Profile Meters for Detailed Measurement of Soil

Surface Heights

M. C. Hirschi, B. J. Barfield, I. D. Moore, D . G. Colliver

ASSOC. MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
ASAE ASAE ASAE ASAE

ABSTRACT sections. The accuracy of the meters was determined to

be better than ± 1 mm. Design criteria, circuitry, and
T WO surface profile meters were developed for
use in soil erosion research, Both were designed for
use on 4.6 m wide field plots. Surface heights were
performance data are presented.

measured electronically and stored on floppy disks.
Meter pin spacing of 6.4 cm and 1.3 cm allowed
measurement of plot characteristics and rill cross-
Article was submitted for publication in February, 1986; reviewed
and approved for publication by the Soil and Water Div. of ASAE in
November, 1986. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 84-2534.
The work reported in this paper was supported by Grant No.
B-072-KY from the United States Department of the Interior through
the Water Resources Research Institute of the University of Kentucky
and by funds provided by the College of Agriculture of the University of
Kentucky.
This paper is published with the approval of the Director of the
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station and is designated Journal
Article 84-2-208.
The authors are: MICHAEL C. HIRSCHI, Assistant Professor,
Agricultural Engineering Dept., University of Illinois, Urbana
(formerly Research Specialist, Agricultural Engineering Dept.,
University of Kentucky, Lexington); BILLY J. BARFIELD, Professor,
Agricultural Engineering Dept., University of Kentucky, Lexington;
IAN D. MOORE, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Engineering
Dept., University of Minnesota, St. Paul; and DONALD G.
COLLIVER, Associate Professor, Agricultural Engineering Dept.,
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge the
contributions of Mr. L. Dunn, Mr. E. Andersen, and Mr. J. Wilson.
Without their creative input and diligent work, these instruments
would not have been developed.
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Soil erosion continues to be an important research
problem. In recent studies of rill erosion, detailed
measurements of rill cross-sectional shape have been
needed to verify models. In addition, current studies of
rill pattern development further require a capability to
measure the surface configuration of an erosion plot
before and after rill development. For these reasons, the
development of meters to electronically measure soil
surface heights was undertaken.
Several different "rill-meters" and "profile meters"
have been developed by other researchers. A summary of
commonly used meters is presented in Table 1. In many
of the designs, soil surface height was measured from the
displacement of pins which were lowered from a
reference level onto the soil surface to be measured.
Devices used by Kuipers (1957), Burwell et al. (1963),
Curtis and Cole (1972), Foster and Meyer (1972), Moore
and Larson (1979), McCool et al. (1981), and others
utilized this concept. In many of these studies a camera
was used to record the pin locations against a
background grid for digitization (by hand or
electronically) at a later time. Electronically "read" pin
devices include those of Radke et al. (1981) and Van

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SELECTED SURFACE HEIGHT METERS

Number of Spacing "Read" Digitization Range, Resolution,

Researchers Surface contact pins/ probes cm method method mm mm

Kuipers (1957) Steel pins 20 10 Visual Manual 270 <5

Burwell et al. (1963) Steel pins 18 5 Visual Manual 400 2.5
Currence and Lovely Steel probe 1 Potentiometer Electronic 300 1.3
(1970)
Curtis and Cole (1972) Steel pin 40 3 Photograph Manual 900 15
Mitchell and Jones Steel probe 1 — Potentiometer Electronic 300 1.3
(1973)
Moore and Larson Steel pins 18 5 Photograph Manual 400 1.25
(1979)
Kolstad and Schuler Non-contact 1 Ultra-sonic Electronic 150 7.25
(1980)
McCool etal. (1981) Aluminum Pins 145 1.3 Photograph Electronic 410 1
Radke et al. (1981) Steel pins 312 1x5 Contact switches Electronic 250 1
Podmore and Huggins Steel probe with 1 Linear variable
(1981) phono needle tip differential Electronic 33 0.005
" transformer
Romkens et al. (1982) Non-contact 1 Optical Electronic 500 <2
Harral and Cove (1982) Non-contact 1 Optical Electronic 300 6
Van Ouwerkerk et al. Plexiglass bars 10 2.5 Opto-coupler Electronic 200 1
(1982)

