oalogo2  

AUTHOR(S):

Shervin Hashemi, Farid Hashemi, Siamak Boudaghpour, Seth Engel

 

TITLE

Comparing the Applicability of Soil Water Retention Models

pdf PDF

ABSTRACT

Recently, the public has become more aware of the environmental problems facing our planet today. Underground water pollution is one of these problems, and it requires serious attention. As a result, many studies have been performed to examine the movement of water within soil. These studies present many new models for determining soil water retention rates. It is essential that these models be investigated for accuracy and applicability. This study attempts to analyze three of these well-known water retention models: Campbell, Saxton, and Huston-Cass. To analyze these models, the pressure plate test (ASTM C199-09) was performed on soil samples with different soil textures and from different geographical locations within the country of Iran. Using these results, the general applicability of each model was measured using the 1:1 slope line correlation method. In addition, the accuracy and applicability of each model was measured by calculating the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for major samples with different soil textures. The results indicate that the Huston-Cass model is the most applicable for predicting soil water retention rates regardless of soil texture. Further results show that the Campbell model is more applicable relative to the Saxton model with regards to loamy soil. The Saxton model shows low accuracy and applicability, and should therefore only be used in cases where a high level of accuracy in the estimating process is not essential, or in cases with high pressure or suction terms.

KEYWORDS

Applicability, Pressure Plate Test, Site Investigations, Soil Water Retention Models.

REFERENCES

[1] S Shiozawa, GS Campbell, On the calculation of mean particle diameter and standard deviation from sand, silt and clay fractions, Soil Science, Vol.152, 1991, pp. 427-431. [1] S Shiozawa, GS Campbell, On the calculation of mean particle diameter and standard deviation from sand, silt and clay fractions, Soil Science, Vol.152, 1991, pp. 427-431. 

[2] PR Bruce, RJ Luxmoore, Water retention: Field methods, In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Vol.1, 2nd ed., Agronomy Monograph Series, (Eds A Klute), American Society of Agronomy 1986, pp. 663-686. 

[3] RH Brooks, AT Corey, Properties of porous media affecting fluid flow, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Vol.92, 1966, pp. 61-87. 

[4] MT van Genuchten, A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated flow, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.44, 1980, pp. 892-898. 

[5] Y Mualem Y, A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media, Water Resource Research, Vol.12, 1976, pp. 513-522. 

[6] JR Nimmo, Comment on the treatment of residual water content in "A consistent set of parametric models for the two-phase flow of immiscible fluids in the Subsurface" by L Luckner et al., Water Resource Research, Vol.27, 1991, pp. 661-662. 

[7] PJ Ross, J Williams, KL Bristow, Equation for extending water-retention curves to dryness, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.55, 1991, pp. 923-927. 

[8] ST Tyler, SW Wheatcraft, Fractal processes in soil water retention, Water Resource Research, Vol.26, 1990, pp. 1047-1054. 

[9] JS Kern, Evaluation of Soil Water Retention Models Based on Basic Soil Physical Properties, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.59, 1995, pp. 1134-1141. 

[10] M Bittelli, M Flury, Errors in Water Retention Curves Determined with Pressure Plates, Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.73, No.5, 2009, pp. 1453-1460. 

[11] ASTM C 1699-09, Standard Test Method for Moisture Retention Curves of Porous Building Materials Using Pressure Plates, ASTM International, 2009. 

[12] GS Campbell, A simple method for determining unsaturated conductivity from moisture retention data, Soil Science, Vol.117, 1947, pp. 311-314. 

[13] KE Saxton, WJ Rawls, JS Romberger, RI Papendick, Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.50, 1986, pp. 1031- 1036. 

[14] JL Hutson, A Cass, A retentivity function for use in soil water simulation models, Soil Science, Vol.38, 1987, pp. 105-113. 

[15] C Rossi, JR Nimmo, Modeling of soil water retention from saturation to oven dryness, Water Resources Research, Vol.30, No.3, 1994, pp. 701-708.

Cite this paper

Shervin Hashemi, Farid Hashemi, Siamak Boudaghpour, Seth Engel. (2016) Comparing the Applicability of Soil Water Retention Models. International Journal of Environmental Science, 1, 114-118

 

cc.png
Copyright © 2016 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

, the public has become more aware of the environmental problems facing our planet today. Underground water pollution is one of these problems, and it requires serious attention. As a result, many studies have been performed to examine the movement of water within soil. These studies present many new models for determining soil water retention rates. It is essential that these models be investigated for accuracy and applicability. This study attempts to analyze three of these well-known water retention models: Campbell, Saxton, and Huston-Cass. To analyze these models, the pressure plate test (ASTM C199-09) was performed on soil samples with different soil textures and from different geographical locations within the country of Iran. Using these results, the general applicability of each model was measured using the 1:1 slope line correlation method. In addition, the accuracy and applicability of each model was measured by calculating the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for major samples with different soil textures. The results indicate that the Huston-Cass model is the most applicable for predicting soil water retention rates regardless of soil texture. Further results show that the Campbell model is more applicable relative to the Saxton model with regards to loamy soil. The Saxton model shows low accuracy and applicability, and should therefore only be used in cases where a high level of accuracy in the estimating process is not essential, or in cases with high pressure or suction terms