Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AD-A238 6811111 I i 11111 IIIllllll l ! l iili ii~tsltvv 1-,1
ETL-0583
A Comparison of SoilsFrom Twentynine Palms,California and SaudiArabia
Judy EhlenJ. Ponrder Henley
JUL IQ U
January 1991
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Corps of EngineersEngineer Topographic LaboratoriesFort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5546
91-05176
Destroy this report when no longer needed.Do not return it to the ,.iginator.
The findings in this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position unless so designated by other
authorized documents.
The citation in this report of trade names of commercially availableproducts does not constitute official endorsement or approval of the
use of such products.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE fom APP'°""doMS Nvo 0o04-018P.~' otw.( q '#O', Soar . 1.1 oIlect.O.A Of .MM qO1 qa. est-at"e to a.e'qe - -ow , DOfNW 'r ~ W t ' t ' t.,v t t-v..C g WtS( o rf thn' C.-r.q (al . ""gittCefl 9 .fld "..flt..5P dat a 4Itcdcd and |M (Om c3IYNA q an e""9 t"" (Olf11t 0" OEnfotn | $.10 nt cOrnlmemt, C8 te., t at.t Ot any OthFir *1t 08 Oth,~oI1aln of 'fwC,,.ton *n{Iued-fq uqqtn Ao fdMfq It owaffr. to *jtt-nqtOn effdqvdafterI 0qtv'Cti 0Qtfriolar o ite fr' fot 0opctaionsand A"Onj. 1215 j~ffe'A,Oaln Nqt..a, .sltC 124. £tndto. VA 20 ad 10 the O fice o a dne-cs'I OSdget VooevwOr, Redu l on ProFte (07044 1881. W*h8001 On. 0C 20S
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDI January 1991 Technical Oct 1990 - Jan 1991
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
A Comparison of Soils from Twentynine Palms, California,and Saudi Arabia 2112040 08-8002
6. AUTHOR(S) P611102.52C S44213
QG152CAI 1Judy Ehlen and J. Ponder Henley
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBERUS Army Engineer Topographic LaboratoriesFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5546 ETL-0583
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200wofrt)
Soil samples collected at Twentynine Palms, California, and in eastern Saudi Arabia were analyzed for particlesize distribution, moisture content, spectral reflectance characteristics and soil color. The results of thecomparioon show that, overall, the Twentynine Palms samples are finer grained than the eastern Saudi Arabiansamples. Soil moisture in both sets of samples is low. The samples from eastern Saudi Arabia contain quantit sof calcite and gypsum not found in the Twentynine Palms samples. The spectral reflectance of the soils fromeastern Saudi Arabia is overall higher than that for the Twentynine Palms soils, and shows variations in infrarereflectance due to chemical differences that are not seen in the Twentynine Palms soils.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 1S. NUMBER OF PAGES
soils, Twentynine Palms, CA, eastern Saudi Arabia, sieve 73analysis, soil moisture, spectral reflectance, soil color 16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNLIMITEDNSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard FoQm 298 (Rev 2.89)
P,~ w~e awAP id 1)9.15
CONTENTS
Title Page
FIGURES iv
TABLES v
PREFACE vii
INTRODUCTION 1
PROCEDURES 2
SOILS FROM TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA 6
Particle Size 6Soil Moisture 16Spectral Reflectance 17Soil Color 20Comparison of Phase I and Phase II Samples 20
SOILS FROM SAUDI ARABIA 21
Particle Size 21Soil Moisture 24Spectral Reflectance 24Soil Color 24
COMPARISON OF SOILS FROM TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA, AND SAUDI ARABIA 24
CONCLUSIONS 28
REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX A. REFLECTANCE SPECTRA OF SOILS FROMTWENTYNINE PALMS, CA 31
1. Surface Samples, Phase I 312. Backfill Samples, Phase I 383. Surface Samples, Phase II 454. Backfill Samples, Phase II 52
APPENDIX B. REFLECTANCE SPECTRA OF SOILS FROM SAUDI ARABIA 59
iiiI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
I Map of the Twentynine Palms Test Sites 15
2 Sampling Locations, Twentynine Palms Test Sites 16
3 Map of the Saudi Arabian Soil Samples 17
4 Particle Size - Surface Sample Means Phase I 18
5 Particle Size - Trench Bottom Sample Means Phase 1 19
6 Particle Size - Backfill Sample Means Phase I 20
7 Particle Size - Surface Sample Means Phase II 21
8 Particle Size - Trench Bottom Sample Means Phase II 22
9 Particle Size - Backfill Sample Means Phase II 23
10 Surface Reflectance - Surface Samples, Twentynine Palms, CA: 24A. Sample 329a, Phase I B. Sample 344b, Phase II
I 1 Surface Reflectance - Backfill Samples, Twentynine Palms, CA: 25A. Sample 312a, Phase I B. Sample 338, Phase II
12 Particle Size - Means For Gravelly Saudi Arabian Samples 26
13 Particle Size - Means For Sandy Saudi Arabian Samples 27
14 Surface Reflectance - Sandy Sample, Saudi Arabia 28
15 Surface Reflectance - Gravelly Samples, Saudi Arabia: 29A. SA-7 B. SA-8.
16 Surface Reflectance - Gravelly Samples Containing Gypsum, Saudi Arabia: 30A. SA-1 B. SA-3.
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
I Locations of Saudi Arabian Soil Samples 2
2 Soil Particle Size Analyses: Surface Samples, Phase 1 3
3 Soil Particle Size Analyses: Bottom Samples, Phase I 4
4 Soil Particle Size Analyses: Backfill Samples, Phase I 4
5 Soil Particle Size Analyses: Surface Samples, Phase II 5
6 Soil Particle Size Analyses: Bottom Samples, Phase II 6
7 Soil Particle Size Analyses: Packfill Samples, Phase II 6
8 Percent Soil Moisture, Phase I 7
9 Percent Soil Moisture, Phase II 8
10 Soil samples from Twentynine Palms used for Spectral Reflectance 9
11 Particle Size Analyses, Saudi Arabian Soils 10
Aceossion For
d Ij~i
-' 1'
PREFACE
This report was prepared undur DA Project 4A161 102B52C, Task OC, Work Unit A 11, "DesertShield" in January 1991, under the supervision of Dr. J.N. Rinker, Chief, Remote Sensing Division; andof Mr. John Hansen, Director, Research Institute.
