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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ross, P. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ross, P. J. Agricola Articles by Ross, P. J. Related Collections Soil Hydrology Numerical Solutions Solute Transport Models Water Flow Models Variably Saturated Fluid Flow Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport

Modeling Soil Water and Solute Transport—Fast, Simplified Numerical Solutions

CSIRO Land and Water, Long Pocket Lab., 120 Meiers Rd., Indooroopilly, Brisbane, QLD 4068, Australia

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Discretisation of the soil profile into n layers of thickness xi with centers at zi, i = 1,2,...,n with water or solute fluxes qi between them.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Exact water flux from Layer 1 to Layer 2 below compared with that calculated from Eq. [16] with a fixed weighting of w = 0.5 for the gravity component.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Water fluxes as in Fig. 2 compared with: WS1, flux calculated from Eq. [16] with weighting w for the gravity component calculated from Eq. [17]; WS2, flux calculated by equating fluxes through unsaturated and saturated regions.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Soil profile and discretisation for the test problem. Soil hydraulic parameters were S = 0.4, he = -10 cm, = 1/3, and KS = 2 cm h-1 for the sandy soil and S = 0.5, he = -40 cm, = 1/9, and KS = 0.2 cm h-1 for the clayey soil, with = 2/ + 3. Precipitation was 2.5 cm h-1 for the first 10 h while potential evaporation was constant at 0.05 cm h-1 for the 400 h of the solution.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Depth of surface ponding for the test problem given by the different methods of solution.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Evaporation and drainage for the test problem given by the different methods of solution.

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Relative errors in drainage for standard (triangles) and fast (squares) solutions of the test problem as a function of the total number of iterations through the flux calculations. Filled symbols are for 10 soil layers and unfilled are for 20.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Solutions for solute concentration (arbitrary mass units per cm3 of soil) at 400 h for the test problem with varying numbers of time periods for averaging the water fluxes. There were initially 1000 mass units of solute in the top 10-cm layer.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Solutions for solute concentration (arbitrary mass units per cm3 of soil) at 400 h for the test problem with varying pairs (ns, nw) of ns solute time steps per nw water time steps with water fluxes averaged over the nw water steps. There were initially 1000 mass units of solute in the top 10-cm layer.