Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0250076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250076

Experiment on compaction of air-dried soil under drop shocks

Jianbo Wang 1,2, Tiansheng Hong 1,2, Zhen Li 2,3,*, Xiuyun Xue 2,3, Shilei Lyu 2,3
Editor: Reginald B Kogbara4
PMCID: PMC8049244  PMID: 33857231

Abstract

For the requirement in container nursery culture that growing media should be achieved the appropriate degree compaction, this paper presents an experiment on the compaction dynamics of air-dried soil under repetitive drop shocks, as a preliminary step toward the mechanization of this compaction method. The drop height used to adjust the shock intensity included 2 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm. And the overall packing density of soil in a vertically stratified cylinder vessel and the local packing density in each layer were taken as indicators of soil compaction states. The stretched exponential function derived from KWW law than the empirical inverse-logarithmic function has been found to be more suitable for expressing the temporal evolution of soil compaction, according to the results of curve-fitting to test values of the overall and local density. It is inherent in this experimental configuration that the drop shock intensity even at a constant drop height varies with drop times, owing to the interaction between the soil packing itself and drop shocks caused by the combination of the packing and the container. But the function t/τf(t,H) is manifested as a straight line on the drop times t with the line slope related to the drop height H, so the soil compaction dynamics caused by its drop shocks and that under the condition with actively controlled intensity actually share the common relaxation law. In addition, the soil’s one-dimensional distribution of local packing density showed a slight positive gradient as similar as monodisperse particles did.

Introduction

Container seedlings have advantages [14] over bareroot seedlings in terms of roots intactness, survival rate and growth potential, and are especially suitable for seedling species with sensitivity to transplantation and areas with harsh site conditions [5]. Container seedlings grow in separated containers and obtain water, air, mineral nutrients and physical support from the limited medium in containers, making it a unique and critical process to fill containers with growing media [6, 7]. In despite of the diversity of growing media and containers available in the culture of container nursery, plants have similar requirements for the growing medium properties, among which the proper degree of compaction [811] is closely related to the filling operation. Block containers [12] and non-woven fabric containers [13] are two typical cases of mechanically filling and compacting. In the former case, the automatic equipment has been designed to, in sequence, fill each cell within a block, compress the medium with indenters, sow seeds into hollows formed from the compression, and to cover these seeds by refilling. Namely, the compaction method of compressing the medium on its surface was used [14]. For the other case [13, 15], the band-shaped material of non-woven fabric is made into a continuous cylinder through the heat-sealing operation, which synchronously gets filled with the growing medium delivered and extruded by a rotating screw. And then the packed cylinder is cut into segments with required length. Using the rotating screw instead of the indenters the compaction method is actually the same as the former case. The manual operation still seems to be the only option for individual bottomed containers, such as polyethylene film and non-woven fabric bags usually used to cultivate container-grown seedlings of citrus. Operators settle the growing medium by shaking containers or tapping them on the table from experiences and usual practices [6]. This manual operation, without direct contact with the medium, is essentially different from the two mechanical ones mentioned above, allows multiple operations to execute simultaneously because the action of shaking or tapping a container could keep its opening clear. Indeed, the operation of transplanting a citrus rootstock seedling into a container requires that operators load and compact growing media alternately by one hand, while keeping the stock seedling suspended in the container with the other hand. We are motivated by these differences to make efforts to convert this manual compaction method to a mechanical integration of filling containers, compacting media and transplanting seedlings.

One should note that, however, although the method of compacting growing media by tapping containers has been applied in practice and proved to be effective, it is necessary to systematically investigate the compaction process and influence factors prior to engineering application. It is common sense that granular system could get loosed or densified subjected to external mechanical disturbance, and also a research focus in physics since at least two decades [16]. James B. Knight and others [17, 18] first considered packing fraction of the mono-sized beads packing as a function of tapping times and allowed the conclusion that the relaxation evolution was well fitted by the inverse-logarithmic law. P. Philippe et al. [1921] carried out similar compaction experiments with a thicker tube relative to the glass beads, but found that the slow compaction of vibrated grains was better fitted by the stretched exponential function. Despite of different relaxation laws, common views [22, 23] had been reached that the dependence of the packing density on the intensity of the mechanical excitement was non-monotonic, so the packing density could be controlled within a desired scope by reasonably adjusting the intensity. In contrast to the spherical particle packing, the anisotropy particle packing [2426] under vertical tapping evolved to a dense and highly ordered state, and the anisotropy was found to tend to amplify relaxation features like a wider range of packing density accessible. Other particle properties such as friction [27, 28], humidity [29, 30] and cohesion [16, 28] influencing interaction between particles could change initial and final packing density and characteristic times for compaction. And at times they divide the compaction process into two regimes [16, 27, 28], each of which was still well fitted to the inverse logarithmic law or the stretched exponential law. One should note that any growing medium is a poly-disperse mixture of mineral particles, organic matter, water and others, leading to much complicated particle properties.

