk density, porosity, and organic matter) and
dependent variable (saturated hydraulic conductivity).
6.2Comparison of methods
The GP, DRI, SCHP methods and empirical models values were
statistically compared for each depth on the basis of geometric mean (K,), range
(R), coefficient of variation (CV), and standard deviation factor (SD) of the K,
values. Statistical procedure using loglo transformed data for soil saturated
hydraulic conductivity, Ks, were compared to determine if there was any difference
according to method and the depth of determination.
The geometric mean KsGmvalues for each of the three methods were
compared on a painvise basis within each depth using two tailed multiple Fand t
tests. GP value of Kfs was compared to those values determined by different
methods using a single factor ANOVA providing the Fstatistic was significant,
multiple comparisons were preformed with Tukey's
honestly significant
difference. Ttests were used to compare Kfs between depths within a given
method. A regession analysis was conducted between fieldmeasured loglo (K,)
and laboratorymeasured loglo (K,). Additionally, the correlation coefficient (R)
was used to measure the degee of association between measured and predicted
values.
CHAPTER IV
Core samples were collected at four depths except for one profile where the
core samples were collected from the topsoil only (0.0 to 0.50 m) due to the
presence of gravelly sandy clay layer.
Table 4.1 shows the results of the analyses of the collected soil samples.
Observations in 1.5 m deep pits revealed that the topsoil and subsoil of Serdang
series in this site is a deep uniform dark yellowish brown (IOYR 414). The soil
structures of the study area are weak to moderate, medium to fine subangular to
angular blocky with abundant fine quartz at the lower parts of the subsoil.
Plate 4.2
Plate 4.3
Plate 4.4
Plates 4.1 through 4.4: show soil profiles at the study area
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
27.75
9.00
62.30
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
0.5
1.645
37.92
25.58
Plot no.2
SCL
SL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
CL
SCL
SC
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
Plot no.3
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
CL
SCL
SCL
SCL
C
SC
SCL
SL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SC
SCL
SC
Plot no.4
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
CL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SC
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SC
SCL
SCL
Plot no.5
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SCL
SC
0.15 1.390 47.55 19.00
SC
0.88 1.560 41.13 24.20
SC
1.03 1.510 43.02 24.30
SCL
0.44 1.350 49.06 18.87
SC
1.04 1.522 42.56 18.35
44.00
7.7 48.00
0.95 1.409 46.83 20.50
SC
Soil classification classes according to United states Department of Agriculture
(USDA. C= Clay, CL=clay loam, SC=sandy clay, SL=sandy loam, and SCL=
sandy clay loam
As evidence from Figure 4.1 the soil profiles are characterized by a top 0 to
0.90 m sandy clay loam soil texture in accordance with the USDA soil texture
classification (sand
of sandy clay and clay texture existed as well, however, as evidenced by the large
maximum values for sand and clay content (73.57 % and 44.0 %, respectively).
area in which the top surface have been removed. Other soil profile description
such as, texture colour, root, mottles and fauna are shown in Figure 4.2.
clay
 ,
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% sand
90
100
Table 4.2 Physical properties of Serdang Series soil at the experimental site across
at each depth
parameter*
N'
Mean
value
19
25.79
1 3.68
60.35
2.002
1.548
41 S 8
17.0
E%
MC %
Clay ( < 2pm) %
Silt (250 pm) %
Sand (>50 pm) %
OM %
D~ g cm3
E%
MC %
19
19
19
19
19
19
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
21
21
21
21
21
21
27
SD"
Depth 0 15 cm
6.198
18.0
7.08
6.2
12.01
29.89
0.575
0.9
0.0985 1.39
0.852
35.63
3.070
12.23
Depth 1530 cm
26.82
4.482
19.6
11.31
1.046 2.7
60.55
8.249 40.1 1
1.856
0.562
0.73
1.623
0.131
1.38
38.68
4.917
31.2
18.7
2.124
13.9
Depth 3060 cm
30.47
3.028
26.35
13.1 1
3.918
8.5
5.444
39.75
55.4 1
1.7
0.69
0.8
1.60
0.097
1.362
39.65
3.66
35.3
20.57
1.979
16.79
Depth 6090 cm
32.36
4.739
22.74
25
10.91
4.106
2.4
25
56.56
5.373 49.4
25
0.724
0.433
0.26
25
1.554
0.104
1.255
25
41.32
3.93
36.8
5%
25
~ M C%
34
20.51
2.33
13.02
25.58
11.38
+OM =organic matter, Db = bulk density, E = porosity and MC = moisture content.
#Number of measurements.
YStandard deviation
5 Coefficient of variation
31ay ( < 2pm) %
silt (250 pm) %
sand (>50 pm) %
3M Yo
lb
g cm3
Profile 1
Horizon
BI
Mottles
0 5 cm
Dark yellowish
brown ( I OY R 414)
Very few
5100 cm
Dark yellowish
brown ( I OYR 414)
Very few
1 00+
Dark yellowish
brown ( I OYR
Very few
Texture
Weak to moderate
Subangular blocky
Moderate
medium
subangular to
Abundant
Depth (cm)
Colour
1 Structure
Gravel
Very few
Moderate medium
subangular to
angular blockv
Abundant
Fauna
Many pores
Many pores
Few pores
Roots
Many
Few
No
1I
Profile 2
Mottles
I
I
Gravel
Weak to moderate
Subangular blocky
Abundant
Roots
Very few
I
Texture
I
Dark yellowish
brown (1 OYR 414)
Very few
Sandy clay
Macro pores
Many pores
Fine t to medium
Fine
Horizon
1 Depth (cm)
1
0 1 5 cm
1555 cm
55+ cm
Yellowish brown
( I OYR 518)
Very few 7%
Dark yellowish
brown (I OYR 414)
Iron concentration
Structure
Crumber structure
Subangular
blocky (massive)
Gravel
Fauna
No
Colour
Mottles
i
I
Profile 3
I Roots
I
Subangular blocky
structure
No
I Fine to medium
I No
No
I No
I
Profile 4
Horizon
/ Depth (cm)
( 0 5
, Colour
I
,
cm
1 5100 cm
loo+
I Dark yellowish
Mottles
Yellowish brown
(1 OYR 518)
Very few
Dark yellowish
brown ( I OYR 414)
Very few
Texture
Structure
Weak to moderate
Subangular blocky
Subangular blocky
Subangular blocky
Few
No
/ No
No
No
No
Fauna
Few
No
No
Roots
1
Figure 4.2: Soil profiles description of study area located at Faculty of engineering
research area DBAE Field Station.
I
At the topsoil layer (0 to 0.15 m), the moisture content varied from 12.2 to
22 % with the mean value of 17 % . The standard deviation was 3.1 %.
The moisture content of the layer 0.15 to 0.3 m varied from 13.9 % to 22.3
%. The mean value of the moisture content was 18.7 %. The standard deviation
was 2.12 %.
At the depth 0.3 to 0.60 m, the moisture content ranged from 16.8 % to
23.6 %, with the mean value of 20.6 % and standard deviation of 1.98 %. At the
deep layer (0.6 to 0.90 m), the moisture content varied from 13.02 % to 25.58 %.
And the mean value was 20.5 %, and the standard deviation was 2.38 %.
The results showed that the organic matter (OM) was generally low. It
ranged from 0.26 to 3.46 % and the mean value was 1.55 % with the standard
deviation of 0.76 % and within the expected range for sandy clay loam soil.
At the depth 0.15 In the organic matter content ranged from 0.9 to 3.46 %
with mean value of 2.0 %. The standard deviation was 0.57 %. The organic matter
content of the depth 0.1 5 to 0.30 m varied from 0.73 to 2.87 % with mean value of
1.85 %. The standard deviation was 0.56 % .
At the depth 0.60 m, the organic matter percentage was in the range 0.8 5
to 3.34 %. The mean value and standard deviation were 1.7 % and 0.69 %.
respectively.
The percentage of organic matter of the 0.6 to 0.90 m depth layer varied
from 0.26 % to 2.12 % with the mean value of 0.72 %. The standard deviation was
0.43 %.
The mean percentage of organic matter at each depth was found to be 2.0
%, 1.86 %, 1.69 % and 0.7 % at 0.15 m, 0.30 m, 0.60 m and 0.90 m, respectively
showed that the organic matter content decreased with increasing soil depth.
The soil samples collected using both the brass copper rings with size o f 7 4
mrn diameter and 40 mm high and brass steel cylinders with size of 76.2 diameter
and 76.2 mm high were used for determining the soil bulk density (Db) as
mentioned in the procedures of chapter 11I.
The bulk density obtained in this study ranged from 1.26 to 1.82 g ~ m  ~ .
The mean value was 1.585 g cm" and standard deviation of 0.1 12 g ~ m  ~ .
The bulk density values at the depth of 0.0 to 0.1 5 m ranged from 1.39 to
1.71 g cm' with standard deviation and mean of 0.096 and 1.548 g cm' ,
respectively.
At the depth 0.15 to 0.3 m, the bulk density varied from 1.38 to 1.822 g
cm" . with mean value of 1.623 . The standard deviation was 0.13 1 g cm" .
At the depth 0.3 to 0.6 m, the values of bulk density ranged from 1.362 to
1.714. The standard deviation was 0.097 g cm", with the mean of 1.60 g cm' .
The bulk density of 0.6 to 0.9 m depth varied from 1.255 to 1.675 g ~ m  ~ .
The mean value of the bulk density was 1.554 g cm" with standard deviation of
2.33 g c111'.
The mean value of each depth showed that the bulk density at the topsoil
(0.0 to 0.15 m ) was the lowest and the highest was at a depth of 0.3 to 0.6 m. The
lowest of the bulk density of the 0.0 to 0.1 5 m layer was attributed to the loose
topsoil.
