See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40802024

Soil compaction

Article · January 2004

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

0 450

4 authors, including:

Jan J.H. van den Akker Harm van den Heiligenberg

Wageningen University & Research Utrecht University
153 PUBLICATIONS   1,848 CITATIONS    799 PUBLICATIONS   4,416 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RECARE View project

INTER-ASPA - PN-III-P1-1.2-PCCDI-2017-0721 - Tools for modeling processes at the interface between water, soil, plants and air in order to promote the
sustainable management of groundwater dependent ecosystems and their integrating river basins View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Hoogland on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soil Compaction
Jan van den Akker
Catalin Simota
Tom Hoogland
Introduction
• Introduction
• Risk Assessment Methods
• Empirical RAM used for The Netherlands
• Deterministic RAM used for The Netherlands
• Dutch Soil Database: prediction subsoil compaction
• Conclusions
Definition of subsoil

TOPSOIL

PLOUGH PAN

SUBSOIL
Subsoil compaction is (partly) irreversible

Risk Effect Resilience

topsoil - --- +

ploughpan 0/- -- -

subsoil 0/- - --
 Mechanical stress on soil surface (wheels,
Human activities tracks or rollers of agricultural and construction
machinery)

Air filled soil pore volume reduction

Reduction of soil biological activity and soil productivity

Decreased water infiltration capacity and increased erosion risk

Risk Assessment Methods
1 Empirical RAMs: based on measurements, monitoring,
experience, evaluation
Hungary, former DDR, Poland, Slowakia, Romania

2 Deterministic RAMs: based on a soil mechanical approach

Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Romania, Spain, France
(Netherlands)

3 RAM based on mass of agricultural machinery

Italy
Empirical RAM (based on experience, Jones et al., 2003)

This is a two-stage methodology to assess the vulnerability of subsoil

to compaction:

1 Assessing the inherent susceptibility based on texture and packing

density.

2 Combining this soil susceptibility with an index of climatic

dryness/subsoil wetness, to determine the vulnerability class.
Texture classes EU soil map
100

10
90

80 20

Pe
)
VERY FINE

µm

rce
30

2
70

nt
(<
40

SIL
AY
60

T
CL 50

(2
50 FINE
nt

- 50
rce

60
40

µm
Pe

70

)
30

MEDIUM
MEDIUM 80
20 FINE

10 COARSE
90

0
10
10

40
60

50
90

80

10
30

20
70
0

Percent SAND (50 - 2000 µm)

Packing Density

Determined in a soil pit (visual)

OR

PD = Db + 0.009C …………………………………(1)
Where Db is the bulk density in t m-3
PD is the packing density in t m-3
C is the clay content (%, by weight)

low <1.40,
medium 1.40 to 1.75
high > 1.75 t m-3.
Inherent susceptibility to compaction according to texture and packing density

-3
Packing density t m

Low Medium High

Texture < 1.40 1.40 – 1.75 > 1.75

Code Texture Class

1
1 Coarse VH H M

2 Medium H M M

3 Medium fine M(H) M L

4 Fine M L L

5 Very fine M L L

9 Organic VH H
Jones et al
(2003)

Susceptability
(texture, packing
density)
Vulnerability to compaction according to soil susceptibility and climate

Class Climate Zone Perhumid Humid Sub- Dry

A B humid

Subsoil Usually wet, Often wet, Usually Seasonally

Moisture state always moist usually moist, moist and dry Mostly dry

moist, rarely seasonally

dry dry

Soil PSMD mm ≤ 50 51 – 125 126 – 200 201 – 300 > 300

Susceptibility FC Days > 250 150 – 100 – 149 < 100 ≤ 40

250
1 2
VH E (E) E (E) V (E) V (V) M

H V (E) V (E) M (V) M (M) N

M V (E) M (V) N (M) N (N) N

L M (V) N (M) N (N) N (N) N

Jones et al

Vulnerability
(susceptibility,
climate)
Deterministic RAM (based on soil mechanical approach)
Determination precompression strength with uniaxial test

Pv
Precompression stress (pF 1.8), 30-60 cm soil depth for Germany (SIDASS-model)

Precompression stress classes:

1 Very Low < 30 kPa
2 Low 30 - 60
3 Mean 60 - 90
4 High 90 - 120
5 Very High 120 - 150
Compaction by compression and shear
 Terra Tyre, sandy soil, wheel load 80 kN (8 tonnes)

Soil failure
2.5
17.5
32.5
47.5

Depth (cm)
62.5
Compaction by: 77.5
■ shear + compression 92.5
■ shear 107.5
■ compression 122.5
137.5
140
125
110
95
80
65
50
35
20
5
-10
-25
-40
-55
-70
-85
-100
-115
-130
-145
Distance (perpendicular to dirving direction) to centre (cm)
Wheel load carrying capacity

