Water Infiltration

Discussion in 'Turf Renovation' started by Smallaxe, Nov 29, 2013.

  1. phasthound

    phasthound LawnSite Platinum Member
    Posts: 4,576

    This would be a great conversation if you guys would leave out the rhetoric.
    But then again, it wouldn't be as entertaining. :)
     
  2. kennc38

    kennc38 LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 293

    Remember, entertainment value is directly proportional to the amount of B.S. one spews.
     
  3. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    I see, cherry picking phrases and putting words in my mouth ..... again. I understand and meant exactly what I wrote.

    My statement was in response to this question about this link that I had posted.


    And my response ....


    The statement is accurate ... generally speaking. You can argue with yourself all day about that if you want, but at the end of that day nothing will change and the statement will stand. Even plotted some infiltration rates across several different soil textures to demonstrate the relationship. The fact that you can't see the relationship between soil texture/particle size and infiltration rate is of no consequence to me.

    To further demonstrate your lack of understanding in this field, many (if not all) smart controllers use these general numbers based on soil texture to help determine appropriate cycle/soak run times. Now isn't that odd, heh skip?

    Again, your typical response, trying to attribute your misunderstand of the subject matter to someone else. If you don't think values for saturated hydraulic conductivity and steady state infiltration rate are essentially the same, you are more uninformed than I had previously thought. See Rubin et al. 1964 to clear up your ignorance on this.

    Actually, generally speaking they can absolutely show a linear relationship, .... as I have already demonstrated in my plot and which is clearly seen in the NRCS published data, even without plotting. Further, I wasn't speaking about different bulk densities, I was speaking generally with respect to soil texture and particle size. What part of generally speaking don't you understand skip?

    I made no such accusation or implication. In fact, I listed a multitude of factors that can influence infiltration .... including bulk density ..... you know, those factors I listed which you continue to avoid discussion on.

    I won't be holding my breath waiting for intelligent discussion on any of these from you.

    I'm not trying to tell you anything skip. I already posted the numbers from the NRCS. The data used in my plot, as well as the USGA greens spec, fall squarely in the published ranges. The fact you continue to misunderstand this merely demonstrates your continued inability to understand (or accept) what you are looking at.

    Again you need to work on your reading comprehension. The numbers in that table represent infiltration rates that can be reasonably expected with the soil textures listed with a margin of safety. Again, they fall squarely in the ranges of published data per NRCS. It is not a "specification" as much as it is numbers that can be used in lieu of in situ determination.

    Hmmm, you are right about it not being easy, particularly for you as you are wrong yet again skip. All the equations you just mentioned have variables that are impacted by soil texture. For example, hydraulic conductivity (Darcy's Law). infiltration capacity, (Horton's equation), sorptivity (Philips equation). If you don't think these are related to soil texture you need to go back to school.

    Too funny! Projecting your own shortcomings onto me once again. Good luck skip.
     
  4. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,074

    You obviously don't understand the term "directly proportional." You also seem to think that writing generally speaking before, after, or near anything you want makes it OK to flub the info.


    Again, you don't understand what you read. You posted a link to guidelines for minimum infiltration recommendations for constructed sites.

    See Hillel 1980 (Fundamentals of Soil Physics) for a more detailed discussion of infiltration. You will also find graph attached here:



    Note that the graph shows a highly correlated (R2>0.97) curved line, NOT a directly proportional one.


    Toro and RainBird asked me to help develop their controllers. This information was NOT used.



    You weren't talking about steady state infiltration. You never once measured it until now. Darcy's Law, Green and Ampt, Philips, Horton, and Richards all assume unsaturated conditions and solve for variable conditions.

    If you want to backpedal out of this and claim you were talking about Ksat, just say so.


    Again, trying to get out of beign accountable for your words by relying on generally speaking. Have you figured out yet that water doesn't travel through solid particles in the soil?




    You said that I didn't know anythign about soils if I thought that there wasn't a direct relationship detween infiltration rate and soil texture. You then posted a link that proved I was right.


    I'm not avoiding discussion on those at all. The discussion here is your incorrect assertion that water infiltration into soils is directly proportional to the texture. You've provided links and I've provided info detailing how that is not correct.


