Report Soil Survey

7/30/2019 Report Soil Survey

1/16


2/16

R E P O R TSurvey for Soil and Water

Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 1 ]

uTABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................2

1.1 Theoretical background of soil survey procedure ....................................................................2

1.2 Objectives of soil survey Trojanv mln and scope of works...................................................2

2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Basic information about studied locality ..................................................................................4

2.2 Soil survey plan and profile description ...................................................................................4

3 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK .......................................................................................................7

3.1 Disturbed and undisturbed samples ........................................................................................7

3.1 Soil physical characters determination ....................................................................................7

4 CALCULATIONS .................................................................................................................................8

4.1 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity: Minidisk infiltrometer ....................................................8

4.2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity: Constant head permeameter .............................................9

4.3 Consistency limits (100-120 cm): Cone penetrometer, plasticity test .................................. 10

4.4 Particle size distribution (100-120 cm): Hydrometer ............................................................ 11

4.5 Particle density (100-120 cm): Water pycnometer ............................................................... 13

4.6 Undisturbed core sample (top layer) .................................................................................... 13

4.7 Saturated hydraulic conductivity: Auger hole method ......................................................... 14

5 RESULTS AND COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 15


3/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 2 ]

u1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Theoretical background of soil survey procedureSoil survey includes preparatory work, field reconnaissance, survey itself in the terrain (sampling,

field measurements, etc.), laboratory analysis, results processing and research findings in the

required documentation.

The preparatory work is needed to collect basic input information about the geological struc-ture of

the rock mass, terrain geomorphology, climate, hydrological and hydrogeological conditions, anthro-

pogenic activities and potential sources of contamination. It is important to study the information

contained in documents previously made by pedagogical surveys, comprehensive soil survey inclu-

ding archived materials etc. Soil survey shall be carried within a reasonable time period, so the re-

sults can be representative.

Reconnaissance of the terrain can specify the details from the preliminary study of information sour-

ces, especially by confronting the maps to the actual situation in the area of interest. It is necessary

to mark the changes that are not included in the used maps and prove the information about the

geological composition, the influence of groundwater, the state of vegetation cover and anthropo-

genic activities.

After meeting with the state situation of the interest area the number and location of probes can be

point as well as specification of the appropriate drilling equipment and sampling equipment. Accor-

ding to the purpose of the survey probes can be divided into two categories. Mapping probes are

used for basic soil science orientation and to determine the boundaries of different types of soil.

Sampling probes are used to collect disturbed or undisturbed soil samples for further physical and

chemical analysis.

1.2 Objectives of soil survey Trojanv mln and scope of works

The purpose of this soil survey were to analyze soil profile and provide basic soil physical informationof locality Trojanv mln situated in very north part of city Prague. This report is a baseline study of

applied theoretical information taught in lectures for Survey for Soil and Water Relationship course

at Czech University of Life Sciences. The objectives of field and laboratory work were:

describe the soil profile, collect disturbed soil sample and undisturbed core soil sample for further physical analysis, determine saturated hydraulic conductivity in field using Auger hole method, determine unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in field using Minidisk infiltrometer, determine saturated hydraulic conductivity in laboratory using Constant head permeameter, determine consistency limits using Cone penetrometer and plastic test method,


4/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 3 ]

u determine particle size distribution using Hydrometer, determine particle density using Water pycnometer.

Scope of works for the soil survey included short review of available published material and aerial

photographs to determine the major landform and soil type, excavation of 2 test pits to an approxi-

mate depth of 1.2 m, logging of soil and collection of samples for analysis for soil physical characte-

risation, preparation of report describing soil type and presenting and discussing soil analytical re-

sults with reference to the soil properties.


5/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 4 ]

u2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Basic information about studied locality

The soil survey area is located north of Prague on the left bank of the river Vltava at the valley of the

brook ntick potok. Date of survey and previous weather circumstances which could influence soil

survey physical analysis as well as actual weather condition and basic characteristics of area are des-

cribed in Table 1.

