Environment Conservation Journal 25 (1):22-32, 2024

Journal homepage:https://www.environcj.in/

Environment Conservation Journal

ISSN 0972-3099 (Print) 2278-5124 (Online)

Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils under

field conditions
Shubham Kindo
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, SVCAET&RS, FAE, IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
Narendra Agrawal
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, SVCAET&RS, FAE, IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
A. Shori
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, SVCAET&RS, FAE, IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received : 27 June 2023 The purpose of the investigation is to calculate soil infiltration rates with the
Revised : 25 September 2023 help of infiltration models. The infiltration model helps to design and evaluate
Accepted : 09 October 2023 surface irrigation systems. The study calculated constant infiltration for two
types of soils (clay loam soil and laterite soil) under field conditions
Available online: 05 February 2024 (Unploughed and Ploughed). The double-ring infiltrometer has been
implemented to experiment. The value of various constants of the models was
Key Words: calculated using the approach of averages counselled through a graphical
Double ring infiltrometer technique. Fitting infiltration test data to prominent infiltration models such as
Infiltration rate Philip’s, Horton's and Kostiakov’s and The Nash- Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE),
Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE) statistics
Philip’s Model are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the model. The results indicate that
Root mean square error Philip's model is the most reliable, with R2, NSE, and RMSE values ranging
from 0.9044-0.9677, 0.294-0.957 and 1.2647-5.7129, respectively. Therefore,
under identical circumstances and without any kind of infiltration information,
the above model can be employed to artificially produce infiltration
information.

Introduction
Rainwater catchment areas have shrunk as a result of Infiltration can be stated in two dimensions, the
fast development and settlement. Urban regions will capability of infiltration and the rate is measured in
experience increasing water runoff and flooding of mm/hr. The infiltration velocity depends on the type
the shrinking rainfall collection areas (Apollonio et of soil and its characteristics. An individual type of
al., 2016). Water infiltration through soil occurs soil's infiltration capacity is its maximum infiltration
naturally. Significant contributions are made to the rate. Soil absorbs the water under specific conditions
hydrological cycle by it. Infiltration is the process of known as soil infiltration capacity (Dhalhar,1972).
movement of water from the ground surface into the Eight different infiltration models were considered
earth’s soil and increasing the overall amount of by (Mirzaee et al.,2014). These models were
water present, which affects water partitioning and evaluated by least squares fitting to measure soil
hydrological responses (Shakesby et al., 2000; infiltration. For the NIT Kurukshetra campus, (Sihag
Walker et al., 2007). Infiltration is crucial to et al., 2017a) compared the infiltration models. In
hydrology because it limits the water reserves that comparison to existing models, the novel model best
can be used to fill groundwater wells and prevents matched the field infiltration data. The soil
water runoff and soil erosion (Angulo et al., 2016). infiltration rate was predicted using various soft
A Simple device known as a double-ring computing techniques (Singh et al., 2017; Sihag et
infiltrometer can be used to measure the infiltration al., 2017a, b; Sihag et al., 2019). The current
of water into the soil Dagadu et al. (2012). investigation's goal is to identify the model
Corresponding author E-mail: kindoshubham.18@gmail.com
Doi:https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.24242644
This work is licensed under Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
© ASEA
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

