A Short Review of the Methods for Determining Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and a Comparison of Large and Small-Scale In-Situ Methods

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Master of Science in Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.

چکیده

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (KS) can be determined with correlation or hydraulic methods. Hydraulic methods can be classified as laboratory and large-scale or small-scale in-situ methods. Auger-hole, inversed auger-hole and Guelph Permeameter are the most common small-scale in-situ methods. The KS determined by small-scale methods has high spatial variability, has different values in the horizontal and vertical directions, and varies in different depths. Large scale methods enter an extensive soil body into the measurement process to eliminate variation. This paper aimed to evaluate the conventional field methods of measuring KS using the drain outflow as the reference method and investigate the effect of initial soil moisture on KS’s measuring accuracy by the inversed auger-hole method. Experiments were conducted in two 10-hectare research fields in south Khuzestan. KS was measured by the inversed auger-hole method in barren, dry soil before constructing the irrigation and drainage network. After the construction, the KS was measured by drainage water outflow as a large-scale method, as well as by auger-hole and inversed auger-hole methods in moist soil after several irrigations. The KS measured by conventional small-scale in-situ methods in Fields One and Two were respectively 42.5% and 62.9% lower than the drainage water outflow method. Considering the drain outflow as the reference method, there is no significant advantage between the auger-hole and inverse auger-hole methods. As in Field One, the values obtained from the auger-hole method were closer to the reference method, and in Field Two, the values obtained from the inversed auger-hole method were closer.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Short Review of the Methods for Determining Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and a Comparison of Large and Small-Scale In-Situ Methods

نویسندگان [English]

  • MohammadHosein Roudi 1
  • Majid Sharifipour 2
  • Abbas Maleki 3
  • Aliheidar Nasrollahi 3
1 Master of Science in Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (KS) can be determined with correlation or hydraulic methods. Hydraulic methods can be classified as laboratory and large-scale or small-scale in-situ methods. Auger-hole, inversed auger-hole and Guelph Permeameter are the most common small-scale in-situ methods. The KS determined by small-scale methods has high spatial variability, has different values in the horizontal and vertical directions, and varies in different depths. Large scale methods enter an extensive soil body into the measurement process to eliminate variation. This paper aimed to evaluate the conventional field methods of measuring KS using the drain outflow as the reference method and investigate the effect of initial soil moisture on KS’s measuring accuracy by the inversed auger-hole method. Experiments were conducted in two 10-hectare research fields in south Khuzestan. KS was measured by the inversed auger-hole method in barren, dry soil before constructing the irrigation and drainage network. After the construction, the KS was measured by drainage water outflow as a large-scale method, as well as by auger-hole and inversed auger-hole methods in moist soil after several irrigations. The KS measured by conventional small-scale in-situ methods in Fields One and Two were respectively 42.5% and 62.9% lower than the drainage water outflow method. Considering the drain outflow as the reference method, there is no significant advantage between the auger-hole and inverse auger-hole methods. As in Field One, the values obtained from the auger-hole method were closer to the reference method, and in Field Two, the values obtained from the inversed auger-hole method were closer.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Auger-Hole Method
  • Inversed Auger-Hole Method
  • Drainage Water Outflow Method
  • Soil Matrix Suction
  • Drains Distance
1-    Amoozegar, A. and Warrick, A.W., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity of saturated soils: field methods. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods5, pp.735-770.
 
2-    Ankeny, M.D., Ahmed, M., Kaspar, T.C. and Horton, R., 1991. Simple field method for determining unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal55(2), pp.467-470.
 
3-    Chapuis, R.P., 2012. Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils: a review. Bulletin of engineering geology and the environment71(3), pp.401-434.
 
4-    Costa, A., 2006. Permeability‐porosity relationship: A reexamination of the Kozeny‐Carman equation based on a fractal pore‐space geometry assumption. Geophysical research letters33(2).
 
5-    Cronican, A.E. and Gribb, M.M., 2004. Hydraulic conductivity prediction for sandy soils. Groundwater42(3), pp.459-464.
6-    De Pue, J., Rezaei, M., Van Meirvenne, M. and Cornelis, W.M., 2019. The relevance of measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity: Sensitivity analysis and functional evaluation. Journal of Hydrology576, pp.628-638.
 
