errel Topics: EPRI CU-6482 Soils Project 2602-3 locks Final Report Thermal conductivity August 1989 ‘Thermal diffusivity Ground-source heat pumps Soil and Rock Classification According to Thermal Conductivity Design of Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Systems Prepared by STS Consultants, Lid. Chantilly, VirginiaSUBJECTS TOPICS AUDIENCE BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES APPROACH RESULTS REPORT SUMMARY Heating, cooling, and rettigeration / Earth sciences Soils ‘Thermal diffusivity Rocks Ground-source heat pumps Thermal conductivity Customer service representatives / Consulting engineers Soil and Rock Classification According to Thermal Conductivity Design of Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Systems Ground-coupled heat pump systems can help utilities increase electricity sales while reducing peak demands. This study pro- vides more accurate values of thermal conductivity and diffusivity for sizing the ground coil, thus reducing installation costs and increasing the potential market for these systems. ‘Tho most important factor in tho euecosetul oporation of a ground-couplod heat pump system is the rate of heat transfer between the ground coil and the surrounding soil. Thermal conductivity of soil and/or rock determines the siz~ ing of the ground coil and thus the installed cost premium for these systems. ‘Two broad-based workshops on ground-source heat pumps agreed that the characterization of soil thermal behavior should be a high research priori + To establish the range of values of thermal conductivity and thermal iffusivity of the various US. soils and rocks. + To develop a simple thermal classification system for the nonengineer or ongeologist to use in the field to identify soils and rocks. + To assign values of thermal properties to the identified solls and rocks for use in sizing ground coils. Published and unpublished data on the thermal conductivity and diffusivity of the various US. soils and rocks were used to determine the correlation between thermal resistivity and soil moisture content. Minimum moisture contents and a mathematical simulator were used to establish design values of thermal resistivity for the various texture classes. Texture classes with similar values of thermal resistivity were combined. Relationships among mineralogy, texture, fabric, water content, and the thermal properties of rocks Were used to establish the ranges of thermal conductivity. These were then modified to be useful to someone with iittle or no skill in petrology. This study established the range of thermal conductivity values of various US. soils. It shows that four soil texture classes (sand, silt, clay, and loam) may be used to define the design values of thermal conductivity required EPRI CuseaasEPRI PERSPECTIVE PROJECT for ground coil design algorithms. The range of thermal conductivity values for identifiable rock types is also presented. ‘A companion field manual, to be published by the International Ground- Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), describes the procedure for identifying these soil and rock types and provides the appropriate thermal property design values. ‘A recommendation is made to establish a national soil and rock thermal Properties database. ‘The ground-coupled heat pump has widespread geographic applicability. ht provides utilities with an excellent opportunity to improve heating and cooling efficiency and to reduce seasonal peak demands. The informa- tion in this report can guide designers of ground-coupled heat pumps in the selection of values of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity to be used in sizing ground coils. This can reduce installation costs for these systems, thereby improving the potential market for ground-coupled heat pump systems. The companion field manual will be incorporated by IGSHPA into future editions of the Closee-Loop Ground-Source Heat Pump Systems Instaltaiion Guide, published by the Netional Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Oklahoma State University, and IGSHPA, RP2892-3 EPRI Project Manager: Powell A. Joyner Customer Systems Division Contractor: STS Consultants, Lid. For further information on EPRI research programs, call EPRI Technical Information Specialists (415) 855-2411,Soil and Rock Classification According to Thermal Conductivity Design of Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Systems cu-6482 Research Project 2892-3 Final Repor, August 1989 Propared by STS CONSULTANTS, LTD, 8725 Concorde Parkway, Suite 100 Chantily, Virginia 22021 Principal Investigetors L.A, Salomone Ji 1, Marlowe Prepared for Electric Power Research institute 3412 Hilview Avenue Palo Ato, California 94304 EPRI Project Manager PA. Joyner Residential Program Customer Systems DivisionORDERING INFORMATION Requests for copies ofthis report should be directed to Resoaron Reports Center (PRC), Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (415) 965-4081. There is no charge for reports Fequested by EPRI member utittes and affiates, US. ulity associations, US. government agencies (lederal, state, and focal), mecia, and foreign organizations wit which EPRI has {an information exchange agreement. On request RAC will send & oatalog of EPRI reports. ‘lect Ponor Rosse latte and PAL ae reget Secs mats of Elects Power Rosoa ste, In Compras © 1989 Fcc Pane Rasetch Ie, Al tts ess Nonce Tris pos wa pepe bythe orgaztion(} named hel an ascour ol work spared by the lotic Power Rescrch tise, ee (EPA Nair EPR mene EPRI, the organs) aed ROW, No ay pason acing on bal ef ary of nem. () makes any warty. expresso eid, wh espe! othe ue of ay ‘tomsion. append, of process Gacinad inthe epon ste sah se Tn nek ie Py ‘red nga, o (assumes any Kaltes wih expect 1 he we for damages esutg fom te we any eformaton, appara. matod. er process closed His op Prepared oy STS Cones 3 Crary, vaginaABSTRACT ‘This study establishes the ranges of values of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of the various soils and rocks in the United States and provides this information in a form that ean be used in the design of ground-coupled heat pump systems. It presents a simple classification system for use in the identification of soils and rocks by persons not trained in soil mechanies or petrology. This technical document is given practical application in a companion field manual for the identification and classification of thermal conductivity of the various soils and rocks that can be encountered in the United States. The field manual. supported by EPRI, was published by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association. ‘The soil study provides a correlation between thermal resistivity and moisture content. It examines temporal behavior of ambient soil moisture and influence of environmentat factors on soil moisture content, It cites factors known to influence soil moisture content, and the National Soil Moisture Study, which provided ambient soil moisture data for a four- to six-year period in six states. It discusses limit states of soil moisture content (field capa soil moisture levels. It proposes a new method of normalization of soil moisture content by its limit states-the thermal moisture index-and investigates some of its properties. It uses @ mathematical simulator of soit/water hydraulics—the EPIC model-to illustrate the effects of soil texture, precipitation, and soil temperature on soil moisture under more controlled conditions and with greater geographic coverage than is obtainable from National Soil Moisture Study data, The results of this study demonstrate that four general soil groups can be used to determine earth-loop size (pipe length) for ground-coupled heat pump systems, ‘and wilting point) and use of these states to define approximate extremes of ambient ‘The rock portion presents available data on the thermal properties of racks. It summarizes relationships among mineralogy. texture, fabric. and water content established by previous studies. It presents ranges of thermal conductivity and sparse data on thermal diffusivity for general rock types.Variation in thermal conductivity among rocks is greater than a factor of 4 and significant to selection of pipe lengths. It recommends procedures for identifying rocks. including a q simplified identification scheme for use by the non-geoloyACKNOWLEDGMENTS: ‘The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of numerous individuals who provided information, data, and technical support for this study. Deepak Parmer and Jean Steinmanis of Geotherm. Inc., provided the overview presented in sections 2 and 3 and the data presented in appendix A. At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Research Service: Walter Ravls provided the Holtan ef al. study data and data on mathematical models available to develop soil moisture characteristics curves for the various USDA soil texture classes; Jim Williams and Dan Taylor provided valuable support in the use of the EPIC model: Oliver Rice provided the EPIC Soil Perdon database that includes information on 737 soils from throughout the United States; Reese Berdanier provided the database of his work in which he applied De Vries" method to over 4,600 soi! horizons, whose physical characteristics ‘and moisture contents were compiled by the Soi! Conservation Service; and Otto Baumer kindly Provided a computer-compat reviewed the source document. Gary Chirlin’s statistical analyses of the data compiled and le version of the data from his National Soil Moisture Study and his contributions to the text as part of section 4 are also greatly appreciated. We thank William Kovacs for his useful comments on the drafts of the source document and manual, and Jim Bose for his on these documents and the earth-loop sizes pro. led in this study. Eugene Robertson, of the U.S. Geological Survey, very kindly made available a pre-publication draft of his report on the thermal properties of rocks, as well as invaluable insight based on more than two decades of research in that field, Chuck Houlik reviewed the section on rocks and furnished very useful constructive criticism of the simplified identification scheme. We also thank Margaret O'Connell. Kimberly Lightfoot, and David Johnson for their diligence and support in the preparation of this document. This project was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute under Contract No. RP 28923,CONTENTS Part I: SOIL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING ‘TO THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, Be SUMMARY sa 1 INTRODUCTION Vl Problem Statement 1 Objectives 1-6 Scope 110 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2 Introduetion 2 Background 22 Measurement of Thermal Properties 22 Factors Affecting Thermal Resistivity 24 Discussion of Thermal Dryout Curves 26 Thermal Diffusivity 27 Conclusions 28 3 REVIEW OF COMPILATION OF SOIL THERMAL 34 RESISTIVITY DATA 4 SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT at Introduction 44 Environmental Factors Influencing 42 Soil Moisture Content Ambient Soil Moisture Content 43 Limit States of Soil Moisture 427 ‘The Thermal Moisture Index 442 viiSection 12 13 ‘Simulations of Soil Moisture Using the Brosion- Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) Model Conclusions SOIL THERMAL PROPERTIES Introduction ‘Thermal Resistivity Estimates for NSMS Sites Soil Thermal Property Estimates Using EPIC Soil Thermal Property Estimates Using the De Vries Method Conclusions. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Limitations of Existing Database in Literxure Recommendations REFERENCES - THERMAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS Part 2: ROCK CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY SOURCES OF INFORMATIO? Computer Searches Personal Communications Reference Acquisition FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF ROCKS SELECTION OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY VALUES FOR SYSTEM DESIGN ‘THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY VALUES FOR ROCKS Values for Rock Types Values for Petrologic Groups THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY OF ROCKS REFERENCES - THERMAL PROPERTIES OF ROCKS APPENDIX A THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES - GEOTHERM DATA vill 443 4-59 51 St s4 5-4 5-13 Bt 82 82 otction APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D. GLOSSARY OBSERVED GRAVIMETRIC SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT AND MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION VERSUS TIME - NSMS DATA MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF SOIL, MOISTURE BY CROP EPIC DATA Bu3 32 42 43 44 4s 4-6 47 ILLUSTRATIONS SOIL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY In Situ Thermat Resist Moisture Content Data Soil Triangle of the Basic Soil Textural Classes Unified Soil Classifieation System ‘The Effect of Soil Type. Dry Density, and Moisture Content oni the Thermal Resistivity of Sails Envelope of Thermal Behay (Coarse-Grained) Soils F for Granular Envelope of Thermal Behavior for Fine-Grained Soils Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Gravimetric Soil Moisture Content at Colorado Site 7, Deep Median Gravimetric Moisture Content-—Medium Soils (2-4 ft) Median Gravimetric Moisture Content-Dzep Soils (4-6+ £0) Fifth Percentile Gravimetric Moisture Content Medium Soils (2-4 ft) Fifth Percentile Gravimettic Moisture Content--Deep Soils (4-6+ f0) (Median-Fifth Percentile) Gravimetric Mcisture Content--Medium Soils (2-4 ft) (Median-Fifth Percentile) Gravimetric Moisture Content--Deep Soils (4-6+ ft) Page Ls 33 4-1 420 4-21 4.22 4.24 4.254.10 56 57 58 Comparison of Witting Point Estimates: Best Estimate and 90% Confidence Interval ‘Comparison of Field Capacity Estimates: Best Estimate and 90% Confidence Interval Mean Thermal Moisture Index TMI-1. Mecium Soils (2-4 ft) Mean Thermal Moisture Index ‘TMI-3. Medium Soils (2-4 ft) Mean Thermal Moisture Index TMI-1, Deep Soils (4.6+ f) Mean Thermal Moisture Index TMI-3, Deep Soils (4-6++ ft) EPIC Gravimetric Moisture Contents Normal Annual Precipitation (Inches) Annual Barth Temperature (°F) U.S. Cities Selected for Model Simulations Average EPIC Gravimetric Moisture Content for USDA Texture Class Thermal Kesistivity Values Using Average EPIC Gravimetric Moisture Contents Geotherm Envelope of Thermal Behavior for Well-Graded Granular and Fine-Grained Soils and Highly Organic Submarine Sediments Geotherm Envelope of Thermal Behavior for Sandy Soils Thermal Resistivity (°C - em/w) Using Fifth Percentile Moisture Content, Medium-Depth Soils (2-4 ft) ‘Thermal Resistivity (°C - em/w) Using Fifth Percentile Moisture Content, Deep-Depth Soils (4-6+ f) ‘Thermal Resistivity (°C - em/w) Using Twentieth Percentile Moisture Content, Medium-Depth Soils (2-4 fi), EPIC Simulations Thermal Resistivity (°C - em/v) Using Tweatieth Percentile Moisture Content. Deep Soils (4-6+ ft). EPIC Simulations ‘Thermal Resistivity of Satiated Soits (De Vries Method Applied to the SCS Soils Database ‘Thermal Resistivity of Unsaturated Soils (De Vries Method Applied t0 the SCS Soils Database) Page 437 44d 44s 4-46 447 452 453 454Figure 59 5-10 Al A2 AB A4 AS AS AT AR Ag A10 Att AN AB Ald Coefficient of Heat Diffusion of Satiated Soils (De Vries Method Applied to the SCS Soils Database) Coefficient of Heat Diffusion of Unsaturated Soils (De Vries Method Applied to the SCS Soils Database) Part 2: THERMAL PROPERTIES OF ROCKS Thermal Conductivities of Ty Petrologic Groups 1 to 3 | Rocks, Thermal Conductivities of Typical Rocks, Petrologic Groups 4 and 5 ‘Thermal Conductivities of Typical Rocks, Petrologic Groups 6 to 8 Thermal Conductivities of Petrologic Groups ‘Thermal Dryout Curves - Geotherm Database Concrete, 6% Air Entrained Concrete, 10% Air Entrained Light Gray-Brown Fine Sandy Sift Coarse Rounded Gravel Some Fine to Red-Brown Gravelly Sand With Some Silt Crushed Limestone Screenings Fine to Coarse Granular Fill Red-Brown Sandy Silt With Fine to Coarse Gravel Crushed Stone Light Brown Calcatious Gravelly Sand With Some Sitt Fine to Coarse Shale Fragments Crushed Limestone Screenings Fine to Coarse Sand With Fine to Medium Gravel Crushed Shale and Limestone Screenings Red Very Fine Sandy Silt Page 521 522 Al Ad A3 A4 AS AB A-10 MB AM als Al As ANdFigure Als Al6 AT AB Ao A20 A21 A-22 A23 24 A2S A26 AQT A28 A29 A230 A3l A-32 A333 Ad AIS A36 Light Gray-Brown Gravelly Sand With Trace Silt, Ash, Organic Red-Brown Fine Silty Sand With Fine to Medium Gravel Crushed Stone Gray-Brown Fine Sandy Sift With Fine to Coarse Gravel. ‘Some Cinders Red-Brown Sandy Silt With Fine to Coarse Gravel Gray Rounded Fine to Coarse Sand With Fine Gravel Brown Fine to Coarse Sand With Fine to Medium Gravel Fine to Coarse Sand With Some Silt and Trace Gravel Brown Silty Granular Fill Black Fine 10 Coarse Gravel-Size Cinders With Fine 10 Coarse Gravelly Sand Red-Brown Silly Sand With Some Gravet Yellow Fine Sand Fine Silica Sand Fine Silica Sand White Fine Sand Light Gray Fine to Coarse Sand With Trace Silt and Some Fine Gravel Fine to Medium Sand Meditum to Coarse Sand Fine to Coarse Sand Light Gray-Brown Silt With Some Gravel and Organics Dark Gray-Brown Slightly Clayey Silt With Trace Sand Light Gray Fine to Coarse Sand With Trace Silt and Some Fine Gravel Stiff Brown Moist Silt Till With Some Clay and Trace Sand Organie Sand With Silt xiv Page A20 Al An A23 A204 A28 A26 A27 A29 AI0 A3l AR A34 A36 A338 A-40 Aas Add Aas A-a6 Ad 4-48 ASI A-52A40 A4t AA AaB rer Aas Aas AaT Aas A49 A-s0 ASI As ASB AS4 A-56 AST ASB As A-60 Soft to Firm Moist Gray Brown Silty Clay With Trace Fine Sand and Organics, Red-Brown Very Silty Clay Till With a Trace of Fine Gravel Fine to Medium Sand, Some Silt, Trace Gravel Gravel, Sand, and Clay Fill Hard Moist Gray Silty Clay Till With Litle Sand and Fine Gravel Compact Moist Brown and Black Fine Sand 10 Coarse Gravel and Slag Fill Fine Silty Sand Fine to Medium Beach Sand Silty Very Fine Sand Fine to Medium Sand Sandy Silt White Sand With Some Root and Organics Yellow Sand With Fine Decomposed Organics Very Soft Gray Organic Sandy Silt, Shell Fragments, and Some Clay Red-Brown Fine to Medium Sand With Some Gravel and Silt Silt With Very Fine Sand Very Soft Dark Gray-Green Silty Clayey Organic Sediment With Some Fine Shell Fragments Firm Blue-Gray Organic Clayey Silt in Shell Fragment Matrix Gray-Brown Micacious Silty Fine Sand With Trace Fine Gravel and Shell Fragments Red-Brown Clayey Silt With Some Gravel Gray-Brown Clayey Sandy Silt With Some Fine Gravel and Shell Fragments Light Brown Silty Clay Till With Trace Gravel Aso A60 ASI A63 A-66 AST A69 AT ADB Am Aas AT6 Aq ATR An A80Figure A6l A-62 A63 A-64 A653 A66 67 A68 A69 A-70 AT An AT AT ATS A768 ATT ATS A719 A80 ABI Gray-Brown Silty Clay Brown Silty Clay Till With Trace Gravel Light Brown Clayey Silt With Some Gravel Brown Silty Clay Till With Trace Fine Gravel Blue Clay Dark Brown Fine to Coarse Gravel-Size Cinders With Coal Ash, Some Fine to Coarse Sand Trace Silt Stiff Moist Gray-Brown Clayey Sitt With Trace Sand and Organies Black Organic Sandy Silty Fill Dark Brown Organic Sandy Silt With Some Fine to Coarse Gravel Extremely Soft Dark Green Silty Clayey Organic Sediment With Fine Shell Fragments Organic Clayey Silt Very Soft Blue-Gray Organic Clayey Silt Sediment Very Soft Dark Gray Organic Clayey Sill Highly Organic Gray. Very Silty Micacious Clay With Trace Shell Fragments Highly Organic Gray, Very Silty Fragments lay With Many Shel Brown Organie Sandy Silt With Wood. Cinders. Coal Ash, Fine Gravel Coal Fly Ash Dark Brown to Black Highly Decomposed Woody Peat Thetmat Resistivity of Some Rocks Generat Trends Thermal Diffusivity Versus Moisture Content for Some Soils Page ABI A-82 A-83 A-84 AS A-86 A-87 A-88 Ao A90 Ag A92 A93 A984 ASS A-96 A97 A98 A99 A-100 A-102Figure Bl B2 Ba Ba BS B6 BT BS Bo Bal BD BAS Bis Observed Gravimetric Soil Moisture Content and Monthly Total Precipitation Versus ‘Time--NSMS Data Georgia. Sandy Clay Loam. Medium Depth Georgia, Sandy Clay. Medium Depth Georgia. Sandy Clay, Deep Georgia, Clay, Medium Depth Georgia. Clay. Deep Indiana, Sand, Deep Indiana, Leamy Sand. Medium Depth Indiana, Loamy Sand. Deep Indiana, Sandy Loam, Medium Depth Indiana, Sandy Loam, Deep Indiana, Loam, Medium Depth Indiana, Loam, Deep Indiana, Sandy Clay Loam, Medium Depch Texas, Sandy Loam, Medium Depth Texas, Sandy Loam. Deep Texas. Sandy Clay Loam. Medium Depth Texas, Loam, Deep North Dakota. Sand, Medium Depth North Dakota. Sand. Deep North Dakota. Loamy Sand. Medium Depth North Dakota, Loamy Sand, Deep North Dakota, Sandy Loam, Meclium Depth North Dakota, Sandy Loam. Deep North Dakota, Loam, Medium Depth North Dakota, Clay Loam, Medium Depth Page Bl B2 BS BT BS Bo B-10 Bl B12 Baa Bld BAS B16 BAT BAS BAS B20 B21 B-22 B23 B24 B25Figure B26 B27 B28 B29 B30 BSI B32 B33 B37 Bae B39 B40 B4I North Dakota, Clay Loam, Deep North Dakota, Silty Clay Loam. Medium Depth North Dakota, Silty Clay Loam, Deep North Dakota, Silty Clay. Medium Depth North