Hood InfiltrometerA New Type of Tension

Infiltrometer
Kai Schwrzel*

Jrgen Punzel
Umwelt-Gerte-Technik
Mncheberg
Germany

SOIL PHYSICS

Institute of Soil Science and Site Ecology

Univ. of Technology
Dresden
Germany

Disk infiltrometers are widely used to determine saturated and near-saturated soil hydraulic
conductivity. Previous studies have recommended applying a high-permeability material to
the undisturbed soil surface to establish a complete hydraulic bond between the disk and the
infiltration surface. Other studies have shown that the use of the contact material affects the
infiltration, and hence also the determination of saturated and near-saturated conductivity.
In this study, we tested a new type of infiltrometer (that we call a hood infiltrometer), which
might overcome these problems. Instead of requiring a disk and contact material, it places
a water-filled hood, open side down, onto the soil surface. In this study, repeated hood and
disk infiltrometer field tests in conjunction with time-domain reflectometry (TDR) measurements were performed at the same location to compare the performance of the two types
of infiltrometer. Furthermore, we extracted undisturbed soil cores to measure the hydraulic
functions in the lab. The measured hood and disk data were analyzed using Woodings solution and by numerical parameter optimization technique using uni- and bimodal hydraulic
functions. Running the disk infiltrometer with a contact layer provided saturated hydraulic
conductivities that were 10 times smaller than corresponding values measured by the hood
infiltrometer. We attributed these differences to smearing, sealing, and clogging of pores,
which led to additional flow impedances in the soil surface layer. We were able to show,
however, that the combined use of hood and disk infiltrometers in conjunction with TDR
enabled hydraulic characterization of the soil from saturation to dry conditions.
Abbreviations: TDR, time-domain reflectometry.

oil hydraulic conductivity functions hinge on soil structure

and, with decreasing water content, on soil texture. Renger et
al. (1999) differentiated between two principal types of hydraulic
conductivity curves. With the first type, the hydraulic conductivity remains constant from saturation up to the air-entry pressure of
the soil. Soils of this type start to drain at pressure heads below the
air-entry value, producing a dramatic decline in hydraulic conductivity (Fig. 1). This curve type is particularly characteristic of sandy
soils or of soils with a coherent structure. The second curve type
is common for soils with macropores. In such soils, the saturated
hydraulic conductivity may be orders of magnitude higher than
the conductivity of the same soil under a few centimeters of pressure head sufficient to drain the macropores (Fig. 1). Most soils
show a hydraulic conductivity curve between the two types.
The disk infiltrometer (Perroux and White, 1988) has become
a popular device to determine the contribution of macropores to
infiltration and hydraulic conductivity (Jury and Horton, 2004).
People who use disk infiltrometers to determine hydraulic conductivities must maintain complete hydraulic contact between the
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:XXX-XXX
doi:10.2136/sssaj2006.0104
Received 7 Mar. 2006.
*Corresponding author (kai.schwaerzel@forst.tu-dresden.de).
Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd. Madison WI 53711 USA
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained
herein has been obtained by the publisher.

SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

membrane of the infiltrometer chamber and the soil. To achieve this

contact, Perroux and White (1988) recommended trimming any
vegetation within the sample to ground level and covering the soil
with a material that has a greater hydraulic conductivity than the
soil and an air-entry value less than the minimum pressure head to
be applied. Suggested contact materials and procedures for using
them in field-based disk infiltrometer measurements were outlined
by Reynolds and Zebchuk (1996) and Bagarello et al. (2001).
Only a few studies have dealt with the influence of the contact material on disk infiltrometer measurements. Reynolds and
Zebchuk (1996) have demonstrated that the pressure head at the
soil surface and the pressure head at the membrane on the disk
infiltrometer can vary considerably depending on the thickness,
saturated conductivity, and air-entry value of the contact material, and on the flow rate out of the infiltrometer. Using Darcys
law, they calculated the pressure head applied on the soil surface
with a degree of certainty similar to that provided by a Mariotte
bubble tower. Everts and Kanwar (1993) compared disk infiltration measurements with ponded infiltrometer measurements
taken at the same place and the same positive head. They found
that disk infiltrometer measurements made through a 20-mm
layer of sand were an order of magnitude less than ponded infiltration measurements. Contact material to moisten correctly might
be another source of error in disk infiltrometer measurements.
Close et al. (1998) have shown that a nonuniform wetting of
the contact material at the membrane interface led to very erratic
infiltration results. Some researchers have suggested that contact
material may not be needed for a relatively smooth soil surface
(e.g., Logsdon and Jaynes, 1993; Wang et al., 1998). At the same
time, Bagarello et al. (2001) found 30% lower infiltration rates
than those obtained when a layer of contact material was present.
1

piecewise such that * is a constant in the interval between two successively applied pressure heads h0(i) and h0(i+1):

i +1 2 * =

ln ( Qi Qi +1 )
h0(i ) h0(i +1)

i = 1, ..., n 1

[3]

where n is the number of applied pressure heads used and the subscript
notation i + denotes the estimated values of * at the midpoint
between successive supply pressure heads. Rearranging Eq. [2] leads to

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F
Qi +1 2
K h0(i +1 2) =
i = 1, ..., n 1

r 2 + 4r0

i +1 2 *

[4]

where the steady-state infiltration rates at the midway points between

adjacent supply pressure heads h0(i+1/2) are given by (Jarvis and
Messing, 1995)

ln ( Qi )+ ln ( Qi +1 )
i = 1, ..., n 1
Qi +1 2 = exp

Fig. 1. Principal types of hydraulic conductivity functions (redrawn from Renger et al., 1999); h = supply pressure head.

These differences might be relevant for some practical purposes,

e.g., when infiltration and deep leaching of chemicals is predicted
(Kung et al., 2005).
We tested the new UGT (Mncheberg, Germany) infiltrometer that uses a hood instead of a disk to connect it to the soil. The
theory behind the new system is that it places a water-filled hood
with its open side directly onto the soil surface, which is meant to
eliminate the problems of the disk infiltrometers in establishing a
hydraulic bond between the infiltrometer chamber and the soil.
The aim of our study was to compare the performance of the two
types of infiltrometers using a combination of field and laboratory
tests as well as numerical studies.

THEORY

Steady-State Flow from a Circular Source

In this study, analysis of disk and hood infiltrometer measurements is based on Woodings (1968) solution for infiltration from a
circular source with a constant pressure head at the soil surface. If the
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity K(h0) (cm d1) is given by an exponential function (Gardner, 1958)

K (h0 ) = K S exp( * h0 )

[1]

where Ks (cm d1) is the saturated hydraulic conductivity and *

(cm1) is the exponential slope, then the steady-state flow rate Q
(cm3 d1) is given by

4r
Q = r0 K (h0 )+ 0 K (h0 )
*

[2]

where r0 is the disc radius (cm), h0 is the applied pressure head (cm),
and K(h0) is the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at pressure head
h0. Equation [2] can be solved for K(h0) using multiple pressure heads
for a given disk radius (Ankeny et al., 1991; Reynolds and Elrick,
1991; Jarvis and Messing, 1995). Equations [1] and [2] can be applied

[5]

The saturated hydraulic conductivity Ks can be calculated from Eq.

[1] using known values of h0(i+1/2), Ki+1/2, and i+1/2* as follows:

Ks =

Kh0( i+1 2 )

exp i +1 2 * h0(i +1 2)

[6]

Numerical Model and Inverse Parameter

Estimation Procedure

The governing flow equation for radially symmetric isothermal

Darcian flow in a variably saturated isotropic rigid soil is described
with the following form of Richards equation (Warrick, 1992):

1 h h K
=
rK + K +
t r r r z z z

[7]

where is the volumetric water content (m3 m3), t is time (s), r is the radial
coordinate (cm), h is the pressure head (cm), K is the hydraulic conductivity
(cm d1), and z is the vertical coordinate (positive upward, cm). Equation
[7] was numerically solved for the following initial and boundary conditions i(z) using the HYDRUS-2D model (im nek et al., 1998):

(r , z , t ) = i (z ) t = 0

[8]

h (r , z , t ) = h0 (t ) 0 < r < r0
h (r , z , t )
= 1 r > r0
z
h (r , z , t ) = hi

z =0

[9]

z =0

[10]

r2 +z 2

[11]

where i is the initial water content (m3 m3), h0 is the time-variable supply
pressure head imposed by the disk infiltrometer (cm), hi is the initial pressure head (cm), and r0 is the disk radius (cm). Equation [8] describes the
initial condition in terms of the water content. Equation [9] specifies the
time-variable pressure head below the disk and Eq. [10] prescribes a zeroflux condition at the remainder of the soil surface. Equation [11] states that
the other boundaries are sufficiently distant from the infiltration source so
that they do not influence the flow process. A no-flow condition was set at
SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

r = 0. In this study, the unimodal VGM model (van Genuchten,

1980; Mualem, 1976)

S=

1
r
=
n
s r
1 + h

h0

S =1 h>0

[12]

[13]

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

m
K (S ) = Ks S 0.5 1 (1 S 1/ m )

m = 1 1/ n n > 1

[14]

[15]

describes the soil hydraulic properties of Eq. [7], where S

(dimensionless) is effective saturation, r (m3 m3) is the
residual volumetric water content, s (m3 m3) is the saturated volumetric water content, Ks (cm d1) is the saturated
hydraulic conductivity, and (cm1), n, and m (both dimenFig. 2. Schematic of the hood infiltrometer (not to scale). The effective pressionless) are empirical parameters.
sure head on the soil surface can be determined with a precision of 1 mm
By superpositioning the unimodal VGM model, the
from the difference of the height of the water level in the standpipe and
bimodal function for water retention curves (Durner, 1994)
the negative pressure head at the U-tube manometer. The zero point of the
can be obtained with
scale of the standpipe is at the soil surface (U = negative pressure at the
S

S=

r
1
= w1
n
s r
1 + 1h 1

+ w2

(1 + h )
n2

m2

U-tube manometer, H = height of the water table in the standpipe, HK =

infiltration chamber height, and T = submergence depth of the air pipe).

m1

[16]

h0

where w1 and w2 (0 < w1, w2 < 1; wi = 1) are the weighting factors

for the two overlapping regions. Combining Durners (1994) retention model with Mualems (1976) pore-size distribution model leads
to (im nek et al., 2005)
m1

w1 1 1 (1 S 11/ m1 )

w
S
w
S
+
( 1 1 2 2)

1 1 S 1/ m2 m2

w
+

(
)

2 2
2

K ( S ) = Ks
(w1 1 + w2 2 )

0.5

[17]

Inverse parameter estimations were conducted with the procedures outlined by imnek et al. (1999). We included (i) the cumulative infiltration volumes I(t), (ii) the transient water content measured by the diagonally placed TDR probe TDR(t), and (iii) the independently obtained
(h) data points from laboratory steady-state measurements in the objective function. As an initial condition, we set the water content measured
under the infiltration surface for the entire soil profile. We predicted the
initial estimation of parameters from the measured soil texture and bulk
density using the Rosetta database (Schaap et al., 2001).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hood and Disc Infiltrometers
The hood infiltrometer consists of three components: a hood, a
Mariotte water supply, and a U-tube manometer (Fig. 2). The first of the
three major components is the hood itself (diameter = 12.4 cm), which is
made of acrylic and is placed open side down onto the soil with a retaining
ring. The gap between the retaining ring and the hood is filled with wetted
sand to seal the edge and to prevent the water from leaking out of the side.
The hood is connected to a conventional Mariotte water supply (diameter =
12 cm, length = 71.6 cm), which has the addition of a bubble tower placed
SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

inside its water reservoir. The bubble tower has an adjustable pipe that controls the suction in the usual way, by allowing air entry at varying distances
below the water table of the tower. In contrast to the infiltration chamber of
the conventional disk infiltrometer (e.g., Ankeny et al., 1991), an additional
air outlet tube connects the head space of the water reservoir with the head
space of the hood. The hood also contains a standpipe that is joined to the
U-tube manometer. The purpose of this is to measure the effective pressure
head on the soil surface, which we can determine with a precision of 1 mm
from the difference of the height of the water level in the standpipe and the
negative pressure head at the U-tube manometer. The zero point of the scale
of the standpipe is at the soil surface level.
Water infiltration takes place from the hood, which is placed with
its open side on the undisturbed soil surface. In contrast to the disk infiltrometer, no perforated plate, nylon membrane, or contact material is
required on the infiltration surface, but the vegetation should be cut to
about 5 mm tall. To start the filling of the hood, the connection tube
between the hood and the water reservoir must be opened and the water
moves into a buffer cup inside the hood. This buffer cup is necessary to
de-aerate the connection tube, thereby disconnecting the water supply
tube from the air volume inside the hood. To fill the hood with water,
the air outlet tube is slowly opened to remove the remaining air from
the hood to the head space of the water reservoir. This step causes the air
inside the hood to go below the subpressure and the buffer cup at the end
of the connection tube to overflow, thus filling the space below the hood
with water. The air outlet connection must be closed when the fill mark is
reached. The water level inside the hood remains constant and the hood
infiltrometer is prepared for the experiment.
For those soils that have a tendency to surface seal, we recommend laying a nylon guard cloth on the soil under the hood to prevent
soil surface sealing and fragmentation of soil aggregates during the
time the hood is filling. The cloth will float in the water-filled hood
and will not affect infiltration (see Fig. 3).
The water inside the hood is under a negative pressure. The adjustable pipe of the bubble tower controls that suction by allowing air entry
3

same place of the Dahlem soil site. We measured the infiltration rate at pressure supply heads of 5, 2, and 0 cm. Pressure
heads below 5 cm were not possible because air entered into
the hood through the soil. A differential pressure transducer
was installed at the water reservoir to automatically record
the infiltration rate every 30 s (Casey and Derby, 2002). We
allowed 24 h between the end of each infiltration experiment
and the beginning of the next.
Upon termination of the hood infiltration experiments, we
performed three replicate sequences of disk infiltration experiments at the same place. For these experiments, we removed all
vegetation from the infiltration surface and prepared a 10-mmthick contact layer (Ks ? 610 cm d1; air-entry pressure head
? 32 cm) using dry spheriglass no. 2227 glass spheres (Potters
Ballotini GmbH, Germany; Reynolds and Zebchuk, 1996).
The particle diameter of these glass spheres was as follows:
87.3% 630200 m; 10.55% 20063 m, and 2.15% <63
m. Then we wetted the contact material with a spray of water (Bagarello
et al., 2000) and placed the prewetted disk onto its surface. We applied
the following pressure supply heads: 15, 10, 5, and 0 cm H2O. As
before, the corresponding infiltration rates were registered every 30 s and
the time interval between experiments was 24 h. A 10-mm-thick contact
layer was necessary to level the marked microstructure of the soil surface.
Upon termination of the disk infiltrometer tests, we once more
performed a hood infiltration experiment at the same place. For this
experiment, the contact material was left on the infiltration surface.
The purpose of this was to examine the influence of contact material
on the infiltration rate. Three successive pressure steps were applied,
corresponding with pressure heads of 5, 2, and 0 cm H2O (Table
1). Table 1 shows that the initial water content under the infiltration
surface was always similar in all experiments. Hence, we assumed that
the 24-h waiting period between the measurements was sufficient for
reestablishment of the original initial conditions.

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

Fig. 3. Schematic of the hood with nylon guard cloth (not to scale).

at varying distances below the water table of the tower. Thus, water can be
supplied at a number of pressure heads by the Mariotte water supply. Our
experimental setup allows the hydraulic properties to be measured from
saturation up to the bubble point of the soil. Note that we differentiate
between the bubble point of the soil and the air-entry value of the soil.
Air may enter a water-saturated pore when the pressure head is sufficient
to drain the largest pore diameter. A soil pore is irregularly shaped, with
thinner and wider pore diameters, however; that means that at the airentry value of a soil, there is still water at the bottleneck of the pore. To
completely dewater this pore, a more negative pressure head is required.
This pressure head corresponds to the bubble point of the soil. In other
words, the air bubble point is equal to the pressure head required to force
air through the pores of a water-saturated soil. For measurements above
the bubble point of the soil, a standard 12.4-cm-diam. disk (instead of a
hood) can be connected to the Mariotte water supply. A supplemental
standpipe on the disk in connection with the U-tube manometer allows,
as in the case of the hood infiltrometer, a direct determination of the effective pressure head on the bottom of the infiltration chamber. The extent
of the drop in pressure above the membrane is unknown.

The Site

Infiltration studies were conducted at the agrometeorological station

of the Technical University of Berlin in Berlin-Dahlem. Vegetation at the
study site is grassland. The soil is a Dahlem sandy loam (Cambisol) with a
25-cm-thick Ap horizon at the surface. Within this depth, the particle size
distribution consists of 72.8% sand (0.0632.0 mm), 19.2% silt (0.002
0.063 mm), and 8.0% clay (<0.002 mm). From soil core measurements,
the bulk density within this depth was 1.403 (0.035) g cm3.

Time-Domain Reflectometry Measurements

Before the infiltrometer measurements, we installed a 20-cmlong buriable three-rod TDR probe (Soil Moisture Equipment Corp.,
Santa Barbara, CA) to measure soil water content during all infiltration
experiments. Similarly to the study by Schwartz and Evett (2003), we
inserted the TDR probe at a 30 angle into the soil surface, 3 cm from
the disk infiltrometers edge, and oriented toward the vertical axis of
the infiltrometer. The soil water content under the infiltration surface
was automatically measured every 60 s. We used the polynomial function of Topp et al. (1980) to convert travel time into water content.

Hood and Disk Infiltrometer Measurements

Tap water was used for the infiltrometer measurements. We conducted three replicate sequences of hood infiltration experiments at the
4

Soil Core Measurements

Upon completion of all infiltration experiments, we extracted three

undisturbed soil cores (4-cm length and 5.64-cm diameter) from the
infiltration center at depths of 3 to 7 cm. We determined the unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity using the evaporation method (Schwrzel et al.,
2006). The same sample cores were then used to determine (desorption)
water retention curves. Samples were placed into a tray that held enough
de-aerated water to nearly cover them and were allowed to soak until
saturated. The dewatering process was performed using ceramic plates
connected to a hanging water column down to a pressure of 100 cm.
A pressure cell (Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa Barbara, CA) was
used below this pressure. At the end of the dewatering experiments, the
cores were again saturated, and we measured the saturated hydraulic conductivity using the constant-head method.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Woodings Analysis
Hood Infiltrometer Measurements without
Contact Layer
A summary of the hood infiltrometer results using Woodings
(1968) solution (Eq. [2]) is given in Table 2. Reproducible conductivities at any particular supply pressure head were obtained from
the repeated hood infiltrometer measurements described in Table
2. The coefficients of variation between the calculated conductivities and their mean vary between 36 and 45%. Notice the relatively
SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

high saturated hydraulic conductiv- Table 1. Summary of hood and disk infiltrometer experiments. Every infiltration test was
conducted at the same place, the agrometeorological station of the Technical Univerity of the first experiment compared
sity of Berlin in Berlin-Dahlem. The sequence of the infiltrometer experiments was apwith the corresponding values of the
plied to compare the performance of the two types of tension infiltrometers.
second and third hood infiltrometer
Initial
experiments (Table 2). A decline in Day of
Supply pressure Experiment
Final water
Experiment
water
year
head,
h
duration
content
saturated hydraulic conductivity in
0
content
3
3
successive infiltration experiments
cm
min
m m
5
35
hood infiltrometer, Exp. I (without
was also observed by Reynolds and 334
contact material)
2
20
0.327
0.389
Elrick (1986), Cislerova et al. (1988),
0
5
and Bagarello et al. (2000). A reason 335
5
106
hood infiltrometer, Exp. II (without
for such a phenomenon may be that
contact material)
2
34
0.318
0.384
0
16
the steady-state infiltration was not
5
38
hood infiltrometer, Exp. III (without
always reached during the infiltra- 336
contact material)
2
30
0.322
0.384
tion experiments. Under these con0
28
ditions, Woodings approach would 337
15
217
disk infiltrometer, Exp. I (with
overestimate the soil hydraulic con10
107
contact material)
0.321
0.372
5
79
ductivity (im nek et al., 1999).
0
47
Inspection of the measured water
15
148
disk infiltrometer, Exp. II (with
contents below the hood (Fig. 4) 338
10
82
contact material)
0.321
0.370
shows that a stable water content
5
47
was always reached at the end of
0
34
15
277
any particular supply pressure head. 339
disk infiltrometer, Exp. III (with
10
75
contact material)
The cause of the decline in saturated
0.321
0.368
5
47
conductivity was that the saturated
0
30
water content decreased throughout 341
5
110
hood infiltrometer, Exp. IV (with
the hood experiments. We recorded
contact material)
0.317
0.371
2
37
0
30
the highest water contents, 0.389
m3 m3, under the hood during
of all conducted infiltration tests. Figure 5 illustrates that while
the first experiment (Table 1, Fig.
the water content rose only a little (<0.02 m3 m3), the final
4), while in the sequencing infiltration experiments, the maximal
3
3
water content was just 0.384 m m .
steady-state infiltration rate increased 10-fold. Our observed
differences in maximal water content on the one hand and
Disk and Hood Infiltrometer Measurements with
in saturated and near-saturated hydraulic conductivity on
Contact Layer
the other hand were caused not only by air entrapment and
Reproducible unsaturated conductivities at any particular
small modification of the soil structure during the infiltration
supply pressure head were also obtained from the repeated disk
experiments but also by the use of a contact material. As disinfiltrometer measurements described in Table 2. The coefficients
cussed above, Reynolds and Zebchuk (1996) showed that the
of variation between the calculated conductivities and their mean
hydraulic head loss across a contact layer can cause the pressure
vary between 35 and 56%. Overall, the variability we found in our
head applied to the soil surface to differ from the pressure head
repeated disk infiltrometer measurements was in the same range as
applied to the infiltrometer membrane. They developed a relareported in previous studies (Logsdon et al., 1993; imnek et al.,
tionship to take into account the effect of the thickness of the
1999; Bagarello et al., 2000).
As shown in Table 2, Table 2. Results of hood and disk infiltrometer experiments using Woodings (1968) analysis and
saturated conductivity of the soil cores. The soil cores were extracted on termination of inthe hydraulic conductivity
filtrometer experiments.
decreased throughout our
experiments. The values of
Hydraulic conductivity at supply pressure head
(cm)
Experiment
the hood infiltrometer mea12.5
7.5
3.5
2.5
1.0
0.0
surements without a contact
1

cm
d
layer were almost one order

161

256
277
of magnitude greater than the Hood infiltrometer, Exp. I (without contact material)
Hood
infi
ltrometer,
Exp.
II
(without
contact
material)

77

113
118
corresponding values of the
Hood
infi
ltrometer,
Exp.
III
(without
contact
material)

133

163
175
disk and hood experiments
Geometric mean
118
168
179
with a contact layer. The reaDisc
infi
ltrometer,
Exp.
I
(with
contact
material)
8
10

17

25
sons for this are shown in Fig.
4
8

15

23
5, which presents the relation Disc infiltrometer, Exp. II (with contact material)
Disc
infi
ltrometer,
Exp.
III
(with
contact
material)
3
5

12
between the final steady-state
Geometric
mean
4
7
13
19
infiltration rate and the corHood
infi
ltrometer,
Exp.
IV
(with
contact
material)

11

27
36
responding water content
253
Constant
head
method,
geometric
mean
(soil
cores,
n
=
3)
under the infiltration surface

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

of pores lead to additional flow impedances in the soil surface layer. Because of that, saturated conditions underneath the
disk will never be reached during the disk experiments. Further
evidence of collapsed pores or pores filled with fine particles
might be found by collecting vertical slices from the infiltration
surface and examining them under a microscope; however, this
was not done in this study.
There were differences not only in infiltration rates (Fig. 5)
among the measurements without and with a contact layer, but
also in the exponential slope, *, of the Gardner (1958) function
(Eq. [1]). Hood measurements without a contact layer provided a
mean value of 0.055 cm1 (CV = 35%) for *. An almost identical value (0.066 cm1, CV = 28%) was obtained for the supply
pressure head intervals (15,10) and (10,5 cm) of the disk
measurements. In contrast, a substantially larger * value of 0.160
cm1 (CV = 5%) was found for the supply pressure head interval
(5,0) cm of the disk experiments.
Table 2 also shows the mean of the saturated conductivity of the soil cores obtained from the constant-head method.
Compared with field measurements, the constant-head method
yielded greater saturated conductivity (Table 2), possibly caused
by the greater degree of saturation obtained during the laboratory procedure, leading to a greater number of water-filled pores.
Another reason for the observed differences between the methods
was discerned by Reynolds et al. (2000) when they compared the
disk infiltrometer and the constant-head method for various soil
textures and agricultural management practices. They found that
often the constant-head method produced the highest conductivities regardless of soil type and land management. Reynolds et al.
(2000) suggested that these higher conductivities may be attributed to worm holes, old root channels, and cracks. Such voids
were never visible on both ends of the cores we investigated, however. Differences between the field and lab measurements might
also be attributed to the different sample sizes of the infiltrometers
and the soil cores.

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

Fig. 4. Measured water content below the hood during Exp. I. Arrows
indicate step changes in the infiltrometer supply pressure head.

contact layer on conductivity. The application of this equation

to our disk measurements resulted in conductivity values that
fell within 10% of the disk data listed in Table 2. Because of
this, we conclude that the effect of the thickness of the contact
layer on the conductivity is negligible compared with observed
differences between the hood and disk infiltrometer results.
We believe that preparing the soil surface for disk infiltrometer
measurements led to the sealing and smearing of the pores of
the soil surface, and applying pressure heads near saturation
might have caused mobile fine-textured particles of the contact
material to clog the macropores. The result was a significant
decrease in the saturated and near-saturated conductivity compared with the measurements without a contact layer (Table 2).
Our findings, a drop in saturated and near-saturated conductivity because of smeared pores, was also reported by Spohrer
et al. (2006). We conclude that smearing, sealing, and clogging

Numerical Results

We also analyzed the measured disk data using the inverse

parameter optimization method. The aim of the numerical studies
was to test our thesis that soil surface alterations affected the disk
infiltrometer measurements. Note that the inverse optimization of
the parameters was not applied to the hood data. The reason for
this is that hood infiltrometer experiments have a relatively small
measurement range (from saturation up to the bubble point of
the soil) and the applicable range in validity would be narrowed
compared with the disk infiltrometer.

Optimization with Unimodal Functions

Fig. 5. Final steady-state infiltration rate for an applied pressure

head of h0 = 0 cm and the corresponding final water content
under the infiltration surface for repeated infiltration experiments at the same place at the agrometeorological station
of the Technical University of Berlin in Berlin-Dahlem (Germany). The time interval between the end of one infiltration
run and the beginning of the next was at least 24 h.

The results of the parameter estimation are listed in Table 3.

Only small differences were found among the parameter values r,
s, , Ks, and n of the repeated disk experiments. These values were
located in a narrow range around the estimated mean (Table 3).
The estimated parameters s, , Ks, and n were only weakly correlated with each other (data not shown). In contrast, a relatively
high correlation between the parameters r and n (0.940.95) was
found. Close agreement (generally <20 mL) was obtained between
the measured and fitted cumulative infiltration curves of the second disk experiment (Fig. 6); larger deviations were mainly caused
by step changes in the infiltrometer supply pressure heads. Similar
SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

Table 3. Results of inverse parameter optimization obtained by including cumulative infiltration, time-domain reflectometry data, and
laboratory water retention measurements in the objective function. Values in parentheses signify the 95% confidence interval.
Pore-size model

Exp.

Seal
Ks
cm d1

Soil
r

m3 m3

or 1
cm1

n or n1

w2

2
cm1

0.087
0.364
0.027
1.352

(0.012)
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.022)
0.097
0.360
0.031
1.347
disk II

(0.010)
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.019)
0.086
0.356
0.025
1.356
disk III

(0.019
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.034)
15.0
0.151
0.377
0.025
1.592
0.076
0.819
B-VGM
disk I
(1.29)
(0.006)
(0.002)
(0.001)
(0.035)
(0.009)
(0.078)
5.7
0.128
0.378
0.026
1.446
0.090
0.427
disk II
(0.50)
(0.009)
(0.003)
(0.002)
(0.044)
(0.013)
(0.039)
1.9
0.155
0.394
0.019
1.670
0.190
0.214
disk III
(0.06)
(0.004)
(0.005)
(0.001)
(0.041)
(0.017)
(0.009)
VGM = unimodal pore-size model (van Genuchten, 1980). B-VGM = bimodal pore-size model (Durner, 1994).
VGM

disk I

n2

Ks
cm d1

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

3.388
(0.775)
3.340
(0.696)
5.500
(0.517)

54.1
(3.9)
38.5
(2.4)
24.9
(2.3)
328.6
(77.1)
161.9
(39.0)
145.3
(30.0)

Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity.

r and s = residual and saturated volumetric water content; and n = empirical parameters; w = weighting factor. Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to
two overlapping regions.

results were obtained for the other disk experiments (data not
shown). In spite of these good fits and the reasonable statistics (narrow 95% confidence interval and low degrees of parameter correlation), the predictions of water contents were poor (Fig. 7, left side).
The numerical model overestimated infiltration speed in the middle
of the experiments and underestimated the water contents at the
end; these deviations were up to 0.015 m3 m3.
Such errors in calculation may have been caused by water content averaging across a relatively large volume when using the diagonally placed TDR probe, while HYDRUS-2D allowed only nodal
values of water content in the sampling region of the TDR probe
(imnek et al., 1999). The accuracy of the soil water prediction
might be doubtful, particularly when the experiments cover a wide
water content range from very dry conditions to saturation; however, this was not the case in our study. The change in water content was small, which offsets these errors to some extent. Another
approach to averaging the water content was presented by Schwartz
and Evett (2002, 2003). They calculated the average water content
surrounding TDR probes by using a local coordinate transformation (in water contents) and integrating across the rectangular box.
In Fig. 8, the results of parameter optimization are compared with
the results of Woodings solution. Both methods yield nearly identical unsaturated hydraulic conductivities for log |h| 0.5 cm; however, the numerical solution overestimated the saturated hydraulic
conductivities by a factor of two. The use of alternative unimodal
hydraulic functions (Burdine, 1953; Brooks and Corey, 1964; Vogel
and Cislerov, 1988) did not lead to better optimization results.

the underlying soil. Assouline (2004) reported that the thickness

of seal layers may vary between 0.1 and 20 mm. We assumed that
the soil profile consists of a uniform 3-mm-thick seal layer, and the
underlying subsoil. We treated the parameters n and r of the seal
layer as known from earlier analysis (Table 3, VGM) whereas the
parameters s, w2, and 1 of Eq. [16] were set at 0.321 m3 m 3,

Optimization with Bimodal Functions

To improve the prediction of the soil water flow underneath
the disk, we applied Durners (1994) bimodal pore-size model in
the inverse parameter optimization process and introduced a seal
layer to take into account the effects of soil surface alterations. The
use of a seal layer needs some explanation. Assouline (2004) defined
the term seal as a soil surface layer that is formed during rainfall
events as a result of the direct impact of raindrops. In this study, we
define the term seal as a soil surface layer that is formed during disk
infiltration measurements as a result of soil surface preparation,
and pore filling and clogging by fine material being washed into
SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

Fig. 6. (a) Measured and calculated cumulative infiltration curves and

(b) their differences for the disk infiltrometer, Exp. II. Arrows
indicate step changes in the infiltrometer supply pressure head.
7

leads to a reduction in porosity (Assouline, 2004). All hydraulic

property parameters (Eq. [1617]) of the subsoil and the Ks value
of the seal layer were simultaneously optimized.
Fohrer (1995) studied seal formation of a sandy loam soil (with
similar texture and bulk density to the soil of our study) during laboratory rainfall experiments. She determined the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the seal layer to be between 1.2 and 3.6 cm d1,
with our estimated values (geometric mean = 5.5 cm d1) being in
this order (Table 3). Because of surface seal formation during the
disk experiments, substantial discrepancies between the soil pressure
head underneath the seal layer (at 0.5-cm depth) and the simulated
pressure head applied on the soil surface existed in the numerical
experiments (Table 4). The higher (less negative) the supply pressure head, the larger were the differences between the simulated soil
pressure head at the 0.5-cm depth and the pressure head applied on
the soil surface. Such discrepancies have also been reported by other
researchers (e.g., Reynolds and Zebchuk, 1996; Wang et al., 1998).
Our predicted soil pressure heads at the 0.5-cm depth indicate that
saturated conditions were reached in none of our disk experiments.
The additional flow impedance of the seal layer prevented the full
range of available pore sizes from conducting. These simulation
results are corroborated by our TDR measurements (Fig. 5) and also
by Fohrers (1995) results.
We conclude that disk infiltrometer measurements provide
unrealistic saturated conductivity values, at least for the sandy
loam investigated in this study. We left out these values in Fig. 9a.
Woodings (1968) solution assumes that the supply infiltrometer
pressure head on the membrane is equal to the soil pressure head
on the soil surface. As discussed above, this criterion was never met
during our disk experiments (Table 4). Using the predicted pressure
heads underneath the seal layer, we corrected the unsaturated conductivity values of the disk measurements. With this correction, the
unsaturated conductivity values were shifted to more negative pressure heads (Fig. 9a). The relative discrepancies between infiltrometer
supply pressure heads and soil pressure heads increased with lower
(less negative) applied supply pressure head values (Table 4) because
the shift of K values was more pronounced for supply pressure heads
at 5 cm. The hydraulic conductivity values obtained with the
hood infiltrometer, disk infiltrometer, and laboratory evaporation
method were superimposed and compared with the results of the
inverse parameter optimization using the bimodal pore size model
(Fig. 9a). Hood and disk data based on Woodings solution agree
reasonably with predicted conductivity functions. Some deviations
among the values of the different methods and measurements were
observed for pressure heads from 2 to 4 cm. Within this pressure
head range, the conductivity curves show a sharp change, indicating the presence of relatively fast flow phenomena near saturation

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

Fig. 7. Measured and calculated water content below the disk

based on unimodal (van Genuchten, 1980) and bimodal
(Durner, 1994) soil water retention functions. Arrows indicate step changes in the infiltrometer supply pressure head.

0.0, and 0.001, respectively. The small 1 value was chosen so

that the seal layer would remain saturated during the numerical
experiment. Compared with the earlier analysis (Table 3, VGM),
we reduced s to take into account the known fact that soil sealing

Table 4. Predicted pressure heads below the seal layer for the
disk experiment Exp. I to III. The values were obtained
using the inverse parameter optimization method. Durners (1994) bimodal pore-size model was applied.
Experiment

Pressure head below the seal layer at 0.5-cm

depth at soil surface supply pressure head (cm)
15.0

Fig. 8. Hydraulic conductivities of the Dahlem soil calculated using

Woodings (1968) solution and using numerical simulation (unimodal soil water retention function); h = supply pressure head.
8

Exp. I
Exp. II
Exp. III

10.0

5.0

0.0

cm
17.1
12.4
7.6
1.4
15.3
10.6
5.9
2.4
16.7
11.1
7.9
5.2

SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

(Mohanty et al., 1997). Again, because of the soil surface alterations,

the inflection point may have changed throughout the experiments.
Unsaturated hydraulic conductivities of the soil cores, determined
directly using the evaporation method, were also in the same range as
the numerically predicted conductivity functions (Fig. 9a). In some
cases, the numerical model underestimated the measured K values
of the soil cores by a factor of two, in particularly for log|h| 2.2.
Reasonable agreement was found only when water retention data
were incorporated into the optimization process. The introduction
of independently measured water retention data was also required in
optimizations to provide a useful description of the water retention
curve in the dry region. Note that the porosities calculated on the
base of measured bulk and particle densities were not included in
the optimization process. The estimated saturated water contents
underestimated the calculated porosities by about 15% (Fig. 9b).
This finding agrees well with the statement of Dane and Hopmans
(2002) that the saturated water content is usually about 85% of the
porosity. The measured water retention data correspond reasonably well with the results of the optimization method but the water
retention functions were similar only within the measurement range
(Fig. 9b). At pressure heads 1000 cm, discrepancies among the
retention curves increased noticeably.
The estimated values of the parameter optimization using the
bimodal expression are listed in Table 3. Except for parameter n2 the
parameter values are located in a narrow range around the estimated
mean (Table 3). These values are mostly uncorrelated (correlation
<0.90, the correlation matrix is not shown). Only the correlation
between r and n1, and between s and Ks values was higher (0.93
0.97). Some differences were found among the parameter values
of the repeated disk tests, in particularly for w2, n2, and 2. We
attribute this to the seal layer alterations throughout the conducted
disk experiments (see also the estimated K values of the seal layer in
Table 4). It can be seen from Fig. 7 (right-hand side), however, that
using the bimodal pore-size model in connection with a seal layer
improved the prediction of water flow underneath the disk. The
measured and simulated curves are almost identical.

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

CONCLUSIONS

Disk infiltrometers are often used to determine the contribution of macropores to the infiltration rate and conductivity at
saturation (Jury and Horton, 2004). Yet the presence of a contact
layer in disk infiltrometer studies may lead to unrealistic conductivity values for pressure heads > 3 cm because of surface sealing,
smearing, and clogging of pores. Steps or methods are required
to circumvent these problems. For instance, Schwartz and Evett
(2003) used a CaSO4 solution to avoid sealing problems. We presented a new type of tension infiltrometer that, instead of requiring a disk and contact material, places a water-filled hood open
side down onto the soil surface. The hood infiltrometer permits
the measurement of the hydraulic conductivity including flow in
macropores from field saturation up to the bubble point of the
soil. The combined use of hood and disk infiltrometers in conjunction with TDR might be a powerful tool for the hydraulic
characterization of field soils from saturation to dry conditions.
REFERENCES

Ankeny, M.D., M. Ahmed, T.C. Kaspar, and R. Horton. 1991. Simple field
method for determining unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 55:467469.

SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007

Fig. 9. (a) Unsaturated hydraulic conductivities at each supply

pressure head (h) calculated using Woodings analysis (the
values were corrected as regards the soil pressure heads listed
in Table 4) and the corresponding optimized hydraulic conductivity functions and (b) soil water retention values of the
Dahlem soil from soil cores and optimized bimodal soil water
retention curves obtained from three sequential disk infiltrometer experiments. The infiltration experiments were conducted
at the same place: the agrometeorological station of the
Technical University of Berlin in Berlin-Dahlem (Germany).
Additionally, (a) shows unsaturated hydraulic conductivities of
the Dahlem soil obtained from laboratory evaporation experiments. Laboratory soil water retention points were incorporated into the optimization processes.
Assouline, S. 2004. Rainfall-induced soil surface sealing: A critical review of
observations, conceptual models, and solutions. Vadose Zone J. 3:570591.
Bagarello, V., M. Iovina, and G. Tusa. 2000. Factors affecting measurement of the nearsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:12031210.
Bagarello, V., M. Iovino, and G. Tusa. 2001. Effect of contact material on
tension infiltrometer measurements. Trans. ASAE 44:911916.
Brooks, R.H., and A.T. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media.
Hydrol. Pap. 3. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins.
Burdine, N.T. 1953. Relative permeability calculation from size distribution
data. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Eng. 198:7178.
Casey, F.X.M., and N.E. Derby. 2002. Improved design for an automated
tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:6467.
Cislerova, M., J. imnek, and T. Vogel. 1988. Changes of steady-state infiltration
rates in recurrent ponding infiltration experiments. J. Hydrol. 104:116.
Close, K.R., G. Frasier, G.H. Dunn, and J.C. Loftis. 1998. Tension
infiltrometer contact interface evaluation by use of a potassium iodide
tracer. Trans. ASAE 41:9951004.
Dane, J.H., and J.W. Hopmans. 2002. Water retention and storage. p. 675. In
J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4: Physical
methods. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Durner, W. 1994. Hydraulic conductivity estimation for soils with
heterogeneous pore structure. Water Resour. Res. 30:211223.
Everts, C.J., and R.S. Kanwar. 1993. Interpreting tension-infiltrometer data

for quantifying soil macropores: Some practical considerations. Trans.

ASAE 36:423428.
Fohrer, N. 1995.Auswirkungen von Bodenfeuchte, Bodenart und
Oberflchenbeschaffenheit auf Prozesse der Flchenerosion durch Wasser.
(In German). Ph.D. diss. Technical Univ. of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Gardner, W.R. 1958. Some steady-state solutions to the unsaturated flow
equation with application to the evaporation from a water table. Soil
Sci. 85:228232.
Jarvis, N.J., and I. Messing. 1995. Near-saturated conductivity in soils of contrasting
texture measured by tension infiltrometers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:2734.
Jury, W.A., and R. Horton. 2004. Soil physics. 6th ed. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Kung, K.-J.S., M. Hanke, C.S. Helling, E.J. Kladivko, T.J. Gish, T.S. Steenhuis,
and D.B. Jaynes. 2005. Quantifying pore-size spectrum of macroporetype preferential pathways. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:11961208.
Logsdon, S.D., and D.B. Jaynes. 1993. Methodology for determining hydraulic
conductivity with tension infiltrometers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:14261431.
Logsdon, S.D., E.L. McCoy, R.R. Allmaras, and D.R. Linden. 1993. Macropore
characterization by indirect methods. Soil Sci. 155:316324.
Mohanty, B.P., R.S. Bowman, J.M.H. Hendrickx, and M.Th. van Genuchten. 1997.
New piecewise-continuous hydraulic functions for modeling preferential flow
in an intermittent-flood-irrigated field. Water Resour. Res. 33:20492063.
Mualem, Y. 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated porous media. Water Resour. Res. 12:513522.
Perroux, K.M., and I. White. 1988. Designs for disc permeameters. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 52:12051215.
Renger, M., H. Stoffregen, J. Klocke, M. Facklam, G. Wessolek, C.H. Roth,
and R. Plagge. 1999. Ein autoregressives Verfahren zur Bestimmung der
gesttigten und ungesttigten hydraulischen Leitfhigkeit. (In German,
with English abstract). J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162:123130.
Reynolds, W.D., B.T. Bowman, R.R. Brunke, C.F. Drury, and C.S. Tan. 2000.
Comparison of tension infiltrometer, pressure infiltrometer, and soil
core estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
64:478484.
Reynolds, W.D., and D.E. Elrick. 1986. A method for simultaneous in
situ measurements in the vadose zone of field-saturated hydraulic
conductivity, sorptivity and the conductivitypressure head relationship.
Ground Water Monit. Rev. 6(1):8495.
Reynolds, W.D., and D.E. Elrick. 1991. Determination of hydraulic conductivity
using a tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:633639.
Reynolds, W.D., and W.D. Zebchuk. 1996. Use of contact material in tension
infiltrometer measurements. Soil Technol. 9:141159.

Schaap, M.G., F.J. Leij, and M.Th. van Genuchten. 2001. Rosetta: A computer
program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical
pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol. 251:163176.
Schwartz, R.C., and S.R. Evett. 2002. Estimating hydraulic properties of a finetextured soil using a disc infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:14091423.
Schwartz, R.C., and S.R. Evett. 2003. Conjunctive use of tension infiltrometry
and time-domain reflectometry for inverse estimation of soil hydraulic
properties. Vadose Zone J. 2:530538.
Schwrzel, K., J. imnek, H. Stoffregen, G. Wessolek, and M.Th. van
Genuchten. 2006. Direct and inverse estimation of the hydraulic properties
of peat soils: Laboratory versus field data. Vadose Zone J. 5:628640.
imnek, J., M. ejna, and M.Th. van Genuchten. 1998. The HYDRUS2D software package for simulating the two-dimensional movement
of water, heat and multiple solutes in variably saturated media, Version
2.0, IGWMC-TPS-53. Int. Ground Water Modeling Center, Colorado
School of Mines, Golden.
imnek, J., M. ejna, and M.Th. van Genuchten. 2005. The HYDRUS-1D
software package for simulating the one-dimensional movement of water,
heat and multiple solutes in variably saturated media. Version 3.0. HYDRUS
Software Ser. 1. Dep. of Environ. Sci., Univ. of Calif., Riverside.
imnek, J., O. Wendroth, and M.Th. van Genuchten. 1999. Estimating
unsaturated soil hydraulic properties from laboratory tension disc
infiltrometer. Water Resour. Res. 35:29652979.
Spohrer, K., L. Herrmann, J. Ingwersen, and K. Stahr. 2006. Applicability
of uni- and bimodal retention functions for water flow modeling in a
tropical Acrisol. Vadose Zone J. 5:4858.
Topp, G.C., J.L. Davis, and A.P. Annan. 1980. Electromagnetic determination
of soil water content: Measurement in coaxial transmission lines. Water
Resour. Res. 16:574582.
van Genuchten, M.Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:892898.
Vogel, T., and M. Cislerov. 1988. On the reliability of unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity calculated from the moisture retention curve. Transp.
Porous Media 3:115.
Wang, D., S.R. Yates, and F.F. Ernst. 1998. Determining soil hydraulic
properties using tension infiltrometers, time domain reflectometry, and
tensiometers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:318325.
Warrick, A. 1992. Models for disc infiltrometers. Water Resour. Res.
28:13191327.
Wooding, R.A. 1968. Steady infiltration from a shallow circular pond. Water
Resour. Res. 4:12591273.

.
y
l
n
o
s
A
e
S
s
S
o
S
p y
r
b
u
P
d
e
g
t
n
h
fi
g
i
o
r
o
y
r
p
P
o
r
C
o
F

10

SSSAJ: Volume 71: Number 4 JulyAugust 2007