Journal homepage:[Link]

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

S T
ARTICLE INFO
Received : 27 June 2023
Revised : 25 September 2023
Accepted : 09 October 2023
ABSTRACT

I R
The purpose of the investigation is to calculate soil infiltration rates with the
help of infiltration models. The infiltration model helps to design and evaluate
surface irrigation systems. The study calculated constant infiltration for two

Available online: 05 February 2024

Key Words: F
types of soils (clay loam soil and laterite soil) under field conditions
(Unploughed and Ploughed). The double-ring infiltrometer has been
implemented to experiment. The value of various constants of the models was
calculated using the approach of averages counselled through a graphical

E
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

N
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

I
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

L
information.

Introduction

O N
Rainwater catchment areas have shrunk as a result of
fast development and settlement. Urban regions will
experience increasing water runoff and flooding of
the shrinking rainfall collection areas (Apollonio et
al., 2016). Water infiltration through soil occurs
Infiltration can be stated in two dimensions, the
capability of infiltration and the rate is measured in
mm/hr. The infiltration velocity depends on the type
of soil and its characteristics. An individual type of
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@[Link]
Doi:[Link]
This work is licensed under Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
© ASEA
 Kindo et al.

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,
with hot summers and cold winters. The rain is
caused by the southwest monsoon. Based on an 80-
year average, it receives 1312 mm of rain each year,
with 85% of that falling between June and where,
F = at

S T
The formula for cumulative infiltration expressed by
Kostiakov’s model is

September. A few showers in the winter and a

handful of showers in the summer are possible. The
hottest month is May and the coldest month is
R
F is cumulative infiltration capacity (cm/hr)

I
t is time after infiltration starts, and
a and b are constants that depend on the soil and initial
conditions.

F
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
A Double ring infiltrometer (ASTM 2003) was used

N E
to determine the infiltration rates. The double-ring where,
1
f = st
2
+k

I
infiltrometer includes two rings. The outside ring is
30 cm in diameter and has a 60 cm outside diameter,
driving the rings 8-9 cm into the ground. The

L
hammer should strike the steel plate ring uniformly
without disrupting the soil surface. The level of the
fp is infiltration capacity at any time step from the beginning
s is infiltration capacity at any time step from sorptivity of soil
water,
k is the hydraulic conductivity of Darcy.

Estimation and inter-comparison of model

N
water in both rings were same. Frequently
measurements of the water depths in the parameter
infiltrometer were taken until a steady degree of Root mean square error (RMSE)
The root means the square error is abbreviated as

O
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

2
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

S T
I R
F
N E
L I
Figure 1: Location of the study area

Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient

A normalized statistic called the Nash-Sutcliffe R2 =
∑ (∑ )(∑ )

N
(∑ ) (∑ ) (∑ ) (∑ )
efficiency (NSE) measures how much residual
variance there is in comparison to the variance of the
Results and Discussion
measured data (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970). A result

O
Infiltration rates of clay loam and laterite soils
of 80-90% shows moderately acceptable
under field conditions
performance, a value of 80-90% indicates extremely
Table 1 presents the observed infiltration rates for
good efficiency, while a value of less than 80% different field conditions. From the table, for
denotes an inadequate fit.
unploughed clay loam soil, the initial infiltration rate
∑ (
varies 18.0-0.9 cm/hr. Similarly, for ploughed clay
)
Model efficiency = 1.0 − ∑ loam soil, the initial infiltration rate varies from
( )
16.8- 1.2 cm/hr. In the case of unploughed laterite
soil, the initial infiltration rate varies from 22.8-3.5
Coefficient of determination (R2)
cm/hr. For ploughed laterite soil, the initial
A statistical model's capacity to explain and predict
infiltration rate was 24.0-3.7 cm/[Link] to the
future events is determined and evaluated using the
information provided in Table 1, it can be observed
coefficient of determination, often known as R2.
that over time, the infiltration rate generally
2 decreases with some rapid fluctuations. These
The mathematical formula for computing R is
fluctuations are due to factors like the presence of
3
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

macro-pores such as rodent holes, earthworm rate. The infiltration rate is higher in a ploughed
channels, or root pathways in the soil, which condition of soils compared to unploughed
facilitate increased water flow. The sudden increase conditions (Dagadu et al., 2012). These fluctuations
in infiltration rates can also be caused by the release in the infiltration rate were due to soil profile
of trapped air from soil aggregates. This is supported (Mahapatra et al., 2020). Ploughed soil can increase
by the observation of rodent holes and air bubbles infiltration rates due to improved soil structure,
during the infiltration tests. On the other hand, the increased porosity, reduced surface crusting and
sudden decrease in infiltration rates is attributed to enhanced water pathways. However, the effects can
the perching phenomenon, where water accumulates vary depending on factors like soil type and
at different depths. It is important to note that these ploughing technique. Proper ploughing practices are