Table 1: Field data record

+50 8' 49.81"

+14 22' 22.76" Meadow covered by

grass close to brook

28. 4. 20138:00 16:00 After previous heavyrain unstable surface

Sunny, alternatelycloudy, light wind Groundwater level at75 cm, exfiltration

27. 4. 2013 12,3C28. 4. 2013 8,4C

Fluvisoil

5 horizons

2.2 Soil survey plan and profile description

Two auger holes were excavated to depth of 1.2 m in an approximate distance of 30 m from the

brook in a straight area. As Table 2 shows five horizons of Fluvisoil were defined. Disturbed soil

samples for further analysis were collected from second pit which was 175 cm close to first one.

Undisturbed samples were taken another 10 m faraway and determination of unsaturated hydraulic

conductivity in the field has been done around 70 m far from the brook as seen in Figure 1.

Consistency limits, particle size distribution and particle density were determined separately for six

20 cm deep soil layers as seen in Table 3.


6/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 5 ]

uTable 2: Description of soil horizons

Horizon 1: Topsoil

0-16 cm

Blackish brown, crumby, humus, no mica, due to saturation no zooedafon

activity, wet, soft, easy disintegration, medium plasticity, mild adhesion,presence of Fe

3+

Horizon 2

16-50 cm

Brownish, subpoliedric, roots and small stones present, wet, easy

disintegration, medium plasticity, mild adhesion, Fe3+

present as a result

of oxidation

Horizon 3

50-75 cm

Rusty brown +due to influence of water light grey, prismatic, roots andstones present, wet, soft, medium disintegration, heavily plastic, medium

adhesion, presence of Fe2+

Horizon 4

70-85 cm

Grey with brown molting, structure less, wet, pulpy, medium

disintegration, heavily plastic, medium adhesion,presence of Fe

2+

Horizon 5

85-110 cm

Grey, rusty, wet, pulpy, difficult disintegration, heavily plastic, medium

adhesion, no mica, medium workability, high stone skeleton content

Figure 1: Sampling plan (1: Two auger holes for determination of saturated hydraulic conductivity in

field, one of them used for collecting one disturbed soil samples for determination of consistency li-

mits, particle size distribution and particle density, 2: Area of collecting two undisturbed soil sample

for determination of saturated hydraulic conductivity in laboratory, 3: Area of measurement for

determination unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in field)

123


7/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 6 ]

uTable 3: Labour plan

Soil character Field Laboratory Done by

Soil profile Description - Dr. Frantiek Dolealand group

Two undisturbed core

soil samples of topsoil

Collecting Saturated, drying,

analysis of obtained

data

Jaroslav Novotn

One disturbed soil

sample for 100-120 cm

layer

Collecting from auger

hole

Drying, sieving Jaroslav Novotn

Saturated hydraulic

conductivity (Auger

hole method)

Digging of two auger

hole, obtaining data

Computer analysis of

obtained data

Dr. MarktaMihalkov and group

Unsaturated hydraulic

conductivity (Minidisk

infiltrometer)

Obtaining data for 1

from 3 infiltometers

measurements

Computer analysis of

obtained data

Jaroslav Novotn,Hailemariam Amdu

Saturated hydraulic

conductivity (Constant

head permeameter)

Collecting two

undisturbed core soil

samples

Obtaining data,

computer analysis of

data

Group

Consistency limits for

profile 100-120 cm

- Obtaining data,


data

Jaroslav Novotn

Particle size

distribution for profile

100-120 cm

- Obtaining data,


data

Jaroslav Novotn

Particle density for

profile 100-120 cm

- Obtaining data,


data

Jaroslav Novotn


8/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 7 ]

u3 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

3.1 Disturbed and undisturbed samples

Consistency limits, particle size distribution and particle density were determined using disturbed soil

sample. About 3 kg from a depth of 100-120 cm of second auger hole were taken to a plastic bag to

obtain disturbed sample for further physical analysis. In the laboratory sample was spread and big

clods broken on a filter paper to let it air-dry. After air-drying and putting big stones away, the soil

mill was used to grind the soil. The ratio of skeleton to a sieved soil particles 2 mm was approxima-

tely 1,6:1 (1968,3:1254,3). About 140 g of fine soil were used for particle size distribution and par-

ticle density analysis. 350 g of soil passed through 0,5 mm sieve was used for determination of con-

sistency limits.