Dakota, Silty Clay. Deep Colorado. Colorado. Colorado, Colorado. Colorado, Colorado, Loamy Sand, Medium Depth Loamy Sand. Deep Sandy Loam, Medium Depth Sandy Loam, Deep Loam, Medium Depth Loam, Deep Washington, Sand. Medium Depth Washington, Sand, Deep Washington, Loamy Sand, Medium Depth Washington, Silt Loam. Medium Depth Washington, Silt Loam. Deep Page B26 B27 B.28 B29 B-30 B39 B-40 BtTABLES Part I: SOIL CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY Table Page 1-1 Earth Loop Size by Configuration and Soil Type 12 (25°F Minimum Source Temperature): (a) Horizontal (Trench Feet per Nominal Ton); (b) Vertical (Bore Feet per Nominal Ton) 1-2 Earth Loop Size by Configuration and Soil Type 3 25°F Minimum Source Temperature): (a) Horizontal (Trench Feet per Nominal Ton) for Heavy Damp Soil ‘Type--Percentage Increase in Length for Other Soil ‘Types: (b) Vertical (Bore Feet per Nominal Ton) for Dense Rock--Peroentage Increase in Depth for Ordinary Rock 1-3 Conversion Factors 19 4-1 Sites in National Soil Moisture Study 44 42 Gravimetric Soil Moisture Statistics - Medium Soil 413 (2-4 fi) (SCS National Soil Moisture Study Data) 43 Gravimetric Soil Moisture Statistics - Deep Soi 416 (4-6+ fi) (SCS National Soil Moisture Study Data) 44 Comparison of Laboratory Tests Which Approximat Capacity (-0.1 bar) (Median, Count, Fifth Percentile = Ninety-fifth Pereentile) Field 431 4-5 Comparison of Laboratory Tests (-0.3 bar). a Regression 4:32 Model. and Field Observations of Field Capacity (Median, Count, Fifth Percentile - Ninety-fifth Percentile) 46 Comparison of Laboratory Tests (-15 bar). a Regression 434 Model. and Field Observations of Wilting Paint (Median, Count. Fifth Percentite - Ninety-fifth Percentile)Table 47 48 49 410 53 54 4 122 123 Bounding Performance of Laboratory Moisture Determinations on Medium-Depth (2-4 fi) Soils Bounding Performance of Laboratory Moisture Determinations on Deep-Depth (4-6+ ft) Soils EPIC Input Parameters ‘Comparison of Average Field and EPIC Gravimetric Soil Moisture Data ‘Thermal Properties Based on EPIC Gravimettic Moisture Contents ‘Thermal Resistivity of Fifth Percentile Moisture Content, Medium-Depth Soil (2-4 ft) ‘Thermal Resistivity of Fifth Percentile Moisture Content, Deep-Depth Soil (4-6+ ft) De Vries Method Applied to the SCS Scils Database ‘Thermal Resistivity (°C - m/w) De Vries Methox! Applied to the SCS Scils Database ‘Thermal Conductivity (Buw/fi-hr- °F) De Vries Method Applied to the SCS Scils Database Coefficient of Heat Diffusion (sq mm/s) Part 2: ROCK CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY Sources for Thermal Conductivity Ranges Depicted in Figures 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3 ‘Thermal Diffusivities of Some Rocks Specific Heats of Common Rocks at 50-50°C Bulk Density of Common Rocks APPENDIXES Mean and Standard Deviation of Soil Moisture by Crop--Medium-Depth Soils Mean and Standard Deviation of Soil Moisture by Crop-Deep-Depth Soils EPIC Data Page 4.40 441 4.49 4-55 457 oS 124 123 124 cl C3SUMMARY This study thermal diffusivity of the various U.S. soils and rocks and to provide this information in a form that can be readily used to determine ground-coupled heat pump pipe lengths. Someone with little or no skill in soil mechanics and petrology can easily use these values in heat is the first study to establish ranges of values of thermal conductivity and pump design. Part 1 provides a correlation between thermal resistivity and moisture content, the temporal behavior of ambient soil moisture, and the influence of environmental factors on soil moisture. Two sets of correlations between thermal resistivity and moisture content are Presented. One set was compiled by Geotherm, Inc.. (figure A-80) for this study and the other set by Salomone (1987) (figures 3-1 and 3-2). Precise envelopes of soil thermal behavior (thermal resistivity versus moisture content) could not be defined because neither consistent nor complete geotechnical classification of the soils was available. Nevertheless, the Geotherm data were interpolated as shown on figures 5-1 and 5-2 10 approximate the relationship of thermal resistivity and moisture content for the various texture classes of soils. With the envelope of thermal behavior approximated for the various groups of soils, minimum moisture contents as a function of soil type were estimated. Minimum moisture contents were obtained using data from the National Soil Moisture Study and from a mathematical simulator-the Erosion-Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) model. ‘The National Soil Moisture Study provided ambient soil moisture data for a four- to six-year period in six states while the EPIC model was used to examine the effects of soit texture, precipitation, and soil temperature on soit moisture under more controlled conditions and with greater geographic coverage than is obtainable from the National Soil Moisture Study Figures 4-4 and 4-5 plot the minimum moisture contents by USDA texture class for medium depth (2-4 fi) and deep depth (4-6+ ft) using the National Soil Moisture Study data. The minimum moisture content is the fifth percentile moisture content (i.e.. the moisture content that is, exceeded 95% of the time in the observed data at a site). The data indicate that the minimum, moisture content is higher in finer-grained soils. Also, at 40% (26) of the sites the s1minimum moisture content was wetter in the middle depth zone than in the deep zone. This was most commonly associated with a coarsening of sediments with depth. Thus. it is common (o find sites where on the basis of soil moisture content it is reasonable to set pipes at a shallower depth Using the data from the National Soil Moisture Study, it was also found that a limit state of soil moisture used by soil scientists, the wilting point, coutd be used as an approximate indicator of the minimum moisture content. EPIC mode! simulations indicate that the influence of normal annual precipitation on soit moisture is greater than the influence of annual earth temperature. Also. the influence of precipitation may be greater for fine-grained soils, Except for the silt loam texture class. the soil moistures derived from the EPIC model are less than the soil moistures obtained from the National Sofl Moisture Study ‘Once the variations in soit moisture were understood and the minimum moisture contents for the USDA texture classes estimated, it was possible to obtain the thermal resistivity for the 1g the Geotherm relationship between thermal resistivity moisture content and the minimum moisture contents. This analysis was petforsned using the various texture classes and ‘minimum moisture contents obtained from the National Soil Moisture Study and the EPIC model simulations. ‘The Soil ‘Thermal Property Estimates using EPIC suggest that four textural classes (sand. sitt, clay, and foam) can be used for the simplified soit thermal classification system. However, further research is required to determine those parameters that are significant for understanding the variability within each textural class and developing a more accurate thermal soil classification system. “This study did not consider the effect of the soit profile: How changes in soit texture with depth influence soil moisture. This could have a practical effect on both the prediction of soil moisture and on the optimal placement of exchanger pipe There exists a need 10 establish a National Database on Soil Thermal Properties. A comprehensive database using typical soils from all areas of the United States could provide enough information to allow selection of design thermal resistivities, or indicate to local authorities the need to cary out site-specific testing. At present, this data compilation is sufficient to provide qualitative trends only. s2‘The National Database on Soil Thermal Properties should consist of complete geotechnical (moisture, Proctor density, gradation, Atterberg_ Timits, composition), agronomic (field capacity, wilting point, and soit moisture characteristics curve), and thermal properties (resi te-specific soils, ‘The database should be contained on personal computer software that will allow retrieval and ivity, diffusivity, heat capacity, dryout curve for many comparison of thermal properties for given soil terminology should be established and utilized. properties and conditions, Standard Part 2 provides available data on the thermal properties of rocks. ft summarizes relationships among mineralogy. texture, fabric, and water content established by previous studies. It presents ranges of thermal conductivity and sparse data on thermal diffusivity for general rock types. ‘The literature on the thermal properties of rocks is vast and dates from the early part of the twentieth century, For the purposes of th to be similar compilations previously published by various authors. ‘These authors collected and organized data on measured thermal properties of rocks and compared them with other project. the most usefull references proved observable characteristics of those rocks. With the refinement of techniques for measuring thermal properties in rocks, and the growing body of reliable data, the later compilations are much more definitive than earlier ones and provide the basis for characterization of expected ranges of thermal properties, based upon more easily observable properties of rocks, ‘The ranges of thermal conductivity presented have been derived from reports in the literature and have been modified so as to be compatible with levels of rock identification that can be accomplished by the person wi produces a level of preci of charts in the literature. However, in most cases it still provides information that is h little or no skill in petrology. In many cases. this jon that is considerably less than that achievable through the use sufficient to aid in the efficient design of group-coupled heat pump systems. As the thermal conductivities of common rocks vary by factors of as much as 4, and the length of pipe required in ground-loop heat exchangers is directly proportional to the conductivity of the ground medium. this level of information should prove very useful to the designer, Ranges of variation for specific types of rocks are given in figures {1-1 through 11-3, These figures can be used when available information provides the needed rock identifications. When the needed rock identifications are not available and it becomes 83necessary to classify rocks according to the procedures in the ficld manual, figure 11-4 should be used. Ranges of thermal conductivity compatible with the petrologic groups defined in the field manual are presented in figure 11-4. Few data are available on the thermal diffusivity of rocks, A synthesis of data from the literature is provided in table 12-1 saSection 1 INTRODUCTION PROBLEM STATEMENT General "No single factor is more important to the successful operation of a ground-coupled heat pump system than the rate of heat transfer between the ground-coupling device and the surrounding soil, It is this rate of heat transfer that determines how closely the circulating uid. returning to the heat pump, can approach the local far fleld ground temperature” (Bose vyiresistivity of the soil/rock is the critical value that determines the length of pipe required (and thus the Parker, and McQuiston, 1985)(1). Simply put, the thermat conduct cost) for the heat exchanger. Representatives from universities, federal and state ies agreed at a two-day planning ‘workshop on ground-coupled heat pumps at EPRI on June 26 and 27, 1084 that ane of the highest government, equipment manufacturers, and EPRI member util research priorities in this area is the characterization of soil thermal behavior (Hart and Whiddon, 1984)(2). This need was also confirmed at an international workshop on ground-source heat pumps in Albany. New York, in 1986 (Calm, 1987)(3}) ‘The importance of knowing the soil thermal concuctivity/resistivity can be seen from the information presented in tables 1-1 and 1 Table 1-1 provides the earth loop size according to configuration and soil type; this information is taken from Hughes (1986)(4). Table 1-2 shows the percentage of increase in earth loop size required for the three principal soil types, "heavy dry,” “light damp,” and “light dry” over the earth loop size for the soil type “heavy damp" to achieve equivalent heat conduction, From table 1-2, one can see that the size of the earth loop can more than double depending on whether the s is heavy damp or light ty. Knowing the type of soil and the relationship between soit or rock type and pipe length is therefore of extreme importance in designing ground-coupled heat pump systems. Of equal importance is using unambiguous terminology to describe the soils and rocks. ‘The descriptions used by the American Society of Heating. Reftigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) to characterize the soils in table I-1 do not meet the criteria for aTable 1-1 EARTH LOOP SIZE BY CONFIGURATION AND SOIL TYPE (25°F Minimum Source Temperature) (a) Horizontal (Trench Feet per Nominal Ton) Soil Type Configuration Heavy Damp Heaxy Diy Light Damp Light Dry Horizontal - One-Pipe 353 405 438 n9 Horizontal - Two-Pipe 216 2s ra 445 (Side-by-Side) Horizontal - Two-Pipe 218 283 274 430 (Over/Under) Horizontal - Four-Pipe 144 170 183 298 (Square) Horizontal - Four-Pipe 148 13 188 317 (n-Line) (b) Vertical (Bore Feet per Nominal Ton) Configuration Dense Rock Ordinary Rock Concrete Vertical 135 183 245 Soiree: Hughes (198614)Table 1-2 EARTH LOOP SIZE BY CONFIGURATION AND SOIL TYPE (25°F Minimum Source Temperature) (a) Horizontal (Trench Feet per Nominal Ton) for Heavy Damp Soil Type--Percentage Increase in Length for Other Soil Types LT Configuration Heavy Damp Heavy Dry Light Damp Light Dry Horizontal - One-Pipe 353.0 15% 24% 106% Horizontal - Two Pipe 216 ft 16% 25% 106% (Side-by-Side) Horizontal - Two-Pipe 218 ft 16% 26% 106% (Over/Under) Horizontal - Four-Pipe 44 ft 18% 21% 107% (Square) Horizontal ~ Fou (in-Line) 148 fe 7% 27% 14% (b) Vertical (Bore Feet per Nominal Ton) for Dense Rock-~ Percentage Increase in Depth for Ordinary Rock Contigueation Dense Rock Ordinary Rock Vertical 139 ft 35%practical classification system for soils. Such a classification system should meet the following criteria: 1. It should be comprehensive (it should not exctude any condition that could be encountered, except for extreme or unusual cases which require the assistance of an engineer). 2. It should consider (either implicitly or explicitly) all the critical conditions that affect the thermat conductivity of soils and rocks. 3. It should not be ambiguous (two persons classifying a soil should arrive at the same conclusion) and in the case of a dispute it should be possible to make objective determinations 4, It should be usable by construct assistance of an engineer on supervisors in the field without the More accurate determinations from laboratory tests wou! in most cases only be used to resolve disputes, If ground-coupled heat pump systems are to be competitive in terms of cost and efficieney with alternative heating and cooling systems, a simple and reliable system must be developed. for the characterization of soils and rocks which can be used in selecting pipe lengths for gfound-coupled heat pump systems. Figure 1-1, taken from Salomone and Kovacs (1982)(5), shows the in situ thermal resistivity versus moisture content rel ship for soils measured at the site of test houses on the campus of the National Bureau of Standards. These data were obtained during a field program in which thermat resistivity was measured using field thermal probes. Each data point represents the thermal resistivity of the soil under the moisture and density conditions existing at the time of the field program. For this field condition, differences in the moisture content of the soils have resulted in large differences in the thermal resistivity of soils around the test houses. Figure 1-1 illustrates the importance of knowing the range of seasonal changes in soil moisture. Without an understanding of the boundary conditions of soil moisture, the fimiting values of thermal resistivity for design purposes cannct be determinedTHERMAL RESISTIVITY NC ~cm/watt AS reereec ca eee eeeeeeceeeeeceeeee geese caren) TEST BUILDING SOILS } \ \ ‘Unified sail classification = CL-ML | \ Plastic limit = 20% Liquid Himit = 25% 4 Thermal performance index, TP) = 6 Thermal stability index, TSI = -2 350 i (© Thermal resistivity test data 300 + \ 8 Thermal resistinty test date used] m1 \ te compute \ | 20 100 oo Na 4 \ 2.8% cs 1 0 10 0 wv ou 50 Figure 1-1. In Situ ‘Thermal Resistivity Versus Moisture Content DataProgress in the development of a method for the prediction of soil thermal properties is limited by the fact that relevant information is scattered in the literature of @ variety of technical fields. Authors have not used a common terminology and units of measurement to describe the results of field and laboratory measurements of these properties. If a standardized soil is provided, soil scientists use the textural classification of soils of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Thi Unified Soit Classification System used for engineering purposes. Figures 1-2 and 1-3 show textural classification is different from the the textural classification of soils of the USDA Scil Classification System and the Unified Soil Classification System, respectively. Figure 1-2 also shows that the particle-size scales for the USDA and Unified Soi! Classification System are different, This causes differences in terminology between these two systems. It needs to be emphasized that the information assembled from the literature for this report pertains to unfrozen soils. Limiting the scope of this report to unfrozen soils was not intended to diminish the importance of knowing the thermal properties of frozen soils for some climates Units ‘Thermal conductivity (K) in soil studies is normally expressed as WimK (which is equal to Wim:°C) (Farouki, 19817). Other units also have been used, such as mealiom s °C. Btu inf? hr °F, Btu/ft br °F or W/°C-em. Also, the reciprocal of thermal conductivity Gie., thermal resistivity) has been used in soil studies. The data presented in this report are in the units chosen by the authors of the publications in which they are found. Factors for converting English to metric (SI) units of measurement are given in table 1-3. Some authors report thermal resistivity. Others report thermal conductivity. Likewise. soil scient ists use percent moisture by volume to express wetness of the soil, whereas engineers uise percent moisture by weight. Relationships between thermal resistivity and wetness in soils are usually expressed using moisture by weight, Yet the majority of the moisture data found in the literature are moisture by volume. OBJECTIVES ‘There were two objectives of the research. The first was to establish the range of values of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of the various soils and rocks in the UnitedPAGMEIS ARE CONSIDERED re COUV AL (fake SETWEER THE SILTY aNd Loa Cl COMPARISION OF PARTICLE “SIZE SCALES sta oRavEL, ue OTE sr wu ! : tht aoe Figure 1-2, Soil Triangle of the Basic Soil Textural Classes Source: Earth Manual (6). 17UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION Major Dione Taleo | aberton cain tera Pa pats wees ee i 5 i e {fies Eger om 2 | ot ) Soother face ane a { ees = Venice | i z (Cag ot ete han 5 lire eeceneeeterega| i Oe cinsinaime | 8 ew we i (08 | ge plac, omni as 1 a eke Trews syommac | ‘Lagu Limit # oo LL oe Figure {-3. Unified Soil Classification System Source: ASTM Standard D-2487Multiply meatfom $ °C eal’ he °C Buu init he °F Bulft hr °F atmosphere calorie calig °C caliem 5 °C °F °K Table 1-3 CONVERSION FACTORS 101.3250 4.1868 4186.8 418.4 (ty 32V1.8 1.0 To Obtain Wim K. wim K wim K Win K kilopascal joule Jikg K wim K °c °cStates and to provide this information in a form that can be used in the design of ground: coupled heat pump systems, ‘The second was to develop a simple thermal classification system for the non-engineer/ non-geologist to use in the field to identify various groups of soils and rocks that witl ‘© identify generally the kinds of soit and rocks underlying a prospective site; © recognize the variations in physical properties of these soils and rocks that ‘can be expected to cause significant variation in thermal properties over the extent of the site; © recognize the effect of moisture and environmental variables at the site on soil and rock thermal properties: © assign values of the thermal properties over the extent of exposed or sampled soils and ranges of conditions at the site necessary for the design and sizing of ground-coupled heat pump systems: and © recognize conditions that will require the opinion of a qualified engineer ot geologist to assess the observable properties of the soil and/or rock SCOPE ‘To accomplish these objectives, the following tasks were performed: ‘Task 1: Coordination Meeting ‘An initial meeting was held to define what would be required from STS to meet the requirements of a ground-coupled heat pump design manual. Task 2: Acquisition of Soil and Rock Data ‘The authors obtained published and unpublished soil data from the fields of agronomy and geotechnical engineering on thermal resistivity/condu moisture content and dry den ity relationships as a function of 'y. With the envelope of thermal behavior approximated for the various groups of soils, minimum moisture contents as a function of soil type were estimated. ‘This was used to determine "dry" values of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity and will define the upper si ing boundary for ground coil design, The stable moisture region values of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity could be used to define the lower sizing boundary for ground coil design. The range of values of thermal conductivity and diffusivity for the various soil types encountered in the United States were then established. 