Influence of Biochar Obtained from Invasive Weed on Infiltration Rate and Cracking of Soils: An Integrated Experimental and Artificial Intelligence Approach

  • Phani Gopal
  • Raval Ratnam
  • Muhammad FarooqEmail author
  • Ankit Garg
  • Nirmali Gogoi
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Amendment of biochar (BC) in soil is an efficient and popular way to enhance agricultural productivity. In recent times, BC obtained from the by-products or wastes is gaining recognition in various engineering applications. Water hyacinth (WH), which is a highly invasive weed, can be turned into biochar for its productive usage. Recent studies investigated WH BC composite’s cracking potential, water retention capacity and agricultural productivity but did not focus much on its infiltration characteristics. The objective of this study is to investigate dependence of infiltration rate on crack intensity factor (CIF), suction and volumetric water content (VWC). The experiments were performed on the samples of bare soil, 5% and 10% BC (by weight) composites for 63 days (9 drying-wetting cycles) in natural conditions. The experimental data was used to train artificial neural networks (ANN). An ANN model was developed to predict the infiltration rate for each soil composition. Infiltration rate was relatively lower in case of 10% WH BC soil composite. CIF played a major role in governing the infiltration rate for bare soil but its significance relatively reduced as the BC content increased. BC content increases the relative importance of VWC in prediction of infiltration rate. Suction’s role in predicting infiltration rate, for both bare soil and BC composites was more or less the same. For applications (such as slopes or landfill cover) desiring less infiltration rate with a constraint of practically non-varying moisture content, 10% WH BC composite was found to be an ideal choice.


Infiltration ANN Biochar Natural field work Interactive effects 


  1. 1.
    Lehmann J et al (2015) Biochar for environmental management: science, technology and implementation. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordoloi S et al (2018) Investigation of cracking and water availability of soil-biochar composite synthesized from invasive weed water hyacinth. Bioresource Technol 263:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awokuse TO et al (2015) Does agriculture really matter for economic growth in developing countries. Can J Agric Econ/Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie 63(1):77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Das O et al (2016) Biocomposites from waste derived biochars: mechanical, thermal, chemical, and morphological properties. Waste Manag 49:560–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Téllez TR et al (2008) The water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes: an invasive plant in the Guadiana River Basin (Spain). Aquat Invasions 3(1):42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reddy KR et al (2015) Two-phase modeling of leachate recirculation using drainage blankets in bioreactor landfills. Environ Model Assess 20(5):475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asai H et al (2009) Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in Northern Laos: 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crops Res. 111(1–2):81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maran JP et al (2013) Artificial neural network and response surface methodology modeling in mass transfer parameters predictions during osmotic dehydration of Carica papaya L. Alexandria Eng J 52(3):507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gogoi D et al (2017) Effect of torrefaction on yield and quality of pyrolytic products of arecanut husk: an agro-processing wastes. Bioresource Technol 242:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chapman TJP (2008) The relevance of developer costs in geotechnical risk management. In: Proceedings of the 2nd British Geotechnical Association International Conference on Foundations-ICOFGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hurley JW, Meier RW. Accessed 28 May 2018
  12. 12.
    Li JH et al (2010) Geometric parameters and REV of a crack network in soil. Comput Geotech 37(4):466–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li JH et al (2016) Cracking and vertical preferential flow through landfill clay liners. Eng Geol 206:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bordoloi S, et al (2017) Infiltration characteristics of natural reinforced soil. Transp GeotechGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li JH et al (2009) Permeability tensor and representative elementary volume of saturated cracked soil. Can Geotech J 46(8):928–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu Z, et al (2017) Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties. PloS one 12(6): e0179079Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ng CW et al (2007) Advanced unsaturated soil mechanics and engineering. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phani Gopal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Raval Ratnam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Muhammad Farooq
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ankit Garg
    • 1
  • Nirmali Gogoi
    • 4
  1. 1.Shantou UniversityGuangdongChina
  2. 2.Mahindra École CentraleHyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Sultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman
  4. 4.Tezpur UniversityTezpurIndia

Personalised recommendations