Wheel load carrying capacity is reached if:

Exerted stresses (load, tyre width, inflation pressure)

Strength subsoil
Max wheel load (kN)
- Terra Tyre
- Subsoil
Empirical Ù Deterministic
 Empirical RAM Deterministic RAM

Soil Properties Texture, BD Soil mechanical

properties

Climate Climate zones, Wet or moist soil

percipitation,
evapotranspiration
Land use - Land use => wheel
loads

Management - Wheel loads

Resilience Experience -
Dutch Soil
Database:

BD upper subsoil
Dutch Soil
Database:

Frequency
BD upper subsoil
Dutch Soil Database:

Predicted subsoil
overcompaction in
2010
Conclusions
• All RAMs are not complete
• Empirical RAMs are limited to experiences in countries
• Empirical RAMs neglect wheel loads
• Deterministic RAMs are more universal and “scientific”
• Deterministic RAMs neglect impact on soil properties
• Deterministic RAMs neglect resilience
• Deterministic RAMs require soil mechanical properties
• Results RAMs are not always in agreement

• Subsoil compaction increases in the Netherlands

• Not in agreement with RAMs?

• Further development of deterministic RAMs is the best option for

harmonization
 5

pF (log(-soil water suction)) 3

0
32 36 40 44 48
Pore volume (%)

PR too high Rootable

Too w et, aeration too low
Aeration limiting
PR limiting Too dry
Bad structured soil Bad structured soil
Reduced infiltration capacity
ENVASSO
INDICATORS
KEY ISSUES Density
(bulk or packing density, total porosity)

Air Capacity
(air-filled pore volume at specific suction)
Compaction and
structural degradation Permeability
(saturated hydraulic conductivity)
Visual assessment of structure and testing
Mechanical resistance
(penetrometer resistance)
Vulnerability to Compaction (estimated
from texture, density, climate, land use)
Vulnerability to
Compaction Drainage condition (wetness class)
Soil strength (precompression strength)
Ground pressure
Causes of Compaction
Soil management and tillage practice
Soil Properties
Soil functions and sub-functions that are directly affected by soil
compaction, and soil parameters as possible indicators (Lebert et al.,
2003).

Soil function Indicator Indicator:

Soil sub-function Single Parameter Aggregated Parameter

Air regime Air capacity For all sub functions:

- Air storage Bulk density
- Air flow Air permeability Visual classification of soil
O2-Diffusion morphology by:
- Effective bulk density
Water regime Water storage - Packing density
- Water storage Available water capacity - Spade diagnosis
- Water flow Bulk density
Water conductivity
(saturated/unsaturated

Plant production Root length density

- Rootability Bulk density
Penetration resistance
Soil Physical Threshold Values (1)
Packings density PD

PD = Db + 0.009C (g cm-3)

Db = dry bulkdensity (g cm-3)

C = clay content (weight %)

Low PD < 1,40

Medium PD 1,40 - 1,75
High PD > 1,75

Dry bulkdensity Db

Db < 1.75 - 0.009C (g cm-3)

Db < 1.6 (g cm-3 )

Soil Physical Threshold Values (2)
Pore volume n

n > 40%

Air filled pores ng

Bakker et al., (1987)
Diffusion coëfficiënt Ds
Never problems if Ds > 30 10-8 m2 s-1
Allways problems if Ds < 1.5 10-8 m2 s-1

Soil structure Air filled pores ng :

At least Desired
Very good >2% > 14 %
Good >5% > 15 %
Medium >8% > 17 %
No, bad > 12 % > 21 %
Soil Physical Threshold Values (3)

Hydraulic saturated conductivity Ksat

Ksat > 10 (cm day-1)

Assessment: Packing density and bulk density ploughpan
2
1.8
Dry bulk density (g/cm3)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Clay content (%)
Climate (Arvidson et al)

300
Precompression stress, kPa

0.30 m
250

200

150

100
y = 40.655Ln(x) - 10.568
50 2
R = 0.9288
0
0 50 100 150 200
Tension (kPa)
Land use
• Grassland
• Arable farming,
- Ploughing
- No-Till
- Biological farming
- Conservation Tillage
• Forest

• Grains
• Root crops
• Silage maize

• Heavy mechanization
Management
Sugarbeet harvesters 1999: Weight and wheel loads