Colonel David F. Maune, EN, was Commander and Director, and Mr. Walter E. Boge wasTechnical Director of the US Army Engineer Topographic Laboratories during preparation of the report.
vii
A COMPARISON OF SOILS FROM
TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA, AND SAUDI ARABIA
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present data on soil samples collected at Twentynine PalmsMarine Corps Base, located in the Mohave Desert in southern Citifornia, and from eastern SaudiArabia. Soil samples were collected on Twentynine Palms in association with Project Ostrich, a minedetection feasibility study using radar. Project Ostrich was initiated and carried out in a very shorttime in response to events in the Middle East (Operation Desert Shield). A desert area in the UnitedStates was needed to serve as an analog fo- the deserts of the Middle East with respect to thepenetration capabilities of various radar systems. Although Twentynine Palms is similar to deserts inthe Middle East in that it is arid, with sparse vegetation and deep, dry, granular soils subject to aeol-ian processes, it is not an analog. It was selected as the location for the test site for two reasons: (1)preliminary analysis of soil samples indicated that, although soil moisture, which is a major factorwith respect to radar penetrability, was much higher than that reported for Middle East soils, it wasprobably within the range in which adequate penetration could occur and (2) the support andequipment needed to carry out the experiment was readily available.
The data we have obtained, although sparse with respect to Saudi Arabian soils, appears to bein great demand; many requests for this data have been received. This report, which addresses soilmoisture, soil particle size, visible and near infrared spectral reflectance, and soil color, results fromthis need and allows the data to be disseminated in a timely manner and in a format that is both easyto provide and usable. We realize that very little data is presented on Saudi Arabian soils, and thatwhat data we have is far from representative of the soils in Saudi Arabia. It is all we have been ableto obtain up to this time. We intend to obtain more soil samples and to address soil characteristics inaddition to those discussed here including composition, spectral luminescence, and thermal infraredspectral reflectance measurements. These data will be published at a later date.
We have little quantitative data on soil characteristics either in Saudi Arabia or at TwentyninePalms. Berlin et al. (1986) state that the Al Labbah sand in northern Saudi Arabia (29* 35'N, 41050'E) consists mainly of rounded to subrounded quartz grains and is virtually devoid of clays. Inaddition, hydrated minerals, particularly gypsum, are common in Saudi Arabian soils (J.N. Rinker,1990, personal communication). Igneous rocks occur adjacent to and within the Twentynine Palmsarea which suggests the sands should be quartz-rich; because they are windblown, clay content shouldbe quite low as well. Gypsum is known to occur in playa environments in the Mohave Desertadjacent to Twentynine Palms (Henley 1990), so it is likely that gypsum also occurs in the test sitesoils.
PROCEDURES
Two separate experiments were carried out at adjacent sites at Twentynine Palms nearGypsum Ridge (Figure 1). The first (Phase I) occurred 9 through 14 October 1990, and the second(Phase II), from 13 through 16 November 1990. A third visit was made to the sites December 6,1990. Soil samples from Twentynine Palms were collected by Dr. Ehlen in Phases I and II and byMr. John Hansen during the December visit.
During Phase 1, 32 soil samples were collected at 12 locations within the 100 X 250-meterstudy site (Figure 2). Surface (0-4 cm), trench bottom, and backfill samples were taken at 10 loca-tions within 12 triangular-shaped, 150-meter-long trenches that had been dug by machinery. Surfacesamples only were collected at the remaining two locations. Eight of the 12 trenches were 8 inchesdeep, two were 12 inches deep, and two were 16 inches deep. The second site (Phase II), identical tothe first in size and layout, was located south and slightly west of the first site; the two did not abuteach other. Surface, trench bottom, and backfill soil samples were collected from the same locationsduring Phase II as was done in Phase I; one additional trench bottom sample was collected duringPhase II (13, Figure 2). Surface samples were collected just before the trenches were dug and trenchbottom samples were taken soon after the trenches were dug. Backfill samples were collected one totwo days after the trenches were filled during Phase I, and immediately after the trenches were filledduring Phase II. The soil samples were placed in cans, sealed, and weighed immediately using a tri-ple beam baance. In the laboratory at USAETL, the samples were oven dried at 103 degrees Celsiusand the dry weight was determined. Percent soil moisture was then calculated on an oven-dry weightbasis.
Sieve analysis was conducted in the laboratory on the oven-dried samples. The sieve sizeswere: 2 mm (No. 10), 1 mm (No. iS), 6.5 mm (No.3.J), 0.25 .. n (No. ,0). 0.125 mm (No. 120)and 0.075 mm (No. 200).
Spectral reflectance was measured in the laboratory using a Geophysical EnvironmentalRcs-aich IRIS MkIV field spectroradiometer. The spectral range covered was 400 nm to 2500 nmwith a spectral resolution of 1.5 nm to 4.5 rnm. The sample reflectance is presented as a percentreflectance compared to a Halon reflectance standard. The illumination was by a 56u-watt tutigster-halogen photo lamp.
Soil color was determined by comparing each oven-dried sample to a Munsell soil color chart.The sample and the chart were illuminated by a color-balanced fluorescent lamp with a colortemperature of 5000 degrees Kelvin, which approximates daylight in the visible region.
Figure 3 shows the general locations that were provided with the soil samples collected ineastern Saudi Arabia. These samples were collected by various individuals in various locations atvarious unknown times. Table 1 gives the latitudes and longitudes for each sample for which wehave that data. All samples are surface samples, and their locations suggest that most come fromsand sheets.
