Assessment of Three Infiltration Formulas based on Model

Fitting on Richards Equation

Shaohua Marko Hsu, P.E., M.ASCE1; Chuen-Fa Ni2; and Pi-Fang Hung3

Abstract: The Richards equation was used to numerically model 1D flow within unsaturated topsoil and solved using a two-step
Crank-Nicolson scheme. Under constant water supply, the Darcy velocity obtained at the upper boundary, the ground surface, is regarded
as the correct infiltration rate. Based on this, three infiltration-capacity formulas by Horton, Philip, and Green-Ampt were evaluated for
three types of soil. Results demonstrated that all three formulas provide similar fits to the numerical results, but the Horton formula differs
most as compared to the other two formulas in terms of infiltration rate. The cumulative infiltration curves were not distinguishable from
each other. By perturbing the rainfall intensity, duration, and initial soil moisture content, regression results demonstrated that only the
saturated hydraulic conductivity K s can be used as a good estimator for parameter k or f c in all formulas. The other two parameters,
however, will deviate from their original values. Only the late-time infiltration parameter k or f c can be predicted a priori using measured
k s values.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE1084-069920027:5373
CE Database keywords: Infiltration; Percolation; Models.

Introduction Cherry 1979. Richards equation describes both infiltration as

Infiltration is the process of water penetration from the ground
surface into the soil and is an important process in the hydrologi-
cal cycle by which surface runoff and groundwater recharge can
be linked. Soil water movement or percolation is the process of
water flow from one point to another within the soil. Infiltration
and percolation cannot be treated independently, because the rate
of infiltration is controlled by the rate of percolation below the
surface. Buckingham 1907 modified Darcys law, originally de-
fined for only saturated conditions, to describe unsaturated flow
by generalizing the relationship between soil water pressure head
and hydraulic conductivity K. He reasoned that K becomes a
function of the volumetric soil water content , and called it the
capillary conductivity. Buckingham also reasoned that the soil
water potential in an unsaturated soil would be negative be-
cause of the presence of capillary suction forces. Combining
Buckinghams extended Darcys law with the law of mass con-
servation resulted in a partial differential equation of 1D vertical
flow in an unsaturated soil and was named Richards equation,
1931 Jury et al. 1991; Segol 1993; Chow et al. 1988; Freeze and
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering, Feng Chia
Univ., Taichung, Taiwan 407, R.O.C.
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48823.
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Information Management, Overseas
Chinese Institute of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan 407, R.O.C.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2003. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on May 6, 1999; approved on January 4, 2002. This
well as percolation in unsaturated soil Smith and Woolhiser
1971.
For describing infiltration capacities, the Horton Bouwer
1978; Chow et al. 1988; Eaglson 1970, Philip Chow et al. 1988,
and Green-Ampt Chow et al. 1988; Rawls et al. 1983 formulas
are the most well-known empirical or semiempirical formulas.
According to their concepts and assumptions, the Horton formula
1933 is a conceptual model and the Green-Ampt formula 1911
is a physically approximative and mathematical exact solution.
The Philip formula 1957a,b,c is a mathematical approximative
solution Chow 1988; Raudkivi 1979. In this study, the Richards
equation for the soil wetting process is assumed to be able to fully
represent the infiltration/percolation processes and is solved nu-
merically. The numerical scheme is first verified Hsu et al.
1995, and the results are utilized to assess the Horton, Green-
Ampt, and Philip formulas in three generic types of soil, which
are sand, loam, and clay.
Smith 1972 solved Richards equation for six soils and con-
structed an infiltration formula with power-law style similar to the
Kostiakov equation, in which there are three parameters each
unique for a given soil, given initial saturation, and given rainfall
rate. Another power law relation was constructed between pond-
ing time and the rainfall rate after an envelope passing through
the locus of all ponding times was connected on plots of a family
of infiltration curves for different rainfall rate tests.
In this article, efforts were devoted to solve the Richards
equation. The purpose, however, was not to construct a new in-
filtration formula but to assess the existing ones.
Governing Equation and Infiltration Formulas
Based on Buckingham-Darcys law and the mass conservation
law for water flow, the 1D Richards equation can be derived as
Jury et al. 1991; Segol 1993; Freeze and Cherry 1979:

paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 5,
September 1, 2002. ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2002/5-
M k k (1)
373379/$8.00$.50 per page. t z z z

