Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2018, Page: 53-64
Review of Some Methods of Determining in-Situ Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil
Audu Danladi, Department of Soil Science, Federal University Kashere, Gombe, Nigeria
Ibrahim Ahmed Usman, Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
Usman Danladi Drambi, Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
Adanu Emmanuel Otache, Federal College of Education (Technical), Gombe, Nigeria
Yakubu Musa, Federal College of Education (Technical), Gombe, Nigeria
Received: Aug. 31, 2018;       Accepted: Sep. 13, 2018;       Published: Nov. 13, 2018
DOI: 10.11648/j.ajset.20180303.11      View  91      Downloads  17
Abstract
In-situ determination of K is important especially when the physical features of the soil system in question is to be characterized as accurately as possible. It gives more reliable values because there is minimal disturbance of the soil. It is more representative of the physical reality than the other methods. The objective of this study is therefore to review some of the in-situ methods of determining permeability, K of a soil, stating the conditions, advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods, thereby helping in proper selection of in-situ method to be adopted for a given soil, land terrain and type of aquifer. There are various methods of determining Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, K of a soil. Application of each of the methods varies depending on the characteristics of the soil such as land terrain, soil water table and type of aquifer present. In this paper, nine in-situ methods, which include auger hole, two types of well pumping tests, piezometer, two well, tube, four well, tracer test, point dilution and cone permeameter, as well as thirteen types and fifteen formulae were reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages as well as conditions for use of each of the nine in-situ methods were stated. Out of the nine methods studied, the non-equilibrium condition for determination of R for wells penetrating a confined aquifer is found to be the most reliable. It is obvious that cone permeameter is the fastest and simplest of measuring K at different depths in a single push without the removal of soil or water from the hole, K is automatically measured within 10 minutes as the device’s probe is pushed into the desired depth in the ground. In terms of reliability, well pumping test of the non-equilibrium type is the most reliable and produces accurate results. Every other method is more or less related to each other and gives acceptable values of K.
Keywords
Hydraulic Conductivity, Confined Aquifer, Unconfined Aquifer, Water Table, Piezometer, Permeameter
To cite this article
Audu Danladi, Ibrahim Ahmed Usman, Usman Danladi Drambi, Adanu Emmanuel Otache, Yakubu Musa, Review of Some Methods of Determining in-Situ Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil, American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 3, 2018, pp. 53-64. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20180303.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Hamill, L & F. G. Bell (1986). Ground Water Resources Development, 1st Edition, Pp. 21-23.
[2]
Waduwawatte, B., C. Bing and N. Kosuke (2004). Determination of Hydraulic Properties in Sloping Landscapes from Tension and Double-Ring Infiltrometers SSSA 3: 964-970.
[3]
Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater Hydrology, Second Edition, Willey, New York.
[4]
Cameira, M. R., R. M. Fernando and L. S. Pereira (2003). Soil Macropore Dynamics Affected by Tillage and Irrigation for a Silt Loam Alluvial Soil in Southern Portugal. Soil Tillage Res. 70: 131-140.
[5]
Kachanoski, R. G.; F. Zhang; G. W. Parkin & D. E. Elrick (1999). Measurement of Hydraulic Properties during Constant Flux Infiltration. Soil Science Soc. Of America. http//soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/4/793. Accessed December, 2007
[6]
Vandervaere, J. P., M. Vauclin and D. E. Elrick (2000). Transient Flow from Tension Infiltrometers. I. The Two-Parameter Equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:1263–1272
[7]
Van Beer, W. J. F. (1983). The Auger Hole Method. A Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil below the Water Table, ILRI, Wageningen, Netherlands.
[8]
Diserens, E. (1934) in Luthin, J. N. (1980). Drainage of Agricultural Lands. American Soc. Of Agronomy, Madison, Winsc.
[9]
Hooghoudt, S. B. (1936). Bijdragen tot de Konnis Van Eenige Natuurkundige Grootheden Van Den Grond, 4. Versl. Landh; Ond. 42(13) B: Pp. 449-541. In: J. N. Luthin (ed.) Drainage of Agricultural Lands. American Soc. Of Agronomy, Madison, Winsc. Pp. 420-435.
[10]
Luthin, J. N. (1980). Drainage of Agricultural Lands. American Soc. Of Agronomy, Madison, Winsc. Pp. 420-435.
[11]
Ernst, L. F. (1950). Een Niewe Formulae Voor de Berekening Van De Door Laat Factor Met Boorgaten Methode. Rap. Land Bouwproefsta en Bodenkundig Inst. T. N. O; Groninggen. (Mimeo). In: J. N. Luthin (ed.) Drainage of Agricultural Lands. American Soc. Of Agronomy, Madison, Winsc. Pp. 420-435.
[12]
Glenn, M. D. (2016). Pumping Tests. Aquifer Testing. HydroSOLVE, Inc.2303 Horseferry Court, Reston, Virginia, 20191, USA.
[13]
Dupuits, J. (1863) in Luthin, J. N. (1980). Drainage of Agricultural Lands. American Soc. Of Agronomy, Madison, Winsc.
[14]
Burk, L. & P. G. Cook (2015). A Simple and Affordable System for Installing Shallow Drive Point Piezometer. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation.
[15]
Childs, E. C. (1953). The Measurement of Hydraulic Permeability of Saturated Soil In-Situ. Principles of a Proposed Method. Proc. Ray Soc. London. A 215: Pp.525-535.
[16]
Kirkham, D. (1946). Proposed Method for Field Measurement of Permeability of Soil Below the Water Table. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 10 Pp. 58-68.
[17]
Luthin, J. N. and Don, Kirkham (1949). A Pedometer Method for Measuring Permeability of Soil In-Situ below a Water Table. Soil Sci. Soc. of American Journal 68:349-358.
[18]
Mendoza, G. and S. T. Steenhuis (2002). Determination of Hydraulic Behaviour of Hillsides with a Hill Slope Infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1501–1504.
[19]
Jui-Sheng, C.; Chia-Shyun, C.; Hwa-Sheng, G. Chen-Wuing, L. (1999). A Two Well Method to Evaluate Transverse Dispersity for Tracer Tests in a Radially Convergent Flow Field. Journal of Hydrology, 1 Oct. 1999, Vol. 223(3):175- 197.
[20]
Flint, L. E. and A. L. Flint (2002). The Soil Solution Phase. Porosity. P. 241–254. In J.H. Dane and G. C. Topp (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
[21]
Dyck, M. F., R. G. Kachanoski and E. de Jong (2003). Long-Term Movement of a Chloride Tracer under Transient, Semi-Arid Conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67:471–477
[22]
Reynolds, W. D., D. E. Elrick and E. G. Youngs (2002). The Soil Solution Phase. Single-Ring and Double or Concentric-Ring Infiltrometers. Pp. 821-826. in J. H. Dane and G. C. Topp (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
[23]
Bill L., N. Mason, and V. Chipman (1999). Cone Permeameter In-Situ Permeability Measurements with Direct Push Techniques. Science and Engineering Associates, 3205 Richards Lane, Suite A, Santa Fe, NM 87505, WM’99 Conference, February 28 – March 4, 1999.
[24]
Kejr, K. (2004). Cone Permeameter. http//www.geoprobe.com/products/tools/hydconductivity/conpermde. Access October, 2007.
Browse journals by subject