Transient Flow from Tension Infiltrometers II. Four Methods to Determine Sorptivity and Conductivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Vandervaere et al. (2000) it was shown that the transient regime of axisymmetric infiltration can be described by a two‐term equation with one term proportional to the square root of time and the other term proportional to time. The two corresponding coefficients, C 1 and C 2 , are functions of the hydraulic conductivity, K , and the sorptivity, S In this paper we propose four different methods to achieve the determination of S and K The four methods differ by the number of disk radii and the number of supply pressure head values which are utilized. We show that the accuracy of a given method is highly dependent on the combination of S and K values obtained. Three situations can be distinguished, depending on the disk radius: (i) the flow is dominated by the lateral capillary term; (ii) the flow is dominated by the gravity term; (iii) lateral capillary and gravity terms have equivalent weights. The seven model soils tested here all correspond to the first situation with usual disk radius values. This tends to show that a precise estimation of K is unlikely from disk infiltrometer data. We introduce a new time scale, t stab , which generalizes the concepts corresponding to the two well known time scales t grav and t geom We propose a guideline for the investigator to choose between all existing methods of analysis that use steady or transient flow. Finally, the four new methods are tested against numerically simulated tests with Grenoble sand and Yolo light clay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".