K5 744 SoilHydraulics 2001

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES RESEARCH:
EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS OF

SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
by
S. Lorentz, P. Goba and J. Pretorius
School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology

University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Report to the Water Research Commission on the Project

“Experimentation and Laboratory Measurement for Hydrological Process Research”
Head of School : Professor P. Lyne

Project Leader : Professor R. Schulze
WRC Report No : K5/744
January 2001
The research in this report emanated from a project funded by the Water Research Commission entitled:
“Experimentation and Laboratory Measurement for Hydrological Process Research”.
The Steering Committee responsible for this project consisted of the following persons:
Mr H. Maaren Water Research Commission (Chairman)

Dr G.C. Green Water Research Commission
Mr F.P. Marais Water Research Commission (Secretary)
Mrs C.M Smit Water Research Commission (Secretary)
Prof P. Lyne University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Prof. R.E. Schulze University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Mr T.J. Coleman University of Witwatersrand
Mr K. Monnik Agricultural Research Council
Dr M.A. Johnston University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
Prof B.E. Kelbe University of Zululand
Mr B. Rawlins University of Zululand
The financing of the project by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and the guidance, advice and
assistance of the members of the Steering Committee is gratefully acknowledged. Since this project was
designed to serve other WRC and independent research projects, the co-operation and fruitful
collaboration of the members of these projects is also gratefully recognised.
The Computing Centre for Water Research (CCWR) is acknowledged for the support in computing.
The many long and tedious hours that fellow colleagues and students have contributed to measuring the
soil characteristics assembled in this work are also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the authors are
grateful for the patience and fortitude of their families who endured long periods alone while the authors
were engrossed in field and laboratory work.
EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MOTIVATION
An understanding of hydrological processes is essential for assessing water resources as well as the
changes to the resources caused by changes in the land use or climate. Moreover, hydrological simulation
models which represent hydrological processes can only be used to predict the consequences of land use
and climate change successfully, if they are built on a sound understanding of the processes. The
understanding and definition of these hydrological processes, in turn, can only be accomplished by
appropriate and careful observation and experimentation of key components of the hydrological cycle.
To this end, a long-term project has been initiated to observe and measure specific hydrological processes
in order to develop and refine appropriate models for:
• infiltration, redistribution, percolation and groundwater interactions,

• 2-Dimensional migration and accumulation of water on hillslopes,
• soil water budgeting in wetlands and vegetated riparian zones,
• contaminant migration from localised leaks or spills to groundwater or stream and
• rural community gardening irrigation research.
As part of this focus on hydrological process research and in order to support other hydrological research,
a laboratory facility has been initiated so that the measurement and monitoring of key variables can be
accomplished. This report describes the instrumentation that has been developed, presents a
comprehensive analysis of selected data and offers an evaluation of the various instruments and
techniques used in this first phase of hydrological processes research.
SCOPE
The range of measuring and monitoring instrumentation and techniques for defining hydrological process
variables is immense. Hence, this study was not intended to be a comprehensive overview of such
instrumentation and techniques, but to present the specific instruments and techniques developed during
i
Experiments and Measurements of Soil Hydraulic Characteristics
the course of this establishment phase of the hydrological processes laboratory in the School of
Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, University of Natal. Similarly the analyses of
the soil hydraulic data in this study are not meant to result in a representative set of characteristics for
South African soils, but rather, in a selected set of detailed characteristics which can be used for assisting
with model parameter estimation and for comparative studies.
Indeed, since many databases of soil hydraulic characteristics are either determined using disturbed
samples or are biased towards those materials for which hydraulic properties are more conveniently
determined (Leij et al., 1996; Hutson, 1983), this present study is valuable for the assessment of
techniques and soil characteristics developed in-situ as well as in the laboratory. In addition, the materials
measured are not confined to agricultural soils, but include natural grassland profiles, forested soils,
engineered layers as well as laboratory packed samples at a range of bulk densities. The study comprises
four parts.
INSTRUMENTATION METHODOLOGIES AND EVALUATION
In the first part of this report instrumentation and methodologies are described and evaluated. This
project contributed towards the establishment of a laboratory facility and the stocking of selected
instrumentation to initiate hydrological processes research. A summary of the instrumentation developed
for measuring porous media liquid retention, hydraulic conductivity and solute transport characteristics
as well as for monitoring soil water status, is presented in Table ES-1. The techniques, comprising both
laboratory and in-situ, methods, are described briefly where the techniques may differ from conventional
methods. After each description an example set of data is presented and this is followed by an evaluation
of both the instrumentation and the method, including a list of advantages and shortcomings.
The descriptions and evaluations of the instrumentation offer researchers, consultants and water resources
planners an insight into the types of measurement available, the value and range of typical results and the
complexity of the various tests. This will assist in determining strategies for field and laboratory
measurements commensurate with the problem being addressed. In addition, the database of physical
and hydraulic properties will serve as a first port-of-call for professionals requiring initial estimates of
the behaviour of various soils and porous media.
ii
Table ES-1. Summary of Laboratory and Field Equipment.
Item Description Qty Purpose
Laboratory
L1 Controlled Outflow Cells 4 Accurate water retention and hydraulic conductivity characteristics.
L2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Permeameters 3 Saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, by constant head method.
L3 Short Column Permeameters 3 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity characteristic, K(h) using a unit gradient.
L4 Bruce-Klute Diffusivity Cells 3 Diffusivity vs water content relationship, D(2). (Also with L1, K(h) ).
L5 Diffusion half-cells 3 Solute diffusion vs water content characteristic, Do(2).
L6 Equilibrated Soluble Mass Leach Columns 3 Measurement of solute behaviour in displacement leach test.
Field
F1 Automatic-feed Double Ring Infiltrometers 4 In-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, by ponded infiltration.
F2 Tension Infiltrometers 6 In-situ unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h) to h = 20 cm by direct measurement.
F3 Automatic Tensiometers 300 In-situ soil matric potential using differential pressure transducers.
F4 Automatic Groundwater Level Recorders 25 In-situ groundwater elevation monitoring.
F5 Weir Water Level Recorders 10 Ntshongweni swale market gardenning water balance
F6 Drill-bit Corers for Tensiometers 3 Inserting automatic tensiometers
F7 Field loggers (4 single ended sensors/logger) 100 Monitoring of automatic tensiometers, groundwater and weir level sensors.
Sundry Equipment (1996/97 Acquisition)
S1 Laboratory Scale (6 kg at 1/100 gm) 1 Soil water content, dry mass, bulk and specific density measurements.
S3 MCS Nylon Soil Moisture Sensors (SMS) 4 Monitoring in-situ soil matric potential.
S4 Campbell Scientific Heat Dissipation SMS 10 Monitoring in-situ soil matric potential.
S5 Chloride Ion Probe 1 Measuring diffusion characteristic concentrations.
EVALUATION OF POROUS MEDIA CHARACTERISTICS
The results of some 850 measurements of various porous media characteristics are summarised in Chapter
5, while Appendix A and B are dedicated to listing the results of key parameters measured. The porous
media measured in this study exhibit a range of textures and bulk densities, a range not normally
encountered in databases of soil properties from agricultural profiles (Leij et al., 1996). The texture of
207 of the porous media analysed in this study are compared to those in an international database,
UNSODA, in Table ES-2. This present study does not share the bias towards measurements on the more
conveniently managed materials that is evident in UNSODA and other similar studies. In the UNSODA
study some 55% of the materials fall in the sandy range, while only 39% of the materials tested in this
study classify as sand or sandy materials, albeit the quantity of samples tested in this study is smaller.
Nevertheless, a large percentage of the measurements performed in this study were on undisturbed
samples or in-situ profiles, unlike many other studies where laboratory packed samples are tested An
additional 92 soils, for which the textural class was not categorised, were also included in the
measurement and evaluation of hydraulic characteristics.
Table ES-2. Summary of the textural classes of the porous media tested.
Texture Class UNSODA This Study
Quantity % Quantity %
Sand 184 23.6 8 3.9
Loamy sand 64 8.2 3 1.4
Sandy loam 133 17.1 46 22.2
Sandy clay loam 52 6.6 24 11.6
Silt 3 0.4 0 0.0
Silt loam 142 18.2 2 1.0
Clay loam 36 4.6 43 20.8
Loam 70 9.0 52 25.1
Silty clay loam 33 4.2 3 1.4
Sandy clay 3 .4 4 1.9
Silty clay 21 2.7 1 .5
Clay 39 5.0 21 10.1
TOTAL 780 100.0 207 100.0
iv
Executive Summary
An assessment of various pedotransfer functions, used to estimate soil hydraulic characteristics from the
soil texture and bulk density, was performed. This assessment revealed that the best agreement between
the predicted parameters and measured data occur for disturbed samples packed in a laboratory as
summarised in Table ES-3. This is a significant result and emphasises the many cautions, tabled in the
literature, warning against the misuse of these functions. Nevertheless, the data set presented in the text
and appendices can still be used for valuable direct estimations of parameters used in deterministic
hydrological models.
Table ES-3. Summary of correlation between predicted water contents

and those estimated from measurements with the variance (R2)
and standard error of predicted water content (s).
Sample No. of DUL WP
type samples R2 s R2 s
Grassland 31 0.226 0.062 0.221 0.055
Forested 7 0.450 0.089 0.500 0.071
Disturbed 16 0.897 0.036 0.809 0.033
DUL = Drained Upper Limit; WP = Wilting Point
EVALUATION OF CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS
Parameter sets of specific mathematic functions are derived by best fit analysis against the measured
hydraulic characteristic data. The mathematical functions chosen for the curve fitting exercise included
the well known van Genuchten, Brooks-Corey and Campbell functions. These comprise the typical
functions required in many models currently used in hydrological, soil-plant-atmosphere and solute
transport simulation (ACRU, SWAP, HYDRUS2-D, SWAT, SWB, LEACHM, HSPF and others). The
parameters derived for these functions are listed in Appendices C to E for convenient reference in
assessing model input and evaluated against other surveys as demonstrated in Figure ES-1.
Again, selected parameters, describing hydraulic characteristics that are relatively easy to measure (e.g.
water retention characteristic), are used to estimate those parameters that require sophisticated or time
consuming test techniques (e.g. the hydraulic conductivity characteristic). These estimations are not
accurate and emphasise the difference between in-situ or undisturbed measurements, which may contain
significant macro-porosity, and those derived from disturbed, laboratory packed samples, which exhibit
little macro-porosity.
v
Average Standard deviation

4
Range Carsel and Parish, 1998
3
ALPHA (1/mm)
0
0.5 Sa 1.5 LmSa 2.5 SaLm 3.5 Lm 4.5 SaClLm5.5 ClLm 6.5 SaCl 7.5 Cl 8.5
Figure ES-1 Evaluation of van Genuchten parameter, alpha.

A typical range of saturated hydraulic conductivities, derived from retention characteristic parameters,
is shown in Figure ES-2. The predicted values often vary more than an order of magnitude from the
measured data. This reflects the difficulties in predicting the hydraulic conductivities of in-situ soils,
where macro-pore structure may dominate the saturated hydraulic conductivity.
1E4
1E3
Ks predicted (mm/h)
1E2
1E1
1E0
1E-1
1E-1 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 1E4
Ks measured (mm/h)
Figure ES-2. Comparison of predicted and measured saturated hydraulic conductivity.
vi
Executive Summary
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The description and evaluation of methods and instrumentation for measuring hydraulic characteristics
of porous media and for monitoring the status of soil water will assist researchers, consultants and water
resources practitioners in determining strategies for field and laboratory measurements commensurate
with the problem being addressed. In addition, the database of physical and hydraulic properties will also
serve as a first port-of-call for professionals requiring initial estimates of the behaviour of various soils
and porous media.
The database of soil physical and hydraulic characteristics comprise a valuable set of parameters for
evaluating the behaviour of subsurface hydrological processes. Moreover, the hydraulic characteristic
function parameters, derived for a wide range of porous media, provide not only valuable estimates for
input into numerous simulation models, but they also provide insight into characterising materials which
exhibit significant macro-pore structure.
Continued instrumentation development and measurement strategies aimed at evaluating the various
techniques are recommended. In addition, further population of the soil hydraulic characteristics database
with measurements from a wide range of porous media is recommended so that robust methods of
estimating these characteristics from easily measured properties can be developed. It is particularly
important to develop measurement and predictive techniques for in-situ hydraulic characteristics in the
many instances where the dual porosity structural features of the porous medium dominate the subsurface
hydrology.
The continued development of techniques for evaluating hydrological processes will allow for the typical
accuracies required in the prediction and planning of a scarce water resource which is often subject to
multiple demands.
vii
EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. LABORATORY FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT 2-1
3. SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISATION METHODS 3-1
3.1 Water Retention Characteristic 3-1

3.1.1 Controlled Outflow Method Description
3.1.2 Controlled Outflow Method Evaluation 3-5
3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity 3-6

3.2.1 Laboratory Methods Description and Evaluation 3-6
3.2.1.1 Saturated hydraulic conductivity 3-6
3.2.1.2 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity 3-8
3.2.2 In-situ Methods Description and Evaluation 3 - 15
3.2.1.1 Saturated hydraulic conductivity 3 - 15
3.2.1.2 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity 3 - 15
3.3 Solute Transport Characteristic 3 - 20
4. SOIL MOISTURE STATUS MONITORING METHODS 4-1
4.1 Automated Teniometers 4-1
4.2 Time Domain Reflectometry and Heat Dissipation Sensors 4-6
viii
5. SUMMARY OF SOIL TYPES AND MEASUREMENTS 5-1
5.1 Overview of Measurement and Monitoring Studies 5-1
5.2 Summary of Soil Types and Measurements 5-1
5.3 Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions 5-7
6. SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS 6-1
6.1 Evaluation of Hydraulic Characteristic Functions 6-1
6.2 Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions 6-8
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A List of Soil Characteristic Measurements A1
APPENDIX B Soil Characteristic Data B1
APPENDIX C Soil Hydraulic Characteristics: van Genuchten Parameters C1
APPENDIX D Soil Hydraulic Characteristics: Brooks-Corey Parameters D1
APPENDIX E Soil Hydraulic Characteristics: Campbell Parameters E1
ix
SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS
All symbols are defined within the text.
One parameter requires an extended definition as follows:
h = matric pressure head (mm). This is the matric potential, expressed as a pressure
head of water. The matric pressure head is also the capillary pressure expressed
in terms of a head of water, so:
h = (Pa - Pw)/(Dg) where Pa is the non-wetting phase pressure (normally air)

and Pw is the wetting phase pressure (normally water), D is the density of water
and g is the gravitational acceleration. Since, in an unsaturated porous medium,
the air pressure is normally atmospheric and the water pressure is less than
atmospheric, the value of h is a positive quantity.
The matric pressure head is therefore expressed as a positive quantity throughout

this report and is synonymous with soil water tension or matric suction.
x
1. INTRODUCTION
An understanding of hydrological processes is essential for assessing water resources as well as the
changes to the resources caused by changes in the land use or climate. Moreover, hydrological simulation
models which represent hydrological processes can only be used to predict the consequences of land use
and climate change successfully if they are built on a sound understanding of the processes. The
understanding and definition of hydrological processes, in turn, can only be accomplished by appropriate
and careful observations and experimentation of the hydrological cycle. To this end a long-term project
has been initiated to observe and measure specific hydrological processes in order to develop and refine
appropriate models for:
• Infiltration, redistribution, percolation and groundwater interactions,