Machine Vervaet 17 Holmer Riecam Ropa Euro WKM Kleine

Terra Dos RBM 300-S Tiger Big Six SF 40
Gross vehicle weight (kN) 382 461 401 589 447 518
Vehicle weight, empty (kN) 226 274 246 314 262 285
Payload full tanker (kN) 156 188 155 275 185 233
Wheel load full, left front (kN) 114 104 109 101 83 75
Wheel load full, right front (kN) 114 99 124 94 64 73
Wheel load full, left middle (kN) 109 76 93
Wheel load full, right middle (kN) 117 65 79
Wheel load full, left rear (kN) 77 129 76 84 92 92
Wheel load full, right rear (kN) 77 130 93 84 68 107
Sugarbeet harvesters: Wheel loads and inflation pressures

Machine Holmer Agrifac Vervaet WKM Vredo Riecam Tim

FRONT TIRES make Michelin Michelin Trelleborg Michelin Michelin Michelin GoodYear
size 800/65R32 800/65R32 850/60-38 11.2R36 750/65R26 800/65R32 800/65R32
width (mm) 798 798 850 284 754 798 819
Wheel load full, left front (kN) 82 95 120 26 76 120 99
Wheel load full, right front (kN) 97 90 106 26 74 96 90
measured infl. press., left (kPa) 180 180 210 260 190 190 180
recommended infl. press., left (kPa) 165 220 280 400 205 300 235
measured infl. press., right (kPa) 180 170 190 250 190 200 170
recommended infl. press., right (kPa) 225 200 225 400 200 225 200

The recommended inflation pressure is for field use

Resilience: Persistence of subsoil compaction (Alakukku et al)
L

L L L L S L
120

110
Mean yield (%)

100

90

80

70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 x
Years after compaction with wheel load of 50 kN

Grain yield Nitrogen yield L = lodging S = sprouting Control =100 %

 Database criteria

CRITERIA
Country Germany Germany Germany Germany Poland Poland Denmark Greece Italy Finland Hungary Belgium Belgium
Your Name Lebert Paul Haider Marahrens Lopiec Stuczyński Schjønning Papadopo Bazzoffi Alakukku Birkás Bielders
ulos
Quest number 4A 4B 4C 4D 5A 5B 6A 12A 18A 20A 24A 25A 25B
RAM available? Yes, Official, Development, Institute Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I No Y, O No Y, I No Y, D
Soil typological unit (STU) X X X X X X X X
Land use e.g. LUCas X X X X X X X
Equipment use Weight, Wheel Load, Inflation Pressure , Tyre type W, WL, IP, W, WL, IP, IP W, WL, IP, W W, WL, IP
Ty Ty Ty
Land cover e.g. Corine X X X
Topography Digital elevation model X X
Pedotransfer functions X X X X X

PTF + Land Cover, Land Use, Spatial Soil Info GIS Model + GIS LC Model + Model + LC, LU GIS + SSI
GIS GIS GIS
Texture X X X X X X X X X X X
OM X X X X X X X X X
Density Bulkdensity dry, Bulkdensity at fc, Packing Bd, PD Bd, PD Bd, PD Bd, Bfc, Bd, Bd, Bfc, Bd, Bfc
Density, Porosity, Degree of Compaction PD DegComp Por
Moisture Field Capacity, Wilting Point, Water content sat, FC, WP, FC, WP, FC FC, WP, FC, WP, FC, WP, FC, FC, WP, Ksat FC,
Workability Limit, Infiltration cap. sat Ksat Ksat, Wsat, Ksat Wsat, Ksat Wsat, pFcurve Wsat WorkL,
Infil_sat WorkL, Ksat
Ksat
Drainage class X X X
Air Air capacity, Air conductivity, Diffusion Acap Acap, Diff Acap Acap, Acap, Acap Acond, Diff
Acond Acond, Diff

Mechanical PreCompression stress, Shear Strength, PreC, PreC PreC, PreC Pen Pen, PreC Pen, PreC Pen Pen
Penetration resistance ShearS ShearS
Climate Precipitation, Temperature, Radiation, Potential Ps Ps, PEs Py, Ps, Tj, Rd, Ped Py, Pm, R10, PEs Py, Ps, Py
Evapotranspiration, yearly, seasonal, monthly, 10 Ts Tm, Ry, Pm, Pd,
days, daily Rm, PEy, Ty, Ts
PEs
Climate + Land Cover, Land Use LC GIS + LC, LU
Model
 Database Thresholds

THRESHOLDS
Country Germany Germany Germany Germany Poland Poland Denmark Greece Italy Finland Hungary Belgium Belgium
Quest number 4A 4B 4C 4D 5A 5B 6A 12A 18A 20A 24A 25A 25B
RAM available? Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I No Y, O No Y, I No Y, D
Water content FC X
Saturated hydraulic conductivity 10 cm/d 10 cm/d 10cm/d 24 cm/d
Air capacity 5 vol% 5 vol% 5 vol% 10 vol %
Oxygen diffusion rate 1 <30 µg m-2
-1
s
Penetrometer values 2-3 Mpa X 2,8-3,0 MPa X

