<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Ning Lu</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Jonathan W. Godt</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>William J. Likos</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2014</dc:date>
  <dc:description>Accurate estimates of soil hydraulic parameters representing wetting and drying paths are required for predicting hydraulic and mechanical responses in a large number of applications. A comprehensive suite of laboratory experiments was conducted to measure hysteretic soil-water characteristic curves (SWCCs) representing a wide range of soil types. Results were used to quantitatively assess differences and uncertainty in three simplifications frequently adopted to estimate wetting-path SWCC parameters from more easily measured drying curves. They are the following: (1) α&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;=2α&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt;, (2) n&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;=n&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt;, and (3) θ&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;=θ&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;, where α, n, and θ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; are fitting parameters entering van Genuchten’s commonly adopted SWCC model, and the superscripts w and d indicate wetting and drying paths, respectively. The average ratio αw/αd for the data set was 2.24±1.25. Nominally cohesive soils had a lower α&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;/α&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt; ratio (1.73±0.94) than nominally cohesionless soils (3.14±1.27). The average n&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;/n&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt; ratio was 1.01±0.11 with no significant dependency on soil type, thus confirming the n&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;=n&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt; simplification for a wider range of soil types than previously available. Water content at zero suction during wetting (θ&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;) was consistently less than during drying (θ&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;) owing to air entrapment. The θ&lt;sup&gt;w&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;/θ&lt;sup&gt;d&lt;/sup&gt;s&lt;/sup&gt; ratio averaged 0.85±0.10 and was comparable for nominally cohesive (0.87±0.11) and cohesionless (0.81±0.08) soils. Regression statistics are provided to quantitatively account for uncertainty in estimating hysteretic retention curves. Practical consequences are demonstrated for two case studies.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001071</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Society of Civil Engineers</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Hysteresis and uncertainty in soil water-retention curve parameters</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>