You are on page 1of 13

Agricultural

water management
ELSEVIER Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 3547

Finite element modeling of subsurface drainage in


Finnish heavy clay soils
Erkki Aura
Agricultural Research Centre, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland

Accepted 6 October 1994

Abstract

The functioning of the subdrains in a moist heavy clay soil was modeled for a pressure head of
water higher than - 100 cm. Simulation can be applied to Finnish conditions in spring before sowing
and in the fall after the harvest. The saturated-unsaturated flow in a two-dimensional drainage system
was calculated by the finite element method. Because of the abundant use of high-quality envelope
gravel in Finland, the entrance resistance of the drainpipe was not considered. In heavy clay soils,
both the saturated conductivity and the volume of the macropores vary from layer to layer, and these
variations were taken into account in the model. The calculated groundwater levels were compared
with the measured values. The results show that the accuracy of modeling can be improved by
consideration of the macropore volumes in the different layers. If the conductivity in the subsoil is
very low and differs from the values for the trench backfill, the use of conductivities measured for the
backfill soil will improve the results of the model.

Kewords: Drainage; Element modeling; Heavy clay; Macropore

1. Part 1: Application of the finite element method

1.1. Introduction

The southern part of Finland is the most important agricultural region of the country. In
the region, which is located between latitudes 60 and 61, the mean annual temperature is
5-6 C and precipitation 600-750 mm. The difference between precipitation and evaporation
is on average 200-300 mm. Clay soils are dominant in the south of Finland. According to
the Finnish soil type classification, clay soils contain > 30% by weight clay particles
( < 0.002 mm). The subsoil is often very heavy clay, with a clay content of more than 60%.
The clay minerals are mostly of the illitic type.

0378-3774/95/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved


SSDIO378-3774(95)01166-S
36 E. Aura /Agricultural Water Managetnent 28 (1995) 35-47

The critical times for the working of the drainage system in Finnish clay soils are the
spring before sowing and the fall after the harvest but before plowing. The growing period
in Finland is usually dry, and as a result the clay soils crack. During the middle part of
summer, unless it is very wet, rainwater percolates rapidly to the drains in the soil. Diffi-
culties with the drainage of clay soils arise in early spring and in fall, when these soils are
swollen. Measurements of the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the subsoil at levels deeper
than 30-40 cm in swollen conditions often give low values of the order of 0.02-0.5 cm
hh . In such conditions the conductivity of the topsoil is usually much higher (5-100 cm
h _ ), showing great structural stability (Aura, 1990). The slope of these problematic soils
is usually less than 1%.
The functioning of the subsurface drains in clay soils in moist and swollen conditions
was modeled. The saturated-unsaturated flow in the two-dimensional drainage system was
solved numerically with the finite element method, following Neuman et al. (1975) and
Zaradny and Feddes ( 1979). In their model, the K value of the saturated soil is constant in
each element. The conductivity in unsaturated soil is calculated first at the corners of
elements and then within the element, using the local coordinates of the elements. In this
calculation of the water flow in Finnish heavy clay soils, the significant variation in macro-
pore volume between the different layers was also taken into account. Each element in the
model has its own constant value for the macropore volume. The conductivity of the trench
backfill is an important factor affecting the working of the drains in wet conditions and was
therefore considered. Because of the abundant use of gravel as a filter material above the
drainpipe, there is no radial water flow in the soil near the drainpipe. In Part 1 of this paper
the application of the finite element method to moist conditions is presented. In Part 2 the
calculated groundwater levels are compared with the observed values.