• 2-Dimensional migration and accumulation of water on hillslopes,
• soil water budgeting in wetlands and vegetated riparian zones,
• contaminant migration from localised leaks or spills to groundwater or stream and
• rural community gardening irrigation research.
As part of this focus on hydrological process research and in order to support other hydrological research,
a laboratory facility has been initiated so that the measurement and monitoring of key variables can be
accomplished. This report describes the instrumentation that has been developed, presents a
comprehensive analysis of selected data and offers an evaluation of the various instrumentation and
techniques used in this first phase of hydrological process research.
The range of measuring and monitoring instrumentation and techniques for defining hydrological process
variables is immense. Hence, this report is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of such
instrumentation and techniques, but to present the specific instruments and techniques developed during
the course of this establishment phase of the hydrological processes laboratory in the School of
Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, University of Natal. Similarly the analyses of
the soil hydraulic data in this study are not meant to result in a representative set of characteristics for
South African soils, but rather, a selected set of detailed characteristics which can be used for assisting
with model parameter estimation and for comparative studies. Indeed, since many databases of soil
hydraulic characteristics are either determined using disturbed samples or are biassed towards those
materials for which hydraulic properties are more conveniently determined (Leij et al., 1996; Hutson,
1983), this present study is valuable for the assessment of techniques and soil characteristics developed
in-situ as well as in the laboratory. The materials measured are also not confined to agricultural soils, but
include natural grassland profiles, forested soils, engineered layers as well as laboratory packed samples
at a range of bulk densities. The study is presented in this report in four parts.
1-1
In the first part of this report instrumentation and methodologies are described and evaluated. The
laboratory facility is described and a summary of equipment that has been developed is presented in
Chapter 2. The techniques of the various tests for deriving the soil hydraulic characteristics , both
laboratory and in-situ, are described in Chapter 3. After each description an example set of data are
presented and this is followed by an evaluation of both the instrumentation and the method, including
a list of advantages and shortcomings. A similar description and evaluation of long-term field monitoring
equipment and techniques follows in Chapter 4.
In the second part the results of some 850 measurements of porous media characteristics are summarised
in Chapter 5. The porous media exhibit a range of textures and bulk densities. An assessment of various
pedotransfer functions, used to estimate soil hydraulic characteristics from the soil texture and bulk
density, reveals that the best agreement between the predicted parameters and measured data occur for
disturbed samples packed in a laboratory. This is a significant result and emphasises the many cautions,
tabled in the literature, warning against the misuse of these functions. Nevertheless, the data set can be
used for valuable direct estimations of parameters used in deterministic hydrological models.
In the third part of this report, parameter sets of specific mathematic functions are derived by best fit
analysis against the hydraulic characteristic data (Chapter 6). The mathematical functions chosen for the
curve fitting exercise where typical functions required in models currently used in hydrological, soil-
plant-atmosphere and solute transport simulation. Again, selected parameters, describing hydraulic
characteristics that are relatively easy to measure (e.g. water retention characteristic), are used to estimate
those parameters that require sophisticated or time consuming test techniques (e.g. the hydraulic
conductivity characteristic). These estimations are not accurate and emphasis the difference between in-
situ or undisturbed measurements, which may contain significant macro-porosity, and those derived from
disturbed, laboratory packed samples, which exhibit little macro-porosity.
The fourth part comprises the conclusions and recommendations in Chapter 7. The database of soil
physical and hydraulic characteristics comprise a valuable set of parameters for evaluating the behaviour
of subsurface hydrological processes. Moreover, the hydraulic characteristic function parameters, derived
for a wide range of porous media, provide not only valuable estimates for input into numerous simulation
models, but they also provide insight into characterising materials which exhibit significant macro-pore
structure. Continued instrumentation development and measurement strategies aimed at evaluating the
various techniques are recommended. In addition, further population of the soil hydraulic characteristics
database with measurements from a wide range of porous media is recommended so that robust methods
of estimating these characteristics from easily measured properties can be developed.
1-2
2. LABORATORY FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT
The soil physics laboratory has been housed in the Agricultural Science building, while field
instrumentation has been developed at the Ukulinga research farm.
The soil physics laboratory is shared with the University’s Department of Soil Science and equipment
is used by both the School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology as well as the
School of Applied Environmental Sciences. The controlled outflow cells used for determining water
retention characteristics are housed in the laboratory and during the course of this present project,
modifications have been made to these cells to allow for simultaneous determination of soil water
retention as well as unsaturated hydraulic conductivity characteristic.
A vacuum pump and a fine control vacuum regulator have been purchased and housed in the laboratory.
These are used in the accurate setting of negative air pressures required in the operation of the short
column unsaturated hydraulic conductivity test. In addition, the set of water and mercury manometers
have been modified to allow for their use in measuring negative air pressures. These are also used during
the calibration of differential pressure transducers, used in the automatic tensiometers.
Various apparatus has been constructed from acrylic tubing. These include the Bruce-Klute cells for
measuring diffusivity ; permeameter columns with constant head tanks; short columns with tensiometer
port windows for direct measurement of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity characteristic and
equilibrated soluble mass leach test columns, ported for simultaneous measurement of hydraulic
conductivity. The laboratory facility has also been used for supporting field operations. The automatic
recording tensiometers have been rigorously tested for temperature dependance; pressure transducers are
calibrated and tested for drift; time domain reflectometry probes have been developed and tested; analyses
of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, pH, chloride concentration, flourescent dye
concentration, total suspended solids, nitrates and phosphates have been conducted on numerous samples
returned from stream and subsurface monitoring.
Testing, demonstration and training in tensiometer installation and operation; tension and double ring
infiltrometer testing and open channel flow measurement has been performed at the Ukulinga research
farm.
Table 1 summarises the instrumentation that has been developed and commissioned during the course of
this establishment phase of the hydrological processes research laboratory.
2-1
Table 1. Summary of Laboratory and Field Equipment.
Item Description Qty Purpose
Laboratory
L1 Controlled Outflow Cells 4 Accurate water retention and hydraulic conductivity characteristics.
L2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Permeameters 3 Saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, by constant head method.
L3 Short Column Permeameters 3 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity characteristic, K(h) using a unit gradient.
L4 Bruce-Klute Diffusivity Cells 3 Diffusivity vs water content relationship, D(2). (Also with L1, K(h) ).
L5 Diffusion half-cells 3 Solute diffusion vs water content characteristic, Do(2).
L6 Equilibrated Soluble Mass Leach Columns 3 Measurement of solute behaviour in displacement leach test.
Field
F1 Automatic-feed Double Ring Infiltrometers 4 In-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, by ponded infiltration.
F2 Tension Infiltrometers 6 In-situ unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h) to h = 20 cm by direct measurement.
F3 Automatic Tensiometers 300 In-situ soil matric potential using differential pressure transducers.
F4 Automatic Groundwater Level Recorders 25 In-situ groundwater elevation monitoring.
F5 Weir Water Level Recorders 10 Ntshongweni swale market gardenning water balance
F6 Drill-bit Corers for Tensiometers 3 Inserting automatic tensiometers
F7 Field loggers (4 single ended sensors/logger) 100 Monitoring of automatic tensiometers, groundwater and weir level sensors.
Sundry Equipment (1996/97 Acquisition)
S1 Laboratory Scale (6 kg at 1/100 gm) 1 Soil water content, dry mass, bulk and specific density measurements.
S3 MCS Nylon Soil Moisture Sensors (SMS) 4 Monitoring in-situ soil matric potential.
S4 Campbell Scientific Heat Dissipation SMS 10 Monitoring in-situ soil matric potential.
S5 Chloride Ion Probe 1 Measuring diffusion characteristic concentrations.
3. SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISATION METHODS
The method of soil hydraulic characterisation involves both in-situ and laboratory measurements. A
consistent procedure has been adopted, wherever possible, for characterising the soil profiles
investigated.
Firstly, at each level in the profile, selected after the profile has been described, a duplicate set of
measurements are made. The measurements include an in-situ tension infiltrometer test, followed by a
double ring infiltrometer test on exactly the same location. Secondly, an undisturbed core is taken from
the precise site of the tension infiltrometer and double ring tests and the water retention characteristic,
bulk density and particle size distribution are determined in the laboratory. The particle size distribution
and bulk density can then be used to develop pedotransfer relationships so that the spatial distribution of
the hydraulic characteristics can be defined by making multiple textural and bulk density analyses, rather
than exhaustive hydraulic measurements. The specific methods employed in developing the hydraulic
characteristics of the porous media are summarised in the next sections. Detailed descriptions of
conventional methods are not included here, except where the methods used in this study differ from
convention.
3.1 Water Retention Characteristic.
Conventional methods of soil water retention characteristic determination include both laboratory and
field techniques (Klute, 1986; Bruce and Luxmore, 1986). Although many of the standard laboratory
techniques have been used to determine the water retention characteristics of the porous media in this
study, a controlled outflow method is reported in detail. This method holds some promise for the accurate
characterisation of the soil pore structure over the range of moisture contents close to saturation. Accurate
measurements over this range are desirable in order to characterise the large pores which conduct water
rapidly during intense rainfall. The retention characteristics of undisturbed samples are used together
with field measurements of both saturated and unsaturated conductivity to define the possible maro-pore
nature of the soil.
3.1.1 Controlled Outflow Method Description.
Recent emphasis on characterising unsaturated hydraulic behaviour of soils in hydrology, soil science and
chemical transport studies has fostered renewed interest in liquid retention measurements. A new
methodology for defining the liquid retention characteristic of porous media has been developed. In this
method each point on the characteristic is determined by monitoring equilibration of the matric pressure
rather than equilibration of the liquid volumetric content, as in conventional methods.
Monitoring the matric pressure allows for control of the volume of outflow rather than allowing the
outflow to continue until equilibrium is reached. By observing the matric pressure during the
equilibration cycle, the operator is able to discern the time at which equilibrium occurs. This results in
a considerable time saving in running the test. A controlled outflow cell has been developed to measure
the water retention characteristics of porous media, specifically over the range 0 to 1 bar. The apparatus,
shown in Figure 3.1, includes a data logging system to record and display the progress towards
equilibration of the matric pressure at each setting.
Figure 3.1 Schematic of the controlled outflow cell assembly for measuring water retention
characteristics of undisturbed or packed samples.
Air pressure is applied to the cell and a predetermined quantity of liquid allowed to drain via the open
stopcock. This comprises the drainage phase and is recorded by the pressure transducer as the difference
between applied air pressure and head of the liquid phase in the burette. The stopcock is then closed and
3-2
Soil Hydraulic Characterisation Methods
the pore liquid pressure increases until in equilibrium with the applied air pressure and the forces retaining
the liquid in the porous medium. This comprises the equilibration phase and is recorded by the pressure
transducer as the difference between applied air pressure and the pore water pressure in the sample. This
difference in pressures decreases gradually as the pore liquid pressure increases, until it reaches an
equilibrium, steady state value. The drainage and equilibration phases have been determined for three
different stages of the development of a water retention characteristic for a basalt derived clay soil from
the northern plains of the Kruger National Park. The retention characteristic is shown in Figure 3.2 and
the three sets of drainage/equilibration cycle are shown in Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 for the wet,
moderately wet and dry stages of the test respectively. It can be seen from these three cycles, that the
drainage time increases with decreasing water content. This is because the hydraulic conductivity of the
porous medium reduces significantly as the sample becomes drier.
10
8
3
Matric Pressure Head (m)
2
1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Volumetric Water Content
Controlled outflow cell data see detailed outflow data
Figure 3.2 Example of the controlled outflow cell data for a Basalt derived, clayey soil from the
northern plains of the Kruger National Park. Labelled data points refer to the detailed
outflow signals in Figures 3.3 to 3.5.
In the initial stages, the equilibration time can be much longer than the drainage time since the air phase
is constricted in the moist sample (Figure 3.3) The air phase must first permeate and diffuse throughout
the sample before matric pressures are equilibrated. During the intermediate stages, the drainage and
equilibration times are similar, Figure 3.4), but during the later stages, the drainage is longer than the
equilibration phase (Figure 3.5). These stages are controlled by the slow conductivity of the relatively
dry porous medium. These drainage and equilibration times differ from one material to another.
240
220
200
Matric Pressure Head (mm)
180
Figure 3.3 Outflow cell pressure
signal at low matric pressure and
160 high water content (data point 1
in Figure 3.2). Note the short
140 drainage time and extended
period of equilibration at the
120
low pressure as the air phase
distributes through the small
100
06:00 PM 06:15 PM 06:30 PM 06:45 PM
available pore space.
1100
1050
1000
950
Figure 3.4 Outflow cell pressure
signal at intermediate matric
900
pressure and water content, (data
point 2 in Figure 3.2). Note the
longer drainage time and
850
moderate period of equilibration
at the lower pressure as the water
800
06:45 AM 07:45 AM 08:45 AM 09:45 AM
phase distributes in the available
pore space.
3-4
7800
7700
7600
7500
Figure 3.5 Outflow cell

7400
pressure signal at high matric
pressure head and low water
7300
content, (data point 3 in Figure
3.2). Note the long drainage
7200 time and relatively rapid period
02:00 PM 06:48 PM 11:36 PM 04:24 AM 09:12 AM 02:00 PM 06:48 PM
of equilibration.
3.1.2 Controlled Outflow Method Evaluation
Advantages
• The method provides accurate liquid retention data at the wet end of the characteristic,
• the retention characteristic is controlled by setting the liquid content and not the matric
pressure, so the resolution of the characteristic can be conveniently controlled and the
definition of the macro-pore structure easily discerned,
• the operator has an insight into the state of equilibrium at each step and the method can
be automated,
• one sample is used for the entire range of measurements (either 0 to 10 m or 0 to 50 m)
and the sample is not handled between stages,
• different liquids can be used as wetting and non-wetting phases (tests have been
conducted using water as the wetting phase and diesoline as the non-wetting displacing
liquid) and
• the apparatus is suited to the simultaneous determination of liquid retention and
hydraulic conductivity data, provided correct boundary conditions are established.
Problems and Pitfalls

• The apparatus is relatively complex and takes time to set up (approximately 2 hours per
cell) and has some delicate components which require careful handling,
• there is the real possibility of leaks, either in the air or liquid reticulation which requires
either sealing the leak or restarting the test,
• the method has the fault of all retention apparatus in that the air entry pressure is difficult
to define accurately due to the large surface area of liquid at the top of the sample at the
outset of the test and
• since only one sample can be accommodated at a time, the test must be reserved for
evaluation of selected samples.
3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity of soils and porous media have been measured both in the laboratory and in
the field by direct methods. Numerous indirect methods are available to estimate the hydraulic
conductivity characteristic by applying an assumed characteristic relationship to the physics of observed
infiltration or redistribution processes (van Genuchten et al., 1992; van Genuchten et al, 1999). However
only the direct methods used during the course of this study are described here together with methods
requiring indirect application of assumed characteristics fitted to data from specifically designed tests.
3.2.1 Laboratory Methods Description and Evaluation
Laboratory methods include those for measuring the saturated hydraulic conductivity as well as those for
measuring the unsaturated conductivity characteristic. Laboratory methods for determining the hydraulic
conductivity samples are normally conducted on disturbed samples, packed to field densities in the
laboratory. This is because the extraction of undisturbed samples of sufficient length to establish
hydraulic gradients across them is fraught with difficulties. However it is advisable, wherever possible,
to retain the structure of an undisturbed sample.
3.2.1.1 Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Saturated hydraulic conductivity is measured by means of a permeameter, (Figure 3.6), by

applying Darcy’s Law across the permeameter pressure ports. The pressure gradient across each
set of ports, including the gradient across the inlet and first manometer port, should be used in
a separate determination of the hydraulic conductivity.
3-6
Darcy’s Law is used in the form:
 ∆ lij   Q 
Ksij =   •   where
 Hi − H j   A 
Ksij = saturated hydraulic conductivity of material between port i and j,

lij = length of porous medium between ports i and j,
Hi or j = total hydraulic head at port i or j,
Q = volumetric outflow rate and
A = total cross sectional area of the column.
Figure 3.6 Constant head permeameter for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Advantages
• The method is simple and a direct application of Darcy’s Law and
• a constant or falling head test can be performed using the same apparatus. During the
falling head test the manometer ports must be sealed.

• The sample is usually disturbed and so not a good reflection of field conditions,
• the manometer tubes must be kept free of air bubbles to prevent erroneous readings and
• the packing of the sample must be uniform to get a consistent hydraulic conductivity
across each set of ports.
3.2.1.2 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of porous media varies significantly with the liquid
content or matric pressure head. Hence the characterisation of the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity requires a set of measurements or the fitting of an assumed relationship for the
characteristic to the test data. Direct methods for measuring the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity characteristic are rare and difficult to perform. Indirect methods are generally used
to estimate the characteristic via a simpler test and an assumed relationship for the characteristic.
One such simple method is the Bruce-Klute diffusivity test.
Bruce-Klute cell test
In the Bruce-Klute cell method an instantaneous front of water is introduced to a sample packed
or contained in a series of separate rings, held together temporarily for the duration of the test.
The wetting front is allowed to diffuse into the sample at a constant head, held at the level of the
sample inlet by a marriotte tube supply flask (Figure 3.7). Before the front reaches the last of the
sample rings, the source is removed and the sample rapidly sectioned into the individual rings.
Figure 3.7 Schematic of the Bruce-Klute diffusivity cell assembly.
3-8
The volumetric water content, 2, of the sample in each of the rings is determined and plotted
against the distance from the source in terms of the Boltzman variable, B = l.t.-0.5, where l is the
distance from the inlet to the point of determination of the water content and t, is the duration of
the imbibition. This allows a theoretical curve to be fitted to the data (Clothier et al.,1983).
( p + 1)S  θs − θr 
p
λ B (θ ) = 1 −  where
θs − θr  θs − θr 
p = a curve fitting parameter,

S = the sorptivity, calculated by integrating the area under the imbibition
curve (2 versus B),
2r = residual water content and
2s = saturated water content.
Once the sorptivity and parameter, p have been established from the data, the diffusivity, D, is
calculated from
 (1 − θ ) p − 1 − (1 − θ ) 2 p 
D(θ ) = p( p + 1)S 2  
2(θ s − θ r )
2
 
If the retention characteristic (matric pressure head, h versus volumetric water content, 2) has
been determined separately for the sample, the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity can then be
determined for the material since diffusivity and conductivity are related via the slope of the
retention curve as
D(θ )
K (θ ) =
dh
dθ
Examples of the results from the Bruce-Klute cell test for a Hutton and Swartland sample are
shown in Figure 3.8. The Swartland sample has a significantly lower diffusivity than the Hutton,
since its wetting front requires an order of magnitude longer to reach the centre of the sample.
0.5
0.4
Volumetric Water Content
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Boltzman Transform
Hutton Swartland
Figure 3.8 Results of the Bruce-Klute cell diffusivity tests on a Hutton sample (bulk
density, 1315 kg/m3, test duration, t = 311 seconds) and a Swartland sample
(bulk density, 1329 kg/m3, test duration, t = 2687 seconds).
Advantages
• The method is simple and rapid,
• the apparatus is inexpensive and the test yields a useful estimate of the diffusivity
function and
• the data are simple to resolve either by the method described or by the curve fit methods
in the RETC program (Leij et al., 1996).