Porosity (E)
In this Study, the total porosity was calculated from the soil bulk density
(Dh) and the soil particle density (D,) (assume to be 2.65 g cm") as shown in
Appendix A.
The results from the calculation of the total porosity for this study showed
that it ranged from 3 1.2 % to 52.6 % and the mean value was 40.2 % with standard
deviation of 4.27 %.
At the topsoil layer, the total porosity varied from 35.6 % to 47.5 % and the
mean value was 41.6 %, with standard deviation of 0.85 %. The total porosity at
the subsoil layer closed to the topsoil (0.15 to 0.30 m). ranged from 31.2 to 47.9 %.
And the standard deviation was 4.92 %. with the mean of 38.7 %.
At a depth of 0.3 to 0.6 m, the total porosity varied from 35.3 % to 48.6 %
with the mean value of 39.7 %. The standard deviation was 3.7 %. At the subsoil
layer (0.6 to 0.9 m), it ranged from 36.8 to 52.6 %, with the mean value of 41.32
%. The standard deviation was 3.93 %.
Sand (S)
The soil particle size greater than 50 pm was considered as sand (S)
particle as classified by USDA. The results of this study showed that the variation
of the percentage of the sand ranged from 29.9 to 73.57 %. The mean value and the
standard deviation were 58.28 and 8.2 %. respectively.
The percentage of the sand fractions of the topsoil layer varied from 29.9 to
73.6 % and the mean value was 60.35 %, with standard deviation of 12.01 %.
The percentage of sand of the subsoil layer (0.15 to 0.3 m) varied from
40.1 1 to 73.4 %. The mean value and standard deviation were 60.55 and 8.25 %,
respectively.
The soil of the layer at a depth of 0.30 to 0.6 m showed the percentage of
the sand varied from 39.75 to 63.33, with the mean value of 55.41 %. The standard
deviation was 5.44 %.
The mean value of each soil depth indicated that the highest sand content
was the topsoil layer (0.0 to 0.1 5 m) and the lowest was the deep layer. The results
of the mean value showed that the percentage of the sand content almost decreased
with increasing soil depth.
Silt (Si)
p n is considered as silts. The results of this study showed that the silt content
ranged from 2.4 to 33.9 %. The mean value and the standard deviation were 12.1
and 5.28 %, respectively.
The variation of the percentage of the silt at a depth of 0.0 to 0.15 m ranged
from 6.2 to 33.98 %, with the mean value of 13.68 %. The standard deviation was
7.08 %.
The soil at the layer 0.15 to 0.3 m showed the percentage of the silt varied
from 2.7 to 23.98 %. The mean value and standard deviation were 11.3 1 and 1.05
%, respectively.
At a depth of 0.3 to 0.6 m, the percentage of the silt ranged from 8.5 to 21.9
%, and the mean value was 13.1 1 % , with standard deviation of 3.92 %. At the
deep layer (0.6 to 0.90 m), the percentage of the silt varied from 2.4 to 18.6 % and
the mean value was 10.9 %. The standard deviation was 4.1 1 %.
As indicated by the mean value of each depth it was found that, the soil of
the top layer (0.0 to 0.15 m) has the highest value of silt compared to the other
layers and the soil at a depth of 0.6 to 0.9 m has the least silt content. The
percentage of si It decreased with increasing soil depth.
Based on the USDA soil classification, the soil fraction less than 2 pm is
considered as clays. The results from the soil particle size analysis for this study
showed that the percentage of clay content varied from 18.0 to 44.0 %, and the
mean value was 28.9 %. The standard deviation was 5.33 %.
At the topsoil layer, the variation of the percentage of clay ranged from 18
to 37.74 %. The mean value and the standard deviation were 25.79 and 6.2 %,
respectively.
At the layer 0.3 to 0.6 m, the percentage of the clay varied from 26.35 to
38.23 %, with the mean value of 30.47 %. The standard deviation was 3.03 %. At
the deep layer (0.6 to 0.9 m), the percentage of clay content varied from 22.7 to 44
%. The mean value and the standard deviation were 32.36 and 4.74 %,
respectively.
As evidence from the mean value at each depth (25.79, 26.82, 30.47, and
32.36 % for 00.15, 0.150.3, 0.30.6, and 0.60.9 m depths, respectively) the
percentage of the clay content increased with increasing soil depth.
Soil Textural
The relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay were used to determine the
soil textural classes using soil textural triangle. The particle size distribution (PSD)
was estimated for each sample using the Pipette method. From the PSD results the
soil texture composition was estimated. Despite the vertical soil profiles are not
stratified, a texture analysis at different depths (01 5 cm, 1530 cm, 3045 cm, 4560 cm, and 6090 cm) was performed. The soil profiles are characterized by a top
0.9 m consisted mainly of sandy clay loam with small areas of sandy clay and
sandy loam texture in accordance with the USDA soil texture classification.
Figure 4.1 shows the textural distribution of the full data set of the study
area while Figurer 4.3 shows the textural distribution of the soil in each depth. It is
clear from both figures that the texture of the samples in this study was found
mainly sandy clay loam and represents 81.5 % (106 samples) from the total
number of soil samples of 130 samples. The other 18.5 % (24 samples) are
represented by three classes of the textural triangle classification sandy clay, sandy
loam and clay loam (10.8 % (14 samples), 4.6 % (6 samples), and 3.1 % (4
samples) respectively). The results obtained in this study are in agreement with the
work of Wong (1 970) and Paramananthan (1 978).
70
m0
60
40
30
20
TO
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
20
30
40
% sand
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Depth 1530 cm
Depth 0 1 5 cm
50
% sand
60
70
80
90
100
% sand
Depth 3060 cm
Depth 6090 cm
Figure 4.3: Textural distributions for the data set at each depth.
80
90
100
Infiltration rate
=a
T~ and D = c Td
The results of curve fitting are shown in Table 4.4. The final infiltration
rates If,,, (cmlh) are found when terminal rates were achieved. This normally is at
100 to 120 minutes. The IfinaIrates from this work varied from 0.02 m day' to 0.86
rn day' with one exceptionally high value of 3.36 m day'.For the infiltration rates
Noriah (1992) reported value of 1.44 m day' for Serdang Series soils. Amin et al.
(2001) showed infiltration rates values for Serdang Series soils to range from 0.01
to 0.9 m day', which compares well with the results obtained in this study.
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
infiltration rate
Figure 4.5: A loglog of infiltration rate and cumulative infiltration versus elapsed
time for point no.7 Serdang Series soil
1440
K.,

I>
crnlhr mlday
VOILIIII
cm
Location
D = yf
l=aTh
cni / hr
c nl
Ii
1I 2
D = 0.05
I
I
= 57.36 TOo7
0 7s 1
0.736 1
TI
does not correspond reasonably to reported values for sandy clay loam soils.
However, closer agreement was found when the infiltration rate was extrapolated
to T = 1440 minutes (ie. one day) as shown in Table 4.3. Multiplying those values
with 0.24 one obtains K, values in m day'.
1,440
= 0.90
To test the validity of the methods outlined in the previous chapter 111, a 12 m
x 100 m field site was prepared for the field experimental work. In this study of
vadose zone saturated soil hydraulic conductivity, the focus was toward comparisons
of measurements in the field to those in the laborato~y.controlled condition, and those
estimated from other soil properties. Comparisons were canied out on Serdang Series
soils between K, determined by means of the GP, SCHP and DRI methods and those
calculated by pedotransfer functions.
The geometric mean Kls and K, values for the three methods regardless of the
soil depth are given in Table 3.5. Also include in Table 4.5 are the arithmetic mean.
maximum, minimum, standard deviation, and coefficients of variation (CV) for the Ks
as well as for the other soil properties.
The following sections well discuss the results of this study of the K, values as
a function of depth and the nlcthod ofdetennination.
Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics of parameters of Serdang Series soil measured at the experimental site across all depths.
Parameter
Units
No of
Mean value$
observations
SD#
Minimum
value
Maximum
Value
Coefficient Skewness1
of variation
%
K~GP
Ksscf{P
&DRI
Cm s'
Cm s'
Cm s'
Yo
'Yo
Yo
Yo
g cm3
'Yo
'Yo
The Skewness and Kurtosis coefficients were used to verify the statistical
distribution of the data. The Skewness coefficient close to zero for a normally
distributed variable. The kurtosis coefficient, a dimensionless measure of the
flatness of a distribution, is 3 for a normally distributed random variable. Hence,
the closer the calculated kurtosis to 3, the greater is the tendency toward normality.
The frequency distribution of Ks for the results obtained from the three
methods (GP, DRI and SCHP) were fitted to both normal and lognormal
distributions. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show the corresponding frequency histograms
and fitted distribution functions.
It is evident from the figures and the values of Kurtosis (Table 4.4) that the
and Mohanty et al. (1994). Consequently, all the statistical tests of the K, results
were therefore carried out using the geometric mean of untransformed data
(arithmetic means of logtransformed data) rather than arithmetic mean (Bouwer
and Jackson, 1974; and Lee et al. 1985).
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 present the normal probability plots for log (K ,). These
values approximate a straight line and demonstrate lognormal distribution in both
cases.
As mentioned earlier in chapter IV, the double ring infiltrometer (DRI) was
only used to measure the Ks at the soil surface. The final infiltration rates Ifinal
values were obtained (see Table 4.3).
The geometric mean Ks values obtained by DRI method ranged from 2.78
x 1 o  ~and 1.297 x
cm s' and the standard deviation of value of 0.7484 cm sI. The coefficient of
variation (CV) value for the DRI method was 123.97 %.