1.2. Finite element solution

The soil in each element is assumed to be isotropic. The flow of water in an unsaturated
or partly saturated soil can be described, when soil water is not taken up by plants, by the
equation

V. [K(H) VH] - C(H)z=L(H) =O

where H, K, C, t and L are the hydraulic head (cm), the soil hydraulic conductivity (cm
h - ), the differential soil water capacity (cm- I), the time (h) and the quasilinear differ-
ential operator. The hydraulic head H is the sum of h+z, in which h is the pressure head
(cm) and z the gravitational head (cm) or the vertical coordinate taken positively upward.
The pressure head h is taken as positive in the saturated soil and negative in the unsaturated
soil. The differential soil water capacity is dO/dh, where 8 is the volumetric soil water
content ( cm3 cm-).
Eq. (l), together with the appropriate initial and boundary conditions, is solved by the
Galerkin method.
For the numerical computation of the two-dimensional system, the region under consid-
eration is divided into rectangular or triangular elements. The exact solution H in Eq. ( 1)
E. Aura /Agricultural WaterManagement28 (1995)35-47 31

is replaced by the approximate solution, which is a linear combination of the nodal basis
functions:

fi=&+z (2)

fi= thi(t)iVJi(nJ) (3)


i=l

where hi is the time-dependent pressure head of node i and Ni is a linear basis function. The
value of Ni in node i is 1 and in the other nodes 0. The Galerkin method requires the
coefficients hi to be determined such that

N;(x,z)L~(x,z,t)~dz=O (4)
n

(i = 1,2,. . .&I) where Q signifies that integration is carried out over the entire flow region
and M is the number of nodes. When the nodal value of the time derivative (Slat), is
defined in accordance with Neuman et al. ( 1975):

C(h)Ni$dXdz= C(h)N&dz (5)


0

and, using Greens first identity, one obtains the following set of equations:

= -B,+Q; (6)

(ij= 1,...&I), where

A,= 3(h)z+$$(h)2&dz (7)


n

F;= C(h)N;dxdz (8)


il
0

B;= K(h)zdxdz (9)


II
n
Qi = j-N;K( h) vfirzds (10)

and hi are the unknown time-dependent values of the pressure head at the nodes. In the last
integral, 7 is the boundary of a and 12is a unit vector outwardly normal to 7.

1.3. Conductivity and retention of water in elements

The calculation was made only for moist conditions. The pressure head of the experi-
mental soils above the groundwater table varied between field capacity and saturation. The
conductivity of water in each element was computed according to Neuman et al. ( 1975) :
38 E. Aum /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 3547

Pressure head - cm
)-Curve l Topsoil + Subsoil

Fig. 1. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity as a function of the pressure head. The curve shows the dependence of
the conductivity on the pressure head, if the saturated hydraulic conductivity is 1 cm h-.

K=RtK;N, (11)
/= 1

where R (cm h _ ) is the saturated hydraulic conductivity (which is constant in an element),


K; is the relative hydraulic conductivity (K/K) at the corners of the elements, and n is the
number of the basis functions in an element. The dependence of the conductance on the
pressure head between 0 and - 100 is shown in Fig. 1. According to the measurements for
clay soils made at our laboratory, the relation between K; and h is approximately (Aura et
al., 1992):

K;= ( -O.~//Z.).~ if h> -0.3 cm, K;=l (12)


The curve in Fig. 1 is calculated using Eq. ( 12) and represents the function K(h), if the
saturated hydraulic conductivity is 1 cm hP .
Because the functioning of the drains was studied in moist conditions and the volume of
the macropores in the different layers varied considerably, each element was given its own
C(h) function. The values of C between the pressure heads of 0 and - 100 cm are calculated
as follows:

C=e,tC;N, (13)
/=I

where e,+,is the volume of the macropores (0 > 0.03 mm; cm cmm3) or the water volume
between pressure heads of 0 to - 100 cm and is constant in an element. Water retention
curves for calculating C; values at the corners of the element in Eq. ( 13) are obtained as
follows: According to the pF curve determinations for heavy clay soils made at our labo-
ratory, the water content, 8 ( cm3 cmP3 ), depends approximately on the pressure head
between 0 and - 100 cm (Aura, 1990) :

e-e,EXP(O.OG(h+0.3)) + elm (14)


E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 35-47 39

It follows from Eq. ( 14) that derivative C; has the value O.O6EXP( O-06( h + 0.3) ) . 8,,
is the water content at a pressure head of - 100 cm, because the function
EXP( 0.06( h + 0.3) ) has a value near zero if h is - 100 cm.
It is defined that at pressure heads above - 0.3 cm the soil is saturated with water and
dtlldh has a value of 0.

