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 (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Javaux, M. Articles by Vanclooster, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Javaux, M. Articles by Vanclooster, M. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Javaux, M. Articles by Vanclooster, M. Related Collections Structure and Properties Soil Physics Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport

Robust Estimation of the Generalized Solute Transfer Function Parameters

Dep. of Environmental Sciences and Land Use Planning, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Croix du Sud, 2 Bte 2, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Influence of 1 - 2 on the apparent dispersivity in function of the depth. Values in the graph represent the a calculated from Eq. [19] with reference depth l = 1 m, l = 0.2, and µl = 10.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Error contaminated data simulated with Eq. [11] at four different depths (0.1, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.85 m, l = 1 m) and a realistic noise of standard deviation of 8 x 10-4 [-].

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Numerical simulation of a CDE and a CLT process at the 0.3-, 0.6-, and 1-m depth fitted by the GTF solution (Eq. [11]). The CDE parameters: D = 5 cm h-2 and v = 1 cm h-1, fitted parameters are 1 = 1, 2 = 0.49, µl = 3.81, and l = 0.435. The CLT parameters: µl = 3.73, l = 0.480, fitted GTF parameters are exactly the same with 1 and 2 equal to 1.

View larger version (69K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Surface plots of the objective function related to the error-contaminated Crt* at 0.1- and 0.4-m depth. The cross indicates the actual parameters (1 = 0.7, 2 = 0.7, µl = 3.6, and l = 0.32).

View larger version (75K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Objective function of error-contaminated Crt* from the six BTCs couples with actual parameters: 1 = 0.7, 2 = 0.7, µl = 3.6, and l = 0.32. Comparison of response surfaces of parameters 1 and 2 in function of the dataset used. The two figures labeling each subplot give the position of the two BTC used. Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond respectively to 0.1-, 0.4-, 0.7-, and 0.85-m depths.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental BTCs at the 0.15- and 0.3-m depth in an undisturbed sandy subsoil and fitted results of the CD, CLT, and GTF models.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental BTC at the 0.45-m depth in an undisturbed sandy subsoil and predictions of the CD, CLT and GTF models.