The results also show that there was statistically significant difference at
0.05 level between Ks obtained from the Ifinalresults and the Kfsobtained by the GP
method but they were in agreement at 0.01 level. While the Ifinalvalues were found
to be similar to those obtained by the SCHP at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels.
0 002500
0.005000
0 007500
Lab K s (crnk)
Figure 4.6: Frequency histogram and fitted distribution functions for laboratory
evaluated saturated hydraulic conductivity (K,) using constant head
(SCHP) method
0.000800
0.00 1200
0.00 1600
Figure 4.7: Frequency histogram and fitted distribution functions for field
evaluated saturated hydraulic conductivity (K,) using Guelph
permeameter (GP) method.
7
6
5
4
3
2
Log (KsField ) cm 1s
1,440
different from the Kli values of the G P method while they were statistically
different from those found by the SCHP at both levels of significance (0.05 and
0.0 1 ).
The undisturbed soil core samples collected at different depths were tested
for Ks using constant head method (SCHP) as shown in the previous chapter IV.
The K, values range from 4.4 x 1 06 to 1.315 x I 02cm
S"
value and standard deviation of 4.238 x 10" cm s' and 1.993 cm s'.
Table 4.5 also shows that the SCHP method produces the largest KsGm,
S'
were estimated.
The geometric mean value of Ks of the top layer, measured at depth of 00.15 m ranged from 1.93 x 10" to 1.214 x 1 02 cm SI.The standard deviation of
the log transformed values was 3.1 1 cm s", with the geometric mean value of
1.431 x 10" cm s" .
The K, values measured at the depth of 0.15 to 0.30 m range from 1.43 x
1 05to 7.104 x 1 03cm s'. The geometric mean value and standard deviation were
The K, values at the depth of 0.30 to 0.60 varied from 7.333 x 1 06to 7.57 1
x lo4 cm s' , with the standard deviation of 6.854 cm sI. And the geometric
mean for this layer was 2.2 13 x I o4 cm SI.
And the K, value of the deep layer, measured at 0.60 to 0.90 ranged from
I x 1 05to 1.3 I 5 x 1 02cm s". The geometric mean and the standard deviation were
3.335 x 1 o  ~and 8.72 cm s'>respectively.
The geometric mean value of K, at topsoil was generally higher than at the
lower depths. This very likely due to the differences in PSD causing differences in
pore size distribution. There is more coarse sand in the top 30 cm of the profiles at
the site than at the lower depths.
Moreover, some of the cores tested in the laboratory had visible fine roots.
Therefore, the higher KsGm.KsMax,and KsMlnvalues obtained by soil core method
may reflect either natural (macropores, wormholes, root channels, and cracks) or
macropores created by insertion of the ring (although not observed during the
measurements) extended through the entire length of the core (Paige and Hillel,
1 993, Reynolds, 1993b; Bagarello and Provenzano, 1996).
 ~to
1.65 x
cm sI. The geometric mean value and the standard deviation were 6.424 x
1o
The Kfs value measured at the depth of 0.30 to 0.60 m range from 7.333 x
1 08to 7.571 x lo4 cm s'. The geometric mean and standard deviation values were
1.023 x
and 7.85 cm s' . At the depth of 0.60 to 0.90 m, the Kfs value ranged
S"
And the geometric mean value for this layer was 1.099 x
cm
SI
The results show that the GP has the lowest geometric mean values of Ks.
Moreover, the lowest geometric mean value was found at 0.60 m depth measured
by GP method. The geometric mean value of the four layer depths also showed
that the K, value decreased with increasing soil depth because of the increase in the
clay contents with depth.
It appears from this study that the GP method seemingly performed better
at the shallower depth (0 to 30 m). This could be attributed to the higher sand
content (see Table 4.2), at which the measurement was taken. This was very likely
due to the differences in PSD causing differences in pore size distribution. There is
more coarse sand in the top 0.30 m of the profiles at the site than at the lower
depths.
in the user's manual (Soil Moisture Equipment Corporation, 1987) was employed.
In addition, the negative values obtained in this study were higher for
the lower depths (0.30 to 0.9 m) which may be attributed to high clay content
(Table 4.2). Thus these negative values may due to random heterogeneity and
smearing andlor compaction of the well walls, especially during wetter soil
conditions which cause changes in wall resistance to water flow.
As pointed out by Reynolds and Elrick, (1985 and 1987), and Lee et al.
( 1 985) the negative values may be attributed to the soil heterogeneity. Whereas the
The failure attempt was any attempt that did not produce a K, value. It was
calculated by dividing the number of failed attempts to obtain a Ks measurement
by the total number of attempts multiplying by 100. The summary statistics for the
failure ratio, negative values and time required to complete one set of measurement
for the three methods regardless of the depth of measurement, are given in
Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: The total number of observation, percentage of failure ratio (FR),
percentage of negative Kk values and time required (T) to complete
one set of measurement.
Methods
Failure Ratio
YO
No of negative
Kfs values %
T
Minutes
Guelph permeameter
93
14.7
35.5
25  95
62
10
1500 1 650
9.1
In 16 out of 109 Kfs measurement was not possible because there was no Ks
values that could not be obtained due to no decline in the GP reservoir after the
starting the experiment. For these wells, the soil was compacted or may be its Kfs
was beyond the lower limit measurable by the GP apparatus (The GP marketed by
Soilmoisture Equipment Corp. can measure a Kfs range of about 1 02to I od).
In this study, the GP method has the highest FR while the DRI and SCHP
method were about the same (Table 4.6). Given that soil at lower depths, the clay
content is high, these failures with GP method were undoubtedly due to smearing
of the well surfaces by the auger particularly under wet soil conditions. The
smearing andlor compaction are usually issues when the flows are very slow
(Reynolds 1993a). This partial sealing of the borehole generally results in an
unrepresentatively low steady state flow (Qs) and corresponding Kfs (Reynolds and
Elrick, 1986) and smearing, remolding and siltation of infiltration surfaces can
strongly reduce Q, even to point Qs = 0 in extreme cases (Elrick et al., 1990).
Also presented in Table 5.6 is the time (T) required to obtain a given K,
value by these methods. The average time (T) value was calculated only for the
successful K, measurements and includes the time required to prepare and install
the apparatus as well as time spent taking the reading. It is seen from Table 4.5 that
the time spent preparing, installing, and to complete one set of measurement with
the DRI ranged from 100180 min, as compared to 25 to 90 minutes for the GP
method and 1500 to 1650 minutes for SCHP method to make one vertical
conductivity measurement.
It is noted that the GP method produced the lowest T values and the SCHP
method consistently produced the largest value (due to more than 90 % of the total
time spent saturating the cores in the laboratory). However as the GP method
required a larger number of tests, resulting in more total time. Therefore number of
measurements and time per run required to achieve an estimate of Ks with selected
level of confidence must be given careful consideration.
GP, DRI and SCHP Ks values were statistical compared within each depth,
on the basis of geometric mean (KsGM),maximum and minimum, coefficient of
CV, and SD of the K, values.
~ 1.654 x 1o  cm
~
yielded the widest range of values, from 7.333 x I o  to
S"
while
Table 4.7: Comparison of K, measurements obtained using the double ring infiltrometer (DRI), Guelph permealneter GP), and intact
soil core (SCHP) methods. KSGmis geometric mean K, value: KsMI,,is tlie minimum K, value, KsMa, is the maximum K,
value; SD is the standard deviation; CV is the coefficient of variation, negative value , arid N is the number of
measurements.
No. of
K*SG~
Ks~in
~ M R X
sD$
CV %
negative Ks
Depth Methods N
cm
GP
SCHP
DRI
25
14
10
6.424 x 105a
1.4312 x
1.3426~10~~
1530
GP
SCHP
25
12
6.1272 x 1 0 " ~
4.7953~10~~
3060
GP
SCHP
21
24
1.0229 x 106a
2.2131 x 1 0 " ~
6090
GP
SCHP
22
12
1.099 x
3.3351 x
a
a
*Values followed by the same letter are statistically different at the 0.01 probability level for that depth.
$Standard deviation of loglotransformed values for Krs and K,.
The results of the three measurement techniques showed that there was a
considerable variation in values of Ks. The GP. DRI , and SCHP techniques
produced K, values. The coefficients of variation of K, for sandy clay loan1
obtained from GP were higher than those obtained from laboratory (206.5 to 285
96) with average 240.26 %. While the SCHP method CV values ranged from 123.1
to 186.04 with the average value of 157.5. Lee et al (1 985) reported coefficient of
variation, CV, of Kfs and Ks in the order of 65% for sand soil, 130% for loam soil
and up to 600% for clay, which compares well with the results obtained in this
work using the two methods.
At all depths, geometric mean Ks values measured on intact soil cores using
SCHP method differed significantly from those Kfs values obtained with GP
method (Table 4.7). The laboratory K, values were nearly 27 to 360 times greater
than geometric mean Kfs values determined by the GP method. These results are
within the range reported by other researchers. Kanwar et a1 (1989) found that the
mean Ks values of the laboratory method were about I0 times to 800 times higher
than the GP mean Ks values. Also K, values 10 to ,130 times greater for the
laboratory method than for the GP method were found by Mirjat and Kanwar
(1 994).
These results indicate that the relationship between geometric mean Kfsand
K, values is variable. The GP method often yields conductivity values lower than
those determined by intact soil cores and other methods (Reynolds and Elrick,
1985; Lee et a]. 1985; Talsma 1987; Kanwar et al. 1989; Paige and Hillel, 1993;
Gupta et al. 1993 and Bagarello and Provenzano, 1996).
