RESPECTED SIR/MAM
i m mahesh. i m working on simulation of soil moisture in a rice field using hydrus2D model. i have all the data required but i do not know how to run this model and to simulate it. please give me some examples on this.
thanks
Hydrus2D

 Posts: 3
 Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:02 am
 Location: India
 Contact:
See:
Hydrus2D (old): http://www.pcprogress.com/en/Default.a ... tutorials
Hydrus1D: http://www.pcprogress.com/en/Default.a ... tutorials
HYDRUS 2D/3D: http://www.pcprogress.com/en/Default.a ... tutorials
Regards
Mirek
Hydrus2D (old): http://www.pcprogress.com/en/Default.a ... tutorials
Hydrus1D: http://www.pcprogress.com/en/Default.a ... tutorials
HYDRUS 2D/3D: http://www.pcprogress.com/en/Default.a ... tutorials
Regards
Mirek
Re: Hydrus2D
Dear Jirka . . .
I wanted to simulate the lateral infiltration in a furrow with 5 and 10cm water level. So I did the simulations with HYDRUS2D. In the next step, to determine the infiltrated water in cm, I divided the cumulative infiltrated water in cm2 to the wetted perimeter in cm.Then, I did the other simulations with HYDRUS1D and the vertical infiltration were determined. By deducting the vertical infiltration from the cumulative infiltration, the lateral infiltration was calculated.
When the amount of lateral infiltration in 5 and 10cm water level are compared, it can be seen that by increasing the water level, lateral infiltration is reduced. For example:
Wetted Perimeter (cm): 5cm water level = 36cm , 10cm water level = 57cm
Cumulative infiltration by HYDRUS2D (cm2): 5cm water level = 346cm2 , 10cm water level = 551cm2
Vertical infiltration by HYDRUS1D (cm): 5cm water level = 7.34cm , 10cm water level = 8.41cm
Lateral infiltration: 5cm water level = 2.1cm , 10cm water level = 1.1cm
The result is different from the reality.
What is the problem?
Is the HYDRUS1D has overestimated? Or HYDRUS2D has underestimated?
In both simulation, the van genuchten parameters, initial conditions, boundary conditions and etc. are equal and similar.
Best regards.
I wanted to simulate the lateral infiltration in a furrow with 5 and 10cm water level. So I did the simulations with HYDRUS2D. In the next step, to determine the infiltrated water in cm, I divided the cumulative infiltrated water in cm2 to the wetted perimeter in cm.Then, I did the other simulations with HYDRUS1D and the vertical infiltration were determined. By deducting the vertical infiltration from the cumulative infiltration, the lateral infiltration was calculated.
When the amount of lateral infiltration in 5 and 10cm water level are compared, it can be seen that by increasing the water level, lateral infiltration is reduced. For example:
Wetted Perimeter (cm): 5cm water level = 36cm , 10cm water level = 57cm
Cumulative infiltration by HYDRUS2D (cm2): 5cm water level = 346cm2 , 10cm water level = 551cm2
Vertical infiltration by HYDRUS1D (cm): 5cm water level = 7.34cm , 10cm water level = 8.41cm
Lateral infiltration: 5cm water level = 2.1cm , 10cm water level = 1.1cm
The result is different from the reality.
What is the problem?
Is the HYDRUS1D has overestimated? Or HYDRUS2D has underestimated?
In both simulation, the van genuchten parameters, initial conditions, boundary conditions and etc. are equal and similar.
Best regards.
Re: Hydrus2D
I'm on vacations and will not have time to look at this problem (which I do not think is a problem only the incorrect interpretation) until I return. J.
Question
Dear Jirka . . .
I wanted to simulate the lateral infiltration in a furrow with 5 and 10cm water level. So I did the simulations with HYDRUS2D. In the next step, to determine the infiltrated water in cm, I divided the cumulative infiltrated water in cm2 to the wetted perimeter in cm.Then, I did the other simulations with HYDRUS1D and the vertical infiltration were determined. By deducting the vertical infiltration from the cumulative infiltration, the lateral infiltration was calculated.
When the amount of lateral infiltration in 5 and 10cm water level are compared, it can be seen that by increasing the water level, lateral infiltration is reduced. For example:
Wetted Perimeter (cm): 5cm water level = 36cm , 10cm water level = 57cm
Cumulative infiltration by HYDRUS2D (cm2): 5cm water level = 346cm2 , 10cm water level = 551cm2
Vertical infiltration by HYDRUS1D (cm): 5cm water level = 7.34cm , 10cm water level = 8.41cm
Lateral infiltration: 5cm water level = 2.1cm , 10cm water level = 1.1cm
The result is different from the reality.
What is the problem?
Is the HYDRUS1D has overestimated? Or HYDRUS2D has underestimated?
In both simulation, the van genuchten parameters, initial conditions, boundary conditions and etc. are equal and similar.
Best regards.
I wanted to simulate the lateral infiltration in a furrow with 5 and 10cm water level. So I did the simulations with HYDRUS2D. In the next step, to determine the infiltrated water in cm, I divided the cumulative infiltrated water in cm2 to the wetted perimeter in cm.Then, I did the other simulations with HYDRUS1D and the vertical infiltration were determined. By deducting the vertical infiltration from the cumulative infiltration, the lateral infiltration was calculated.
When the amount of lateral infiltration in 5 and 10cm water level are compared, it can be seen that by increasing the water level, lateral infiltration is reduced. For example:
Wetted Perimeter (cm): 5cm water level = 36cm , 10cm water level = 57cm
Cumulative infiltration by HYDRUS2D (cm2): 5cm water level = 346cm2 , 10cm water level = 551cm2
Vertical infiltration by HYDRUS1D (cm): 5cm water level = 7.34cm , 10cm water level = 8.41cm
Lateral infiltration: 5cm water level = 2.1cm , 10cm water level = 1.1cm
The result is different from the reality.
What is the problem?
Is the HYDRUS1D has overestimated? Or HYDRUS2D has underestimated?
In both simulation, the van genuchten parameters, initial conditions, boundary conditions and etc. are equal and similar.
Best regards.
Re: Hydrus2D
I do not think that you give enough information for me to be able to follow your calculations (what you subtract from what and what you divide by what).
I'm pretty sure that both HYDRUS1D and HYDRUS2D give you the right answer (if you use the right discretization), which is fully in agreement with reality. They give you a precise solution of the Richards equation; they do not underestimate or overestimate the flux (as you can likely see from the mass balance error, which should be below 1%). Thus, I still think that you incorrectly interpret the results.
J.
I'm pretty sure that both HYDRUS1D and HYDRUS2D give you the right answer (if you use the right discretization), which is fully in agreement with reality. They give you a precise solution of the Richards equation; they do not underestimate or overestimate the flux (as you can likely see from the mass balance error, which should be below 1%). Thus, I still think that you incorrectly interpret the results.
J.