parameters and locate the most appropriate model I = f + (f − f )e

for the soils of the research area specified below.
where,
I is Infiltration capacity or potential infiltration rate [cm/hr],
Material and Methods fc is final constant infiltration rate [cm/hr],
Study Area fo is initial infiltration capacity [cm/hr],
The current soil infiltration investigation is being k is Horton's decay coefficient, which is dependent on soil
performed at the Indira Gandhi Krishi characteristics and vegetation cover, and
Vishwavidyalaya in Raipur (C.G.) (Figure 1). It is in t is the time after the start of infiltration (hr).
Chhattisgarh's East Central region at longitude
21013'59"N, longitude 81037'59"E and altitude 289.5 Kostiakov’s model
m above mean sea level. This region is sub-humid, The formula for cumulative infiltration expressed by
with hot summers and cold winters. The rain is Kostiakov’s model is
caused by the southwest monsoon. Based on an 80-
year average, it receives 1312 mm of rain each year, F = at
with 85% of that falling between June and where,
September. A few showers in the winter and a F is cumulative infiltration capacity (cm/hr)
handful of showers in the summer are possible. The t is time after infiltration starts, and
a and b are constants that depend on the soil and initial
hottest month is May and the coldest month is conditions.
December. While the winter minimum temperature
dropped to 8°C, the weekly high temperature in the Philip’s model
summer was 45.8°C. From June through October, The relationship shown below represents Philip’s
relative humidity and wind speed are high, with a (1957) two-term model:
peak in June and July.
Measurement of infiltration rates 1
A Double ring infiltrometer (ASTM 2003) was used f = st +k
to determine the infiltration rates. The double-ring 2
where,
infiltrometer includes two rings. The outside ring is fp is infiltration capacity at any time step from the beginning
30 cm in diameter and has a 60 cm outside diameter, s is infiltration capacity at any time step from sorptivity of soil
driving the rings 8-9 cm into the ground. The water,
k is the hydraulic conductivity of Darcy.
hammer should strike the steel plate ring uniformly
without disrupting the soil surface. The level of the
Estimation and inter-comparison of model
water in both rings were same. Frequently
parameter
measurements of the water depths in the
infiltrometer were taken until a steady degree of Root mean square error (RMSE)
The root means the square error is abbreviated as
infiltration was attained. The soil sample weighed
RMSE. When using a statistical model to predict a
between 100 and 150g as taken at a location near the
numerical outcome, predicted values rarely match
experiment site to determine the amount of water
actual outcomes completely.
present in the soil before estimation of infiltration
rate.
Infiltration models and parameter 1
The three subsequent infiltration models were RMSE = (a − b )
N
evaluated to decide which would most appropriately
match the information on field infiltration rates.
where,
a is the calculated value of the infiltration rate
Horton’s model b is the value of the infiltration rate
The decline in infiltration capability over time was N is the number of observations
depicted in Horton's semi-empirical model as an
exponential decay given by

23
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

Figure 1: Location of the study area

Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient

A normalized statistic called the Nash-Sutcliffe The mathematical formula for computing R2 is
efficiency (NSE) measures how much residual ∑ (∑ )(∑ )
variance there is in comparison to the variance of the R2 =
(∑ ) (∑ ) (∑ ) (∑ )
measured data (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970). A result
of 80-90% shows moderately acceptable Results and Discussion
performance, a value of 80-90% indicates extremely Infiltration rates of clay loam and laterite soils
good efficiency, while a value of less than 80% under field conditions
denotes an inadequate fit. Table 1 presents the observed infiltration rates for
different field conditions. From the table, for
∑ ( )
Model efficiency = 1.0 − ∑ unploughed clay loam soil, the initial infiltration rate
( )
varies 18.0-0.9 cm/hr. Similarly, for ploughed clay
loam soil, the initial infiltration rate varies from
Coefficient of determination (R2)
16.8- 1.2 cm/hr. In the case of unploughed laterite
A statistical model's capacity to explain and predict
soil, the initial infiltration rate varies from 22.8-3.5
future events is determined and evaluated using the
cm/hr. For ploughed laterite soil, the initial
coefficient of determination, often known as R2.
24
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

infiltration rate was 24.0-3.7 cm/hr.According to the at different depths. It is important to note that these
information provided in Table 1, it can be observed patterns are observed in both soil conditions (Garg et
that over time, the infiltration rate generally al., 2005). The soil conditions affect the infiltration
decreases with some rapid fluctuations. These rate. The infiltration rate is higher in a ploughed
fluctuations are due to factors like the presence of condition of soils compared to unploughed
macro-pores such as rodent holes, earthworm conditions (Dagadu et al., 2012). These fluctuations
channels, or root pathways in the soil, which in the infiltration rate were due to soil profile
facilitate increased water flow. The sudden increase (Mahapatra et al., 2020). Ploughed soil can increase
in infiltration rates can also be caused by the release infiltration rates due to improved soil structure,
of trapped air from soil aggregates. This is supported increased porosity, reduced surface crusting and
by the observation of rodent holes and air bubbles enhanced water pathways. However, the effects can
during the infiltration tests. On the other hand, the vary depending on factors like soil type and
sudden decrease in infiltration rates is attributed to ploughing technique. Proper ploughing practices are
the perching phenomenon, where water accumulates essential to optimize infiltration rates