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 / 373

 Eagleson 1970 and Raudkivi 1979 have shown that the Table 1. Soil Properties and Base Conditions of Sand, Loam, and
Horton formula, Eq. 2 can be derived from the Richards equa- Clay Soil
tion if k() and D() are assumed as constants and independent van Genuchten
of the moisture content of the soil: parameters Sand Loam Clay
t
f p t f c f 0 f c e (2) 1
cm 0.044 0.008 0.0083
When the soil water content approaches saturation, f p (t) will n 2.2 1.8 4.0
approach f c , and f c should also approach the saturated hydraulic k s (cm/h) 15.4 1.0 0.04
conductivity k s , because gravity is the only driving force remain- s 0.312 0.47 0.38
ing. In reality, however, this is not the case. The Horton formula r 0.0265 0.11 0.15
is often considered as a purely empirical formula. Q 0 (cm/h) 20 1.4 0.1
Philip 1957a,b,c converted the Richards equation into an i0 0.08 0.25 0.25
ordinary differential equation and yielded an infinite series of so-
lution. The leading term at the surface boundary became the in-
filtration formula ponding was set as 0, which implies that the ponding depth is zero,
1 and all excess rainfall becomes surface runoff. This is the same
f p t S tt 0 1/2k s (3) assumption in the Horton formula. In the solution procedures, U
2
is obtained first by assuming that the flux at the upper boundary is
An exact solution of the Richards equation was obtained by equal to Q. If U is less than or equal to 0, the results are ac-
Green and Ampt 1911 for a simplified wetting front movement cepted, and the computation moves forward to the next time step.
approximation, in which a sharp boundary dividing soil of con- If the calculated U is larger than 0, then set U 0 as the upper
stant initial moisture content i lies below the saturated soil with boundary condition and recalculate once more for the same time
a moisture content of s step. For an easier comparison, in all base cases, the modeling
ks
f p k s
ln 1
ks
f p k s


k s tt 0
(4)
time is set as 10 times the ponding period (t p ), which is an
unknown a priori. The modeling depth DEP must be long enough
not to be touched by the wetting front to ensure that the boundary
For the beginning period of infiltration ( f 2k s ), and by Taylors condition at the lower end is valid. The minimum DEP is, there-
expansion technique, the Green-Ampt formula can be simplified fore, determined by the rainfall intensity Q, soil type, and soil
by taking only two terms of the expansion. After integrating, one property i ; Q and i for conditions in base cases, and van Ge-
obtains the same form of expression as the Philip formula nuchten parameters van Genuchten, 1980 and n as well as soil
properties for sand, loam, and clay are listed in Table 1 Touma
F t 2k s t 1/2k s t (5)
and Vauclin 1985; Segol 1993. Note that the rainfall intensity, Q,
This might suggest that the Green-Ampt formula can describe the was chosen to be greater than the saturated conductivity k s , be-
infiltration processes for a longer period than Philips formula. cause the full capacity of infiltration is the main concern.
Since all three formulas are related to the Richards equation, A two-step Crank-Nicolson finite difference approximation
it provides the motivation to compare their behaviors to the nu- Segol 1993; Hills et al. 1989; including prediction and correc-
merical solution of the Richards equation. tion steps, was employed to discretize and solve Richards equa-
tion. In all modeled cases, we let ZDEP/200, and t must
satisfy the CFL stability condition, which is tZ/ V , V
Numerical Scheme and Boundary Conditions Q/ (0,t) i Hill et al. 1989(0,t) is the value at the
upper boundary; and t needs to be very small at the initial stage,
For solving the Richards equation to investigate infiltration, the because (0,t) is very close to i at that stage. We validated our
boundary condition at the upper end (z0) is set as numerical model using an analytical solution with a flux upper

q d Qk
h
z
t0

z0
if u 0 (6)
boundary and infinite depth Segol 1993. Results are shown in
Hsu et al. 1995, which shows a good match between the nu-
merical and analytical solutions.
u ponding if u ponding (7)
u
t
z0
Qq d Qk
h
z
z0
if 0 u ponding (8) Test Problems and Methods of Analysis

