An improved design of cone penetrometer

Armbruster, Karlheinz; Hertwig, A.; Kutzbach, Heinz Dieter

doi:10.1016/s0021-8634(05)80128-3

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This effect can be avoided by taking some precautions. There are studies that aim to reduce systematic errors in PR measurement, as the ones of Armbruster et al (1990) and Barone & Faugno (1996), which installed transducers directly on the cone and found a PR decrease of up to 40 %, attributing this difference to the unmeasured friction force between soil and penetrometer rod. Bengough et al (1997) measured PR with a rotating rod penetrometer and observed significant differences between PR measurements with and without rod rotation.…”

Section: Methods Comparison For Pr Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compared performance of penetrometers and effect of soil water content on penetration resistance measurements

Filho

Silva²,

Figueiredo³

et al. 2014

Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern agriculture techniques have a great impact on crops and soil quality, especially by the increased machinery traffic and weight. Several devices have been developed for determining soil properties in the field, aimed at managing compacted areas. Penetrometry is a widely used technique; however, there are several types of penetrometers, which have different action modes that can affect the soil resistance measurement. The objective of this study was to compare the functionality of two penetrometry methods (manual and automated mode) in the field identification of compacted, highly mechanized sugarcane areas, considering the influence of soil water volumetric content (θ) on soil penetration resistance (PR). Three sugarcane fields on a Rhodic Eutrudrox were chosen, under a sequence of harvest systems: one manual harvest (1ManH), one mechanized harvest (1MH) and three mechanized harvests (3MH). The different degrees of mechanization were associated to cumulative compaction processes. An electronic penetrometer was used on PR measurements, so that the rod was introduced into the soil by hand (Manual) and by an electromechanical motor (Auto). The θ was measured in the field with a soil moisture sensor. Results showed an effect of θ on PR measurements and that regression models must be used to correct data before comparing harvesting systems. The rod introduction modes resulted in different mean PR values, where the "Manual" overestimated PR compared to the "Auto" mode at low θ.

show abstract

Section: Methods Comparison For Pr Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compared performance of penetrometers and effect of soil water content on penetration resistance measurements

Filho

Silva²,

Figueiredo³

et al. 2014

Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Penetration resistance values give an indication of the hardness or density of the soil, with values being influenced by soil moisture content and soil type (Armbruster et al 1990). Penetration resistance at the study sites was measured with a spring-loaded, center-cone penetrometer with a 129-mm 2 base area cone and a 30 degree cone angle, manufactured by Star Quality Samplers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longevity of deep ripping effects on Solonetzic and associated soils

Mathison¹,

Chanasyk²,

Naeth³

2002

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mathison, M. N., Chanasyk, D. S. and Naeth, M. A. 2002. Longevity of deep ripping effects on Solonetzic and associated soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 82: 259-264. The longevity of deep ripping effects on Solonetzic soils was investigated at 11 field sites in eastcentral Alberta after a period of 15 to 20 yr. Select soil properties and crop yield of deep-ripped and non-ripped control plots were analyzed. Dryland yield data of wheat, barley, oats and canola were assessed for 10 of the 11 sites over a 16-yr time period. Select soil properties were analyzed once in 1998 with penetration resistance (PR) evaluated again in 1999. A significant difference in penetration resistance was found between the deep ripped versus control treatments (P ≤ 0.05). There were no significant treatment differences for soil texture, bulk density (Db), pH, electrical conductivity (EC) or sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). A significant yield difference between the deep ripping and control treatments (for all crop species) was found for 6 of 10 sites (P ≤ 0.10), with all sites having an increase in mean yield for the majority of years evaluated. Generally, sites in the drier ecoregions had smaller yield increases than those in the wetter ones. Hence some beneficial effects from deep ripping remain for a long time period. On remarque une différence significative entre la résistance à la pénétration des sols défoncés et des sols intacts (P ≤ 0,05). Le défonçage n'entraîne aucune variation significative au niveau de la texture du sol, de la masse volumique apparente, du pH, de la conductivité électrique et du ratio d'adsorption du sodium. Le rendement varie de façon significative entre les sols défoncés et intacts (pour toutes les cultures) à six endroits sur dix (P ≤ 0,10), le rendement moyen étant plus élevé à tous les sites, la majorité des années de l'évaluation. Dans l'ensemble, la hausse de rendement dans les régions écologiques plus arides est inférieure à celle observée dans les régions plus humides. Les bienfaits du défonçage en profondeur durent donc relativement longtemps.

show abstract

“…Strain gauge transducers connected in full bridge con"gurations were used by Smith and Dumas (1978) and Riethmuller et al (1983) on penetrometers to measure force. Armbruster et al (1990) adapted a quartz pressure transducer to measure force at the cone base of a penetrometer.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike the common arrangement whereby the load sensor is located at the upper end of the shaft, the piezocell used was located immediately above the steel cone (Armbruster et al, 1990). Placement of the piezocell just above the cone allows for more accurate measurement of cone index (Armbruster et al, 1990;Adams & Topp, 1998) and allows other sensors to be added to the shaft, without causing interference to the cone index determination. Adams and Topp (1998) describe the cone index measured just above the cone as the true cone index because it precludes soil}shaft friction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%