2
A~ ~ ~ I j c
03
,,A4 1. 04
-' A-
-98
S,06, 50.97
ELVAIO S INIETR
CON?"bON witats MTIMS
2 5 2 1 V7'275~-, 2-DMA DEADMAN LAKE
Figure 1. Map of the Twentynine Palms Test Sites.
3
'p0-CL
EIn
0U)
- o-- - - - -In W
0 00 0 00 I0 0 0 000 0
000 00000 0 0 00 .t0(
00[30 0 00
coooo o -- "
000 0 00 00o000 000
a 0 6
III
C
I; I I ,° C -
.a 0
SU)
cMc
IiII' C
I
KUWA IT o 50 100 200kil1ometers
PERSIAN GULF
SA- 3
SA-
SSA-4
SA-
Al Hufhuf . A6QATAR
A SA- 7A SA-8
Figure 3. Map of the Saudi Arabian Soil Samples.
5
Table 1. Locations of Saudi Arabian Soil Samples
Sample Number Latitude Longitude
SA-1 260 14.4'N 500 9.7'ESA-2 270 29'N 480 27'ESA-3 260 52'N 480 22'ESA-4 260 16'N 480 50'ESA-5 - 140 km south of Kuwait, 500 m
inland from the Gulf CoastSA-6 250 17'00"N 490 38'45"ESA-7 250 13'00"N 490 41'15"ESA-8 250 12'30"N 490 42'30"E
SOILS FROM TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA
Particle Size
Phase I. These soil samples (Tables 2, 3, and 4) consist mainly of fine and very fine sand(usually 40-50%). Gravel in the surface samples ranges from 5.4-26.1 % (mean 12.2%); in trench
Table 2. Sieve Analyses: Surface Samples, Phase I (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt+Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber > 2mm sand, 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, < 0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25am 0.075- mm0.125mm
326a 5.4 7.4 14.1 15.7 30.2 21.8 5.3327a 16.0 10.5 13.4 13.9 27.8 14.9 3.5328a 18.7 5.9 8.3 13.4 28.7 18.5 6.5329a 11.1 8.2 13.2 14.8 31.2 16.8 4.7330a 26.1 6.2 10.9 14.9 26.5 11.6 3.7332a 7.5 7.6 13.1 14.1 32.4 19.7 5.6334a 15.0 9.7 15.5 14.6 24.0 16.5 4.7336a 9.1 9.0 10.8 11.5 28.3 23.5 7.9338a 14.6 7.7 13.2 13.7 25.0 18.6 7.1340a 9.3 8.1 11.5 19.9 33.5 12.8 4.9341a 7.1 8.8 14.2 15.6 25.9 21.1 7.2343a 6-6 14-3 238 20-8 21-3 10.6 26normalizedmean: 12.2 8.6 13.5 15.2 27.9 17.2 5.3
6
Table 3. Sieve Analyses: Bottom Samples, Phase I (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt+Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber >2mm .md, 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, <0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25mm 0.075- mm0.125mm
322a 14.9 10.2 18.6 17.5 21.6 13.6 3.7323a 9.6 6.5 13.8 20.5 32.7 13.3 3.5324a 6.2 7.7 15.2 16.8 28.1 19.4 6.6325a 6.7 5.8 13.9 16.8 35.3 17.5 4.0331a 16.2 4.1 8.7 20.3 30.6 15.6 4.5333a 9.4 8.6 16.2 16.5 26.2 17.7 5.4335a 9.6 7.8 13.3 15.7 29.9 17.4 6.3337a 16.0 8.1 12.8 14.0 25.3 18.9 4.9339a 7.4 6.8 12.5 14.6 33.0 20.6 5.0342a 10-6 10.0 17.0 16-8 27.4 14.7 3.5normalizedmean: 10.7 7.6 14.2 17.0 29.0 16.9 4.7
Table 4. Sieve Analyses: Backfill Samples, Phase I (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt+Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber > 2mm sane 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, < 0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25mm 0.075- mm0.125mm
312a 14.3 8.1 12.5 15.3 29.3 17.8 2.6313a 6.1 7.4 13.5 17.2 33.6 18.0 4.3314a 7.5 6.3 11.7 16.7 33.5 19.3 5.0315a 15.2 7.0 11.6 14.6 29.7 17.1 5.0316a 13.6 5.2 13.0 17.1 26.8 18.9 5.3317a 17.0 7.2 15.7 18.4 27.9 11.7 2.0318a 6.5 10.4 15.6 16.3 30.2 15.5 5.4319a 12.3 6.8 12.1 13.3 26.8 21.6 7.2320a 7.5 7.7 12.4 13.7 33.5 19.1 6.1321a 13-2 12-4 18.0 13-6 21-8 161 5.0normalizedmean: 11.3 7.9 13.6 15.6 29.3 17.5 4.8
bottom samples, from 6.2-16.2% (mean 10.7%); and in backfill samples, 6.1-17.0% (mean 11.3%).
The silt+clay (pan) separate is usually less than 7%. Surface samples contain 2.5-7.9% silt+clay(mean 5.3%); trench bottom samples, 3.5-6.6% (mean 4.7%); and backfill samples, 2.6-7.2% (mean4.8%). Surface samples tend to contain more gravel than either trench bottom or backfill samples,and the silt+clay separate is larger as well. All samples contain more fine sand and very fine sandthan any other particle size. The backfill samples, however, contain more fine sand than either
7
surface or trench bottom samples. Backfill samples contain a mean of 46.8% fine sand and very finesand; surface samples, a mean of 45.1%; and trench bottom samples, a mean of 45.9%. Thenormalized means for each sieve separate for each type of sample, i.e. surface, trench bottom,backfill, are shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6, respectively.
