4.2 Article

Comparison of Two-Parameter Vertical Ponded Infiltration Equations

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING & ASSESSMENT
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 179-186

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10666-020-09727-5

Keywords

Soil infiltration equations; Hydraulic conductivity; Sorptivity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared five two-parameter vertical one-dimensional infiltration equations over different time ranges and found that the S/Ks ratio may be a key factor in selecting the appropriate infiltration equation.
Five two-parameter (sorptivity,S, and saturated hydraulic conductivity,K-s) vertical one-dimensional infiltration equations are compared quantitatively over the whole time range from zero to very long times. These equations are Green-Ampt (GA), Talsma-Parlange (TP), Brutsaert (B), Swartzendruber (SW), and Valiantzas (V). The results showed that the cumulative infiltrationi(t) predictions of equations B, SW, and V are between the two limit soils characterized by GA and TP equations. Compared with the TP equation, the equations of B, SW, and V showed a maximum discrepancy of 3.8%, 5.6%, and 9.88%, respectively, while compared with the GA equation showed a maximum discrepancy of 14.8%, 11.4%, and 7.8%, respectively. However, the differences among SW, B, and V are lower. The study of cumulative infiltration data of four porous media showed that theS/K(s)ratio may be a criterion for the appropriate infiltration equation selection. TheS/K(s)values for the porous media studied ranged from 2.6 to 136 min(0.5). The V equation showed very good prediction of the results in the case of lowS/K(s)values (coarse-textured soils), while the SW equation in the case of high values (fine-textured soils). Also, the linear form of the V equation was applied for direct estimation of the two parameters,SandK(s), using vertical infiltration data of four porous media with relatively good results (0.980 < R-2 < 0.999).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available