• The operator must be sure that the wetting front does not reach the end of the sample.
This is often difficult to determine, especially when the material is dark in colour and
• the test only yields the diffusivity function directly. A matching water retention
characteristic is required if the hydraulic conductivity function is to be derived.
3 - 10
Short column method
A direct method for measuring the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, at least to 10 m of matric
pressure head, have been conducted using the short column method (Corey, 1977). This
apparatus has been constructed and used in the laboratory for accurate determinations of
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. The apparatus is shown in Figure 3.9 and requires the
establishment of a unit hydraulic gradient across two tensiometer ports in the upper half of the
column. This is done by inducing a suction at the base of the column by regulating a vacuum
source. The conductivity, K(h) is then equal to the inflow flux, q, where h is the matric pressure
head at the top sensing ports.
Figure 3.9 Schematic of the short column apparatus for unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
measurements.
An example of the results from the short column method is shown in Figure 3.10 for an alluvial
sand. The hydraulic conductivities where measured directly from 0 to 1.5 m of matric pressure
head.
Figure 3.10 Example of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data from the short column for
a packed sandy sample.
Advantages
• The method is a direct measurement of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and does
not require an assumption of specific hydraulic characteristic functions to evaluate the
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity,

• The short column method requires considerable skill and patience as the establishment
of a unit gradient across the tensiometer ports needs to be adjusted while the pressures
reach steady state within the sample. The method should therefore generally be reserved
for accurate experimental work,
• very low liquid fluxes are required and this means either an expensive pumping or
syringe system or a meticulous calibration of flow and head loss through thin tubing.
• an expensive vacuum control regulator is required and
• the sample is disturbed if packed into a column, otherwise a tailor made system is
required to house and test an undisturbed sample.
3 - 12
Controlled outflow cell
In addition to the short column method, the controlled outflow cell for measuring retention
characteristics has been modified (Figure 3.11) to allow for an estimate of unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity during the retention characteristic test.
Many solutions have been presented to estimate the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
characteristic, but the modification to the controlled outflow cell retains all the benefits of
controlling the equilibration of the matric pressure as well as providing a measurement of the
matric pressure at the top of the sample so that hydraulic gradients can be more accurately
modelled.
Figure 3.11 Modification to the controlled outflow

cell showing the matric pressure head sensor for the
top of the sample.
The resolution of the data is still subject to some research as it is not entirely certain how the
pressure gradients vary inside the sample during outflow and equilibration phases. This aspect
of the method is being investigated in a continuation project.
A set of hydraulic conductivity data derived for a dune sand by using the modified controlled
outflow cell is presented in Figure 3.12. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivities have been
estimated over a range of 2.5 m of matric pressure head which spans two orders of magnitude of
hydraulic conductivity. The estimation technique simply assumed a uniform gradient from the
top to the base of the sample.
0.0001
Hydraulic Conductivity (mm/s)
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
1E1 1E2 1E3 1E4
Figure 3.12 Results of an unsaturated hydraulic conductivity characteristic measured with

the modified controlled outflow cell for a coastal dune sand, being investigated
due to a subsurface petroleum leak.
Advantages
• If successful this method will provide a simultaneous determination of the retention and
hydraulic conductivity characteristic. This is a distinct advantage as both determinations
will be performed on a single sample, without disturbance.
• The determination of much lower hydraulic conductivities than in the short column
method are possible with the outflow cell and
• the structure of the material can be preserved in undisturbed core samples, so the
behaviour of macro-pore hydraulic conductivity and retention can be evaluated.

• The method as described in this work is still experimental. However significant research
has been conducted on one-step outflow methods.
3 - 14
3.2.2 In-situ Methods Description and Evaluation
As in the laboratory, the hydraulic conductivity can be determined in the field for saturated and
unsaturated porous media.
3.2.2.1 Saturated hydraulic conductivity
The saturated in-situ hydraulic conductivity is determined by a ponded tests known as the double
ring infiltrometer. Here the steady state infiltration rate from a central ring is determined while
maintaining an outer source of water at the same ponded head.
3.2.2.2 Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is determined in the field by means of a tension

infiltrometer. This method requires maintaining a tension in the water supply and recording the
steady state inflow rate at different tension settings. Both the tension and double ring
infiltrometers are shown in Figure 3.13.
Figure 3.13 Schematic of the tension infiltrometer and double ring infiltrometer.
An example set of data for measurements performed at the Weatherley experimental catchment
in the MONDI, Northern Eastern Cape Forest estates are shown in Figures 3.14 to 3.16.
10
8
Inflow Volume (ml)
6
Thousands
4 Figure 3.14 Double ring

infiltrometer data from a
surface measurement at
2 site 1, Weatherley
research catchment,
NECF.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)
Data Regression
120
100
Volume Infiltrated (ml)
80
60
40
Figure 3.15 Tension

20 infiltrometer data from a
surface measurement at
0 site 1, Weatherley
0 100 200 300 400 500
research catchment,
Time elapsed (min) NECF.
TENSION = 10mm 60 mm 100 mm 165 mm
3 - 16
0.1
Hydraulic Conductivity (mm/s)
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-05
1E-06
1E-07
1E-1 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3
Tension Infiltrometer Double Ring Infiltrometer
Figure 3.16 Final hydraulic conductivity characteristic from double ring and tension
infiltrometer measurements, site 1, Weatherley experimental catchment, NECF.
Double Ring Infiltrometer
Advantages
• The method is simple and requires a relatively unskilled, but careful operator and
• the method, if run to conclusion, gives an accurate estimate of the undisturbed soil
infiltration characteristic.

• The test must be run for sufficient time to reach a steady rate of influx. Otherwise
complex sensing of the soil moisture status or tension must be performed during the test,
• the soil must be disturbed as little as possible during the placing of the double rings. The
level of the ponded water must be maintained throughout the test. Various mariotte tube
inflow supply columns have been developed to assist in maintaining a constant head of
water and
• the ponded test reflects the capacity of the largest pore sizes, cracks and fissures to
conduct water. This capacity is not always active during rainfall events and so the
ponded test may give an overestimation of the infiltration rate of the profile. This test
should preferably be used together with a determination of the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity at a specific tension. This can be achieved using the tension infiltrometer.
The Tension Infiltrometer
Advantages
• The method is relatively simple and provides a valuable direct estimate of the
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at the wet end of the soil moisture retention
characteristic,
• the instrument is small and manageable, but is not always designed to measure the same
sample area as the double ring infiltrometer and
• the instrument can be automated as described in the next section.

• The apparatus operates by holding a negative air and water pressure inside the housing.
Care must be taken that leaks do not occur. The instruments should be carefully checked
for air leaks before the test is started and continuously during the test and
• numerous theoretical evaluations are available to resolve the data into unsaturated
hydraulic conductivities. Considerable skill is required in interpreting these theories and
applying them to the data.
Automation of the tension infiltrometer
The tension infiltrometer can be automated by introducing a differential pressure transducer

across the ports at the top and the base of the supply column (Figure 3.13). This pressure
difference is used to measure the inflow rate of the water as it drops in the supply column. A
second differential pressure transducer is used to measure the negative pressure in the water at
the base of the supply column (Ankeny, 1992). The signal from the pressure transducers is
recorded in an appropriate logger, preferably at a one minute interval. Figure 3.17 shows an
example of the output of the automated measurement of the tension infiltrometer test.
3 - 18
It is clear that the inflow rate is correctly reflected by the automatic sensing of the port at the top
of the supply column, but the tension reflected in the pressure sensor at the base does not match
with the tension set in the bubble column. Therefore, appropriate adjustments need to be made
when evaluating these data.
For the instruments evaluated a value of 50 mm was required to be added to the tension that was
assumed from the manual setting. Clearly there is a head loss through the system during the flow
of air and water within the housing, hence the required adjustment. The instruments can either
be tested in the lab prior to use in the field in order that the correct adjustments are made to the
tensions set during manual operation of the test. However it would be preferable to automate the
inflow rate and tension measurements as described. In this way, any anomalies in the flow
physics during the field test will be reflected in the logged data.
160 350
140 300
Supply Column Level (mm)
120 250
100 200 Base Tension (mm)
80 150
60 100
40 50
20 0
12:00 PM 12:30 PM 01:00 PM 01:30 PM 02:00 PM
Auto Supply Level Manual Supply Level Auto Base Tension Manual Base Tension
Figure 3.17 Automated tension infiltrometer data for a sandy loam in the Weatherley
research catchment, MONDI, North East Cape Forests.
3.3 Solute Transport Characteristics
In addition to the soil hydraulic characteristics, the solute transport characteristics of porous media have
also been investigated in this study. These are determined by evaluating the breakthrough characteristics
from an Equilibrated Soluble Mass leach column. These have been used in a study of a pulp mill
contaminated site as well as in a mining rehabilitation site. The apparatus is shown in Figure 5.18 and
typical data are shown in Figure 5.19.
The apparatus has been designed to include for piezometric and tensiometeric porting on the sides so that
saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivities can be estimated during the leach test.
Figure 3.18 Schematic of the equilibrated soluble mass column leach test for solute break through
tests, fitted for saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity measurements
3 - 20
0.8
Relative Concentration (C/Co)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Pore Volumes Injected
Electrical Conductivity Data
Figure 3.3.2 Results of the breakthrough of equilibrated waste material from a pulp mill. The
concentrations, expressed relative to the initial concentration are measured as
electrical conductivity.
Advantages
• The characteristics of solute behaviour in porous media can be defined directly from the
shape of the breakthrough curve, however,
• optimisation computer programs are available to fit theoretical parameters defining the
convection-dispersion equation to the breakthrough data. These parameters can then be
used to simulate the migration of solutes in the subsurface

• Considerable skill is required to run these tests and the interpretation of the breakthrough
characteristics requires a sound knowledge of the physics and chemistry of solute
transport in porous media.
4. SOIL MOISTURE STATUS MONITORING METHODS
There is a plethora of instruments available for monitoring the status of soil moisture and a complete
evaluation of these is not intended in this project. A few selected techniques and instruments are evaluated
where they have been used in hydrological processes research. Nevertheless, excellent reviews of
monitoring instrumentation are available for assessing one’s needs in most situations (Klute, A. 1986b;
Charlesworth, 2000; Stephens, 1996; Metelerkamp, 2001).
During the establishment phase of the hydrological processes laboratory, specific methods of monitoring
the soil water matric potential and water content were used. These included tensiometers, heat pulse
dissipation sensors and nylon resistivity sensors to measure matric potential or matric pressure heads and
time domain reflectometry, neutron probe and gravimetric methods to estimate soil water content. In
particular, emphasis was given to developing automated methods for recording the soil water potential with
instrumented tensiometers and the water table elevation with pressure sensors.
4.1 Automated Tensiometers
A four channel logger was developed to record signals from pressure transducers attached to tensiometers
and submerged in groundwater wells as shown in Figure 4.1. The automatic tensiometer houses the water
phase in a hydraulic hose which is protected using PVC conduit. Hydraulic hose fittings seal the water
phase and provide a convenient connection to the pressure transducer. A section of clear hydraulic hose
connects the pressure transducer to the main hose. This allows for inspection of air pockets in the upper
part of the tensiometer. The components are all modular, which allows for convenient assembly in the
field to lengths determined in-situ. After careful installation, the depths D1 and D2 (Figure 4.1) must be
recorded for later resolution of the data.
A typical sequence of monitored soil matric pressure heads and piezometer ground water levels are shown
for the Weatherley research catchment in Figure 4.2. A rainfall event on December 2, 1998 causes a rapid
decrease in matric pressure head in the tensiometers located near the surface (0.45 and 0.84 m below
ground), while the deeper tensiometer responds over a period of three days, first decreasing to -0.75 m (the
negative value indicates that the phreatic surface has moved past the tensiometer ceramic cup position) and
then increasing to 0 m. The movement of the groundwater past the ceramic cup is verified by the
piezometer reading which indicates a rise in the water table of 1 m during this period
4-1
Figure 4.1. Schematic of the automatic tensiometer (left), for measuring soil matric pressure
head and a ground water well(right), for measuring ground water level.
1 -0.5
Ground water Depth Below Surface (m)
0.5 -1.0
Soil Matric Pressure Head (m)
0 -1.5
-0.5 -2.0
-1 -2.5
30-Nov 01-Dec 02-Dec 03-Dec 04-Dec
0.45 m 0.84 m 2.04 m Ground water
Figure 4.2. Example of tensiometer (0.45 m, 0.84 m and 2.04 m below surface) and ground
4-2
Soil Moisture Status Monitoring Methods
water level data from Nest 2, Weatherley experimental catchment, 1998.

Calibration of the pressure transducers used in the tensiometers has been very successful as is indicated
in Figure 4.3. These calibrations typically have an R2 of 0.998 and are routinely performed prior to
installing the tensiometers in the field.
10
8
Matric Pressure Head (m)
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
mV READING
Data Regression
Figure 4.3. Calibration of the tensiometer pressure transducer.
Most automatic tensiometer data exhibited a minor diurnal fluctuation pattern with increases in tension
during the night and decreases during the day. This is counter intuitive as one would expect that tensions
would increase during the day as the profile dries under evapotranspiration forces, and decrease at night
when evapotranspiration is relaxed.
It is hypothesised, however, that this observed variation in recorded tensions is due to temperature
expanding and contracting the water or air pockets inside the tensiometers. A series of test were therefore
conducted to define the influence of temperature on the tensiometer performance. Three tensiometers were
set up outdoors at the Ukulinga experimental farm. Two were inserted into a 200l drum of soil and the
third was installed next to the drum in the soil. The first of the two tensiometers in the drum was filled
completely with de-aired water while a small pocket of air was left at the top of the second. A “dummy”
differential pressure transducer was also placed on the drum without connection to any tensiometer and
with both ports open. This was the standard to gauge temperature effects on the electronics of the
transducers. The results are presented in Figures 4.4 and 4.5.
4-3
2000 40
1500 30
Pressure transducer signal (mV)
Temperature (C)
1000 20
500 10
0 0
21-Jun 22-Jun 23-Jun 24-Jun 25-Jun 26-Jun
empty bubble tube full bubble tube both ports open temp
Figure 4.4 Tensiometer test in a drum outside at Ukulinga experimental farm. The drum and
soil sample heat up and cool with the ambient air temperature and thus there is
a significant variation in tensiometer signal, even though the water content in the
drum was constant throughout the test period.
3500 40
3000 30
Temperature (C)
2500 20
2000 10
1500 0
Full bubble tube temp
Figure 4.5 Tensiometer test in the ground outside at Ukulinga experimental farm. The
ground provides some insulation to the temperature affects on the tensiometer
signal, but there is still a diurnal fluctuation.
4-4
Soil Moisture Status Monitoring Methods
A similar drum was set up inside the temperature controlled soil physics laboratory. These results are
shown in Figure 4.6.
2000 40
1500 30
Temperature (C)
1000 20
500 10
0 0
empty bubble tube full bubble tube both ports open temp
Figure 4.6. Tensiometer test in a drum in a temperature controlled laboratory. The slight variation
in temperature is insufficient to affect the tensiometer readings, which show a slow drying
of the material in the drum.
The results of this series of tests indicate that:

• the minor diurnal fluctuations in automatic tensiometer signal appears to be the result of
expansion and contraction of air entrapped in the tensiometer,
• the effect is most pronounced where the temperature fluctuations in the tensiometer water
are not dampened by being housed underground,
• there does not appear to be any temperature affect on the electronics that would cause
observable signal fluctuations and
• the amount of air entrapped in the tensiometer tube affects the degree of dependance on
temperature variation.
Hence the use of automated tensiometers must be accompanied by a rigorous maintenance program,
ensuring that air pockets are removed from the apparatus at regular intervals. Experience during this
project has shown that tensiometer replenishment at two week intervals is acceptable, but more frequent
visits are recommended to check for the air pocket build-up.
4-5
4.2. Time Domain Reflectometry and Heat Dissipation Sensors.
A set of concurrent measurements of volumetric water content, using Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR)
and matric pressure head, using heat dissipation sensors (HDS) were compiled from probes set at the same
depths below surface in a irrigated profile. These results were superimposed on the water retention
characteristic of an undisturbed sample extracted from the same level in the profile. The retention
characteristic was determined in the laboratory using the controlled outflow method.
The results of this comparison are presented in Figure 4.7. There is significant scatter of the TDR/HDS
data pairs and the HDS does not appear to record matric pressure head lower than 0.30 m. Nevertheless
there is adequate agreement between in-situ and laboratory determined data sets, even thought the field
data are recorded under dynamic conditions.
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Water Content
TDR vs Heat Dissipation Outflow cell retention
Figure 4.7 Comparison of in-situ derived and laboratory measured water retention
characteristic of irrigated mine land, Kleinkopjes Colliery, Witbank.
These, and other data reflect the considerable value of sensing the volumetric soil water status with TDR
and the soil water matric pressure head with HDS. Clearly the HDS sensors are adequate at matric
pressure heads in excess of 10 m, but do not seem to yield accurate results near saturation, as do the
tensiometers.
4-6
5. SUMMARY OF SOIL TYPES AND MEASUREMENTS
An summary of the types and quantities of measurement and monitoring studies; the types and quantities
of porous media tested and an evaluation of pedotransfer methodologies are presented in this chapter.
5.1 Overview of Measurement and Monitoring Studies
A wide variety of materials have been tested and numerous test procedures adopted. A summary of the
types of projects, the purposes of the projects and the quantities of measurements conducted during these,
is presented in Table 5.1. Altogether 784 tests have been performed with the largest determinations being
texture (208), bulk density, (131), water retention characteristics, (103) and in-situ measurements of
hydraulic conductivity, including unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, (172) and saturated hydraulic
conductivity, (143). These measurements allow useful analyses of pedotransfer functions, in which easily
measured parameters, such as texture and bulk density are used to estimate hydraulic characteristics which
are difficult and time consuming to perform. A complete listing of the tests performed for each project is
presented in Appendix A.
The types of studies range from hydrological processes studies of hillslope soil water movement to
irrigation studies from small communal gardens to large centre pivots on mined land; from laboratory
studies of the behaviour of solutes to soil water balance studies in veld ecotopes and from in-situ studies
of compacted cover layers on coal impoundments to laboratory assessments of soil samples packed at a
range of densities.
5.2 Summary of Soil Types
Porous media ranging from sand to clay classification have been tested. Materials representing all 12
textural classes except for silt have been the subject of at least one determination. A comparison of the
range of materials tested in this study with that of the UNSODA data base, (Leij et al., 1996), presented
in Table 5.2, reveals that this present study does not share the bias towards measurements on the more
conveniently managed materials that is evident in UNSODA and other similar studies. In the UNSODA
study some 55% of the materials fall in the sandy range, while only 39% of the materials tested in this
study classify as sand or sandy materials, albeit the quantity of samples tested in this study is smaller.
Nevertheless, a large percentage of the measurements performed in this study were on undisturbed samples
or in-situ profiles, unlike many other studies where laboratory packed samples are tested.
5-1
Table 5.1 Summary of projects and measurements performed during this study period.
Project Description Laboratory In-situ Purpose of Study
Text. Bulk Perm. B-K Out. Out. ESM Tens. D.R.

