Selection of a stress-based soil compaction test to determine potential impact of machine wheel loads

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q2 SOIL SCIENCE
Aram Ali, John McLean Bennett, Stirling Roberton, Diman Krwanji, YingCan Zhu, David West
{"title":"Selection of a stress-based soil compaction test to determine potential impact of machine wheel loads","authors":"Aram Ali,&nbsp;John McLean Bennett,&nbsp;Stirling Roberton,&nbsp;Diman Krwanji,&nbsp;YingCan Zhu,&nbsp;David West","doi":"10.1111/ejss.13501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The use of heavy machinery is increasing in agricultural industries, and in particular cotton farming systems in Australia, which induces an increased risk of soil compaction and yield reduction. Hence, there is a need for a technical solution to use available tools to measure projected soil compaction due to farm machinery traffic. The aim of this work was to compare the effects of static and dynamic loads on soil compaction. In this study, three Vertisols (soils commonly used for cotton production in Australia) were selected to examine soil compaction under a range of static and dynamic loads, respectively, using uniaxial compression equipment and a modified Proctor test. In general, soils behaved similarly under static and dynamic loads with no significant difference between bulk density values for all moisture contents with a high index of agreement (<i>d</i> = 0.96, RMSE = 0.056). The results further indicate better agreement between soil compaction produced under static and dynamic loads. Uniaxial compression test (static loads) produced greater compaction compared with the modified Proctor test (dynamic loads), in particular at moisture contents less than the plastic limit condition. The variation in soil compaction for static and dynamic loads was often evident for loads ≥600 kPa, with the greatest soil compaction induced under loads ≥1200 kPa. The findings of this study confirm the suitability of a modified Proctor method to assess soil compaction as an alternative tool under a range of moisture contents and machinery loads for Vertisols.</p>","PeriodicalId":12043,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Soil Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.13501","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Soil Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.13501","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of heavy machinery is increasing in agricultural industries, and in particular cotton farming systems in Australia, which induces an increased risk of soil compaction and yield reduction. Hence, there is a need for a technical solution to use available tools to measure projected soil compaction due to farm machinery traffic. The aim of this work was to compare the effects of static and dynamic loads on soil compaction. In this study, three Vertisols (soils commonly used for cotton production in Australia) were selected to examine soil compaction under a range of static and dynamic loads, respectively, using uniaxial compression equipment and a modified Proctor test. In general, soils behaved similarly under static and dynamic loads with no significant difference between bulk density values for all moisture contents with a high index of agreement (d = 0.96, RMSE = 0.056). The results further indicate better agreement between soil compaction produced under static and dynamic loads. Uniaxial compression test (static loads) produced greater compaction compared with the modified Proctor test (dynamic loads), in particular at moisture contents less than the plastic limit condition. The variation in soil compaction for static and dynamic loads was often evident for loads ≥600 kPa, with the greatest soil compaction induced under loads ≥1200 kPa. The findings of this study confirm the suitability of a modified Proctor method to assess soil compaction as an alternative tool under a range of moisture contents and machinery loads for Vertisols.

Abstract Image

选择基于应力的土壤压实试验,以确定机轮载荷的潜在影响
重型机械在农业领域的使用日益增多,尤其是在澳大利亚的棉花种植系统中,这导致土壤板结和减产的风险增加。因此,需要一种技术解决方案,利用现有工具测量农用机械运输造成的预期土壤压实。这项工作的目的是比较静态负载和动态负载对土壤压实的影响。在这项研究中,我们选择了三种 Vertisols(澳大利亚棉花生产中常用的土壤),使用单轴压缩设备和改良的 Proctor 试验分别检测了一系列静态和动态负载下的土壤压实情况。总体而言,土壤在静态和动态载荷下的表现相似,所有含水量下的容重值之间没有显著差异,一致性指数较高(d = 0.96,RMSE = 0.056)。结果进一步表明,静载荷和动载荷下产生的土壤压实度之间的一致性更好。单轴压缩试验(静载荷)与改良普罗克特试验(动载荷)相比,产生的压实度更大,尤其是在含水量小于塑性极限条件下。在荷载≥600 kPa 时,静态和动态荷载对土壤压实度的影响通常很明显,而在荷载≥1200 kPa 时,土壤压实度最大。这项研究的结果证实,改良的 Proctor 方法适用于在一系列含水量和机械荷载条件下评估土壤压实度,可作为 Vertisols 的替代工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Soil Science
European Journal of Soil Science 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
5 months
期刊介绍: The EJSS is an international journal that publishes outstanding papers in soil science that advance the theoretical and mechanistic understanding of physical, chemical and biological processes and their interactions in soils acting from molecular to continental scales in natural and managed environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信