Table 1: Infiltration rate (cm/hr) of soil under different field conditions

Time (min) Infiltration rate (cm/hr)
Clay loam soil Laterite soil
Unploughed Ploughed Unploughed Ploughed
5 18 16.8 22.8 24.0
10 15.6 15.6 19.2 20.4
20 7.8 6 8.4 8.4
30 7.2 4.8 7.2 7.2
45 3.2 3.6 5.2 5.2
60 2.8 3.6 4.8 5.6
80 1.2 1.8 3.9 3.8
100 0.9 1.2 3.5 3.7
120 0.9 1.2 3.5 3.7

Computation of the model constants Observed infiltration data was utilized to study and
Table 2 displays the values of several infiltration analyze these models. The infiltration equations
model parameters for various soil conditions for were evaluated using experimental data from the
Horton's, Philip's and Kostiakov’s infiltration study area, to determine the numerical values for the
models applied to clay loam soil under field parameters in the models. Based on the findings, it
conditions. For Horton's model, the empirical was discovered that different soil types and soils
constant 'k' has values of 2.53 and 2.19. In have different parameter values for infiltration
Kostiakov’s infiltration model, the empirical models (Dagadu et al., 2012). When fitting the Philip
constants 'a' have values of 6.40 and 5.99, while 'b' Two-Term model to infiltration data taken from real
has values of 0.50 and 0.51, respectively. In Philip's field conditions, several researchers have also
model, the constants 's' has values of 13.73 and 12.57 reported negative values of K in the literature (e.g.,
and 'k' has values of -3.95 and -3.41. Infiltration Shukla et al., 2003; Machiwal et al., 2006). The
models applied to laterite soil under field conditions. negative values of K found in this study are likely
For Kostiakov’s infiltration model, the empirical caused by macropores and relatively impeded (low-
constants 'a' have estimated values of 8.58 and 8.85, permeability) layers at various depths. The input
while 'b' has values of 0.56 and 0.55. In Horton's variables for various infiltration models were
model, the empirical constant 'k' has estimated established. All the observation points infiltration
values of 2.98 and 2.85., respectively. In Philip's equations for various types of soils and field
model, the constants 's' has estimated values of 15.36 circumstances were developed using these model
and 16.29, and 'k' has values of -2.85 and -3.21. constants.

25
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

Table 2: The values of various infiltration model parameters for various soil types under various
field circumstances
Soil types Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model
k a b s k
Clay loam soil (Unploughed) 2.53 6.40 0.50 13.73 -3.95
Clay loam soil (Ploughed) 2.19 5.99 0.51 12.57 -3.41
Laterite soil (Unploughed) 2.98 8.58 0.56 15.36 -2.85
Laterite soil (Ploughed) 2.85 8.85 0.55 16.29 -3.21