Dens. cell cell cell leach Infil. Infil
Db Ks D(2) K(h) h(2) C(t) K(h) Ks
NECF Motleno formation hillslopes 42 25 23 42 43 Hillslope and catchment hydrology

De Hoek: V1H028 Headwaters grassed hillslopes 58 1 1 25 21 Hillslope and catchment hydrology
PORTNET Marine sand 2 1 1 1 2 1 Diesoline leak
Newcastle Coal discard and soil covers 8 8 4 8 8 8 Coal discard dump covers assessment
Cathedral Peak Headwaters grassed hillslope 2 1 3 3 Headwaters hydrology
Ntabamhlope Wetland 3 3 Wetland evapotranspiration
WASTECH Experimental sands 2 2 Microbiological remediation
Sabie: SCIR Forestry soils 45 44 3 14 14 Eucalypt forest water use
Kleinkopjes Colliery Rehabilitated mined land 8 6 9 2 19 16 Gypsiferous mine water irrigation
BCL mine, Botswana Riparian and bushveld profiles 4 7 8 3 Gypsiferous mine water irrigation
Richards Bay Engineered cap 2 1 4 2 2 Ground water impact: pulp effluent
SASEX Disturbed samples: pot trials 7 9 7 8 4 2 2 Disturbed samples for pot trials
Dundee Coal discard impoundment 1 Leaching in coal discard impoundment
Mkomazi Erosion gulley 7 3 Gulley erosion
Seven Oaks Nursery Bark chip growing medium 1 1 1 Bark chip growing medium retention
SASOL Grassed and forested profiles 1 4 4 Ground water impact
Sabie: Witklip Headwaters grass and forest hillslope 16 9 2 9 Hillslope and catchment hydrology
Willowfontein Irrigated market garden profile 4 3 4 4 Communal market gardening irrigation
Taylors Halt Irrigated market garden profile 3 3 3 3 Communal market gardening irrigation
Forest/Grassland* Forest and grassland profiles 10 10 10 10 10 Forest/grassland soils: same series
Kruger National Park Basalt clay and alluvium 8 1 8 24 15 Ecosytem hydrology: plains/riparian
TOTAL 208 131 1 15 5 103 6 172 143

*
Musto, 1994.
Explanations:
Text. = Textural analysis by sieve and hydrometer

Bulk. Dens. = Bulk density, Db determination from undisturbed core
Perm. = Permeameter determination of saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks
B-K cell = Bruce-Klute cell test for determination of diffusivity, D(2)
Out. cell = Controlled outflow cell for determination of retention characteristic, h(2) and conductivity characteristic, K(h)
ESM leach = Equilibrated Soluble Mass column leach test for determining the breakthrough curve concentration vs time, C(t)
Tens. Infil. = Tension infiltrometer test for measuring unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h)
D.R. Infil. = Double ring infiltrometer for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks
Summary of Soil Types and Measurements
Table 5.2. Summary of the range of textural classes of materials

tested in the UNSODA data base and in this study.
Texture Class UNSODA This Study
Quantity % Quantity %
Sand 184 23.6 8 3.9
Loamy sand 64 8.2 3 1.4
Sandy loam 133 17.1 46 22.2
Sandy clay loam 52 6.6 24 11.6
Silt 3 0.4 0 0.0
Silt loam 142 18.2 2 1.0
Clay loam 36 4.6 43 20.8
Loam 70 9.0 52 25.1
Silty clay loam 33 4.2 3 1.4
Sandy clay 3 .4 4 1.9
Silty clay 21 2.7 1 .5
Clay 39 5.0 21 10.1
TOTAL 780 100.0 207 100.0
A complete listing of the results of all measurements is presented in Appendix B. Materials range in bulk
density from 2048 kg.m-3 (porosity 0.227) for compacted spoil layers in rehabilitated mined land to 700
kg.m-3 (porosity 0.736) for soils in eucalypt forests. Hydraulic conductivities have been measured over
a range of five orders of magnitude from 0.54 mm.h-1 for a compacted Estcourt soil to 1770 mm.h-1 in a
forested profile. Textural classifications range from sands to clays. The range of soil texture is presented
in Figures 5.1 to 5.7 for selected projects.
Soils tested in the Weatherley research catchment range from silty clays to sandy loams (Figure 5.1). The
textures vary markedly within a profile, with clay content increasing with depth. Soils tested on Hutton
profiles in the Witklip catchment near Sabie range from clay loams to sandy loams and show a decrease
in clay content with depth. (Figure 5.2). Textural analyses of soils from the De Hoek catchment near
Estcourt exhibit significant grouping, depending on soil series (Figure 5.3). Textures from the eucalypt
forest sites near Sabie are predominantly of Hutton form and range from clays to sandy loams (Figure 5.4).
Coal discard falls into the sand classification, while the Estcourt and Avalon Form materials, used for
capping the coal discard impoundments, range between clay loams and sandy clay loams (Figure 5.5). The
disturbed samples from sugar cane plantations, packed to various densities, range from sandy clays
(Swartland Form) to sands (Fernwood Form), (Figure 5.6).
5-3
100
90
Profile 1
80
Profile 2
70
% Clay ( < 2 micron)
60 Cl Profile 3
50
SiCl
Profile 4
40 SaCl
SiClLm ClLm
30
SaClLm
20
Lm
SiLm
SaLm
10
Si LmSa Sa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Sand ( > 50 micron)
Figure 5.1. Soil types at the Weatherley Research Catchment, sites 1 - 4, MONDI, North East
Cape Forests (NECF).
100
90
Profile A2: 0 - 1.5m
80
Profile A2: 1.5 - 2.0m

70
60 Cl Profile C2: 0 - 1.5m
50
SiCl
Profile C2: 1.5 - 2.0m
40 SaCl
SiClLm ClLm
30
SaClLm
20
Lm
SiLm
SaLm
10
Si LmSa Sa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.2. Soil types at the Witklip catchment near Sabie
5-4
100
90 Cv 17 Kd 10 Cv 38 Cv 13 Cv 18 Av 26 Lo 21
80
70
60 Cl
50
SiCl
40 SaCl
SiClLm ClLm
30
SaClLm
20
Lm
SiLm
SaLm
10
Si LmSa Sa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.3. Soil types from various soil series in the grassland catchment, V1H028.
100
100
90 FU 0-0.75m FU 1.5-5.0m FL 0-0.75m FL 1.5-5.0m
90
80
LG. 0-0.75m LG. 1.5-5.0m CP
Coal Discard
80
70
Avalon
70
60 Cl
60 Cl
50 Estcourt
SiCl
50
40 SaCl
SiCl
40 SiClLm ClLm SaCl
30
SiClLm ClLm SaClLm
30
20 SaClLm
Lm
20 SiLm
Lm SaLm
10
SiLm
SaLm
10 Si LmSa Sa
0 Si LmSa Sa
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30
% Sand
40
( > 50
50 micron)
60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.4 Soil types from in eucalypt forests in Frankfurt (FU, FL) and Legogotte (LG)
near Sabie and from a grassland hillslope in catchment 6, Cathedral Peak (CP).
5-5
100
90
Fernwood
80
Hutton
70
Cl Swartland
60
50
SiCl
40 SaCl
SiClLm ClLm
30
SaClLm
20
Lm
SiLm
SaLm
10
Si LmSa Sa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.5 Textural analyses from various soil series and coal discard material from a study of
engineered layers over coal waste near Newcastle.
100
90
Fernwood
80
Hutton
70
60 Cl
Swartland
50
SiCl
40 SaCl
SiClLm ClLm
30
SaClLm
20
Lm
SiLm
SaLm
10
Si LmSa Sa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.6. Textural analyses of various soil series from SASEX experimental trial.
5-6
The soils from the grassland versus forest study (Musto, 1994), are grouped well and confirm the sampling
strategy of testing similar soil forms from the two different land uses. The textures range from clays to
loamy sands (Figure 5.7).
100
90
Eucalypt sites
80
70 Grass sites
60 Cl
50
SiCl
40 SaCl
SiClLm ClLm
30
SaClLm
20
Lm
SiLm
SaLm
10
Si LmSa Sa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5.7. Textural analyses from various soil series from a study of forest and grassland
soil properties (Musto, 1994).
5.3. Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions
The prediction of hydraulic characteristics from easily measured parameters such soil texture and bulk
density has been the subject of considerable research (Hutson, 1983; Campbell and Shiozawa, 1992; Rawls
et al., 1992; van Genuchten et al., 1999). These methods have been applied to all suitable data sets from
this study in order to predict the important parameters of drained upper limit (DUL) and wilting point (WP)
as well as the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The Hutson, 1983, estimation equations are applied to the
texture and bulk density to determine DUL and WP. These values are compared with those estimated from
the water retention characteristics as the water content at 1m matric pressure head (DUL) and at 150 m
matric pressure head (WP).
5-7
The prediction equations are:

DUL = 0.0558 + 0.00365Cl + 0.00554Si + 0.0803Db and
WP = 0.0602 + 0.00322Cl + 0.00308Si - 0.0260Db where
Cl = % clay fraction; Si = % silt fraction and Db = bulk density (Mg.m-3).
The results of these predictions are shown in Figures 5.8 and 5.9.
0.6
0.5
0.4
DUL Predicted (m/m)
0.3
Grassland
0.2
Forested
0.1
Disturbed Figure 5.8. Predicted water

content (DUL) using sample
0
textural and bulk density
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
DUL Estimated (m/m) data.
0.6
0.5
0.4
WP : Predicted (m/m)
0.3
Grassland
0.2
Forested
0.1
Figure 5.9. Predicted water
Disturbed
content (WP) using sample
0 textural and bulk density data.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
WP : Estimated (m/m)
5-8
The predicted DUL and WP are generally not well correlated with the values estimated from measured
water retention characteristics. However, separating the results of undisturbed retention analysis samples
from those of disturbed, laboratory packed samples, reveals a significant difference between the two. The
variance, R2, for the undisturbed samples ranges from a low of 0.22 for the grassland profiles to a high of
0.50 for the forested samples while the variance for disturbed samples is 0.81 as listed in Table 5.3. There
is not a significant difference between the prediction of DUL or WP.
Table 5.3 Summary of correlation between predicted water contents

and those estimated from measurements with the variance,
(R2) and standard error of predicted water content (s).
Sample type No. of DUL WP
samples
R2 s R2 s
Grassland 31 0.226 0.062 0.221 0.055
Forested 7 0.450 0.089 0.500 0.071
Disturbed 16 0.897 0.036 0.809 0.033
The undisturbed samples range from sandy loams to clays while the disturbed samples range from sands
to clay loams so both are tested over a wide range of textures. Therefore, even though the data sets are
relatively small, there is reason to be cautious in applying these empirical equations to undisturbed, natural
horizons, frequently encountered in hydrological modelling. It is hypothesised that the poor correlation
against undisturbed samples arises from structural features that may be present in the undisturbed samples
and may affect the pore size distributions significantly.
The prediction of the saturated hydraulic conductivity from textural data has also been the subject of
considerable research. Two prediction equations are tested against a suitable data set. These are from
Campbell and Shiozawa, 1992 and Rawls et al., 1992. The Campbell and Shiozawa equation for saturated
hydraulic conductivity, Ks (mm.h-1), is:
Ks = 54.exp(- 0.07Si - 0.167Cl)
The Campbell and Shiozawa equation does not predict measured saturated hydraulic conductivities well
as shown in Figure 5.10. In fact a curve fitting constant of 1000 was required to increase the predicted
values to those quantities shown.
5-9
1E5
1E4
1E3
Ks : Predicted (mm/h)
1E2
1E1
1E0
Figure 5.10. Saturated hydraulic
conductivities predicted using Campbell
1E-1
1E-1 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 1E4 1E5
and Shiozawa. 1992 compared to
Ks measured (mm/h) measured values.
The regression relationship of Rawls et al., which includes the porosity, , is:
Ks =10. exp [19.523 - 8.968 - 0.028Cl + 0.0002Sa2 - 0.009Cl2 - 8.395 2
+ 0.078Sa.
- 0.003Sa2. 2
- 0.019Cl2. 2
+ 0.00002Sa2.Cl + 0.027Cl2. - 0.000004Cl2.Sa]
The application of this relationship to the data set yielded a better fit than the Campbell and Shiozawa
equation, but nevertheless required a fitting multiplication factor of 50 to achieve the correlation shown
in Figure 5.11. Despite the fitting factor, predictions are still over an order of magnitude in error for some
of the data and, again, reflects the difficulty in estimating reasonable values for in-situ hydraulic
characteristics.
1E5
1E4
1E3
Ks : Predicted (mm/h)
1E2
1E1
1E0
Figure 5.11. Saturated hydraulic
conductivities predicted using Rawls et
1E-1
al., 1992 compared to measured values.
1E-1 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 1E4 1E5
Ks measured (mm/h)
5 - 10
6. SUMMARY OF SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS
The data gathered during the course of this project may be used in many ways. Firstly, the data values
reflect a certain behaviour of the porous medium which can be used in understanding the observed
hydrology. Secondly, the data can be used directly as input to hydrological models or as a guideline in
the selection of appropriate parameters. Thirdly, the characteristic mathematical functions can be fitted
to the data and the optimised parameters of these functions used in hydrological simulations models.
Finally, the data can be used to develop relationships between one set of easily determined soil
characteristics and another which may be more difficult and time consuming to determine.
The results of all the tests conducted during this study are listed in Appendix B. These data, particularly
the physical characteristics, porosity ( ), bulk density (Db) and textural class as well as the hydraulic
characteristics, drained upper limit (DUL), wilting points (WP), and saturated hydraulic conductivity, (Ks)
can be used as input to many hydrological models such as ACRU (Smithers and Schulze, 1993), SWAT
(Arnold et al., 1995), and HYMAS (Hughes et al., 1993).
However, there are a large number of models which make use of mathematical functions describing the
water retention and hydraulic conductivity characteristic data. These data have been fitted to three of the
most common set of functions used in the models.
6.1 Evaluation of Hydraulic Characteristic Functions
Soil hydraulic characteristic functions have been fitted to the van Genuchten and Brooks-Corey functions
using the RETC optimisation model (van Genuchten et al., 1991) while Campbell functions have been
fitted using spreadsheet analysis. The van Genuchten relationship for the retention characteristic is:
m
 1 
Se =  n 6.1
 1 + ( α h) 
where
 θ − θr 
Se = effective saturation,   and
 θs − θr 
6-1
2 = volumetric water content,

2r = residual volumetric water content (THETAR),
2s = saturated volumetric water content (THETAS),
= air entry parameter, (mm-1) (ALPHA),
h = matric pressure head, (mm),
n = pore size distribution parameter and
m = pore connectivity parameter and is taken as 1-1/n.
The hydraulic conductivity function derived by substituting the van Genuchten retention characteristic into
the Mualem conductivity model is written as:

( (
 1 − ( α h) 1 + ( α h)
K (h) = Ks 
n −1 n
) ) 
−m 2
6.2



(
1 + ( α h) )
n m/ 2


where K(h) = unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, (mm.h-1) and

Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity, (mm.h-1).
The parameters of these equations are optimised by fitting the functions to the data by least squares
minimisation in the RETC program. Both the retention and the hydraulic conductivity functions are fitted
to data simultaneously if both sets of data are available for a specific sample. Otherwise the parameters
are optimised using the retention characteristic data. The resulting parameter sets for all of the samples
where adequate data where available are listed in Appendix C. The van Genuchten parameters are used
in models such as HYDRUS2-D, (Šimúnek et al., 1994) and SWAP (van Dam et al., 1997) and many
physically based liquid and solute transport models. Each parameter set is followed by a rating number,
reflecting the quality of the parameters.
While the RETC optimisation routine yields an R2 regression coefficient, this does not readily reflect the
reliability of the parameters since the data may be poor or limited in range. Hence, when assigning the
rating, from 0 to 10, cogniscence was taken of the goodness of fit to the theoretical functions, the quality
of the data and the range of the measurements using the guidelines listed in Table 6.1.
6-2
Soil Hydraulic Characteristic Functions
The Brooks-Corey function for the retention characteristic is written as:

λ
h 
Se =  d  for h > hd and 6.3
 h
Se = 1 for 0 < h < hd

where hd = air entry pressure, (mm) and
= pore size distribution parameter (LAMDA in Appendices).
The Brooks-Corey retention characteristic, applied to the Burdine model of hydraulic conductivity yields:
K (h) = Ks[ Se]

( 2 + 3λ )/ λ 6.4
The parameters of the Brooks-Corey model have been fitted to data in the same way as for the van
Genuchten function and the resulting parameter sets are listed in Appendix D and are used in models such
as HILLS (Hebbert and Smith, 1996) and SWAP (van Dam et al., 1997).
The Campbell function for the retention characteristic comprises two functions:
 θ   he  1/b
  =  for h > hi 6.5a
 θs   h 
where he = Campbell air entry parameter (mm),

b = Campbell pore size distribution parameter and
hi = inflection point where the equation changes from exponential to quadratic.
2 = 2s(1 - c.h2) for 0 < h < hi , 6.5b

where many researchers relate the inflection point, hi to the pore size distribution parameter, b and air entry
parameter, he via:
hi = he/ab c = (1-a)/hi2 a = 2b/(1+2b) . 6.5c
The Campbell parameters b and he are fitted to the data by inspection and the full parameter sets are listed
in Appendix E. The Campbell functions have been used in models such as SWB, (Annandale et al.,
1999), LEACHM (Hutson and Wagenet, 1992) and SWIM (Ross, 1990). The hydraulic conductivity
function used with the Campbell equation is simply
K(h) = Ks(2/2s)b.n 6.6
where n is fitted directly to the hydraulic conductivity data.
6-3
Table 6.1 Description of parameter rating for van Genuchten,