Two undisturbed samples were taken in the field using Kopeck ring and covered to avoid evapora -

tion. Tares of all accessories (geotextile + rubber band, watch glass) and samples were in the labo-

ratory weight as soon as possible. Than samples were placed on a saturation mat to let them fully

saturate until a constant mass and weighted again. Such samples were used for the determination of

satura-ted hydraulic conductivity on constant head permeameter. After drying within 105C to the

constant mass the actual water content at the moment of sampling, saturated water content and dry

bulk density could be calculated.

3.1 Soil physical characters determination

To determine basic physical soil properties the procedures prepared by Dr. Markta Mihalkov were

used. Full texts are available in study materials of Survey for Soil and Water Relationship course tau-

ght at Czech University of Life Sciences. Data for calculating hydraulic conductivities were obtained

directly in the field using special equipment while other data were got later in laboratory. In chapter

4 of this report all calculations can be found.

Note: For next course there could be also measured actual water content of each soil layer to state

the consistency indexes. I am sorry that I did not describe all procedures by my words but I would benot able to finish in terms of time this before final exam. Thanks for understanding. Anyway thank

you also for this course and for Soil and Water Relationship seminars as well as lectures cause in

whole those were one of the most practical and I think also somehow useful for me courses I have

ever attended at universities. I think this should be mentioned here even if my report will be send back

to correct it. It was not easy (also not difficult cause of your help) but after all I more appreciate work

which we have as students and mentors together done in these courses.


9/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 8 ]

u4 CALCULATIONS

4.1 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity: Minidisk infiltrometer

Data

Tension -4

Time (min) Time (s) Reading (ml) t Delta t Cum. inf. (ml)

0 0 86 0 0 0

2 120 84 10,95445 2 2

4 240 83 15,49193 1 3

6 360 82 18,97367 1 4

8 480 81,5 21,9089 0,5 4,5

10 600 80,5 24,4949 1 5,5

12 720 80 26,83282 0,5 6

14 840 79,5 28,98275 0,5 6,5

16 960 79 30,98387 0,5 7

18 1080 78,5 32,86335 0,5 7,5

20 1200 78 34,64102 0,5 8

22 1320 77,5 36,3318 0,5 8,5

24 1440 77 37,94733 0,5 9

26 1560 76,5 39,49684 0,5 9,5

28 1680 76 40,9878 0,5 10

30 1800 75,5 42,42641 0,5 10,5

Tension -2

Time (min) Time (s) Reading (ml) t Delta t Cum. inf. (ml)

0 0 73,5 0 0 0

2 120 71,5 10,95445 2 2

4 240 70 15,49193 1,5 3,5

6 360 69 18,97367 1 4,5

8 480 68 21,9089 1 5,5

10 600 66 24,4949 2 7,5

12 720 65 26,83282 1 8,5

14 840 64 28,98275 1 9,5

16 960 63 30,98387 1 10,5

18 1080 62 32,86335 1 11,5

20 1200 61 34,64102 1 12,5

22 1320 60 36,3318 1 13,5

24 1440 59 37,94733 1 14,5

Calculation

A (tension -4 and -1, sandy loam) 4

C1 (-4) 0,0017

C1 (-1) 0,0071

k (cm/s) (-4) 0,000425k (cm/s) (-1) 0,001775


10/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 9 ]

u Determination of parameters C1

4.2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity: Constant head permeameter

Data

Time (s) R. (ml) Time (s) Reading (ml)90 7 900 399

120 24 960 426

170 50 1020 450

180 70 1080 474

240 85 1140 494

270 100 1200 518

300 120 1260 534

360 168 1320 554

420 176 1380 574

480 196 1440 596

540 226 1500 618600 256 1560 638

660 284 1620 656

720 318 1680 670

780 344 1740 682

840 374 1800 686

2070 724

Difference between water levels (cm) 5,2

Height of the sample (cm) 4,6

Diameter of the sample (cm) 5,2

Height of the constant flooding (cm) 0,6

y = 0,0071x2 + 0,1146x

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 10 20 30 40Cumula

tiveinfiltrationat-4(cm)