Comparison of observed and estimated 16.80 to 1.20 in observed value, 18.37 to 1.04 cm/hr
infiltration rates for clay loam soil in the case of Philip’s, 21.27 to 4.21 cm/h for
Table 3 and Figure 2 show the comparison of Kostiakov’s and 14.20 to 1.20 cm/hr for Horton’s
observed and model-estimated infiltration rates model respectively. In this study, derived infiltration
under unploughed conditions in Clay loam soil. The rates of clay loam soil were compared with three
initial infiltration rate predicted by Philip’s model different models: Kostiakov's, Horton's and Philip's
was 19.84 cm/hr, which was near to observed models. Observed and estimated infiltration rates
infiltration rate 18.00 cm/hr. Similarly, it was were examined under field conditions (ploughed &
predicted by Horton’s model as 14.74 cm/hr and the unploughed). Upon analyzing the data in the results,
Kostiakov’s model as 22.05 cm/hr differentiating found that Kostiakov's model exhibited the largest
highly from the observed value. The infiltration rates variation compared to the measured data at every
were decreased from 18.00 to 0.90 in observed sampling point. This indicates that Kostiakov's
value, in the case of Philip’s 19.84 to 0.91 cm/hr, model consistently overestimated the infiltration
22.05 to 4.53 cm/hr for Kostiakov’s and 14.74 to rates. The poor performance of Kostiakov's model
0.90 cm/hr for Horton’s model respectively. The could be attributed to its limitations in accurately
computed values of infiltration rates by different representing the behaviours of infiltration in clay
models for ploughed Clay loam soil are presented in loam soil. Horton's model performed poorly but less
Table 4 and Figure 3. The initial infiltration rate than Kostiakov’s model, possibly due to inconsistent
predicted by Philip's model is 18.37 cm/h, which was physical interpretation of parameters and errors in
close to the observed infiltration rate 16.80 cm/hr. estimating initial and steady-state infiltration rates,
Similarly, this was predicted by Horton's model as leading to an inadequate fit to the measured data.
14.20 cm/hr and the Kostiakov’s model as 21.27 Philip's model outperformed the others, fitting the
cm/hr both, deviated significantly from the observed measured data well and showing suitability for
value. The infiltration rates were decreased from estimating infiltration rates in clay loam soil.

Table 3: Comparison of observed and estimated infiltration rates for unploughed Clay loam soil
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)
Time(min) Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model
5 18.00 14.74 22.05 19.84
10 15.60 10.54 15.61 12.87
20 7.80 3.86 11.06 7.95
30 7.20 2.67 9.03 5.76
45 3.20 1.24 7.38 3.98
60 2.80 1.05 6.40 2.92
80 1.20 0.91 5.54 2.00
100 0.90 0.90 4.96 1.37
120 0.90 0.90 4.53 0.91
26
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

Unploughed Clay loam soil

25
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time elapsed (hr)

Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov's model Philip’s model

Figure 2: Observed and estimated infiltration rates for unploughed Clay loam soil

Table 4: Comparison of observed and estimated infiltration rates for ploughed Clay loam soil
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)
Time(min) Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model
5 16.80 14.20 21.27 18.37
10 15.60 11.19 14.93 11.99
20 6.00 3.51 10.49 7.48
30 4.80 2.40 8.53 5.48
45 3.60 1.66 6.93 3.85
60 3.60 1.47 5.99 2.88
80 1.80 1.23 5.17 2.04
100 1.20 1.20 4.61 1.46
120 1.20 1.20 4.21 1.04

25 Ploughed Clay loam soil

Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time elapsed (hr)

Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov's model Philip’s model

Figure 3: Observed and estimated infiltration rates for ploughed Clay loam soil
27
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

This result collaborates with the findings (Thomas et

observed and model-estimated infiltration rates
al., 2020; Saadi et al., 1985) who used the six-
under unploughed conditions in Laterite soil. The
infiltration model in textured soil and found that
initial infiltration rate predicted by Philip’s model
Philip’s model gave a good representation of the
was 23.75 cm/hr, which was near to observed
infiltration model while Kostiakov’s, modified
infiltration rate 22.80 cm/h. Similarly, it was
Kostiakov’s, Green Ampt and Holtan Overton predicted by Horton’s model as 18.56 cm/hr and the
performed in that order respectively as adduced by
Kostiakov’s model as 34.17 cm/hr differentiating
Igbadun et al., (2016). However, the most successful
highly from the observed value. The infiltration rates
prediction of accurately matched test data was an
decreased from 22.80 to 3.51 in observed value,
estimation of the infiltration rate made by Philip's
23.75 to 2.58 cm/hr in the case of Philip’s, 34.17 to
model. Additionally, its performance in the absence
5.84 cm/hr for Kostiakov’s and 18.56 to 3.51 cm/hr
of field data suggests its potential for practical
for Horton’s model respectively. The computed
applications without direct measurements. values of infiltration rates by different models for
ploughed Laterite soil are presented in Table 6 and
Comparison of observed and estimated Figure 5. The initial infiltration rate predicted by
infiltration rates for laterite soil Philip's model is 25.00 cm/hr, which was close to the
Table 5 and Figure 4 show the comparison of observed infiltration rate 24.00 cm/hr.