Brooks-Corey and Campbell functions (Appendices C to E).
Rating Description Recommendation
range
0-3 Data are unreliable or curve fit is very poor Do not use
4-5 Data are limited in range or of poor quality or curve fit is poor Use as a guide
6-8 Data may be limited in range, but curve fit is good or data Use with caution
may be adequate but curve fit is not excellent
9 -10 Data are of good quality and range and curve fit is good Use with confidence
The van Genuchten parameter set derived in this study has been compared to average parameters for the
12 soil textural groups by Carsel and Parrish, (1988). These authors derived the parameters from using
5,500 samples of texture and bulk density to infer van Genuchten parameters. This comparison is shown
in Figures 6.1 to 6.5. The range and standard deviation of the parameters derived in this project are also
displayed.
The variation of the saturated water content, 2s (THETAS) is small for the Carsel and Parrish data set, with
2s ranging from 0.38 for sandy clay to 0.45 for silt loam, while the average 2s ranges from 0.36 for sandy
loam to 0.63 for clays in this current study (Figure 6.1). This possibly reflects the bias for using data bases
with large quantities of agricultural soils which do not reflect the high porosity often encountered, as in
this project, in cracking clays and forestry soils.
0.8
0.7
0.6
THETAS (m/m)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Sa LmS SaLm Lm SaClLm ClLm SaCl Cl
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
a
Average Std. deviation
Figure 6.1 Variation of van Genuchten parameter, 2s (THETAS) with texture.
6-4
The variation of the van Genuchten parameter, 2r (THETAR), is shown in Figure 6.2. Again, the variation
bewteen soil texture classes is larger for the data set parameterised using the measured data than for the
Carsel and Parish, theoretically derived parameters. The clay soils measured also have a higher average
residual water content that the theoretical values.
The differences in parameters derived from the curve fitting to the data measured in this project to those
derived by Carsel and Parish are also noticeable in the parameters (ALPHA) and n as shown in Figures
6.3 and 6.4 respectively.
0.5
0.4
THETAR (m/m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
Sa LmSa SaLm Lm SaClLm ClLm SaC Cl
Average Std. deviation
Figure 6.2 Variation of van Genuchten parameter, 2r (THETAR) with texture.
The Carsel and Parrish value for is much higher for the sandy materials than those fitted to the data in
this current study. The Carsel and Parrish average for sand is 0.15, but the average is 0.02 and the highest
value is 0.12 for the materials tested in this study (Figure 6.3). These values reflect a low air entry pressure
for the Carsel and Parrish study, while those for this study are relatively high. Better agreement between
the two studies occurs for the loam and clayey materials.
The values of van Genuchten parameter, n from the Carsel and Parrish study decrease from a high of 2.7
for the sand materials to a low of 1.1 for the clay class (Figure 6.4). The values derived in this study do
not reflect this trend and the variation within soil texture classes is high.
6-5
0.4
0.3
ALPHA (1/mm)
0.2
0.1
0
0.5 Sa 1.5 LmSa 2.5 SaLm 3.5 Lm 4.5 SaClLm 5.5 ClLm 6.5 SaCl 7.5 Cl 8.5
Figure 6.3 Variation of van Genuchten parameter, (ALPHA) with texture.
4
van Genuchten, n
0
Sa LmSa SaLm Lm SaClLm ClLm SaCl Cl
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
Figure 6.4 Variation of van Genuchten parameter, n with texture.
6-6
The saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks, derived from a simultaneous fit of equations 6.1 and 6.2 to water
retention and hydraulic conductivity data sets is summarised in Figure 6.5, together with the Carsel and
Parrish average Ks derived from texture and bulk density. The average determinations compare
favourably, except for the sandy clay and clay loam where the fitted parameters are higher than the
theoretical determinations of Carsel and Parrish. This supports the assumption of the existence of large
macro pore structures and low densities for these materials, observed in the 2s analysis.
1E4
1E3
1E2
Ks (mm/h)
1E1
1E0
1E-1
1E-2
Sa LmSa SaLm Lm SaClLm ClLm SaCl Cl
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
Figure 6.5 Variation of van Genuchten parameter, Ks with texture.
This analysis of the van Genuchten parameters in terms of textural class and in comparison with the Carsel
and Parrish theoretical determination of these parameters indicate that
• the clay soils often exhibit large porosities and therefore high saturated hydraulic
conductivity values,
• trends in the parameters, developed from theoretical equations using texture and bulk
density, do not always concur with values derived from measurements, particularly when
the porous media exhibit strong structural features such as those measured in-situ and
• the variation of parameters within any textural class is high, often exceeding the variation
between the textural classes.
6-7
6.2. Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions
As with the prediction of hydraulic characteristics from textural and bulk density data, considerable
research has pursued the prediction of hydraulic conductivity using the parameters defining the water
retention characteristic. The hydraulic conductivity equations 6.2, 6.4 and 6.6 all require a curve matching
parameter, generally taken as the saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks. Since measuring the saturated
hydraulic conductivity in the field requires time consuming techniques and costly surveys, the need for
a reliable estimate of the hydraulic conductivity is great. Clearly, greater success in predicting the
hydraulic conductivity will likely be achieved by using parameters defining the pore size distribution rather
than the particle size distribution. It has already been demonstrated that large matching factors had to be
applied to the predictive equations using texture and bulk density to estimate Ks in Chapter 5.
Two estimates of Ks are attempted using the pore size distribution parameters of Brooks-Corey, (Lorentz,
1995) and of Campbell (Hutson, 1983). These are shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 respectively.
Lorentz, 1995 developed a function for predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity by observing a suit
of solute diffusion, hydraulic conductivity and water retention characteristics. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity is estimated from
λ
 
ρ gσ 2   hd  2 + λ 0.185   λ 
Ks = φ .  
2  1 + 0173 λ  (θ s − θ r ) 2   6.7
k o µ Pb   θe    2+ λ 
 
where φ = porosity,
D = density of water,
g = gravitational acceleration,
= surface tension of water,
= viscosity of water,
ko = pore shape factor, equal to 2.5 and
Pb = air entry pressure = hd D g.
6-8
The comparison of predicted and measured values is presented in Figure 6.6. The predicted values are
mostly within an order of magnitude, but there are a few predictions in excess of an order of magnitude
of the measured hydraulic conductivity.
1E4
1E3
Ks predicted (mm/h)
1E2
1E1
1E0
1E-1
1E-1 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 1E4
Ks measured (mm/h)
Figure 6.6 Prediction of saturated hydraulic conductivity from Brooks-Corey retention

characteristic parameters using Lorentz, 1995.
The equation developed by Hutson, 1983 uses the Campbell water retention characteristic parameters in
2 2
 θ   S b +1 
Ks = M  s   i + 2(1 − Si  6.8
 he   b + 1 
where Si = 2b/(1+2b) and

M = constant dependant on liquid properties = 9.8x108 to yield Ks in mm.h-1.
An additional multiplication factor of 2000 was required to elevate the predicted Ks values to those shown
in Figure 6.7. There are still, however, two to three orders of magnitude difference between most predicted
and measured values.
6-9
1E5
1E4
1E3
Ks predicted (mm/h)
1E2
1E1
1E0
1E-1
1E-2
1E-3
1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 1E4
Ks measured (mm/h)
Figure 6.7 Prediction of saturated hydraulic conductivity from Campbell retention

characteristic parameters using Hutson, 1983.
These analyses reveal how difficult it is to predict hydraulic conductivities with a universal relationship,
even though the air entry pressure, pore size distribution and effective porosity are used. Specific
relationships may be more apt for certain classes of porous media than others, but do not appear to be
applicable across a wide range of porous media as is demonstrated with this data set.
Many researchers have developed pedotransfer functions to predict the water retention parameters from
texture and bulk density (Bouraoui et al.,1999, Bristow et al., 1999, van Genuchten et al., 1992, van
Genuchten et al., 1999). It is possible to then use these derived parameters to estimate the hydraulic
conductivity, but it is proposed that this would be even more ineffective than deriving the conductivity
from measured water retention characteristic parameters.
Campbell water retention characteristics have been predicted using simple algorithms of texture and bulk
density by Bristow et al.,1999 in an attempt to extend large Australian soil data bases of texture and bulk
density to include hydraulic characteristics. The Cambell parameter, b, is predicted from the % clay as
b = A+Bln(Cl) 6.9
6 - 10
The results of the best fit analysis yields A = 0.364 and B = -0.057, but the predictions are not good as seen
in Figure 6.8. It is possibly too ambitious to expect reasonable predictions of the pore size distribution
index using only the clay content of a soil.
20
15
Cambell b Predicted
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Cambell, b Estimated
Figure 6.8 Prediction of Campbell parameter, b from textural data using Bristow, 1999.
Similarly, the prediction of the Campbell parameter, he is poorly predicted using the suggested relationship
with clay content.
he = 5/(Aln(Cl) + B) . 6.10
Clearly, an additional characteristic of the porous medium is required to improve these predictions. The
bulk density often gives a good indication of the air entry characteristics and this, combined with the
texture data, could very well lead to adequate predictions of the water retention characteristic parameters.
Much of the difficulty in predicting measurements of hydraulic properties of the soil made in the field is
in the use of relationships derived using disturbed samples. The field characteristics are dominated, at least
near saturation, by large pore sizes which are not adequately assessed in disturbed laboratory tests.
6 - 11
600
500
Campbell he, Predicted (mm) 400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Campbell he, Estimated (mm)
Figure 6.9 Prediction of Campbell parameter, he from textural data using Bristow, 1999.
Nevertheless, these pore sizes may be critical in determining the hydrological behaviour of a profile, or
even a hillslope section. This has been recognized by many model developers by incorporating a means
for including macro pore effects. One of these ways is to include a separate hydraulic conductivity
function for the macro pores. Using the van Genuchten relationships, the hydraulic conductivity
characteristic would then be written as:

( ( ) )  + Km (1 − (α h)
−m 2
(1 + (α h) ) ) 
2
n2 − 1 n2 − m2
 1 − (α h) 1 + ( α h)
n −1 n
2
K (h) = Ks    6.11


1 + (α h)
n m/ 2
( ) 



(1 + (α h) ) n2 m2 / 2


where Km, 2, n2 and m2 are parameters similar to those defined in equations 6.1 and 6.2 and are obtained
by fitting the data to the macro pore dominated part of the hydraulic conductivity characteristic.
Selected samples from this study, exhibiting large conductivities at saturation, and reducing rapidly with
small changes in matric pressure head, have been identified and a relationship of the form 6.11 has been
fitted to these data. The results are listed in Appendix C3.
6 - 12
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The description and evaluation of methods and instrumentation for measuring hydraulic characteristics
of porous media and for monitoring the status of soil water will offer researchers, consultants and water
resources practitioners in determining strategies for field and laboratory measurements that are
commensurate with the problem being addressed. In addition, the database of physical and hydraulic
properties will also serve as a first port-of-call for professionals requiring initial estimates of the
behaviour of a wide range soils and porous media.
The database of soil physical and hydraulic characteristics comprise a valuable set of parameters for
evaluating the behaviour of subsurface hydrological processes. Moreover, the hydraulic characteristic
function parameters, derived for a wide range of porous media, provide not only valuable estimates for
input into numerous simulation models, but they also provide insight into characterising materials which
exhibit significant macro-pore structure.
Continued instrumentation development and measurement strategies aimed at evaluating the various
techniques are recommended. In addition, further population of the soil hydraulic characteristics database
with measurements from a wide range of porous media is recommended so that robust methods of
estimating these characteristics from easily measured properties can be developed. It is particularly
important to develop measurement and predictive techniques for in-situ hydraulic characteristics in the
many instances where the dual porosity structural features of the porous medium dominate the subsurface
hydrology.
In summary, it is concluded that:
• descriptions and evaluation of measurement and monitoring techniques will assist

practitioners in designing appropriate measurement and observation strategies,
• a data base of soil physical and hydraulic properties that contains characteristics of
porous media over a wide range of textures and bulk densities has been developed and
is available to assist practitioners assess hydrological processes,
• pedotransfer functions for predicting drained upper limit (DUL), wilting point (WP)
water contents and the saturated hydraulic conductivity from texture and bulk density
have been assessed and must be used with due caution,
7-1
• pedotranfer functions for predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity from water
retention characteristics hold promise, but must also be used with caution, particularly
where soils with dual porosity are encountered,
• pedotransfer functions for estimating water retention characteristics from soil texture are
do not appear to be adequate for use.
It is recommended that:
• the data base initiated in this study is continued and populated with additional data
emanating from hydrological process research,
• field and laboratory measuring techniques should be continually developed, particularly

in order to assess the field measured characteristics of soils with dual porosity,
• special techniques for measuring and quantifying the effects of macro pore phenomena
on local and hillslope hydrology need to be pursued.
The continued development of techniques for evaluating hydrological processes will allow for the typical
accuracies required in the prediction and planning of a scarce water resource which is often subject to
multiple demands.
7-2
REFERENCES
Ankeny, M. D. 1992. Methods and theory for unconfined infiltration measurements. In: Topp, G. C.,
Reynolds, W. D. and Green, E. 1992. Advances in Measurement of Soil Physical Properties: Bringing
Theory to Practice. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 30. Madison, WI. USA. pp123-
141.
Annandale, J. G., Benadé, N., Jovanovic, N. Z, Steyn, J. M. and du Sautoy, N. 1999. Facilitating irrigation
scheduling by means of the Soil Water Balance model. Water Research Commission Rep. No. 753/1/99,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Arnold, J.G., Williams, J. R. Srinivasan, R. King, K.W. and.Griggs, R.H. 1995. SWAT - Soil and Water
Assessment Tool: Draft Users Manual, USDA-ARS, Temple, TX.
Bouraoui, F., Haverkamp, R., Zammit, C. and Parlange, J.-Y. 1999. Physically-based pedotransfer
function for estimating water retention curve shape parameters. In: van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and
Wu, L.. (eds.), 1999. Proc. Int. Workshop, Characterisation and Measurement of the Hydraulic Properties
of Unsaturated Porous Media, Part 2. pp947-958. University of California, Riverside, CA. USA.
Bristow, K. L., Smetten, K. R. J., Ross, P. J., Ford, E. J., Roth, C. H. and Verburg, K. 1999. Obtaining
hydraulic properties for soil water balance models: Some pedotransfer functions for tropical Australia. In:
van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and Wu, L.. (eds.), 1999. Proc. Int. Workshop, Characterisation and
Measurement of the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Porous Media, Part 2. pp1103-1119. University
of California, Riverside, CA. USA.
Bruce, R. R. and Luxmore, R. J. 1986. Water retention: Field methods. In: Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil
Analysis. Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Edition. Agronomy Series 9 (Part 1). American
Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. USA.
Campbell, G. S. and Shiozawa, S. 1992. Prediction of hydraulic properties of soils using particle-size
distribution and bulk density data. In: van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and Lund, L. J. (eds.), 1992. Proc.
Int. Workshop, Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils. pp317-328.
University of California, Riverside, CA. USA.
Carsel, R. F. and Parrish, R. S. 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention
characteristics. Water Resour. Res. 24:755-769.
Ref - 1
Charlesworth, P. 2000. Irrigation Insights No. 1: Soil and Water Monitoring. National Program for
Irrigation Research and Development, Land and Water Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia. pp96.
Clothier, B. E., Scotter, D. R. and Green, A. E. 1983. Diffusivity and one-dimensional absorption
experiments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:641-644.
Corey, A.T. 1977. Mechanics of Heterogeneous Fluids in Porous Media. Water Resources Publications,
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Hebbert, R. H. B. and Smith, R. E. 1996. User Manual for HILLS Numerical Hillslope Model.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Water Management Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO. USA. pp1-1
to 5-1.
Hughes, D. A., Sami, K. and Murdoch, K. A. 1993. Hydrological Models - Development and
Applpication. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Report 235/1/93. pp216.
Hutson, J. L. 1983. Estimation of hydrological properties of South African Soils. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. RSA.
Hutson, J.L., Wagenet, R.J. 1992. LEACHM: Leaching Estimation And Chemistry Model: A process-
based model of water and solute movement, transformations, plant uptake and chemical reactions in the
unsaturated zone. Version 3.0. Department of soil, crop and atmospheric sciences, Research Series No. 92-
3, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. USA. pp1-1 to 8-13.
Klute, A. 1986a. Water retention: Laboratory Methods. In: Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part
1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Edition. Agronomy Series 9 (Part 1). American Society of
Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. USA. pp635-662.
Klute, A. 1986b. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Edition.
Agronomy Series 9 (Part 1). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison,
WI. USA. p1188.
Leij F. J., Alves, W. J. and van Genuchten, M. Th. 1996. The UNSODA Unsaturated Soil Hydraulic
Database, User’s manual version 1.0. EPA/600/R-96/095, U.S Environmental Protection Agency , Ada,
OK. USA. pp103.
Ref - 2
References
Lorentz, S. A., Hemme, S. W., Buitendag, I. and Schulze, R. E. 1993. Physically based infiltration and
redistribution of soil water for application at field scale. In: Schulze, R. E. Hydology and Agrohydrology:
A Text to Accompany the ACRU 3.00 Agrohydrological Modelling System. Water Research Commission,
Pretoria, Report TT69/95. pp AT9-1 to AT9-26.
Lorentz, S. A. 1995. Dependence of the formation factor on the unsaturated hydraulic properties of
porous media. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. USA. pp114.
Metelerkamp, B., 2001. SOWACS: Soil Water Content Sensors and Measurement. Web Site:
www.sowacs.com
Musto, J. W. 1994. Changes in soil physical properties and related hydraulic characteristics caused by
eucalypt plantations. Unpublished MSc Dissertation. University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, RSA.
Rawls, W. J., Ahuja, L. R. and Brakensiek, D. L. 1992. Estimating soil hydraulic properties from soils
data. In: van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and Lund, L. J. (eds.), 1992. Proc. Int. Workshop, Indirect
Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils. pp329-340. University of
California, Riverside, CA. USA.
Ross, P. J., 1990. SWIM: A simulation model for soil water infiltration and movement: reference manual.
CSIRO Division of Soils, Townsville, QLD, 1990; pp59
Šimúnek, J., Vogel, T. and van Genuchten, M.Th. 1994. The SWMS-2D Code for Simulating Water Flow
and Solute Transport in 2-D, Variably Saturated Media. V1.21. U.S. Salinity Lab. Res. Rep. 132, USDA,
ARS, Riverside, CA. pp197.
Smithers, J. C. and Schulze, R. E. 1993. ACRU Agrohydrological Modelling System: Users Manual
Version 3.00. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, Report TT70/95.
Stephens, D. B., 1996. Vadose Zone Hydrology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. USA. pp347.
van Dam, J.C., Huygen, G., Wesseling, J. G. Feddes, R. A., Kabat, A., van Walsum, P. E. V.,
Groenendijk, P. and van Diepen, C. A. 1997. SWAP version 2.0, Theory. Simulation of water flow, solute
transport and plant growth in the Soil-Water-Air-Plant environment. Technical Document 45, DLO
Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen. Report 71, Department Water Resources, Wageningen Agricultural
Ref - 3
University, The Netherlands.
van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and Lund, L.J. 1991. The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic
functions of unsaturated soils. EPA/600/2-91/065, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK, USA.
van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and Lund, L. J. 1992. Proc. Int. Workshop, Indirect Methods for
Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils. University of California, Riverside, CA. USA
pp 718.
van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J. and Wu, L. 1999. Proc. Int. Workshop, Characterisation and
Measurement of the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Porous Media, Part 2. University of California,
Riverside, CA. USA. pp1602.
Ref - 4
APPENDIX A
LIST OF SOIL CHARACTERISTIC MEASUREMENTS