the boundary condition at the lower end (zDEP) is Problem Design

z
t0

zDEP
0 (9)
where q d Darcy velocity at the ground surface; Qrainfall in-
tensity (L/T); zthe depth from the ground surface positive
downward, and negative upward, Lpressure head if posi-
tive or suction head if negative; and khydraulic conductivity
(L/T), which is a function of and can be derived from a soil
water retention curve; hzhydraulic head;
pondingponding depth L; and U value at the soil surface
and must be evaluated from a numerical solution. In this study,
Three types of soil were tested. For each type of soil, a base case
was determined first for a homogeneous initial water content i0
in soil, a constant rainfall intensity Q 0 , and duration of simula-
tion as 10 times the ponding period t p . The three base cases were
named SAND, LOAM, and CLAY. For each base case, the value
of the initial water content was perturbated up and down to de-
termine the sensitivity. These cases were named SAND1.5,
SAND0.67, LOAM1.5, LOAM0.72, CLAY1.25, and
CLAY0.8. Similarly, for each base case, the value of the rainfall
intensity was also perturbated up and down. They were named
SAND1.2Q, SAND0.9Q, LOAM1.2Q, LOAM0.9Q, CLAY1.2Q,

374 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002

Table 2. Parameters of Numerical Experimental Cases in Clay Soil Table 4. Parameters of Numerical Experimental Cases in Sandy Soil
Clay Clay Clay Clay Sand Sand Sand Sand
Variable Clay 1.2Qa 0.9Qa 1.25b 0.8b Variable Sand 1.2Qa 0.9Qa 1.5b 0.67b
Q/Q 0 1 1.2 0.9 1 1 Q/Q 0 1 1.2 0.9 1 1
i / i0 1 1 1 1.25 0.8 i / i0 1 1 1 1.5 0.665625
tp (h) 41 25 55.6 21.4 56.4 tp (h) 0.1801 0.087 0.3136 0.1492 0.201
Duration h 410 250 556 214 564 Duration h 1.801 0.87 3.136 1.492 2.01
DEPmin (cm) 352 264 422.5 405 314 DEPmin (cm) 150 86 238.5 155 148
t max (h) 0.710 0.491 0.974 0.817 0.557 t max (h) 0.000282 0.000162 0.000472 0.000537 0.000169
t (h) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 t (h) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
z (cm) 2.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 z (cm) 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0
a a
Rainfall
intensity. Rainfall
intensity.
b b
Soil water content. Soil water content.

and CLAY0.9Q. All together, there were 15 cases. Finally, the
rainfall duration was extended to 20 times the ponding period for
selected cases to determine its effects. The parameters of these
cases are given in Tables 2 4, where i0 is the initial soil water
content. For case with i / i0 1.25, its initial soil water content
was 25% higher than i0 ; Q 0 was the basecase rainfall intensity
at the upper boundary condition. The infiltration rate was equal to
the Darcy velocity obtained at the ground surface.
for the beginning period of infiltration, into a form, Eq. 5 similar
to Philips with 2k s in the same place as parameter S.
Figs. 1 and 2 compare the infiltration curve using the numerical
method and three infiltration formulas for the base cases in clay
and sand soil, respectively. Results of cumulative infiltration in
clay is plotted in Fig. 3. Similar plots were obtained for the rest
cases.

