WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 37, NO.

2, PAGES 265-271, FEBRUARY 2001

A model for soil relative hydraulic conductivity based

on the water retention characteristic curve

S. Assouline
Departmentof EnvironmentalPhysics,Instituteof Soil, Water and EnvironmentSciences
AgriculturalResearchOrganization,Volcani Center,Bet Dagan,Israel

Abstract. A simplemodel is proposedwhichpredictsthe relativeunsaturatedhydraulic

conductivityfunctionof nonswellingsoilsby usingthe first two momentsof their water
retentioncurve(WRC). The modelis basedon the statisticalapproachbut usesless
restrictiveassumptions concerningthe pore configurationthanMualem's[1976]model.
The resultis that the relativehydraulicconductivity(RHC) is a powerfunctionof the
relativecontributionof the poresfilled with water. It is shownthat the powervalue is
related to the coefficientof variation characterizingthe retention curve,expressedin
termsof the WRC model ofAssoulineet al. [1998].Therefore a relationshipis established
betweenthe RHC and the soil structureand texture, as reflectedby the measuredWRC.
The model is calibratedon data from eight soilsand testedon data from five soils,
representinga wide rangeof soil textures,from sandto silt. The performancesof the
modelare comparedto thoseresultingfrom the applicationof Mualem's[1976]modelto
the analyticalexpressions of Brooksand Corey[1964]andAssoulineet al. [1998]for the
WRC. In mostof the casesthe proposedmodel improvesthe fit of the predictedRHC to
the measureddata, althoughits performancein the caseof loam soilsseemsto be weak.

1. Introduction soils.Also, the hysteresisobservedin K(½) is much more

significantthan in K(0). Thereforethe Kr(½) empiricalfor-
The hydraulicconductivity function(HCF) of porousmedia, mulas are valid for continuouswetting or drying processes
in general,and soilsin particular,describesthe relationship only.For thisreasonit is preferableto useKr(O) ratherthan
betweenthe unsaturatedhydraulicconductivityK and the wa- Kr( ½) functions.
ter content0 or the capillaryhead •. Mostly, this functionis The macroscopic approachaimsto deriveanalyticalformula
expressed relativelyto the saturatedhydraulicconductivity gsat for the Kr(Se) relationship, basedon physicalconsiderations.
of the soil of interest.It is then noted as the relativehydraulic The resultinggeneralform for Kr(Se) is
conductivity function(RHC) K r of 0 or •:
gr(Xe) : S•. (4)
Kr(O) = K(O)/Ksat. (1)
Averjanov[1950]suggested thatrn = 3.5. Irmay [1954]derived
Often, the effectivesaturationdegreeSe definedby a theoreticalvalue of rn = 3.0. Usingexperimentaldata of 50
soils,Mualem [1978]foundthat rn variesfrom 2.5 to 24.5.This
S• = (0- Or)/(Os- Or), (2) approachwas criticizedfor neglectingthe effect of pore size
where Osis the saturatedwater contentand Oris the residual distribution on hydraulic conductivity [Childs and Coilis-
water content,is usedas the independentvariable. George,1950]. Mualem [1978] found a good correlationbe-
The HCF is indispensable for the numericalsolutionof the tween the rn values of the 50 soils and the corresponding
equationsdescribingflow processes in soils.However,the ex- energy per unit volumeof soil w requiredto drain the satu-
perimentaldeterminationof thisfunctionis tediousand time- rated soil down to the wilting point, calculatedfrom water
consuming. Thereforegreateffort hasbeen investedin devel- retention data. The derived empiricallinear formula, which
oping models that can predict the HCF or the RHC. A relatesrn to w, incorporatessomehowthe effect of pore size
comprehensivereview of the different models is given by distributionin the macroscopicapproach.
Mualem [1986]. Three major approachescan be identified, The statisticalapproachrelatesthe RHC of a soil to the
namely,the empirical,the macroscopic, and the statisticalap- informationcontainedin its measuredretentioncurve, ½(0).
proaches. This approachbegan, apparently,with the work of Purcell
The empiricalapproachconsists of bestfittingsimplemath- [1949]and was developedthroughsuccessive significantcon-
ematicalformulasto availablehydraulicconductivitydata. It tributions[Childsand Coilis-George, 1950;Fatt and Dykstra,
can be representedby Gardner's[1958]equation: 1951;Burdine,1953; Wyllieand Gardner,1958;Brutsaert,1967;
Mualem, 1976; Mualem and Dagan, 1978]. The model of
Kr(½)= [(•tk/a) + 1]-1, (3) Mualem [1976] representsthe most recent outcomeof this
approach.It is basedon the followingmain assumptions: (1)
wherea andk are fittingparameters.The major restrictionon
The porousmediumis a setof interconnected poresrandomly
this approachis that no singleformulais valid for all typesof
distributedin the sample.The poresare characterized by their
Copyright2001 by the AmericanGeophysicalUnion. radiusr and describedby a pore distributionf(r), similarfor
Paper number2000WR900254. any crosssectionin the sample.The smallestpore radiusis
0043-1397/01/2000WR900254509.00 rmin,and the largestis rmax. The soilretentioncurveis consid-
265
266 ASSOULINE: MODEL FOR SOIL RELATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