1.4. Integration over time

The time domain is discretized into a sequence of finite intervals At and the time derivative
of h in Eq. (6) is replaced by the finite difference, yielding the equations:
hf+ +,+! h!+-h!
I 1 F!+1/2 J J= _B;+/*+Q;+1/2
A;?*
(15)
2 At

(ij= 1>...,M)
The pressure head values h at time t are known and the problem is to solve the values of
h+ at time t + 1. The method presented by Karvonen ( 1988) was used. First, the integrals
(7) -( 9) are calculated, using the h values, and then the h+ values are calculated explicitly.
For the F integrals, C(h) values are obtained by derivation of the water retention function
( 14)) using h. Then the pressure heads

h +12=1/2(h+h+) (16)

are used for calculation of the new integrals A, F, and B.


For F integrals, C(h) values are obtained not by derivation, but following Karvonen
(1988):

01+1 -0
c 1+1/z- I
(17)
h ,+ I -h

The new pressure heads h+ are then solved from Eq. ( 15)) using the successive over-
relaxation method (Remson et al., 197 1). After explicit solution, the number of iteration
rounds for calculating the A, B, and F integrals and h+ were three.

1.5. Drainage system and boundary conditions

The boundaries and the network of the elements are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. With
rectangular elements in the model, the same results were obtained as with triangular ele-
ments. The impermeable layer lies at a depth of 300 cm. The average depth of the drain is
105 cm. The distance between the laterals is usually 16 m. In Finland the width of the
excavation is 16,24, or 27 cm. Corrugated plastic drain tubes with an outside diameter of
5 cm have been used.
The dominant envelope material is gravel which is abundant in Finland. The permeability
of gravel is more than 1000 cm h- I. Gravel is laid over the pipe in a 10 cm thick layer. The
entrance resistance is low. The slots in the pipe and the envelope gravel maintain good
permeability because the solid particles in the soil water belong to the clay fraction. If the
backfilled soil above the pipe has a low permeability and is saturated with water during
40 E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 35-47

Air
t
1 SOOcm >
z E
I
A .D
/
Unsaturated h<O

Water table h=O


I c
dh/dx=O
FN
6
G
Gravel

dh/dx=O
Tube 105cm

/ Saturated h>O 3OOcm


H

-Y- I
A
A Impermeable dh/dz=O B

Fig. 2. Boundary conditions

Soil surface

105 cm
I R I = I c,

Fig. 3. Part of the finite element network. Calculation of the K and C values in a rectangular element.
E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 3547 41

heavy rains, then, according to the measurements made at our institute, the gravel envelope
is not saturated with water but contains air also. For this reason the pressure head on the
boundary GH in Fig. 2 is taken to be zero in the calculation. On the boundaries EFG and
HABCD the perpendicular water flow is 0.
The flow across the soil surface depends on evaporation and precipitation. In the fall, the
frequent rains between harvest time and plowing keep the soil surface moist. Usually the
pressure head at the soil surface is higher than - 100 cm. Evaporation E (kg me2 s- )
from the soil surface was estimated using the Penman equation (Penman, 1948; Monteith,
1965) :

(18)

where 6 is the first derivative of the function e,( T) (mbar K- ) or the dependence of the
saturated vapor pressure on the temperature, R, (W m-) is the energy flux of the net
incoming radiation, C,, (J kg- K-) is the specific heat of air at constant pressure, pa (kg
mp3) is the density of the air, e, (mbar) is the saturated vapor pressure at temperature T,
at a height of 2 m, ed (mbar) is the prevailing vapor pressure at the height of 2 m, R, (s
m-) is theresi s t ante, y( 0.67 mbar K- ) is the psychrometer constant, and L (2.45 1 X lo6
J kg-) is the latent heat of vaporization of water. The resistance R, was estimated as
follows:

R = [ln(z/b) I*
n (19)
l&l
where u is daily mean wind velocity m s - at a height of z = 10 m, ~0 is the roughness length
0.001 m, and k is Karmans constant 0.4 1. During the summers of 1986-1988, the calculated
evaporation x was compared with y values measured by the Class A method. The number
of days was 488. The regression equation y = 1.07 X - 0.139 and the correlation coefficient
r = 0.94 were obtained.

2. Part 2: Comparison between measured and calculated groundwater levels

2.1. Materials and methods

Fields
In 1986 and 1987 the functioning of the drainage system in heavy clay soils was studied
at the Agricultural Research Center. Spring cereals grew in the experimental fields. The
saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soils studied varied from layer to layer and was
highest in top soil. Because the volume of the macropores also varied between layers, the
fields were well suited for comparison of the simulated results with the measured ones. The
measured values are for subsurface drainage systems installed according to the Finnish
standards described by Saavalainen ( 1986). Part I also contains information about pipe
diameter, excavation depth, drain spacing, and envelope material in Finnish practice.
The results were obtained from three fields located near the Research Center at Jokioinen
(60 49N, 23 30E). The fields studied were drained during 1984-1986. The area of each
42 E. Aura/Apicultural Water Management 28 (1995) 35-47

Groundwater level cm
0 100

-20 80

-40 60

-60j1i40

26.8 5.9 15.9 25.9


Date
I++ 1 -2 +3 . 4 IPrecipitation I

Fig. 4. Modeled and measuredgroundwaterlevels for Field 1. 11modeledconsideringthe K values and macropore
volumes in the different layers and the K value of the backfill soil; 2, modeled using a single macropore volume;
3, modeled without taking into account the K value of the backfill soil; 4, measured values.

field is about 10 ha. The clay content varies between 73 and 86% by weight in topsoil and
between 80 and 90% in subsoil. The corresponding values for organic carbon are 5-15%
and 0.5-l .O%.

Measurement ofgroundwater level


The functioning of the drainage system was monitored with the help of groundwater
observation pipes. The diameter of the plastic pipes was 17, 30, or 45 mm. This method is
suitable for monitoring drain functioning in Finnish clay soils, because, as shown by the
water retention curves (Aura, 1983), a slight lowering of the pressure head from zero
abruptly reduces the water content of a clay soil. The groundwater level can be measured
exactly because of the abrupt decrease in the water content above the groundwater surface.
In Field I, drain spacing is I6 m and the distance of the observation pipes from the drain is
8 m. The corresponding distances in Field II are 16 and 4 m, and in Field III 10 and 5 m.
The groundwater levels in FigsFig. 4.Fig. 5 Fig. 64-6 are means of measurements made at
73 sites on Field I, at 26 sites on Field II, and at 17 sites on Field III. The variation coefficients
of the measured groundwater levels were 5 l-95% for Field I, 46-76% for Field II and, 15-
45% for Field III.

Measurement of the hydrologic characteristic of the experimental soils


Undisturbed soil samples were taken with 60 cm long PVC pipes having a diameter of
15 cm, when the soil was moist and in swollen condition. In the laboratory, samples were
cut into two or three layers and the cut surfaces were prepared. For all samples the saturated
conductivity was measured by the constant head method. The volume of macropores,
0 > 0.3 mm, or the air volume at a pressure head of - 10 cm, was also measured. The
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soil was determined for five soil samples between
pressure heads of 0 to - 100 cm, using a modification of the crust-imposed steady flux
method (Green et al., 1986). In this method a known unsaturated steady flow of water
E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 35-47 43