Phase II. The soil samples from Phase II ("b", Tables 5, 6, and 7) consist mainly of fineand very fine sand (usually > 50%). Silt+clay ranges from 4.1-18.1% for surface samples (mean9.3%), 3.0-8.7% for trench bottom samples (mean 5.8%), and 3.2-14.1% for backfill samples (mean7.2%). Gravel ranges from 5.2-34.8% for surface samples (mean 13.4%), 4.9-25.6% for trenchbottom samples (mean 12.1%), and 8.2-35.1% for backfill samples (mean 15.9%). The gravelseparates in the surface samples are smaller than in either trench bottom or backfill samples, whereasthe silt+clay separate is larger. Although all samples contain more fine sand and very fine sand thanother particle size ranges, trench bottom samples contain more than either surface or backfill samples.Surface samples contain a mean of 41.3% fine sand and very fine sand; trench bottom samples, amean of 42.1%; and backfill samples, a mean of 40.0%. The normalized means for each sieveseparate for each type of sample, i.e. surface, trench bottom, backfidl, are shown in Figures 7, 8 and9, respectively.
The samples labelled "c" (14, 15 and 16, Figure 2) in Tables 5, 6 and 7 were collected inDecember 1990. Although a major sand storm had occurred between Phase II and collection of thesesamples, there are virtually no differences between 338c and the other backfill samples or between314c and 317c and the other surface samples.
Table 5. Sieve Analyses: Surface Samples, Phase II (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt-4Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber > 2mm sand, 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, < 0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25mm 0.075- mm0.125mm
312b 9.0 13.4 11.6 10.1 23.3 22.0 10.6321b 9.4 13.7 12.9 11.1 18.9 15.8 18.1323b 13.3 11.4 16.0 15.5 25.1 14.7 4.1327b 6.6 10.9 13.4 14.3 26.5 20.5 7.8328b 13.2 9.2 14.0 14.5 22.5 17.8 8.8331b 14.9 11.0 10.3 13.0 23.7 17.6 9.3333b 14.5 18.8 13.2 13.8 21.9 11.1 6.8334b 20.2 10.3 8.6 9.7 21.7 19.3 10.3337b 7.3 9.5 10.5 10.4 30.4 22.6 9.2339b 12.3 13.4 12.8 15.1 24.4 16.0 6.0342b 5.2 11.6 12.9 11.3 25.7 22.7 10.6344b 34.8 7.3 8.4 8.3 16.6 14.7 10.0314c 10.9 8.3 9.9 15.6 32.6 16.7 6.1317c A4 a R-7 1R "17 4 2 R 4normalizedmean (b): 13.4 11.7 12.1 12.3 23.4 17.9 9.3normalizedmean: 12.7 11.2 11.7 12.6 24.7 18.1 9.0
8
0"3*i AV l~Uvo:) IND) vu
0
FFFT C
A S 11 0 11 I N )
~9
AMAPAM At uiSVVO: INK) V34
__ 0
Ctu
0a
II
*0 I 0 0 0 0an .0 -1 0.
100
1HO43M At VISVO:) IN]:) 13U
o 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z_ 0
,00-0
-v a-01-00
-~C6
Go -I -- - - - - - - I j
I I
- -4-1--0-0
-0 0
11~
IW.X3M At V3SVVO:) INK) Mid
0 0 0 0 0
I I
i - r
Ir I L -
1, . -4 o 9
122
1HMN3M At 13SuVa) INK) Via
0 0 0 0 0 ~ 8
10
700
J1 I
Z M- I -II ii
0 - 0t 0 C 0-
A t 83N VM3 Vi
13 -
LHV4I* AV 43SNVO) IN) 93d
00 a 0 0 0 0 0 8
- oI - -
-14 P:+ 10 0 0 0 0 0 4
4 014
Table 6. Sieve Analyses: Bottom Samples, Phase II (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt+Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber >2mm sand, 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, <0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25mm 0.075- mm0.125mm
314b 10.8 9.5 16.7 21.9 26.2 11.0 3.9317b 14.4 13.6 13.4 16.7 25.6 12.4 3.9318b 11.1 8.8 12.2 15.4 27.1 17.8 7.5322b 11.9 10.5 12.5 15.1 33.6 12.7 3.4324b 4.9 8.1 21.4 20.1 25.3 13.6 6.7329b 25.6 10.9 12.7 15.2 20.9 10.2 4.6335b 17.2 12.2 17.5 13.8 19.2 13.3 6.8336b 6.7 16.9 14.5 11.9 24.6 18.1 7.4340b 7.2 3.5 4.6 11.1 41.4 24.0 8.3341b 7.2 5.3 6.6 9.5 36.7 26.1 8.7343b 16.5 15.6 24.6 16-9 15.8 7.7 3.0normalizedmean: 12.1 10.4 14.2 15.2 27.0 15.2 5.8
Table 7. Sieve Analyses: Backfill Samples, Phase II (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt+Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber > 2mm sand, 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, < 0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25mm 0.075- mm0.125mm
313b 11.7 13.9 25.0 15.6 17.9 10.2 5.6315b 8.2 7.3 10.8 14.2 45.0 11.2 3.2316b 35.1 12.1 9.3 8.8 17.5 10.9 6.4319b 10.3 9.2 9.5 13.4 30.5 20.5 6.6320b 9.5 6.9 11.1 15.4 28.6 19.7 8.8325b 17.5 12.9 14.6 11.7 16.3 13.0 14.1326b 20.8 7.4 21.2 18.9 19.2 9.1 3.5330b 13.8 10.2 10.5 15.0 28.7 15.3 6.6332b 16.4 10.2 10.3 12.3 25.2 16.7 8.9338b 15.2 8.0 8.9 12.7 27.8 19.0 8.4338c 13.7 8.6 8.7 14.5 29.7 17.5 7.3normalizedmean (b): 15.9 9.8 13.1 13.8 25.7 14.6 7.2normalizedmean: 15.7 9.7 12.7 13.9 26.0 14.8 7.2
15
Soil Moisture Determinations
Phase 1. Surface samples had the lowest moisture content, trench bottom samples were thewettest and the backfill samples tended to be intermediate in moisture content (Table 8). Surface soilmoisture ranged from 0.33-0.50%. Trench bottom soil moisture ranged between 0.73-1.34% in the8-inch deep trenches, 1.11-1.21% in the 12-inch deep trenches, and 1.34-2.00% in the 16-inch deep
Table 8. Percent Soil Moisture, Phase I
Sample Surface Bottom BackfillLocation Samples Samples Samples
I meas.error 1.01 041
2 0.50 0.73 0.293 0.384 0.41 1.19 0.235 0.34 1.00 0.406 0.47 1.11 0.447 0.33 1.14 0.438 0.46 1.34 meas. error9 0.45
10 0.38 1.09 0.5811 0.35 1.21 0.4912 0.44 2.00 0.73
trenches. Backfill soil moisture ranged from 0.23-0.73%. There are no statistically significantdifferences at the 95% confidence level in percent soil moisture among surface, trench bottom andbackfill samples.