List of Soil A1
Characteristics
Measurements
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR Depth Tex. Bulk Laboratory In-situ PURPOSE OF STUDY

Den. Perm B-K COC COC BTC K(h) Ks
(m) Ks D(O) K(h) h(O) C(t)
NECF Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.00 y y y y y Hillslope/catchment hydrology
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.30 y y y y y
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.50 y y y
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.70 y
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.00 y y y y y
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.80 y y y
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.60 y
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.80 y
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.00 y y y
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.40 y
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.50 y y y y y
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.70 y y y y y
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.00 y y y
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.20 y y y y y
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.50 y y y y y
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.90 y
Kroonstad1000: Site LC7 0.00 y y
Kroonstad1000: Site LC7 2.00 y y
Katspruit1000: Site LC9 0.00 y y
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 0.00 y y
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 0.20 y y y
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 0.80 y y y
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 2.00 y
Site UC1 0.00 y y
Site UC1 0.20 y y
Site UC1 0.80 y y
Site UC1 2.00 y y
Site UC2 0.00 y y
Site UC2 0.20 y y
Site UC2 0.80 y y
Site UC2 2.00 y
Katspruit1000: Site UC4 0.00 y y
Katspruit1000: Site UC4 0.20 y y y
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.00 y y
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.20 y y y y y
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.80 y y y
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 2.00 y
Tukula2220: Site UC7 0.00 y y
Tukula2220: Site UC7 0.20 y y y y
Tukula2220: Site UC7 0.80 y y y y
Tukula2220: Site UC7 2.00 y y
Site UC8 0.00 y y y y
Site UC8 0.20 y y y y
Site UC8 0.80 y
Site UC8 2.00
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.00 y y y y
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 2.00 y
List of Soil Characteristics Measurements A2
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR Laboratory In-situ PURPOSE OF STUDY

Depth Tex. Bulk Perm B-K COC COC BTC K(h) Ks
(m) Den. Ks D(O) K(h) h(O) C(t)
De Hoek: Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.00 y y y y y Hillslope/catchment hydrology

V1H011
Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.25 y y
Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.40 y
Clovelly 17 Site F2 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 17 Site F2 0.25 y y
Clovelly 17 Site G1 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 17 Site G1 0.30 y y
Clovelly 17 Site G1 0.50 y
Clovelly 17 Site G2 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 17 Site G2 0.30 y y
Clovelly 17 Site J1 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 17 Site J1 0.30 y
Clovelly 17 Site S1 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 17 Site S1 0.30 y
Kroonstad 10 Site H1 0.00 y y y

Kroonstad 10 Site H1 0.30 y
Kroonstad 10 Site H2 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 38 Site I1 0.00 y y y

Clovelly 38 Site I1 0.30 y
Clovelly 13 Site K1 0.00 y y y
Clovelly 13 Site K1 0.30 y
Clovelly 13 Site K2 0.00 y y
Clovelly 17 Site L1 0.00 y y
Clovelly 17 Site L2 0.00 y y
Longlands 21 Site M1 0.00 y y y

Longlands 21 Site M1 0.30 y
Clovelly 17 Site N1 0.00 y y

Clovelly 17 Site N2 0.00 y y
Avalon 26 Site P1 0.00 y y y

Avalon 26 Site P1 0.30 y
Longlands 21 Site T1 0.00 y y y

Longlands 21 Site T1 0.30 y
Clovelly 18 Site U1 0.00 y y y

Clovelly 18 Site U1 0.30 y
Clovelly 38 Site X1 0.00 y y
Clovelly 38 Site X2 0.00 y y

Cathedral Peak Lysimeter site: downslope 0.00 y y Headwaters hydrology

Lysimeter site: downslope 0.10 y y y y
Lysimeter site: downslope 0.30 y y
Ntabamhlope Wetland 0.00 y y Wetland evapotranspiration

Wetland 0.38 y y
Wetland 0.78 y y
Wastech Orange Bimodal sand y y Microbiological remediation

White sand y y
Sabie: CSIR Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.00 y y Pine forest water use
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.25 y y y y
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.60 y y
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 1.50 y y y y


Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.00 y y

Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.25 y y y y
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.60 y y y
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.75 y
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 1.50 y y y y y


Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 3 0.75 y
Legogotte 1 0.00 y y
Legogotte 1 0.25 y y y y
Legogotte 1 0.90 y y y
Legogotte 1 1.50 y y y y y

Kleinkopjes Pivot Major (Ave 35 reps) 0.00 y Gypsiferous mine water irrigation
Major: Field Capacity 0.00 y y y y y

Major: Field Capacity 0.05 y y y y
Major: Field Capacity 0.55 y y
Major: Field Capacity 0.85 y y y y y
Major: Plinthite 1.80 y y y
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.00 y y y y y

Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.15 y y
Jacuzzi: Deficit - Spoil 1.20 y y y y y
Jacuzzi: Leach Fraction 0.00 y y

Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.00 y y y y

Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.05 y
Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.15 y y
Jacuzzi: Field Capacity Spoil y y
Pivot Four 0.25 y
Tweefontein FC 0.00 y y y y
Tweefontein FC 0.55 y y
Tweefontein FC 0.75 y y
BCL mine Alluvium: Site 1 0.00 y y y Gypsiferous mine water irrigation

Alluvium: Site 1 0.20 y y
Alluvium: Site 1 1.50 y y
Hutton: Site 3 0.00 y y y
Hutton: Site 3 0.61 y
Hutton: Site 6 1.20 y y
Hutton: Site 7 0.00 y y y y
Hutton: Site 7 0.20 y y y
Richards Bay Engineered cap 0.00 y y y Groundwater impact: Pulp effluent

Engineered cap 0.25 y y y
Sample 1 0.25 y
Sample 2 0.25 y
Sample 3 0.25 y
Sample 4 0.25 y y
SASEX Fernwood 1 0.25 y y y y Disturbed samples for pot trials

Fernwood 2 0.25 y y y y
Fernwood 3 0.25 y y y y
Swartland 1 0.25 y y y y
Hutton 0.25 y y y y
Dundee Coal discard dump 0.00 y Leaching in coal discard dump
Mkomazi Erosion gulley: Edge 0.00 y

Erosion gulley: Floor 0.00 y
Erosion gulley: Top 0.00 y
Profile Yvonne: A Horizon y

Profile Yvonne: B Horizon y
Profile Yvonne: BSw y
Horizon
Profile Yvonne: Csd/sw y
Horizon
Profile Vicky: A Horizon y
Profile Vicky: B Horizon y
Profile Genovetta: Bs y
Horizon
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR Depth Tex. Bulk In- PURPOSE OF STUDY

Labor situ
atory
Sabie: Witklip Hutton Crest: Site A 0.00 y y y Hillslope/catchment hydrology

Hutton Crest: Site A 0.25 y
Hutton Crest: Site A 0.75 y y y
Hutton Midslope: Site C2 0.00 y

Hutton Midslope: Site C2 1.00 y y y y
Hutton Midslope: Site C2 2.50 y y y y
Hutton Forested: Site F1 0.00 y y

Riparian: Site R1 0.00 y y
Riparian: Site R1 1.00 y y
Willowfontein Market garden profile 1 0.00 y y y y Market gardenning irrigation

Market garden profile 1 0.30 y y y
Market garden profile 1 0.75 y y y y
Taylors Halt Market garden profile 1 0.00 y y y y Market gardenning irrigation

Kruger National Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.00 y Ecosytem boundaries on
Park
Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.15 y y y basalt derived black clays
Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.35 y

Nwarhlangari: Site 2 0.35 y y y
Nwarhlangari: Site 2 0.60 y y
Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.00 y y y y

Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.15 y y y y
Nwarhlangari: Site 4 0.00
Nwarhlangari: Site 5 0.00 y y y
Phugwane 2: Site 1 0.00 y y Riparian zone ecosytem

boudaries
Phugwane 2: Site 1 0.20 y y on alluvium
Phugwane 2: Site 1 0.50 y
Phugwane 2: Site 1 1.00 y y
A6

Forest/Grasslan Clovelly1100: Eucalypt 0.00 y y y y y Forested/grassland comparison

d*
Clovelly1100: Grass 0.00 y y y y y
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt 0.00 y y y y y

C.P
Kranskop1100: Grass 0.00 y y y y y
C.P
Inanda1100: Eucalypt 0.00 y y y y y

Inanda1100: Grass 0.00 y y y y y
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt 0.00 y y y y y

Kranskop1100: Grass 0.00 y y y y y
Wasbank1000: Eucalypt 0.00 y y y y y

Wasbank1000: Grass 0.00 y y y y y
Seven Oaks Bark chips growing 0.00 y y y Bark chips growing medium
Nursery medium
SASOL Rensburg: Grass site 0.10 y y GW impact/Vegetation water use

Rensburg: Grass site 0.30 y
Rensburg: Grass site 0.50
Arcadia: Forest site 0.00 y

Arcadia: Forest site 0.30 y y
Portnet Marine sand 0.18 y y y y y y Diesoline leak

Marine sand 0.68 y y
Newcastle Coal discard: 0.00 y y y y y y Coal discard dump covers
Uncompacted
Coal discard: Compacted 0.00 y y y y y
Coal discard: 0.00 y y y y y y
Uncompacted
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.30 y y y y y y
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.50 y y y y y
Estcourt soil: Compacted 0.70 y y y y y
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.70 y y y y y y
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.70 y y y y y
* After Musto,
1994
APPENDIX B
SOIL CHARACTERISTIC DATA

Soil Characteristics Data
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR LABORATORY IN-SITU

Depth Texture Density Porosity DUL WP Ks Ks K(60) K(150)
m kg/m3 m/m m/m m/m mm/h mm/h mm/h mm/h
NECF Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.00 SaLm 1436 0.458 0.280 0.160 367.56 1.24 0.20
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.30 SaLm 1640 0.381 0.200 0.090 1054.80 0.66 0.11
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.50 SaLm 1585 0.402 0.220 0.100
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.70 SaLm
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.00 SaLm 1746 0.341 0.240 0.050 388.08 2.20 0.75
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.20 SaLm 1672 0.369 0.209 0.088 39.68 1.85
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.40 SaLm 1757 0.337 0.260 0.140 39.68 61.19 11.19
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.60 SaLm 1775 0.330 0.200 0.050
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.40 SiClLm 1842 0.305
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.60 SiClLm
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.80 SiClLm
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.00 Lm 329.40 6.48 1.05
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.20 SaLm 39.68 3.58 1.28
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.40 Lm
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.50 SaLm 1791 0.324 0.210 0.020 39.68 0.72 0.29
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.70 SaLm 1760 0.336 0.226 0.030
Tukula2210: Site LC3 1.00 SaLm
Tukula2210: Site LC3 1.50 Lm 1871 0.294 0.252 0.095
Tukula2210: Site LC3 2.10 ClLm
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.00 SaLm 292.41 15.38 4.61
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.20 Lm 1892 0.286 0.244 0.050 10.68 2.29
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.50 Lm 1717 0.352 0.224 0.100 5.92 1.29
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.90 SiCl
Kroonstad1000: Site LC7 0.00 6.65 1.40 0.10
Kroonstad1000: Site LC7 0.20 SiLm 0.40 0.43
Kroonstad1000: Site LC7 0.80 ClLm 0.11 0.27 0.04
Katspruit1000: Site LC9 0.00 1.99 0.12 0.01
Katspruit1000: Site LC9 0.20 Lm 0.60 0.23
Katspruit1000: Site LC9 0.80 Lm 1.03 0.14
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 0.00 1.65 1.43 0.66
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 0.20 SaLm 1.38 1.24 0.27
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 0.80 SaClLm 5.21 1.10 0.20
Oakleaf2210: Site LC10 2.00 0.11
Site UC1 0.00 3.18 0.00 0.00
Site UC1 0.20 5.88 1.37 0.74
Site UC1 0.80 11.39 8.01 2.52
Site UC1 2.00 0.42 0.90 0.12
Site UC2 0.00 7.79 4.24 0.99
Site UC2 0.20 0.55 0.09 0.00
Site UC2 0.80 18.80 0.42 0.26
Site UC2 2.00 0.48 0.53 0.12
Katspruit1000: Site UC4 0.00 1410 0.468 0.350
Katspruit1000: Site UC4 0.20 ClLm 1516 0.428 0.362
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.00 16.78 1.09 0.31
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.20 Lm 1712 0.354 0.251 7.81 0.46 0.18
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.80 Lm 1720 0.351 0.280
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 2.00 0.13
Tukula2220: Site UC7 0.00 6.89 1.93 0.26
Tukula2220: Site UC7 0.20 SaLm 5.29 1.87 0.74
Tukula2220: Site UC7 0.80 SaLm 18.72 3.48 0.76
Tukula2220: Site UC7 2.00 1.10 0.36 0.18
Site UC8 0.00 1680 0.366 0.300 5.25 3.99 0.98
Site UC8 0.20 1799 0.321 0.260 5.71 0.50 0.22
Site UC8 0.80 5.28
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.00 1818 0.314 0.313 6.12 3.07 0.66
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.20 Lm 2.30 0.36 0.26
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.80 Cl 1410 0.468 0.347 11.32 4.35 1.22
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 2.00 0.26
Soil Characteristics Data B2
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR IN-

LABORA SITU
TORY
De Hoek: Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.00 ClLm 1378 0.480 0.330 0.200 41.04 3.96 0.35
V1H028
Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.25 Lm 41.63 15.72
Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.40 ClLm
Clovelly 17 Site F2 0.00 Lm 53.05 6.67 0.73
Clovelly 17 Site F2 0.25 ClLm 41.63 9.41
Clovelly 17 Site G1 0.00 Lm 40.63 4.68 0.40
Clovelly 17 Site G1 0.30 Lm
Clovelly 17 Site G2 0.00 Lm 40.63 5.80
Clovelly 17 Site G2 0.30 Lm 29.36
Clovelly 17 Site G2 0.70 ClLm
Clovelly 17 Site J1 0.00 ClLm
Clovelly 17 Site S1 0.00 ClLm 6.18 4.81
Clovelly 17 Site S1 0.30 ClLm
Clovelly 17 Site S1 0.50 Cl
Clovelly 17 Site S1 0.70 ClLm
Kroonstad 10 Site H1 0.00 Lm 48.76 11.75

Kroonstad 10 Site H1 0.30 Lm
Kroonstad 10 Site H1 0.70 ClLm
Kroonstad 10 Site H2 0.00 Lm 199.77 26.33 2.73
Clovelly 38 Site I1 0.00 Cl 68.02 4.35 0.95

Clovelly 38 Site I1 0.30 Cl
Clovelly 13 Site K1 0.00 ClLm 348.66 3.24
Clovelly 13 Site K1 0.30 ClLm
Clovelly 13 Site K2 0.00 66.54 4.05 0.54
Clovelly 17 Site L1 0.00 79.12 3.53
Clovelly 17 Site L2 0.00 315.64 28.32 2.90
Longlands 21 Site M1 0.00 SaLm 23.67 33.39

Longlands 21 Site M1 0.30 SaLm
Clovelly 17 Site N1 0.00 14.60 1.87

Clovelly 17 Site N2 0.00 3.10 2.60
Avalon 26 Site P1 0.00 Lm 62.21 3.46 0.36

Avalon 26 Site P1 0.30 Lm
Longlands 21 Site T1 0.00 Lm 59.60 14.70 2.40

Longlands 21 Site T1 0.30 Lm
Clovelly 18 Site U1 0.00 ClLm 204.69 9.45 1.08

Clovelly 18 Site U1 0.30 ClLm
Clovelly 18 Site U1 0.50 Cl
Clovelly 18 Site U1 0.70 Cl
Clovelly 38 Site X1 0.00 117.27 5.62 0.79
Clovelly 38 Site X2 0.00 53.45 10.00 1.16