T
patterns are observed in both soil conditions (Garg et essential to optimize infiltration rates.
al., 2005). The soil conditions affect the infiltration

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

Time (min) Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

R S
I
Clay loam soil Laterite soil
Unploughed Ploughed Unploughed Ploughed
5 18 16.8 22.8 24.0
10
20
30
15.6
7.8
7.2
15.6
6
4.8
F
19.2
8.4
7.2
20.4
8.4
7.2

E
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

Computation of the model constants

I N1.2 3.5 3.7

L
Table 2 displays the values of several infiltration Observed infiltration data was utilized to study and
model parameters for various soil conditions for analyze these models. The infiltration equations
Horton's, Philip's and Kostiakov’s infiltration were evaluated using experimental data from the

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

4
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

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
Table 3 and Figure 2 show the comparison of
observed and model-estimated infiltration rates
under unploughed conditions in Clay loam soil. The
initial infiltration rate predicted by Philip’s model
T
in the case of Philip’s, 21.27 to 4.21 cm/h for
Kostiakov’s and 14.20 to 1.20 cm/hr for Horton’s

S
model respectively. In this study, derived infiltration
rates of clay loam soil were compared with three
different models: Kostiakov's, Horton's and Philip's
was 19.84 cm/hr, which was near to observed
infiltration rate 18.00 cm/hr. Similarly, it was
predicted by Horton’s model as 14.74 cm/hr and the R
models. Observed and estimated infiltration rates

I
were examined under field conditions (ploughed &
unploughed). Upon analyzing the data in the results,
Kostiakov’s model as 22.05 cm/hr differentiating
highly from the observed value. The infiltration rates
were decreased from 18.00 to 0.90 in observed
value, in the case of Philip’s 19.84 to 0.91 cm/hr, F
found that Kostiakov's model exhibited the largest
variation compared to the measured data at every
sampling point. This indicates that Kostiakov's
model consistently overestimated the infiltration
22.05 to 4.53 cm/hr for Kostiakov’s and 14.74 to
0.90 cm/hr for Horton’s model respectively. The
computed values of infiltration rates by different

N
models for ploughed Clay loam soil are presented in
E rates. The poor performance of Kostiakov's model
could be attributed to its limitations in accurately
representing the behaviours of infiltration in clay
loam soil. Horton's model performed poorly but less

I
Table 4 and Figure 3. The initial infiltration rate
predicted by Philip's model is 18.37 cm/h, which was

L
close to the observed infiltration rate 16.80 cm/hr.
Similarly, this was predicted by Horton's model as
14.20 cm/hr and the Kostiakov’s model as 21.27
than Kostiakov’s model, possibly due to inconsistent
physical interpretation of parameters and errors in
estimating initial and steady-state infiltration rates,
leading to an inadequate fit to the measured data.
Philip's model outperformed the others, fitting the

O N
cm/hr both, deviated significantly from the observed
value. The infiltration rates were decreased from
measured data well and showing suitability for
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

5
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

Unploughed Clay loam soil

25
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

20

15

10

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

S T110 120

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

I
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

Time(min) Observed infiltration

Infiltration rate (cm/hr)
Horton’s model
F
Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model
5
10
20
30
16.80
15.60
6.00
4.80

N E
14.20
11.19
3.51
2.40
21.27
14.93
10.49
8.53
18.37
11.99
7.48
5.48
45
60
80
100
120
3.60
3.60
1.80
1.20
1.20
L I 1.66
1.47
1.23
1.20
1.20
6.93
5.99
5.17
4.61
4.21
3.85
2.88
2.04
1.46
1.04

25

O N 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
6
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

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

T
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

infiltration rates for laterite soil

Table 5 and Figure 4 show the comparison of
ploughed Laterite soil are presented in Table 6 and
Comparison of observed and estimated Figure 5. The initial infiltration rate predicted by
Philip's model is 25.00 cm/hr, which was close to the
observed infiltration rate 24.00 cm/hr.