Precompression stress > Load > Load > Load

Dry Bulk Density 1.4-1.5 Mg X 1,5 g cm
-3

m-3
Bulk Density at Field Capacity Klassen 4/ 5 X
(dicht/ sehr
dicht)
Packing Density class 4 and X Klassen 4/ 5 X
5 (DIN (dicht/ sehr
19682-10, dicht)
Germany)
 Database RAM used (1)

RAM used
Country De De De De Po Po Dk Gr It Fi Hu Be Be
Quest number 4A 4B 4C 4D 5A 5B 6A 12A 18A 20A 24A 25A 25B
Is there a risk assessment methodology in your country at present or in development? Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I No Y, O No Y, I No Y, D
Is the RAM linked to Community policy No X X X X X X
targets, objectives or legislation? Yes, indirectly X X X
Yes, directly X X
Don’t know
Could the RAM provide information that is Not at all X
useful to policy action/decision? Fairly useful X X X X X
Very useful X X X X X
Don’t know
How would you describe the sensitivity of the Not sensitive: delayed response X
RAM? Intermediate response X X X X X X
Fast, immediate response X X X
Don’t know
What type of methodology is this RAM? Qualitative: expert-based X X X X X X
(multiple answers possible) weighting-rating
Quantitative: empirical model X X X X X X
process based-model X X X
Expert analysis X X X
Historical documents
Other: (please specify ) X
Is the RAM based on indirect (e.g. Indirect X X
questionnaires to farmers) or modelled or Modelled X X X X X X
direct measurements of a state/trend? Direct X X X X X X
Don’t know
 Database RAM used (2)
Country De De De De Po Po Dk Gr It Fi Hu Be Be
Quest number 4A 4B 4C 4D 5A 5B 6A 12A 18A 20A 24A 25A 25B
Is there a risk assessment methodology in your country at present or in development? Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I No Y, O No Y, I No Y, D
Is the RAM based on low/medium/high low X
quality statistics or data? medium X X X X
high X X X X
Is the RAM used for monitoring Yes X X X X X
purposes? No X X X X X
Don’t know
Is there good geographical coverage? only case studies X X X
national X
national and regional X X X X X X
Don’t know
What types of techniques are being used in Field observation X X X X X
such methodology? Remote sensing X
Geographical information systems X X X X
Laboratory analysis X X X X X
Other: X X
What is the availability of time series for None X
implementation of the RAM? Occasional data source X X X
Regular data source X X X X
Don’t know X
At what time are time interval data collected? Annually X X
Once every 1- 5 years X X X
Once every 5-10 years X X
Other (please specify) X
Don’t know X
Are outputs of the RAM clear and easy to Not at all X
understand? Fairly clear X X
Very clear X X X X X X
 Database RAM used (3)
Country De De De De Po Po Dk Gr It Fi Hu Be Be
Quest number 4A 4B 4C 4D 5A 5B 6A 12A 18A 20A 24A 25A 25B
Is there a risk assessment methodology in your country at present or in development? Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I Y, I No Y, O No Y, I No Y, D
Database is accessible to: the general public X X X X X
administration X X X X X
scientific purposes X X X X X
Other:
Output documents are composed of (multiple Geomorphologic map X X
answers possible): Hazard zone map X
Geotechnical map
Vulnerability zone map X X X X X X X
Elements at risk X
Risk zone map X X X
Other susceptibility map X X
What is the scale of the cartographic output 1:5000 X X X X X X
documents (several answers possible 1:10000 X X
1:20000
1:25000 X X X
Other: (please specify) X X X
Based on existing statistics and data sets? No X X
Yes X X X X X X
Are the statistics or data needed for No X
compilation easily accessible? Yes, but requires lengthy processing
Is the setup of a (new) monitoring network Yes X X X X X
required? No X X
Yes, additional measurements to an existing mon X X
Yes X
Don’t know
Soil Directive
Eckelmann et al, 2006. ESB report 20
Eckelmann et al, 2006. ESB report 20
Precompression stress

0.9
0.8
Void ratio

0.7

0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3
1 10 100 1000
Normal stress (kPa)
Wheel load: Stress propagation in soil
RAM Romania according Jones et al (2003) arable land
RAM according soil mechanical approach (SIDASS) arable land
RAMs compared (arable land)
Climate (Arvidson et al)

0.30 m
100
Calculated risk, %

80

60

40

20

0
1 May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov
View publication stats

• Soil Properties

• Climate

• Landuse

• Management

• Resilience