Water flow modeling with dry bulk density optimization to determine hydraulic properties in mountain soils

A. T. Fullhart, T. J. Kelleners, David G Chandler, J. P. McNamara, M. S. Seyfried

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A new method for determining profile-average and depth-wise hydraulic properties in heterogeneous mountain soils is presented using the GEOtop watershed model in 1-D vertical mode. Dry soil bulk density-converted volumetric soil water retention data are used to determine van Genuchten soil water retention parameters, and the Kozeny-Carman equation is used to determine saturated soil hydraulic conductivity. Optimum dry soil bulk densities are identified by minimizing the sum of squared error between measured and calculated soil water content time series. The new method was tested using soil moisture data from soil profiles at the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed, Boise, ID, and the Libby Creek Experimental Watershed, Laramie, WY. Results of different scenarios showed that the optimization of a single profile-average dry soil bulk density is a good option for describing soil water flow in the heterogeneous mountain soils. Soil water content modeling efficiency (ME) values of 0.084 ≤ ME ≤ 0.745 and -2.443 ≤ ME ≤ 0.373 were found for the Dry Creek and Libby Creek sites, respectively. Relatively low ME values for the deepest sensor depths for some scenarios were attributed to the overestimation of soil water freezing and uncertainty in the soil water retention function near saturation. The resulting calibration procedure is computationally efficient because only one parameter (dry soil bulk density) is optimized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)31-44
Number of pages14
JournalSoil Science Society of America Journal
Volume82
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

mountain soils
flow modeling
dry density
hydraulic property
water flow
bulk density
fluid mechanics
soil water
soil water retention
mountain
water retention
soil
soil water content
watershed
modeling
water content
hydrologic models
hydraulic conductivity
soil profiles
time series analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Soil Science

Cite this

Water flow modeling with dry bulk density optimization to determine hydraulic properties in mountain soils. / Fullhart, A. T.; Kelleners, T. J.; Chandler, David G; McNamara, J. P.; Seyfried, M. S.

In: Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 82, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 31-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fullhart, A. T. ; Kelleners, T. J. ; Chandler, David G ; McNamara, J. P. ; Seyfried, M. S. / Water flow modeling with dry bulk density optimization to determine hydraulic properties in mountain soils. In: Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2018 ; Vol. 82, No. 1. pp. 31-44.
@article{484db05b5e224927b8f6d541b898754f,
title = "Water flow modeling with dry bulk density optimization to determine hydraulic properties in mountain soils",
abstract = "A new method for determining profile-average and depth-wise hydraulic properties in heterogeneous mountain soils is presented using the GEOtop watershed model in 1-D vertical mode. Dry soil bulk density-converted volumetric soil water retention data are used to determine van Genuchten soil water retention parameters, and the Kozeny-Carman equation is used to determine saturated soil hydraulic conductivity. Optimum dry soil bulk densities are identified by minimizing the sum of squared error between measured and calculated soil water content time series. The new method was tested using soil moisture data from soil profiles at the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed, Boise, ID, and the Libby Creek Experimental Watershed, Laramie, WY. Results of different scenarios showed that the optimization of a single profile-average dry soil bulk density is a good option for describing soil water flow in the heterogeneous mountain soils. Soil water content modeling efficiency (ME) values of 0.084 ≤ ME ≤ 0.745 and -2.443 ≤ ME ≤ 0.373 were found for the Dry Creek and Libby Creek sites, respectively. Relatively low ME values for the deepest sensor depths for some scenarios were attributed to the overestimation of soil water freezing and uncertainty in the soil water retention function near saturation. The resulting calibration procedure is computationally efficient because only one parameter (dry soil bulk density) is optimized.",
author = "Fullhart, {A. T.} and Kelleners, {T. J.} and Chandler, {David G} and McNamara, {J. P.} and Seyfried, {M. S.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2136/sssaj2017.06.0196",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "82",
pages = "31--44",
journal = "Soil Science Society of America Journal",
issn = "0361-5995",
publisher = "Soil Science Society of America",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Water flow modeling with dry bulk density optimization to determine hydraulic properties in mountain soils

AU - Fullhart, A. T.

AU - Kelleners, T. J.

AU - Chandler, David G

AU - McNamara, J. P.

AU - Seyfried, M. S.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - A new method for determining profile-average and depth-wise hydraulic properties in heterogeneous mountain soils is presented using the GEOtop watershed model in 1-D vertical mode. Dry soil bulk density-converted volumetric soil water retention data are used to determine van Genuchten soil water retention parameters, and the Kozeny-Carman equation is used to determine saturated soil hydraulic conductivity. Optimum dry soil bulk densities are identified by minimizing the sum of squared error between measured and calculated soil water content time series. The new method was tested using soil moisture data from soil profiles at the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed, Boise, ID, and the Libby Creek Experimental Watershed, Laramie, WY. Results of different scenarios showed that the optimization of a single profile-average dry soil bulk density is a good option for describing soil water flow in the heterogeneous mountain soils. Soil water content modeling efficiency (ME) values of 0.084 ≤ ME ≤ 0.745 and -2.443 ≤ ME ≤ 0.373 were found for the Dry Creek and Libby Creek sites, respectively. Relatively low ME values for the deepest sensor depths for some scenarios were attributed to the overestimation of soil water freezing and uncertainty in the soil water retention function near saturation. The resulting calibration procedure is computationally efficient because only one parameter (dry soil bulk density) is optimized.

AB - A new method for determining profile-average and depth-wise hydraulic properties in heterogeneous mountain soils is presented using the GEOtop watershed model in 1-D vertical mode. Dry soil bulk density-converted volumetric soil water retention data are used to determine van Genuchten soil water retention parameters, and the Kozeny-Carman equation is used to determine saturated soil hydraulic conductivity. Optimum dry soil bulk densities are identified by minimizing the sum of squared error between measured and calculated soil water content time series. The new method was tested using soil moisture data from soil profiles at the Dry Creek Experimental Watershed, Boise, ID, and the Libby Creek Experimental Watershed, Laramie, WY. Results of different scenarios showed that the optimization of a single profile-average dry soil bulk density is a good option for describing soil water flow in the heterogeneous mountain soils. Soil water content modeling efficiency (ME) values of 0.084 ≤ ME ≤ 0.745 and -2.443 ≤ ME ≤ 0.373 were found for the Dry Creek and Libby Creek sites, respectively. Relatively low ME values for the deepest sensor depths for some scenarios were attributed to the overestimation of soil water freezing and uncertainty in the soil water retention function near saturation. The resulting calibration procedure is computationally efficient because only one parameter (dry soil bulk density) is optimized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042083530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042083530&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2136/sssaj2017.06.0196

DO - 10.2136/sssaj2017.06.0196

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85042083530

VL - 82

SP - 31

EP - 44

JO - Soil Science Society of America Journal

JF - Soil Science Society of America Journal

SN - 0361-5995

IS - 1

ER -