Premium
Hydraulic properties of the porous‐fiber module and its effects on infiltration and runoff
Author(s) -
Lv Zhenyu,
Qin Tianling,
Wang Yu,
Liu Shanshan,
Nie Hanjiang,
Wang Jianwei
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.1002/agj2.20630
Subject(s) - infiltration (hvac) , surface runoff , soil science , environmental science , soil water , porosity , bulk density , hydrology (agriculture) , materials science , geology , geotechnical engineering , ecology , composite material , biology
The porous‐fiber module (PFM) composed of modified hydrophilic rock wool is an advanced product used for rainfall regulation. However, the hydraulic properties of the PFM and the effects of PFM embedding on key water cycle processes are unclear. In this study, to determine the water absorption and desorption properties of the PFM, a wetting front experiment was conducted in a soil box, comprehensively considering several factors, including two densities of PFM, three PFM cube side lengths, and three initial soil water contents. Furthermore, simulated rainfall experiments were conducted with three types of rainfall intensities to quantify the impacts of PFM embedding with two different patterns on soil infiltration and runoff. The results show that the maximum water absorption volume of each PFM was >93%, with that of the PFM with high density 1.75% higher than that of the low‐density PFM. For a fully saturated PFM in soil, the horizontal and vertical wetting front advance rates gradually decreased and exhibited a power function relationship with time. The results of the simulated rainfall experiments indicate that a PFM cube embedded in the soil increased the infiltration rate in the later period of rainfall events, while a PFM slice separating the upper and lower soil layers showed an opposite trend. Both PFM embedding patterns effectively increased the average cumulative infiltration of the soil by 0.5–4.5% compared with that of the control groups. Moreover, they delayed the runoff time by 5–35 min and reduced the volume of the surface runoff by 5–100% under various rainfall intensities.