Infiltration Modelling Project

》Introduction

Infiltration of water into soil is a key process in various fields, including hydrology,
hydraulic works, agriculture, and transport of pollutants. Depending upon rainfall and soil characteristics
as well as from initial and very complex boundary conditions, an exhaustive understanding of
infiltration and its mathematical representation can be challenging.
Water applied to the soil surface through rainfall and irrigation events subsequently enters
the soil through the process of infiltration. If the supply rate of water to the soil surface is greater than
the soil’s ability to allow the water to enter, excess water will either accumulate on the soil’s surface or
become runoff. Infiltrability is a term generally used in the disciplines of soil physics and hydrology to
define the maximum rate at which rain or irrigation water can be absorbed by a soil under a given
condition. Indirectly, infiltrability determines how much of the water will flow over the ground surface
and how much will enter the soil.
During the last decades, significant research effort has been expended to enhance the
seminal contributions of Green-Ampt, Horton, Philip, Kostiakov, and many other scientists. Various
parameters like type of soil, temperature, vegetation on the soil surface, rainfall intensity and duration
are factors that influence the infiltration rate. It is observed that hydraulic conductivity of soil is one of
the most important parameters controlling the movement of water into the ground, thereby influencing
the irrigation demand and groundwater potential. Due to these reasons, modeling and prediction of
infiltration rates are an inevitable part of hydrological modeling. Considering this, a number of
infiltration models have been proposed and developed by various scientists for determination of the
infiltration. Various infiltration models have been developed to calculate the model parameters,
efficiencies, and validation of models for different soil-conditions.
Our ability to mathematically describe the response of a soil to rainfall and to understand
the parameters that affect infiltration, has developed only in the last few decades. The parameters were
obtained by using Kostiakov, Philip, Horton, and Green–Ampt models and compared with the given
data. It is also important to know which parameters are the most sensitive among all in
modelling infiltration.

》Methodology
 ■ DESCRIPTION OF 4 EMPERICAL EQUATIONS USED
☆ Horton model
Horton (1939) developed an empirical equation for infiltration rate which is given as:

Where:
F=Infiltration capacity (cm/hr) at any time t, from the start of rainfall
f0=Initial infiltration capacity (cm/hr) at time t = 0
fc=final steady state infiltration capacity (cm/hr) at t = tc
t=time in hours
k=Hortons decay coefficient representing the rate of decrease in infiltration capacity, which
depends upon soil characteristics and vegetation cover.
—The parameters f0, k, and fc are evaluated from measured infiltration data.
When rearranging the above terms, the equation becomes:

In the Graphical method, the parameters in the Horton model are calculated by drawing ln ( f0 – fc) plot
against time. The slope of the plot represents Horton’s decay coefficient.

☆ Philip model
Philip (1957) proposed an infinite series solution of the Richard’s equation to drive a
relationship between cumulative infiltration and soil properties, represented as (Fan et al. 2019):

Where:
F=cumulative infiltration (cm)
s=soil suction potential function known as sorptivity
K=Darcy’s hydraulic conductivity (cm/hr)
t=time after start of infiltration (hr)
Differentiating the above equation, infiltration capacity may be expressed as:
Where:
f=infiltration capacity (cm/hr) at any time t from the start.
Graphically, the parameters of the Kostiakov model can be obtained by taking the slope and intercept of
the graph between f and 1/√t.
☆Green–Ampt model
Green–Ampt (1911) developed a model for infiltration capacity based on Darcy’s law and
expresses the physical model as:

Where:

Ƞ=Effective porosity of soil

S=Capillary suction at the wetting front (cm/hr0.5)

K=Darcy’s hydraulic conductivity (cm/hr)
The difference between total porosity and the fraction of the pore space occupied by clay or shale is
effective porosity. For clean sands, total porosity is the same as effective porosity.

Where:
—m and n are Green–Ampt parameters of infiltration.
Values of infiltration capacity f are plotted against 1/F on an arithmetic graph. The intercept on the
ordinate axis is m, and n serves as slope when the best-fit straight line is drawn through the plotted
points.

☆Kostiakov model
Kostiakov (1932) proposed an equation for cumulative infiltration:

Where:
F=Cumulative infiltration capacity (cm), and a, b are the constants with a > 0, and 0 < b < 1.
—Graphically, the parameters of the Kostiakov model can be obtained by taking the slope and intercept
of the double log graph of equation above.