1-10data was compiled in a form consistent with the soil classification system developed under task 3. The authors obtained the best and most applicable published and unpublished data available on thermal conductivities of rocks. This information was compiled according to rock type. Task 3: Analysis of Soil and Rock Data The authors developed both a simple soil classification system and a simple rock classification system, Bach will © consider (either implicitly or explicitly) the critical conditions that affect the thermal conductivity and diffusivity of soil or rock and assign values at a given site necessary for the design and sizing of a eround-coupled heat pump system: be usable by construction supervisors in the field without the assistance of an engineer; © be comprehensive (not exclude any condition that could be encountered, except for extreme or unusual cases requiring the advice of an engineer); ¢ recognize those cases that will require the 0 on of a qualified engineer or geologist; and @ be unambiguous (i.e.. two persons classifying a soil or rock should arrive at the same conclusion) and in the case of a dispute provide the basis for an objective determination ‘The system was designed so that most soils can be classified into at least three primary soil groups (coarse grained, fine grained, and highly organic) by means of visual inspection and simple field tests. With expetience, classification into additional subdivisions will be pos Additional field tests or more accurate laboratory or in situ tests willl be specified to resolve difficult s tuations or cases in dispute, In developing the soil classification system, consideration was given to using terminologies and units consistent with utility practice and other related EPRI publications, The recommenced simplified soil classification system perm identification of soil type and assessment of moisture content and provides the necessary information for determi 1g the thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivityTask 4: Reports ¢ Monthly fetter repors were provided, including expenditure and expenditure forecast information. © A draft was provided of the output/input requirements resulting from the coordination meeting two weeks after the meeting for the EPRI project manager's approval. ©The authors also developed a fiekl manual for use by non-engineers! non-geologists 10 classify soil and rock types in order to specify appropriate soil and rock thermal properties for the design of ground-coupled heat pump systems, This field manual was written to be incorporated in a ground-coupied heat pump design and insiallation manual selected by the EPRI project manager. @ This source document: presents the soil and rock data acquired and analyzed in tasks 2 and describes the basis for the sot! and rock :lassification system selected: ~-discusses the factors that control soil and rock thermal conductivit diffusivity and the basis for the range of values selected; and and ~-provides written and graphic material describing the general focation and textent of rock and soil types discussed The source document was written in a manner to be readily understandable and useful toa scientist or engineer with Tittle or no background in soil mechanics or geology Task 5: Videotape The authors produced a broadcast-quality instru Videotape approximately 20 minutes in fength suitable for use by utility marketing representatives, manufacturers, and installers of ground-coupled heat pump systems. The tape describes the soil and rock classification procedure, illustrates it with a typical example, and shows the installation of @ ground- coupled heat pump system. Task 6: Project Review Meetings ‘The investigators attended and participated in three project review meetings. 112Section 2 LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the importance of the thermal properties of geological materials. The most auspicious are the development of energy-efficient housing and the subsurface storage and utilization of heat by means of ground-source heat pumps. The electric power industry has long recognized the importance of the soil in keeping high voltage, underground power cables operating safely and efficiently by condueting away excess heat. On the arctic frontier the importance of maintaining the ground thermal regime is recognized. whether in operating pipelines. maintaining highways, or constructing. buildings. Sciemtists analyze ground heat flows for a wide range of uses from studying the landscape process, to locating resources. 10 effects on climate. In agriculture the thermal characteristics of the soil contribute to ground growing temperatures and the formation of ground frost Previously, the complex and cumbersome nature of thermal properties testing equipment (Le... guarded hot plate) has precluded extensive testing and instead has created a reliance on the use of assumed thermal values. The advent of the transient thermal probe technique has made field testing and laboratory analysis feasible, The inconsistencies of early equipment and methods, though, have promoted a reliance on estimated values. The development of the Thermal Property Analyzer (Boggs et al., 1981) (EPRI Contract RP 7861-1)(8) has made quick and reliable thermal properties testing possible, The thermal probe technique has the advantage of being equally applicable to laboratory and field testing. By means of careful application of the test method using properly constructed thermal probes. in situ testing can augment 2 of soil thermal behavior laboratory results, ‘This makes extensive laboratory modi possible. Not everyone fas access to the instruments used with this method, Therefore, a database for i scientists and typical soils, relating geotechnical and thermal properties. would aequi engineers with more realistic thermal performance characteristics of soils 24BACKGROUND In recent years, quite a bit has been accomplished on thermal properties theory and measurements by Mitchell and Kao (1978) (EPRI Contract RP 7841-1)(9); Stusarchuck and Foulger (1973)(10); Hartley and Black (1979) (EPRI Contract RP 7883-1)(L1): and Steinmanis (1982)(12), including the development of the Thermal Property Analyzer. These efforts arose from a recognition of the importance of the thermal properties of soil as they impact on energy-efficient and cost-effective design. Previously. because of inadequacies in testing methods, investigators developed semi-empirical methods to estimate thermal resistivities: Kersten (1949)(13); De Vries (1952)(14); and McGaw (1969)(15), These methods were based on a number of tests on specific soils. Farouki (1981)(7) has compiled an excellent report that describes all aspects of the thermal properties and behavior of soil. including an assessment of the empirical estimation techniques. He concludes that each method is only reliable for certain soils under given conditions. Johansen (1977)(16) has created a more comprehensive estimation technique based on modifications to the earlier methods. Salomone, Kovacs, and Wechsler (1982)(17) have investigated the relation of thermal resistivity to geotechnical index properties (j.c., Atterberg limits). Aithough some relationship appears 10 exist, only a few soils have been investigated. It appears inappropriate to make generalizations about the thermal behavior of all soils based ‘on limited data. ‘There exists a complex dependence of thermal resistivity on various soil properties. A comprehensive geotechnical, agronomic, and thermal properties database for a wide variety of soils would be a means of providing valid general information, putting earlier ‘work in its proper perspective, and providing practical data for present use. MEASUREMENT OF THERMAL PROPERTIES ‘The thermal properties of soils consist of thermal resistivity. » (or its reciprocal, conductivity, 4); thermal diffusivity, «; and heat capacity, C. They are related by the expression p«C = 1. In many heat transfer applications the thermal resistivity is of primary concem and is therefore most often measured (or estimated!). Soil thermal resistivity depends on many variables including soil composition. moisture content, density, and ‘temperature, Thermal resistivity is often used rather than its reciprocal value of conductivity. Inthe study of layered systems, resistivities are directly additive, Also, graphical presentation of resistivity versus other physical properties shows changes and trends more clearly than does conductivity. 22A convenient method of representing soil thermal behavior is by means of “thermal dryout” curves, These are curves of thermal resistivity versus soil moisture content for a soil of given composition and density. (In addition, the dry density may be varied to give a series of thermal dryout curves for a given soil.) The test consists of reconstituting, in the laboratory, a soil sample at various moisture contents using the field dry density. (If this is not known, then a value equivalent to 95% Proctor density is deemed to be comparable to the natural state of the soil.) ‘Thermal resistivity is measured by the "transient thermal probe” technique (Steinmanis 1982)(12). Basically, a slender cylindrical probe, containing a heater and temperature sensor, is inserted into the soil to be tested, Constant power is applied to the probe, and the temperature/time data is monitored. From this che thermal resistivity can be caleutated. As long as certain theoreti obtained using small probes (10 em tong by 0.3 cm dia.) in laboratory soil samples and large probes (2 m long by 2.5 em dia.) in situ, assumptions and test procedures are met, comparable results are So that test results meet theoretical predictions, the experimental procedure should comply with the major assumptions: © The probe is an instantaneous and constant source of heat (i. has no heat capacity). the probe © The flow of heat is radial (.e., an infinite line heat source) @ Test data are free from sample boundary effects (j.e.. an infinite medium), © No thermal contact resistance exists between the heat source and the soil. ¢ Conduction is the only mechanism of heat transfer. @ Test material is homogeneous, and a moisture and thermal equilibrium exists in the sample before the test ‘Thus, although the principle behind the “transient thermal probe” test is simple, valid application and interpretation requires experience, proper instruments, and adherence to the assumptions ‘The TPA-5000, manufactured by Geotherm, is a system that fully automates the thermal probe test. It is micro-computer controlled and provides programmable power to thermal probes. 23reads temperature sensors, probe current, and voliage, and computes in real time the thermal ifusivity. ‘The unit consists of a programmable 10-amp, 60-volt power supply, a 10-channel data acquisition system, and an HP-85B micro-computer. A nominal resistivity and 110-volt power source is required. The entire test procedure is software controlled in @ totally interactive manner so that programming experience is not required by the operator. Various built-in errorreducing features ensure that the test complies with the theoretical assumptions. A. statistical analysis of data indicates whether an acceptable test has been accomplished. Test data (time, temperature, power) are printed, plotted, and stored on tape so that future analysis and reference to the results may be made, FACTORS AFFECTING THERMAL RESISTIVITY Soil Composition ‘The type of soil has a major influence on general thermal behavior (figure 2-1). Mast often a soil is categorized by a visual geotechnical descriptor such as the Unified Soit Classification (ASTM Standard D-2487), and accepted descriptive adjectives. Although this usually places a soil in the proper family of thermal dryout curves. it is not sufficient 10 accurately define the particular curve for that soil, This is because the thermal behavior depends on other compositional factors that are not immediately evident: organic content mineralogy (notably quartz, reactive clays). soil grain shape. soil particle microstructure. and bonding. Soil Moisture Content For a given soil, the major influence on thermal resistivity is the soil moisture content, A soil structure consists of solid mineral grains (p = {0-20°C - em/W) typically making only point-to-point contact. In a dry state the spaces ate filled with air (o~4500°C - cm/'W): thus, an extremely restricted heat conduction path exists only along the mineral contacts. As water (p = 165°C - om/W) replaces air, the relatively good heat conduction path is expanded. resulting in substantially lower soil thermal resistivities. This relationship between resistivity and soil moisture is illustrated by the thermal dryout curves (figure 2-1). Soil Density Generally, the density of a native soil does not change with time. But soils of similar composition and moisture content may exist at different densities in different areas, or they may have been backfilled at a density different from the natural condition. Soil 247 | 4 40 : Pr Granular soils, 1.8-1.9 Mg/m? (110-120 pef] y~ Granular soils, 1.6-1.8 Mg’m? (100-110 pct, Granular and cohesive soil, 1.3-1.6 Mg m? (80-100 pef} at Cohesive soil, 1-1.3 Mg,m? (60-80 pcf! | Highly organic and peaty sails fall above this line < 1 Mg/m? | < 60 pet, 300 200 THERMAL RESISTIVITY (°C - CM/WATT) 100 MOISTURE CONTENT BY PERCENTAGE Figure 2-1. ‘The Effect of Soil Type, Dry Density. and Moisture Content on the Thermal Resistivity of Soils Source: Salomone, Singh, and Fischer. 1979(18). 25densification improves soil grain contacts and displaces air, thereby reduc resistivity. most notably at low moisture contents ge thermal Soil Gradation Although @ soil visual description, moisture content, and density are the mit imum parameters required to categ’ fe soil thermal behavior, a grain size analysis using sieves adds greatly ted experience in soil identification) This may also point the way to supplementary testing in certain cases (i.e.. organic content, ‘quartz content, clay mineral type. soit grain shape) to a soil description (especially for those with Ambient Temperature Although thermal resistivity exhibits a slight variation with temperature, for practical engineering purposes this may be ignored. It is only of importance if the soit moisture freezes, in which case the soil resistivity may decrease dramatically DISCUSSION OF THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES Figures A-I to A-78 in appendix A are a compilation made in 1987 of thermal dryout curves for fa variety of soils tested at the Geotherm, Inc.. laberatory over the past several years, Each figure contains a description of the soil. including the Unified Soil Classification in parentheses, as well as the soil dry density. Figure A-79 tabulates the thermat resistivities of some rocks. Figure A-80 provides a general trend in the thermal dryout curves based on general soil type. ‘The concave shape is similar for all groups. although other factors (soil gradation. density. etc.) dictate whether a particular curve is flatter or exhibits a sharper bend. Notations on figure A-80 indicate how certain factors may influence the shape of a curve within a given category. Generally, for a given soit composition: © Lower dry density results in higher resistivities at the lower moisture content, ¢ Higher organic content results in higher resistivities at the higher moisture content. © Angular soil grains provide tower resistivities. © A more uniform grain size tends to inerease the resi ivity. 26Various mixtures of soils can give intermediate curves for these basic groups An interesting category is the sandy soils, which encompass many of the so-called "thermal sands” used for underground power cables, Often they have @ fair gradation of fine to medium or coarse sand, which with a minimum amount of moisture (-2%) gives a reasonably fow thermal resistivity (<100°C - cm/W), Upon drying out. though, the resistivity increases dramatically (say -300°C - em/W). The rounded nature of the sand and lack of fines (i.e.. silt. clay) result in low grain-to-grain contact which is evident by this high resistivity in a dry state. In addition. the open structure has @ propensity to dry out with the imposition of external heat (i.e.. power cable, heat from foundations). enhancing the likelihood of a high thermal resistivity. This case illustrates the importance of testing for soil particle gradation as well as a complete thermal dryout curve. The “critical moisture” is another concept used to describe the thermal behavior of soit, It is defined as the moisture content at which the relatively flat nature of the thermal dryout curve gives way {0 a dispropo! mnate increase in the thermal resistivity. For most granular soils a fairly sharp "knee" is evident in the dryout curves at the © al moisture (8% in figure A-3). Clayey and organic soils exhibit flatter curve without a distinct knee (figure A-43),. The critical moisture is about 16%. ‘The thermal dryout curve and critical moisture concept should be used with site-speci seasonal soil moisture information to determine the trends in the soil resistivity. For ys above 8%, then the soil resistivity nstance, in figure Ax if the ground moisture is alwa will be a constant 33°C - em/W. If the same soit dri s t0 some extent below 8% seasonally (G.e.. drought), then the resistivity can range between 33 and 120°C - cm/W. Besides lack of precipitation, soil drying can occur due to lowering of the groundwater table, imposition of external heat, and/or vegetation demand (i.e., tree roots can dry the soil to a great depth). Thus, for identical soils the maximum likely thermal resistivity varies for different geographic locations depending on the seasonal soil moisture conditions. ‘THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY AAs noted previously, the thermal properties are related by the expression psC = 1, where C is the volumetric heat capacity of the soil. For a moist soil the heat capacity may be calculated from the sum of the specific heats of the components (.e.. soil sofids and water)C= 4.187% ¥ (Me, + 6, *w/100) [Jlec*C] Where om soil dry density [g/cc] w soil water content {% dry weight] = specific heat of water = 1.0 é specific heat of soil sotids ‘The specific heats of mineral soils are generally in the range of 0.18 10 0.22, A significant amount of organics or peat can cause this value to vary. Figure A-8! shows the thermal diffusivity versus moisture relationship for some soils calculated from the above equations. The same can be done for any of the soils included in this report. However, few test data are available on the thermal diffusivity of soits. CONCLUSIONS A compilation of soil thermal resistivity data has been made and the general trends categorized, This is adequate as a first step to acquaint those involved with the installation of heating and air-conditioning systems with the thermal behavior of geological materials, Also, few data are available on the thermel diffusivity of soils, A comprehensive database using typical soils from cll areas of the United States could provide enough information to allow selection of design thermal resistivities. or indicate to local authorities the need to cary out site-specific testing. At present. this data compilation is sufficient to provide qualitative trends only. A comprehensive database would consist of complete geotechnical (moisture. Proctor density. gradation, Atterberg limits. composition) agronomic (Geld capacity. wilting point, and soil moisture characteristics curve). and thermal properties (resistivity. diffusivity. heat capacity. dryout curve) for many. site- specific soils, The database could be contained on personal computer software that would allow retrieval and comparison of thermal properties for given soil properties and concitionsSection 3 REVIEW OF COMPILATION OF SOIL THERMAL RESISTIVITY DATA ‘Two sets of thermal dryout curves for coarse- and fine-grained soils are available, One set was compiled by Geotherm, Inc. (figure 4-80) for shis study. and the other set by Salomone (1987)(19) (figures 3-1 and 3-2). The new data, if properly categorized. correspond to the general trends established in appendix A For instance, the curves for the coarse-grained soils provided by Salomone cover a wide range of materials from crushed rock to uniform sand. The curves with a dry thermal resistivity below 160°C - em/W fit the "well-graded granular” category in the thermal compil ion, whereas the remaining curves follow the "sandy soil” category. ‘The Florida sand (1282 kg/m’ ) has been: disregarded because of the exceptionally low density. Ht appears that the inability define precise envelopes stems from the fact that neither consistent nor complete geotechnical classification of the soils was available, The Salomone data are divided into two of the primary soit groups defined in the’ Unified Soil Classification System, and the Geotherm data have four general groups which do not necessarily follow an established. geotechnical classification system. “The “envelopes” provided in figure A-80 should not be considered as all-encompassing but rather as trends for the specified general soil groups. If thermal behavior envelopes are desired. then complete geotechnical data must be available in order to categorize the soils according to a recognized system such as the Unified S Classification System. The thermal dryout curve compilation came from data avaitable in the Geotherm files and certainly did not cover all the different soil types. nor was sufficient geotechnical information available to precisely classify all the s 1g to the Unified System. Similarly. some of the fine-grained thermat curves from Salomone (1987)(19) fall outside the fine-grained category of the thermal compilation. This is attributed to the limited data available for the thermal compilation and the general descriptions used to cla iy the soils, 3H‘THERMAL RESISTIVITY IN °C: ce/wett 600 480 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 PEPCO thermal sand (SP) 1580 Kgim3 (89 PCF) 280 | ! dad Flonda sang (SP) 4 Kg’m F 4 240 feceeeeees Sands(O-imm) (Germay, 1986) 7 $390 kplmd Cod Cry ] 220 — River sanc,'b-8miti Taermay, 1084) 180 Kgino i? Pee) | oon AMR no 79 siity Clay ane sand (CL) 4 1650 Kg/m3 (103 PCF) i 180 —— AMR. no 74 sity clay and sand (CL) | 162 1747 Kgim3 (109 PCF) 4 River sand,(0-2mm) (Germay, 1964) | 140 1680" Kgim3cags FCF) 4 PEPCO thermal sang (SP) 120 3792 Kgim3 (112 POF) Crushed Dalomite (0-5mm) 100 Feehms$ BRR 2050 Kgime (128 PCF) i AMAL no. 71 silty clay 60 \ a6 sand (CL) 1821 Kg/m3 (114 PCF) 40 =a i Florida sang (SP) 20} !Attantic City Marine sand (SP) 0 L_1731 Kom? (108 PCF) 1747 Kgim3 (109 PCF) ° 2 4 6 @ 10 12 t 6 18 20 MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT Figure 3-1, Envelope of Thermal Behavior for Granular (Coarse-Grained) Soils Source: Salomone. 