Groundwater level cm Precipitation mm


01 1100

-20 80

-40 60

-80 t { 40

28.9 8.10 18.10 28.10


Date
sl -2 n 3 WPrecipitation mm

Fig. 5. Modeled and measured groundwater levels for Field II. 1, modeled considering the Kvalues and macropore
volumes in the different layers; 2, modeled using a single macropore volume; 3, measured values.

under gravity is established by means of a crust at the soil surface. More detailed descriptions
of the methods have been presented by Aura et al. ( 1992) and Myllys ( 1992).
On the field the saturated conductivity was measured by the augerhole method (Boast
and Kirkham, 197 1) . If the ground-water level was so low that measurement by this method
was impossible, the permeability was obtained by the so-called inverse augerhole method.
Then the k value obtained was only approximate (Smedema and Rycroft, 1983).

Groundwuter level simulation


In the simulation the initial groundwater level was the same as that measured. It was
assumed that in the initial conditions the soil water was in static equilibrium. The ground-
water level was calculated only for the period between harvest and plowing. Plowing

Groundwater level cm Precipitation mm


0

-20

-80

-100
2.9 12.9 22.9 2.10 12.10 22.10
Date

Fig. 6. Modeled and measured groundwater levels for Field III. 1, modeled using appropriate K values and
macropore volumes for the different layers; 2, modeled using a single macropore volume; 3, measured values.
44 E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 3547

changes the physical characteristics in the topsoil. The samples were taken and physical
measurements were made in the three fields between sowing in spring and plowing in the
fall. The arithmetic means of the saturated K values were used because, for Fields I and II,
the use of geometric means increased the discrepancy between the simulated and measured
values.
A FORTRAN program was written for finite element analysis on a VAX cluster. The
step interval in integration over time was 1 h. A narrower network than that shown in Fig.
3 of Part I was also used in the simulation but did not alter the results. However, if a more
detailed study of the pressure head in the neighborhood of a drain is necessary, a smaller
element size is needed in this soil region.
The following cases were modeled for the fields studied. Field I: ( 1) Account was taken
of the conductivities in the different soil layers and in the backfill soil and of the macropore
volumes in the different layers. (2) The water conductivities in the different layers, and
backfill soil were included, but the macropore volume from the 25-35 cm layer was used
for all layers. (3) The conductivity in the trench backfill was assumed to be the same as
elsewhere. Conductivities and macropore volumes in the different layers were included in
the model. Field II: (1) Account was taken of the conductivities and macropore volumes
in the different layers. The water conductivity in the backfill soil was taken to be the same
as elsewhere in the soil. (2) The water conductivities in the different layers were considered,
but the macropore volume in the 25-60 cm layer was used for all layers. Conductivity in
the backfill soil was taken to be the same as elsewhere in the soil. Field III: (1) The water
conductivities and the macropore volumes in different soil layers were taken into account.
The conductivity was assumed to be the same in the backfill soil as elsewhere. (2) The
water conductivities in the different layers were included in the model but the macropore
volume of the 35-60 cm layer was used for all layers. The conductivity was the same in the
backfill soil as elsewhere.

2.2. Physical characteristics of the studied soils

The saturated conductivities of the soils are shown in Table 1. These results show that
the conductivity decreases abruptly below the topsoil. The heterogeneity in the results is
high, the coefficient of variation being over 200 in some layers. There is also a distinct
decrease in the macropore volume with depth (Table 2) ; however, the relative differences
between the layers are not as high as between hydraulic conductivities.
The unsaturated hydraulic conductivities are plotted in Fig. 1, the curve showing the
dependence of the conductance on the pressure head if the saturated hydraulic conductivity
is 1 cm h-i. The curve is calculated using Eq. (12) in Part I. The relation between the
relative conductivity K; and the pressure head h depends on the compaction of the soil. For
the loose topsoil, the value 2.2 and, for the compacted subsoil, the value 1.O in place of the
exponent 1.5 in Eq. (12) are more appropriate. However, the calculated results were not
sensitive to the K;-(h) function. If the value 2.2 or 1.O was used in place of the exponent 1.5
in Eq. ( 12), the calculated groundwater levels changed by approximately 1 cm. For the
sake of simplicity, the effect of compaction on the K;(h) function was ignored.
E. Aura /Agriculhrral Water Management 28 (1995) 3547 45

