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

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free An erratum has been published 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 Fujimaki, H. Articles by Inoue, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Fujimaki, H. Articles by Inoue, M. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Fujimaki, H. Articles by Inoue, M. Related Collections Hydraulic Conductivity/Relative Permeability Water Retention/Capillary Pressure

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Reevaluation of the Multistep Outflow Method for Determining Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity

^a Institute of Agricultural and Forest Engineering, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennohdai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
^b Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, 1390 Hamasaka, Tottori 680-0001, Japan
^* Corresponding author (fujimaki{at}sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp).

Received 10 January 2003.

The multistep outflow (MSO) method is widely used for determining the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, which is essential for accurate prediction of water flow in soils. However, the reliability of this method has yet to be adequately verified through comparisons with independently measured conductivities of soils having different textures and structures. We conducted MSO experiments with three soils of different textures to test the reliability of the conventional MSO. Three methods were used to determine the hydraulic conductivities, K(), from identical experiments: an optimization method with readings of a tensiometer (OM), a direct method using one tensiometer (DM1), and a direct method using two tensiometers (DM2). Outflow data were also used in the three methods. Additionally, steady-state downward flow experiments using two tensiometers were performed for comparison. For two of the three soils, OM and DM1 clearly underestimated K() determined by SDFM. On the other hand, DM2 gave good agreement with the SDFM data. These results and the discrepancies between the fitted and observed tensiometer readings near the bottom imply the existence of a hydraulic resistance at the soil–porous plate interface. The hydraulic resistance might be caused by pore plugging with fine particles (colloids) transported to the ceramic plate after stepwise changes in pressure. We suggest that an additional tensiometer be installed near the bottom of the sample and be used for checking the optimized K() with the direct method (DM2).

Abbreviations: DM1, direct method using one tensiometer • DM2, direct method using two tensiometers • MSO, multistep outflow • OM, optimization method • SDFM, steady-state downward flow method