7-    Deb, S.K. and Shukla, M.K., 2012. Variability of hydraulic conductivity due to multiple factors. American Journal of Environmental Sciences8(5), p.489.
 
8-    Dirksen, C., 1999. Soil physics measurements. Catena Verlag.
 
9-    El-Mowelhi, N.M. and VanSchilfgaarde, J., 1982. Computation of soil hydrological constants from field drainage experiments in some soils of Egypt. Transactions of the ASAE25(4), pp.984-0986.
 
10- Elrick, D.E., Reynolds, W.D. and Tan, K.A., 1989. Hydraulic conductivity measurements in the unsaturated zone using improved well analyses. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation9(3), pp.184-193.
 
11- Gallichand, J., Prasher, S.O., Broughton, R.S. and Marcotte, D., 1991. Kriging of hydraulic conductivity for subsurface drainage design. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering117(5), pp.667-681.
 
12- Ghanbarian-Alavijeh, B., Liaghat, A.M. and Sohrabi, S., 2010. Estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity from soil physical properties using neural networks model. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol4, pp.108-113.
 
13- Grismer, M.E. and Todd, I.C., 1991. Drainage of clay overlying artesian aquifer. I: Hydrologic assessment. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering117(2), pp.255-270.
 
14- Gupta, R.K., Rudra, R.P., Dickinson, W.T., Patni, N.K. and Wall, G.J., 1993. Comparison of saturated hydraulic conductivity measured by various field methods. Transactions of the ASAE36(1), pp.51-55.
 
15- Gupta, S. and Larson, W.E., 1979. Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle size distribution, organic matter percent, and bulk density. Water resources research15(6), pp.1633-1635.
 
16- Hanjra, M.A. and Qureshi, M.E., 2010. Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food policy35(5), pp.365-377.
 
17- Haverkamp, R.T. and Parlange, J.Y., 1986. Predicting the water-retention curve from particle-size distribution: 1. Sandy soils without organic matter1. Soil Science142(6), pp.325-339.
 
18- Heuperman, A.F., Kapoor, A.S. and Denecke, H.W., 2002. Biodrainage: principles, experiences and applications (No. 6). Food & Agriculture Org.
 
19- Hillel, D., 2000. Salinity management for sustainable irrigation: integrating science, environment, and economics. The World Bank.
 
20- Jabro, J.D., 1992. Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils from particle size distribution and bulk density data. Transactions of the ASAE35(2), pp.557-560.
21- Jačka, L., Pavlásek, J., Kuráž, V. and Pech, P., 2014. A comparison of three measuring methods for estimating the saturated hydraulic conductivity in the shallow subsurface layer of mountain podzols. Geoderma219, pp.82-88.
 
22- Kanwar, R.S., Rizvi, H.A., Ahmed, M., Horton, R. and Marley, S.J., 1990. Measurement of field-saturated hydraulic conductivity by using Guelph and velocity permeameters. Transactions of the ASAE32(6), pp.1885-1890.
 
23- Kunze, R.J., Uehara, G. and Graham, K., 1968. Factors important in the calculation of hydraulic conductivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal32(6), pp.760-765.
 
24- Leij, F.J., Russell, W.B. and Lesch, S.M., 1997. Closed-form expressions for water retention and conductivity data. Ground water35(5), p.848.
 
25- McKenzie, N.J. and Cresswell, H.P., 2002. Selecting a method for hydraulic conductivity. In Soil physical measurement and interpretation for land evaluation (pp. 90-107). CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, Victoria.
 
26- Mohanty, B.P., Kanwar, R.S. and Everts, C.J., 1994. Comparison of saturated hydraulic conductivity measurement methods for a glacial‐till soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal58(3), pp.672-677.
 
27- Morbidelli, R., Saltalippi, C., Flammini, A., Cifrodelli, M., Picciafuoco, T., Corradini, C. and Govindaraju, R.S., 2017. In situ measurements of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity: Assessment of reliability through rainfall–runoff experiments. Hydrological Processes31(17), pp.3084-3094.
 
28- Nakano, K. and Miyazaki, T., 2005. Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of compacted subsoils using the non-similar media concept. Soil and Tillage Research84(2), pp.145-153.
 