Table 5: Comparison of observed and estimated infiltration rates for unploughed laterite soil
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)
Time(min) Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model
5 22.8 18.56 34.17 23.75
10 19.2 13.06 23.24 15.96
20 8.4 5.32 15.81 10.45
30 7.2 4.34 12.62 8.01
45 5.2 3.69 10.07 6.02
60 4.8 3.58 8.58 4.83
80 3.9 3.52 7.31 3.80
100 3.51 3.51 6.46 3.10
120 3.51 3.51 5.84 2.58

40
Unploughed Laterite soil
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time elapsed (hr)

Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov's model Philip’s model

Figure 4: Observed and estimated infiltration rates for unploughed Laterite soil
28
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

Table 6: Comparison of observed and estimated infiltration rates for ploughed laterite soil

Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

Time(min) Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model
5 24 19.71 34.47 25.00
10 20.4 14.09 23.59 16.74
20 8.4 5.53 16.15 10.89
30 7.2 4.56 12.93 8.31
45 5.2 3.89 10.36 6.19
60 5.6 3.83 8.85 4.93
80 3.3 3.71 7.56 3.84
100 3.72 3.72 6.69 3.10
120 3.72 3.72 6.06 2.55

Ploughed Laterite soil

40
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time elapsed (hr)

Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov's model Philip’s model

Figure 5: Observed and estimated infiltration rates for ploughed laterite soil

This was estimated by Horton's model as 19.71 did not provide an accurate representation of
cm/hr and Kostiakov’s model as 34.47 cm/hr, both infiltration rates in the laterite soil studied. Horton's
deviated significantly from the observed value. The model did not perform as poorly as Kostiakov's,
infiltration rates were decreased from 24.00 to 3.72 perhaps due to a lack of physical interpretation of the
in observed value, 25.00 to 2.55 cm/hr in the case of parameters and incorrect estimation of initial and
Philip’s, 34.47 to 6.06 cm/hr for Kostiakov’s and continuous state infiltration rates which resulted in
19.71 to 3.72 cm/hr for Horton’s model respectively. an inadequate fit with measured data. Philip's model
The same models (Kostiakov's, Horton's and performed well. This result agrees with research
Philip’s) were also used for laterite soil. These (Thomas et al., 2020; Saadi et al., 1985) that used
models were tested by comparing their results with six infiltration models in textured soil and
observed and estimated levels of infiltration rate in discovered that Philip's model provided a good
field conditions, particularly in the case of ploughed representation of the infiltration model while
and unploughed. The models of Kostiakov’s have Kostiakov’s, modified Kostiakov’s, Green Ampt
shown the highest variation, according to these and Holtan Overton performed in that order, as
results. This suggests that the model consistently suggested by Igbadun et al., (2016). incorporating
overestimated the measured data at each sample the measured data and indicating suitability for
location. This overestimation shows that the model predicting infiltration of Laterite soils. In addition,
predictions are not compatible with the observed its potential for practical use without direct
field measurements. Thus, the model Kostiakov’s measurements is shown by its ability to work in the

29
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

absence of field data. However, the most successful that these infiltration models are excellent at
prediction of accurately matched test data was an predicting infiltration rates. In terms of the RMSE
estimation of the infiltration rate made by Philip's criteria, Horton's (mean RMSE=2.5375) and
model. Kostiakov’s (mean RMSE=4.5147) models come in
second and third, respectively, with Philip's model
Estimation and inter-comparison of model having the lowest mean RMSE (1.3758). According
parameter to the RMSE values, the Philip Two-Term performs
The statistics shown in Table 7 clearly shows that all approximately equally in estimating infiltration.
infiltration models accurately estimate the Philip's model has the highest mean NSE value of
infiltration rate. The model that provided the best fit 0.948, according to the measured NSE values (Table
was selected based on the criteria of minimizing 7). From Table 7, it is evident that Horton's models'
RMSE and maximizing NSE and R2. The results of efficacy is excellent, with an NSE value of 0.824,
this evaluation are summarized in Table 7. Table 7 respectively. Kostiakov’s models, on the other hand,
shows that all the models perform effectively with perform poorly with an NSE value of 0.40,
very low errors (RMSE) ranging from 1.2647 to respectively. Despite having very high R2 values
5.7129, extremely high values of R2 (0.9044- (>0.94) in a variety of situations, all the models had
0.9677), and moderate to very good values of model comparable rankings to model efficiency (NSE) in
efficiency (NSE: 0.294-0.957), all of which show terms of R2 values.