    You really don't get it, do you?

    Soil texture can be linked to those, but it is NOT the root cause. Your own links showed that those parameters can differ for soils of the same textural size class and the same particla size distribution. You fail.

    You want to hold everyone else to the letter of what they wrote, whether they use your favorite qualifier or not.

    You are now being held to task over your assertion that infiltration is directly proportional to texture when it is not.

    inf 1.jpg
     
  5. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    I most certainly do. What is clear is your inability to read my statement as a whole in the context it was made, but instead choose to fixate on a single word .... "directly". If it makes you feel better, you can leave off the "directly" part of my statement given your clear inability to understand how one might generally speak given the intended audience. But then, you don't really care about that do you? I also see you are projecting your own shortcomings onto me again here ..... nice.

    Not according to the manual you claimed to have read in less than 20 minutes. But then, why would that matter, right skip? Even if they were, the infiltration rates are within the NRCS data ranges for the associated soil texture. Your "point" has no substance.

    Nice try skip. Posting an excel graph with no y-axis label and an exponential decay proves what? If I use an exponential decay on the data I used I will also get a high correlation (R^2 = 0.98). Does that mean there isn't also a linear one .... absolutely not, as I have already shown with an (R^2 = 0.93). If you don't think that is statistically significant, it would appear you also need some statistical help.

    FYI, the whole reason I used that data table for my plot is so people here could see the data. You claim to be a published author and you present this "plot" that is nothing short of laughable. You are exposing yourself for what you really are here skip.

    Oh, of course you did. Now that is too funny coming from the guy who doesn't understand the relationship between Ksat and infiltration rate. So tell me, how does the controller determine an appropriate cycle and soak runtime using data provided by the user? What exactly is that data? I'll give you a hint for one of them .... it starts with soil and ends with texture. What are the others?

    Again, nice try, and how do you know what I was talking about? Tell me exactly why I wouldn't be talking about steady state infiltration rates? Why would I be concerned with anything else? Let me tell you, I'm not. Steady state infiltration rates are my primary concern in irrigation management. In fact, my first response to you in this thread specifically mentions it.


    Further, these equations do not assume unsaturated conditions (with exception to Richards equation which isn't even applicable), nor does it address your statement concerning how they are not related to soil texture, which as we all know, they are. To even suggest you can determine a soils infiltration rate or effective rainfall without consideration for a soils steady state infiltration rate is absurb, intellectually dishonest and just plain ignorant. This is not the first time you have been intellectually dishonest on this site either. You are really digging a deep hole here skip.

    Darcy's law was originally used for describing saturated flow in porous media.
    http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/classes/age357/ABE459_08/html/Saturated Flow in Soils.pdf

    Horton's equation: variable Fc represents steady state infiltration.
    http://alanasmith.com/theory-Calculating-Effective-Rainfall-The-Horton-Equation.htm

    Green-Ampt equation: Ksat is a required variable/parameter.
    http://enthusiasm.ucdavis.edu/hyd151/infiltrate.doc

    Richards equation: Doesn't even apply here as Richards equation is used to simulate/model water movement in unsaturated soils. Is there a reason for mentioning this equation other than to further demonstrate how little you know about this subject?

    How exactly am I back peddling? The only one back peddling here is you skip. How many times do I have to say this? I was talking generally about infiltration rates and particle size, and my statement is accurate as written when taken in context. Further, Ksat is an inextricable part of a soils net infiltration rate ... funny how you didn't know that.

    Again, you clearly cannot understand the english language. Curious skip, have you figured out how pore size/geometry are related to particle size yet?

    Now you are just grasping for straws.

    Again ... generally speaking, what part of that can you not understand skip?

    Further, the only thing you have provided here is largely inaccurate and misleading information, along with a clear indication that you are in way over your head.

    Putting words in my mouth yet again. I never said it was the root cause, nor that it would always be the same for the same textural class, did I skip? To make such a statement would be nothing short of absurd. On the other hand, you have asserted on several occasion that infiltration has nothing to do with soil texture.


    Funny thing about that skip, pore size is largely dependent on particle size. Would you like to dispute this fact?