Parameter Analysis for Each Infiltration Formula

Results and Discussion

Once the infiltration curves were obtained from the numerical Figs. 1 and 2 show that Hortons curve deviates from the numeri-
solution, we applied a nonlinear least square regression to capture cal curve most, which can be attributed to the mathematical be-
the best-fitted parameters f 0 , f c and for the Horton formula. havior of exponential decay. On the other hand, the Philip and
After substituting f 0 , f c , and into the Horton formula, the Green-Ampts curves, obtained by only three intersections, fit
cumulative error can be measured for different assumptions of f 0 . very well with the numerical solution. The first point (tt p ) in
The combination of f 0 , f c and with the least error measured are Hortons curve is always lower than the numerical value of Q.
the best-fitted parameters. In all cases, 451 numerical data points Fig. 3 shows that the cumulative infiltration curves are undistin-
from t p to 10t p , with uniform time interval, were used to fit the guishable. In loam and clay cases, results are the same.
Horton parameters. The corresponding parameters for the Horton If we follow the trends of the infiltration formulas out of the
formula are listed in Table 5. regression region tt p or t10t p , Hortons curve is lower than
The processes in determining the numerical values of the the other two for tt p region. As t approaches 0, Philips 1/t
Green-Ampt and Philip parameters are less rigorous. Three inter-
section points (t i , f i ) between the Hortons best fitted curve and
the numerical infiltration curves were utilized. The Green-Ampt Table 5. Regression Results of Hortons Parameters
parameters , k, t 0 and the Philip parameters S, k, t 0 were f0 fc Standard error Mean error
obtained by solving three simultaneous equations with three un- Parameters cm/h cm/h cm/h cm/h
knowns; t 0 artificial time-shift parameter. Note that all formulas
Clay 1.2Qa 0.110 0.0559 0.0229 1.6E-03 7.5E-03
have three parameters to be fitted, which makes the comparison
fair. The results are listed in Table 6. In Table 6, the DIV% is the Clay 0.0924 0.0512 0.0139 1.2E-03 1.2E-03
deviation percentage between the Philip parameter S and Clay 0.9Qa 0.0845 0.0490 0.0106 1.0E-03 1.4E-02
2k s , because the Green-Ampt formula can be simplified, Clay 1.25b 0.0929 0.0519 0.0275 1.2E-03 1.4E-02
Clay 0.0924 0.0512 0.0139 1.2E-03 1.2E-03
Clay 0.8b 0.0926 0.0510 0.0101 1.2E-03 1.8E-03
Table 3. Parameters of Numerical Experimental Cases in Loam Soil Loam 1.2Qa 1.59 1.04 0.177 1.4E-02 3.6E-02
Loam 1.36 1.01 0.115 6.8E-03 7.4E-02
Loam Loam Loam Loam
Loam 0.9Qa 1.24 1.00 0.0964 2.8E-03 1.5E-02
Variable Loam 1.2Qa 0.9Qa 1.5b 0.72b
Loam 1.5b 1.35 1.01 0.266 7.4E-03 9.2E-03
Q/Q 0 1 1.2 0.9 1 1 Loam 1.36 1.01 0.115 6.8E-03 7.4E-02
i / i0 1 1 1 1.5 0.72 Loam 0.72b 1.36 1.01 0.0869 6.4E-03 1.9E-02
tp (h) 6.4 3.508 9.896 2.684 8.632 Sand 1.2Qa 22.9 16.1 7.28 1.7E-01 3.9E-01
Duration h 64 35.08 98.96 26.84 86.32 Sand 19.5 15.6 4.12 8.0E-02 1.2E-01
DEPmin (cm) 420 282 576 516 394 Sand 0.9Qa 17.8 15.5 2.89 3.9E-02 2.0E-03
t max (h) 0.0128 0.00672 0.0126 0.0718 0.00557 Sand 1.5b 19.5 15.6 4.91 8.1E-02 2.8E-01
t (h) 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 Sand 19.5 15.6 4.12 8.0E-02 1.2E-01
z (cm) 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 Sand 0.67b 19.5 15.6 3.71 8.0E-02 1.2E-01
a a
Rainfall
intensity. Rainfall
intensity.
b b
Soil water content. Soil water content.

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 / 375

Table 6. Best-Fitted Values of Philips and Green-Ampts Parameters
Philip Green-Ampt
S K t0 2k s K t0
Parameter (cm/ h) cm/h h (cm/ h) DIV% cm cm/h h
Clay 1.2Qa 0.619 0.0339 11.4 0.685 11 45.1 0.0408 9.64 5.86 0.130
Clay 0.605 0.0344 18.8 0.704 16 47.6 0.0403 14.8 6.19 0.130
Clay 0.9Qa 0.593 0.0347 25.6 0.714 20 49.0 0.0400 19.5 6.38 0.130
Clay 1.25b 0.427 0.0354 9.67 0.495 16 45.3 0.0413 7.60 3.06 0.068
Clay 0.605 0.0344 18.8 0.704 16 47.6 0.0403 14.8 6.19 0.130
Clay 0.8b 0.714 0.0341 26.2 0.832 16 48.1 0.0400 20.7 8.65 0.180
Loam 1.2Qa 2.14 0.830 1.99 3.01 41 20.6 0.918 1.42 4.53 0.220
Loam 1.57 0.886 4.39 2.62 67 15.5 0.943 3.05 3.42 0.220
Loam 0.9Qa 1.19 0.918 7.28 2.28 91 11.8 0.960 5.29 2.60 0.220
Loam 1.5b 1.04 0.888 1.72 1.72 66 15.6 0.946 1.15 1.48 0.095
Loam 1.57 0.886 4.39 2.62 67 15.5 0.943 3.05 3.42 0.220
Loam 0.72b 1.79 0.887 6.07 3.00 67 15.5 0.944 4.30 4.49 0.290
Sand 1.2Qa 4.10 13.5 0.0503 6.15 50 5.29 14.7 0.0331 1.23 0.232
Sand 2.80 14.3 0.130 5.35 91 4.01 14.9 0.0735 0.930 0.232
Sand 0.9Qa 1.81 14.8 0.257 4.49 149 2.82 15.1 0.173 0.655 0.232
Sand 1.5b 2.51 14.4 0.109 4.84 93 3.95 15.0 0.0702 0.759 0.192
Sand 2.80 14.3 0.130 5.35 91 4.01 14.9 0.0735 0.930 0.232
Sand 0.67b 2.95 14.3 0.145 5.64 91 4.00 15.0 0.0941 1.03 0.259
Note: DIV% is the deviation percentage between S and 2k s , where 2k s is the simplified form of beginning period from Green-Ampts
formula.
a
Rainfall intensity.
b
Soil water content.