Table 7: Inter-comparison parameter of infiltration models

Soil conditions Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model

Root mean square error (RMSE)
Clay loam soil (Unploughed) 2.9660 3.4850 1.2647
Clay loam soil (Ploughed) 2.2793 3.3879 1.4484
Laterite soil (Unploughed) 2.9319 5.7129 1.4133
Laterite soil (Ploughed) 1.9729 5.4731 1.3767
Average 2.5375 4.5147 1.3758
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)
Clay loam soil (Unploughed) 0.836 0.638 0.934
Clay loam soil (Ploughed) 0.814 0.294 0.957
Laterite soil (Unploughed) 0.814 0.294 0.957
Laterite soil (Ploughed) 0.834 0.403 0.946
Average 0.824 0.407 0.948
Coefficient of determination (R2)
Clay loam soil (Unploughed) 0.9044 0.9624 0.9624
Clay loam soil (Ploughed) 0.9435 0.9476 0.9491
Laterite soil (Unploughed) 0.9666 0.9569 0.9568
Laterite soil (Ploughed) 0.9677 0.9470 0.9464
Average 0.9456 0.9535 0.9537

These infiltration models were chosen based on how concluded that Philip's model demonstrated a strong
well they performed in most field situations as agreement with the measured data, indicating
measured by R2, RMSE, and NSE. Based on the superior performance compared to Horton's and
analysis of parameters RMSE, NSE and R2, it can be Kostiakov’s models. This result corroborates the

30
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

findings of Thomas et al. (2020), who evaluated four runoff process depend on data on infiltration rates
infiltration equations on silt and sandy soils. They for different soil types. The infiltration rate vs time
concluded that Philip's model provided a highly graphs for field data and model data do not match
accurate representation of infiltration, followed by exactly, but Philip's model is substantially closer to
Kostiakov’s, Green Ampt, and Horton's models the observed field data. This is discovered while
followed in that respective order, as indicated by comparing infiltration models to field data. Based on
Igbadun et al. (2016). Similarly, Oku & Aiyelari the mean values of RMSE, NSE, and R2, Philip's
(2011) predicted cumulative infiltration in model had the lowest RMSE and highest NSE and
Inceptisols within humid forest zones and found that R2 values, indicating that it accurately represented
Philip's model outperformed Kostiakov’s model. the infiltration rate. Thus, it can be used to create
These studies imply that certain infiltration models infiltration data artificially in the absence of
are more suitable for specific site conditions infiltration data that have been detected. So, in any
(Machiwal et al. 2006), this implies that not all further research work prefer Philip’s model
infiltration models can be universally applied to all
types of soils. Different models may have varying Acknowledgement
levels of applicability depending on the soil The original study was conducted in the Department
characteristics and conditions of a particular site. of Soil and Water Engineering, Indira Gandhi
Agricultural University, Raipur Chhattisgarh
Conclusion (India). The authors acknowledged the Department
The study shows that the infiltration rate is of Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry at Indira
influenced by the soil properties. Infiltration rates Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur, for
started high and fell over time until they reached a providing soil samples testing facilities.
constant level, according to graphs showing
infiltration rates vs time. One of the main fields of Conflict of interest
study in hydrology is infiltration, a crucial part of the The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
hydrological cycle. Planning and developing water interest.
resource systems and comprehending the rainfall-

