% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Li:864346,
author = {Li, Zhen and Vanderborght, Jan and Smits, Kathleen M.},
title = {{E}valuation of {M}odel {C}oncepts to {D}escribe {W}ater
{T}ransport in {S}hallow {S}ubsurface {S}oil and {A}cross
the {S}oil–{A}ir {I}nterface},
journal = {Transport in porous media},
volume = {128},
number = {3},
issn = {1573-1634},
address = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-04142},
pages = {945 - 976},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Soil 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},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {530},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000472521900007},
doi = {10.1007/s11242-018-1144-9},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864346},
}