In this work, we focus on the compaction dynamics of growing media under drop shocks, and expect to figure out whether the packing density obeys the existing relaxation laws and whether there exits any local over compaction [10, 31]. Here, we selected an inorganic soil and conducted experiments on the compaction dynamics of this material using the setup specially designed to produce successive drop shocks. The overall and local packing density were analyzed to establish the temporal evolution and the vertical distribution, providing a preliminary experimental step towards the full exploration of the mechanically compacting growing media.

Materials and methods

Materials preparation

The soil material was taken at the depth more than 1 m below the ground surface in the campus of South China Agricultural University (Guangzhou, China). This type of soil, known as “Yellow Soil”, is one of main components of growing media in container citrus nursery culture. In order to balance with the ambient humidity, it had been air-dried for the whole month of August, followed by being screened through 2 mm sieve pores prior to the experiment. The prepared soil weighed about 50 kg with the moisture content of 6.16% (oven-drying method [3234]) and the relative density of 2.72 g/cm3 (pycnometer method [33, 34]). Measurements of soil size grading (Fig 1) before and after the experiment were taken with particle sieving method [33, 34].

Fig 1. Soil material and its particle size distribution.

Fig 1

(a) The accumulative size distribution curves of soil particles before (●) and after (■) experiments. Each set of marked points is an average of 3 separate screening operations, and error bars represent the RMS variations between operations. The solid lines are least square fits of these averages using the algorithm of shape-preserving interpolation. The table shows characteristic particle size of soil. According to observations, a large number of particle clusters formed from the cohesion of wet soil before air-drying, broke due to the experimental operations, leading to the difference between the two curves. (b) A photograph of the prepared soil.

Experimental setup and procedure

Our experimental setup included an automatic drop tester and a cylinder container matched with the tester (Fig 2). With a bottom control system based on PLC and an interactive application in PC, the setup was enabled to run and collect data automatically. This tester was designed to vertically lift the container to a specific height (called drop height, H) and then leave it to fall freely and dash against the rubber buffer fixed on the tester, therefore applying a shock pulse to soil in the container (Fig 2A). The intensity of drop shocks was defined as, Γ, the ratio of the peak acceleration to gravitational acceleration (Fig 2C), and measured with an accelerometer (EA-YD-152, range: 50 g, sensitivity: 101.3 mV/g) mounted at the bottom of the container. A laser ranging sensor (range: 5 m, accuracy: ±1 mm), driven by a step motor, was enabled to swing reciprocally above the container, while scanning downwards the surface profile of soil. The trajectory of the ranging sensor was an arc in a horizontal plane going through the axis of the container, and included 40 equidistant ranging points with the adjacent interval of 3.3 mm (Fig 2B). And the combination of the sensor and the step motor was mounted on a truss independent from the tester to isolate vibration. The container was a detachable assembly composed of a base and 10 identical aluminum-alloy tubes. These tubes were vertically stacked and formed a cylindrical space with the diameter of 13 cm and the height of 3 cm as same as the common size of containers used in container citrus nursery in China. The moving laser ranger was programmed to scan the soil surface after all motion of soil from one shock ceases (waiting time set to 0.5 s). Before drop shocks, we manually overfilled the container with soil material with a plastic measuring cup and kept shaking the cup to obtain a steady soil flow, and then scraped off the soil beyond the top tube rim with a stainless-steel ruler to make the soil initial volume always equal to the container capacity. After drop shocks, the overall packing density and its sequence were calculated from ranging values collected from the laser ranger and the soil mass measured on an electronic scale (CHS-D, range: 30 kg, resolution: 0.1g). With the cyclic operations of removing the top tube, scraping off soil beyond the top tube rim and weighing the container and soil inside it, we calculated the local packing density of compacted soil in each tube from differences of these weighting values (Fig 3). One should note that these operations are destructive, and increase significantly the probability of ambient humidity changing the moisture content of limited soil material.

Fig 2. The experimental setup.

