|
|
||||||||
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel
agvictor{at}tx.technion.ac.il
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
0.1zm) (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998) can be insufficiently accurate. The objective of this work was to propose and validate, by available data, a simple method of estimating zo and zm based on their correlation with the measurable mean spacing, S, between shrinkage cracks at the soil surface at the steady state. The value of S is easily measured, using a sufficiently long tape, as the mean spacing between the crack intersections with the tape (Zein el Abedine and Robinson, 1971).
For verification of the technique to be proposed for estimating zo and zm values, we used data from Zein el Abedine and Robinson (1971), Yaalon and Kalmar (1984), and Dasog et al. (1988) on the mean crack spacing at the soil surface (see below). It is worth noting that these researchers published data of five types on soil cracking relating to different geographical areas. For validation of their model, Chertkov and Ravina (1998) used the data of four types from Zein el Abedine and Robinson (1971), Yaalon and Kalmar (1984), and Dasog et al. (1988).
Independent data on the mean crack spacing at the soil surface were not used by Chertkov and Ravina (1998); namely, these data are the experimental background of the present paper.
| Theory |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
Such a crack system is referred to as quasi-steady. At this stage of development the velocities of cracks change smoothly, and the mean crack spacing at depth z, d(z), does not explicitly depend on time, but only through parameters zo and zm. zm increases rather faster than zo, and in the field of the quasi-steady state (Eq. [2]) zm is equal to its highest value (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998).
Some Remarks Connected with Scaling
It should be emphasized that the concepts of multiple cracking and fragmentation underlying Chertkov and Ravina's (1998) model include presentation of any macrocrack as the result of a number of random sequential coalescences of increasingly larger cracks across a range of spatial scales, beginning from microcracks.
For instance, many very small cracks develop at the soil surface, but not all of them continue to increase. However a number of cracks with slightly larger dimensions develop by jumps with a sharp increase in velocity (Salganik and Chertkov, 1969). Such macrocracks are referred to as primary ones (Konrad and Ayad, 1997). Their depths can be in the development process from the first centimeters to zm and, as with spacings, depend on physical soil properties and boundary conditions at the surface and at depth zm.
It is also worth noting the difference between the theoretical mean crack spacing at the surface, d(0), and the measurable mean crack spacing at the surface, S. At the soil surface, the number of small cracks is very large, and d(0) = 0 (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998). The measurable mean crack spacing, S, accounts for cracks only with a width (at the surface) more than the diameter of flexible wire (1.53 mm) for crack depth measurement (Zein el Abedine and Robinson, 1971).
Correlation between Surface Crack Spacing (S) and Steady Thickness of Intensive-Cracking Layer (zos)
According to Eq. [2], zo changes from an initial value
![]() | (3) |
![]() | (4) |
Equation [3] corresponds with the initial (quasi-steady) state of intensive-cracking layer, which appears in drying with some delay after the appearance of primary shrinkage cracks at the surface. Equation [4] corresponds with the steady crack network. In further drying, crack width and volume may increase without changing the dependence d(z) (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998). Our aim here is to state a number of considerations that are possibly nonstrict, but heuristic, and permit us to formulate an assumption of the above-mentioned correlation that can be checked using available data.
Let us consider the simplest possible mechanism of transition from developing primary cracks to an initial quasi-steady state of an intensive-cracking layer (Fig. 1)
. First, sufficiently small primary cracks develop as isolated. When their depth, h (Fig. 1), becomes comparable with the mean crack spacing between primary cracks, So (Fig. 1), the cracks begin to interact (Cherepanov, 1979). That is, they form a system and demonstrate an instability of development of the system of parallel interacting cracks (Kuznetsov, 1977) (when some of the cracks stop at a given depth) (Fig. 1). Thus, condition
![]() | (5) |
![]() | (6) |
|
![]() | (7) |
According to Eq. [5] through [7]
![]() | (8) |
Thus, we come to the assumption that spacing between primary shrinkage cracks at the surface (So) is approximately equal to the initial thickness of the intensive cracking layer (zoi).
To pass from the mean spacing between primary cracks (at the surface), So, to the mean crack spacing at the steady state (at the surface), S, one can assume, based on Konrad and Ayad's (1997) and Yaalon and Kalmar's (1984) data on the mean crack spacing of a developing crack network, that the secondary cracks divide the spacing between the primary cracks at the soil surface, on the average, into two. An effect of the small superficial cracks of the following generations on the measured spacing S at the steady state at the surface is negligible because such cracks are not accounted for in Zein el Abedine and Robinson (1971) method (see remark at the end of the above section). Therefore, we can assume that
![]() | (9) |
According to Eq. [3] and [4], the initial (zoi) and steady (zos) values of the intensive-cracking layer thickness are connected
![]() | (10) |
Substituting to Eq. [8] for So and zoi values from Eq. [9] and [10], we come to the assumption that the steady thickness of an intensive-cracking layer (zos) is approximately equal to the surface crack spacing (S)
![]() | (11) |
It should be noted that Chertkov and Ravina (1998) did not separately consider the boundaries of the range given by Eq. [2] and did not introduce notations zoi and zos. For the steady thickness of an intensive-cracking layer (zos) and for the thickness of an intensive-cracking layer as a variable they used the same designation, zo. Since we are interested hereafter only in zos and S values, to simplify and unify notation we will also write zo implying zos. Then Eq. [11] is rewritten as
![]() | (12) |
| Materials and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Data of Zein el Abedine and Robinson (1971)
These authors measured crack depths, widths, and spacing at the surface using steady crack networks in Vertisols of the eastern part of the central clay plain of the Sudan and calculated the corresponding crack volume. Data on crack depths and widths for two profiles, GTO3 and GTO4, in central Gezira (clay = 5158%); two profiles, GTO5 and GTO6 in south Gezira (clay = 6064%); two profiles, GHATO5 and GHBTO7, in the Gash delta area (clay = 5567%); and two profiles, O4H and O4MH, in the Link canal area (clay = 7176%) were analyzed in the frame of Chertkov and Ravina's (1998) model. Below we use data (not previously used) on the mean crack spacing (S) at the soil surface from Zein el Abedine and Robinson's (1971) Table V, and Chertkov and Ravina's (1998) estimates of the intensive-cracking-layer thickness (zo) for the steady crack networks of the indicated profiles (Table 2)
.