1987 (19).THERMAL RESISTIVITY IN °C - cm/walt 500 480 460 440} 420 400 380 360 340 s20P\ 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 169 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 i Bonny Loess (ML) S 1460 kgim3 (91 PCF) Georgia Clay (ML) (Ford and Steinmanis, 19821 \ — ANe no 63 sity clay (Co) 1450 kgim? (90 PCF) He AMRL no 61 silty clay (CL) 1750 kg/m2 (408 PCF) \ Bonny Loess (ML) 1760 kg/m3 (110 PCF) 2 4 6 @ 10 12 4 16 18 MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT sl Figure 3-2, Envelope of Thermal Behavior for Fine-Grained Soils Source: Salomone. 1987 (19). 33Again, it must be emphasized that figure A-80 of the thetmat compilation gives only typical twends for general categories of soils. If accurate thermal envelopes are desired. then a comprehensive thermal, geotechnical, and agronomic testing program must be carried out on many different soils, Geotherm, Inc., is presently engaged in such a project for the Geological Survey of Canada. Such a study could easily be expanded to cover the United States 34Section 4 SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT INTRODUCTION As has been discussed section 2, ambient moisture content: has a ect, and potentially profound, effect on the thermal resistivity of a soil. Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that at high moisture contents, soil thermal resistivity is low and is relatively insensitive to small changes in moisture content: the moisture-resistivity curve declines to an apparent asymptote at high moisture values, However, as a soil dries, thermal resistivity rises at an increasing rate. Under these drier conditions, small differences in moisture content can imply substantially changed thermal resistivities Such moisture-resistivity curves represent laboratory data over a wide range of induced soit moistures. The question therefore arises, "What soil moi what frequency?” In @ natural system. are me dry conditions and concomitant high resistivities found at the limits of laboratory dam encountered. and, if 50, are such ture levels occur in nature, and with conditions common enough to influence heat exchanger design? In statistical terms, the frequency distribution of soil moisture content is sought, which describes the percentage of time that soil moisture exceeds any particular value, If every potential heat pump site were monitored for soil moisture content, then the local soil moisture frequency distribution could be constructed from the observed data, and site-specific design parameters would follow. However, stch local monitoring is not the nule. ‘Therefore, soil moisture content must be estimated indirectly from knowledge of more accessible properties of a site, In order to develop a useful estimation method, the extent to which easily observed environmental factors such as. soil texture. precipitation. soil temperature, ground cover, and depth influence the soi! moisture frequency distribution curve is asked. Knowing some or all of these, can the shape of the frequency distribution curve accurately be predicted, or at least its properties relevant to design? And. if so, then by further changing those factors under our controt such as depth. cover, and even effective precipitation (e.g., by redirecting drainage or by watering the lawn), can soil moisture behavior be exploited or manipulated to improve heat exchanger efficiency? at‘This section examines temporal behavior of ambient soil moisture content and the influence of environmental factors on soil moisture content. It begins by briefly citing the factors known to influence soit moisture content, It then describes the National Soil Moisture Study (NSMS)(20) which provided the ambient soil moisture data used in the present study. Next this soil moisture content data is analyzed: for locations the six U.S. states treated by the NSMS. The "limit states” of soil moisture content field capachy and wilting point--are discussed and observations made on the use of limit states to approximate the extremes of ambient soit moisture levels. A new method of normalization of soil moisture content by its limit states--the thermal moisture inde) proposed and some of its properti 1¢ EPIC model-is used to illustrate the effects of soil texture, precipitation, and soil temperature on soi! are investigated. Finally, a mathematical simulator of soit water hydraulics moisture under more controlled conditions. and with greater geographic coverage, than could be ‘obtained from the NSMS data. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INFLUENCING SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT Ambient soil moisture content is a consequence both of relatively static physical properties of the soil matrix and of temporally variable effects due to weather and plant water uptake. Physical soit properties affecting soil water content include the soil structure and texture-which in tur relate to pore size and shape distributions. organic matter content, soil moisture retention, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity~and the horizontal and vertical distribution of these factors. Infiltration from precipitation, evaporation due to insolation, transpiration during plant growth, and depth to the water table drive moisture through the soil at a moisture content and rate which vary with diumal, seasonal, and longer climatic cycles. Soil scientists and engineers have developed quantitative mathematical models to estimate soil moisture behavior, given detailed knowledge of soil properties, weather, and plant growth. However. the elaborate site charact ization required (0 use such models makes them impractical for a routine application such as heat pump design. Therefore, the present study examines relatively easily obtained, albeit gross, indexes of these environmental factors, seeking useful relationships between them and the limits of thermal resistivity important to a heat pump designer. It considers: © annual average preci ¢ USDA soil texture class © crop cover@ average annual soil temperature © depth (two classes: medium (2-4 fi) and deep (4-6+ fi) ‘Subsequent discussion makes clear that both the soil moisture content and its temporal variation are not fully explained by this set of indexes. In part this reflects the natural unpredictability of the weather, in part the indexes used here, and in part man’s still incomplete understanding of the processes controlling soil moisture. Nevertheless the knowledge of. in particular, soil texture class may be informative for the heat pump design problem. Conversely, for the sites investigated, precipitation and cover appear not to be instructive. The effect of soil depth varies from site to site AMBIENT SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT ‘The National Soil Moisture Study ‘The present study relies in large part on ambient soil moisture data collected (for other Purposes) over a three- to six-year period at 65 sites in six U.S, counties. each county in & different state. Data collection and collation were performed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as part of its National Soil Moisture Study (NSMS)(20). ‘Otto Baumer of the SCS, Lincoln, Neb., oversees the NSMS. He provided a computer-compatible version of the data, copies of the most recently published summaries (NSMS Fourth Intermediate Data Summary, February 1988)(20), and interpretive support. The selection of locations, soil types, and sampling dates was dictated by the purposes and Fesources of the NSMS; this study simply avails itself of this database. The six NSMS study areas are located in agricultural research watersheds in northeastern Colorado, central Georgia, central Indiana, southcentral North Dakota, the panhandle of Texas, and southeastem Washington State (table 4-1), ‘The data describe between five and 16 instrumented sites at each study area for the years 1979-1984 (1981-1986 in Indiana). All sites supported crops or pasture, although in the drier locations fields ay fallow in alternate years. Typically this is done to conserve soil moisture and nutrients. None of the sites was irrigated. Soil texture data are available for each site. Soil samples were taken from the surface to a depth of, in the deepest cases, 7 ft. Soil moisture readings were collected using both 43ey cores oped rysous easDus, Baily sOUIS/AS sora uN, td 9 UAL ty 29 uM. vy 49 uM ty 2 Ror ey ASAIN Siig ore ered eyuDUS sows 25° ape ey UA 29 ty ua 49, ed 4s 19, ey 4a 0 E861 uN ed ed uM 20 1D um ta ta ua 19 1D uM ea ea uN 49 30 uA ty Cd WM oe) 419 wer 1861 Jan03 pury AQNLS RIALSION “UOS TWNOLLYN NI SAIS sg/09 amis uawss 3S/QI agi uawis ais 49°a 29rd as UA ay uM UM, 2088 éi6t ( 30 Trp ag Ds os Ds os "Rs as Ries ae 2 2 os 2 2 3 3 2s 2s os os DS ws 1s 2s os Rie 1s s1 1s si a a si as aS SI as as 1s as as s1 1 qs as it al as 1 q as q a a 1 1 1S cr all 1 q al ima Gaps KOTRIS aumxay, HOS: Hamner once Hamamoren o i. See ogee gs g =| 283 = Bae § 3 gha7-s a 2826 3 3 iS 417G of 3) Table 4-3 entomendc eannnnenmo—te8~4 CewrwnsS Soo Sra sds ewes Twentieth Percentile FA ebb atid Bese e tage 4 § ganes22s ntmemUmnen prety asoquie opad HOS Dida Gov (ILLNAO Wd HAId-MLANIN ~ TLLNAQWSd HALAL “LNOO9 “NVIGSIW) ALDVAV) Old AO SNCLLVAYASAO GTILd ONY "JJGOW NOISSTUOSY V “(UVE £0) SISAL AYOLVYOAVT 4O NOSTAVANOD Sop ONL 432(POEL ODE osz @eexenie est aN lese-orendes ve (rier gpiy 8 Iz (Z-6E-9°68L1 08°67 (€-0r-L'81)601 08'sz {OEEE LDR 0807 (sog-o'sp1Ez oor ('8z-S022 one (or-rsae iorerenst £8e Wie-OeDIE LOPES IDE ou ase aN aN (V0E-9'6 DES Wr Pe-L OT Ove HELE (82-0'8DIP HETESODEL 7 see orszire kver-s'6 $51 6£'00 i ieesiie | Tv aN 06 WL 8t-9°7)9 SLE {SER EDT s9'6z {6U8'SDI Let (O°OE-LFOT Sele LTE 067 ME81-CDEL 06's aN “eq €°0- 1 aIU09 JOrtALe OULATIE 01 WOIEIDAUOD” “uvow! ardures uaa 40)° 1geireae twaated tein sothes) buco se19 Ans Avi Apues, wo eID Ans. ure 2D, wiw0y 4619 %O6 pur areWIIS Iso 84 Aupede pretg Jo uosyedwo “6-p anda Puswusdea say foxy foro Aus fo foes weertohys uber fom weeinles ws (3) queqoD aunysioW “ADIN, see 439Table 4-7 BOUNDING PERFORMANCE OF LABORATORY MOISTURE. DETERMINATIONS ON MEDIUM-DEPTH (2-4 ft) SOILS Percent of Measurements Number within below -15b of Soil Texture within below -15b Measurements Sand 22 91.5 63 270 14.8 78.9 63 270 Loamy Sand 0.0 99.6 o4 345 53 94.3 04 545 Sandy Loam 01 99.6 03 1006 9.5 90.2 03 1006 Loam 07 99,3 0.0 863 92 90.8 0.0 863 Silt Loam 0.0 100.0 0.0 333 42 95.8 0.0 333 sit : : ° Sandy Clay Loam on 99.8 00 782 13.8 36.2 00 782 Clay Loam 03 98.1 1s 323 9.0 89.5 us 323 Silty Ck 177 82.3 0.0 9 57.0 43. 0.0 9 ‘Sandy Clay 0.0 100.0 0.0 617 17.0 83.6 0.0 617 Silty Clay 3.7 96.3 0.0 81 54.3 45.5 00 al Clay 0.7 99.3 0.0 304 19.4 80.6 0.0 304 4.40Table 4.8 BOUNDING PERFORMANCE OF LABORATORY MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS ON DEEP-DEPTH (4-6+ ft) SOILS Percent of Measurements Number above -0.1b within below -15b of Soil Texture above 0.38 within below -15b Measurements Sand 0.0 90.2 08 74s 136 85.6 0.8 745 Loamy Sand 0.2 99.8 00 436 32.8 67.2 0.0 436 Sandy Loam 00 80.1 19.9 13 5 66.7 19.9 13 Loam 00 100.0 0.0 647 46 95.4 0.0 647 Silt Loam 0.0 100.0 00 333 9.0 91.0 0.0 333 site e - = ° Sandy Clay Loam 0.0 100.0 0.0 267 22.5 115 0.0 267 Clay Loam 0.0 100.0 0.0 323 19 98.1 0.0 323 Silty Clay Loam 0.0 100.0 0.0 81 12 98.8 0.0 81 Sandy Clay 0.0 100.0 0.0 617 175 82.5 0.0 617 Sity Clay 0.0 100.0 0.0 1” 0.0 100.0 0.0 9 Clay 0.0 100.0 0.0 495 22.4 776 0.0 455 441clay loam, and deep sandy loam--were more than 15% of ambient moisture contents below their -15 bar value. Generally. then, the site-specific -15 tar fimit is @ conservative (low) estimate of the dry conditions for ambient soit moisture of the NSMS. As discussed in an earlier section, there are limitations to the NSMS data, ‘These include uneven sampling in time, a small number of sites with certain soil textures, and limited spatial and (with respect to climatic cycles) temporal breadth. ‘Therefore, additional analysis is warranted as more data become available. A natural follow-up analysis would proceed as for tables 4-7 and 4-8, but using “typical” estimates of wilting point, such as those developed in table 4-6. The results would indicate whether the “typical” wilting point estimates-which are specified knowing only the soil provide useful approximations to a design moisture such as the fifth percentile ‘THE THERMAL MOISTURE INDEX Much of science and engineering consists of the search for invariants-expressions whose value constant regardiess of the values taken on by their components and which therefore may be relied upon for design. It has been seen clearly that as one moves from coarser to finer texture soils, gravimetric soil moisture content is not invariant, but rather increases. Lower fimit statistics of ambient soit moisture such as fifth percentile-of neem to pipe length design--also vary with soil texture. Even within a USDA soil texture class there is sometimes considerable variability in the lower limit, Can a normalized form of soi! moisture content be found which removes this dependeney on soil texture, and perhaps even behaves as an invariant over soil types? A number of possibilities exist. Pethaps the most intuitive approach is to express. moisture content in terms of percentage saturation, Saturation (volumetric moisture content divided by total porosity) varies from 0 10 | regardless of soil physical properties. Soil textural specificity enters through the porosity value for the soil. However. at present there are no saturation-thermnal resistivity curves with which to calculate the thermal consequences of a saturation-based moisture system. So that avenue remains unexplored. As a second alternative. this study proposes a thermal moisture index (TMI). TMI is defined as observed available soil moisture (measured moisture content minus -15 bar moisture content) ided by drained upper limit of available soil moisture (X} minus -15 bar moisture content 442where X is either -0.1 bar or -0.3 bar moisture content). ‘The TMI of a soi can go above (shen moisture exceeds the -0.1 or -0.3 bar value) and below 0 (when moisture is below the -15 bar value). Generally, however, most values would be expected to fall between 0 and 1 If TMI were found to be similar regardless of soit texture--for instance if its temporal frequency distribution were the same for all soil textures-then a design moisture content could be picked. given the two moisture limits for a soif and a design TMI value, such as its fith percentile Using the NSMS data. including site- and depth-specific tab data for each soil. average (of the time history data) TMI was plotted for each soil texture class (figures 4-10 through 4-13), Separate figures treat TMI-I (TMI using the -0.1 bar limit) and ‘TMI-3 (TMI using the -0.3 limit) for each of the two depth classes (mediam and deep). TMI-3 is not simply a vertical transposition of TMI-I hecause the difference between the 0.1 and 0.3 bar limits varies from site to site, The vertical bars in figures 4-10 through 4-13 indicate the range of average values over all sites, and the dash is the median value. The number of sites within each texture class also is shown, In figures 4-10 through 4-13, average TMI seems to vary among the coarse texture classes (sand, loamy sand, sandy foam), but is ively uniform for the remaining classes. Except for the sands, loamy sands, and sandy loams. site average TMI-I values fell between 0.4 and 0.7. The ranges are, of course. somewhat larger for the TMI-3 averages than the TMI-1 averages because the denominator of the TMI has been reduced. Jn the present study, ony this introductory work has been performed on the TMI approach. SIMULATIONS OF SOIL MOISTURE USING THE EROSION-PRODUCTIVITY IMPACT CALCULATOR (EPIC) MODEL. A review of the literature revealed that a mathematical model existed which could be used to determine the relationship between soil erosion and soil productivity throughout the U.S. The name of the modet is EPIC (Erosion- Productivity Impact Calculator), EPIC simulates the Processes involved simultaneously and realistically using a daily time step and readily available inputs. EPIC is capable of simulating hundreds of years. The EPIC components include weather simulation. hydrology. erosion. sedimentation, nutrient cy Jing. plant growth tillage, soil temperature. economics. and plant environment control. ‘The component of EPIC that was particularly pertinent here was the output that provided soil moisture values. With 4-43(45 FZ) SOS WNIPAWY “TLV, xapuy sum eunyxeL 10S foxy fora Agra Moves woowionis weer fog woo Koss WS wer ws __ wor) _ wear Aves puns fuooy PUES a ok Pires a4 eo te oe et an 8 o 1 a ort 4.44 xapuj ainysiow [OUUAYLfOIN PUIRUL UDI “HNP 2 Qy PZ) SHOS wanmpayy “y-IWWL NapUr aime] 10S fo Fora Ang for pues woovickys wor fog worviokes ws woe) ws wey wiper Apuog pues Kusoml puOS {20 ore | { ee ie - | 4 * ' z v Z i : 7 cs {oes s ee a on 4-45 Xapuj ainjsio joUUaYLCy +9-p) sos daa “1-11 »2pt 2nyxa) 105 fom fora fis fein Apung werkighis wor kag woovines WS amIBIOA fou UA “Z)-p ANI, sr0- eae i eb xapuj sunysiow JOUUOYL 446fora (ay +9-p) sos daog * aunxal, [10S fog fs fog koung woorkighis wor foxy weorKiokes IS J Xepy aunpstoyy pewoy, uray woer as “ele unig, eer wey woo] Keung pues Autor 0s st eb 0 g ovo 3 3 XapU} @IN}SIoW |OWUEUL 447the assistance of scientis is at the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Temple. Texas. runs of this mathematical model were made for the following conditions: 1, ‘Three relatively uniform soils, representative of sand. silt, and clay texture, were used to evaluate the effect of precipitation and soil temperature on soil moisture. The soils selected included Bloomfield sand, Hosmer silt, and Houston black, encountered in a variety of cities and climates throughout the United The soil moisture was calculated for soils in particular cities throughout the United Siates for a 10-year period. ‘The soils selected in the particular city were based on gradation. These soils were representative of 11 of the texture classes defined by the USDA soil classification system: Some of the input parameters are listed on table 4-9. Ad model can be found in