Reasons for these differences amongst the geometric mean values are not
completely obvious. However, there could be several possible reasons for this
disagreement between the GP (in situ) method results and SCHP (laboratory)
method results. The primary reason is the entrapment of air in the soil can lead to
Kfs values that are less than the saturated values (Bouwer, 1966; Talsma and
Hallam 1980; Lee et a1 1985). Some difference could be due to soil anisotropy. As
the undisturbed core samples were taken vertically, the SCHP measured vertical
K,", whereas the GP method delineates the combination of vertical and horizontal
soil Kfs. Stephens and Neuman (1 982a) stated that anisotropy sometimes is leading
to conductivity results 56 % of the rate in an isotropic soil.
It should also recognised that smearing of the well surface during the well
preparation under relatively wet conditions can contribute to low Kfs results
especially in clay rich soils (Reynolds at al. 1985; Talsma 1987; Wilson et al.
1989; Salverda and Dane 1993). However, there was low clay content at the
topsoil layer (0 cm to 15 cm depth) in the tested soil but the clay content increased
at the lower depths (see Table 4.2). Therefore, at the lower depths smearing might
have taken place and results in the low Krs values.
etc., which are not accounted for by any of these techniques could add to the
increase or decrease of K, values.
The results presented in Table 4.7 also show that the SD values at the lower
depths of 0.30 and 0.60 m for the laboratory method are greater than those derived
by the GP method. The high SD values indicate that some soil cores may have
more macropores than others (e.g. Mohanty et al. 1994). Moreover, some of the
cores tested in the laboratory had visible roots. Therefore, the higher KsGm,KsMax,
and KsMlnvalues obtained by soil core method may reflect rapid pipe flow through
wormholes, root channels, and cracks that extend through entire length of the
cores.
Figure 4.1 0: Linear regression between field (GP) and laboratory (SCHP)
evaluated saturated hydraulic conductivity (K,) values for Serdang
series sandy clay loam soil.
the results of the GP method and constant head method showed hardly any
agreement. This lack of the correlation between the results of the two methods
appear to confirm the findings of others (e.g., Bouma, 1980, 1983; Watt et al.
1982; Salverda and Dan, 1993 and Reynolds et al., 2000), that K, is extremely
sensitive to even relatively small differences in sample size, flow geometry and
soil structure.
The results of this study show that Serdang Series generally exhibited
higher Ks at the topsoil than subsoil. The results also indicated high variation in K,
estimates both within and between soil depths.
Differences
K, Model analysis
their ability to explain variation in Ks or log Ks. The Ks or log (K,) was the
dependent parameter and percentage of S, Si, C, MC, OM, E and Db were the
independent parameters.
To facilitate the statistical analysis of the data, all of the parameters were
keyed in into MS Excel and then transferred to the Statgraphics (Version 3, STSC
Plus Ware, Rockville, MD) and SPSS (Version 1 1 .O) software.
Pearson
correlations were used to investigate the relationship between Ks and the other
seven variables mentioned above. The multiple stepwise regression was then used
to select the variables to be included in the model and their coefficients. The
Model Fit Technique was carried out. The model takes the form
where the a0 = the regression constant, giving the intercept of the regression line on
the y axis; a, = the linear regression coefficients, representing the slope of the
regression line: XI = independent variables; and
E =
from the regression line. Greater detail regarding stepwise regression can be found
in Draper and Smith (1 981).
Before deriving the regression equations between the soil properties and
the K, parameter, correlation coefficient (r) were calculated for the soil parameters
incorporated in the model. The results of the first analysis are shown in Table 4.8.
The results of the correlation showed that the KsGPdata was not correlated
with S, Si, OM, Db, E, or MC parameters (Table 4.8). There was also no
correlation between KsSCHP
and S, C, OM, Db, E, or MC (Table 4.8). There were
significant ( P < 0.05) negative correlation, however, KsGPand C (r = 0.2 13), and
positive correlation between KsSCHP
and Si (r = 0.258).
Table 4.8 shows also that the KsGp and KsSCHPdata were found to be
positively correlated (r = 0.172), but not significant at either 0.01 or 0.05 level. The
results of correlation procedure also showed that there were significant strong
negative correlation between C and S (r = 0.768, P < 0.01) and between Si and S
(r = 0.775, P < 0.01). There were also significant positive correlation between C
and Si (r = 0.223 P < 0.05) and between C and MC (r = 0.224, P < 0.05). While the
OM parameter produced a significant (P < 0.01) negative correlation with the C
when r = 0.282.
A routine course for analysing of the data gathered here is to use some
form of multiple linear regression with the soil parameters as explanatory variables
and K, as the response. However, the regression equations sometimes fail to
account for complex interactions between variables. Complex interactions were
expected with the current data set. There are several options for developing
empirical models when the complex interaction is evident. One option to combat
Silt
Sand
KsGP
K~SCHP
Clay
Silt
Sand
OM
Db
E
MC
0.085
0.103
0.224*
0.030
0. 148
0.20 1
0.007
0.006
1
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed) and * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed). KsGp Guelph
permearneter Ks values and KsSC"p constant head Ks value. Db the bulk density, E porosity, OM organic matter content and MC
moisture content.
**
Measured Ks (cmls)
Figure 4.11 : Measured K, vs. predicted for complete data set of the study area.
S, with depth (Table 4.2). The means of both Ks and Kk and sand % decrease with
depth while the mean of clay % increases with depth. Therefore the data for all
depths probably cannot be regarded as stationary.
Thus the multiple linear regression analysis was performed again separately
to the exactly the same depths as where the measured Ks and K , values were
obtained. The results of the regression analysis indicted that there was a significant
relationship between K, and Kfs and the input variables at each depth. The several
final regression equations with significant level and their coefficient of
determination are presented in Table 4.9
As can be seen in Table 4.9 some improvements in R~ were found when the
regression analysis applied to each depth and when the data transformations were
used. For example, at the depth 90 cm the regression models depicting the
relationships between Ks and the Si, Db and E had relatively high and significant
coefficient of determination ( R =
~ 0.738, a< 0.01) and indicated that variation in Si.
Db. and E accounted for over 73.8 % of the variability in K,. From the results the
regression models with the highest R' were chosen as the best fit at each depth.
Table 4.9: Derived regression models (where K,, Kr, in cm s' ) are measured sati~ratedhydraulic conductivity using constant head
permeameter (SCHP) and Guelph perrnea~neter(GP) methods respectively. Dbbulk density in g cm'. E porosity %. MC
moisture content %)
Regression model
Depth 0 I5 cm
5.072 x 10." 3.02 x 10" (clay %) + 6.01 1 x 10.' (MC %)
2.44 x 10'+5.775 x 10'(Silt%)+ 3.169 x 10~(Sand%)
 61.75 + 0.563 (Clay %) + 0.632 (Silt %) + 0.592 (Sand %)
14.118 + 1.917 log (Silt %) +2.841 log (Sand %) + 3.36 log (MC %)
 1 1.864 + 2.721 log (Silt %) + 4.103 log (Sand %)  3.296 log ( E %) + 3.324 log (MC' %)
signilkant le\.el ( a )
[I]
121
(31
0.067
0.089
0.105
a =0.15
a = 0.05
a = 0.05
(41
151
[GI
171
[g]
0.26 1
0.320
0.484
0.52 1
0.568
a =0.100
a =0.150
a = 0.075
a = 0.053
a = 0.08 1
[ 91
[I 01
11 11
1121
[I31
0.131
0.307
0.39
0.479
0.503
a =0.215
a = 0.062
a =0.108
a = 0.055
a =0.116
1141
[I51
1161
1171
[ 181
[191
0.245
0.128
0.318
0.329
0.387
0.408
a =0.179
a = 0.291
a = 0.320
a = 0.073
a = 0.036
a = 0.064
[201
1211
1221
1231
0.356
0.534
0.608
0.738
Ileptli 1530cm
~
%)  2.30 x 10'" (Sand %)
Krr = 2.808 x 10.'  4.58 x 1 0 .(Clay
K, = 1.352 x
 2.9 x x10" (E %)
Log (K, ) = 16.930 + 0.241 (silt) YO + 0.1 79 (sand %)
Log (KJ = 40.367 + 5.208 log (silt %) + 17.886 log (sand %)
Log (KJ = 36.479 + 5.143 log (silt %) + 18.881 log (sand YO) 3.458 log (E YO)
Depth 3060 crn
Kfr = 9.79 x 10'' + 2.709 x 10.' (Silt %) + 1.621 x 10.' (Sand %)  1.19 x
(OM %)
 3.03 x (Silt %)  1.85 x 10.' (Sand %)
K, = 1.523 x
Log (K,) = 6.913  0.229 (Silt %)  0.138 (Sand %)
Log (K,) = 8.98  2.99 x 10 2 log (Silt %)  0.540 (OM %) + 0.246 (MC %)
Log (KrJ = 20.580 + 3.03 log (Clay % )  1.944 log (OM %) + 8,579 log (MC %)
Log (Kr,) = 34.7 10 +6.462 log (Clay % ) + 4.233 log (Sand)  1.809 log (OM %) + 9.83 1 log (MC %)
Depth 6090 cm
Krs = 3.82 x 10.' + 3.079 x i t 5 (Clay %) + 4.68 x 105 (Silt %) +3.756 x 105 (Sand %) + 1.655 x 105 (E %)
2.16 x 103 (MC %)
K, =  7.28 x lo*+ 7.546 x 10.' (Silt %) + 4.426 x 1 0 ' ~ (Sand %) 41.025x 10.' (E %)
K, = 0.175 + 1.559 x 10.* log (Silt %) + 6.396 x 1 0 .log
~ (Sand %) +1.211 x
(E %)
K, = 3.022 + 6.988 x 10.' log (Silt %)  2.40 log (Db) 1.589 (E %)
= 0.177
a = 0.092
a = 0.048
a = 0.010
Examination of Table 4.9 shows that except for the depth 0.60 m, relating
the K, values with clay, silt, sand, OM,, Dh , E and MC gave the highest R2 values
compared to Kc,. At the 0.60 m depth the log (Kcs) values with C, S, OM, and MC
content gave the highest R' values.