Fig 2

(a) A schematic diagram of our experimental setup with the container installed on the drop tester, where dashed arrows indicate measuring the drop distance of soil surface using a laser ranging sensor, and the drop height, H, is the distance the container could be lifted. (b) The top view of ranging points marked with solid circles on soil surface. These points are evenly distributed along the arc passing through the container axis. (c) The typical acceleration waveform of a drop shock, where the intensity, Γ, is defined as the ratio of the peak acceleration, amax, to the gravitational acceleration, g. (d) A picture of the apparatus prepared to run.

Fig 3. The flow chart of experimental operations.

Fig 3

Manual filling means the container is overfilled slightly with soil using a plastic measuring cup, during which the cup need shaking to obtain a steady soil flow. Scraping off excess soil means carefully scraping soil beyond the rim of the top tube with a straight-edged thin plate to make soil volume consistent with the consistent the container capacity. Actually, a stainless-steel ruler was used. The dashed arrow indicates that the overall packing density could be calculated without further operations. The operation of remove-scrape-weigh refers to the operations forming a close loop.

The values of drop height H included 2 mm, 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm, whose average intensities were 1.93 g, 2.86 g, 3.60 g and 3.99 g respectively. The maximum of drop times was 1000. The measurements were spaced out in drop times on a logarithmic scale with 200 measures of the overall packing density and 20 measurements of the local packing density. Operations with each setting repeatedly ran 3 times. The packed soil had the same initial volume of 3980 mL, and weighed 4457.1±38.4 g based on 200 filling operations (S1 Fig).

Results and discussion

Temporal evolution of soil packing density

Both the overall and local packing densities exhibited no sign of steady state and kept progressively increasing, due to the limited times of drop shocks (Fig 4). The packing densities at H = 2 mm were significantly lower than those at other values of drop height. At H = 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm, the overall packing densities presented intersecting and overlapping. In despite of not reaching a hypothetical steady state, the increasing drop times changed gradually the positive correlation between the packing density and the drop height into a non-monotonic one (Fig 5). It indicates one could acquire the maximum steady-state packing density by adjusting the drop height H. According to the results available here, the overall packing density at H = 4 mm appears to be a peak value.

Fig 4. Temporal evolution of packing density for various drop heights.

Fig 4

(a) Temporal evolution of the overall packing density: H = 2 mm (●), H = 4 mm (■), H = 5 mm (◆) and H = 6 mm (▲). Each curve is an average of 3 separate experimental runs and error bars represent the rms variation between runs. The solid lines are least square fits to the inverse-logarithmic function, namely Eq (1), and the dotted lines are fits to the stretched exponential function, namely Eq (2). Approximate 10% of the measurements are plotted for clarity (S1 File). (b) Temporal evolution of the local packing density obtained from the 8th tube from the bottom up at the same drop heights as (a) (S2 File).

Fig 5. The dependence of the overall packing density on the drop height.

Fig 5

Drop times: t = 10 (a), t = 100 (b), t = 1000 (c) and t = ∞ (d). The estimations of steady state (t = ∞) are obtained from the fits to the inverse-logarithmic function (△) and the stretched exponential function (▽). The dotted line in the panel (d) represents the relative density of soil.

The empirical inverse logarithmic formula [17] and the stretched exponential function [19] have been verified to be feasible and effective to represent the temporal evolution of the packing fraction of mono-disperse glass spheres under vertical tapping. The packing density measurements of poly-disperse soil here are analyzed separately through curve fitting to the two formulas (Fig 4):

ρ(t)=ρ(ρρo)11+Bln(1+t/τf) (1)
ρ(t)=ρ(ρρo)exp((t/τf)β) (2)

where the parameters ρo and ρ∞ are the packing densities of the initial state (t = 0) and the steady state (t = ∞) respectively. τf is a parameter purely related to the intensity Γ, and β and B are fitting parameters. The fitting results of overall packing densities are similarly satisfactory with R-square of 0.98~0.99 and RMSE of 0.0013~0.0023, except that the estimations of ρo with Eq (2) deviates more from the measurements than those with Eq (1). But each estimation of ρ with Eq (1) is greater than its counterpart with Eq (2), and even the value of overall packing density estimated by the inverse-logarithmic function at H = 4 mm is unreasonably greater than the relative density of soil particles (Fig 5D). There exist the same differences between the two equations with respect to the steady-state predictions of the local packing density (Table 1). In addition, the ratio of the container diameter (130 mm) to the average size of soil particles (0.86 mm) is great enough, neither producing strong boundary effects nor restraining soil’s convection. The conclusion [20] on the steady state is verified by the comparison here that the inverse-logarithmic function applies to the compaction process of vibrated grains in slender containers. The compaction dynamics of soil here, therefore, should be represented by the stretched exponential function.