Soil moisture of the trench bottom and backfill samples tended to increase slightly down slopefrom north-northeast to south-southwest in the study site. Surface soil moisture was higher in thenorth-northeast and south-southwest parts of the site than in the northwest/southeast band that extendsthrough the center of the site.
Phase 2. As shown in Table 9, surface soil moisture ranged from 0.47-1.31%; and backfillsoil moisture, from 0.78-1.22%. Trench bottom soil moisture ranged from 1.29-4.27% at 8-inchdepth, 1.09-1.33% at 12-inch depth, and 1.16%-1.37% at 16-inch depth. Statistically, there are nosignificant differences between surface, trench bottom and backfill samples in this data set.
16
Table 9. Percent Soil Moisture, Phase II
Sample Surface Bottom BackfillLocation Samples Samples Samples
1 1.07 meas.error 0.782 0.99 1.18 0.893 0.47 - -
4 1.31 2.40 1.015 1.06 1.69 0.936 1.19 1.09 0.787 1.14 1.37 0.728 0.79 1.52 0.719 0.80 - -
10 1.06 1.29 1.1611 0.62 1.33 1.2212 0.73 1.16 1.1813 1.15 -14 - 1.0615 0.88 -
16 1.21
Surface soil moisture was highest in the southeast corner and lowest in the southwest cornerof the test site. Trench bottom soil moisture exhibited a totally different pattern, being highest in thenortheast and lowest in the southwest. Backfill sample soil moisture was lowest in a central north-south band and in the northeast corner, increasing to both east and west. It was highest in the west.
Spectral Reflectance
Not all of the surfa ,e samples were measured. After visual inspection of the samples, whichindicated that all were very similar in color and particle size range, 24 samples, six each of surfaceand backfill samples from each of the two phases of the experiment, were selected and measured(Table 10). Multiple scans were made of each sample and the results compared. Figures 10 and 1show four reflectances curves at reduced scale, one each of surface and backfill samples for eachphase. All reflectance curves at full size are in Appendix A.
17
80 I I
60
CL)
ro 40
.4-)
CV 20CE
0 , I400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500
Wavelength (nm) USAETL-RM
Curface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Twentynine Palms. CA. Sample: 329a
z60 -
U
S4041I
UJLii
0 /m 2O
0 I , , I . I I * I , * I400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500
Wavelength (nm) USAETL-kS
Surface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Twentynine Palms. CA. Sample: 344b
Figure 10. Surface Reflectance - Surface Samples, Twentynine Palms, CA:
A. Sample 329a, Phase i, B. Sample 344b, Phase 11.
18
80 T
60
CDUCr~40
Ua)
0J0
400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500Wave2ength (n m) USAETL-FSZ
Surface Reflectance of Desert SoIls
Twentynine Palms. CA. Sample: 312a
80
~60~
CL)UCtr40
a)
20
400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500Wavelength (nm) SELW
Surface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Twentynine Palms. CA. Sam~ple: 338bFigure 11. Surface Reflectance - Backfill Samples, Twentynine Palms, CA:
A. Sample 312a, Phase 1, B. Sample 338b, Phase 11.
19
Table 10. Soil Samples from Twentynine Palms used for Spectral Reflectance
Surface Samples Backfill Samaies
Phase I 326a 312a327a 313a329a 315a332a 317a334a 318a336a 319a
Phase II 312b 315b323b 316b327b 320b339b 325b342b 326b344b 338b
In the visible portion of the spectrum (400-700 nm), all 24 of the samples are virtually identical.This is true for 21 3f the samples in the infrared portion of the spectrum (700-2500 nm) as well; thereare differences of no more than 4% reflectance among three of the backfill samples. The shape of thespectral curves for all of the samples is typical of a dry, light brown, quartz-rich material. Thespectra are featureless with the exception of the water and hydroxyl absorptions at 1400 nm, 1900 nmand 2200 nm, which are present in most soils. The characteristic carbonate absorption at 2350 nmthat is seen in some desert soils is not pronounced in these reflectance curves; neither are the charac-teristic absorptions of gypsum seen. This indicates that if these common desert minerals are present,their amounts are insufficient to be detected spectrally. These spectra are typical of gra-elly-sandsurfaces derived from various igneous sources, and are typical of Mohave Desert surfaces in general(Satterwhite and Henley, in prep).
Soil Color
The soils from Twentynine Palms are virtually the same color. Fifteen of the 27 surface samples(55.6%) are IOYR 6/3 and eleven (40.7%) are IOYR 6/4; &e remaining sample is 7.5YR 6/4.Fifteen of the 21 trench bottom samples (71.4%) are 1OYR 6/3 and the remaining six (28.6%) arelOYR 6/4. Fourteen, or 66.7%, of the 21 backfill samples are lOYR 6/3 and the remaining seven(33.3%) are lOYR 6/4. Surface and backfill samples are thus slightly lighter in color than trench bot-tom samples.