As indicated by the R2 values, the models [8], [12], [I 91 and [23] in Table
4.8 are the best models at the depths 0.15 m, 0.30 m, 0.60 m, and 0.90 m
respectively. The best model at a depth of 0.15 m has Si, S, E and MC content as
input variables and the value of R2 was 0.568. While the best model at a depth of
0.30 m used Si, and sand as inputs with an ultimate value of R2 = 0.479. At a depth
of 0.60 m relating Ks values with C, S, OM, and MC content gave the best model
when R2= 0.408. While relating K, with Si content, Dband E gave at a depth of 0.90
m gave the highest values for the coefficient of determination, R2= 0.738.
Although the regression analysis results showed that there were significant
relationships between the soil saturated hydraulic conductivity and the seven input
variables at all depths, these relationships however were different at each depth. The
best model for the prediction of Ks at 0.1 5 m is
= 40.367
Log (K,)
and (R'
= 0.479;
a = 0.055)
= 0.738;
a = 0.01)
where
K, in cm s' is saturated hydraulic conductivity obtained by soil core constant head
method; Kfs in cm s' is the field saturated hydraulic conductivity obtained by
Guelph permeameter method the laboratory; OM is the organic matter %, Db is the
bulk density in g ~ m ' E~ is; the porosity %; MC is the moisture content %.
Although the soil textural classes (S, Si and C), DB, OM, and E have
widely been used to predict K,, the use of these parameters as input variables in
estimating the K, in this study seems weak (Table 4.9). This is also evident from the
goodness of fit of lower information level models which does not appear
satisfactory.
In this study, thc data set obtained liom particle size distribution. bulk dcnsity.
Dh, organic matter, OM, and porosity E for Serdang Series soil were employed to
evaluate the applicability and validity of the six selected pedotransfer f'unctions,
PTFs.. Sand, silt, and clay, percentage,
Dh,
In the evaluation, the statistical analysis approach that was used by Tietje and
Hennings ( 1 996) and Wagner et al, (2001) for evaluation of PTFs and K, was used in
this study. The geometric mean error ratio (GMER) and geometric standard deviation
of the error ratio (GSDER) were calculated from the error ratio
of measured (K,,,)
vs. predicted (KSp) values by the following equations as given by Wanger et al, (2001):
GMER = exp
i l l1,

ln( zi)
To evaluate the model performance over the whole data set. the saturated
hydraulic conductivities of the Serdang Series soils in investigation were estimated
according to the afore mentioned PTFs (Eqs. 3.1 1 to 3.16) in chapter 111. Then the
geometric mean error ratio (GMER) and geometric standard deviation of the error
ratio (GSDER) values were calculated using Eq 4.8 and 4.9 respectively. The
Geometric means of the Ks as obtained using the two methods and the six models
are shown in Table 4.10
Table 4. 1 shows the quantitative error criteria estimated using the data set
to evaluate the six investigated PTFs in general. The analysis of the results
obtained shows hat the PTFs of Vereecken et al. (1990), Saxton et al. (1986).
Brakensiek et al. (1984). Jabro (1992) and Amin et al. (1997) tend to
underestimate the values of K, , whereas the Cosby et al. (1 984) model was found
to more likely result in higher values than the obtained by SCHP method
measurement. This is assumed to be the result of the neglect of the soil structural
regime in the formulation of the Model. Soil structures can produce many coarse
pores and, as result, are prime factors influencing Ks (Landon 1991 and Campbell
et al. 1994).
Table 4.10: Sutnmary of statistics of saturated hydraulic conductivity for Serdarig Series. sandy claj, loam soil. obtained
by three neth hods and predicted by the six selected models.
Measured Ks cm s'
Predicted K, crn s"
GP
SCHP
MI
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
No. of observation
93
62
90
90
89
89
89
88
Kurtosis
\coefficient of variation
285.85
161.58 29.25
147.28
42.52
102.76
123.81
34.29
*Values followed by the same letter are not statistically different at the 0.01 level according to the Tukey Honestly
Difference test. Where GP is the Guelph Permeameter, DRI is the double ring infiltrometer method, SCHP is the soil
core constant head permeameter, MI is Cosby at al. (1 984) model; M2 is Brakensiek et al. (1 984) model; Mj is Saxton
et a1 (1 986) model; Mqis Vereecken et al. (1 990) model; M5is Jabro ( 1 992) model and M6 is Amin et al. (1997) model.
Table 4.1 1 : Geometric mean error (GMER) and geometric standard deviation of error ratio (GSDER) calculated
with six selected models using the data set of the Serdang Series soil of study area compared to
measurements values.
K, model
Cosby
et a1 (1984)
(MI)
Brakensiek
el al. (1984)
(M2)
Saxton
el al. (1986)
(M3)
Vereecken
et al. (1990)
(M4)
(' 1 990)
(Mj)
Amin
et al. (1997)
(M6)
7.85
15.6
7.7 1
8.92
10.22
7.64
Jabro
GMER
GSDER
it is noted in Table 4.1 1 , that the GMER values which were calculated with
the Cosby et a1 (1984). Brakensiek et a1.(1984) and Saxton et a1.(1986) models
correlated well with the finding of' Wanger et al. (2001) and Tiet.je and Hennings
(1 996).
Table 4.1 1 shows that the geometric standard deviation error ratio GSDER,
an indicator of data scatter, differs only slightly between the most of the selected
models. Only the model of Brakensiek et al. (1984) stands out because it yields the
largest deviation (1 5.6) between predicted and measured values. The models of
Amin, Saxton, and Cosby exhibit the lowest GSDER (7.64, 7.71 and 7.85
respectively).
For the data set under consideration, it is clear from the Table 4.10 that
results generated by Amin et a1 (1 997), Jabro (1992) and Brakensiek et a1 (1 984)
models provide the closest estimated Ks values to the measured values. It was also
observed from the comparison results (Table 4.10) of the tested models in this study
that the GMER value was improved when more input data such as bulk density.
porosity, and organic matter were used. This holds true for the K, models by Amin.
Jabro, and Brakensiek. However. there was no reducing in the value of the GSDER.
These results support the statement made by Tietje and Hennings (1996) that
integrating additional independent variables such as bulk density and organic matter
content may improve the GMER, but the GSDER is not reduced essentially.
The model of Amin give the best fit to the data set with GMER closest to 1
(0.54) and lowest GSDER (7.64) of the models tested here. Followed by the Jabro
with GMER (0.43) and GSDER (10.22) then Brakensiek with GMER (0.43) and
GSDER (1 5.6). It consequently appears, at least for this soil (Serdang Series), that
of the six models compared in this study, the Amin et al model seems to be the
model of choice for the prediction of Ks. The second best model is Jabro model
whereas the model of Brakensiek et al. rank third.
Shown in Figure 4.13 are scatter diagrams of the measured versus the
predicted values for soil Ks. The solid line in each figure is a regression line for the
best fit. It is apparent that measured vs estimated values for Ks are, in general,
scattered around the line, indicating that the relatively low agreement between
predicted and measured values of Ks. This is in agreement with the results
demonstrated by comparing the GMER and GSDER values for the predictive
models with the measured values (Table 4.1 1).
To check further the validity of the six models in investigation the means Ks
values were compared on a pairwise basis using two tailed multiple F and ttests
(using Statgraphics plus version 3 software package) The results of the test at 95 %
significant level is given in Table 4.10.
I h k c n s l c k ( M 2 ) modcl
2 9 ,
Ih,plU(c~w\]j
Mcasurcd liydraul~cconduc~~v~ty
55
50
45
Jabro
(M5)model
10
35
30
A n i ~ n( M h ) modcl
25
20
15
Figure 4.13: Measured versus estimated Ks for the six models tested for a sandy clay
loam soil.
empirical models indicate that only the models of Cosby et a1 (1 984) and Amin et
a1 (1997) are not significantly different at the 0.01 level (Table 4.9).
When the Tukey HSD test was conducted on untransformed data of the K,
for the measurement methods and the empirical models there was significant
difference at the 0.05 level only between the result of the model of Cosby at al.
( 1 984) and the results the GP method. The results of the comparison also show that
the predicted mean K, values by all the models were statistically significantly
different at the 5 % probability level from the mean K, values obtained by the
laboratory method (see Appendix C)
In conclusion, the results reveal that since all the variables incorporated in
the models (Sand, silt, clay, Db, E, OM, and MC) contained in soil dataset, the
range of applicability is about the same for all the models compared in this study.
It seems that the applicability of different empirical models depend on the set of
soils chosen, which mean, that they may change somewhat for other data set. In
addition, the results show that for the data set of the soil under consideration here
the K, \:alucs obtained using the empirical models of Brakensiek, Sabro and Amin
Ks
other models. This suggests that the best performance of Amin model can be
attributed to the fact that, some models perform better in the area where climate and
geology are more similar to the soils used for developing of the respective models
(Wanger el a1200 1 ).
Db,
or E or OM.
Db
and OM, the model led to estimates far from the K, values
obtained by SCHP method. The possible reason for the poor performance may be
due to estimation method used within investigation of Vereecken et a1 (1990). As
pointed by Wagner et al (2001) the methods (crust technique combined with the air
hot method) used by Vereecken et al. (1990) tend to be inaccurate and therefore,
experimental data used for the determination of PTFs may have been incorrect.