R S
Table 5: Comparison of observed and estimated infiltration rates for unploughed laterite soil

Time(min)
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

F
Observed infiltration Horton’s model Kostiakov’s model
I Philip’s model

E
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

N
30 7.2 4.34 12.62 8.01
45 5.2 3.69 10.07 6.02
60
80
100
120
4.8
3.9
3.51
3.51

L I 3.58
3.52
3.51
3.51
8.58
7.31
6.46
5.84
4.83
3.80
3.10
2.58

40

O N 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
7
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

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
100
120
3.3
3.72
3.72
3.71
3.72
3.72

Ploughed Laterite soil

7.56
6.69
6.06

S T
3.84
3.10
2.55

R
40
Infiltration rate (cm/hr)

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

Observed infiltration

I N
Horton’s model

Figure 5: Observed and estimated infiltration rates for ploughed laterite soil
Kostiakov's model Philip’s model

This was estimated by Horton's model as 19.71

cm/hr and Kostiakov’s model as 34.47 cm/hr, both

N
deviated significantly from the observed value. The
infiltration rates were decreased from 24.00 to 3.72
in observed value, 25.00 to 2.55 cm/hr in the case of
L did not provide an accurate representation of
infiltration rates in the laterite soil studied. Horton's
model did not perform as poorly as Kostiakov's,
perhaps due to a lack of physical interpretation of the
parameters and incorrect estimation of initial and

O
Philip’s, 34.47 to 6.06 cm/hr for Kostiakov’s and
19.71 to 3.72 cm/hr for Horton’s model respectively.
The same models (Kostiakov's, Horton's and
Philip’s) were also used for laterite soil. These
models were tested by comparing their results with
observed and estimated levels of infiltration rate in
continuous state infiltration rates which resulted in
an inadequate fit with measured data. Philip's model
performed well. This result agrees with research
(Thomas et al., 2020; Saadi et al., 1985) that used
six infiltration models in textured soil and
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
8
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

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

T
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
very low errors (RMSE) ranging from 1.2647 to
5.7129, extremely high values of R2 (0.9044-
0.9677), and moderate to very good values of model
perform poorly with an NSE value of 0.40,

R S
respectively. Despite having very high R2 values
(>0.94) in a variety of situations, all the models had
comparable rankings to model efficiency (NSE) in
efficiency (NSE: 0.294-0.957), all of which show

Table 7: Inter-comparison parameter of infiltration models

Soil conditions Horton’s model

terms of R2 values.

F I
Kostiakov’s model Philip’s model

Clay loam soil (Unploughed)

Clay loam soil (Ploughed)

N E
Root mean square error (RMSE)
2.9660
2.2793
3.4850
3.3879
1.2647
1.4484
Laterite soil (Unploughed)
Laterite soil (Ploughed)
Average

Clay loam soil (Unploughed)

L I 2.9319
1.9729
2.5375
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)
0.836
5.7129
5.4731
4.5147

0.638
1.4133
1.3767
1.3758

0.934

O N
Clay loam soil (Ploughed)
Laterite soil (Unploughed)
Laterite soil (Ploughed)
Average
0.814
0.814
0.834
0.824
Coefficient of determination (R2)
0.294
0.294
0.403
0.407
0.957
0.957
0.946
0.948

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 agreement with the measured data, indicating
well they performed in most field situations as superior performance compared to Horton's and
measured by R2, RMSE, and NSE. Based on the Kostiakov’s models. This result corroborates the
analysis of parameters RMSE, NSE and R2, it can be findings of Thomas et al. (2020), who evaluated four
concluded that Philip's model demonstrated a strong infiltration equations on silt and sandy soils. They
9
Environment Conservation Journal
 Kindo et al.

concluded that Philip's model provided a highly for different soil types. The infiltration rate vs time
accurate representation of infiltration, followed by graphs for field data and model data do not match
Kostiakov’s, Green Ampt, and Horton's models exactly, but Philip's model is substantially closer to
followed in that respective order, as indicated by the observed field data. This is discovered while
Igbadun et al. (2016). Similarly, Oku & Aiyelari comparing infiltration models to field data. Based on
(2011) predicted cumulative infiltration in the mean values of RMSE, NSE, and R2, Philip's
Inceptisols within humid forest zones and found that model had the lowest RMSE and highest NSE and
Philip's model outperformed Kostiakov’s model. R2 values, indicating that it accurately represented
These studies imply that certain infiltration models the infiltration rate. Thus, it can be used to create
are more suitable for specific site conditions infiltration data artificially in the absence of

T
(Machiwal et al. 2006), this implies that not all infiltration data that have been detected. So, in any
infiltration models can be universally applied to all further research work prefer Philip’s model
types of soils. Different models may have varying
levels of applicability depending on the soil
characteristics and conditions of a particular site.
Acknowledgement

S
The original study was conducted in the Department

R
of Soil and Water Engineering, Indira Gandhi

I
Conclusion Agricultural University, Raipur Chhattisgarh
The study shows that the infiltration rate is (India). The authors acknowledged the Department
influenced by the soil properties. Infiltration rates of Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry at Indira
started high and fell over time until they reached a
constant level, according to graphs showing
infiltration rates vs time. One of the main fields of F
Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur, for
providing soil samples testing facilities.

resource systems and comprehending the rainfall- interest.

runoff process depend on data on infiltration rates

N E
study in hydrology is infiltration, a crucial part of the Conflict of interest
hydrological cycle. Planning and developing water The authors declare that they have no conflicts of

References

L I
Angulo-Jaramillo, R., Bagarello, V., Iovino, M., & Lassabatere,
L. (2016). Infiltration measurements for soil hydraulic
characterization Berlin. Springer, 43-180.
[Link]
Garg, K. K., Jha, M. K., & Kar, S. (2005). Field investigation of
water movement and nitrate transport under perched water
table conditions. Biosystems Engineering, 92(1), 69-84.