Comparison of Phase I and Phase II Samples
Statistically, there are no significant differences in particle size between surface, backfill, andtrench bottom samples in Phase I, in Phase 11, or between Phase I and Phase II. Soil moisture isslightly higher in the samples collected in the Phase II experiment than in the Phase I samples. Thiswas expected for two reasons: (1) the second test site is downslope from the first test site and (2)because it is closer to a playa lake, it was expected to contain more silts and clays, which the samples
20
do. There are statistically no significant differences between the two Twentynine Palms data sets withrespect to soil moisture. There are also no differences between spectral reflectance or soil coloramong surface, trench bottom, and backfill samples in each data set or between the two data sets.
SOILS FROM SAUDI ARABIA
Particle Size
Results of the sieve analyses for the eight samples from eastern Saudi Arabia are shown in Table11. Sample SA-I cannot be directly compared to the other samples because the analytical procedureswere different from those used for the other samples: the gravel separate was removed from thissample prior to sieving. In addition, SA-3 is composed mainly of very soft gypsum crystals (Moh'shardness 2) that break into smaller particles upon sieving, reducing overall grain size: sieving time it-self may thus affect particle size. The remaining six samples can be divided into two groups, thosethat contain > 20% gravel (SA-7, SA-8), and those that are mainly sand and contain < 20% gravel(SA-2, SA-4, SA-5, SA-6). The largest separate in these soils (excluding the gravel separate) is finesand, with the medium sand the next largest fraction. The fine sand separate ranges from 18.5-18.8%; and medium sand, from 15.4-16.3%. The silt+clay separate in these samples ranges from5.3-7.5%. Medium sand is the largest separate in the sandy samples, -ranging from 21.8-34.8%(mean 30.4%). Silt+clay ranges from 3.4-7.3% (mean 5.7%). Statistically, these gravelly andsandy groups of samples are significantly different at the 99% confidence level. The normalizedmeans for each sieve sepa'ate for gravelly and sandy samples are shown separately in Figures 12 and13, respectively.
Table 11. Sieve Analyses, Saudi Arabian Soils (Percent total)
very coarse medium fine very silt +Sample gravel, coarse sand, sand, sand, fine clayNumber >2mm sand, 0.5-1mm 0.25- 0.125- sand, < 0.075
1-2mm 0.5mm 0.25mm 0.075- mm0.125mm
SA-1 - 10.7 13.8 19.3 27.8 14.7 13.7SA-2 1.3 13.4 13.3 32.8 26.7 9.0 3.4SA-3 22.0 16.0 14.7 16.7 17.8 8.0 4.7SA-4 3.2 0.3 12.2 34.9 33.2 11.0 5.3SA-5 14.0 5.0 15.9 32.0 20.5 5.9 6.7SA-6 4.7 19.3 16.4 21.8 19.2 11.3 7.3SA-7 31.7 6.5 8.6 15.4 18.8 13.6 5.3SA-8 27-1 4-7 106 16-3 185 154 7,5normalizedmean, sands: 5.8 9.5 14.5 30.4 24.9 9.3 5.7normalizedmean, gravels: 29.4 5.6 9.6 15.9 18.7 14.5 6.4
21
L4NMAs vUsUvo~ IND) 1d
K -0
CC
I'M-
I -A~
UCc
U,
W % a
lW-VM AtVINI JM3 VI
22
IWXIM AV NISMYO:) INK) 934
00
0
c0
L0 a 0 0 0 0 C>0
00 db 0 -MEIW-VI At WW JN3) V3
-23
Soil Moisture
Although soil moisture was determined for three of the Saudi Arabian samples, the determinationsare not considered reliable and are thus not reported. We do not know the conditions under whichthey were collected, how well they were sealed, how long they were in transit, or how they werehandled while in transit. Any soil moisture determinations made under these conditions cannot becompared to those made for the Twentynine Palms samples under controlled conditions.
Spectral Reflectance
The Saudi Arabian soil samples are of two basic types: (1) those consisting of wind-blown sandwith some limey and/or quartz gravels and (2) those composed primarily of gypsum. Overall, theSaudi Arabian samples are light-toned and highly reflective. Figure 14 shows the reflectancecharacteristics of the light-toned, wind-blown sands with some limey bits, sample SA-4. The spectrafor the other sandy samples, SA-2, SA-5 and SA-6, are in Appendix 2. The spectra for the gravellysoils, SA-7 and SA-8, are very similar to the spectra for sandy soils, except that the reflectance isslightly lower (Figure 15 and Appendix B). These soils are highly reflective throughout the infraredregion (excluding water or hydroxl absorptions at 1400 nm, 1900 rim, and 2200 nn, which occur invirtually all soils), and they show a small absorption at 2300 rim, which is indicative of carbonatematerial (limestone). Samples SA-1 and SA-3 are also highly reflective in the visible and near-infrared regions, but show deep absorptions in the infrared region indicative of gypsum, a hydratedcalcium sulfate mineral, as well (Figure 16 and Appendix 2). Gypsum-rich soils are among thebrightest of all soils in the visible region, but are highly absorptive in the 2100 nm to 2400 rim regiondue to the presence of water bound in the gypsum crystals.
Soil Color
The soil samples from eastern Saudi Arabia are somewhat variable in color. Five (62.5%) of theeight samples are 10YR 7/3. The remaining three samples are 10YR 8/2, 10YR 7/2 and 7.5YR 6/4.
COMPARISON OF SOILS FROM TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA, AND SAUDI ARABIA
The comparisons made above between soils from Twentynine Palms and those from eastern SaudiArabia must be qualified. The Twentynine Palms soils come from a very small area that is relativelyhomogeneous, whereas the Saudi Arabian soil samples come from only a few locations over a verywide area. The few samples from eastern Saudi Arabia cannot be considered representative of soils inSaudi Arabia, and the many samples from Twentynine Palms cannot be considered representativeeven of the Mohave Desert.