function soars up faster than the natural-log behavior of the
Green-Ampt formula, which also contributes to a higher t 0 value
in the Philip parameter. The trends in Figs. 1 and 2, extended to
t10t p , indicate that Hortons final infiltration value is larger
than the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil k s . The Green-
Ampts and Philips curves are lower than k s after t10t p . Based
on this, extrapolation of the Horton formula with fitted parameter,
will overestimate infiltration rate while the Green-Ampt and
Philip formula will underestimate it after a longer time period.
According to Table 2 4, under the same rainfall intensity, t p is
proportional to ( s i ). The depth touched by the wetting
front (DEPmin) is proportional to the accumulated rainfall
(Qduration). The maximal time step (t max) feasible at the
beginning decreases for larger Q and increases for larger i .

Fig. 2. Comparison of infiltration curves using different formulas in

Fig. 1. Comparison of infiltration curves by different formula in clay sandy soil, where rainfall intensity is Q 0 and initial soil water content
soil, where rainfall intensity is Q 0 and initial soil water content is 0 is 0

376 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002

 Based on Table 6, the obtained values of parameter K for both
the Philip and Green-Ampt formulas are fairly stable and are
close to the values of the saturated hydraulic conductivity k s of
soil. Except for clay soil cases, Green-Ampts k values are a little
bit smaller than k s of soil. Philips k values are all smaller than k s
values. The fitted in Table 6 is not equal to the subtraction
between the wetting front and the initial value. A big differ-
ence exists. Although has the same order of magnitude as
Rawls et al. 1983 suggested 4.95 cm for sand, 8.89 cm for
loam, and 31.6 cm for clay, the exact values are, however, not
easy to prescribe in advance. The result of t p values in Table 7
reminds us that t p should not be overlooked in any case, even
when water supply is more than k s . There are theoretical ways in
estimating t p in the Horton, Green-Ampt, and Philip formulas
Chow et al. 1988
k
t p Green-Ampt (10)
i ik

S 2 iK/2
t p Philip (11)
2i iK 2

Fig. 3. Cumulative infiltration curves for base case in clay soil t p Horton
1
i
f 0 i f c ln
f 0 f c
i f c (12)

where irainfall intensity; t p estimated by Eqs. 10 and 11 are

The sensitivity of Hortons parameters can be seen from Table
5; f 0 changes monotonically with Q; f c is stable and is always a
little bit larger than the saturated k s ; parameter is most unpre-
dictable; and increases dramatically whether Q increases or i
increases. This is related to the curvature of the infiltration curve,
which is also influenced by the duration of simulation. In our tests
for duration of 20t p , proved to decrease for a longer duration of
rainfall.
also shown in Table 7. For the Green-Ampt, Philip, and numerical
results, the t p values are of the same order of magnitude, and the
formula estimated numbers are, in most cases, smaller. The de-
viation between the numerical and formula estimations are lower
for clay soil and higher for sand soil. For the same type of soil,
higher rainfall intensity tends to have less deviation. In Eq. 12,
t p can only be found when f i f 0 , so we cannot find t p for
Hortons cases.

