000864346 001__ 864346
000864346 005__ 20210130002523.0
000864346 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s11242-018-1144-9
000864346 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0169-3913
000864346 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1573-1634
000864346 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/22576
000864346 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000472521900007
000864346 037__ $$aFZJ-2019-04142
000864346 082__ $$a530
000864346 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)179076$$aLi, Zhen$$b0$$eCorresponding author$$ufzj
000864346 245__ $$aEvaluation of Model Concepts to Describe Water Transport in Shallow Subsurface Soil and Across the Soil–Air Interface
000864346 260__ $$aDordrecht [u.a.]$$bSpringer Science + Business Media B.V$$c2019
000864346 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000864346 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000864346 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1565339640_28462
000864346 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000864346 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000864346 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000864346 520__ $$aSoil water evaporation plays a critical role in mass and energy exchanges across the land–atmosphere interface. Although much is known about this process, there is no agreement on the best modeling approaches to determine soil water evaporation due to the complexity of the numerical modeling scenarios and lack of experimental data available to validate such models. Existing studies show numerical and experimental discrepancies in the evaporation behavior and soil water distribution in soils at various scales, driving us to revisit the key process representation in subsurface soil. Therefore, the goal of this work is to test different mathematical formulations used to estimate evaporation from bare soils to critically evaluate the model formulations, assumptions and surface boundary conditions. This comparison required the development of three numerical models at the REV scale that vary in their complexity in characterizing water flow and evaporation, using the same modeling platform. The performance of the models was evaluated by comparing with experimental data generated from a soil tank/boundary layer wind tunnel experimental apparatus equipped with a sensor network to continuously monitor water–temperature–humidity variables. A series of experiments were performed in which the soil tank was packed with different soil types. Results demonstrate that the approaches vary in their ability to capture different stages of evaporation and no one approach can be deemed most appropriate for every scenario. When a proper top boundary condition and space discretization are defined, the Richards equation-based models (Richards model and Richards vapor model) can generally capture the evaporation behaviors across the entire range of soil saturations, comparing well with the experimental data. The simulation results of the non-equilibrium two-component two-phase model which considers vapor transport as an independent process generally agree well with the observations in terms of evaporation behavior and soil water dynamics. Certain differences in simulation results can be observed between equilibrium and non-equilibrium approaches. Comparisons of the models and the boundary layer formulations highlight the need to revisit key assumptions that influence evaporation behavior, highlighting the need to further understand water and vapor transport processes in soil to improve model accuracy
000864346 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255$$a255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction (POF3-255)$$cPOF3-255$$fPOF III$$x0
000864346 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef
000864346 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)129548$$aVanderborght, Jan$$b1
000864346 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aSmits, Kathleen M.$$b2
000864346 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1473676-7$$a10.1007/s11242-018-1144-9$$gVol. 128, no. 3, p. 945 - 976$$n3$$p945 - 976$$tTransport in porous media$$v128$$x1573-1634$$y2019
000864346 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864346/files/Li2019_Article_EvaluationOfModelConceptsToDes.pdf$$yOpenAccess
000864346 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864346/files/Li2019_Article_EvaluationOfModelConceptsToDes.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yOpenAccess
000864346 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:864346$$pdnbdelivery$$pVDB$$pVDB:Earth_Environment$$pdriver$$popen_access$$popenaire
000864346 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)179076$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b0$$kFZJ
000864346 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)129548$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b1$$kFZJ
000864346 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bErde und Umwelt$$lTerrestrische Umwelt$$vTerrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction$$x0
000864346 9141_ $$y2019
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Engineering, Computing and Technology
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bTRANSPORT POROUS MED : 2017
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0510$$2StatID$$aOpenAccess
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz
000864346 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List
000864346 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118$$kIBG-3$$lAgrosphäre$$x0
000864346 980__ $$ajournal
000864346 980__ $$aVDB
000864346 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000864346 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
000864346 9801_ $$aFullTexts