》RESULTS & DISCUSSION

■ DATA
Three datasets (Table 1) where given to be modelled, to determine the infiltration capacity
equation and its parameters using the 4 empirical equations.

( TABLE 1.0 )

● For part 1(i)

 Initially, I carefully organized the given data and meticulously inputted it into Excel,
ensuring precision and accuracy. Within Excel, I employed a variety of appropriate formulas and
functions to extract specific values crucial for the analysis. These values included the rate at which water
infiltrates the soil (fp), the cumulative depth of water infiltration (Fp), expressions involving time such
as t^(-0.5), and derived quantities like 1/Fp, ln(Fp), and ln(t). Each formula and function used was
needed to precisely capture the necessary information from the dataset, enabling us all to delve deeper
into understanding the behavior of water infiltration into the soil. By leveraging Excel’s computational
capabilities, I efficiently extracted these key parameters, setting the stage for further analysis and
interpretation of the data.

● For part 2 (ii)

Following the data entry process, I proceeded to input all the collected information into
Excel, utilizing its capabilities to construct a comprehensive graph illustrating the behavior of the
dataset. This graph provided a visual representation of how the data points interacted and evolved over
time, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of soil infiltration.
Subsequently, I get the equations from the graph to systematically solve for each
parameter in four empirical equations. These equations, namely Horton, Philip, Green-Ampt, and
Kostiakov, are fundamental in describing the infiltration capacity of soil. With meticulous attention to
detail, I meticulously solved each empirical equation, employing the needed methods to ascertain the
precise or approximate values required to establish the infiltration capacity equation.
Upon obtaining all the necessary parameters, I proceeded to generate graphs depicting the
infiltration rate versus time for each dataset. These visual representations offered a clear depiction of
how the infiltration rate varied over time, providing valuable insights into the behavior of water
movement within the soil matrix.

♧ 4 EMPERICAL EQUATIONS ♧
 ( TABLE 2.0 )

○ HORTON’S EQUATION

Hortons Model
2
f(x) = − 3.10004001842342 x
1 + 2.34664395906641
0 R² = 0.998312094100013

ln(fp-fc)
-1
-2
-3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (hr)

○ PHILIP'S EQUATION
○ GREEN-AMPT EQUATION
○ KOSTIAKOV’S EQUATION
I

( TABLE 3.0 )

○HORTON’S EQUATION
○ PHILIP’S EQUATION
○ GREEN-AMPT EQUATION

○ KOSTIAKOV’S EQUATION
○ KOSTIAKOV’S EQUATION
I

( TABLE 4.0 )

○ HORTON’S EQUATION
○ PHILIP’S EQUATION
○ GREEN-AMPT EQUATION
○Overall, on the graph generated in infiltration rate (fp) versus time, in Data 1,
Horton’s model gives the highest value of infiltration rate (fp) or maximum rate at
which water is absorbed into the soil as time increases. In Data 2, the graph shows
something quite unusual: as time increases, the infiltration rate or maximum rate at
which water is absorbed into the soil also increases, which is unusual because the
actual infiltration rate is typically lower due to the limited water supply to the soil
surface. As soil moisture levels increase, infiltration rates usually decrease. In Data
3, it is similar to Data 1; Horton’s model gives the highest value of infiltration rate
(fp) or maximum rate at which water is absorbed into the soil as time increases.
● For part 3 (iii)
After meticulously gathering all the necessary data, parameters, and graphs, as well as
deriving the infiltration capacity equations for each of the four empirical equations across the three
datasets, the next step involved comparing the findings to the original provided data. This comparison
process was pivotal in assessing the accuracy and reliability of our approach.
To facilitate this comparison, I meticulously organized the results into a comprehensive
table format. This table included the infiltration rate (fp) values obtained from each empirical equation,
meticulously aligned alongside the corresponding values from the original dataset.
Through this comparative analysis, we gained valuable insights into the performance of
each empirical equation, namely Horton, Philip, Green-Ampt, and Kostiakov, in predicting infiltration
rates for the given soil data.