    And again, I listed many factors that can influence infiltration, and again you avoid discussing them.

    You simply cannot debate here without twisting what I have said, taking my statements out of context, putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting me, yourself and others. Want to know why that is? Because your argument is weak at best.

    Generally speaking it is. Infiltration rates decrease with decreasing particle size. End of discussion.

    Now if you want to attempt to show that infiltration rates do not decrease with decreasing particle size then knock yourself out ...... and you will fail.
     
  6. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,074

    Congratulations! You finally said something somewhat close to accurate!

    Infiltration rates tend to decrease as particle size decreases becaues decreasing particle size is linked to decreased pore size.

    You can not make the blanket statement that the relationship is direct (even with your favorite qualifier that absolves you from any accountability of what you said). Remember, a direct relationship is a 1:1 relationship. Your links and cited textbooks showed how infiltration rates can be different for soils in the same textural class, which means that the 1:1 relationship is not a given, as you claimed it to be.

    Bottom line, you are going to be held to the same standard to which you hold everyone else. Your word choice counts. You were wrong when you said:

    generally speaking or not.

    To make it correct, you should have said that infiltration generally decreases as particle size decreases. You could have shown a better grasp of the concept and how to communicate it if you had said that water typically infiltrates into coarser soils at a higher rate than it does for heavier soils.

    But, you and I have both proved that infiltration is NOT directly proportional to particle size.
     
  7. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    And congratulations to you skip. You continue to demonstrate how intellectually dishonest you are.

    For the last time, in the context the statement was made, the statement is valid as written.

    You can make all the semantic arguments you want by taking my statement out of context, and in the process continue to show your complete lack of understanding of this field as you have now shown us on numerous occasions, and you will succeed at nothing more than digging your grave a little deeper.
     
  8. Skipster

    Skipster LawnSite Bronze Member
    Posts: 1,074

    You said something wrong. Plain and simple. I looked at your exact words and they were wrong. The proportion is rarely ever direct. If it were (even with your favorite qualifier), then we wouldn't see varying infiltration rates within the same textural class.

    You've shown that you have a remedial understanding of basic soils, but you lack the deeper understanding and you don't know how to properly or effectively communicate it.

    Since you hold everyone else to the minutia of their words, we will hold you to the minutia of your words.

    The proportion is NOT direct.
     
  9. phasthound

    phasthound LawnSite Platinum Member
    Posts: 4,576

    I thought one purpose of scientific discussions was to clarify things?
    If you guys can't agree on what you're talking about, how do you a expect lay person to understand?
     
  10. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    Deeper understanding .... good one skip. I see you still can't grasp the meaning of generally speaking or understand the context of the statement. Further we find more projecting of your own shortcomings onto me. More than amusing.

    You continue to do this despite having demonstrated on numerous occasions you don't know what you are talking about. You didn't know steady state infiltration is essentially the same as Ksat and on 2 occasions incorrectly stated how referenced equations were used, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Keep on digging that hole skip because you just keep on displaying how little you know of what you talk about. Oh, and keep on avoiding those pertinent questions and discussion topics I brought up .... dig, dig, dig.

    Also note how you have now changed from saying not direct to rarely direct ..... too funny. Hell you even just contradicted yourself in the above post. Nice going skip!

    But heh, just for giggles and grins, lets explore this direct proportion within a single textural class (clay) given your claims there can be no directly proportional relationship.

    I plotted a hypothetical set of 10 Ksat tests (steady state infiltration) for a clay soil using the range (0.01-0.1 micrometers/sec) as shown in the NRCS Ksat medium density triangle to illustrate you can indeed have a "directly proportional" relationship. Not only is this true for a single textural class, but most likely any soil texture that falls within a given soil hydrologic group, and perhaps even across groups providing differences in particle size do not vary significantly. As already stated, one can easily see this just looking at the triangle and ranges without plotting ... but then we have skip so......

    The attached plot shows a linear regression with R^2=1. Fact of the matter is skip, you can get a directly proportional relationship ... and my statement still stands as stated.

    plot_ksat_clay.jpg
     

Share This Page