Table 7. Comparison of t p and t 0 in Green-Ampt and Philips Formulas between Numerical Fitting and Formula Prediction
GREEN-AMPT PHILIP
t p (h) t 0 (h) t p (h) t 0 (h)
t p by
numerical t 0 by t0 t 0 by
fitting t p by Deviation numerical by Deviation t p by Deviation numerical t 0 by Deviation
Cases h formula % fitting formula % formula % fitting formula %
Clay 1.2Qa 25 25.2 1 10.85 9.64 13 22.2 11 9.17 11.4 20
Clay 41 42 2 17.39 14.80 17 35.2 14 13.70 18.8 27
Clay 0.9Qa 55.6 56.7 2 22.86 19.50 17 46.4 17 17.24 25.6 33
Clay 1.25b 21.4 21.5 1 8.87 7.60 17 18 16 6.89 9.67 29
Clay 41 41.8 2 17.33 14.80 17 35.2 14 13.70 18.8 27
Clay 0.8b 56.4 57.7 2 23.96 20.70 16 48.7 14 19.02 26.2 27
Loam 1.2Qa 3.5 3.25 7 1.20 1.42 15 2.4 32 0.72 1.99 64
Loam 6.4 5.04 21 1.56 3.05 49 3 53 0.47 4.39 89
Loam 0.9Qa 9.9 6.60 33 1.67 5.29 69 3.9 61 0.32 7.28 96
Loam 1.5b 2.7 2.20 18 0.69 1.15 40 1.4 48 0.27 1.72 84
Loam 6.4 5.04 21 1.56 3.05 49 3.2 50 0.57 4.39 87
Loam 0.72b 8.6 6.64 23 2.04 4.30 52 4.2 52 0.70 6.07 88
Sand 1.2Qa 0.087 0.07 15 0.03 0.03 22 0.05 37 0.01 0.0503 72
Sand 0.18 0.14 25 0.04 0.07 49 0.08 57 0.01 0.13 93
Sand 0.9Qa 0.314 0.19 40 0.04 0.17 78 0.09 70 0.00 0.257 100
Sand 1.5b 0.15 0.11 24 0.03 0.07 56 0.06 57 0.01 0.109 93
Sand 0.18 0.14 25 0.04 0.07 49 0.08 57 0.01 0.13 93
Sand 0.67b 0.2 0.15 23 0.04 0.09 55 0.09 57 0.01 0.145 93
a
Rainfall
intensity.
b
Soil water content.

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 / 377

Table 8. Sensitivity of Parameters When Initial Soil Water Content or Rainfall Intensity Increases
Rainfall intensity Initial water content
Formula Parameter Q increases i increases
Horton f0 f 0 increases f 0 stable
fc f c stable f c stable
increases increases
Philip S S stable for clay but increases S decreases
for loam and sand
k k stable k stable
t0 t 0 decreases t 0 decreases
Green-Ampt stable for clay but stable
increases in loam and sand
k k stable k stable
t0 t 0 decreases t 0 decreases

Table 8 compares the sensitivity of the parameters of the three from the simplification of the wetting front assumption in the
formulas for change in initial water content in soil and rainfall derivation of the Green-Ampt formula.
intensity. The standards are based on the base cases. We defined Considering the difficulty in assigning formula parameters, it
the term stable if the deviation was less than 5% from the is easy to select the parameter K for both the Green-Ampt and
original values. For the Horton formula, parameter f c is stable. Philip formulas and parameter f c in the Horton formula; t 0 and
Initial water content affects only the parameter ; both parameters in the Green-Ampt formula as well as t 0 and S in the Philip
f 0 and increase if Q increases; K values for both the Philip and formula can be estimated by either formulas, tables, or physical
Green-Ampt formulas are stable; and S are stable for clay parameters with moderate errors; in the Horton formula is al-
cases and positively related to Q for loam and sand cases. Sorpo- most impossible to prescribe.
tivity S decreases when i increases, which is physically reason-
able; is not affected by i and is superior to S in this sense.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Summary and Conclusions D K() / diffusivity;
F cummulative infiltration;
To assess three infiltration formulas using the numerical solutions f c final infiltration rate in Horton for-
of the Richards equation is well based theoretically, because the mula cm/h;
three formulas are all related to or just a simplification of the f 0 maximum infiltration rate in Horton
Richards equation. For a fair comparison between the three for- formula
mulas, a time shift parameter t 0 is added for both the Philip and cm/h;
Green-ampt formulas to become a three-parameter formula. f p infiltration-rate capacity when abun-
The ponding period t p is essential when rainfall intensity is dant rainfall supply cm/h;
larger than the saturated hydraulic conductivity k s . The numerical h total head cm;
solution can produce with t p automatically, while for formulas, k hydraulic conductivity cm/h;
artificial adjustment is necessary and, in some cases, for example k(),k() hydraulic conductivity function of
Hortons, if the rainfall intensity is larger than k s , no t p can be or ;
estimated. k s saturated hydraulic conductivity cm/
The Green-Ampt and Philip formulas fit better than the Horton h;
formula in terms of the infiltration rate curves. The deviation of M () /; specific moisture capacity;
cumulative infiltration in the three formulas is negligible. The key n parameters of van Genuchten formula;
to the use of these formulas is the values prescribed for formula Q rainfall intensity cm/h;
parameters. Q 0 base case rainfall intensity cm/h;
For the Horton formula, parameter is very difficult for users q d Darcy velocity cm/h;
to determine. It changes with rainfall intensity, initial water con- S soil sorptivity (cm/ h);
tent in soil, and the duration of the rainfall event. Parameter f 0 is t time h;
always a little bit lower than the rainfall intensity. Parameter f c is t p ponding time h;
stable and is a little larger than k s . z depth from ground surface cm;
For the Philip formula, the K value is stable and can be as- parameters of van Genuchten formula
signed as the k s value of soil; t 0 estimated by formula can have 20 1/cm;
to 100% error. Parameter S is stable for rainfall intensity but can s i , deviation of saturated and
be affected by the soil water content. If S is prescribed using initial soil water content (cm3 /cm3 );
2k s , the error is 10 to 150% overestimated. deviation between saturated and initial
For the Green-Ampt formula, the condition of parameters K pressure head cm;
and t 0 are similar to the Philips. Values of the best-fitted param- soil water content cm3/cm3;
eter are fairly stable but smaller than the deviation of the 0 base case soil water content
initial and wetting front saturated . This probably originates cm3/cm3;