Table 1. The local packing density estimations of the steady-state.

tube H = 2 mm H = 4 mm H = 5 mm H = 6 mm
Chicago Rennes Chicago Rennes Chicago Rennes Chicago Rennes
1 1.22 1.12 1.21 1.30 1.91 1.20 1.33 1.22
2 1.26 1.18 2.88 1.31 1.23 1.24 1.32 1.25
3 1.30 1.18 1.26 1.12 1.99 1.24 1.31 1.25
4 1.77 1.12 - 1.25 2.45 1.28 1.47 1.28
5 1.19 1.19 - 1.29 1.27 1.27 1.34 1.28
6 1.22 1.20 - 1.28 1.50 2.28 1.38 1.29
7 - 1.23 - 1.33 2.59 1.32 1.40 1.32
8 - 1.24 - 1.33 - 1.33 1.40 1.33

Chicago and Rennes are corresponding to Eq (1) and Eq (2), respectively. The index of each tube is numbered from the bottom up. The cells marked with “-” indicate tubes not filled due to the descent of soil free surface.

The role of drop shocks in the compaction dynamics

As for the external mechanical excitations, soil compaction under drop shocks has some essential differences from the compaction of typical granular packing under vertical controlled tapping. The soil material is poly-disperse with rough and irregular particles, and it’s inevitable for soil grains to crush or cohere during compaction, failing to keep a constant distribution of particle size (Fig 1A). This is beyond the restriction of so-called “soft” compaction [20]. Moreover, our experimental apparatus has been designed to apply vertical drop-induced taps to the soil packing in the container. The tap intensity is adjusted by just changing the drop height, rather than by monitoring the acceleration in real time and actively correcting any deviation from the set value as an electromagnetic vibrator with the closed-loop control strategy dose.

The intensity Γ actually experienced a sharp decrease followed by an increase of slowing rate during once compaction, and reached a minimum at t = 3 regardless of the drop height (Fig 6). It may indicate that the energy absorbed by the soil packing increased for the first three drop shocks, and then decreased towards 0 for the other shocks with the soil packing approaching a “steady state”. Soil got compacted under the condition of varying intensity, due to the interaction between the soil packing and the drop shocks produced by the combination of the cylindrical vessel and the soil. This is an inherent characteristic for the compaction method based on drop shocks. Here we try to confirm again the applicability of the stretched exponential function to the compaction dynamics under shocks of a constant drop height from the perspective of the intensity of drop shocks. Its parameter τf relates to the intensity according to the Arrhenius equation (19), namely,

τf=τoexp(ΓoΓ) (3)

where τo and Γo are constants associated with experimental conditions. We convert the item containing τf into the form:

tτf(t,H)=1τotexp(ΓoΓ1(t,H)) (4)

Fig 6. The temporal evolution of the intensity.

Fig 6

The acceleration signal was measured by the accelerometer connected with the cylindrical container at the sampling frequency of 3.2 kHz. The raw data was low-pass filtered with the cutoff frequency of 50 Hz before the peak values were extracted.

Hence the intensity Γ essentially is a bivariate function of the variables of drop times and drop height, with same trends at different values of drop height (Fig 6). However, Eq (4) appears as a straight line of t regardless of the constant Γo, and its slop has a positive correlation with the drop height (Fig 7). This means that 1τf(t,H) in effect has nothing to do with t and is corresponding to the drop height H. As a result, the condition of a constant drop height can be equivalently transferred to that of a constant intensity.

Fig 7.

Fig 7

The dependence of tτf(t,H) on the drop times t and the drop height H. (a) The function of texp(Γ1(t,H)) at different drop height H: H = 2 mm (○), H = 4 mm (□), H = 5 mm (◇) and H = 6 mm (△). Part of the data points are plotted for clarity. (b) The dependence of texp(ΓoΓ1(t,H)) on the Γo at H = 2 mm, and Γo ranges from 0.5 to 10 with the interval of 0.5. This cluster of curves illustrates that Γo makes no difference to the linear relationship between tτf(t,H) and t.