LABORA SITU
TORY
Cathedral Lysimeter site: downslope 0.00 586.39 255.93 69.61

Peak
Lysimeter site: downslope 0.10 Lm 868 0.673 0.592 122.10 128.41 17.67
Lysimeter site: downslope 0.30 31.27 0.77
Ntabamhlo Wetland 0.00 578 0.782 0.536 0

pe
Wetland 0.38 933 0.648 0.549 0
Wetland 0.78 1277 0.518 0.364 0
Wastech Orange Bimodal sand 424 0.840 0.360 0.000

White sand 1566 0.409 0.070 0.000
Sabie: Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.00 350.24 0.51 0.070

CSIR
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.25 SaClLm 1149 0.566 13.62 7.63 2.21
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.60 13.85 3.99 0.054
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.75 SaClLm 1173 0.557
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 0.90 15.90 3.80 0.75
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 1.50 SaClLm 1187 0.552 19.91 19.86 0.57
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 1 5.00 Lm 1311 0.505
Hutton: Frankfurt Upper 2 0.25 SaLm 1131 0.573


Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.00 105.33 0.15 0.058
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.25 ClLm 1205 0.545 8.27 0.62 0.28
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.60 1334 0.497 109.24 1.06 0.31
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.75 ClLm
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 0.90 6.00 0.30 0.056
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 1.50 Lm 1321 0.501 0.433 0.365 43.91 0.11
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 3.00 Lm 1340 0.494
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 5.00 SaLm 1358 0.488
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 2 0.25 SaClLm 1191 0.550


Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 3 0.75 SaLm
Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 3 1.50 ClLm 1108 0.582
Legogotte 1 0.00 424.48 0.18 0.005

Legogotte 1 0.25 SaClLm 1275 0.519 105.25 0.49 0.40
Legogotte 1 0.75 ClLm 1311 0.505
Legogotte 1 0.90 0.517 0.270 0.209 297.67 0.05 0.023
Legogotte 1 1.50 ClLm 1251 0.528 0.431 0.365 74.43
Legogotte 1 3.00 Lm 1378 0.480
Legogotte 1 5.00 SaLm 1439 0.457
Legogotte 2 0.25 SaClLm 1406 0.469

Legogotte 3 0.25 SaClLm 1358 0.488

Legogotte 3 0.75 Cl 1200 0.547
Legogotte 3 1.50 Cl 1422 0.463

LABORA SITU
TORY
Kleinkopjes Pivot Major (Ave 35 reps) 0.00 12.6 7.2
Major: Field Capacity 0.00 1813 0.316 0.107 0.000 271.11 60.36 18.27
Major: Field Capacity 0.05 1728 0.348 0.235 0.000 116.47 31.64 1.83
Major: Field Capacity 0.55 583.59 20.72 6.38
Major: Field Capacity 0.85 1609 0.393 0.210 0.000 8.59 4.01
Major: Plinthite 1.80 1813 0.316 0.295 0.200
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.00 1558 0.412 0.218 0.130 71.70 34.43 23.58
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.15 43.78 5.79 3.85
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.55 6.84 3.44 3.33
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.85 5.03 2.48 1.34
Jacuzzi: Deficit - Spoil 1.20 1765 0.334 0.312 0.000 0.91 4.94 1.46
Jacuzzi: Leach Fraction 0.00 8.36 1.96 0.09

Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.00 1346 0.492 0.260 0.000 4.96 0.32
Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.05 4.85 0.99
Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.15 3.16 22.01 1.46
Jacuzzi: Field Capacity Spoil 2048 0.227 0.202 0.000
Pivot Four 0.25
Tweefontein FC 0.00 91.98 12.42 1.70

Tweefontein FC 0.55 34.83 8.06 1.80
Tweefontein FC 0.75 13.80 3.05 1.62
BCL mine Alluvium: Site 1 0.00 42.50 0.50 0.22

Alluvium: Site 1 0.20 72.06 0.50 0.22
Alluvium: Site 1 1.50 1.15 0.29
Hutton: Site 3 0.00 0.374 0.228 0.000 55.06 5.69 2.43
Hutton: Site 3 0.61 59.14 23.67
Hutton: Site 4 1.20 55.25 16.71
Hutton: Site 6 0.00 SaClLm
Hutton: Site 6 1.20 SaLm
Hutton: Site 7 0.00 SaLm 0.362 0.140 0.075 7.12 1.51 0.68
Hutton: Site 7 0.20 SaClLm 0.418 0.135 0.056 7.76 5.53
Richards Engineered cap 0.00 1736 0.345 0.150 0.000 180.36 1.79 1.67
Bay
Engineered cap 0.25 1200 0.547 0.250 0.000 10.80 4.99 2.49
Sample 4 0.25 0.474 0.087 0.000
SASEX Fernwood 1 0.25 Sa 1441 0.456 0.110 0.030

Fernwood 2 0.25 Sa 1420 0.464 0.130 0.052
Fernwood 3 0.25 Sa 1333 0.497 0.049 0.016
Swartland 1 0.25 SaClLm 1329 0.507 0.300 0.205

Swartland 2 0.25 SaCl 1061 0.600 0.276 0.175
Swartland 3 0.25 SaCl 1193 0.550 0.275 0.150
Hutton 0.25 LmSa 1305 0.508 0.167 0.120
Dundee Coal discard dump 0.00
Mkomazi Erosion gulley: Edge 0.00 11.59 2.48

Erosion gulley: Floor 0.00 44.89 11.36
Erosion gulley: Top 0.00 13.50 0.97
Profile Y: A Horizon Lm
Profile Y: B Horizon SiLm
Profile Y: BSw Horizon Lm
Profile Y: Csd/sw Horizon ClLm
Profile V: A Horizon Lm
Profile V: B Horizon ClLm
Profile G: Bs Horizon ClLm

LABORA SITU
TORY
Sabie: Hutton: Crest: Site A 0.00 Lm 1276 0.519 0.380

Witklip
Hutton: Crest: Site A 0.25 SaClLm
Hutton: Crest: Site A 0.50 SaClLm
Hutton: Crest: Site A 0.75 SaLm 1534 0.421 0.290
Hutton: Crest: Site A 1.00 Lm
Hutton: Crest: Site A 2.00 SaLm
Hutton: Midslope: Site C 0.00 SaClLm

Hutton: Midslope: Site C 0.50
Hutton: Midslope: Site C 0.75 ClLm
Hutton: Midslope: Site C 1.00 ClLm 1375 0.481 0.365
Hutton: Midslope: Site C 2.50 SaLm 1503 0.433 0.353
Hutton Forested: Site F 0.00 965 0.636
Riparian: Site R 0.00 1312 0.505

Riparian: Site R 1.00 1969 0.257
Willowfonte Profile 1 0.00 1332.95 0.497 0.360 0.310 24.59 12.60 4.68
in
Profile 1 0.30 12.66 8.96 6.12
Profile 1 0.75 1476.05 0.443 0.350 0.280 12.66 8.64 2.52
Profile 1 1.30 1582 0.403 0.300 0.157 9.54 2.45 1.04
Taylors Profile 1 0.00 898 0.661 0.475 0.290 13.17 5.04 2.88
Halt
Profile 1 0.89 739 0.721 0.540 0.300 12.66 6.05 3.89
Profile 1 1.06 1219 0.540 0.410 0.200 7.93 2.95 1.15
Kruger Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.00 6.07 1.29
National
Park
Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.15 Lm 13.92 1.09
Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.35 32.64 5.62

Nwarhlangari: Site 2 0.35 ClLm 125.72 40.39 7.42
Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.00 ClLm 259.74 17.67 2.14

Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.15 Cl 56.53 8.46 1.49
Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.35 86.58 29.84 4.57
Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.50 95.60 73.22 11.96
Nwarhlangari: Site 4 0.35 Cl
Nwarhlangari: Site 5 0.00 Cl 917 0.654 0.489
Phugwane 2: Site 1 0.00


LABORA SITU
TORY
Forest/Gras Clovelly1100: Eucalypt T.B 0.00 SaCl 1216 0.541 0.259 0.174 390.60 0.36 0.18
sland *
Clovelly1100: Grass T.B 0.00 SaCl 1311 0.505 0.293 0.187 375.00 14.40 1.08
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt C.P 0.00 Cl 806 0.696 0.325 0.254 581.40 18.00 2.88
Kranskop1100: Grass C.P 0.00 Cl 796 0.700 0.405 0.252 714.00 36.00 7.20
Inanda1100: Eucalypt B.H 0.00 Cl 790 0.702 0.286 0.202 1373.40 0.36 0.11
Inanda1100: Grass B.H 0.00 Cl 882 0.667 0.341 0.194 1014.60 39.60 3.60
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt G.H 0.00 Cl 700 0.736 0.357 0.245 1202.40 1.15 0.61
Kranskop1100: Grass G.H 0.00 Cl 832 0.686 0.385 0.279 644.40 5.40 0.90
Wasbank1000: Eucalypt C 0.00 LmSa 1191 0.551 0.106 0.038 1770.60 5.04 0.43
Wasbank1000: Grass C 0.00 LmSa 1474 0.444 0.155 0.062 342.60 21.60 1.44
Seven Bark chips growing medium 0.00 254 0.780 0.475 0.344 3910
Oaks
Nursery
SASOL Rensburg: Grass site 0.00 1603 0.395 0.316

Rensburg: Grass site 0.30 1518 0.427 0.34
Arcadia: Forest site 0.00 15.30 0.51 0.10

Arcadia: Forest site 0.30 1383 0.478 0.350 1.70 1.27 0.011
Arcadia: Forest site 0.50 1137 0.571 0.476
Arcadia: Forest site 0.70 1359 0.487 0.472 10.76 4 0.48
Arcadia: Forest site 0.80 3.60 1.94 0.50
Portnet Marine sand 0.18 Sa 1601 0.396 0.091 0.000 85.18 42.59
Marine sand 0.68 Sa 439.10 601.25 132.90
Newcastle Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 986 0.330 0.140 0.040 113.76 30.38 3.22
Coal discard: Compacted 0.00 Sa 1063 0.300 0.150 0.020 203.04 4.61 2.12
Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 1066 0.250 0.110 0.070 72.36 11.34 3.89
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.30 ClLm 1539 0.393 0.310 0.015 114.12 2.04 1.74
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.50 ClLm 1644 0.342 0.330 0.230 11.52 0.81 0.11
Estcourt soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1776 0.301 0.300 0.250 0.54 0.35 0.012
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1694 0.345 0.350 0.000 10.80 1.81 0.85
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.70 ClLm 1663 0.338 0.310 0.000 116.28 0.84 0.55
APPENDIX C
SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS: VAN GENUCHTEN PARAMETERS

Soil Hydraulic Characteristics C1
van Genuchten Model Parameters
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR MODEL PARAMETERS RATING
Depth Texture Density THETAS THETAR ALPHA n Ks
m kg/m3 m/m m/m mm-1 mm/h
NECF Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.00 SaLm 1436 0.378 0.000 0.02040 1.426 368.00 6
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.30 SaLm 1640 0.374 0.000 0.01680 1.2078 1543.00 6
Avalon1100: Site LC1 0.50 SaLm 1585 0.413 0.000 0.01324 1.246 8
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.00 SaLm 1746 0.375 0.000 0.00229 1.4475 5.73 6
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.60 SaLm 1775 0.343 0.000 0.09370 1.303 8
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.40 SiClLm 1842 0.546 0.000 0.41500 1.073 8
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.50 SaLm 1791 0.317 0.000 0.00312 1.256 5.12 8
Tukula2210: Site LC3 0.70 SaLm 1760 0.322 0.000 0.10000 1.076 7
Tukula2210: Site LC3 1.50 Lm 1871 0.302 0.000 0.00068 1.511 8
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.20 Lm 1892 0.296 0.000 0.00068 1.563 9.20 6
Katspruit1000: Site UC4 0.00 1410 0.480 0.000 0.05570 1.076 7

Katspruit1000: Site UC4 0.20 ClLm 1516 0.429 0.000 0.06210 1.039 7
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.20 Lm 1712 0.354 0.234 0.01650 1.674 8.90 8
Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.80 Lm 1720 0.351 0.265 0.02000 1.688 7
Site UC8 0.00 1680 0.316 0.000 0.00033 1.191 8.89 6

Site UC8 0.20 1799 0.321 0.000 0.00608 1.118 28.01 8
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.00 1818 0.326 0.000 0.00054 1.106 20.63 7
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.80 Cl 1410 0.468 0.171 0.00630 1.855 1.63 9
De Hoek: V1H028 Clovelly 17 Site F1 0.00 ClLm 1378 0.484 0.254 0.01230 1.519 41.16 7
Portnet Marine sand 0.18 Sa 1601 0.349 0.000 0.00176 2.933 133.00 7
Newcastle Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 986 0.330 0.040 0.00402 1.570 1.80 8
Coal discard: Compacted 0.00 Sa 1063 0.300 0.020 0.00251 1.608 3.60 8
Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 1066 0.300 0.070 0.00900 1.650 25.20 8
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.30 ClLm 1539 0.393 0.015 0.00377 1.122 3.60 8
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.50 ClLm 1644 0.342 0.230 0.00300 1.400 1.08 8
Estcourt soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1776 0.301 0.250 0.00010 2.000 0.01 8
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1694 0.345 0.000 0.00077 1.069 1.08 7
Cathedral Peak Lysimeter site: downslope 0.10 Lm 868 0.643 0.420 0.00391 1.232 15.90 9
Ntabamhlope Wetland 0.00 578 0.753 0.000 0.10420 1.07 8

Wetland 0.38 933 0.656 0.000 0.00418 1.106 8
Wetland 0.78 1277 0.491 0.175 0.00691 1.242 9
Wastech Orange Bimodal sand 424 0.700 0.367 0.00378 8.144 9

White sand 1566 0.413 0.000 0.00470 2.137 9
Sabie: CSIR Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 1.50 Lm 1321 0.506 0.380 0.01670 1.391 44.00 7
Legogotte 1 0.90 1280 0.380 0.000 1.60300 1.042 298.00 6
Legogotte 1 1.50 ClLm 1251 0.452 0.000 0.31900 1.067 74.48 6
Kleinkopjes Major: Topsoil 0.00 1807 0.318 0.000 0.08575 1.235 6

Major: Topsoil 0.05 1746 0.341 0.000 0.00400 1.236 8
Major: Field Capacity 1.00 1564 0.410 0.000 0.00527 1.361 1.32 5
Major: Plinthite 1.80 1794 0.323 0.200 0.00082 1.971 0.40 5
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.00 1558 0.412 0.130 0.00350 2.467 1.00 8
Jacuzzi: Deficit - Spoil 1.20 2056 0.224 0.000 0.00740 1.043 0.10 5
Jacuzzi: Field Capacity 0.00 1182 0.554 0.000 0.00225 1.772 235.00 8
Tweefontein: Field Capacity 0.00 1410 0.468 0.000 0.00380 1.336 138.00 7
BCL mine Alluvium: Site 1 0.00 1447 0.454 0.100 0.00051 1.392 45.28 6
Alluvium: Site 1 0.20 1481 0.441 0.000 0.01710 1.201 138.14 8
Alluvium: Site 1 1.50 1317 0.503 0.000 0.00790 1.141 53.04 8
Hutton: Site 3 0.00 1659 0.374 0.000 0.00390 1.286 55.19 9
Hutton: Site 7 0.00 SaLm 1691 0.362 0.075 0.00819 1.73 7.13 8
Hutton: Site 7 0.20 SaClLm 1542 0.418 0.056 0.00941 1.601 71.86 8
Hydrological Processes Research: Experiments and C2
Measurements of Soil Hydraulic Characteristics
van Genuchten Model Parameters
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR RATING
MODEL
PARAM
ETERS
Depth Texture Density THETAS THETAR ALPHA n Ks
m kg/m3 m/m m/m mm-1 mm/h
Richards Bay Engineered fill 0.25 1394 0.474 0.041 0.00300 3.051 10
SASEX Fernwood 1 0.25 Sa 1441 0.456 0.000 0.11680 1.272 142.00 4

Fernwood 2 0.25 Sa 1420 0.464 0.000 0.01310 1.467 327.70 6
Fernwood 3 0.25 Sa 1333 0.497 0.000 0.00350 3.031 185.70 6
Swartland 1 0.25 SaClLm 1306 0.507 0.150 0.00208 2.731 5.53 5
Swartland 2 0.25 SaCl 1061 0.600 0.000 0.00581 1.416 799.40 5
Swartland 3 0.25 SaCl 1193 0.550 0.000 0.00318 1.703 500.00 7
Hutton 0.25 LmSa 1305 0.597 0.070 0.06370 1.227 981.00 5
Seven Oaks Nursery Bark chips growing medium 0.00 254 0.780 0.371 0.00153 1.533 3910.00 10
SASOL Rensburg: Grass site 0.00 1603 0.395 0.000 0.01020 1.0909 9
Rensburg: Grass site 0.30 1518 0.427 0.285 0.01140 1.45 9
Arcadia: Forest site 0.30 1383 0.478 0.000 0.01330 1.557 7
Sabie: Witklip Hutton Crest: Site A 0.00 Lm 1276 0.519 0.279 0.10900 1.18 6
Hutton Crest: Site A 0.75 SaLm 1534 0.421 0.276 0.00501 4.851 8
Hutton Midslope: Site C2 1.00 ClLm 1375 0.455 0.142 0.00674 1.156 7
Hutton Midslope: Site C2 2.50 SaLm 1503 0.433 0.346 0.00510 16.11 7
Hutton Forested: Site F1 0.00 965 0.636 0.236 0.00097 3.733 9