Vol. 3(l):May, 1987 © 1987 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0883-8542/87/0301-0047$02.00 47

 Ouwerkerk et al. (1982). These later meters used
multiple pin schemes similar to those mentioned above,
but the pin displacement was sensed electronically and
the measurement saved on a readily accessible medium.
As an alternative technique some researchers used a
single height-transducer which was mounted on a
movable carriage. Mitchell and Jones (1973) utilized a
ten-turn rotational potentiometer to sense the height
displacement of a probe as it was moved down toward the
soil surface. A snap-action switch was activated upon
surface contact by the sensing rod to indicate the surface
level. Their device was similar to that used by Currence
and Lovely (1970). Podmore and Huggins (1981)
described a meter to measure sand surface profiles in
which the surface height was sensed by a linear-variable-
differential transformer (LVDT) mounted on a
traversing carriage similar to that of the Mitchell and
Jones device. The LVDT was moved 0.25 mm between
measurements and provided a resolution of ± 0.005 mm
over a 33 mm range.
Non-contact meters have also been developed. Kolstad
and Schuler (1980) developed a sonar device for their
study of ridge-till implement tools. They tested the meter
using a surface with 13 cm of relief and found that the
average error was about 0.75 cm. Soil moisture content
differences were found to have significant effects upon
accuracy. Romkens et al. (1982) developed a non-contact
meter using a light source and a sensor at a constant
height above the soil surface. The necessary location
adjustment of the sensor to maintain that height was
monitored and recorded automatically. A 250 point-per-
meter transect, 1.52 m wide, was completed in about 4
min. Another optical device was developed by Harral and
Cove (1982) in which a laser diode, and position-sensing
photo-detector, and appropriate lenses were utilized to
determine the soil surface distance from the transducer.
The device had a limited working range of about ± 150
mm from a point 600 mm from the source and receiver
with a resolution of approximately ± 6 mm.
For erosion research at the University of Kentucky, a
Fig. 1—Soil profile meter.
48
profile was needed meeting the following criteria:
1. measurement accuracy of soil surface heights of
± 1 mm over a 450 mm range,
2. adaptable to 457 cm wide variable length plots, at
slopes up to 100%,
3. measurement or rill cross-section heights on a 13
mm spacing or finer,
4. measurement of plot heights on a 64 mm spacing
or finer,
5. potential for measurement of surface transects or
rill cross-sections anywhere along the plot length,
6. time of measurement, reduction and recording of
data from one transect or cross-section to be 1 min. or
less, and
7. operable by two persons.
Although some of the previously discussed meters
could, if modified, meet many of the above criteria, new
surface-measuring meters were developed to handle the
rugged field conditions, steep slopes, and speed
requirements. The design considerations led to two
computer controlled multi-pin meters, with electronic
sensing of the pin location. The sensing method and the
overall width of the larger profile meter sets these designs
apart from the previously discussed meters. The two
meters were identical in general performance, the
difference being a 13 mm pin spacing over a i m width
(72 pins) for the small meter and a 64 mm pin spacing
over a 4.5 m width (70 pins) for the wide meter. The
smaller meter was moved laterally on a frame across the
plot as well as along the plot. The basic structures of the
two meters and the smaller meter frame are shown in
Figs. 1 and 2.
OVERALL DESIGN
In the final meter design, pins were utilized to indicate
the soil surface height. The pins were lowered to the soil
surface by a level bar until all pins rested on the surface.
The individual pin displacements were then read, the
pins raised, the unit moved to the next point, and the
APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

