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 (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hunt, A. G. Articles by Skinner, T. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hunt, A. G. Articles by Skinner, T. E. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Hunt, A. G. Articles by Skinner, T. E. Related Collections Soil Physics Analytical Solutions Pore-Scale Modeling Soil Hydrology

Hydraulic Conductivity Limited Equilibration

Effect on Water Retention Characteristics

^a Departments of Physics and Geology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435
^b Department of Physics, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Hydraulic conductivity as a function of moisture content. Open squares combine regimes of validity of Eq. [4] and [6]. Thin line, extending to smaller moisture contents, represents continued application of Eq. [4]. D = 2.84, = 0.44, KS = 0.01, t = 0.107.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Water retention curve consistent with Eq. [2] for the same parameters as in Fig. 1 and an air entry pressure, hA = 40 cm. Portion near = 0.12 with strong upward curvature represents effects of deviation from equilibrium according to algorithm described in text. Continuation of Eq. [2] to < t is not justified except for purposes of illustration.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. LogK vs. hydraulic head, h. Open triangles represent equilibrium K values. x values assume validity of Eq. [4] for K for entire range. The solid curve represents typical nonequilibrium values of K(h).

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Comparison of prediction of algorithm (described in text) with experimental water retention curve for the USDOE Hanford site soil, ITS 2-1418 (Freeman, 1995). t taken from lowest value achieved; 1 is calculated from Eq. [6] and shown with an arrow. Open squares consistent with Rieu and Sposito (1991) fractal scaling over entire range of moisture contents. Filled diamonds represent experimental values from Freeman (1995). Open circles are moisture contents predicted by algorithm described here.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Same as Fig. 4, except using ITS 2-2232 (Freeman, 1995).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Same as Fig. 4, except using USMW 10-86 (Freeman, 1995).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Same as Fig. 4, except using ITS 2-2230 (Freeman, 1995).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Same as Fig. 4, except using ITS 2-2229 (Freeman, 1995).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Same as Fig. 4, except using FLTF D11-08 (Freeman, 1995).

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Same as Fig. 4, except using USMW 10-45 (Freeman, 1995).