About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions

Members of ASA, CSSA, and SSSA: Due to system upgrades, your subscriptions in the digital library will be unavailable from May 15th to May 22nd. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please call our membership department at 608-273-8080.


Institutional Subscribers: Institutional subscription access will not be interrupted for existing subscribers who have access via IP authentication, though new subscriptions or changes will not be available during the upgrade period. For questions, please email us at: queries@dl.sciencesocieties.org or call Danielle Lynch: 608-268-4976.



This article in JEQ

  1. Vol. 40 No. 2, p. 302-311
    Received: Feb 9, 2010

    * Corresponding author(s): ying_chen@umanitoba.ca
Request Permissions


Modeling Liquid Distribution in Soil after Pocket Injection

  1. Binxin Wua and
  2. Ying Chen *b
  1. a Philadelphia Mixing Solutions, 1221 E. Main St., Palmyra, PA 17078
    b Dep. of Biosystems Engineering, Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 5V6. Assigned to Associate Editor Peter Kleinman


Information on liquid distribution after injection of liquid manure is important to the evaluation of injection methods and the design of injection tools. A two-dimensional numerical model was developed to predict liquid distribution in the soil around a soil pocket. Model outputs are the lateral spread (L), vertical thickness (T), and cross-sectional area (A) of the liquid infiltration zone. Values of L do not vary with injection depth, whereas T and A increase with the injection depth. These model outputs are sensitive to effective saturated soil content (the difference between saturated and initial water contents). At greater effective saturated water content, values of L, T, and A are lower. Values of L vary from 0.13 to 0.23 m, values of T vary from 0.09 to 0.19 m for injection depths from 0.05 to 0.15 m, and values of A vary from 0.009 to 0.030 m2 The model results were compared with field measurements taken from six forage fields with sandy loam and clay soils. The model better predicts L than T and A. The relative average error between the predictions and field measurements vary from 10.3 to 101.9%.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2011. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science SocietyAmerican Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America