Narrow profile meter and support framework.
process repeated. Because of the large number of data
points to be taken for this study, electronic sensing of the
pin locations was necessary. The sensing scheme will be
described in a later section. For the 4.6 m wide plot,
remote control was utilized for bar lowering by using a
reversible gearmotor. The meters were moved along the
plot on angle-iron rails. Details were given by Hirschi
(1985). The measurement and control circuitry and the
logging equipment are described in the following section.
CIRCUITRY AND LOGGING EQUIPMENT
Three separate circuits were developed for the meters:
a measurement circuit for pin displacement, a computer
control circuit, and a bar raise/lower control circuit. The
bar raise/lower circuit is specific to the gearmotor
chosen, so it will not be described in detail.
The pin displacement measurement circuit, shown
schematically in Fig. 3 and 4, was essentially a voltage
divider circuit driven by a 12 VDC regulated power
supply. A plexiglass "head" on each pin isolated the
stainless steel contact electrically and slots cut in the
plexiglass ensured proper alignment between the
contacts and the wires. The voltages were recorded with
logging equipment which will be described later in this
section.
In order for the pins to fall to the ground under their
own weight, and to ensure both free fall and good
voltmeter lead contact, a movable outer frame was
mounted at the front of each meter with a separate
parallel wire for each pin. The outer frame was moved in
and out by 110 V solenoids and return springs. The
parallel wires on the outer frame actually served as
> 2 . 3 SL
> 200
> WATT
> u<
O n
Fig. 3—Pin location measurement circuit.
Vol. 3(l):May, 1987
IGLAS BAR H
ALUMINUM BAR
f-e
PLEXIOLAS ROD HEAD-
437mra 2 50 m
* t • DVM CHANNEL
^ j - * " ^ - ALUMI
PLEXIOLAS BAR-
ALUMINUM WELDING ROD (2.38mm)
•3.97mm STEEL POP RIVET
Fig. 4—Pin location measurement schematic.
voltmeter leads as shown in Fig. 4. The solenoids were
released to reduce the friction on the wires and to allow
free fall of the pins. The lightweight construction of the
pins ensured that there would be little or no soil surface
penetration by the pins, even in loose or wet soil. After
the pins were lowered the outer frame was pulled in
about 6 mm by the solenoids to make solid electrical
contact between the parallel network wires and the
voltmeter leads. The outer wire was connected to the
'high' input of the voltmeter with the lower aluminum
bar connected to the 'low' input. The voltmeter was used
to sense the voltage drop along the parallel network wire
between the pin location and the lower bar. The voltage
drop across the entire network was also read. The
calibration curve for each pin had the form:
H
i = M i (V i /V n ) + H oi . . . ...[1]
where K{ is the surface height at the i-th pin M{ is a
characteristic slope for the i-th pin, V4 is the voltage drop
of the network and Hoi is a characteristic datum of the
i-th pin. A calibration curve for each pin was established
for each meter setup.
The profile meter control circuits were designed to
allow operation of the meter and computer control from
the plot edge. The computer control circuit had two
parts. The first was a 3 VDC circuit through which the
operator signaled the computer (through a switch on a
control panel) to (a) prepare to take data, (b) take data,
(c) process or retake data, and (d) stop the data
collection after current set. The computer, through a 12
VDC circuit, responded to each 3 VDC signal by
switching lights on the control panel at the plot to signal
the operator that the computer was operating properly.
A second operator was necessary at the computer
keyboard to enter location information for each data set.
The first 3 VDC switch (prepare to take data switch) also
switched 110 VAC to the solenoids to ready the meter for
data collection.
ANALOG
The bar raise/lower control circuit was simply a
INPUT
CHANNELS
switching circuit to control the reversible-gearmotor used
to move the pin support bar. Most of this circuit
depended upon the specific gearmotor installed.
However, one general characteristic was that the 110
VAC supply line had to have normally closed contact
switches in-line to stop the gearmotor if the bar was
raised or lowered to its limit. This protected the bar and
pins from damage. A momentary switch (normally open)
and reversing switch (DPDT, with diagonals connected)
49