Reading time (min)

y = 0,0017x2 + 0,1738x

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 20 40 60Cumula

tiveinfiltrationat-1(cm)

Reading time (min)


11/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 10 ]

u Determination of straight cumulative infiltration line

Calculation

V (cm) 75

AS (cm) 21,24

t (s) 180

delta z (cm) 4,6

hf (cm) 0,6

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/s) 0,017355882

4.3 Consistency limits (100-120 cm): Cone penetrometer, plasticity test

Data

Liquid limit

Replication No. 1 2 3 4

Depth of penetration 37,7 32,2 25,6 16,6

Mass of container (g) 21,37 21,2 25,14 26,06

Mass of container + wet sample (g) 45,75 43,6 45,89 43,28

Mass of container + dry sample (g) 42,39 38,31 40,17 38,86Water content (%) 15,98 30,92 38,06 34,53

Plastic limit

Replication No. 1 2

Mass of container (g) 20,94 29,06

Mass of container + wet sample (g) 30,84 39,15

Mass of container + dry sample (g) 29,32 37,63

Mass of dry sample (g) 8,38 8,57

Water content (%) 15,35 15,06

Water content difference (%) -0,29

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Cumulativevolume(ml)

Time (s)


12/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 11 ]

u Determination of liquid limit from data obtained by Penetrometer at four levels of saturation

Calculation

Water content of LL (%) 35,16

Water content of PL (%) 15,21

IP (Index of plasticity) 19,95

4.4 Particle size distribution (100-120 cm): Hydrometer

Calibration data

Height of weighted base (mm) 144

Length between the "neck" of the float and the lowest mark on scale of

the hydrometer (mm)

18

Length of the hydrometer scale (mm) 97

The number units between 1.000 and 1.030 30

Volume of weighted base (ml) 58

Length of cylinder scale between 100 and 1000 ml marks (mm) 334Mass of the sample for sedimentation (g) 44,99

Dry matter of the soil: tare (g) 41,78

Dry matter of the soil: mass of air dry soil + tare (g) 58,8

Dry matter of the soil: mass of oven dry soil + tare (g) 58,5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 10 100

Watercontent(%)

Depth of penetration (mm)

Liquid limit

Linern (Liquid limit)


13/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 12 ]

u Data

Intendedtimeof

sedimentation(m

in)

Realtime(s)

Hydrometerread

ing

(mm)

Corrected

hyrometerreading

(

)

Temperature(C)

Hr(cm)

Temperature

correction(C)

di

K

2 100

0,5 30 20 20,5 22,98 111,6 0,93 0,48 0,0618 72,9

1 60 18 18,5 22,98 118,0 0,93 0,48 0,0450 65,8

2 120 16,5 16,9 22,37 122,9 0,94 0,37 0,0327 60,1

5 300 14 14,4 22,37 131,0 0,94 0,37 0,0213 51,2

15 900 11,5 11,9 22 139,1 0,95 0,37 0,0127 42,3

45 2700 9,5 9,9 22,37 145,5 0,94 0,37 0,0075 35,1

120 7200 7,5 7,9 22,37 152,0 0,94 0,37 0,0047 28,0

232 13920 7 7,4 22 153,6 0,95 0,37 0,0034 26,2

1165 69900 5 5,6 23,57 160,1 0,92 0,57 0,0015 19,8

2637 158220 4,5 5,0 22,98 161,7 0,93 0,48 0,0010 17,7

Particle size distribution

Graph reading analysis

Soil profile 100-120 cm Loam

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,0010,010,1110

Contentofparticles(%)

Particle size (mm)


14/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 13 ]

u4.5 Particle density (100-120 cm): Water pycnometer

Data and calculation

Numberof

sample

Tareofthe

bowl(g)

Massofdry

sample+tare

bowltare(g)

Numberof

pycnometer

m1(g)

m2(g)

Massofdry

sample(g)

PD(g/cm3)

