4.7 Article

A study on the air permeability as affected by compression of three French soils

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 162, 期 1-2, 页码 171-181

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.01.019

关键词

Air permeability; Confined uniaxial compression test; Air-filled porosity; Degree of saturation; Vertical stress; Void ratio

资金

  1. ANR-Agence Nationale de la Recherche-The French National Research Agency [ANR-05-PADD-013]
  2. Ministry in charge of the Environment [GESSOL2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil air permeability is one of the most important parameters which govern the aeration in agricultural soils and thus has a significant effect on the plant growth and crop production. Therefore, it appears important, when analysing the effect of soil compaction due to agricultural machinery, to correlate air permeability with soil capacity parameters such as air-filled porosity, degree of saturation, water content, etc. In the present work, the relationship between air permeability, soil capacity parameters and vertical stress was analysed by performing confined uniaxial compression tests accompanied by air permeability measurements. Three French soils having different textures were studied. Tests were performed on remoulded and undisturbed soils, at various initial dry bulk densities and water contents. For the remoulded soils, the air permeability has been found strongly correlated with the applied vertical stress for sandy loam; by contrast, no obvious correlation could be established for clay. As far as the undisturbed soils are concerned, the air permeability could be correlated with the air-filled porosity for sandy loam ant silty-clayey loam but also no evident correlation could be established for clay. Examination of an existing model predicting the air permeability from the air-filled porosity using one tortuosity/connectivity parameter showed that this parameter varies in a small range for sandy soils and in a larger range for clayey soils. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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