HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (28) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wildenschild, D. Articles by Simunek, J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Wildenschild, D. Articles by Simunek, J. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Wildenschild, D. Articles by Simunek, J.

Flow Rate Dependence of Soil Hydraulic Characteristics

^a Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, L-202, Livermore, CA 94550
^b Dep. of Hydrodynamics and Water Resources, Technical University of Denmark

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Laboratory setup for outflow experiments

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Compartments and flux boundaries for the calculated hydraulic conductivities

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Directly and inversely estimated retention curves for the Lincoln soil as a function of applied pressure (a) 0–250 mbar, (b) 0–125 mbar, (c) 0–50–100 mbar, (d) 0–25–35–62–80–100 mbar, (e) directly estimated curves for all experiments, (f) inversely estimated curves for all the experiments

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Directly and inversely estimated retention curves for the Columbia soil as a function of applied pressure (a) 0–500 mbar, (b) 0–250–500 mbar, (c) 0–125–250–375–500 mbar, (d) directly estimated curves for all experiments, (e) inversely estimated curves for all the experiments

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Directly and inversely estimated unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curves for the Lincoln soil as a function of applied pressure (a) 0–250 mbar, (b) 0–125 mbar, (c) 0–50–100 mbar, (d) 0–25–35–62–80–100 mbar (only the curves for the middle and bottom compartments are shown), (e) directly estimated curves for all experiments for the bottom part of the sample (K3), (f) inversely estimated curves for all experiments

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Directly and inversely estimated unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curves for the Columbia soil as a function of applied pressure (a) 0–500 mbar, (b) 0–250–500 mbar, (c) 0–125–250–375–500 mbar, (d) directly estimated curves for all experiments for the bottom part of the sample (K3), (e) inversely estimated curves for all experiments. (Only the curves for the middle and bottom compartments are shown)

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Matric potential gradients measured and optimized between the two tensiometers in the Lincoln soil

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Matric potential gradients measured and optimized between the two tensiometers in the Columbia soil

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Cumulative outflow rates as a function of time for the Lincoln soil. Early time data is shown in inset

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Cumulative outflow rates as a function of time for the Columbia soil. Early time data is shown in insert