HP 3497A DA U N I T
r
DVM/MULTIPLEXER! ACTUATOR
RILL/ PROFILE JUNCTION
METER BOX
Fig. 5—Block diagram of data acquisition components.
was utilized at the control panel to raise or lower the bar.
A Hewlett-Packard (HP) 3497A Data Acquisition
(DA) unit with a digital voltmeter (DVM) was used to
multiplex and measure the contact voltages from the rill
and profile meters. The multiplexer portion of the DA
unit consisted of four plug-in 20 channel relay
multiplexer cards. All eighty channels of analog input to
the DVM were utilized for control and to read the profile
meter output. The fifth card slot of the 3497A contained
the circuitry actuator card that allowed the light
switching described earlier. The DA unit was connected
to the meters through two 40-conductor shielded cables,
a 6-conductor cable and a 2-conductor cable. The entire
unit was controlled over an IEEE488 standard interface
by an IBM-PC microcomputer.
The IBM-PC microcomputer used for DA control
utilized the BASIC interpreter supplied with the machine
and programs developed for this application to control
the DA unit and receive data through a Tecmar IEEE488
interface card. The data (in form of voltages) was then
reduced to heights using calibration curves for each pin
and stored on two separate floppy disks. A block
diagram of the logging system is shown in Fig. 5.
A detailed description of all of the control software
utilized to calibrate and take data with the meter is
outside the scope of this discussion. A general flowchart
for the data collection procedure is shown in Fig. 6. A
listing of the BASIC program was presented by Hirschi
(1985).
The field installation of equipment to utilize these
meters for erosion research included the set up of a travel
trailer for computer and logger storage and operation,
the installation of parallel constant slope angle-iron rails
on each side of the plot to be measured and the
installation of the calibration "stairstep" upslope from
the plot. Details were given by Hirschi (1985).
CALIBRATION AND RELIABILITY
The calibration curve for each pin on the meters was
extremely linear. The calibration data consisted of six to
eight separate heights with a minimum of three
replications of each. The final linear equations for all
pins had an r2 value in excess of 0.9980, with most being
0.9995 or higher for 18 or more points. The standard
error for all pins was 0.8 mm or less. The slope
parameters for each pin calibration curve were virtually
identical, while the intercept parameter varied slightly
because of minor rod length differences.
50
( START J
SET UP HP , OPEN FILES ,
AND INITIALIZE VARIABLES
AYES
TURN OFF TAKING DATA LIGHT 1
TURN ON PROCESSING LIGHT
1
PROCESS a SAVE DATA
+
TURN
OFF PROCESSING LIGHT
Fig. 6—Data collection flowchart.
The meters were tested for reliability of contact errors
and note them in the output. The sensing method
consisted of the DA unit reading a channel twice, 100
milliseconds apart, and comparing the voltages. An open
circuit (the stainless steel not making "good" contact)
was indicated by a "floating" voltage reading.
Differences greater than 280 microvolts (equivalent to
0.5 mm) were interpreted as contact errors, noted in the
output, and displayed on the computer monitor in the
trailer. Lab trials on the meter indicated a contact error
rate of less than 1 %.
Accuracy trials using a level bar were performed in the
laboratory. The standard deviation of pin height
readings for 100 trials did not exceed 0.95 mm, was as
low as 0.00 mm, and averaged 0.50 mm.
SUMMARY
Two surface height meters were developed and utilized
for erosion research at the University of Kentucky. Each
had a measurement accuracy of ± 1 mm and have been
used to collect soil surface height data on 4.6 m wide
plots. Measurement spacing were 13 mm and 64 mm.
Construction and software details were given by Hirschi
(1985) and also can be obtained from the authors.
References
1. Allmaras, R. R., R. E. Burwell, W. E. Larson, R. F. Holt and
W. W. Nelson. 1966. Total porosity and random roughness of the
interrow zone as influenced by tillage. USDA Conservation Report. No.
7.
2. Burwell, R. E., R. P. Allmaras, and M. Amemiya. 1963. A
field measurement of total porosity and surface microrelief of soils. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc, 27(6):697-700.
APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE
 3. Currence, H. D. and W. G. Lovely. 1970. The analysis of soil
