Author
Listed:
- Hao Zhang
(Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China and School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)
- Chong Wang
(Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China and School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)
- Zhengyan Chen
(Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China and School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)
- Qingyu Kang
(Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China and School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)
- Xiaohua Xu
(Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China and School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)
- Tianpeng Gao
(Engineering Center for Pollution Control and Ecological Restoration in Mining of Gansu Province, Lanzhou City University, Lanzhou 730070, China
School of Biological & Environmental Engineering, Xi’an University, Xi’an 710065, China)
Abstract
Particle size distribution (PSD) is a rich source of information about soil properties, including soil gradation and soil particle size characteristics. This paper compared the PSD prediction ability of three types of mathematical model. We selected nine models that have been proven to accurately predict sample points in previous studies, and we fit 144 pieces of experimental data on 12 texture classes of soil samples from the UNSODA database. We compared the models’ capability for predicting non-sample points, which is important for predicting soil particle size characteristics. Each model’s ability to predict non-sample points of different texture classes of soil was studied using a comprehensive ranking method. The relative differences in the models’ prediction of non-sample points of different texture classes of soil were analyzed using the relative error method. The results showed no considerable correlation between the number of model parameters and the prediction accuracy. For the various texture classes of soil, the Skaggs model and Weipeng model had the highest accuracy in predicting non-sample points, and the Skaggs model had the widest range of application. The Zhongling model and the Weibull model were better in predicting only one texture class of soil, respectively. The Fredlund model, Kolve model, Rosin model, Van Genuchten model and Best model were not as successful as other models. The Weipeng model overestimated the solid particle mass proportion, while the Skaggs model underestimated it when the clay particle content was greater than 20%. Both the Weipeng model and the Skaggs model demonstrated good prediction accuracy when the particle size was within the silt particle size range. The Skaggs model overestimated the particle mass proportion, while the Weipeng model underestimated it when the particle size was within the sand particle size range.
Suggested Citation
Hao Zhang & Chong Wang & Zhengyan Chen & Qingyu Kang & Xiaohua Xu & Tianpeng Gao, 2022.
"Performance Comparison of Different Particle Size Distribution Models in the Prediction of Soil Particle Size Characteristics,"
Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2068-:d:975899
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2068-:d:975899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.