In general terms, the soils from Twentynine Palms are classified as gravelly fine sand andgravelly very fine sand. The fine sand and very fine sand sieve separates comprise approximately50% of most samples. The sandy soils from eastern Saudi Arabia are mainly medium sand;
24
0
cct-J
0 W)0CMjCu
0
4-J0
Cia)
C:C)C
0 (0 >
tDo 4-JU
00
CCaU)
u000) CL
0 r-- 0
00
252
80
-60
a)
C(0 4 0
.s-jUa)
cu20
400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500Wavelength (nm) VSAETL-ASO
Surface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Sample SA-7
60
C
Ua)
20
400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500wavelength (nm) USAETL-RSO
Surface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Sample :SA-8Figure 15. Surface Reflectance - Gravelly Samples, Saudi Arabia:
A. SA-7, B. SA-8.26
60
M 404JU
w.-
W 20
400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500
Wavelength (nm) USAEL-RSO
Surface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Sample SA-I
6 0L
40 .i-JU
S20
400 700 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 2500Wavelength (nm) USAETL-RSO
Surface Reflectance of Desert Soils
Sample : SA-3Figure 16. Surface Reflectance - Gravelly Samples Containing Gypsum, Saudi Arabia:
A. SA-l, B. SA-3.27
approximately 30% of each sample consists of medium sand. There are statistically significantdifferences between the surface samples from Twentynine Palms and both the gravelly and sandysamples from eastern Saudi Arabia. These differences are significant at the 99% confidence level.
With respect to spectral reflectance, the samples from Twentynine Palms are fairly uniform, as allsamples came from a small area. The darker toned gravels, derived from local igneous sources, andthe absence of any absorptive mineral such as gypsum give these samples overall featurelessreflectance spectra. The Saudi Arabian samples, from several locations and from very differentsource materials, show more variability. The most obvious difference is that the Saudi Arabian soilsare much brighter or lighter toned than the Twentynine Palms soils. The presence of gypsum in someof the Saudi Arabian samples produces reflectance spectra that are very different from the TwentyninePalms soils. The Saudi Arabian soils are more variable in color than those from Twentynine Palms.
CONCLUSIONS
There are some similar characteristics between the soils from Twentynine Palms and those fromeastern Saudi Arabia. First, we believe that both sets of samples were collected from sand sheets, sograin size and degree of roundness should be roughly similar. Berlin et al. (1986) describe the AlLabbah sand as rounded to subrounded and fine to medium grained. Our samples from eastern SaudiArabia are mainly medium sand and the soils from Twentynine Palms are mainly fine sand and veryfine sand. Curtis and Tid'. :11 (in prep) describe soil particles from Twentynine Palms, Phase I, asrounded to subrounded. Second, although we have no soil moisture data on our Saudi Arabian soilsamples, Berlin et al. (1986) show soil moisture ranging from 0.054-0.077% in the sand sheet on theAl Labbah Plateau. Although lower in soil moisture than the surface samples from TwentyninePalms, which range from 0.33-1.31%, these soils can be considered rougly comparable with respectto soil moisture.
We have also identified some significant differences between the two sets of samples. There arestatistically significant differences between the mean particle size distributions for soils from the tworegions. The Saudi Arabian samples, which consist mainly of medium sand or of gravel, are coarsergrained than those from Twentynine Palms, which consist primarily of fine sand and very fine sand,as stated above. Also, although we do not yet have petrographic data on any of the samples, analysisof the reflectance spectra as well a, visual observations suggest that there are major differences incomposition between the two sets. The Saudi Arabian samples contain large amounts of gypsum,whereas gypsum is not readily apparent in the samples from Twentynine Palms. Only parts of thesamples from Saudi Arabia may have an igneous source, whereas the Twentynine Palms samples allare igneous in origin. The latter appear to have a higher iron (or dark mineral) component than thosefrom Saudi Arabia. The spectra for the two data sets show a carbonate component in the SaudiArabian soils that does not occur in the spectra for the Twentynine Palms soils. In addition, theSaudi Arabian soils are much more reflective than those from Twentynine Palms because of their highgypsum content.
28
REFERENCES
Berlin, G.L., Tarabzourii, M.A., AI-Naser, A.H., Sheikho, K.M. and Larson, R.W., 1986, SIR-Bsubsurface imaging of a sand-buried landscape: Al Labbah Plateau, Saudi Arabia: IEEE Transactionson Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. GE-24, pp 595-602.
Curtis, J.0. and Tidwell, L.E., Twenty-nine Palms. CA. Test Site Characterization: Vicksburg, MS,U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, in prep.
Henley, J.P., 1990, Spectral characteristics of some saline playa surfaces and their application tomultispectral imagery analysis: IN Image Drocessing/ Remote Sensing, vol. 4, Technical Papers, 1990ACSM-ASPRS Annual Convention, pp 151-158.
Satterwhite, M.B. and Henley, J.P., 1991, Hyperspecral Signatures (400 to 2500 nm) of VegetationMinerals. Soils. Rocks and Cultural Features: Ft. Belvoir, VA, U.S. Army Engineer TopographicLaboratories, in prep.
29
APPENDIX A. REFLECTANCE SPECTRA OF SOILS FROM TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA
1. Surface Samples, Phase I
31
0
cc-AJ
0 U)
Cujcu 0
U)
00
o - 0.C
00 (l01 E
(D(0 mi
4a)
0 4 (0
o 0)0 0)
Q)u C:(0 4
o cNL CU
cn -
0 0 0 q
32
0
n
LuU)
0 Ew
or('UI
Cl)
E o CD
0 C
o1 L cf
CD a)a).