Riparian: Site R1 0.00 1312 0.505 0.300 0.00563 2.142 9
Riparian: Site R1 1.00 1969 0.257 0.143 0.01730 1.133 8
Willowfontein Profile 1: Market garden 0.00 1332.95 0.497 0.293 0.00386 1.769 24.60 8
Profile 1: Market garden 0.30 1476.05 0.443 0.310 0.00329 2.265 12.53 7
Profile 1: Market garden 0.75 1476.05 0.443 0.276 0.00070 2.691 12.60 6
Profile 1: Market garden 1.30 1582 0.403 0.000 0.00346 1.228 18.20 7
Taylors Halt Profile 1: Market garden 0.00 898 0.661 0.260 0.00253 1.513 13.51 8
Kruger National Park Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.15 Lm 1034 0.634 0.000 0.00201 1.180 100.00 5
Nwarhlangari: Site 2 0.60 1299 0.510 0.000 0.00037 4.055 15.08 5
Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.00 ClLm 1163 0.561 0.000 0.00090 1.268 64.00 6
Nwarhlangari: Site 3 0.15 Cl 1073 0.595 0.310 0.00515 1.588 24.08 6
Nwarhlangari: Site 4 0.35 Cl 1113 0.580 0.000 0.13400 1.042 6


Nwarhlangari: Site 5 0.35 1036 0.609 0.371 0.00812 2.008 8
Forest/Grassland * Clovelly1100: Eucalypt T.B 0.00 SaCl 1216 0.541 0.228 0.00540 2.525 0.27 9
Clovelly1100: Grass T.B 0.00 SaCl 1311 0.505 0.239 0.00776 1.694 14.76 9
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt C.P 0.00 Cl 806 0.696 0.234 0.01065 1.449 75.60 9
Kranskop1100: Grass C.P 0.00 Cl 796 0.700 0.271 0.00432 1.470 38.88 9
Inanda1100: Eucalypt B.H 0.00 Cl 790 0.702 0.206 0.00567 1.918 0.72 9
Inanda1100: Grass B.H 0.00 Cl 882 0.667 0.250 0.00941 1.501 129.24 9
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt G.H 0.00 Cl 700 0.736 0.220 0.00410 1.650 2.16 9
Kranskop1100: Grass G.H 0.00 Cl 832 0.686 0.288 0.00544 1.578 8.28 9
Wasbank1000: Eucalypt C 0.00 LmSa 1191 0.551 0.038 0.01186 1.730 7.92 9
Wasbank1000: Grass C 0.00 LmSa 1474 0.444 0.038 0.00520 1.533 23.11 9
Soil Hydraulic Characteristics C3
Modified van Genuchten Model Parameters
Depth Texture THETAS THETAR ALPHA n Ks Km ALPHA2 n2
m m/m m/m mm-1 mm/h mm/h mm-1
NECF Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.00 SaLm 0.375 0.000 0.0023 1.45 5.73 388 0.700 3.0 6
Forest/Grassland * Clovelly1100: Eucalypt T.B 0.00 SaCl 0.541 0.228 0.0054 2.53 0.27 392 0.750 3.0 9
Clovelly1100: Grass T.B 0.00 SaCl 0.505 0.239 0.0078 1.69 14.76 374 0.700 2.5 9
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt C.P 0.00 Cl 0.696 0.234 0.0107 1.45 75.60 583 0.500 1.8 9
Kranskop1100: Grass C.P 0.00 Cl 0.700 0.271 0.0043 1.47 38.88 713 0.500 2.0 9
Inanda1100: Eucalypt B.H 0.00 Cl 0.702 0.206 0.0057 1.92 0.72 1375 0.700 4.0 9
Inanda1100: Grass B.H 0.00 Cl 0.667 0.250 0.0094 1.50 129.24 1015 0.400 2.0 9
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt G.H 0.00 Cl 0.736 0.220 0.0041 1.65 2.16 1202 0.700 3.0 9
Kranskop1100: Grass G.H 0.00 Cl 0.686 0.288 0.0054 1.58 8.28 644 0.700 3.0 9
Wasbank1000: Eucalypt C 0.00 LmSa 0.551 0.038 0.0119 1.73 7.92 1771 0.700 3.0 9
Wasbank1000: Grass C 0.00 LmSa 0.444 0.038 0.0052 1.53 23.11 34 0.650 3.0 9
Newcastle Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 0.330 0.040 0.0040 1.57 1.80 108 0.020 2.0 9
Coal discard: Compacted 0.00 Sa 0.300 0.020 0.0025 1.61 3.60 198 0.200 2.4 9
Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 0.300 0.070 0.0090 1.65 25.20 54 1.000 3.0 9
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.30 ClLm 0.393 0.015 0.0038 1.12 3.60 119 5.000 10.0 9
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.50 ClLm 0.342 0.230 0.0030 1.40 1.08 11 5.000 5.0 9
Estcourt soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 0.301 0.250 0.0001 2.00 0.01 0 0.030 4.0 8
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 0.345 0.000 0.0008 1.07 1.08 11 0.020 3.0 9
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.70 ClLm 0.338 0.000 0.0008 1.12 5.40 108 0.300 3.0 9
APPENDIX D
SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS: BROOKS-COREY PARAMETERS

Soil Hydraulic Characteristics D1
Brooks-Corey Model Parameters
Depth Texture Density THETAS THETAR hd lamda Ks
m kg/m3 m/m m/m mm mm/h
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.40 SiClLm 1842 0.447 0.000 277.8 0.130 8
Tukula2210: Site LC3 1.50 Lm 1871 0.294 0.000 719.4 0.332 9

Katspruit1000: Site UC5 0.20 Lm 1712 0.248 0.228 177.0 2.525 2.87 8
Site UC8 0.00 1680 0.306 0.000 909.1 0.063 2.64 6

Site UC8 0.20 1799 0.321 0.000 19.7 0.032 1.39 7
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.00 1818 0.318 0.000 476.2 0.035 2.35 6
Portnet Marine sand 0.18 Sa 1601 0.349 0.000 349.7 1.303 125 7
Newcastle Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 986 0.413 0.050 65.0 0.470 113.76 9
Coal discard: Compacted 0.00 Sa 1063 0.401 0.000 80.0 0.390 203.04 8
Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 1066 0.367 0.075 68.0 0.650 72.36 9
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.50 ClLm 1644 0.342 0.200 800.0 0.400 11.52 8
Estcourt soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1776 0.301 0.220 700.0 0.250 0.54 7
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1694 0.345 0.220 400.0 0.450 10.80 8
Cathedral Peak Catchment 6: near lysimeter site 0.10 Lm 868 0.666 0.300 21.8 0.076 15.90 9

Wetland 0.38 933 0.656 0.000 129.9 0.084 8
Wetland 0.78 1277 0.491 0.000 71.9 0.108 9
Wastech Orange Bimodal sand 424 0.700 0.330 211.9 2.560 9

White sand 1566 0.413 0.000 157.0 0.924 9
Sabie: CSIR Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 1.50 Lm 1321 0.495 0.270 7.8 0.075 43.91 7
Legogotte 1 0.90 1280 0.38 0.000 0.7 0.042 299.00 7
Legogotte 1 1.50 ClLm 1251 0.480 0.000 0.1 0.049 74.40 6
Kleinkopjes Colliery Major: Topsoil 0.00 1807 0.266 0.000 120.8 0.403 6
Major: Topsoil 0.05 1746 0.337 0.000 147.1 0.189 9
Major: Plinthite 1.80 1794 0.382 0.000 480.8 0.377 0.41 8
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.00 1558 0.412 0.065 114.7 0.390 1.00 8
Jacuzzi: Deficit - Spoil 1.20 2056 0.318 0.180 144.9 1.018 0.10 7
Alluvium: Site 1 0.20 1420 0.464 0.171 185.2 0.833 18.31 6
Alluvium: Site 1 1.50 1333 0.497 0.000 29.3 0.086 5.00 7
Hutton: Site 3 0.00 1659 0.374 0.000 193.8 0.273 16.93 6
Hutton: Site 7 0.00 SaLm 1691 0.362 0.091 751.9 2.694 2.61 7
Soil Hydraulic Characteristics D2
Brooks-Corey Model Parameters
PROJECT DESCRIPTOR MODEL RATING
PARAME
TERS
Depth Texture Density THETAS THETAR hd lamda Ks
m kg/m3 m/m m/m mm mm/h
Richards Bay Sample 4 0.25 1394 0.474 0.028 213.2 1.154 10
SASEX Fernwood 1 0.25 Sa 1441 0.440 0.050 8.1 0.690 3032.00 6

Fernwood 2 0.25 Sa 1420 0.464 0.000 36.2 0.392 926.70 8
Fernwood 3 0.25 Sa 1333 0.470 0.000 9.3 0.341 4038.00 7
Swartland 1 0.25 SaClLm 1329 0.507 0.000 182.1 0.284 12.10 9
Swartland 2 0.25 SaCl 1061 0.600 0.000 109.6 0.367 328.00 8
Swartland 3 0.25 SaCl 1193 0.550 0.000 147.3 0.366 479.20 9
Hutton 0.25 LmSa 1305 0.508 0.000 161.3 0.446 512.00 7
Seven Oaks Nursery Bark chips growing medium 0.00 254 0.780 0.344 452.5 0.407 3910 10
Riparian: Site R1 0.00 1312 0.505 0.288 101.6 0.675 9

Riparian: Site R1 1.00 1969 0.257 0.044 27.1 0.052 8
Willowfontein Profile 1: Market garden 0.00 1333 0.497 0.336 159.7 0.997 24.10 6
Kruger National Park Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.15 Lm 1034 0.614 0.000 61.0 0.051 13.92 6
Nwarhlangari: Site 2 0.60 1299 0.510 0.000 1282.1 0.459 40 5


Forest/Grassland * Clovelly1100: Eucalypt T.B 0.00 SaCl 1216 0.430 0.210 126.9 1.005 0.36 9
Clovelly1100: Grass T.B 0.00 SaCl 1311 0.400 0.230 2371.0 1.005 6.48 9
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt C.P 0.00 Cl 806 0.556 0.304 54.8 1.005 27 9

Kranskop1100: Grass C.P 0.00 Cl 796 0.551 0.318 243.9 1.005 12.6 9
Inanda1100: Eucalypt B.H 0.00 Cl 790 0.606 0.232 107.5 1.005 0.504 9
Inanda1100: Grass B.H 0.00 Cl 882 0.502 0.298 48.1 1.005 55.8 9
Kranskop1100: Eucalypt G.H 0.00 Cl 700 0.592 0.250 248.9 1.005 1.08 9
Kranskop1100: Grass G.H 0.00 Cl 832 0.532 0.342 68.1 1.005 5.04 9
Wasbank1000: Eucalypt C 0.00 LmSa 1191 0.431 0.110 62.9 1.005 3.96 9
Wasbank1000: Grass C 0.00 LmSa 1474 0.360 0.110 106.4 1.005 10.08 9
APPENDIX E
SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS: CAMPBELL PARAMETERS

Soil Hydraulic Characteristics E1
Campbell Parameters
Depth Texture Density THETAS he hi b Ks
(measured)
m kg/m3 m/m mm mm mm/h
Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 0.00 SaLm 1746 0.336 388.08

Pinedene1100: SiteLC2 1.40 SiClLm 1842 0.447 2.0 3.3 15.0
Tukula2210: Site LC3 1.50 Lm 1871 0.294 740.0 1175.1 3.0 9
Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.20 Lm 1892 0.286 800.0 1262.0 2.5 10

Kroonstad2000: Site LC4 0.50 Lm 1717 0.314


Site UC8 0.00 1680 0.302 400.0 656.7 29.0 5.25 7

Site UC8 0.20 1799 0.321 180.0 292.4 8.0 5.71 7
Oakleaf2120: Site UC9 0.00 1818 0.314 900.0 1473.8 18.0 2.35 4
Portnet Marine sand 0.18 Sa 1601 0.349 4.0 6.2 2.0 85.18 5
Newcastle Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 986 0.413 2.0 3.2 4.6 113.76
Coal discard: Compacted 0.00 Sa 1063 0.401 5.0 8.0 3.8 203.04
Coal discard: Uncompacted 0.00 Sa 1066 0.367 2.0 3.2 4.6 72.36
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.30 ClLm 1539 0.393 5.0 8.2 11.0 114.12
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.50 ClLm 1644 0.342 100.0 162.4 8.0 11.52
Estcourt soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1776 0.301 500.0 818.4 17.0 0.54
Avalon soil: Compacted 0.70 SaClLm 1694 0.345 100.0 163.5 15.0 10.80
Avalon soil: Uncompacted 0.70 ClLm 1663 0.338 10.0 16.4 16.0 116.28
Cathedral Peak Catchment 6: near lysimeter site 0.10 Lm 868 0.666 122.10

Wetland 0.38 933 0.656 300.0 487.3 8.0 6
Wetland 0.78 1277 0.491 24.0 39.1 11.0 8
Wastech Orange Bimodal sand 424 0.700

White sand 1566 0.413
Sabie: CSIR Hutton: Frankfurt Lower 1 1.50 Lm 1321 0.495 43.91

Legogotte 1 0.90 1280 0.380 297.67
Legogotte 1 1.50 ClLm 1251 0.480 74.43
Kleinkopjes Colliery Major: Topsoil 0.00 1807 0.266

Major: Topsoil 0.05 1746 0.337
Major: Plinthite 1.80 1794 0.382 520.0 842.8 7.0 0.41 8
Jacuzzi: Deficit 0.00 1558 0.412 35.0 56.4 5.0 1.00 9
Jacuzzi: Deficit - Spoil 1.20 2056 0.318 0.10
Alluvium: Site 1 0.20 1420 0.464 10.0 16.3 9.0 71.95 7
Alluvium: Site 1 1.50 1333 0.497 60.0 97.7 10.0 5.00 9
Hutton: Site 3 0.00 1659 0.374 120.0 192.2 4.0 16.93 6
Hutton: Site 7 0.00 SaLm 1691 0.362 25.0 40.0 4.0 3.26 10
Soil Hydraulic Characteristics E2
Campbell Parameters
Depth Texture Density THETAS he hi b Ks
m kg/m3 m/m mm mm mm/h
Richards Bay Sample 4 0.25 1394 0.474
SASEX Fernwood 1 0.25 Sa 1441 0.440 10.0 15.9 3.0 9

Fernwood 2 0.25 Sa 1420 0.464 17.0 27.0 3.0 9
Fernwood 3 0.25 Sa 1333 0.470 10.0 15.6 2.0 7
Swartland 1 0.25 SaClLm 1329 0.507 60.0 96.6 5.0 9
Swartland 2 0.25 SaCl 1061 0.600 10.0 16.2 6.0 8
Swartland 3 0.25 SaCl 1193 0.550 200.0 312.5 2.0 9
Hutton 0.25 LmSa 1305 0.508 18.0 28.8 4.0 9
Seven Oaks Nursery Bark chips growing medium 0.00 254 0.780
Riparian: Site R1 0.00 1312 0.505 18.0 29.4 11.0 8

Riparian: Site R1 1.00 1969 0.257 50.0 82.0 21.0 9
Willowfontein Profile 1: Market garden 0.00 1333 0.497 120.0 194.5 7.0 24.59 7
Kruger National Park Nwarhlangari: Site 1 0.15 Lm 1034 0.614 200.0 326.7 13.0 6



K5 744 SoilHydraulics 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

K5 744 SoilHydraulics 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

K5 744 SoilHydraulics 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES RESEARCH:

EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS OF

S. Lorentz, P. Goba and J. Pretorius

School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology

Report to the Water Research Commission on the Project

Head of School : Professor P. Lyne

WRC Report No : K5/744

“Experimentation and Laboratory Measurement for Hydrological Process Research”.

Mr H. Maaren Water Research Commission (Chairman)

EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS

• infiltration, redistribution, percolation and groundwater interactions,

INSTRUMENTATION METHODOLOGIES AND EVALUATION

Item Description Qty Purpose

Sundry Equipment (1996/97 Acquisition)

EVALUATION OF POROUS MEDIA CHARACTERISTICS

Texture Class UNSODA This Study

Sand 184 23.6 8 3.9

Loamy sand 64 8.2 3 1.4

Sandy loam 133 17.1 46 22.2

Sandy clay loam 52 6.6 24 11.6

Silt 3 0.4 0 0.0

Silt loam 142 18.2 2 1.0

Clay loam 36 4.6 43 20.8

Loam 70 9.0 52 25.1

Silty clay loam 33 4.2 3 1.4

Sandy clay 3 .4 4 1.9

Silty clay 21 2.7 1 .5

Clay 39 5.0 21 10.1

TOTAL 780 100.0 207 100.0

Table ES-3. Summary of correlation between predicted water contents

Grassland 31 0.226 0.062 0.221 0.055

Forested 7 0.450 0.089 0.500 0.071

Disturbed 16 0.897 0.036 0.809 0.033

DUL = Drained Upper Limit; WP = Wilting Point

EVALUATION OF CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS

Average Standard deviation

Figure ES-1 Evaluation of van Genuchten parameter, alpha.

Figure ES-2. Comparison of predicted and measured saturated hydraulic conductivity.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES RESEARCH:

EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS

2. LABORATORY FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT 2-1

3. SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISATION METHODS 3-1

3.1 Water Retention Characteristic 3-1

3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity 3-6

3.3 Solute Transport Characteristic 3 - 20

4. SOIL MOISTURE STATUS MONITORING METHODS 4-1

4.1 Automated Teniometers 4-1

4.2 Time Domain Reflectometry and Heat Dissipation Sensors 4-6

5.1 Overview of Measurement and Monitoring Studies 5-1

5.2 Summary of Soil Types and Measurements 5-1

5.3 Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions 5-7

6. SOIL HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS 6-1

6.1 Evaluation of Hydraulic Characteristic Functions 6-1

6.2 Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions 6-8

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1

APPENDIX A List of Soil Characteristic Measurements A1

APPENDIX B Soil Characteristic Data B1