the work of Williams and Renard (1985)(29) and Williams, Jones. and Dyke (41984)(30). jonal details regarding the EPIC Simulation 1 ‘The first condition evaluated was the effect of temperature and precipitation on soil moisture, This was accomplished by selecting three relatively uniform soits Bloomfield cand. Hosmer silt, and Houston bac and running the model for locations that had the same normal annual precipitation (inches) but different annual earth temperatures, and for those cities where annual earth temperature (°F) was relatively constant and normal annual precipitation inches) was variable. The results of this analysis are shown on figure 4.14. Figure 4-14 shows that the influence of normat annual precipitation is greater than the influence of ies with similar normat annual earth temperature. When the EPIC model was run for the annual precipitation amounts (i.e., Duluth, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, and Fort Worth), it was ure coments for the three types of soil. Likewise. the soil moistures for Oklahoma City and Fort Worth were also similar to each other, The difference between the s found that the cities of Duluth and Des Moines had similar m¢ moisture of Oklahoma ty and Fort Worth compared to the soil moisture of Duluth and Des Moines was less than 3-1/2% moisture by weight. On the other hand, when the model was run for cities with similar annual earth temperatures (i.e. Atlanta, Oklahoma City. and Las Vegas). the importance of precipitation was seen (see figure 4-14), The differences in scil moisture between Atlanta (normal annual precipitation of 48") and Las Vegas (normal annual precipitation of 4") for the Bloomfield It, and Houston black were 2.4%, 8.2%, and 7.0%. respectively sand, Hosmer 448Table 4.9 EPIC INPUT PARAMETERS Parameter Assumed Value 10 Fe Basin Area 1.00 HA Runoff CN2 83.9 Slope Adj CN2 83.9 Channel Length 10 KM Channel Slope 0250 M/M Latitude = Varies Depending on Location Elev M ‘Ave N Cone in Rainfall Channel N Surface N Water Content of Snow Initially =.0M Peak Rate-El Adjustment Factor = 1.000 ‘Auto Fert: N Stress Trigger 50 Min Appl Incerval op Max N Fert/Crop = 500. KG/HA Yrs of Cultivation Before yr 0.0 Slope Length = 50.M Slope Steepness 0100 MiM Water Erosion Factors - Driving Eq USLE Ls = 140 Pe 1.00 .000 .000 .000 Time of Flow Concentration = 430 Dryland Agriculture Min Water Table Depth = 50,00 M Max Water Table Depth = 100.00 M Initial Water Table Depth = 75.00 M Costs N Fert = 51 9/KG P Fert 57 $/KG Lime 31.00 $F Ine Water 04 SIM¥*3 Pesticide 10.00 $/HA 449Swuaquog ainsioyy OUTWARD JIdI “pI-p 2INBId tame 4-50‘Simulation 2 ‘The next set of simulations was for a variety of soils and cities with different climates throughout the U.S. Figure 4-15 (Normal Annual Precipitation) and figure 4-16 (Annual Earth Temperature) were used to select the cities. The purpose of this series of runs was to obtain soil moistures for actual soils encountered in the i selected. The cities selected for the model simulations ate shown in figure 4-17 and table D-1 in appendix D. ‘The EPIC model can divide the soit profile into a maximum of 10 layers (the thickness of the top layer is set at 10 mm and all other layers may have variable thickness). For the towns studied, three soil depths were examined. The first soit depth was approximately at the ‘middle of the root zone, the second depth was at the boundary of the root zone, and the third depth was outside the root zone. For each of these depths. the soil moisture by weight was calculated. The soil moisture was computed for 20%, 50%. and 80% probabilities. ‘The Probability of 80% was used for detailed analysis because the lower bound moisture is portant. The moistures shown in the subsequent analysis are for the 80% probability, that there is an 80% probability that the soil moisture is greater than the value shown. The soil moisture at each depth was determined and grouped according t0 USDA texture class. The average soil moisture by weight for each texture class is shown in table 4-10 and figure 4-18, ‘Table 4-10 also shows the 80% probability soil moisture values obtained from the National Soil Moisture Study. Except for the silt loam texture class, the soil moistures derived from the EPIC model are less than the soil moistures obtained! from the National Soil Moisture Study. ‘The effect of texture class on the average EPIC soil moisture can be seen in figure 4-18, ‘This figure shows the importance of the sand and clay fraction in determining soil moisture. ‘The more clay that is present, the higher the moisture content; the greater the sand fraction the lower the soil moisture, Using the soil _moistures in figure 4-18 and the thermal resistivity and diffusivity versus moisture content relationship developed using the Geotherm, Inc.. database, table 4-11 and figure 4-19 can be developed. Table 4-11 shows the thermal resistivity and diffusivity for the USDA textural classes given, Further research is required to determine those parameters within a textural class that are significant to the determination of which value to use for each textural class. 4st(a) aummodway, yueg nuuy -9]-p sundiySUOLEINUIS J9POWK 40} PADS SMD “S'N “LI-y aunslg £08 454‘Table 4-10 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE FIELD AND EPIC GRAVIMETRIC SOIL MOISTURE DATA SCS National EPIC Soil Gravimetric Gravimetric Moisture Moisture Content (%) Texture Content (5%) Medium Depth Class 20th Percentite 20th Percentile Sand 24 3. Loamy Sand 35 54 Sandy Loam 74 a1 Loam 83 143 Site Loam 23 10.0 Sandy Clay Loam 2 14.8 Clay Loa 13.6 18.2 Silty Clay Loam 13.8 23.2 Sandy Clay : 18.2 Silty Clay 18.7 22.4 Clay 218 219 495100 | sol 60 | [ax i 40 [182 i suty cLaY | cLay Loa jefe Ete ae ta oO 20 40 60 80 109 PERCENT SAND Figure 4-18. Average EPIC Gravimetric Moisture Content for USDA Texture Class 4.56Table 4-1 ‘THERMAL PROPERTIES BASED ON EPIC GRAVIMETRIC MOISTURE CONTENTS: EPIC Gravimetric ‘Thermal Thermal ‘Texture Maistre Resistivity Diffuse Class Content °c en /S Sand .on4 130 oss Loamy Sand 035 100 0060 Sandy Loa 074 35 : Sandy Clay Loam 2 35 ee Clay Loam 136 92 : Silty Clay Loam 138 68 : Loam 083 un sit Loam 13 9° . Silt 128 55 O14 Sandy Clay = - Silty Clay 187 %0 0054 Clay 218 80 .0054 4s7100 80}. b 60 PERCENT curd CLAY, siy o a sane 40 CLAY SILTY CLAY | cLay Loam Loaw = = SANDY CLAY LoaW 3s 207 Loam SLT LOAM ™ SANDY LOAM Coan SAND La 10 ° 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT. SAND, Figure 4-19, Thermal Resistivity Values Using Average EPIC Gravimetric Moisture ContentsCONCLUSIONS 1 This study relies in large part on ambient soi! moisture data collected-for other purposes--by the Soil Conservation Service over a three- to six-year period at 65 sites in six U.S. counties. each county being in a different state, Because of the limited spatial coverage of this field program. and the low number of sites within some soil textural classes, conclusions from analyses of these data are preliminary and should be reviewed as data are acquired from additional climatic and ‘soil regimes. In addition. longer-term climatic variations, such as droughts, may not be reflected in data from the field study. The possibly important influence of surface slope (as it affects infiltration) was not investigated. Soil moisture levels under such conditions may be estimated using additional field data, or from mathematical simulations of soil water hydrology. Heat exchanger pipe length design is particularly concemed with the distribution of upper extreme values of soil thermal resistivity. since these must be accommodated in design. Higher resistivities are associated with drier soil. In this study we characterize the dry end of the ambient soil moisture frequency distribution hy its fifth percentile value. ‘The filth percentile value is that soil moisture content exceeded by 95% of observed values at a sampling location. Median ambient soil moisture content is a strong function of soil texture ‘Typically. higher moisture contents are associated with finer textures Soil moisture data were aggregated into two soil depth intervals: 2-4 ft Conidae” “depury al 4-6 fC Cdeep” dept, Contrasts resistivity between these two intervals may be used to explore whether it is reasonable to place exchanger pipes at a nominal three-foot depth rather than the more conventional five foot depth. At 40% (26) of the sites. the fifth percentile soil moisture content was wetter in the middle depth zone than in the deep zone. This. was most commonly associated with a coarsening of sediments with depth Soit moisture data included observations beneath 18 different land covers (grass, pasture. and various agricultural crops). Qualitative review of the data suggests thet cover does not significantly” influence average soil moisture content. Statistical methods were not justified due to data sparsity Average annual precipitation during the study was 15 to 17 inches/ye at four of the study locations, and 36 to 43 inches/yr at the remaining two locations. Comparing fifth percentile soil moisture content between these two groups for similar soil textures, there was little or no evidence of higher soil moisture at the higher precipitation tocations. These comparisons were made for coarser soil textures only (data. for fine soils were not available for both precipitation groups). The results from EPIC simulation I suggest that the influence of precipitation may be greater for fine-grained soils, ‘Temporal variabifity of soit moisture was expressed as the difference between the fiftieth percentile (median) and fifih percentile value for each site Based on this measure, soil textures higher in silt (USDA classes silt loam. 459loam, sity clay loam) were found 10 have more variable soil moisture contents than other textures (clay. sandy clay. sandy clay loam. sandy loam, loamy sand, sand). Soil’ moisiure in medium-dlepth (2-4 ff) soils was. on average somewhat more variable than that in deeper (4-6+ ft) soils: however, ‘humerous counterexamples were observed This study also explored the possibility of using standard laboratory moisture fimits (0.1 bar, -0.3 bar, and -15 bar moisture content) to approximate the limits of ambient soil moisture content. At the least. this might prove of use as a relatively inexpensive site-specific test to characterize soil for heat pump installation, But, ideally. the ambient and laboratory limits would be highly correlated with each other and with soil texture so that the extensive date available on laboratory limits for soils throughout the United States could be used to predict soil moisture timits ‘without the need for site-specific tests Based on field and lahoratory data from the SCS study, the -15 bar faboratory limit for a given soil was a conservative estimate of observed! soil moisture in that same soil. For almost every combination of soil texture and depth class. less than 1% of observed moisture readings were below the -15 bar ‘moisture content of that soil. Exceptions included medium-depth sand (6% of observations were below the =15 bar moistare content), medium-depih clay loam (2% below), and deep sandy loam (20% below. For each soil texture class, laboratory moisture fimits were obtained from three independent studies. ‘They were compared to observed wilting point moisture contents (Ratliff, Ritchie. and Cassel. 1983)(22) and to estimated values trom a regression on soil tenure (Ritchie. Ratlit, and Cassel. 1987)(28). Laboratory moisture limits varied within each study: within-study 90% confidence intervals on the -I5 bar simit typically spanned approximately 10 percentage units of moisture content (but 20% + for an ARS study). Median ‘or mean -15 bar fimits from the various laboratory studies and the regression method were quite similar. generally within 2° to 3 percentage units of moisture content of each other. excepting some consistently high readings from the ARS study. Field variahility of the wilting point was greater than the -15 bar lab variability would suggest. Only for clay were the field observations of wilting point consistently drier than the -15 bar tab values, The thermal moisture index (TMI) was defined as observed available soit moisture (measured moisture content minus -15 har moisture content) divided by drained upper limit of available soil moisture (X) minus -15 bar moisture content, where X is either 0.1 bar or 0.3 bar moisture content). Using the SCS data. including site-specific lab data for each soil. site average TMI ‘was seen to vary with soil texture. Except for sands, loamy sands, and sandy loams. site average TMI values fell between 0.4 and 0.7 (using the 0.1 bar definition); average TMI in the coarser materials was more variable ‘The results from EPIC simulation 1 indicate that the influence of normal annual precipitation on soil moisture is greater than the influence of annual earth temperature on soit moisture Except for the silt loam texture class, the soil moistures derived from the EPIC model are less than the soil moistures obtained from the National Soil Moisture Study. 4-60Section 5 SOIL THERMAL PROPERTIES INTRODUCTION Sections 2 and 3 discussed the relative importance of various physical characteristics of soil and soil moisture content (0 the thermal properties (thermal resistivity and coefficient of heat diffusion) of soit, Changes in soil moisture content were seen to cause changes of over 100% behavior of ambient soil moisture content. This section completes the analysis by estimating n the thermal resistivity of the soil system. Therefore, section 4 addressed the the thermal properties implied by the soil moisture behavior discussed in section 4. This is done for both the NSMS ambient moisture measurements and the EPIC model simulations. In both cases. the moistures relations of the Geotherm database in section 2 are iven soil moisture and soil texture information. As sistivity used to estimate thermal resistivity, ‘was noted in section 3, estimation of soit thermal properties from physical som properties and soit moisture is as yet uncertain. The “envelope” curves available to estimate thermal resistivity. given soil texture and moisture content, contain significant uncertainty at lover moisture contents. This is a consequence of incomplete soil textural data in the studies which developed these cttives. In using the curves. there are two selections to be made; choice of an envelope (coarse- oF fine-grained soil) and interpolation of a curve within the envelope (see figure 5-1 and 5-2) In the present study. for many soils these choices were felt to be poorly defined. Uncertainty in choice of a curve within the texture envelope can lead to differences in predicted thermal resistivity of more than a factor of 2. Uncertainty in choice of an eavelope can lead to even greater differences, For comparative purposes. estimates are also provided of thermal properties derived by applying the De Vries method to a large catalog of U.S. soils.For the sone o: position: Ager dey density results in hore jes at he lower moistures Brhigher organic content results = higher resistimtes et The mgher Muctyres of the a (2c-em/w) E a 8 2 | _ SILTY CLAY, ‘Sic’ 2 SOR CLAY ‘C 3 LAY LOAM ‘CL’ a SILTY CLAY LOAM! [ more clayey FINE~GRAINED SOIL. more silty (SE[WELL-GRADED GRANULAR (THERMAL BACKFILL) 0 4 8 12 te 20 24 28 32 MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY WEIGHT) Figure 5-1. Geotherm Envelope of Thermal Behavier for Well-Graded Granular and Fine-Grained Soils and Highly Organic Submarine Sediments.THERMAL RESISTIVITY (°C m/w) (hore UnParn? Rounded Grain SANDS z LOAMY SAND ‘LS SS -FINES SANDPNUROUNDED GRAINS MORE FINES— SANDY LOAM ‘SI’ NDY CLAY LOAM NDY_CLAY. ‘SC 4 a 12 16 204 28 32 MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY WEIGHT) Figure 5-2. Geotherm Envelope of Thermal Behavior for Sandy Soils 53THERMAL RESISTIVITY ESTIMATES FOR NSMS SITES. Using one reasonable curve selection scheme. thermal resistivity was estimated for ambient fifth percentile moisture content in medium and deep soils at each NSMS site, We call this the fifth percentile resistivity. The results are listed in tables $-1 (medium depth) and 5-2 (deep depth) and plotted in figures 5-3 (medium depth) and 5-4 (deep depth). The highest estimated resistivi low fifth percentile resistivity (35°C - emiw) is predicted for almost every sandy loam, sandy ities (100-260°C - em/w) are associated with sand, loamy sand, and loam. A, clay loam, and sandy loam; however. this is in part an artifact of the envelope selection procedure, In that procedure those three textures used the “coarse-grained” envelope, while neighboring textures to the left used the “fine-grained” envelope. Finally. a comparison of tables 5-1 and 5-2 shows that on average the deep soil had lower fifth percentile resistivity than medium-depth soil for silt loam (mean resistivit S were, respectively, 50 and 79°C - cméy), and higher fifth percentile resistivity for sand (respec at both depths. ely 125 and 100°C - em/w). Estimated resistivities for other textures were similar ‘The texture triangle forming the base for figures 5-3 and 5-4 was taken from Ratliff. Ritchie and Cassel (figure 2)(22). It differs somewhat fiom an approps the standard triinear plot (figure 1-2). As mentioned earlier. all soil texture (ely transformed version of classifications in this study followed the definitions of figure 1-2, SOIL THERMAL PROPERTY ESTIMATES USING EPIC Using the soil moistures obtained from EPIC and the thermal resistivity versus moisture content relationship developed using the Geotherm, Inc., data, table D-1 and figures 5-5 and 5-6 can be developed. The thermal resistivity of twentieth percentile moisture content shows tends similar to the thermal resistivity estimates for NSMS sites. To simplify the interpretation. the effect of depth was ignored and the moisture contents for the three depths shown in table D-1 were averaged. The effect of texture class on the average EPIC soil moisture was shown in figure 4-18 Using the soit moistures in figure 4-18 and the thermal resistivity versus moisture content relationship developed using the Geotherm, Ine.. database, figure 4-19 was developed, Table 4-11 shows the thermal diffusivity of the USDA texture classes. Figure 4-19 shows vafues based on the average EPIC gravimetric moisture contents listed in table 4-10, From figure 4-19 and the values of thermal resistivity shown the 12 textural classes can be recluced to five textural classes. They are: 34Table 5-1 THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF FIFTH PERCENTILE MOISTURE CONTENT MEDIUM-DEPTH SOIL (2-4 ft) (of 2) Fifth TR Soil Texture State Site Percentile CC - m/w) Sand ND 1 3.0 110 WA 7 39 90, WA A 8 190 WA B 28 120 WA c rg 200 Mean: 26 125 Loamy Sand co 1 37 95 co c 52 8 IN 5 78 62 IN E 4s 85 IN F us 210 ND 4 46 82 ND 5 5.0 80 WA 8 37 95 WA 9 315 100 Mean: aa 86 Sandy Loam co 8 59 35 co 9 56 35 co A 33 33 co B 76 35 IN 3 64 35, IN a 63 35 IN A 61 35 IN B 1s 35, IN c 14.2 35 ND 3 5.8 35 ND. 6 10.1 35 1X L 9:8 35 1x 0 92 35 1x P 73 35 Mean: 73 35 Loam co Il 118 89 co 2 wt 92 co 3 84 109 co 4 12.6 85 co 3 13.0 84 co 6 9.0 105 IN 1 103 102 IN 2 132 82 IN 6 16.0 a IN 7 12:0 88 IN D iT4 68 IN G 119 89 ND. 2 107 90 Mean: 122 88 cyTable 5-1 Q of 2) Fifth TR Soil Texture State Percentile eC -emiw) Silt Loam WA 9 15 WA 10.9 65 WA 84 80 WA 94 a WA 73 88 Wa 67 92 Mean: 8.6 9 ‘Sandy Clay Loam GA 2 13.4 35 GA 9 16.0 35 GA a 15.7 35 IN 4 132 35 IN 8 12.7 35 1x M Ws 35 Mean 8 35 Clay Loam ND i 16.9 80 ND 8 16.7 81 ND 9 16.9 80 ND A 172 78 Mean’ 16.9 80 Silty Clay Loam ND c 19.4 30 Mean 19.4 50 Sandy Clay GA 1 14 35 GA 3 16.7 35 GA 6 16 38 GA B 16.9 35 Mean: mh 35 Sitty Clay ND B 20.9 83 Mean: 20.9 83 Clay GA 7 22.5 80 GA 8 20.5 85 Mean: 25 83 56Table 5-2 THERMAL RESISTIVITY OF FIFTH PERCENTILE MOISTURE CONTENT DEEP-DEPTH SOIL (4-64 fi) (1 of 2) Fifth R Soil Texture State Site Percentile C= cmiw) Sand IN 4 LT 192 IN 9 28 120 IN E ut 255 ND 1 6.0 2 ND 2 14 65. ND 3 3.6 77 ND 4 36 7 WA 7 a7 85 WA 8 9 180 WA 9 21 145 WA A 18 190 WA B 3.0 110 WA c 21 145 Mean: 35 100 Loamy Sand co 7 37 15, co 9 68 68 co A 49 81 co B 5.0 80 IN 8 4a 86 IN FE Lo 262 ND 5 13 62 Mean: 50 30 Sandy Loam co 2 96 35 co 4 110 35 co 3 10.8 35 co 6 85 35 co 8 64 35 co c 82 35 IN 3 10 2 IN 5 13 100 IN 6 1n6 35 IN 7 68 35 IN A V9 8 ND 6 124 35 1x L 98 35 1X 9 87 35 1 P 79 35 Mean: 77 35Table 5-2 Q of 2) Fifth TR State Site Percentile C= emi) Loam co i 98 co 3 86 IN 1 85 IN 2 80 IN B 85 IN ¢ 7 IN D 82 IN G 80 1™ M 8 Mean 84 Silt Loam WA 1 41 WA 2 45 WA 3 4a WA 4 56 WA 5 35 WA 6 3 Mean: 50 Sandy Clay Loam GA 2 GA B Mean: Clay Loam ND 7 n ND 8 80 ND 9 82 ND A 74 Mean: 76 Silty Clay Loam ND B 50 Mean: 50 Sandy Clay GA 1 35 GA 5 35 GA 5 35 GA A 35 Mean: 35 sitty Clay ND 80 Mean: 80 Clay GA 6 80 GA 7 80 GA 8 80 Mean: 80 585060 Sond (s) Figure 5-3. Thermal Resistivity (°C - cm/w) Using Fifth Percentile Moisture Content. Medium-Depth Soils (2-4 fi) 59100 90 Figure 5-4. Thermal Resistivity (°C - cm/w) Using Fifth Percentile Moisture Content, Deep Soils (4-6+ fi) 5-10a Figure 5-5. ‘Thermal Resistivity (°C - em/w) Using Twentieth Percentile Moisture Content, Medium-Depth Soils (2-4 ft), EPIC Simulations160 Figure 5-6. ‘Thermal Resistivity (°C - cm/w) Using Twentieth Percentile Moisture Content. Deep Soils (4-6+ fi), EPIC Simulations 5-12‘Thermal Texture Class ‘Thermal Resistivity °C - em/w Sand 130 sit 60 Clay: 90 Loam 110 Sandy Loam 35 For the simplified soil classification system. the sandy loam texture class will be eliminated because of the difficulty for non-soils engineers in distinguishing between loam and sandy Toam, and for additional conservation in this simplified approach. Further research is required to determine those parameters that are significant for understanding the variabitity within each textural class and developing a more accurate thermal soil classification system, SOIL THERMAL PROPERTY ESTIMATES USING THE DE VRIES METHOD In 1982 Reese Berdanier of the Soil Conservation Servive, Fort Worth, Texas. applied De Vries" method (1952, 1963114. 