Vertical distribution of soil packing density

The slow descent of soil free surface is the external manifestation of its internal packing state. The interaction between soil grains and between soil grain and the vessel sidewalls, producing some unique causing some unique properties, like "Janssen effect", are always preventing grains from flowing freely and filling evenly the container. We gained the soil mass in each tube of the container by the operation of remove-scrape-weigh (Fig 8). It revealed that the accumulative mass of soil increased linearly with the number of tubes except ones not filled with soil, so the local packing density of soil in the container varied synchronously and kept a uniform distribution on the whole.

Fig 8. The accumulative mass distributions of compacted soil at different drop height.

Fig 8

H: H = 2 mm (a), H = 4 mm (b), H = 5 mm (c) and H = 6 mm (d). The lines within each panel correspond to the 20 measurements of the local packing density.

In order to explain the temporal evolution and one-dimensional distribution of soil packing density in further, the coordinate plane composed of the drop times and the ratio of the height to the total height of the soil packing has been used to represent the accumulative packing density with contour plots (Fig 9, S3 File). Once subjected to drop shocks, the accumulated density of the soil packing revealed a change from the initial uniformity into a slight positive gradient, similar to local packing density distribution of the mono-disperse beads [17, 19]. The local packing density increased with the height, while the contours approach to the bottom of the vessel with the increasing drop times. It seems that the increasing trend spread from the top down with a slowing rate, and the drop height determined the initial rate.

Fig 9. The contour plots of the accumulative packing density at various drop height.

Fig 9

H: H = 2 mm (a), H = 4 mm (b), H = 5 mm (c) and H = 6 mm (d). Each panel here was obtained by the method of locally weighted linear regression, based on an average of 3 groups of separate measurements for the local packing density.

Conclusions

We have experimentally investigated the compaction dynamics of air-dried soil under drop shocks. It allowed some conclusions and also exposed deficiencies of this work. The dependence of the packing density on the drop times can be more reasonably described by the stretched exponential function than the inverse-logarithmic function. The intensity of drop shocks varies with the drop times due to the interaction between the drop shocks and the soil packing, despite this variation makes no difference to the applicability of the stretched exponential function for the reason that the compaction with a constant drop height can be converted equivalently into that with a constant intensity. The dependence of the packing density on the drop height is non-monotonic and there exists a threshold of the drop height corresponding to the maximum packing density. In addition to the temporal evolution, the accumulated packing density of air-dried soil appears a positive gradient along the height in agreement with the typical granular system composed of mono-disperse beads. But allowing for the complexity and diversity of growing media used in container nursery culture, it requires experiments and trials in further to focus on the influence of particle properties, such as the content of water and organic matter, on the compaction dynamics and the applicability of this compaction method.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The histogram of soil initial packing density.

(TIF)

S1 File. The curve fittings of the overall packing density.

(SFIT)

S2 File. The curve fittings of the local packing density.

(SFIT)

S3 File. The contours of the local packing density.

(SFIT)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the authorities of South China Agricultural University for permitting us to take the soil material from its campus.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61601189), the Special Fund of Modern Technology System of Agricultural Industry (No. CARS-26), and the Characteristic Innovation Projects of Universities in Guangdong Province (No. 2018KTSCX020).