Table 1
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the experimental soils

Field Layer (cm) Measurement Mean (cm h- ) CV (%) GM (cm h-) Number of measurements

I O-25 Core method 84.4 76 40.2 24


25-35 Core method 0.347 181 0.079 21
35-60 Core method 0.062 268 0.020 22
60-100 Augerhole 0.061 56 0.053 12
100-200 Augerhole 0.009 38 0.008 4
25-45 Augerhole 0.729 201 0.161 11
45-95 Augerhole 1.124 77 0.814 9
II o-25 Core method 55.8 73 16.4 12
2540 Core method 1.08 168 0.112 15
60-100 Augerhole 0.160 211 0.092 12
100-200 Augerhole 0.016 58 0.014 4
III O-25 Core method 205.6 51 174.2 16
25-35 Core method 39.0 73 23.4 12
35-100 Augerhole 0.755 56 0.667 12
100-200 Augerhole 0.020 68 0.016 4

Trench backfill.
CV, coefficient of variation; GM, geometric mean.

2.3. Calculated and modeled groundwater levels

The results are shown in Figs. 4-6. In Field I (Fig. 4) according to the measurements,
the groundwater level was high all the time, not more than 40 cm deep. Because the saturated
conductivity in the compacted subsoil is low, only 0.06 cm h- (Table 1)) failure to take
account of the conductivity of the trench backfill in modeling results in an erroneously high
groundwater level (Simulation 3). From the same figure it appears that taking into account
the macropore volume of the topsoil in addition to the volume in the subsoil dampens the
variation of the groundwater table in the simulated results (Simulations 1 and 2). However,

Table 2
Volume of macropores 0 > 0.3 mm corresponding to the volume of air in the soil at a pressure head of - 10 cm

Field Layer (cm) Mean (cm cmw3) CVb (%) Number of core samples

I o-25 0.083 32 24
25-35 0.019 56 24
35-60 0.013 42 24
11 O-25 0.083 51 12
25-60 o.028c 121 10
111 O-25 0.125 70 16
25-35 0.059 19 12
35-60 0.030 45 10

Using E!.q. ( 14), these values are multiplied by 1.79 to obtain the water volume from pressure heads of 0 to - 100
cm for the simulation.
bCoeflicient of variation.
Values also used for the layer from 60 to 100 cm.
46 E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 35-47

inclusion of the volume of the topsoil macropores in the model does not improve the
compatibility with the measured values.
According to Fig. 5, taking into account the macropore volume in the topsoil (Simulation
1) improves the compatibility of the model results with the measured values for Field II. If
only a single macropore volume is used (Simulation 2), the variation in the calculated
groundwater levels increases, as in the simulation for Field I.
In Field III the saturated conductivity in the subsoil above drain-pipe level is distinctly
higher than in the corresponding layer in Fields I and II (Table 1). This explains why the
use of the macropore volumes appropriate for different layers leads to only a slight improve-
ment in the modeled results (Fig. 6) compared with the use of a single value. There is some
discrepancy between the results, mainly during the first part of the time period (Simulations
1 and 2 in Fig. 6). Taking into account the macropore volumes of the different layers
improves the compatibility with the measured values.