31) to over 4600 soil horizons whose phy moisture contents had been compiled by SCS. Using t calculated estimates of soit thermal resistivity and coefficient of heat diffusion at -0.1 bar, -0.3 bar, -15 bar and aircry conditions, given certain other physical properties of the i characteristics. and ‘method, for each horizon Berdanier soil ‘The present study uses some of the estimates developed by Berdanier. Following Farouki(32. p. 58) only those samples which either were saturated or were coarse soils with saturations of 0.1 t0 0.2 are considered valid. Samples meeting these criteria are summarized in table 5-3 and plotted in figures 5-7 and 5-8. For the saturated soils in Berdanier’s data, thermal resistivity ranges from approximately 20 to over 150°C - em/w over a wide variety of particle size classes (figure 5-7), The bulk of the values lie between 30 and 80°C - om/w. ‘There is at least a two- to fourfold range in saturated thermal resistivity within every soil particle size class. ‘This may be viewed as a measure of the variability in thermal resistivity that remains unexplained after identifica tion of the particle size class. Average De Vries estimates of thermal resistivity for saturated soils are approximately 45°C ‘emvw for coarse-grained materials and 55 to 60°C - cm/w for fine-grained materials (table 5-3), These agree with the bigh-moisture asymptotes of the thermal resistivity envelopes developed by Salomone(18) and discussed in section 3 (Hgures 3-1 and 3-2). 5:13Table 53 DEVRIES METHOD APPLIED TO THE SCS SOILS, DATABASE, THERMAL RESISTIVITY (°C - emiw) Particle Size Satiated 0.3 bar 215 bar Air Dn Sandy 43.5 665.0 135.9 466.4 1233 Wh 423 19 88 a 37 3 Loamy Skeletal 48.7 31.3 244 143.3 394.7 96.2 300.4 36 39) Coarse Loamy 45.9 m0 145.7 437.5 175 20.9 55.1 184.4 448 5 196 48 Loamy $0.27 2135 10s Fine Loamy 45.09 Key: Mean 12:23 Standard Deviation 1328 Count Coarse Silty 61. 23.44 92 Fine 52.80 25.29 sot Clayey 36.63 20.55 167 Fine 53.68 en 807 Very Fine 62.93 TAB. "4 Ashy 61.60 20.88 a "R. Berdanier. SCS, Fort Worth, Texas. performed De Vries analyses. * Only soils satisfying Farouki's(32) saturation timits are included in the statistical analyses underlying this table (See text).(esequied sos $35 241 01 paddy poyIaHy SOMA aa) SHS PaIEHES Jo SSNSISeY jRUMDYEL “Z-g 24nd 88019 9zIS efonUOd Kye oy hn ous fato Aus eng ANS 8) fuorway _Kuwoy —_Auoerug royrersfuon feos [| | | ry : ? : 3 i pf: |. eee in ee be . ; me . ; + mo : 3 ; le 515Air Dry 15 bars -0.3 bors ‘raamy 288 388323 8 222 2 8 (w/o, awd) ANARsIsey jouUeyL (n/9, wo) Ainysisay jouuouy ‘Sandy LsarnySiaiatl ‘Sandy WeomySialatel Crecoamy, Particle Size Class ‘Sandy LoarySeaito! CraLoomy Porticle Size Class Particle Size Clos ty of Unsaturated Soils (D2 Vries Method Applicd to the SCS Soils Database) Figure 5-8. Thermal ResBerdanier’s data include a number of coarse soils (as represented by the sendy. loamy skeletal, and coarse loamy particle size classes) with degrees of saturations of 0.1 to 0.2. ‘Those samples at -0.3 bar. -15 bar. and air-dry conditions are considered separately. Thermal resistivity of these samples, obtained hy using the De Vries method, is summarized in figure 5-8. Estimated thermal resistivity at -15 bar suction ranges from 20 to almost 600°C - em however, most estimates are less than 300°C - em/w, Berdanier’s data provide soil particle size class. rather than texture class, for each soil In this study, we have used texture class in our analyses of the NSMS data. ‘There is only imper soil texture system ignores particles with a diameter greater than 2 mm and because the class rfect correspondence between these {wo systems (Soil Taxonomy(33), p. 49) both because the boundaries of the <2 mm particles do mot always agree between the two systems. This introduces one complication in drawing a comparison between the De Vries calculations and fifih percentile resistivities for the NSMS sites, There is a second complication. The fifth percentile resistivities for the NSMS. sites represent a dry. design moisture condition for the soil. In contrast, for fine soils the Faroukitimited De Vries method of figure 5-7 appl (Actually, the Berdanier cate fess than saturated.) ss only t saturated cont inns are for satiwed conditions. which are just stight Only unsaturated condi for coarse soils does the Farouki-limited De Vries method estimate thermal properties for 7. table 5-3) in ns, The -15 har resistivity estimates (figure particular may be compared to the NSMS and 5-4, tables 5-1 and 5-2). Again, it is difficult to determine which particle size and fifth percentile coarse soil resistivities (figures 5-3 texture classes should be compared, However, the -15 bar De Vries estimates of thermal resistivity are of the same magnitude as the fifth percentile resistivities for sand, and generally are at and above the fifth percentile resistivities when loa y skeletal and coarse loamy soils are compared to loamy sand and sandy foam. Section 4 reported that -15 bar limits are generally drier than fifth percentile values. On that basis the De Vries. resistivities would be expected to exceed those from the filth percentile moisture contents. For ease of interpretation by those readers working with thermal conductivity rather than fable 5-3. bat in the thermal resistivity. table ty units of Bru/ft-hr °F. -4 provides results identical conventional conducti $17Table 5-4 DE VRIES METHOD APPLIED TO THE SCS SOILS DATABASE ‘THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY (Btu/fi-hr-* F) Particle Size Satiated 0.3 bar 15 bar Air Dry ly 1.401 0.901 0.447 0.130 0.293, 0.169 0.085 0.033 88 pry 37 5 Loamy Skeletal L516 0.563 0.233 01682 0.361 0.191 244 86 39 Coarse Loamy L424 0.463 0.180 0.521 0.233, 0.185 448 196 48 Loamy 1.325 0.474 10s Fine Loamy 1.362 Key: Mean 0.337 Standard Deviation 1328 Count Coarse Silty 1.066 0373 92 Fine Silty L142 0.178 sor Clayey 1.106 0.310 167 Fine 1.127 0.260 807 Very Fine 0.949 0.182 74 Ashy 1.089 0.505 a2 *R. Berdanier. SCS. Fort Worth, Tenas, performed De Vries analyses. * Only soils satisfying Farouki's(32) saturation limits are included in the statistical analyses underlying this table (ee text), 5-18Finally, Farouki-timited De Vries estimates of the coefficient of heat diffusion are summarized in table 5-5 and plotted in figures 5-9 and 5-10. CONCLUSIONS 1, The “envelope” curves available {0 estimate thermal resistivity. given soil texture and moisture content, contain significant uncertainty at lower moisture contents. This is a consequence of incomplete soil textural data in the studies which developed these curves. In using the curves there are two selections to be made: choice of an envelope (coarse-grained or fine-grained il) and interpolation of @ curve within the envelope. In the preseni study for many soils these choices were felt to be poorly defined. Uncertainty in choice of a cure within the texture envelope can lead to differences in predicted thermal resistivity by more than a factor of 2. Uncertainty in choice of an envelope can lead to even greater differences. 2. Using one reasonable_curve selection scheme, thermal resistivity was estimated for ambient fifth percentile moisture content in medium and deep soils at each NSMS site, ‘The highest estimated resistivities (100-260°C ~ emi) were associated with sand, loamy sand, and loam. A low resistivity (35°C - em/w) was predicted for almost every sandy loam. sandy clay loam, and sandy loam: however. this is probably an artifact of the envelope selection procedure (see previous conclusion). 3. Deep soil from the NSMS had lower fifth percentile resist for silt foam (mean resistivities were, respectively. and 79°C - cmiw), and higher resistivity for sand (125 and 100°C - cm/s). tivities for other textures were similar at both depths, 4, The De Vries method to estimate the thermal resistivity of a soil_ given certain other soil properties was used by Berdanier(20) on over 4500 soil horizons from throughout the United States. The present study. following Farouki(32), considers valid only those samples which either were saturated for were coatse soils with degrees of saturation of 0.1 to 0.2. For the saturated soils in Berdanier's data, thermal resistivity ranged from approximately 20 to over 150°C - emiw ver @ wide variely of particle size Glasses. Estimated thermal resistivity of coarse soils at -13 bar suction ranged from 20 to almost 600°C - cmv; most observations were less than 300°C ~ emi, 5. The Soil Thermal Property Estimates using EPIC suggest that four textural classes (sand. silt, clay. and foam) can be used for the simplified system of soil classification according to thermal conductivity. — However, further research is requived to determine those parameters that are significant for understanding the variability within each textural class and developing a more accurate thermal soil classification sysiem This study did not consider the effect of the soil profile: how changes in soil texture with depth influence soil moisture. This could have a practical effect on both the prediction of soil moisture and on the optimal placement of exchanger pipeTable 5-5 DE VRIES METHOD APPLIED TO SCS SOILS DATARASE COEFFICIENT OF HEAT DIFFUSION (5q mm/s) Particle Size Satiated 0.3 bar 215 bar Air Dry Sandy 0.954 0.945 0.487 0.148 0.192 0.129 0.068 0.033, 88 or 37 5 Loamy Skeletal 1.031 180 0.567 0.227 0 566 0.275 07146 86 39 885 0.494 0.185 215 1 9.176 0.142 1 0. 2 Coarse Loamy 0.992 ° 5 196 48 Loamy 0.864 Fine Loamy 0.867 Key: Mean 0.334 Standard Deviation 1328 Count Course Silty 0.686 Fine Silty 0.700 Clayey 0.665 Fine 0.887 Very Fine 0.554 Ashy 0,830 "R, Berdanier, SCS. Fort Worth, ‘exas, performed De Vries analyses. * only soils satisfying Farouki’s(32) saturation fimits are included in the statistical analyses underlying this table (See text), 5-20(aseqeied Slog SOS oy) 01 payddy poyaW SaLsA 2q) SOg PaIeHLE Jo UOISNYIG WH Jo WAPYJID “6-¢ anBLy $8019 9zIS 19104 sommmnamm |£ ‘ . : oi & * + . Z . wth ' : Pye] bya : t . ; wed . : : & + - * + oor > g ' ag + o> sccd 521(asequiva silos S28 aM ©} paddy pomeyy SOuA 2q) silos PayEaMIMSUA Jo YOISNYJIA WAH J 8019 OzIS sioNIOd B801D OZIS sID1UDd 0D “O1-S andy SSID OZIS sjONIOG Auoorery mmrerghuory fous eo METRO, MOT Sy EE + oro wo oro ; ; : 9 : mf ong ong ee ® oes os : 7 a | wor or g g g os oes ore & & 3 woe on 8 oe 3 is cert os? 3 3 a 3 ors ore o> rr oy ah OS woe ey Ag ay og Si— 8109 ¢'0~ 5:22A related inquiry would seek a more informative designation of soil texture in a soil profile which includes marked changes in soil texture class, In this study sand-silt-clay percentiles were averaged over two-foot intervals to classify the intervals. However, this apparently led to misleading results in at least a few cases. For instance, Indiana sandy loam site 5 deep consists of 30 em of sand (sand content greater than 90%) underlain by 30 cm of loam. The vertical averaging process yielded a sandy loam classification for this unit. However. the soil moisture content seems to reflect a generally sandy character. Perhaps the more permeable horizon acts as a drain and controls the moisture content throughout a broad portion of the profile. It may then make sense to identify a depth interval by its most permeable horizon rather than by an average of all horizons, Jt might be useful to determine whether in some climates simply watering the overlying lawn on f@ regular basis (e.g., with @ sprinkler system) could justify a shorter pipe length and result in a net savings to the consumer,Section 6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL This study consisted of: © a iterature search to gather and assemble a database regarding thermal properties of soif and rock: ¢ analysis of the data acquired: and © compilation of this data to provide a source document and field manual useful to the engineering design of ground-coupied heat pumps, ‘This effort was restricted to data in the fiterature. Consequently, gaps in the existing database were identified and are discussed below. LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING DATABASE IN LITERATURE ‘Terminology ‘A. Progress in the development of a method for the prediction of thermal soil properties is limited by the fact that relevant information is. scattered in the literature of @ variety of technical fields, Authors have not used a common terminology and units of measurement to describe the results of field and laboratory measurements of these properties, If a standardized soil. is provided, soii scientists use the textural classification of soils of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This textural classification is different from the Unified Soil Classification System used for engineering purposes, In addition, soil particle-size scales for the USDA and Unified Soil Classification System are different, causing differences in terminology between these two systems. ‘Thermal conductivity (K) in soil studies is normally expressed as W/mK (which is equal to Wim - °C). Other units also have been used, such as mealicm § °C. Buu init) hr °F, Btufft he °F or W/°C + om. Also. the reciprocal of thermal conductivity G.e., thermal tesistivity) has been used in soil studies. In addition, some authors report thermal resistivity, while others report thermal conductivity. C. Soil sciemtists use percentage moisture by volume to express weiness of the soil, whereas engineers use percentage moisture by weight. Relationshipsbetween thermal resistivity and the wetness in soils are usually expressed using moisture by weight. Yet the majority of the moisture data found in the literature is moisture by volume. ‘These limitations need to be removed by the establishment of standard terminology as part of a National Database on Soil Thermal Properties. Soil Thermal Properties A. Textural Classification The Soil Thermal Property Estimates using EPIC suggest that four textural classes (sand, silt. clay. and loam) can he used for the simplified system of soil classification by thermal conduct However. further research is required fo determine those parameters that are significant for understanding the variability within each textural closs and developing a more accurate ‘thermal soil classification system, This study did not consider the effect of the soil profile: how soil texture changes with depth influence soil moisture. This could have a practical effect on both the prediction of soil moisture and on the optimal placement of the pipes for a ground-coupled heat pump system Relationship of Thermal Resistivity Versus Moisture Content There is an inability to define precise envelopes of thermal resistivity versus moisture content relationships for the primary soil groups because neither consistent nor complete geotechnical classification of the soils is available, The limited data thet is available uses the Unified Soit Classification System, yet the moiswre versus texture class data that is available presents the information using the USDA Classification System, From this effort, it appears inappropriate to make generalizations about the thermal behavior of all soils based on fimited data. ‘There exists a complex dependence of thermal resistivity on various soil properties, A complex geotechnical. agronomic. and thermal properties database for a wide variety of soils would be a means of providing valid general information as well as putting earlier work in its proper perspective and providing practical data for present use. ‘The “envelope” curves available to estimate thermal resistivity given soil texture and moisture content contain significant uncertainty at lower moisture contents. This is a consequence of incomplete textural data in the studies which developed these curves. In using the curves there are two selections (0 be made: choice of an’ envelope (coarse or fine-grained soil) and interpolation of a curve within the envelope. In the present study, these choices were felt to be poorly defined for many soils. Uncertainty in choice of @ curve within the texture envelope can lead to differences in predicted thermal resistivity of more than a facter of 2. Uncertainty in choice of an envelope can lead to even greater differences.1N on Soil Moisture Content C. Influence of Precipit ‘Average annual precipitation during the study was 15 to {7 inches/year at four of the study locations, and 36 to 43 inches/year at the remaining two locations. Comparing fifth percentile soil moisture content between these two groups for similar soil textures. tere was little or no evidence of higher soil moisture at the higher precipitation locations. ‘These ‘comparisons were made for coarser soil textures only. (Data for fine-grained soils was not available for both precipitation groups.) Additional climatic and soil regimes are required to explore fully the influence of precipitation. D. Variability in Soil Moisture ‘This study relies im large part on ambient soit moisture data collected--for other purposes--by the Soil Conservation Service over a three- to six-year period at 65 sites in six U.S. counties, each county in a different state. A large portion of the United State's soils and climates are not represented by these data, For instance, there are no sites in the humid northeast or the arid southwest. Considering both the medium- and deep-depth classes, the study includes no silts, and only two sity clays and two siky clay loams, In many cases all the sites within a given category of soil texture are from the same location (county/state). Because of the limited spatial coverage of this field program, and the iow number of sites within some soil textural classes, conclusions from analyses of these data are preliminary and should be reviewed as data is acquired from additional climatic and ‘soil regimes. In addition, longer-term climatic variations, such as droughte, may not be reflected in data from the field study. The possibly important influence of surface slope (as it affects infittration) was not investigated, RECOMMENDATIONS, There exists a need to establish a National Database on Soil Thermal Properties. A comprehensive database using typical soils from all areas of the United States could provide enough information to allow selection of design thermal resistivities, or indicate to local authorities the need to carry out site-specific testing. At present. this data compilation is sufficient t0 provide qualitative trends only. ‘The National Database on Soil Thermal Properties should consist of complete geotechnical (moisture, Proctor density, gradation. Atterberg limits. composition). agronomic (field capacity, wilting point, and soil moisture characteristics curve). and thermal properties (resistivity, diffusivity, heat capacity, dryout curve) for many site-specific soils. ‘The database should be contained on personal computer software that will allow retrieval and comparison of thermal properties for given soil properties and cont terminology should be established and uti tions. StandardSection 7 REFERENCES - THERMAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS 1. J.B. Bose, J. D. Parker, and F.C. MeQuiston. Design/Data Manual for Closed-Loop z Systems. Prepared by Oklahoria Staie University. i Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. G.K. Hartand Wm, 1. Whiddon. * Ground Source Hleat Pump Planning Workshop, Summary of Proceedings.” EPRI Report RP 2033-12. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute. 1984, J. M. Calm. "Proceedings of the Workshop on Ground-Source Heat Pumps. October 27 - November 1. 1986, Albany, NY.” IEA Heat Pump Center Report in HPC-WR:2. Karlsruhe. Federal Republic of Getmany: IEA Heat Pump Center, 1987 4. P. Hughes. "Manual of Acceptable Practices for Installation of Residential Earth Coupled Heat Pump Systems." Syracuse: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp... N.Y. State Energy Research and Development Authority. and Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., 1986 5. LA Salamone. and W. D. Kovacs. "The Determination of Thermal Soil Properties for Energy Transfer Modeling of Buildings.” Proceedings, Energy Conseivation in Building Design and Construction, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 1982. 