( FROM DATA 1 ) ( FROM DATA 2 )

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Hortons Green-Amp
Phillips Kostiakovs

( FROM DATA 3 )
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Horton Green-Amp
Phillips Kostiakovs
 ( TABLE 5.0 )
○ Result for Data 1:
There are four empirical equations modelled in the given three datasets. Notice that the
equations for the regression lines (Infiltration rate vs. time) of each graph from the four empirical
equations—Green-Ampt, Horton, Philip, and Kostiakov—differ from each other. Horton shows 99.83%
of R-squared, Philip shows 98.33% of R-squared, Green-Ampt shows 99.26% of R-squared, and lastly,
Kostiakov shows 98.99% of R-squared, which means that the measured data provide information about
the goodness of fit of a model. In the context of regression, it is a statistical measure of how well the
regression line approximates the actual data.
As shown in Table 5.0, it is evident that each infiltration rate generated from the infiltration
capacity equation, obtained from the given data and parameters, does not closely approximate the given
value of fp. This discrepancy illustrates that empirical equations yield different results based on their
respective models.

○ Result for Data 2:

There are four empirical equations modeled in the given three datasets. The equations for
the regression lines (Infiltration rate vs. Time) of each graph from the four empirical equations—Green-
Ampt, Horton, Philip, and Kostiakov—differ from each other. Horton shows 25.92% of R-squared,
Philip shows 22.96% of R-squared, Green-Ampt shows 24.16% of R-squared, and lastly, Kostiakov
shows 98.53% of R-squared, which means that the measured data provide information about how not
good of a fit the model is. The R-squared value indicates how not close the data are to the fitted
regression line statistically. Only in the Kostiakov model we observe that the given data closely align
with the fitted regression line.
As shown in Table 5.0, it is evident that each infiltration rate generated from the infiltration
capacity equation, obtained from the given data and parameters, does not closely approximate the given
value of fp. This discrepancy illustrates that empirical equations yield different results based on their
respective models.
○ Result for Data 2:
There are four empirical equations modeled in the given three datasets. The equations for
the regression lines (Infiltration rate vs. Time) of each graph from the four empirical equations—Green-
Ampt, Horton, Philip, and Kostiakov—differ from each other. Horton shows 69.28% of R-squared,
Philip shows 94.17% of R-squared, Green-Ampt shows 78.27% of R-squared, and lastly, Kostiakov
shows 99.57% of R-squared, which means that the measured data provide information that it is
somehow good fit the model, even though it's not close enough to 100%. The R-squared value indicates
how close the data are to the fitted regression line statistically. Only in the Kostiakov model do we
observe that the given data closely align with the fitted regression line.
As shown in Table 5.0, it is evident that each infiltration rate generated from the infiltration
capacity equation, obtained from the given data and parameters, does not closely approximate the given
value of fp. This discrepancy illustrates that empirical equations yield different results based on their
respective models.
 Overall, on the graph generated in infiltration rate (fp) versus time (the infiltration rate fp
which was generated from each of the 4 empirical equation in Data 1, Horton’s model gives the highest
value of infiltration rate (fp) or maximum rate at which water is absorbed into the soil as time increases.
In Data 2, the graph shows something quite unusual: as time increases, the infiltration rate or maximum
rate at which water is absorbed into the soil also increases, which is unusual because the actual
infiltration rate is typically lower due to the limited water supply to the soil surface. As soil moisture
levels increase, infiltration rates usually decrease. In Data 3, it is similar to Data 1; Horton’s model gives
the highest value of infiltration rate (fp) or maximum rate at which water is absorbed into the soil as
time increases.

》CONCLUSION
Despite the ongoing advancements in infiltration modeling, challenges still exist at various
hydrologic scales. During this activity, we found that using MS Excel was really helpful for organizing
and analyzing the data needed to determine the parameters of the four empirical equations.
We used the provided infiltration data to calculate the infiltration rates of the soils. We
applied commonly used infiltration models like Horton, Philip, Kostiakov, and Green–Ampt to estimate
these rates. By determining the parameters of these models, we were able to find the infiltration capacity
equation for each empirical equation.
To summarize the data from Table 5.0, the results for the infiltration rate (fp) of different
models are not closely aligned with the given values when compared. Each of the four empirical
equations generates unique values based on its model. Notably, in Data 1 – Horton Model, the obtained
fp values are significantly larger, which seems unusual when considering Table 5.0 as a whole.
What we noticed was that the Kostiakov model seemed to be the best fit based on our
observations. Among all the datasets we had, only this model consistently provided a reflection of a
typical infiltration graph. Also, it was the only model that consistently gave a high R-squared value,
which indicates that almost all points lie exactly on a straight line with no scatter. Generally, the higher
the R-squared, the better the model fits the data. So, to sum it up, the Kostiakov model seems to be the
best fit for the given data.

♧ PART II ♧