2.4. Discussion

The validity of the model presented in Part I is limited in Finland to the moist conditions
in spring before sowing and in the fall after harvest. The pressure head of soil water is
assumed to be higher than - 100 cm. No bimodal pore system was included in the simulation
and the macropore network was assumed to be continuous. Entrance resistance was not
taken into account because of the abundant use of envelope gravel in Finland. However, no
radial symmetry of water flow around the pipe was assumed to exist. In earlier years, before
mechanization, less gravel was used and its quality was poorer than it is today. In modeling
old drainage systems, the entrance resistance has to be considered in the simulation. This
can be done, for example, by giving a higher value to the pressure head for water in gravel
(at boundary GH in Fig. 2).
The results for Field I show that the use of a single macropore value does not always
worsen the accuracy of a drainage simulation. The single value used was the macropore
volume of the layer 25-35 cm, and was much lower than the macropore volume of the
topsoil (Table 2). This result suggests that, in the field conditions, the macropore volume
for rapid flow in soil layers might have been lower than the volume measured at the
laboratory. In this compacted soil, inclusion of the conductivity of the trench backfill
improves the modeling results. Farmers in Finland have started to fill drain excavations
with such materials as humus-rich topsoil and wood chips. In consequence conductivity is
higher in the trench than elsewhere in the soil. The element method is very suitable for
modeling a drainage system of this type.
In the simulations of Fields II and III, taking into account the macropore volumes in the
different layers gave better compatibility between the results obtained with the model and
the measured values. In Finnish heavy clay soils the different layers naturally have different
macropore volumes. Compaction by machines increases these differences (Aura, 1983).
When simulating the effect of compaction on drainage, taking this effect of machines into
account improves the usefulness of the element method.
Tables 1 and 2 show that the physical characteristics of the soils studied vary greatly.
Likewise, the coefficient of variation for the measured heights of the water table at a constant
distance from the drainpipe ranged from 15 to 95%. Thus, it is not possible to calculate the
E. Aura /Agricultural Water Management 28 (1995) 3547 41

groundwater table for a point in a field. Using average physical characteristics of the soil
layers, it is only possible to simulate the average groundwater level for a given time point
at a constant distance from the drain pipe.

References

Aura, E., 1983. Soil compaction by the tractor in spring and its effect on soil porosity. J. Sci. Agric. Sot. Finl.,
55: 91-107.
Aura, E., 1990. The functioning of subsurface drainage in clay soils. Agric. Res. Centre Rep. 10/90, 93 pp. (in
Finnish)
Aura, E., Puustinen, M., Vi&men, S., Mikkola, H., Luoma, T. and Pehomaa, R., 1992. Drainage field methodology
comparison in Zaitzevo. Vesi ja YmpilristGhallinnon Julkaisuja-sarja A, 127: I-103 (English summary).
Boast, C.W. and Kirkham, D., 1971. Augerhole seepage theory. Proc. Soil Sci. Am., 35: 365-373.
Green, R.E., Ahuja, L.R. and Chong, S.K., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity, diffusivity, and sorptivity of unsaturated
soils: Field Methods. Crust-imposed steady flux method. Agronomy, 9: 785-789.
Karvonen, T., 1988. A model for predicting the effect of drainage on soil moisture, soil temperature and crop
yield. Helsinki University of Technology, Finland, 1988/l: 1-215.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. Proc. Symp. Sot. Exp. Biol., 19: 205-234.
Myllys, M., 1992. Physical properties of agricultural peat soils and their effect on drainage. Proc. 9th. Int. Peat
Congr. Vol., 2: 352-360.
Neuman, S.P., Feddes, R.A. and Bresler, E., 1975. Finite element analysis of two-dimensional flow in soils
considering water uptake by roots: I Theory. Soil Sci. Sot. Am. Proc., 39: 224-230.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. Roy. Sot. London A, 193:
120-145.
Remson, I., Homberger, G.M. and Molz, J.F., 1971. Numerical methods in subsurface hydrology. Wiley, New
York, 240 pp.
Saavalainen, J., 1986. Agriculture and drainage practices in Finland. Proc. Int. Seminar Land Drainage, 9-11 July,
Helsinki, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland, pp. 1-15.
Smedema, L.K. and Rycroft, D.W., 1983. Land drainage. London, 376 pp.
Zaradny, H. and Feddes, R.A., 1979. Calculation of non-steady Row towards a drain in saturated-unsaturated soil
by finite elements. Agric. Water Manage., 2:37-53.

You might also like