6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual. 2 ed. Stock No. 2403-00079. Denver: Water and Power Resotirces Service, TORS. ©. T, Farouki, "Thermal Properties of Soils.” CRREL Monograph 81-1, Hanover. New Hampshite: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981 8. S.A. Boggs et al. "Soil Thermal Resisivity and Thermal Stability Measuring Instrument.” EPRI EL-2128. Research Project 7861. Palo Alto. Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1981 9. J. K. Mitchell and T. C. Kao. “Measurement of Soit Thermal Resistivi of the Geotechnical Division. 104(GT10):1307 (October 1978), al ” ASCE Joy 10, W. A, Slusarchuk and P. H. Foulger. "Development and Calibration of a ‘Thermal Conductivity Probe Apparatus.” NRCC 13267. {n.p.}. 1973. Hi. 4. G, Hartley and W, Z. Black. "Predicting Thermal Stability and Transient Response of Soils Adjacent to Underground Power Cables." 7th IEEE/PES Trans, and Dist. Conf. and Exp. [Washington]: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Aprit 1979. p. 316-20. 12. J, B. Steinmanis, "Thermal Property Measurements Using a Thermal Probe.” Underground Cable Thermal Backfill, Toronto: Pergamon Press. 1982. re22. 28, M. S. Kersten. "Thermal Properties of Soils.” Bulletin #28. St, Paul: University of Minnesota Engineering Experiment Station, 1949. D. A. De Vries. "The ‘Thermal _ Conduct Landbouwhorgeschool te Wageninge (ibrary Communication no. 759). of Soil." Medelingen_van_de 52(1):1-73, ‘Translated by Building Research Station In.p.}, 1952. R. McGaw. "Heat Conduction in Saturated Granular Materials.” Highway Research Board Special Report 103. {n.p.|. 1969, pp. 114-141 ©, Johansen, "Thermal Properties of Soils.” CRREL Draft Translation 637. [n.p.[. 1977, L. A. Salomone, W. D. Kovacs. and H, Wechsler. "Thermal Behavior of Fine Grained Soils.” NBS BSS 149, Washington: National Bureau of Standards, 1982. L. A, Salomone, H. Singh, and J. A. Fischer. "Geotechnical Considerations for Designing Underground Transmission Lines.” Presentation to the 1979 Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition. Adanta, Georgia, 1979, 00 Soil Thermal Albany, Ne! TEA Heat Pump Center. 1987 L. A. Salomone, "Soil Property and Extemal Factor Resistivity.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ground-S: York. HPC-WRD.Karlsraie, Federal Republic oF Geta Germany: pp. 81-102, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Soil Conservation Service. _"NSMS_ Fourth Intermediate Data Summary." Washinglon: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1988, U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, "Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples," Soil Survey Investigation Report No. I (rev.). Washington: U.S, Government Printing Office, 1984 L. F. Railiff. J.T. Ritchie, and D. K. Cassel. "Field-Measured Limits of Soil, Water Availability as Related to Laboratory-Measured Properties.” Soil Science Society of America Joumal, 47(4):770-775 (July-August 983). L, D. Baver. W. H. Gardner, and W. R, Gardner. Soil Physics, 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972. ¥. C. Jamison and E. M, Kroth, “Available Soil Moisture Storage Capacity in Relation to Textural Composition and Organic Matter Contents of Several Missouri Soils.” Soil Sci Soc. Am. Proe,. 22:189-192 (1958) E. A. Colman. "A Laboratory Procedure fer Determining the Field Capacity of Field Soils.” Soil Sci, 63:227-283 (1947), J.T. Ritchie. "Soil Water Availability.” Plant Soil $8:327-338 (1981). HN. Holtan et al. "Moisture-Tension Data for Selected Soils on Experimental Watersheds.” RS41-i44. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture J.T. Ritchie. L. F. Ratliff. and D. K, Cassel, "Soil Laboratory Data, Field Descriptions and Field Measured Soil Water Limits for Some Soils of the United States.” ARS Technical Bulletin, Washington: Agricultural Research Service, 1987, 7230, ai. 33. J. R, Williams and K. G, Renard. “Assessments of Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity ‘with Process Models (EPIC),” Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy. In. Crop Science Sodiely of Aimerea, Inc” Soil Seience Society of America, Inc., 1985. pp. 67-103. J. R. Williams, C. A. Jones, and P. T, Dyke. "A Modeling Approach to Determining the Relationship Between Erosion and Soil Productivity.” ‘Transactions of the ASAI 21(1):129-144 (1984). D. A. De Vries. "Thermal Properties of Soils." In Physics of Plant Environment, W. R. Van Wijk, ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co,. 1963 ©. Farouki. "Evaluation of Methods for Calculating Soil Thermal Conductivity.” Rept. 82-8, CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 1982. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil_Taxonomy Agriculture Handbook No. 436. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1975. 73Section 8 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ‘The literature on the thermal properties of rocks is vast. and dates from the early part of the twer eth century. Data from this literature have been compiled and summarized in several works published during the past 70 years, ‘The more recent literature. published during the past (wo decades, is contained in various computerized reference lists. in compiling the information on thermal conductivity and thermal diffusion of rocks that is presented in this report and the accompanying field manual, a search of available information sources in the is date, Hundreds of printed references were identified and examined for their relevance to the objects of this United States was made that i believed to be nearly exhaustive as of 1 study. ‘This information was obtained through searches of computerized reference lists such as GeoRef. the NASA database, and the U.S. Department of Energy database. as well as comprehensive searches of selected technical libraries using computerized cross-index systems. of the purposes of this project, the most useful references proved to be similar compilations previously published by various authors. These authors collected and organized data on measured thermal properties of rocks and compared them with other observable characteristics ova, and of those rocks. The more recent compilations. such as those of Moisciyenko, Soko {stomin (1970}(34), Toutoukian, Jue, and Roy (1980)(35), and Robertson (1988)(36). quantified to various extenis the relationships between thermal conductivity and such parameters as neral composition, texture, and water content of rocks. With the refinement of techniques for measuring thermal properties in rocks. and the growing body of reliable data. the later compilations are much more definitive than earlier ones and provide the basis for characterization of expected ranges of thermal properties, based upon more easily observable Properties of rocks. COMPUTER SEARCHES Computer searches were carried out on the following reference lists NASA library holdin © U.S. Geological Survey holdings list 81© USS, Nuclear Regulatory Commission document room holdings ist ¢ US, Department of Bnergy, Sandia National Laboratory, database PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Contacts were made with informed individuals in the field of thermal properties of rocks. in order to obiain initial guidance toward the most recent sources of information in that field, “These contacts included: © Dr. Mysore Nataraj - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Washington, D.C. @ Dr. E. C. Robertson, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia ‘© Dr. Tom Shankland, U.S. NRC, Los Alamos National Laboratories. Los Alamos, New Mexico © Mr, Paul 7, Prestholt, U.S. NRC. Las Vegas Test Site. Las Vegas, Nevada © Dr. A.C. Grant, Atlantic Geoscience Centre, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia © Dr, David Benson, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario ¢ Dr. Richard H. Berry. Roy F. Weston, Inc... West Chester, Pennsylvania © Dr. J. N, Sweet, Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque. New Mexico REFERENCE ACQUISITION References were obtained in the holdings of fbr s in the Washington, D.C.. area. through interlibrary loan to one of those libraries. or by purchase or gift from the author or institution of oF Libraries and document-storage facilities of the following organizations were utilized for this project © US. Geological Survey, Headquarters, Reston, Virginia S. Department of Energy, Washington. D.C. * U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D.C. © U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. © George Washington University, Washington, D.C. © University of Maryland. College Park. Maryland 82Section 9 FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF ROCKS The thermal conductivity of rocks and their component minerals has been the subject of investigation by many authors since the heginning of the present century, Periodically, the available data from the literature have been compiled and summarized by various authors. ‘These compilations include the work of Schulz (1924)(37), Birch, Schairer, and Spicer, eds. (1942)(38), Clark (1966)(39), Robertson (1979)(40), Touloukian, Judd, and Roy(35), and Robertson (1988)(36), each of which includes an extensive list of references, In these summaries, factors apparently causing variations in thermal conductivity of the various kinds of rocks on which measurements were made are cliscussed. All of these authors point out that different kinds of rocks have different valves of thermal conductivity. ‘These variations have been related by various authors to differences in conductivity of the minerals that sake up the rocks, « the way in which the mineral crystals contact one another. to the interstitial water content of the rock, and to other factors. Some of the earlier investigators did not inciude adequate descriptions of the rocks on which they conducted thermal conductivity measurements. as was pointed out by Birch, Schairer, and Spicer(38). The quality of this type of supporting information has improved with time. and later authors were able to point out correlations among the several variable factors. Thus, Woodside and Messmer (1961)(41) demonstrated that, in porous sandstones, thermal conductivity decreased with increasing poros Moiseiyenko. Sokolova, and Istomin (1970)(34) found that, in the rocks they studied, conductivity varied inversely with basicity, fracturing, and weathering, and directly with ‘water content. In a handbook edited by Volarovich (1978)(42), it was stated that, in addition to these factors, conductivity also increases as the gt decreases with the content of amorphous-phase materials (glass). Plewa (1976)(43). in a series of carefully controled measurements, showed that, in addition, sedimentary rocks size of the minerals increases and containing significant proportions of clay materials conducted heat more efficiently parallel to bedding planes than perpendicular to those planes. Numerous other authors have also 9-1pointed out these trends, and there is general agreement among investigators as 10 the qualitative effects of these factors on thermal conductivity. ‘There is less agreement on their quantitative effects. Various investigators have established mathemati cal models for the relationships observed. in individual mineral crystals and on specimen rocks, including the effects of water flms, overall density, and inter-erystalline matrix composition. Often, however, trends derived and extrapolated from such measurements do not agree with observed values, and investigators in this field agree that much further work is needed to fully define the factors that influence thermat conductivity in rocks. It has been pointed out by Touloukian, Judd. and Roy (1980)(35) that much discrepancy exists in the vast literature on the subject between the original sources of measured data and later citations of those same data. They also remarked that there is extreme scatter in the data and... lack of adequate specimen characterization”; hence, they reported ranges of probable values for the various types of rock. within each of which there might be considerable variation in physical properties, The iaistograms of thermal conductivity for various rocks at room temperature that these authors presented are the basis for much of the information on expected ranges for condui ivity given in this manual The report by Robertson (1988)(36) provides grashs based on empirical data. from which predicted values for thermal conductivity can be obtained for common rocks, if information on the minerat_ composi best presently available source for predicted values. as it was written to meet design requirements of such practical applications of earth science as radioactive waste disposal. geothermal heat resource studies, and the subject of this study. The graphs are based upon the results of research on vesicular basalt rocks by Robertson and Peck (1974)(44). in which the authors found that thermal conductivity varies as a function of the complement of porosity squared, ait or water pore saturation, and content of relatively larger crystals (phenocrysts) mm, porosity, and water content are available, This reference is the of minerals with high conductivities, This report also treats the effect of temperature and pressure on thermal conduc includes tables ity, and isting the conductivities of common rock-forming minerals and thermal expansions of common rocks and minerals. If the rock in question is examined by a geologist to obtain the needed information on mineral composition and other parameters, relatively narrow ranges of probable conductivity can be estimated from these charts The ranges of thermal conductivity presented in the accompanying field manual have been derived from reports of the previously mentioned authors and have been modified so as to be 92compatible with levels of rock identification that can be accomplished by the person with little or no skill in petrology. In many cases, this produces a level of precision that is considerably less than that achievable through the use of Robertson's charts. However, most cases it still provides information that is sufficient to aid in the efficient design of ground-coupled heat pump systems. As the thermal conductivities of common rocks vary by factors of as much as 4, and the length of pipe required in ground-loop heat exchangers is directly proportional to the conductivity of the ground medium, this level of information in should prove very useful to the designer, 93Section 10 SELECTION OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY VALUES FOR SYSTEM DESIGN Values for thermal conductivity of various Kinds of rocks, as reported by the authors cited in section 9. vary over a range of less than 0.5 Btu(fiyhr fi? °F (for pumice. a volcanic glass) to approximately 4.5 Brutfiyihr fi” °F (for wet. quartzase sandstone). Ranges of variation for specific types of rocks, for which numerous determinations have been made, are given in figures 11-1 through 11-3, The bar graphs in these figures were derived from more detailed (and, to @ certain extent, more inclusive) charts and graphs developed by Touloukian, Judd, and Roy(35) and Robertson(36). as well as from ranges of expected conductivity tabulated by Touloukian, Judd, and Roy and Moiseiyenko, Sokolova. and Istomin (1972)(34) and others as referenced in table 11-1 ‘Thus, ranges of conductivity values are available for a wide variety of mck types. If the Fock type can be identified, conservative values can be selected from these charts that will allow the efficient design of the installation, snd consequently will avoid the cost of unnecessary drilling and piping. In the accompanying field manual, procedures are recommended for the identification of rock lypes at the site so the conductivity ranges described above can be utilized. Information on the identity of rocks can be obtained through two epproaches. One approach searches out available information, which often may produce the needed rock identifications at little or no cost to the investigator, The other provides a means of roughly classifying rocks into categories, each of which may include more than one type of rock: this approach presumes no knowledge of or skill at petrology on the part of the investigator, In fact, most individuals who drill wells or excavate rocks have some understanding of the rock types in the areas of their operations: therefore, in many cases the second approach may be cartied farther. depending on the skill of the individual, so that rock types can be identified. ‘These two approaches are discussed in detail in the accompanying field manval.Section 11 ‘THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY VALUES FOR ROCKS VALUES FOR ROCK TYPES In figures 11-1, 11-2, and: 11-3, ranges of thermal conductivity values for various types of rock. as reported by the authors fisted in table 11-1, are presented, ‘These figures are intended for use when the type of rock at the site has been identified, using the methods described in the accompanying fiekl manual. Ranges compatible with the petrologic groups defined in the manual are presented in figure 11-4 Table 11-1 SOURCES FOR THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY RANGES DEPICTED IN FIGURES 11-1. 11-2, AND 11-3 (See Section 13 for Complete Re‘erence Information) S. P. Clark, Jr., 1966(39) - phyllite, schist. peridotite U, 1, Moiseiyenko, L. §. Sokolova, and V. Ye. Istomin, 1972(34) - siltstone, claystone, diorite. granite E. C. Robertson, 1979(40) - obsidian, perlite, pumice E. C. Robertson, 1988(36) - basalt, shale, granite, limestone, dolomite, sandstone Y. S. Touloukian, W. R. Judd. and R. F. Roy, 1980/35) - andesite, granite, diorite, rhyolite, schist, amphibolite, tuff, marble. peridotite VALUES FOR PETROLOGIC GROUPS Figure 11-4 presents expected ranges of thermal conductivity values for the petrotogi groups defined in the accompanying manual. These ranges represent the combined values for the component rack types contained within each petrologic grou HL 112, and 11-3 . as given in figures tdrau, LTE ania, £01 1 sdnoig a¥Bojornag “syooe (Boxe, Jo soMaHOMpUED [2 dnous a190710H13d eued ‘weipieao, I eowng ‘ nous o190710HL3d 7 0 ota ¥ e z 1 do 23) wanna SNOOU TOIdAL 4O SALLIAULONGNOD TWNUSHL n2puny feud, “14 oan 01 p sdnosp s1Bojounag “sO wud y, Jo saH emopuied ouaaeo, ava eiioia eiuozuow z4¥00, e1yoipounss enue s anows 91D010HLad eucyereig vores dnoue d190T0NLad Ot AM e ze b Jo Ub wane SHOU TWOIdAL 4O S3ILIALLONGNOD IWWHHLa1Bojosiag “SON pUOLD PUY,“ ving 1004-710 so0d-710 sor1189 eoz1se00 euizieno dNous 919070HLad erasen ‘erworoa, euorsows L Janows o1p010H134 onndug ssieuo emoqiudury ie1u9s 9 Janows o19070HL3d ce Ot wm ' fo 1) wonne SNDOU TVOIdAL 40 SALLIALLONGNOD TWWHAHL 4sxdnoip o@oyouag Jo sonuenonpuo3 ymusouy, “pi | 2nd dnoud OIDOTOHLAd OM do 234 sWannLe SdNOWD DIDOTOUL3d 4O SHILIAILONGNOS WAHSHL InsSection 12 THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY OF ROCKS Few data are available on the thermal diffusivity of rocks. Touloukian. Judd, and Roy(35) presented a synthesis of data from the literature for @ few types of rock, and that information is reproduced here as table 12-1. Table 12-1 ‘THERMAL DIFFUSIVITIES OF SOME ROCKS (After Touloukian, Judd. and Roy‘ Dolostones 85 Gypsum 3.04 Tutt 6.5 & Basalt 48 - Diabase 195-1.07 x 10% Diorite [96 x 10 gee Granite (1 case) 1.35 x 10°, m,see Marble (1 case) 117 x 106m} sec” Quarzite (1 case) 244 x 10 msec Sandstone 72-15 x 10 According to Robertson (1988)(36). not enough measurements of thermal diffusivity exist for graphs to be prepared showing its var simpler to catculate it using the formula: om with porosity and temperature in rocks, and it is k= Ka C Where k = thermal diffusivity K = thermal conductivity d= density = specific heat 124Specific heats of rocks can be estimated using modal analy is and charts for mineral specific heats pro weight and per degree per unit volume are given. Using modal analysis, the latler curves are ded by Robertson(36). Curves showing values of specific heat per degree per unit the easier to use and the more applicable. The curves present data for many common, rock for jing minerals. Specific heat of a given rock can be calculated from these curves by summing the mineral specific heats in proportion to the volumetric percentage of the rock as represented by each mineral, as: ie KC) = XG + XC + XC Where ic composite specific heat = {otal volume of mineral constituents. Xe volumetric percentage of individual minerals, = total resultant specific heat of minerals C,. Cy. = specific heat of individual mineral constituents ‘The composite specific heat C, must be multipl ‘complement of porosity, or | - % porosity) to account for the pore volume of the rock. jed by the observed solidity of the rock (the ‘The modal analysis and estimation of porosity who is skilled in petrology of rocks requires the services of @ geologist For rough estimation of spec compiled by Goranson (1942)(45), which shows specific heats of common rocks at various temperatures up to 200°C. Excerpts from this table are presented in the present report as fed by quali information; therefore, it is not known how representative of the specified rock type they jc heats of racks, Rohertson(36) presented a table originally table 12-2. The values in this table are not a mpan ing. descriptive are. Because of this, these values should be used only where rough estimates are appropriate. In cases where more precise values are needed, specific heat should be calcu charts presented by Robertson(36). wed using the Values for density of rocks, needed in the calculation of thermal diffusivity. are also tabulated by Robertson(36), using data from Daly (1966)(46). Clark (1966)(39), and Manger (1966)(47), Those values. together with data from Dietrich, Dutro. and Foose (198248). are presented here in table 12-3. 