References

  • 1.Wilson ER, Vitols KC, Park A. Root characteristics and growth potential of container and bare-root seedlings of red oak (Quercus rubra L.) in Ontario, Canada. New Forest. 2007;34(2):163–76. 10.1007/s11056-007-9046-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Grossnickle SC. Why seedlings survive: influence of plant attributes. New Forest. 2012;43(5–6):711–38. 10.1007/s11056-012-9336-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Grossnickle SC, El-Kassaby YA. Bareroot versus container stocktypes: a performance comparison. New Forest. 2016;47(1):1–51. 10.1007/s11056-015-9476-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Erkan N, Aydin AC. Long term survival and growth performance of selected seedling types in Cedar (Cedrus libanli) afforestation in Turkey. J Environ Biol. 2017;38(6):1391–6. 10.22438/jeb/38/6/MRN-424 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Thiffault N, Jobidon R, Munson AD. Comparing large containerized and bareroot conifer stock on sites of contrasting vegetation composition in a non-herbicide scenario. New Forest. 2014;45(6):875–91. 10.1007/s11056-014-9443-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Landis TD, Tinus RW, McDonald SE, Barnett JP. Containers and growing media. The Container Tree Nursery Manual: Agriculture Handbook 674,vol.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 1990. p. 41–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aghai MM, Pinto JR, Davis AS. Container volume and growing density influence western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) seedling development during nursery culture and establishment. New Forest. 2014;45(2):199–213. 10.1007/s11056-013-9402-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dresbøll DB. Effect of growing media composition, compaction and periods of anoxia on the quality and keeping quality of potted roses (Rosa sp.). Sci Hortic-Amsterdam. 2010;126(1):56–63. 10.1016/j.scienta.2010.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Huang J, Fisher PR, Argo W, ^editors. Effects of Compaction on Physical Properties of Propagation Substrates. 2012 ASHS Annual Conference; 2012. Pub Place; Year Published.
  • 10.Nawaz MF, Bourrié G, Trolard F. Soil compaction impact and modelling. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2013;33(2):291–309. 10.1007/s13593-011-0071-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Szatanik-Kloc A, Horn R, Lipiec J, Siczek A, Szerement J. Soil compaction-induced changes of physicochemical properties of cereal roots. Soil and Tillage Research. 2018;175:226–33. 10.1016/j.still.2017.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Batukaev AA, Kornatskiy SA, Gaplaev MS. Block-container system for growing strawberry planting material in greenhouses. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021;624(1):12115–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Harmen Kamminga. Reliable quality links Grunewald to the Ellepot System. Floraculture International. 2013;23(1):46–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Huang J, Fisher PR. OVERVIEW OF NEW QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES IN CONTAINER GROWING SUBSTRATES FOR YOUNG PLANT PRODUCTION. Acta Horticulturae. 2014;1034(1034):263–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.John Sutton. Hishtil maximises production efficiency and plant quality through Ellepot system. Floraculture International. 2013;23(12):34. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mathonnet JE, Sornay P, Nicolas M, Dalloz-Dubrujeaud B. Compaction of noncohesive and cohesive granular materials under vibrations: Experiments and stochastic model. Phys Rev E. 2017;95(4–1):42904. 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.042904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Knight JB, Fandrich CG, Lau CN, Jaeger HM, Nagel SR. Density relaxation in a vibrated granular material. Phys Rev E. 1995;51(5):3957–63. 10.1103/PhysRevE.51.3957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Knight JB, Ehrichs EE, Kuperman VY, Flint JK, Jaeger HM, Nagel SR. Experimental study of granular convection. Physical Review E Statistical Physics Plasmas Fluids & Related Interdisciplinary Topics. 1996;11(5):5726–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Philippe P, Bideau D. Compaction dynamics of a granular medium under vertical tapping. Europhysics Letters. 2002;60(5):677–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Richard P, Nicodemi M, Delannay R, Ribiere P, Bideau D. Slow relaxation and compaction of granular systems. Nat Mater. 2005;4(2):121–8. 10.1038/nmat1300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ribière P, Philippe P, Richard P, Delannay R, Bideau D. Slow compaction of granular systems. Journal of Physics Condensed Matter. 2005;17(24):S2743. 10.1038/nmat1300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nowak ER, Knight JB, Ben-Naim E, Jaeger HM, Nagel SR. Density fluctuations in vibrated granular materials. Phys Rev E. 1998;57(2):1971–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ribière P, Richard P, Philippe P, Bideau D, Delannay R. On the existence of stationary states during granular compaction. The European Physical Journal E. 2007;22(3):249–53. 10.1140/epje/e2007-00017-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ribiere P, Richard P, Bideau D, Delannay R. Experimental compaction of anisotropic granular media. Eur Phys J E Soft Matter. 2005;16(4):415–20. 10.1140/epje/i2004-10096-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lumay G, Vandewalle N. Experimental study of the compaction dynamics for two-dimensional anisotropic granular materials. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2006;74(2 Pt 1):21301. 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.021301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhao B, An X, Wang Y, Qian Q, Yang X, Sun X. DEM dynamic simulation of tetrahedral particle packing under 3D mechanical vibration. Powder Technol. 2017;317:171–80. 10.1016/j.powtec.2017.04.048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ludewig F, Dorbolo S, Vandewalle N. Effect of friction in a toy model of granular compaction. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2004;70(5 Pt 1):51304. 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.051304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vandewalle N, Lumay G, Gerasimov O, Ludewig F. The influence of grain shape, friction and cohesion on granular compaction dynamics. The European Physical Journal E. 2007;22(3):241–8. 10.1140/epje/e2007-00031-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fiscina JE, Lumay G, Ludewig F, Vandewalle N. Compaction dynamics of wet granular assemblies. Phys Rev Lett. 2010;105(4):48001. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.048001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kiesgen De Richter S, Hanotin C, Marchal P, Leclerc S, Demeurie F, Louvet N. Vibration-induced compaction of granular suspensions. The European Physical Journal E. 2015;38(7). 10.1140/epje/i2015-15074-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shah AN, Tanveer M, Shahzad B, Yang G, Fahad S, Ali S, et al. Soil compaction effects on soil health and cropproductivity: an overview. Environ Sci Pollut R. 2017;24(11):10056–67. 10.1007/s11356-017-8421-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.O’Kelly BC, Sivakumar V. Water Content Determinations for Peat and Other Organic Soils Using the Oven-Drying Method. Dry Technol. 2014;32(6). [Google Scholar]
  • 33.P.R.C. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, P.R.C. State Administration for Market Regulation. Standard for geotechnical testing method. GB/T 50123–2019. Beijing: China Planning Press; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.LU R. Agrochemical analysis of soil. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Reginald B Kogbara