References Dhalhar, M.A. 1972. Process and Field Evaluation of

Angulo-Jaramillo, R., Bagarello, V., Iovino, M., & Lassabatere, Infiltration Rate. A “PlanB” Paper for the M.Sc. Degree.
L. (2016). Infiltration measurements for soil hydraulic The University of Minnesota.
characterization Berlin. Springer, 43-180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31788-5 Garg, K. K., Jha, M. K., & Kar, S. (2005). Field investigation of
water movement and nitrate transport under perched water
Apollonio, C., Balacco, G., Novelli, A., Tarantino, E., & table conditions. Biosystems Engineering, 92(1), 69-84.
Piccinni, A.F. (2016). Land Use Change Impact on Flooding
Areas: The Case Study of Cervaro Basin (Italy). Igbadun, H., Othman, M., & Ajayi, A. (2016). Performance of
Sustainability, 8(996), 1-18. selected water infiltration models in sandy clay loam soil in
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8100996 Samaru Zaria. Global Journal of Researches in
Engineering: J General Engineering, 16(4).

ASTM Standards 2003. Standard Test Method for Infiltration Machiwal, D., Jha, M. K., & Mal, B. C. (2006). Modelling
Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer. D: infiltration and quantifying spatial soil variability in a
3385 – 9403 watershed of Kharagpur, India. Biosystems Engineering,
95(4), 569-582.
Dagadu, J. S., & Nimbalkar, P. T. (2012). Infiltration studies of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.08.007
different soils under different soil conditions and
comparison of infiltration models with field Mahapatra, S., Jha, M. K., Biswal, S., & Senapati, D. (2020).
data. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Assessing variability of infiltration characteristics and
Technology. 3(2), 154-157. reliability of infiltration models in a tropical sub-humid
region of India. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1515.

31
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

Mirzaee, S., Zolfaghari, A. A., Gorji, M., Dyck, M., & Ghorbani Sihag P, Tiwari NK., & Ranjan S. (2017b) Modelling of
Dashtaki, S. (2014). Evaluation of infiltration models with infiltration of sandy soil using gaussian process regression.
different numbers of fitting parameters in different soil Model Earth Syst Environ, 3(3), 1091–1100.
texture classes. Archives of Agronomy and Soil
Science, 60(5), 681-693. Sihag, P., Tiwari, N. K., & Ranjan, S. (2019). Prediction of
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.823477 unsaturated hydraulic conductivity using adaptive neuro-
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). ISH Journal of Hydraulic
through conceptual models part I-A discussion of Engineering, 25(2), 132-142.
principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), 282-290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 Singh, B., Sihag, P., & Singh, K. (2017). Modelling of impact
of water quality on infiltration rate of soil by random forest
Oku, E., & Aiyelari, A. (2011). Predictability of Philip and regression. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3,
Kostiakov infiltration models under inceptisols in the humid 999-1004.
forest zone, Nigeria. Agriculture and Natural
Resources, 45(4), 594-602. Shakesby, R. A., Doerr, S. H., & Walsh, R. P. D. (2000). The
erosional impact of soil hydrophobicity: Current problems
Philip, J. R. (1957). The theory of infiltration. Soil and future research directions. Journal of Hydrology, 231–
Science,83(5), 345-358. 232, 178–191.
https://doi:10.1097/00010694-195705000-00002
Thomas, A. D., Of osu, A. E., Emmanuel, A., De-Graft, A. J.,
Saadi, A., and Al-Azawi, S.A. (1985). Experimental Evaluation Ayine, A. G., Asare, A., & Alexander, A. (2020).
of Infiltration Models. Journal of Hydrology, 24, 77-88. Comparison and estimation of four infiltration
models. Open Journal of Soil Science, 10(2), 45-57.
Shukla, M. K., Lal, R., & Unkefer, P. (2003). Experimental
evaluation of infiltration models for different land use and Walker, J. D., Walter, M. D., & Parlange, J. Y. (2007). Reduced
soil management systems. Soil Science, 168(3), 178-191. raindrop-impact driven soil erosion by infiltration. Journal
of Hydrology, 342, 331–335.
Sihag, P., Tiwari, N. K., & Ranjan, S. (2017a). Estimation and
inter-comparison of infiltration models. Water Publisher's Note: The ASEA remains neutral with regard to
Science, 31(1), 34-43. jurisdictional claims in published maps and figures.

32
Environment Conservation Journal