Contrary to Vereecken et a1 (1 990) the GP method was used by Amin et a1 (1997)
and soil intact core method (laboratory) were applied by Jabro (1992) and
Brakensiek et al (1 984).
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
For the study site chosen, (Serdang Series soils with sandy clay loam soil)
the comparison study of three measuring techniques; GP, DRI and SCHP methods
revealed that no in situ method (GP) and laboratory method (SCHP) are going to
give about the same results. Nevertheless, both methods were able to determine that
the Serdang Series sandy clay loam soil at the topsoil was the most permeable (at
about 5.4 x
depth; and that the lower depth (60 and 90 cm) was the least permeable (about 1.69
x I o4 cm sI).
x lo4 cm sI) was 33.4 times higher than GP method evaluated Kfs (1.268 x10~cm
sI). This may reflect the role of the macropores and the size of core upon the K,
values. However, K, values obtained by GP method was about twofold more
scattered than those obtained by SCHP method, as represented by the CV values.
In addition. this study showed that about 35.5 % of the Kfs values obtained
with the GP method. subjected to multiple head approach, are negative. This is
illustrating the heterogeneity of the soil under consideration. However, to avoid these
negative values, the study recommended using single head method (SH) which was
suggested by Reynolds et al ( 1 992).
Despite the G P method giving a lower KI, than the SCHP method, the GP
method was found to be portable, easily operated, requires only small volume of
water / measurements. repeatable and provides in situ rapid Kl, calculation. In
addition, it yields a combination of vertical and horizontal K, representing the actual
situation in the field, it also provides an estimate of unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity. Therefore, the GP method can be used successfully as a routine
method for determining of Ks in studies of various soil and water management
projects.
The results of the comparison also showed that each method has its own
strength and limitations. The selection of method, therefore, should be based on the
user's requirement, size of the budget, manpower availability, simplicity and ease
of operation, and time constraints.
This study showed that the interactions between the soil properties and the
measurement method are rather complex. Therefore, an accurate comparison
should take into account the factors that affect the Ks values. Leaving the influence
of these factors out of consideration implies that any conclusion on the results of
the comparison is only approximate. Therefore this study suggested that more
consideration be given to the influence of the soil properties on the Ks values when
assigning a comparison study between methods.
This study has outlined and evaluated six models for estimating
K,of sandy
clay loam soil. From the results of the PTFs evaluation study it can be concluded
that the PTFs performed reasonably well if more predictors were used (Texture.
bulk density, OM, etc.). The estimations were less accurate when fewer predictors
were used, however, such prediction by these models may still be useful when no
data are available. The dataset used for this study however, is probably too small to
conclude if the ranking of the different models is of validity. Some models may
perform better in other areas, where climate and geology are similar to the soils
used for determining of the respective PTFs.
The results of this study showed that the attempt to relate the soil K,
parameter to soil mass fractions of clay, silt, and sand separates (PSD), bulk density,
porosity, and organic matter produced very week relationship only about 10 %
percent of variation could be explained by the aforementioned soil properties.
However some improvements in R' were found when the regression analysis
applied cross the individual depths and the best model of this study showed R~ of
0.73 at 0.60.9 m depth and was significant at the level 0.01.
REFERENCES
Black, G. R. 1965. Bulk density, In Methodr of Soil Analysis, partl, Physical and
Mineralogical Methods, C.A. Black, pp374390 Madison, Wl:
Agronomy No. 9. American Society of Agronomy.
Blake, G. R., and K. H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk density. In Methods of Soil Analy.sii.s,
par//, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, (2nd ed.) ed. A. Klute,
pp363375. Madison, W1: Agronomy No.9. American Society of
Agronomy.
Bonsu, M. 1992. A study of a texturebased equation for estimating the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of an alfisol in the Sudan Savannah ecological
zone, Ghana. Hydrological Sci. 37: 599606.
Bouma . J. 1982. Measuring the hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons with
continuous macropores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am J. 46:4384441
Bouma, J., 1983. Use of soil survey data to select measurement techniques for
hydraulic conductivity. Agric. Water Management 6: 177190
Bouma, J. 1991. Influence of soil macroporosity on environmental quality. Adv.
Agron. 46:1 37
Bouma. J., C. Belmans, L.W. Dekker, and W.J.M. Jeurissen. 1982. Assessing the
suitability of soils with macropores for subsurface liquid disposal. J.
Environ. Qual. l2(3): 3053 1 1
Bouwer, H. 1962. Field determination of hydraulic conductivity above the water
table with the double tube method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 26: 330335.
Bouwer. H 1966. Rapid field measurement of air entry value and hydraulic
conductivity of soil as significant parameters in flow system analysis.
Water Resour. Res. 2: 729738.
Bouwer, H 1969. Planning and interpreting soil permeability measurements.
Journal ofthe Irrigation and Drainage Division , Proc.Amer.Soc. Civil
Engrs. 95 (IR3): 39 1402.
Bouwer. H. 1 970. Groundwater Hydrology. Toronto: McGrawHill Press.
Bouwer, H. 1986. Intake rate: cylinder infiltrometer. In Methods of Soil Analysis,
part I, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, (2nd ed.) ed. A.
Klute,pp825843. Madison, W1: Agronomy No.9. American Society of
Agronomy.
Bouwer, H. and R . D. Jackson. 1974. Determining soil properties. In Drainage for
Agriculture, ed. J. van Schilfgaarde,pp611672. Madison, WI:
Agronomy No. 17. American Society of Agronomy.
Brakensiek, D.L.. Rawls, W.J., and Stephenson, G.R. 1984. Modifying SCS
Hydrologic Soil Groups and Curve Numbers for Rangeland Soils. ASAE
paper no. PNR84203, St. Joseph, Mich.
Reynolds,
Rogres, L.S., J.L. Fouss and C.E. Carter. 1987. Field experience with a velocity
head permeameter. In drainage design and management. Proc. Of the
5'h national Symposium. Dec. 14 1 5.
Rogers, J. S., V. McDaniel, and C. E. Carter. 1985. Determination of saturated
hydraulic conductivity of a commerce silt loam soil. Trans. ASAE 28
(4): 11411 144.
Rubin, J., and Steinhardt, R., 1963, Soils water relations during rain infiltration; Part
ITheory. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. Proce. Vol. 27: 246251.
Salverda, A. P. and J. H. Dane. 1993 An examination of the Guelph permeameter
for measuring the soil's hydraulic properties. Geoderma. 57: 40542 1 .
Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., Romberger, J.S., and Papendick, R.I. 1986. Estimating
generalized soil water characteristic from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J .
5O:lO3 11 036
Schaap, M.G., and F. J. Leij, 1998. Database related accuracy and uncertainty of
pedotransfer functions. Soil Sci. 163: 765779
Schaap, M.G.;and F.J. Leij, 2000. Improved prediction of unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity with the Mualevan Genuchten model. Soil.Sci. Soc. Am.
J.64:84385 1
Schaap, M.G., F.J. Leij, and M.Th. van Genuchten. 1998. Neural network analysis
for hierarchical prediction of soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 62: 847855
Schaap, M.G., F.J. Leij, M.Th. van Genuchten. 2001. ROSETTA: A computer
program for estimating of soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical
pedotransfer functions. J. of Hydrology 25 1 : 163176
Singh, R., D. K. Das, A. K. Singh. 1992. Prediction of hydrological characteristics
from basic properties of alluvial soils. J. of Ind. Soc. of soil sci. 40 (1):
180183
Skaggs. R. W. 1976. Determination of the hydraulic conductivitydrainable porosity
ratio from water table measurements. Trans. ASAE 19 (1): 7380, 84.
Smedema, L. K.: and D. W. Rycroft. 1983. Land Drainage planning and design o f
agricultural drainage systems'. Ithaca: Cornel l University Press.
Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Drainage of agricultural land. Washington, D.C.
Soilmoisture Equipment Corp. 1987. 2800K1 Operating Instructions. Santa
Barbara, Calif.: Soilmoisture Equipment Crop.
Stephens, D. R., S. P. Neuman. 1982a. Vadose zone permeability tests: Summary.
J. Hydrology Division Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 108: 623639.
Stephens, D. R., S. P. Neuman. 1982b. Vadose zone permeability tests: Steady state
results. J. Hydrology Division /'roc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 108: 640659.
Stephens, D. R., S. P. Neuman. 1982c. Vadose zone permeability tests: Unsteady
flow. J. Hydrology Divi.sion Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng 108: 660677.
Stephens, D.B., K. Lamber, and D. Watson. 1984. Influence of entrapped air on
field determination of hydraulic properties in the vadose zone. In
Proceeding conference on characterization and monitoring in the vadose
zone. Pp5776. National Water Well Association Worthington USA
Stephens, D.B., K. Lamber, and D. Watson. 1987. Regression models for hydraulic
conductivity and field test of the borehole permeameter. Water Resour.
Res. 23 (12): 220722 14
Talsma, T. 1960. Comparison of field methods of measuring hydraulic
conductivity. Trans. Congr. Irrig. and Dra. IV(6):C 145C 156.
Talsma, T. 1987. Reevaluation of the well permeameter as a field method for
measuring hydraulic conductivity. Aust. J. Soil Res. 25: 361 368.
Talsma, T., and P. M. Hallam. 1980. Hydraulic conductivity measurement of forest
catchments. Aust. J. Soil Res. 18: 254261.