12.2Table 122 SPECIFIC HEATS OF COMMON ROCKS AT 50-60°C (Afler Robertson(36)) Specific Heat Rock Type 10" kg K) Granite 0.77 Diovite 0.81 Granitic gneiss 0.79 Quartzite 077 Marbie 0.85 Sandstone 0.93 Sandstone, micaceous 073 Shale 07 Limestone 1.00 Average 0.82 123Table 12-3 BULK DENSITY OF COMMON ROCKS Rock Decimal Butk Density Type Porosity (giem') Reference Granite : 2.67 . 1966(46) Granodiorite - 272 1966(46) Syenite - 2.76 . 1966(46) Quartz diovite - 2.81 1966146) Diorite - 2.84 + 196646) Gabbro - 2.98 + 1966046) Diabase - 2.97 196646) Peridotite - 323 1966(46) Dunite - 3.28 Daly, 196646) Granite gneiss : 27 Clark. 1966039) Quartz-mica schist : 28 Clarke, 1966139} State - 28 Clark, 196639) Amphibolite - 3.0 Clark, 196609) Eclogite : 34 Clark, 196639) Rhyolite-docite 22-27 Dietrich. Dutio. and Foose, 1982(48) Andesite - 24-28 Dietrich. Dutro, and Foose. 1982/48) Basalt 7 27-30 Dietrich. Dutro. and Foose. 1982148) Sandstone* 007 27 Manger. 1966(47) Sandstone* 10 25 Manger, 196647) Sandstone* 20 23 Manger. 196547) Sandstone* 30 22 Manger. 196647) Limestone 005 27 Manger. 196687) Limestone* 05 26 Manger. 1966447) Chalk" 30 22 Manger. 1966(47) Dolomite 03 28 Manger. 1966(47) Shale* 05 2.6 Manger, 196647) Shale* 20 2.35 Manger. 1966(47) Sand* 50 19 Manger. 196647) Silt* “75 145 Manger. 196647) “Bulk density values are for samples saturated with water 12434 35 36, 37, 38 9 40. 41 42. 44. 4s. Section 13 REFERENCES - THERMAL PROPERTIES OF ROCKS U. 1. Moiseiyenko. L. S. Sokolova, and V. Ye. Istomin, “Electric and Thermal Properties of Rocks." NASA Technical Translation TT-F-671. Novosibirsk, Siberian Department: "Nauka” Press. 1970. Y. S. Touloukian, W. R. Judd. and R. F. Roy. Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Eugene C. Robertson, "Thermal Properties of Rocks.” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-441. Reston, Va.: U.S, Geological Survey, 1988. Karl Schulz. "Numerische Angaben uber physialische und chemische Eigenschaften der Mineralien: C, Die Warmeleitung in Mineralien. Gesteinen und den kunstlich hergestellten Stoffen von entsprechender Zusammensetzung.” In Fortschritte de _ Mineralogie. Kristallographie und Petrographie. Band 9. A. Johnsen. ef Jena Verlag vor Gusta Fischer 14 pp a Francis Birch, "Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity." In Handbook _of Physical Constanss, Francis Birch. J.P Schalrer, and H. Cecil Spicer. eds. Geo}ogieal Society ‘of America, Spee. Paper No. 36. Boulder, Col.: Geological Society of America, 1942, pp. 244-266. S. P. Clark, Jr.. ed, Handbook of Physical Constants. Geological Society of America Memoir 97,” Boulder, Coi.: Geological Society of America, 1966, Eugene C. Robertson, "Thermat Conductivity of Rocks.” U.S, Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-356, Reston. Va.: U.S. Geologicat Survey, 1979, W. Woodside and J, H, Messmer. "Thermal Conductivity of Porous Media, 11, Consolidated Rocks." Joumat of Applied Physics, 32:1699-1706 (1961). M. P. Valarovich, ed. "Teplovye svoistva mineralov i gomykh porod.” In Spravachnik po fizicheskim _svoistvamn_mineralov_i_gormykh porod_pre_vysokikh _termodinamichesKikR parametrakh. Moscow: "Nedra. 1978. S. Plewa. "Correlation Between Thermal Conductivity and Other Physical Parameters of Rocks.” Geoelectric and Geothermal Studies (East-Central Europe. Soviet Asi ed. Budapest: Akademiat Kiado. 1976. pp 4832 Eugene C. Robertson and Dallas Peck. "Thermal Conductivity of Vesicular Basalt from Hawaii.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 79:4875-4888 (1974) R. W. Goranson. "Heat Capacity of Rocks.” In Handbook of Physical Constants. F. Birch. ed. Geological Society of America Spec. Paper 36. Boulder, Col.: Geological Society of America, 1942, Table 16-2. pp. 235-236. 13146, R. A. Daly, “Average Densities of Holocrystalline Igneous Rocks.” In Handbook of Physical Constants. §. P. Clark, Jr., ed. Geological Society of America Memoir 97. Boulder, Col Geological Society of America, 1966. Table 4-1. p. 20 47. G. E. Manger. “Porosity and Bulk Density, Dry and Saturated, of Sedimentary Rocks.” In Handbook of Physical Constants. S. P. Clark, Jr., ed. Geological Society of America Memoir 97, Boulder. Col.: Geological Society of America. 1966, Table 4-4. pp. 23-25. 48, R. V. Diettich, J. P. Dutro. Jr. and R. M. Foose. "Physical Constants (at $.7.P.)." AGI Data Sheet 46.2. Washington: American Geolog.cal Institute. 1982. 13-2APPENDIX A THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES GEOTHERM DATATHERAL RESIS"IVITY ( C-cn/t) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES is/ecd s | : cco 2,07 concrete, 68 ate MOISTURE CONTENT Gk DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-l, Concrete, 6% Air EntrainedTHERNAL RESISTIVITY ( C-ew THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES ie Greet MPL ORY DENGIIY _ BESCRIPETON coer 1.62 concrete, 350 toa air so MOISTURE CONTENT (@ DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-2. Concrete, 10% Air Entrained ADTHERMAL BRYDUT CURVES s/ee) ray-beowa fhne nieces = THERMAL RESIS MOESTURE CONTENT (% ORY WEIGHT) Figure A-3. Light Gray-Brown Fine Sandy Silt With Some Fine to Coarse Rounded Gravel ABTHERMAL RESISTVITY ( C-cwv¥) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES G/ee) wez2 1.20 red-oroun gravealy send with Sone" ate ow MOISTURE CONTENT (DRY MEEGHT Figure A-4. Red-Brown Gravelly Sand With Some Silt AdTHERMAL DRYOUT CURVES are OR BREET wrSCRIETTON | rere 2,12 erushea limestone «SM) NOISTURE CONTENT c& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-5. Crushed Limestone Screenings (of 3) AS(302) sujuoaiog auowsawwy] paysni “s-v amnBia % auMD aruson Swe ous 5% LMT anor sauavews oud sYeqwhs drain pum aiduns yo voyo>ys5019 Nounawisio zis NvED AG36 7b) 0 ag 1s amas Spar Coir t’iony aezoiny Figure A-3. Crushed Limestone Screenings Gof) ATTHERMAL DRYOUT CURVES soo leet wirll 2,07 Sn to egarse geamlar flit «sm a7. : = THERMAL RESIST MOISTURE CONREMT (% DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-6. Fine to Coarse Granular Fill ABTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-ewil) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES rect Mar13 2.00 res-trows sandy £18 wien fine 25" cbazse sm WOLSTURE CONTENT C& DRY HEIGHT? Figure A-7. Red-Brown Sandy Silt With Fine to Coarse Gravel, AgTHERMAL DRYOUT CURVES (e/es} peso? 2.02 crushed stone ism) THERMAL RESISTVITY MOISTURE CONTENT (DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-8. Crushed Stone (1 of 3) A10(£2) ‘QuoIs paUsTUD “g-Y andi % sam Jupusew JOQuAS dono pur eau 40 voUDoys0ID une ome smnumuny so weaeuian saunawows suse ‘lmann 20 an@oieo toe" e Pier ne a om NOUS HE All~ PROCTOR COMPACTION” TEST Figure A-8. Crushed Stone Gof 3} AldTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/H) THERMAL BRYOUT CURVES. ae ree mois 1.05. Ligne brown eaicarious| Seawesiy and GP) 175, a0 x00 MOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-9. Light Brown Calcarious Gravelly Sand With Some SiftTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cn/i) THERNAL DRYOUT CURVES Fierce oer omer cescrrerion | wire) : MEd .79 fine e9 coarse shale 00 6 50 2 MOISTURE CONTENT GL DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-10. Fine to Coarse Shale FragmentsTHERMAL DRYOUT CURVES: SAMPLE ERY DENSITY __OESCRKPSTON ae ise) Revol 1.83 covgheg Lisextone Fenseninge (sm) z WERNAL RESISTI MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY EIGHT? Figure A-11, Crushed Limestone Screenings (of 2)(300 sBuuaaiog auowsouiry paused “11-¥ aunty Se emer | mats tn patios 0 | as een nee Scene! oo ren ae ees bes o rh ; e Al6TY ( Coens THERIAL, RESISTI ve DRYOUT CURVES soo ‘greed Mrol 1,86 fine to coarse sana wits Slne tS med on Gravel vs «sw MOISTURE CONTENT ( DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-12. Fine to Coarse Sand With Fine to Medium Gravel AATTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-on/i) THERYAL DRYOUT CURVES a ta/es} + |ncioz 3.76 ‘crushed shale and Vinertone sereaninge «sM) an ws 1s so 2s MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-13. Crushed Shale and Limestone Screenings ABTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cn/) | acm ovo cos \ RIDLE DAY DENSITY DESCRIPHION oa (greed : sns02 1,95 zed very rine sandy eS sie | (ML) MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-14. Red Very Fine Sandy sitt AdTY (Coen THERMAL RESIST THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES (ies) wwe20 1.28 2egne, geap-orowe Piss Leon cegenict (s) MOISTURE CONTENT C& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-15, Light Gray-Brown Gravelly Sand With Trace Silt, Ash, Organic A20S z THERMAL, DRYOUT CURVES i rssh : Loo Pros es seasteoun tine attey saleeres FASE 2a ns ‘sw sod ae NDISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-16, Red-Brown Fine Silty Sand With Fine to Medium Gravel A2LTHERNAL DRYOUT CURVES a igs} wes Le? ereshed 2tono ‘su THERMAL, RESESTI MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY HEIGHT) Figure A-17, Crushed Stone AdTHERMAL DRYOUT CURVES fisoce nv oaeree onecnzpaton Syeei grey-brown fine sandy EE With eine (sw MOESTURE CONTENT (& DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-18, Gray-Brown Fine Sandy Silt With Fine to Coarse Gravel, Some Cinders A23THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-oH/¥) KERMAL DRYOUT CURVES ne siee! | syed 1.70 ecebeown sandy st ns Ws?) ° 2 7 « tow oe MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHTY Figure A-19. Red-Brown Sandy Silt With Fine to Coarse Gravel AldIVITY ( C-entwn THERMAL RES] THERMAL DAVOUT CURVES nM aes E soo 7 ams02 2.72 gray rounded fine eo onkoa sand with sine 250. Ws) MOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY NEIGHT> Figure A-20. Gray Rounded Fine to Coarse Sand With Fine Gravel A2sTHERMAL RES'STINITY ¢ C-cwrin aoe 00 THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES TRIPLE DRY DENSTEY _OESCRIPTON iaiee) pr2k 1.79 brow fine co coscse Zing with five ee Fastum grave (SP) MOISTURE CONTERT C& DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-21. Brown Fine to Coarse Sand With Fine to Medium Gravel A26THERNL RESISTIVITY ( C-on/} THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES epi ORY DENSITY tye) 250 208 00 peor 173 tine to coarse sand tence gravel ism) (MOISTURE CONTENT <2 DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-22. Fine to Coarse Sand With Some Silt and Trace Gravel (lof 2) AQT“Thermal Property Analyela and Equipment Figure A-22. Fine to Coarse Sand With Some Silt and Trace Gravel (2 of 2) ABTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-ew/¥) see 20 50 THERMAL DRYQUT CURVES APLE ORY DENSITY DESCRIPTION ies) = mie 168 brown aflty gransiar - ait 1s?) MOISTURE CONTENT (@ DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-23. Brown Silty Granular Fill A29THERMAL DRVOUT CURVES SAMPLE Bay ORSSTFY DESCRIPTION = ig/esh mand 140 black fine £0 coarse Geasorestie cing FIST Eine tot comsse Sreveliy sen 250. (oP) 200 ase. THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/i) 100. MOISTURE CONTENT (i DRY HEIGHT) Figure A-24. Black Fine to Coarse Gravel-Size Cinders With Fine to Coarse Gravelly SandTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/i) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES eee! 400 ~ swat 2.90 red-orown silty sand sit Sone gravel’ iso, soo aod NOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-25, Red-Brown Silty Sand With Some Gravel ASITY (Coens THERMAL RESISTI' THERNAL DRYOUT CURVES AAPLE ORY BENGI=Y __SESCRIPSTON tayeeh 400 r vem 1.67 yells fine eand SP) ase 250 130. +0 wo MOISTURE CONTEXT (% DRY HEIGHT) Figure A-26. Yellow Fine Sand (1 of 2) Adz. duesog sueaey AITHERMAL RES STIVITY ( C-cw/itd THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES. a (Sree) 7 Prim 1.62 Fine gilion sand (sP) ase 00 2004 250 200. s04— MOISTURE CONTENT (DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-27. Fine Silica Sand (of 2) 34(Zoo Pues EoyES auld “Lc-v aunBhy ABSTHERMAL DRYOUT CURVES ig/eed : ine sites sand (se) MO[STURE CONTENT <@ DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-28. Fine Silica Sand (of 2) A236pv) Pues wotlis auld “8Z-W UUNBty ASTTHERMAL DRYOUT. CURVES ae eies) press 2.60 unite fine send 350. “| so ne! ° > . 2 t é wow MOSTURE CORTENT <& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-29. White Fine Sand (1 of 2) A38(2302) Duos ould HUA “6z-W amnBEE oquiks dneio pu sduog 70 vowng3019, umauniN as OD —aall A39THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw't) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES ‘geet soo ns) Lee Babe ray tine to feavel at (swr 250 100. MOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY ¥EIGHTD Figure A-30. Light Gray Fine to Coarse Sand With Trace Silt and ‘Some Fine Gravel (1 of 3) A40Feawig outy awog PUE IIIS 29811, YEA PUB assH09 OF aul {EID WB] “OE-V anBLy A4lSay DeNSTAY ve Nesenuni’ Covtint piiaesonsitie “Thermal Property Azalyels cad Bquipaent Figure A-30. Light Gray Fine to Coarse Sand With Trace Silt and Some Fine Gravel Gof 3) AddTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-ca/#) THERRAL DRYOUT CURVES 400 -— 350 300 250 ase. sof RAPE Desenierron pews 1.75 Fine to nediun sana ow MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-31. Fine to Medium Sand A43THERMAL, RESISTIVETY ( C-cw/H 400 256 ase THERNAL DRYOUT CURVES ___is/ech iz - pews 16 reciun to coarse sand sw MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY HEIGHT) Figure A-32. Medium to Coarse Sand AeTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/ith THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES CASPEE DRY DENSITY OESCRIPTVGN ‘a ig/eeh ' neon 1.76 Fine to coarse sant sw 80 MOISTURE CONTENT CL DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-33. Fine to Coarse Sand AASTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-en/ity THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES oo saree) ie ppos 1.62 Ligne geay-beaws site 250 ott 200 so 1 Boo MOISTURE CONTENT CZ DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-34. Light Gray-Brown Silt With Some Gravel and Organics A-46THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/' THERMAL DRYDUT CURVES eM gree) Silgaly clayey aint SES tees and My MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY HEIGHT Figure A-35. Dark Gray-Brown Slightly Clayey Silt With Trace Sand AATTY (Cow THERMAL, RESISTI! ‘THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES i wreck 400 ~ 5190 -1.75 Light gray fine vo . coarse aand. wish teacl z SETS Ged sone’ fine : Gravel a0) sw 300 250 ase. so MOISTURE CONTENT (% DRY WEIGHED Figure A-36. Light Gray Fine to Coarse Sand With Trace Silt and Some Fine Gravel (of 3) A48we ee 3 [sores atic | ioeaes °° Tere ail poe ES Sati Nounenusia 325 Nee A49“Thermal Property Analysis and Bquipment Figure A-36. Light Gray Fine to Coarse Sand With Trace Silt and Some Fine Gravel Gof 3) A50THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/¥? THERNAL DRYOUT CURVES SRIPLE DRY BENGY®Y DESCRIPTION a ges) ous t Be01 1.80 gesEE Brown aint silt] | SAU" Sone elay ahd tase sand ny 280) MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY NELGHT? Figure A-37. Stiff Brown Moist Silt Till With Some Clay and Trace Sand ASLTHERNRL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES were) by oso 200 200 150 100 se NOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY HEIGHT) Figure A-38, Organic Sand With SitTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cwrwy THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES (s/ee} 169 soft to fem moist SEE chaos tine sand i ane organics cu 80 MOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-39. Soft to Firm Moist Gray-Brown Silty Clay With ‘Trace Fine Sand and Organics ASTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/#) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES arco. 1.63 red-brown very silty Eloy eli wich a eraec| Se"hane gavel sso sc) se NOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHT Figure A-40. Red-Brown Very Silty Clay Till With a Trace of Fine Gravel ASSTIVITY ( C-ew it) THERMAL REST THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES gree) wrod 1.67 sine ta medion 44 ist) POISTURE CONTENT (@ DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-41. Fine to Medium Sand. Some Silt, Trace Gravel ASSTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-ew THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES a (g/cc reed 15a grquel,sandyand eta ay : isc) MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHT? Figure A-42, Gravel, Sand, and Clay Fill (of 2) AS6oo PUB “PURS “ALIN “Zp-y auNBly ASTTHERWAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/¥) THERMAL BRYOUT CURVES oH Werecl an i sort 2.77 hard notet gray sity Shy TAT See afeeke a Sind Gna eine gravel 380 oly MOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-43. Fine Gravel Hard Moist Gray Silty Clay Till With Little Sand and ASBSISTIVITY ( Coowity THERMAL. RE: THERNAL, DRYOUT CURVES ‘DR! DENSINY _SpSoREParoN ae (fee! P pers 1.70 compact notse brown sedvaiack fine sand fo coarse gravel and slag #213 (sw) 50 MOISTURE CONTENT «& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-44. Compact Moist Brown and Black Fine Sand to Coarse Gravel and Slag Fill ASTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/ity THERHAL DRYOUT CURVES es gree) a mas 1.75 fine aflty send : ay x80 250 roe. NOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WEIGHD Figure A-45. Fine Silty Sand A-60THERMAL RES:STIVITY ( C-cw/i) THERMAL, DRYOUT CURVES EDIE ORY DENGIIY __ DESCRIPEYON i (gies) 35.03 1.50 fing to medium beach sm 380 200 250 200 MOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-46. Fine to Medium Beach Sand (1 of 2) A6I«po Pues yowog WNIPAW OF Bul “Op-Y aunBLy equ drain peo Hawes Jo voNUIPDID smrumeno © woo "wea 39 arian tamer as UID ADTHERMAL RESISTIVITY ( ¢-cw/t) THERNAL DRYOUT CURVES (ANPEE ERY BENSERY tg/ee 400 200 40 ever 2.62 silty very fine sang iso MOISTURE CONTENT (& DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-47._ Silty Very Fine Sand A-63 te aeTERNAL RESISTIVITY ( C-ewn 350 300 THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES TAHPLE ORY DENSTAY DESCRIPTION wrest = as02 1.60 Eine to neaiue sand sP MOISTURE CONTENT CR DRY WEIGHT) Figure A-48. Fine to Medium Sand (1 of 2) A64tod pues wWnipewy o1 auld “RPV aun % vou aren | veguts dno pie ephing 0 uaa se epee ies Xn oro ruven 0 wera poe oe ium 9 bene aoe sain ve oo patos noe WS Sg RL a Nounemsia 3215 MHD A65THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( Cem) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES SOIR SRY DENSITY DESCRIPTION ae cares) 7 pesos 1.82 as0 250 200. 30 NOISTURE CONTERT CH DAY WEIGHT) Figure A-49. Sandy Silt A-66THERNAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw/¥) THERYAL DRYOUT CURVES TRHDLE ORE DENSITY BRGCRIPSTOH greed 400 pest aa ‘ite sang sity sone (sh) a0 3 sed . MOISTURE CONTENT <& DRY HELGATD Figure A-50. White Sand With Some Root and Organics (1 of 2) A670 so1UeB1O pure oy 2wOg YIN PUES BM “OS-Y aunFLy, Teo ie nourenusia 35 NMwO A68THERMAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cu/'t) THERMAL DRYOUT CURVES \ r Gren dao ‘sn 250) 00 100. POISTURE CONTENT CR DRY WECGHT? Figure A-S1. Yellow Sand With Fine Decomposed Organics (1 of 2) A69peo soqueB1g pasodusooag ould YIM PUUS MOUIZA “1S-¥ 2BIL NNoquts énei9_pue adung jo vouDoyiNEOI mnwnero ao w2us300 Auwenane 2 NSIS sonmai 4 995, 9019 A-70THERNAL RESISTIVITY ( C-cw THERNAL DRYOUT CURVES tgieed : pevar 2.40 very sas gray organic| tangy eiltcenea! rag" NOISTURE CONTENT (2 DRY WETGETD Figure A-52. Very Soft Gray Organic Sandy Sift, Shell Fragments. and Some Clay (1 of 2) AT@j0) a1 awos pure ‘stuawiBery [YS US APuBg o1RB19 deID YOS A9Q “Z6-y audi, + % vers aruson | uaa TX MEN GRiSes | yews dnoig pu mauns jo voyooyee0}9 Sa enees Tx inn anon annrano 49 241700 ‘euro sauncwow aus Vameann 29 aDUC “aprons br oor BEE HSE ewer ae OH 80” BOE OF Bete AO Shay wee sous murstre on tone ASS PERE lg WC SERB ON Bn Noureusa 32s Nimo An