M >
v-i
00 % (-
0a)
u C
0 C:
F--
0 0. 011oo LOa
33a
0
CUi-jcc
0 ,
0 1
cu 0r-
0u
U)
0
o 4- ELo 0 ro
0) CC
0 UD (
> 4-J
CD E
o0o
CD
cu C:
o CL (DD 3:
1n -
00
00 0 0 01
34
0
cu'
wCc
0 In0 I-f
cu HCu 0
C)D0 L~ Mu
U)
(D~ 0 CD(I)
0'~ C: <
(D U0)
o u
CD
0(
0 CN-L a)
0 000co LO 7 o
M% 83ue-43814G35
0LD)
-jI - -LU
0 W1
OuCuj 0
oL M
o Q
0) ECD 0
0 2
> 4-) (
U u(0
0 4 4-c
- C:
CC
Go 1 CM
36
0
ccCU
0cn
0 r I
cli 0
CD LDm
C: 0
0
(D. o E
0 C
M > 4-JU U)0E
0 '4-
L a
0 0
oo 4lrr
37o
2. Backfill Samples, Phase I
38
cutcu
00CU)
0 4- (0i
0 aim
U-)
0 Q:
o a) (
Ow (D E~
0c a)
a) -U C
0(0 4-
a))
0
0 0 00
39
cu'
w
0 U
Clu 0Uf)
0 L
U)
o 000 4-- E
4Q CD)
a),0 (D U
3w (DO
(D E
0 4- C
0U (0 .4.J
0
40
C3In
clu-JI-uJ
In
o) L LC))
0 EO
CYa)
D a) (DL
0 4-1Cm u )
0~ (DCD
N LQJD
0 qw3 ED cxi
41
0
U)
0u
(UD
EU 0 a
0~ 4' CrOp CU)
-C-
0 '4- E
00
100)
0 0C)00 (DocaC UD Iqr
42'4
0 U)
Nv 0
0 L -r
a)E ow0 %',4- E0 EU
CY-) ( )
) <
( Ua) >
o u c
(D E
o C:
L CD
0
43
-T - 0
U,)
(I' ~U )
0u 0
oL
o m.
0))
a)
(D E
o a)
u C:
0 4Jo C:
LW
00 0 l
44
3. Surface Samples, Phas II
45
0
wa,
0 Clnocucu 0
Uf)
cuo La) m
o 0.
(D.z 0 (D
0) (Du
wo0 a U
M > 4-J
mQ 2
oD E
C:
L C:(U) >
L (D C
46
0
Ri
0 in)o f-I
Ri 0
o L cu(D aMU)
o oQ0o 4-. E
CY 0 (D
0 C(D U
U)
0 '- (0
0 0
C
(U
0
00 0 0 00
47
0 C
w
0 U)0 I
00CM
i
E C
0 : 00 4- ELO ~ 0 (0
~4J U)
0)
C c<
0Q) E
U
0 4 -'0 4L 0
00 0 0Wo Lo CUj
48
0
C I-
w4c
0 In00 r-1l
cu 0
-)
0 4- m
CD a)
a)I
a)0 (U
0)0)
cCD U
W E10 4- (Wo CI)o (D
c CF
00
00 '4-
(%) ~ u9;D49u
LrJ incu'
-jO-
0 UcuCu 0
0 L~ *
(n)
E (
o Ql
0 CUU)
ai <~
> 4-J)0)
o a)
C:
500
0
tuU)
cu 0cn
0 4-) fl0 L ll0 'I
U)
0 a
00 '4-
4J cii
ow ro0 D U
W E
00 CC C
C
U C:co >11
0 44 )0CL 0
0 0 0 0G0 cu
51
4. Backfill Samples, Phas HI
52
0
Cu'-j
i-
0 U0cuCu1 0
C.)
.0o L
(D MU)
0C -
o '4- E
CY 0 (D
a) w:0 i U
COw CD
(D Cu w :
LCD
100 LO c
53~
ar
0 U
0 (1)f
cu 0Uf)
-P-La LO
EE
0 CD
a)
(D u
(D E
ro
D Ca)
U C
0(
0 0 0
54
0u
LOU)
0 E1
(D 0
0 n
cu U
o 0.
o %4- 20 ( 0
CC
L (D
00
55-
('in
cu
0 U -)
CuD
in0 a)
o 00
Q C
ow (D U
(D E
0 4- CD
o a)(D
C)
Laa(%)Cr
F-~D8 4
56
U) UCu I
0 (
Cu 0
cf)
7- 0L
(D.C 0(D
C:
0 U)W E
D 0- (0
CU <
0 4- .4-
ML >j u
0 (
w0 IE
(%) oue~etja57D
0
I-i
in
0 U)
Cxu 0U)
o L M
cc
o ) 0)c0 C
a))
0)
CC
owu Co C:>13
L CD
oo LO
58I
APPENDiX B. REFLECTANCE SPECTRA OF SOMlS FROM SAUDI ARABIA
59
0
Ln Encc
w
0cucu
0Uf)
0
00
E (C:(
000
LO 4-
0)0C:
a).C:)r-I u
000
0 u4
L aE
00000 (0 o
600
Cuin
0cuCu 0
U)
0 4-1o L
C:0o 4
0
CDC0a CDo
M > 4-Ju(D
0 Cu
Cc <(D)
a)
L ELD M
00 0 0
61
0
ccwt,
0 U)0
C!)0
U) L
(D)E
C:(0
4-0
0)00(D
C)
Cr)> (0
0 S
o mD
0 (0 o Q4- rSI
L aDE
roU) c
00 0 0 NTGo O cli
62
0
wU)
0
0 U)
00
4-)L)
0 00
0)0C:
((0r1(D -I
0 >I
C!D
0
L aDC)l
000 0 01
63
0
- J.I-
Ln I
in0 U)
0 r-
cu 0
4-)
00 4-
) 0U)
C0
CD 0
C u
0 r-I c0 (D
)u
0 10 (D)<
0 Ic
U)
0(%) a~ueoU) U)b0
0 0 0 0 0q
64
0
I-
w
aE,
0 1
Cu 0
o L
w0D
00o 4
00
Ca)
C) r-4 c
0 a) m
0 ni
0 (
0 c0
C0 0 0 0
65
0r Im
0 U)
00
(I)0o -P-a) L
E~ U)
00
4J 0ED
a)
-P-
4-
U)
00 (D a)
0
(%) E BieDcu
66
00o
Cu IP-
w
0 En0 -
Ru 0
0 L
U)(D
00
00
c 1)a,
CDC
4--) c
C)Cl
CC ,
NL E
CjC
00 0 00GoL Wl cu
(%) ueDU381 4aH
67