Tietje, 0 . and Hennings, V. 1996. Accuracy of the saturated hydraulic conductivity
prediction by pedotransfer functions compared to the variability within
F A 0 textural classes. Geoderma 69: 71 84
Tietje, 0. and M. Tapkenhinirichs, 1993. Evaluation of pedotransfer functions. Soil
Sci.Soc. Am. J. 57: 10881095
Topp, G. C. 1993. Soil water content. In Soil sampling and Methods ofAnalysis, ed.
M. R. Carter. pp541557. Boca Raton, FL.: Lewis, Can. Soc. Soil Sci.
Topp, G. C. and M. R. Binni. 1976. Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity
with a modified airentry permeameter. Can. J. Soil Sci. 56: 139147.
Uma, K.O.. B.C.E. Egboka and K.M. Onuoha. 1989. New statistical grainsize
method for evaluating the hydraulic conductivity of sandy aquifers. J . of
Hydrology. 108: 343366.
U. S Bureau of Reclamation. 1965. Earth Manual. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Superintendent of
Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 1978. Drainage Manual. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Department of the Interior, Superintendent of Documents, U. S.
Government Printing Office.
Reeuwijk Van, L. P. 1993. Procedures for soil anal,vsis. Technical paper 110.9.
International Soil Reference and Information Center.
sten, J.H.M., P.A. Finke, and M.J.W. Jansen. 1995. Comparison of class and
continues pedotransfer functions to generate soil hydraulic
characteristics. Geoderma 66: 227237
W:
sten, J.h.M., A. Lilly, A. Nemes, and C. Le Bas. 1999 Development and use of
a database of hydraulic properties of European soils. Geodern~an
90: 169185
Appendix A
Determination of soil properties
Appendix
A1.
Materials
Procedure
1. Collect soil samples at the desired depths. Place the soil samples
immediately into dry tared moisture tins of known weight and enclosed by putting
on the tight fitting lids.
2. The moist soil sample was weighed to the nearest 0.00lg. Each tin's lid was
removed from the tin and placed on the bottom of its tin.
3. The tared moisture tins, with the samples place in the drying oven set at 105 f
5 ' for
~ 24 hours until there is no further loss in weight.
4. After 24 hours of drying, remove the tared moisture tins from the oven,
replace the lid firmly on each drying tin, cool in a desiccator, and weigh to the
nearest 0.001 g accuracy.
5 . calculate the soil moisture content (mass basis) as a percentage of the mass of dry
soil is d as follow:
MC' = I00
The scheme used in this study was that adopted by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) as shown in the Figure 1 Appendix A2
Apparatus
5 . Moisture tins
8. Plunger
9. Electrical stirrer
10. Shaker
0.002
IJritish Standard
Institulion
CIAY
SILT
I
International
Society of Soil
Science
CILAY
United States
Department of
Agriculture
SAND
SILT
I Coarse
Fine
CLAY
SILT
7
GRAVEL
0.002
GRAVEL
SAND
0.05
0.10
Very
line
0.25
Fine
0.5
Med
1.0
Coarse
2.01
Vep
coarse
I1
GRAVEL
SAND
United States
Public Report
Administration
GRAVEL
12. Stopwatch
1 3. Desiccator
14. Balance
1 5. 50 pm sieve
Reagents
Procedure
1.
2.
3.
Next day , place the beaker on sand bath (90 "C) and regularly add 510
ml HZO230% until decomposition of organic matter is completed (usually
observed by the colour and the rate of the reaction of the sample)
4.
5.
Place on sand hot plate and carefully boil for 1 hour to remove any
remaining H2 0 2 .
Removal of Carbonate
Dispersion
2. Add 30 ml of Calgon to the suspension and disperse with the soil stirrer for 10
to 15 min. Wash any soil sticking to the stirrer into the cup.
3. Pass the suspension through a 50 pm sieve which placed in a funnel positioned
above a sedimentation cylinder by a retort stand.
4. Make to 1 L mark with water.
5. Wash the sand fraction remaining on the sieve quantitatively into crucible of
knowing weight and oven dry at 105 O C for 24 hrs.
6. Transfer the dried sand to the top sieve of a stacked set of sieves of the
following mesh sizes: 500 pm ,250 pm, 100 pm, and 50 pm. Sieve for 10 min
on the sieve shaker.
7. Empty each sieve into a traded weighing dish. Weigh with 0.01 g accuracy (net
weights WI, Wi, , W,,, and W,, individual sand fractions)
8. Stir the suspension in the sedimentation cylinder for I min with a hand
stirrer, using an up and down motion. Place the cylinder on the table.
Sample the 050 pm fraction at the 10 cm sampling depth extract at the
calculated time (Table 1).
9. The aliquot evaporate on sand bath, dried at 105 OC overnight, cold in a
desiccator, and the residue weigh (net weight Wv for fraction <0.02mm)
with 0.00 1 g accuracy.
10. For the clay fraction, the temperature of the suspension was measured and
the procedure described for the 50 pm fraction was repeated at the suitable
sampling time, (Table 1). Transfer the aliquot to a basin, evaporate on a
sand bath and dry overnight at 105 "C, cool in a desiccator, and the residue
weigh (net weight Wvrfor fraction ~ 0 . 0 0 2mm) with 0.001g accuracy
11. To avoid the error that may occur in calculation of the silt and clay
percentages due to the dispersion agent (Calgon), 30 ml of the calgon
solution was dilute in 1L, and 20 ml extract from the blank cylinder as
describe for the silt and clay fractions. Then sample was transfer to basin,
evaporate on sand bath and dry overnight at 105 "C, cool in a desiccator,
and the residue weigh (net weight Wvll for the dispersion agent.) with
0.001g accuracy
The ovendry sample was weighed after all treatments were taken as the
basis for the calculations to determine the percentage of the total soil in suspension
present in each sample as follows :
(wt. A)
(wt. B)
(wt. C)
Sample weight
=A
+B +C
weight 20 ml
Table 1 : Settling times for the soil fractions (C0.02 mm and <0.002 mm) at various
temperatures. Calculated for a depth 10 cm. (after Chopra and
Kanwar; 1976)
Tempeeture
1
I
25
7 hr 5.6 rnin
6 hr 56.2 rnin
6 hr 46.9 min
6 hr 38.0 rnin
6 hr 29.3 rnin
6 hr 20.9 rnin
6 hr 12.8 min
6 hr 5.0 rnin
% Clay
( < 0.00
2mm)
A
sample
XI00
wt
YO Silt
( < 0.02mm)
 2mm)
% Sand
(0.5
% Sand
(0.25
 0.5mm)
wt
W i
sample
% S a n d ( 0 . 1  0 . 2 5 mm ) =
% Sand
B
sample
wt
W ii
sample
wt
iii
sample wt
(0.05  O.lmm ) =
X 100
X 100
X 100
x 100
W iv
X 100
sample
wt
Use then the DUSA texture triangle, which is shown in Figure 2 to obtain the soil
textural classes by plotting percentages of clay, silt, and sand.
Percent SAND
Figure 2: Soil triangle of the basic soil textural classes (Soil Survey Staff 1975)
In this study, bulk density was determined employing a core method and
following the procedure as described by Blake and Hartge (1 986).
Materials
Procedure
3. Prepare the soil surface by removing vegetation and loss soil. Excavate to
the desired depth.
4. Carefully push the metal cylinder into the soil profile pits at the desired
depths.
5. Excavate around the cylinder with trowel until the cylinder exposed
6. Using the spatula carefully dig out the ring and examine the undisturbed
core for sign of shattering or compression.
7. Cut smoothly at both ends, clean from outside to preserve a known volume
of sample as it exist in situ.
8. Transfer the content of the cylinder into the preweighed weighing tray
which then weighed and label as W3.
9. Place the tray in an oven and dry at 105 OC for 24 hrs. After drying and
cooling in desiccator, weigh the tray plus dry soil plus core cylinder and label
as W5 (g).
10. Calculated soil bulk density using the equation 7 and 8
Where
D,, = the soil bulk density (g,/cm3)
M,
= soil
Vb
= the
= Irr 2 h
Where
r = radius of core (cylinder) (cm)
h = the height of the core (cm)
7c = 3.142
Appendix A4 Calculation of total soil porosity from particle and bulk
densities
Porosity can be derived from measurements of soil dry bulk density, Db,
and soil particle density, Ds using the following relationship for determining
porosity by bulk density:
Where
In this study Because the organic matter was less than 1 % (mineral soil),
according to Culley ( 1 993), the porosity was calculated on the basis of an assumed
soil Dh of 2.65 g/cm3 (2.65 Mg m'3).
This loss on ignition actually represents the organic fraction present in the
soil; after ignition the as portion of the organic matter still remains.
Apparatus
1. Crucible
2 . Desiccator
3. Drying oven
4. Muffle furnace
5 . Metal tong
6 . Balance with 0.001 (g) accuracy
Procedure
1. Clean and rinse crucibles with distilled water and dry in the oven at 105 O C .
After the crucibles cooled in a desiccator weigh and record the weight as
(WI).
2. Place about 5 g of oven dry soil the previously weighed empty crucible.
3. Cover the crucibles with the soil and place in the muffler furnace. The
temperature was increased gradually to 350 "C and the samples were ignited
for 78 hours.
4. Transfer the crucibles from the furnace into the desiccator using metal tong,
allowed to cool and weigh. Label the weight as (W2).
5. Calculate the organic matter by using the following formulae:
% organic matter= 
ws
Where
WI
= Dry
weight of crucible
W2
= Weight
W,
= Weight
APPENDIX B
Examples of Ka Calculations
Guelph Permeameter Data Sheet
Time
t
~t
water
rate of
level in
change
reservoi ~h
r
(cm) Ah 1 At
Time
~t
(min) (min
water
level in
reservoi
r
Ah
(cm
rate of
change
Method 1:
Use this first. Assumes 3 cm borehole, 5 and 10 cm heads
Since the result of the both heads in this example gives negative values, the Kn
was then calculated according to the method2
Reservoir constant:
A: 35.36
Radius of borehole :
r: 3 cm
H I : 5 cm
Water depth in borehole during first test
Water depth in borehole during second test
H2: 10 cm
Shape factor for H l/r (obtain from graph)
C1: 0.08
Shape factor for H2/r (obtain from graph)
C2: 1.32
Steady flow rate: Q l = A x R1160 = 35.36 x 0.10160 = 0.0585 cm s'
Q2 = A x R2/60 = 35.36 x 0.1 25/60 = 0.0737 cm s'
Based on the soil structural and texture consideration, a constant a* value equal to
0.12 cm' was assumed for applying the single head level technique (SH) analysis
(Elrick and Reynolds, 1992).
Method 2
Use this if Method 1 gives negative KfS.Estimate a* and calculate for R1 and R2
Results for R1
CAR
K$. =
2xH+Cnr
2nH
+
a*
 cm
~
1.32 x 3 5 . 3 6 ~0.0737
= 2.89 x 1 o
2
2 2x10
2x10 + 1 . 3 2 ~ 3 +0.12
 ~cm2 sec'
secI
Results for R2
CAR
Kj.s =
2nH +Cnr
2nH
+
a*
Where
unstructured medium to fine sand 0.36 coarsegrained sand and gravel, highly
structured soil with large cracks
 the constant depth of water on the soil surface (H) = 4.3 cm,
the cross sectional area A = 45.58 cm2
 the steady state volume of water pass through the sectionalarea A in time t (Q) =
0.3523 cm3s'
from:
APPENDIX C
SPSS ANA STATGRAPHICS SAMLPES
relation?
CLAY
SILT
SAND
OM
BD
POROSITY
MC
KFS
KS
^t*
SAND
.768'
,000
93
.775'
,000
93
1
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2lailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
.301
93
,109
,300
93
.224*
,031
93
.213*
.04 1
93
,058
,656
62
93
,034
.743
93
,101
,333
93
MC
,224'
I
1
KFS
.213'
KS
,058
Regression
Variables Enteredl~emovec!
Variables
Removed
Variables
Entered
MC,
PORESIT
Y, OM,
CLAY.
SILT, a
SAND
Model
1
Method
Enter
CLAY
>= .200)
MC
PORESITY
SAND
a. Tolerance = ,000 limits reached.
Model
1
I
1
R
R Square
.357a (
,128
I
1
Adiusted
R square
.032
Std. Error of
the Estimate
,002635545
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Squares
,000
I
1
df
6
Square
,000
I
1
F
1.341

,2515~
Model
1
Unstandardized
Coeff ents
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
.014
,030
CLAY
,000
9.032E05
SlLT
,000
2.892E04
SAND
,000
1.454E04
OM
.001
.001
PORESITY 5.035E05
.ooo
MC
,000
4 734E05
(Constant)
.006
,007
SlLT
,000
2 121E04
SAND
,000
6.300E05
OM
.001
.001
PORESITY 4.752E05
.ooo
MC
,000
4.875E05
(Constant)
.005
.006
SlLT
,000
2 105E04
SAND
,000
5.883E05
OM
.001
,001
PORESITY 4.843E05
,000
(Constant)
.005
SlLT
,000
SAND
.ooo
OM
,001
(Constant)
SlLT
OM
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
,171
,630
,508
.215
,082
,049
Sig.
,635
Excluded variables'
Model
1
2
3
BDENSITY
BDENSITY
CLAY
BDENSITY
CLAY
MC
BDENSITY
CLAY
MC
PORESITY
BDENSITY
CLAY
MC
PORESITY
SAND
Beta In
19.644a
20.16gb
.17Ib
18.852c
.I
7gc
.05OC
.078d
.I
34d
.053d
.O7gd
. 094e
.118e
.035e
.095e
.22ge
,864
,904
,290
,857
,308
,389
.615
.232
,409
,620
.748
.a37
,274
,753
,925
Slg.
,391
,370
,773
,395
,760
,699
,541
,817
,684
,538
,458
,406
,785
,455
,359
Collinearity
Partial
Correlation
,117
,121
,039
,114
,041
.052
.081
,031
,054
,082
.098
. 109
,036
,098
,121
Tolerance
3.086E05
3.145E05
4.589E02
3.191E05
4.596E02
.933
,945
4.663E02
.934
,944
,966
,762
.954
.966
,249
a. Predictors In the Model: (Constant), MC, PORESITY, OM, CLAY, SILT, SAND
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), MC, PORESITY, OM. SILT, SAND
Variables EnteredlRemoved
Variables
Removed
Variables
Model
1
LOGDB,
LOGSILT,
LOGOM,
LOGCLAY.
LOGSAND,
LOGPOROSIT?
Method
Enter
Model
1
I
I
I
1
R
R Square
.327= (
.I07

1
1
1
Adjusted
R Square
.033
Std. Error of
1 the Est~mate
1 .8700719440

Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Regression
Residual
Total
Squares
7.699
64.347
72.046
7.698
64.348
72.046
7.695
64.351
72.046
7.427
64 619
72.046
6.391
65.655
72.046
I
I
df
Mean
Square
1.100
I
1
F
1.453
Sig.
.195=
.I
27b
.075=
.046*
.040e
Coefficients?
Model
I
Unstandardized
snts
Std.
B
Error
(Constant)
LOGCLAY
LOGSILT
LOGSAND
LOGOM
LOGDB
LOGPOROS
LOGMC
(Constant)
LOGSILT
LOGSAND
LOGOM
LOGDB
LOGPOROS
LOGMC
(Constant)
LOGSILT
LOGSAND
LOGOM
LOGPOROS
LOGMC
(Constant)
LOGSILT
LOGSAND
LOGOM
LOGPOROS
(Constant)
LOGSILT
LOGSAND
LOGOM
16.634
,077
,827
3.290
,686
1.591
3.410
.863
16.397
.808
3.180
,682
1.657
3.455
.859
14.301
.818
3.203
,680
2.317
.856
15.903
.871
3.432
,719
2.345
12.220
,941
3.436
,671
33.969
2.496
,943
4.149
,383
25.838
17.850
1.444
32.889
,690
2.061
,355
25.600
17.686
1.430
5.731
,669
2.018
,352
1.982
1.421
5.057
,660
1.974
,345
1.975
4.003
,659
1.979
.343
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
. 490
,007
.I86
,245
,207
,057
,177
.064
.I82
.237
,206
.059
,179
.064
.I84
,239
,205
.I20
.064
.I96
,256
.217
.I22
,211
.256
,202
,031
,877
,793
1.790
,062
,191
.598
.499
1.171
1.543
1.919
.065
,195
.601
2.495
1.223
1.588
1.930
1.169
.602
3.145
1.319
1.739
2.084
1.187
3.052
1.427
1.736
1.952
Sig.
,626
,976
,383
,430
,077
,951
,849
,552
Excluded Variable$
OSITY
, 1 2 2 ~ 1.187
,238
.I26
.972
...............................................................
Source
Sum of Squares Df
...............................................................
PValue
Between groups
Within groups
Contrast
Difference
+/
Limits
.............................................................
0.802036
loglO(Kfs 0.15m)  log(Ks 0.15m)
*2.25321
0.88961
loglO(Kfs 0.15m)  loglO(DR1 Ks)
0.424283
log (Ks 0.15m)  loglO(DR1 Ks)
*2.67749
0.942799
* denotes a statistically significant difference
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
FRatio
PValue
..................................................................
Between groups
134.825
7
19.2608
29.78
0.0000
Wlthln groups
95.0606
147
0.64667
...................................................................
Total (Corr.i
229.886
154
.....................................
........................
Homogeneous Groups
.....................................
loglO(Kfs 0.9m)
25
loglO(Kfs 0.3m)
28
loglO(Kfs 0.6m)
21
loglO(Kfs 0.15~1) 19
log10 (Ks 0.6m)
24
log10 (Ks 0.9m)
12
log10 (Ks 0.3m)
12
loglO(Ks 0.15m)
14
5.46234
5.27416
5.20492
4.29633
3.65511
3.47689
3.31918
2 .a4443
Difference
loglO(Kfs
loglO(Kfs
loglO(Kfs
log10 (Kfs
*1.4519
'1.95498
*I .54982
'1.98545
Limits
0.870985
0.853208
0.7389
0.86843
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
FRatio
PValue
..................................................................
Between groups
Within groups
0.000160654
0.000536946
7
708
.0000229506
7.58398E7
30.26
0.0000
Mr. Abdolhakem 0 Mohamed was born in August 27. 1961 in Tobruk, a small
town about 1300 km east of Tripoli, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. He obtained his
Bachelor of Science degree from Soil and Water Department, Faculty of
Agricultural, University of Garyunis in July 1983. Upon his graduation, he was
appointed as a demonstrator in the Soil and Water Department, Faculty of
Agricultural, University of Omar AlMukhtar. During his stay in University of
Omar AlMukhtar he has been involved in the teaching of Irrigation and Drainage
Science, Fundamental of Soil Science, Plant Nutrition and Soil Physics. Moreover,
he was involved in soil physical properties analyses of more than 2000 sample for
Great Man Made River Project. In 1992, he was awarded a scholarship from the
university to pursue his study for Master Degree. In July, 1992 he was enrolled as
full time MS student at the Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia majoring in Soil
Water Engineering.
Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.
Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.
Отменить можно в любой момент.