3.8 Article

Soil grain size analysis by the dynamometer method - a comparison to the pipette and hydrometer method

期刊

SOIL SCIENCE ANNUAL
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 17-27

出版社

POLSKIE TOWARZYSTWO GLEBOZNAWC
DOI: 10.2478/ssa-2018-0003

关键词

grain size composition; dynamometer method; pipette method; settling velocity

资金

  1. Intelligent Development Operational Program, project title: Significant improvement of the innovative device for measuring the grain size composition of fine-grained materials [POIR.02.03.02-02-0008/16-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the presented work was to compare the results of grain size distribution measurement by an innovative dynamometer method, developed by the authors, with results obtained by the pipette and hydrometer methods. Repeatability of results obtained in the dynamometer method was also determined. The content of three fractions with equivalent diameters <0.002 mm, 0.002-0.063 mm and 0.063-2.0 mm was measured. The results were compared using ordinary linear regression and additionally in the repeatability analysis by RMA (reduced major axis regression). It was found that the proposed dynamometer method is characterized by good result repeatability with no systematic errors when compared with the pipette method. The RMSE (root mean square error) value when referring to the pipette method calculated for the three fractions considered in total was 4.9096 and was lower than the analogous for the hydrometer method, which amounted to 5.4577. Values of determination coefficients in the comparison of dynamometer method and pipette method are within the range of 0.9681-0.9951 for the different fractions. It was found that slightly larger differences in relation to the pipette method occurred for the fractions <0.002 mm and 0.002-0.063 mm, and smaller for the fraction 0.063-2.0 mm. Similarly, greater differences between repetitions in the dynamometer method were observed for the fraction <0.002 mm, and smaller for the 0.063-2.0 mm fraction. Possible sources of errors in the dynamometer method were discussed, as were proposals for their reduction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据