1 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-39586

Experiment on compaction of air-dried soil under drop shocks

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

  • Please consider the comments of Reviewer 1 carefully as they are required for acceptance. I recommend that you also include some sentences in the manuscript that considers the position of Reviewer 2.  

  • It will be more helpful if the authors replace most of the manuscript's dated references with more recent references (within the past ten years). 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Reginald B. Kogbara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: zand drop times were considered and the evolution and distribution of packing density were studied. The results showed that soil compaction caused by its drop shocks equals to that under the condition of controlled intensity; the distribution of local packing density showed a slight positive gradient. Although the findings in this study may improve container seedlings, this manuscript still need to be revised before possible publication.

1. In introduction, more references should be added, such as in line 34-36. What is the connection between these two paragraphs? Why use but in line 61, 66, and 67? What is the influence of local over compaction?

2. In material, add references to test methods such as oven drying, pycnometer method. Why show Figure 1 in 2.1 section where the experiment process has not been introduced. How does soil be compacted into container before drop shock? The experiment process is better shown in figure since the description is too long. Water content is a important factor during compaction, why is the effect of different water content is not considered during compaction?

3. How is soil density in each tube measured? Why does soil density in tube 8 (Figure 3b) finally decrease as the drop times increase? What do you mean “sinter” in line 189?

4. There are some grammar and format problems existing in the manuscript. The authors need to do a thorough check. Some examples are given as follow,

4.1. Line 44, “is” should be “has been”.

4.2. Line 52, “operators” should be “Operators”.

4.3. A space should be put between number and unit, such as 2 mm.

4.4. Figure 3 is not clear. Larger legends should be used.

Reviewer #2: The authors started an interesting work, but it still needs to more tests to be published. I suggest tests in field, where the variability of conditions, physical, chemical and biological soil, will alter the conclusions made.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0250076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250076.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Mar 2021

Dear Dr. Kogbara and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Experiment on compaction of air-dried soil under drop shocks” (PONE-D-20-39586).

We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully. According to the reviewers’ detailed suggestions, we have made a careful revision on the original manuscript. All revised portions are marked in red in the revised manuscript which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

Kind regards,

Jianbo Wang

E-mail: jianbowang@stu.scau.edu.cn

Corresponding author: Zhen Li

E-mail: lizhen@scau.edu.cn

Responds to reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1

Comment 1: In introduction, more references should be added, such as in line 34-36. What is the connection between these two paragraphs? Why use but in line 61, 66, and 67? What is the influence of local over compaction?

Response: (1) We have added more references in Introduction (line42, 43, 46,76 and 77), and removed some out-of-date reference. Actually, some redundant sentences have been deleted.

(2) We have changed Introduction into 3 paragraphs and added some sentences at the end of the 1st paragraph (line 54-61), to make clear the logical connection between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. We have found the manual operation of compacting growing media by tapping containers on the table is significantly different from the mechanical compression method, and allows the synchronous executions of filling containers, compacting media and transplanting seedlings (or sowing). We have to investigate and understand the compaction dynamics of growing media under tapping or other mechanical disturbance base on the existing research results and conclusions related to the compaction of granular materials, in order to mechanize this compaction method.

(3) We misused the word “but” in line 61, 66 and 67 of the original manuscript, leading to a confusion in logic. In line 71 and 80 of the revised manuscript, we have corrected this mistake.

(4) Over compaction of growing media or agricultural soil usually deteriorate the cultural characteristics, say, leading to excessive penetration resistance to roots growth.