29- Noborio, K., Ito, Y., He, H., Li, M., Kojima, Y., Hara, H. and Mizoguchi, M., 2018. A new and simple method for measuring in situ field-saturated hydraulic conductivity using a falling-head single cylinder. Paddy and water environment16(1), pp.81-87.
 
30- Oosterbaan, R.J. and Nijland, H.J., 1994. Determining the saturated hydraulic conductivity, chapter 12. Drainage Principles and Applications, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen1125.
 
31- Pessarakli, M. ed., 2019. Handbook of plant and crop stress. CRc press.
 
32- Puckett, W.E., Dane, J.H. and Hajek, B.F., 1985. Physical and mineralogical data to determine soil hydraulic properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal49(4), pp.831-836.
 
33- Reynolds, W.D. and Elrick, D.E., 1990. Ponded infiltration from a single ring: I. Analysis of steady flow. Soil Science Society of America Journal54(5), pp.1233-1241.
 
34- Reynolds, W.D. and Zebchuk, W.D., 1996. Hydraulic conductivity in a clay soil: two measurement techniques and spatial characterization. Soil Science Society of America Journal60(6), pp.1679-1685.
35- Reynolds, W.D., Bowman, B.T., Brunke, R.R., Drury, C.F. and Tan, C.S., 2000. Comparison of tension infiltrometer, pressure infiltrometer, and soil core estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal64(2), pp.478-484.
 
36- Rezaei, M., Seuntjens, P., Shahidi, R., Joris, I., Boënne, W., Al-Barri, B. and Cornelis, W., 2016. The relevance of in-situ and laboratory characterization of sandy soil hydraulic properties for soil water simulations. Journal of Hydrology534, pp.251-265.
 
37- Ritzema, H.P., 2006. Drainage principles and applications (No. 16). ILRI.
 
38- Schaap, M.G., Leij, F.J. and Van Genuchten, M.T., 1998. Neural network analysis for hierarchical prediction of soil hydraulic properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal62(4), pp.847-855.
 
39- Schaap, M.G., Leij, F.J. and Van Genuchten, M.T., 2001. Rosetta: A computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. Journal of hydrology251(3-4), pp.163-176.
 
40- Severino, G., Santini, A. and Sommella, A., 2003. Determining the soil hydraulic conductivity by means of a field scale internal drainage. Journal of Hydrology273(1-4), pp.234-248.
 
41- Singh, A., 2015 (a). Poor quality water utilization for agricultural production: An environmental perspective. Land use policy43, pp.259-262.
 
42- Singh, A., 2015 (b). Soil salinization and waterlogging: A threat to environment and agricultural sustainability. Ecological indicators57, pp.128-130.
 
43- Valipour, M., 2014. Drainage, waterlogging, and salinity. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science60(12), pp.1625-1640.
 
44- Van der Molen, W.H., Beltrán, J.M. and Ochs, W.J., 2007. Guidelines and computer programs for the planning and design of land drainage systems (Vol. 62). Food & Agriculture Org.
 
45- Vanderlinden, K., Gabriels, D. and Giráldez, J.V., 1998. Evaluation of infiltration measurements under olive trees in Córdoba. Soil and Tillage Research48(4), pp.303-315.
 
46- Verbist, K.M.J., Cornelis, W.M., Torfs, S. and Gabriels, D., 2013. Comparing methods to determine hydraulic conductivities on stony soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal77(1), pp.25-42.
 
47- Vereecken, H., Maes, J. and Feyen, J., 1990. Estimating unsaturated hydraulic conductivity from easily measured soil properties. Soil Science149(1), pp.1-12.
 
48- Vienken, T. and Dietrich, P., 2011. Field evaluation of methods for determining hydraulic conductivity from grain size data. Journal of Hydrology400(1-2), pp.58-71.
 
49- Vlotman, W.F., Smedema, L.K. and Rycroft, D.W., 2020. Modern land drainage: Planning, design and management of agricultural drainage systems. CRC Press.
 
50- Wösten, J.H.M. and Van Genuchten, M.T., 1988. Using texture and other soil properties to predict the unsaturated soil hydraulic functions. Soil Science Society of America Journal52(6), pp.1762-1770.