378 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002

 r residual soil water content cm3/cm3;
s saturated soil water content
cm3/cm3;
exponential decay rate in Horton for-
mula 1/h
pressure head cm;
ponding ponding depth cm;
u upper boundary pressure head cm.
References
Bouwer, H. 1978. Chap. 8: Surface-subsurface water relations.
Groundwater hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Buckingham, E. 1907. Studies on the movement of soil moisture.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture USDA, Soils Bull., 38, Washington, D.C.
Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Mays, L. W. 1988. Applied hydrol-
ogy, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 99126.
Eagleson, P. S. 1970. Dynamic hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A. 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Green, W. H., and Ampt, G. A. 1911. Studies on soil physics, part I:
The flow of air and water through soils. J. Agric. Sci., 41, 124.
Hills, R. G., Porro, I., Hudson, D. B., and Wierenga, P. J. 1989. Mod-
eling one-dimensional infiltration into very dry soils: 1. Model devel-
opment and evaluation. W. R. R., 256, 1,2591,269.
Horton, R. E. 1933. The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle.
Trans., Am. Geophys. Union, 14, 446 460.
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 / 379
Hsu, S. H. M., Ni, C. F., and Hung, P. F. 1995. Numerical and ana-
lytical solution of Richards equation. Feng Chia Academic Journal,
28, 197210 in Chinese.
Jury, W. A., Gardner, W. R., and Gardner, W. H. 1991. Soil Physics, 5th
Ed., Wiley, New York, 87112, 130137.
Philip, J. R. 1957a. The theory of infiltration: 1. The infiltration equa-
tion and its solution. Soil Sci., 835, 345357.
Philip, J. R. 1957b. The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and alge-
braic infiltration equations. Soil Sci., 843, 257264.
Philip, J. R. 1957c. The theory of infiltration: 5. The influence of the
initial moisture content. Soil Sci., 844, 329339.
Raudkivi, A. J. 1979. Hydrology, Pergamon, Tarrytown, N.Y., 136 163.
Rawls, W. J., Brakensiek, D. L., and Miller, N. 1983. Green-Ampt
infiltration parameters from soils data. J. Hydraul. Eng., 1091, 62
70.
Segol, G. 1993. Classic groundwater simulations, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J., 283330.
Smith, R. E. 1972. The infiltration envelope: Results from a theoretical
infiltrometer. J. Hydrol., 17, 121.
Smith, R. E., and Woolhiser, D. A. 1971. Mathematical simulation of
infiltrating watersheds. Hydrology Paper 47, Colorado State Univ.,
Fort Collins, Colo.
Touma, J., and Vauclin, M. 1985. Experimental and numerical analysis
of two-phase infiltration in a partially saturated soil. Transp. Porous
Media, 1, 28 55.
van Genuchten, M. T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the
hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44,
892 898.