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 (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mori, Y. Articles by Kluitenberg, G. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mori, Y. Articles by Kluitenberg, G. J. Agricola Articles by Mori, Y. Articles by Kluitenberg, G. J. Related Collections Soil Thermal Properties Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport Soil Methods/Instrumentation

Estimation of Vadose Zone Water Flux from Multi-Functional Heat Pulse Probe Measurements

^a Faculty of Life and Environmental Science, Shimane Univ., Matsue 690-8504, Japan
^b Hydrology, Dep. of Land, Air and Water Resources, Univ. of California, Davis, CA, 95616
^c Geological Institute, Copenhagen Univ., Copenhagen, Denmark
^d Dep. of Agronomy, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS, 66506

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Schematic of multi functional heat pulse probe.

View larger version (52K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Experimental setup of saturated flow experiment.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Thermal diffusivity values as a function of volumetric water content. Data for water flux values larger 10 m d–1 are omitted.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Optimized thermal diffusivity () values as a function of water flux density: (circles) using Eq. [3] and (squares) using Eq. [6]. Data for water flux values larger 10 m d–1 are omitted.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of estimated (with MFHPP) and independently measured water content values. Only saturated water content values for a water flux <0.5 m d–1 are included.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Accuracy of water content estimation by Eq. [3], as a function of water flux density.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Comparison of measured with optimized matric head (cm) and cumulative outflow (cm3) for multi-step outflow experiment.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Comparison of estimated (with MFHPP) with measured (saturated) or simulated (multi-step outflow) water flux densities, using Eq. [6] for both saturated and unsaturated flow.