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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arya, L. M. Articles by Cassel, D. K. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Arya, L. M. Articles by Cassel, D. K. Agricola Articles by Arya, L. M. Articles by Cassel, D. K. Related Collections Water Content Scaling Soil Physics

Scaling Soil Water Characteristics of Golf Course and Athletic Field Sands from Particle-Size Distribution

^a 770 El Caballo Dr., Oceanside, CA 92057
^b Crop Science Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
^c Soil Science Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Conceptual representation of the structure in the ith particle-size fraction, assembled in the form of a cube: (a) natural state of packing, (b) cubic, close-packed, consisting of uniform-size spherical particles, and (c) an enlarged subsection of the cross-sectional area of (b). The value of Li(c) in (b) can be estimated as follows: bulk volume of the assemblage = (2Rini1/3)3 = 8Ri3ni; solid volume of ni particles = (4Ri3ni)/3; pore volume in assemblage = 8Ri3ni – (4Ri3ni)/3; Area ABCD = 4Ri2; area (a + b + c + d) = 4(0.25Ri2) = Ri2; cross-sectional area of a single pore = 0.858Ri2. Therefore, if the total pore volume is represented by a single cylindrical pore, the total pore length, Li(c) is 3.811Ri3ni/0.858Ri2 = 4.44Rini. For variable definitions, see the Appendix.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Relationship between log nii vs. logni and logLi(n) vs. logLi(c) for Commercial sand 2.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Relationship between (a) log nii vs. logni for sands with no clay or silt, (b) log nii vs. logni for sands with minor amounts of clay and silt, (c) logLi(n) vs. logLi(c) for sands with no clay or silt, and (d) logLi(n) vs. logLi(c) for sands with minor amounts of clay and silt. Note: Each figure represents pooled data for seven sand materials.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Experimental and predicted soil water characteristic for Bunker sand: (a) best-fit parameters, (b) Parameters a, b (Eq. [9]) and c, d (Eq. [11]) altered by +10% of their best-fit values, (c) Parameters a, b and c, d altered by –10% of their best-fit values, and (d) best-fit mean parameters for the sand materials with no clay or silt.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted pressure heads using Eq. [9] and [11].