996 A 37,78 54,51 91 156,16 166,47 16,73 2,61

996 B 38,32 55,07 11 136,44 146,72 16,75 2,59

Particle density (g/cm3) 2,60

The ratio of skeleton to particles 2 mm 1,6:1

4.6 Undisturbed core sample (top layer)

Data and calculation

Number of the sample 905 910

Mass of the ring (tare) (g) 141,04 141,27

Mass of the geotextile + rubber band (g) 0,61 0,46

Mass of the watch glass (g) 22,46 19,32

Mass of cover + rubber (g) 15,81 15,83

Mass of the naturally wet sample (tare + cover,rubber) (g)

317 323

Mass of the saturated sample (ring + geotextile,

rubber + watch) (g)

332,01 335,28

Mass of dry sample (ring + geotextile, rubber +

watch) (g)

287,44 285,69

Average particle density (g/cm3) (0-20 cm) 2,46 2,46

Water content by mass (%) 29,85 33,10

Water content by volume (%) 36,82 41,26

Dry bulk density (g/cm3) 1,23 1,25

Porosity (%) 49,84 49,30


15/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 14 ]

u4.7 Saturated hydraulic conductivity: Auger hole method

Borehole characteristics and dataHole 1 Hole 2

Borehole depth (cm) 120 120

Radios of the borehole (cm) 5 5

First registration of the GW (cm) 75 70

GW level in steady state (cm) 14 17

Thickness of water bearing layer (cm) 45 50

Final GW after removal (cm) 70 105

175 cm distance between holes, distance between hole 1 and road 5,5 m, hole 1 and river 31 m

Hole 1 Hole 2

Time (min) Reading (cm) Time (min) Reading (cm)

0 70,0 1 73,22 50,9 2 54,5

4 43,8 3 44,3

6 38,0 4 37,1

8 33,2 5 32,4

10 30,0 6 28,9

7 26,5

8 25,1

9 23,8

10 22,8

Ground water level increase in time

Results

K (Kirkham and van Bavel) (cm/s) 0,000656121

K (Hooghoudt and Ernst) (cm/s) 0,000589581

1

10

100

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Reading;increasingoftheGWL(cm)

Time (min)

Auger hole 1

Auger hole 2


16/16


Relationship

Trojanv mln

[ 15 ]

u5 RESULTS AND COMMENTS

The deepest studied soil layer is characterized by high ratio of skeleton to particles 2 or less mm indiameter and is approximately 1,6:1. Particle density of this layer does not differ too much to par-

ticle densities of other layers as seen in Table 4 apart from the layer 20-40 cm. Particle size distri-

bution corresponds with field observation (Table 2) and relates to loam which tends to be medium

plasticity as proved by calculated index of plasticity.

Table 4: Soil layers characteristics at locality Trojanv mln

Soil layer (cm)

Done by

Particle

density

(g/cm3)

Particle size

distribution

Water

content of LL

(%)

Water

content of PL

(%)

IP (Index of

plasticity)

0-20

Amdu

2,46 Sandy loam 18,23 17,85 0,38

20-40

Kova1,21 Silt loam 28,8 8,16 20,64

40-60

Sehic

2,60 Medium

loamy soil

26 16,71 8

60-80

Hakizimana

2,60 Silty clay loam 33,9 25,54 8,36

80-100

Daniyar

2,66 Sandy clay

loam

27,7 16,29 11,41

100-120

Novotn2,60 Clay 35 15,21 19,79

Top layer analyzed through undisturbed core soil samples is around 50 % high in porosity and 1,24

g/cm3

in dry bulk density which are typical for sandy soil as proved by sandy distribution of layer 0-20

cm (Table 4).

Saturated hydraulic conductivities measured separately in field by auger hole method and in labo-

ratory by constant head permeameter differ two orders and are equal to 0,000622851 respectively

0,017355882 cm/s. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is for tension -4 cm 0,000425 cm/s while for

tension -1 cm 0,001775 cm which slightly corresponds to other two measurments (0,001444/0,01346

cm/s and 0,000825/0,018694 cm/s).

Report Soil Survey

Documents

Transcript of Report Soil Survey