Igbadun, H., Othman, M., & Ajayi, A. (2016). Performance of

N
selected water infiltration models in sandy clay loam soil in
Apollonio, C., Balacco, G., Novelli, A., Tarantino, E., & Samaru Zaria. Global Journal of Researches in
Piccinni, A.F. (2016). Land Use Change Impact on Flooding Engineering: J General Engineering, 16(4).
Areas: The Case Study of Cervaro Basin (Italy).

O
Sustainability, 8(996), 1-18.
[Link]

ASTM Standards 2003. Standard Test Method for Infiltration

Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer. D:
3385 – 9403
Machiwal, D., Jha, M. K., & Mal, B. C. (2006). Modelling
infiltration and quantifying spatial soil variability in a
watershed of Kharagpur, India. Biosystems Engineering,
95(4), 569-582.
[Link]

Mahapatra, S., Jha, M. K., Biswal, S., & Senapati, D. (2020).

Assessing variability of infiltration characteristics and
Dagadu, J. S., & Nimbalkar, P. T. (2012). Infiltration studies of reliability of infiltration models in a tropical sub-humid
different soils under different soil conditions and region of India. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1515.
comparison of infiltration models with field
data. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Mirzaee, S., Zolfaghari, A. A., Gorji, M., Dyck, M., & Ghorbani
Technology. 3(2), 154-157. Dashtaki, S. (2014). Evaluation of infiltration models with
different numbers of fitting parameters in different soil
texture classes. Archives of Agronomy and Soil
Dhalhar, M.A. 1972. Process and Field Evaluation of
Science, 60(5), 681-693.
Infiltration Rate. A “PlanB” Paper for the [Link]. Degree.
[Link]
The University of Minnesota.
10
Environment Conservation Journal
 Evaluation of infiltration models in clay loam and laterite soils

Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting Sihag, P., Tiwari, N. K., & Ranjan, S. (2019). Prediction of
through conceptual models part I-A discussion of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity using adaptive neuro-
principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), 282-290. fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). ISH Journal of Hydraulic
[Link] Engineering, 25(2), 132-142.

Oku, E., & Aiyelari, A. (2011). Predictability of Philip and Singh, B., Sihag, P., & Singh, K. (2017). Modelling of impact
Kostiakov infiltration models under inceptisols in the humid of water quality on infiltration rate of soil by random forest
forest zone, Nigeria. Agriculture and Natural regression. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3,
Resources, 45(4), 594-602. 999-1004.

Philip, J. R. (1957). The theory of infiltration. Soil Shakesby, R. A., Doerr, S. H., & Walsh, R. P. D. (2000). The
Science,83(5), 345-358. erosional impact of soil hydrophobicity: Current problems
[Link] and future research directions. Journal of Hydrology, 231–

Saadi, A., and Al-Azawi, S.A. (1985). Experimental Evaluation

of Infiltration Models. Journal of Hydrology, 24, 77-88.

Shukla, M. K., Lal, R., & Unkefer, P. (2003). Experimental

evaluation of infiltration models for different land use and
232, 178–191.

S T
Thomas, A. D., Of osu, A. E., Emmanuel, A., De-Graft, A. J.,
Ayine, A. G., Asare, A., & Alexander, A. (2020).
Comparison and estimation of four infiltration

R
models. Open Journal of Soil Science, 10(2), 45-57.
soil management systems. Soil Science, 168(3), 178-191.

Sihag, P., Tiwari, N. K., & Ranjan, S. (2017a). Estimation and

inter-comparison
Science, 31(1), 34-43.
of infiltration models. Water

Sihag P, Tiwari NK., & Ranjan S. (2017b) Modelling of

infiltration of sandy soil using gaussian process regression.
I
Walker, J. D., Walter, M. D., & Parlange, J. Y. (2007). Reduced
raindrop-impact driven soil erosion by infiltration. Journal
of Hydrology, 342, 331–335.

F
Publisher's Note: The ASEA remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and figures.

E
Model Earth Syst Environ, 3(3), 1091–1100.

I N
N L
O

11
Environment Conservation Journal