摘要
Parameters of water retention and air capacity are important factors for the evaluation of soil material that will be used for vegetative covers or evapotranspiration (ET) covers of landfills. These values are often measured in the laboratory (usually on disturbed samples), but are also estimated from texture, organic matter content and dry bulk density. The standard basis for the estimation in Germany is the German Soil Classification Handbook (KA5). This estimation implicitly assumes that the data in the KA5 compiled from naturally developed soils are also valid for artificially compacted materials. In the present study, 25 materials were evaluated in the laboratory for the available water capacity, air capacity and permanent wilting point at 85%, 90% and 95% of Proctor density. The data were compared with parameter estimations from the KA5 and the program ROSETTA. Both estimation methods show significant deviations from the measured values;specifically, the change in the available water capacity in compressed samples is not estimated correctly. A possible explanation is a change in pore structure at different compaction levels of build in soil material in comparison with naturally developed soils of different bulk densities.
Parameters of water retention and air capacity are important factors for the evaluation of soil material that will be used for vegetative covers or evapotranspiration (ET) covers of landfills. These values are often measured in the laboratory (usually on disturbed samples), but are also estimated from texture, organic matter content and dry bulk density. The standard basis for the estimation in Germany is the German Soil Classification Handbook (KA5). This estimation implicitly assumes that the data in the KA5 compiled from naturally developed soils are also valid for artificially compacted materials. In the present study, 25 materials were evaluated in the laboratory for the available water capacity, air capacity and permanent wilting point at 85%, 90% and 95% of Proctor density. The data were compared with parameter estimations from the KA5 and the program ROSETTA. Both estimation methods show significant deviations from the measured values;specifically, the change in the available water capacity in compressed samples is not estimated correctly. A possible explanation is a change in pore structure at different compaction levels of build in soil material in comparison with naturally developed soils of different bulk densities.