|
Data of Dasog et al. (1988)
These researchers measured crack widths, depths, and spacing of clay soils in Saskatchewan, Canada. We used the data of a site at the Agriculture Canada research farm at Saskatoon (Regina soil; clay = 6480%). Data (not previously used) on the half mean spacing of primary cracks at the soil surface, S (Table 3 of Dasog et al., 1988), and the estimate of the thickness of the intensive-cracking layer at the steady state, zo (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998), are presented in Table 2.
| Results and discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
S and
zo, respectively.
Comparison between S and zo
Based on the data of Zein el Abedine and Robinson (1971)
These authors divided the total range of spacing values for every profile into intervals and gave the fractions of the spacing numbers occurring in every interval. These data on the crack spacing distribution at the surface (Table V in Zein el Abedine and Robinson, 1971) allow us to estimate not only the mean value, S, but also the standard deviation,
, of the distribution
![]() | (13) |
fi is the fraction of the spacing number occurring in the ith interval. The standard deviation,
S, of the mean value Si, is estimated by the
value and the total number of measured crack spacings, n
![]() | (14) |
The approximation given by Eq. [14] corresponds with n > 30 (Hamilton, 1964). The number n is estimated by the total length of measuring tape, L
![]() | (15) |
In Zein el Abedine and Robinson's (1971) measurements, L = 20 m. Hence, for their eight profiles, the number n is in the range 31
n
51, justifying the approximation of Eq. [14]. The estimates of
S for the eight profiles are given in Table 2.
The relative standard deviation,
S/S, for the eight profiles changes from 0.07 to 0.09. Such small changes allow us to assume that this relative standard deviation is a random variable characterizing the measurement method by itself and does not depend on the soil type. Then from Table 2 we can estimate the average for the eight profiles by using
![]() | (16) |
To estimate the standard deviation,
zo, for the eight profiles we use Chertkov and Ravina's (1998)(Table 6) estimates of zo and zm (based on handling Zein el Abedine and Robinson's, 1971, data on crack width and depth using the least-squares method) and compare this estimate, zo, with another possible estimate, zo
zm/10.5 (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998)
![]() | (17) |
The estimate of
zo can be made more accurate compared with that given by Eq. [17]. We assume that the relative standard deviation,
zo/zo, also characterizes the method of estimation zo, used by Chertkov and Ravina (1998) and does not depend on a profile. Then the average of the relative standard deviations,
zo/zo, on all the eight profiles, calculated from Eq. [17] and Chertkov and Ravina's (1998) Table 6 is
![]() | (18) |
The more accurate estimates,
are given in Table 2.
Thus, for Zein el Abedine and Robinson's (1971) eight profiles Table 2 shows that in five cases (the profiles GTO3, GTO4, O4MH, GHATO5, and GHBTO7), there is an overlapping of the ranges S ±
S and zo ±
zo. In three cases (the profiles GTO5, GTO6, and O4H), the ranges S ± 2
S and zo ± 2
zo overlap.
Based on the data of Yaalon and Kalmar (1972, 1984) and Dasog et al. (1988)
These researchers used the same methods of measurement as Zein el Abedine and Robinson (1971). Hence, in estimating
S values (Table 2) by S values we can use Eq. [16]. Similarly, in estimating
zo values (Table 2) by zo values we can use Eq. [18], because the method of estimation of zo (Chertkov and Ravina, 1998) was the same as in the case of Zein el Abedine and Robinson's (1971) eight profiles.
For all 10 profiles in Table 2 the values of S and zo coincide within the limits of measurement error because discrepancies between them do not surpass the sum of one or two standard deviations of both values. Hence, the available data do not contradict the proposed estimate of the thickness of the intensive-cracking layer of the steady crack network, zo, by the spacing of the shrinkage cracks at the soil surface, S. This results in the simple method of estimating zo (and zm
10zo) by easily available measurements of S. Thus, based on these simple measurements as well as data on the depth-linear shrinkage curve (or data on water content profile and shrinkage curve) and using Chertkov and Ravina's (1998) approach, we can estimate the characteristics of the crack network that develops under given conditions.
| Summary and conclusions |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received for publication September 13, 1999.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
V. Y. Chertkov The Reference Shrinkage Curve at Higher than Critical Soil Clay Content Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 5, 2007; 71(3): 641 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Y. Chertkov The Shrinkage Geometry Factor of a Soil Layer Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 29, 2005; 69(6): 1671 - 1683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. R. Wells, D. A. DiCarlo, T. S. Steenhuis, J.-Y. Parlange, M. J. M. Romkens, and S. N. Prasad Infiltration and Surface Geometry Features of a Swelling Soil following Successive Simulated Rainstorms Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2003; 67(5): 1344 - 1351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. White Comments on ""Using surface crack spacing to predict crack network geometry in swelling soils"" Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2001; 65(5): 1573 - 1574. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Chertkov Reply to ""Comments on 'Using Surface Crack Spacing to Predict Crack Network Geometry in Swelling Soils'"" Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2001; 65(5): 1574 - 1575. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Agronomy Journal | Crop Science | |||
| Vadose Zone Journal | Journal of Plant Registrations | ||||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Journal of Environmental Quality |
||||