surface roughness. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 13(6):710-714.
4. Curtis, W. R., and W. D. Cole. 1972. Micro-topographic
profile gage. Agricultural Engineering 53(1): 17.
5. Foster, G. R. and L. D. Meyer. 1972. Efficient processing of
microrelief photographs. ASAE Paper No. 72-593, ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI. 49085.
6. Harral, B. B. and C. A. Cove. 1982. Development of an optical
displacement transducer for the measurement of soil surface profiles.
Jour. Agric. Engr. Research, 27:421-429.
7. Hirschi, M. C. 1985. Modeling soil erosion with emphasis of
steep slopes and the rilling process. PhD dissertation, University of
Kentucky, Lexington.
8. Kolstad, O. C. and R. T. Schuler. 1980. An ultrasonic
rillmeter for soil surface measurements. ASAE Paper No. NCR80-303,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
9. Kuipers, H. 1957. A reliefmeter for soil cultivation studies.
Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 5:255-262.
10. McCool, D. K., M. G. Dossett, and S. J. Yecha. 1981. A
portable rill meter for field measurement of soil loss. Proceedings of the
Slot Injection of Herbicides
(continued from page 46)
one-pass planting system. Weeds between the rows could
be controlled with timely crop cultivation. The
cultivation operation makes this herbicide application
method a good match for a ridge-or till-plant system
where cultivation is necessary to rebuild the ridges.
References
1. Arya, S. V. and G. E. Pickard. 1958. Penetration of liquid jets
in soils. Argicultural Engineering 39:(1)16-19, 23.
2. Dowler, C. C. and E. W. Hauser. 1970. An injector-planter for
subsurface placement of herbicides. Weed Sci. 18:461-464.
3. Gray, R. A. and A. J. Weierch. 1965. Factors affecting the
vapor loss of EPTC from soils. Weeds 13:141-147.
4. Holstun, J. T., Jr., O. B. Wooten, R. E. Parker and E. E.
Schweizer. 1963. Triband weed control - A new concept for weed
control in cotton. ARS 34-56.
5. Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1966. Placement of herbicides as it affects
weeds and crops. Proc. South Weed Conf. 19:27-34.
Vol. 3(l):May, 1987
International Symposium June, 1981, Florence, Italy.
11. Mitchell, J. K. and B. A. Jones. 1973. Profile measuring
device. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE, 16(3):546-547.
12. Moore, I. D. 1979. Infiltration into tillage affected soils.
Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
13. Moore, I. D. and C. L. Larson. 1979. Estimating micro-relief
surface storage from point data. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE
22(5):1073-1077.
14. Podmore, T. H. and L. F. Huggins. 1981. An automated
profile meter for surface roughness measurements. TRANSACTIONS
of the ASAE 24(3):663-665, 669.
15. Radke, J. K., M. A. Otterby, R. A. Young and C. A. Onstad.
1981. A microprocessor automated rillmeter. TRANSACTIONS of the
ASAE 24(2):401-404.
16. Romkens, M. J. M., S. Singaryar and C. J. Gantzer. 1982. An
automated noncontact surface profile meter. ASAE Paper No.
82-2620, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
17. Van Ouwerkerk, C , M. Pot, and K. Boersma. 1981.
Electronic microreliefmeter for seedbed characterization. Soil and
Tillage Research, 2:81-90.
6. Knake, E. L., A. P. Applepy and W. R. Furtick. 1967. Soil
incorporation and site uptake of pre-emergence herbicides. Weeds
15:228-232.
7. Lai, R. and W. B. Reed 1977. Studies of machines for
incorporation of pre-emergence herbicides. Can. Agric. Eng. 19:6-11.
8. Mielke, L. N., W. W. Wilhelm, K. A. Richards and C. R.
Fenster. 1984. Soil physical characteristics of reduced tillage in a
wheat-fallow system. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 27(6):1724-1728.
9. Solie, J. B., H. D. Wittmuss and O. C. Burnside. 1983.
Improving weed control with a subsurface jet injector system for
herbicide. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 26:1022-1026.
10. Todd, R., N. L. Klocke, D. Bauer and E. C. Dickey. 1984.
Alternative tillage methods for sandbur and erosion control in sandy
soil. Conservation Tillage for Row Crop Production. Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Nebraska. Conservation Tillage
Proceedings No. 3, pp. 67-72.
11. Wooten, O. B., J. T. Hostun, Jr. and R. S. Baker. 1966. Knife
injector for the application of EPTC. Weeds 14(l):92-93.
12. Wooten, O. B., C. B. McWhorter and D. C. Ranney. 1962.
Underground application of herbicides and fungicides. Agricultural
Engineering 43:30-32, 34.
51