Capillary, Film, and Vapor Flow in Transient Bare Soil Evaporation (1): Identifiability Analysis of Hydraulic Conductivity in the Medium to Dry Moisture Range

Iden, Sascha C.; Blöcher, Johanna Ruth; Diamantopoulos, Efstathios; Durner, Wolfgang

doi:10.1029/2020wr028513

Cited by 17 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(166 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was illustrated by the numerical simulations with the coupled model presented in Section 3.1 of Iden et al. (2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…For the latter, we used only data with a relative humidity smaller than 93%. These correspond to tensions

h > 10^{5} cm

which have a relative error of less than 10% (Iden et al., 2021). An atmospheric boundary condition was used at the top.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For details of the models and the reasoning for choosing these four models, we refer to Section 2.3 of Iden et al. (2021). In essence, model M1 neglects vapor flow and non‐capillary components in the WRC and HCC (Durner, 1994; van Genuchten, 1980).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an extended form, the isothermal vapor diffusion is reformulated and included in an effective hydraulic conductivity function which then comprises a liquid and a vapor component (Peters, 2013). Our analysis in the companion paper, which was based on simulations with a coupled liquid water, water vapor, and heat flow model, has shown that inverse modeling with such an extended Richards equation supports the accurate identification of SHP from laboratory evaporation experiments (i) if the SHP are adequately parameterized and (ii) if soil water pressure head is measured across a wide range (Iden et al., 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Four models of SHP (M1-M4) were used in the inverse simulation, which differ conceptually with respect to considering vapor flow and non-capillary water in the parameterization of the WRC and HCC. For details of the models and the reasoning for choosing these four models, we refer to Section 2.3 of Iden et al (2021).…”

Section: Inverse Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Capillary, Film, and Vapor Flow in Transient Bare Soil Evaporation (2): Experimental Identification of Hydraulic Conductivity in the Medium to Dry Moisture Range

Iden

Diamantopoulos

Durner

2021

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of soil hydraulic properties across the full moisture range by inverse modeling of evaporation experiments.• Advanced instrumentation with tensiometers and relative humidity sensors allows to identify hydraulic conductivity in medium to dry soil.• Evaporation experiments can be modelled correctly with Richards' equation, provided hydraulic properties account for vapor and film flow.

show abstract

“…This was illustrated by the numerical simulations with the coupled model presented in Section 3.1 of Iden et al. (2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…For the latter, we used only data with a relative humidity smaller than 93%. These correspond to tensions

h > 10^{5} cm

which have a relative error of less than 10% (Iden et al., 2021). An atmospheric boundary condition was used at the top.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Inverse Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Capillary, Film, and Vapor Flow in Transient Bare Soil Evaporation (2): Experimental Identification of Hydraulic Conductivity in the Medium to Dry Moisture Range

Iden

Diamantopoulos

Durner

2021

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improved calculation of soil hydraulic conductivity with the simplified evaporation method

Inforsato

Iden

Durner

et al. 2023

Vadose Zone Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerical modeling of soil water dynamics and storage is generally based on the Richards equation. Its solution requires knowledge of the soil hydraulic properties (SHP): the soil water retention function and the hydraulic conductivity function. To determine SHP, laboratory evaporation experiments are particularly popular because they provide data for both SHP functions. The evaluation by the simplified evaporation method (SEM) method, originally proposed by Schindler and subsequently improved by several authors, relies on linearization assumptions that allow for a relatively simple calculation scheme but result in biased conductivity data for some soils. The objective of this study is to propose and test an improved computational scheme for the hydraulic conductivity function. We present the new theory and show that it leads generally to higher accuracy of the conductivity function. The improvement is most pronounced for sandy soils and soil water pressure heads below −100 cm, where the original method provided data with bias.

show abstract

Validating coupled flow theory for bare‐soil evaporation under different boundary conditions

Blöcher,

Diamantopoulos,

Durner

et al. 2023

Vadose Zone Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaporation from bare soil is an important hydrological process and part of the water and energy balance of terrestrial systems. Modeling bare‐soil evaporation is challenging, mainly due to nonlinear couplings among liquid water, water vapor, and heat fluxes. Model concepts of varying complexity have been proposed for predicting evaporative water and energy fluxes. Our aim was to test a standard model of coupled water, vapor, and heat flow in the soil using data from laboratory evaporation experiments under different boundary conditions. We conducted evaporation experiments with a sand and a silt loam soil and with three different atmospheric boundary conditions: (i) wind, (ii) wind and short‐wave radiation, and (iii) wind and intermittent short‐wave radiation. The packed soil columns were closed at the bottom (no water flux) and instrumented with temperature sensors, tensiometers, and relative humidity probes. We simulated the evaporation experiments with a coupled water, vapor, and heat flow model, which solves the surface energy balance and predicts the evaporation rate. The evaporation dynamics were predicted very well, in particular the onset of stage‐two evaporation and the evaporation rates during the stage. A continuous slow decrease of the measured evaporation rate during stage‐one could not be described with a constant aerodynamic resistance. Adding established soil resistance parametrizations to the model significantly degraded model performance. The use of a boundary‐layer resistance, which takes into account the effect of point sources of moisture, improved the prediction of evaporation rates for the sandy soil, but not for the silt loam.

show abstract

Capillary, Film, and Vapor Flow in Transient Bare Soil Evaporation (1): Identifiability Analysis of Hydraulic Conductivity in the Medium to Dry Moisture Range

Cited by 17 publications

References 65 publications

Capillary, Film, and Vapor Flow in Transient Bare Soil Evaporation (2): Experimental Identification of Hydraulic Conductivity in the Medium to Dry Moisture Range

Capillary, Film, and Vapor Flow in Transient Bare Soil Evaporation (2): Experimental Identification of Hydraulic Conductivity in the Medium to Dry Moisture Range

Improved calculation of soil hydraulic conductivity with the simplified evaporation method

Validating coupled flow theory for bare‐soil evaporation under different boundary conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About