Here, we want to confirm whether there exists possible over compaction in the compacted growing media through the spatial distributions of local packing density. Local over compaction means a fairly uneven distribution of the packing density. We have added conferences in line 84.

Comment 2: In material, add references to test methods such as oven drying, pycnometer method. Why show Figure 1 in 2.1 section where the experiment process has not been introduced. How does soil be compacted into container before drop shock? The experiment process is better shown in figure since the description is too long. Water content is an important factor during compaction, why is the effect of different water content is not considered during compaction?

Response: (1) We have added conferences of testing method in line 96-98.

(2) It is really our fault that we didn’t introduce the experimental process. We have added sentences in line 128-133 to introduce the calculations of the overall and local packing density. And Fig 3 has been added to show the complete experimental process in the form of flow chart.

(3) We have added sentences in line 125-128 and the legend of Fig 3 to describe the filling method before drop shocks. We used the manual overfilling operation of pouring soil material into the container with a measuring cup, during which the cup needs shaking to obtain a steady soil flow. And then soil beyond the container rim would be scraped off with a stainless-steel ruler to make a constant initial volume of soil.

(4) Indeed, the moisture content of soil will significantly change its compaction dynamics. We have added related sentences and references in line 76-80. The reason for not considering the moisture content is that, although the operation of remove-scrape-weigh was a direct method to measure the local packing density, it's very cumbersome and time consuming and greatly increases the frequency of soil contact with air, making it difficult for soil to keep the constant moisture content. That’s why we chose the air-dried soil material. Related sentences have been added in line 93,94,133 and134. We have to consider an indirect method to measure the local pacing density of wet soil, like testing penetration resistance.

Comment 3: How is soil density in each tube measured? Why does soil density in tube 8 (Figure 3b) finally decrease as the drop times increase? What do you mean “sinter” in line 189?

Response: (1) Soil density in each tube, also called the local packing density, is the soil mass in the tube divided by its volume. the soil volume in filled tubes is known, while the soil volume in unfilled tubes is calculated from the ranging values. Soil mass is the weighing values difference between two adjacent operations of remove-scrape-weigh. Related sentences have been added in line 130-133 and Fig 3 legend.

(2) The soil density decrease with drop times were cause by the instability (or randomness) of the two manual operations, including the filling operation and the operation of remove-scrape-weigh, because it can be observed (in Fig 4 of the revised manuscript) that the error bars of these points were prominently longer than other error bars.

(3) The word “sinter” was a mistake, and we have replaced it with “cohere” in line 213

Comment 4: There are some grammar and format problems existing in the manuscript. The authors need to do a thorough check. Some examples are given as follow,

4.1. Line 44, “is” should be “has been”.

4.2. Line 52, “operators” should be “Operators”.

4.3. A space should be put between number and unit, such as 2 mm.

4.4. Figure 3 is not clear. Larger legends should be used.

Response: It’s so kind of you to point out these grammar and format errors for us. We have checked the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2

Comment 1: The authors started an interesting work, but it still needs to more tests to be published. I suggest tests in field, where the variability of conditions, physical, chemical and biological soil, will alter the conclusions made.

Response: Thank you for this comment. Indeed, any growing medium or agricultural soil is a complex mixture with the physical, chemical and biological properties. These properties have significant influence on the compaction dynamics under vertical tapping. We have added sentences and conferences in line 76-81. In this work, with the final purpose of mechanization of compacting growing media by tapping containers, we experimentally investigated the temporal evolution and vertical distribution of the soil packing density under drop shocks, as the basis for further research. Considering many factors at once maybe cause confusion in understanding, and concern about time and cost. We have added related sentences in line 288-291.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Reginald B Kogbara

31 Mar 2021

Experiment on compaction of air-dried soil under drop shocks

PONE-D-20-39586R1

Dear Dr. Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Reginald B. Kogbara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed the comments, and hence I recommend that the manuscript be accepted to publish.

Reviewer #2: I would like to see the rest of the data for a complete understanding of the compaction process. However, I believe that the current text will be of great use to the scientific community.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Reginald B Kogbara

5 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-39586R1

Experiment on compaction of air-dried soil under drop shocks

Dear Dr. Li:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Reginald B. Kogbara

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The histogram of soil initial packing density.

    (TIF)

    S1 File. The curve fittings of the overall packing density.

    (SFIT)

    S2 File. The curve fittings of the local packing density.

    (SFIT)

    S3 File. The contours of the local packing density.

    (SFIT)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES