Comparison of infiltration models

Abstract

AbstractFourteen popular, representative infiltration models, some physically based, some semi‐empirical and some empirical, were selected for a comparative evaluation. Using the Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency criterion, the models were evaluated and compared for 243 sets of infiltration data collected from field and laboratory tests conducted in India and the USA on soils ranging from coarse sand to fine clay. Based on a relative grading scale, the semi‐empirical Singh–Yu general model, Holtan model and Horton model were graded respectively as 6·52, 5·57 and 5·48 out of 10. The empirical Huggins and Monke model, modified Kostiakov and Kostiakov model were graded as 5·57, 5·30 and 5·22, respectively. The physically based non‐linear and linear models of Smith–Parlange were graded as 5·48 and 5·22, respectively. Other models were ranked lower than these models. All the models generally performed poorly in field tests on Georgia's sandy soils, except the Robertsdale loamy sand. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.