1980•Soil Science Society of America JournalRequires access

Comparison of Field and Laboratory Determined Hydraulic Conductivity Values

Jacob H. Dane

Open publisher page 38 citations

Abstract

Abstract Several new methods of determining hydraulic conductivity ( K )‐volumetric water content (θ) relations have been developed recently. Emphasis is on simplification of procedures that determine K (θ) relations in the field. This paper compares four different procedures by which K (θ) relations were determined for several horizons of a Troup loamy sand (Grossarenic Paleudults). The first procedure consisted of in situ measurements of water content and pressure head profiles following irrigation. All measurements were obtained with the soil surface covered to prevent evaporation. The data were used to calculate K (θ) values. The second procedure consisted of a model that used water retention curves and saturated K values determined on undisturbed core samples. The third method was a variation of the second in that water retention data were used as measured in situ. The fourth method used in situ measured water content data only. For the coarse textured soil used in this investigation the latter method was modified in that two empirical equations were needed instead of one to represent one K (θ) relation. All four methods resulted in K (θ) relations that were in fairly good agreement.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Several new methods of determining hydraulic conductivity ( K )‐volumetric water content (θ) relations have been developed recently. Emphasis is on simplification of procedures that determine K (θ) relations in the field. This paper compares four different procedures by which K (θ) relations were determined for several horizons of a Troup loamy sand (Grossarenic Paleudults). The first procedure consisted of in situ measurements of water content and pressure head profiles following irrigation. All measurements were obtained with the soil surface covered to prevent evaporation. The data were used to calculate K (θ) values. The second procedure consisted of a model that used water retention curves and saturated K values determined on undisturbed core samples. The third method was a variation of the second in that water retention data were used as measured in situ. The fourth method used in situ measured water content data only. For the coarse textured soil used in this investigation the latter method was modified in that two empirical equations were needed instead of one to represent one K (θ) relation. All four methods resulted in K (θ) relations that were in fairly good agreement.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 38 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Several new methods of determining hydraulic conductivity ( K )‐volumetric water content (θ) relations have been developed recently. Emphasis is on simplification of procedures that determine K (θ) relations in the field. This paper compares four different procedures by which K (θ) relations were determined for several horizons of a Troup loamy sand (Grossarenic Paleudults). The first procedure consisted of in situ measurements of water content and pressure head profiles following irrigation. All measurements were obtained with the soil surface covered to prevent evaporation. The data were used to calculate K (θ) values. The second procedure consisted of a model that used water retention curves and saturated K values determined on undisturbed core samples. The third method was a variation of the second in that water retention data were used as measured in situ. The fourth method used in situ measured water content data only. For the coarse textured soil used in this investigation the latter method was modified in that two empirical equations were needed instead of one to represent one K (θ) relation. All four methods resulted in K (θ) relations that were in fairly good agreement.

Key concepts: Hydraulic conductivity, Loam, Soil science, In situ, Water content, Pressure head, Water retention curve, Soil water

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Field and Laboratory Determined Hydraulic Conductivity Values — Research Paper | ScholarLens