ered analogousto the pore radii distributionfunction.Using of 2 in (7) is veryrestrictiveconsidering pore configuration
in
the capillarylaw,r is uniquelyrelatedto the capillaryhead$, soilsand (2) the tortuosityfactor stronglydependson soil
at which the pore is filled and drained.Therefore the contri- structureand texture in addition to its dependenceon soil
butionof filled poresof radii r -• r + dr to the water content moisture content [Pachepsky,1990]. The purpose of the
0 is presentstudyis to proposea new simplifiedmodel,with less
restrictiveassumptions,
that improvesthe predictionof Kr(O)
d 0 (r) = f(r) dr. (5) when comparedwith measureddata.

(2) Consideringa porousslabof thickness Ax(x -• x + Ax)

alongthe flowline, the probability,a (r, p), of the connection
ofaporer-•r + dr atxtoaporep-•p + d patx + •x 2. Presentation of the RHC Model
is
Consider(7). The correlationfactor G(0) standsfor the
partialcorrelationbetweenthe poresr and p at a givenwater
a(r, p) = G(O, r, p)f(r) f(p) dr dp, (6)
content0 andfor a porousslabof thickness Ax (equation(6)).
wherethe functionG(0, r, p) accounts for partialcorrelation This factoris relatedto Ax; that is, it is equalto 1 for Ax >>
betweentheporesr andp at a givenwatercontent0. (3) A pair rmax,when complete randomness of the relativepositionof the
of capillaryelementswhoselengthsare proportionalto their twoslabfaces canbeassumed, andisequalto [f(r)f(p)drdp]-•
radii replacethe pore configuration,andthe hydraulicconduc- whenAx -• 0, thevaluefor whicha(r, p) = 1, the correlation
tivityisproportionalto (rp).(4) A tortuosityfactor,T(O,r, p), is betweenthe slab'stwo facesbeingcompletein thiscase.Since
applied.(5) The functionsG(O, r, p) and T(O, r, p) are we are concernedaboutthe relationshipbetweenpore config-
assumedto be functionsof 0 solely. uration and hydraulicconductivity,Ax shouldbe of the same
The expressionfor Kr(O) resultingfrom this conceptual orderof magnitudeasthe filledpore radii at the given0 value.
model is Consequently, G(0) shouldbe relatedto the meanfilledpore
radiusr(0). Thisrelationshipshouldbe alsodependenton the
specificsoilstructureandtexture.Therefore,asa firstapprox-

Kr(O)
fr
= T(O)G(O) ....
rf(r) dr
min

' (7)
imation,the followingexpression is suggested

G(0) = [r( 0)/rrcf]•,

for G (0):

(9)

• rf(r)
dr
ß•r min
whererref anda areparameters relatedto the soilproperties.
The tortuosityfactorT( 0 ) is generallydescribed in termsof
The power of 2 of the quadraturesin (7) evolvesfrom the the ratio between the effective average flow path length at 0,
assumption that the pore configurationcan be replacedby a L (0), and a referencelengthscaleL ref-ThereforeT(0), as
pair of capillaryelementswhoselengthsare proportionalto G (0), shouldalsobe relatedto r(0). As 0 decreases, r(0)
their respectiveradii, r and p. Mualem [1976] has suggested decreases and T(0) increases. Consequently, L (r(0)) should
replacingthe correlationand the tortuosityfactorsG(0) and increasewith the decreaseof r(0). A first approximation of
T(0 ) bya singlefactorS•. Thenapplying the capillarylaw,the the L[r(O)] relationship canbe derivedfrom the application
followingresultis obtained: of fractal lines characteristics,since fractal lines also become
more tortuousas the size of the measuringscaledecreases.
0 2
Shepard[1993]hasusedthisapproachto computethe hydrau-
50 lic conductivity
of soils.For a fractalline its lengthL (to) will
dependon the lengthtoof the measuring stickaccording to the
powerfunction[Feder,1988]:

1. =

wherec is a constantandD is the fractaldimension. Applying

Carman [1937] introducedthe conceptof tortuosityas the
squareof the ratio of the effectiveaveragepath in the porous (10) to approximate
theL(r( 0 )) andtheL (rref)relationships,
medium (Le) to the shortestdistancemeasuredalong the an expressionsimilarto (9) is obtainedfor {L[r(0)]/L(rref)}
directionof the pore (L). It was later redefinedas (Le/L) and consequentlyfor T(0):
[Hillel, 1982;Sahimi,1995].Fatt andDykstra[1951]andShep-
r(o) = [r(O)/rref]
[•.
ard [1993]haveassumed that the tortuosityis a functionof the
pore radius.Burdine[1953]accounted for the tortuosityusing The power/3 is relatedto the soil properties.It is not neces-
thecorrection
factorSe
2 (n = 2 in (8)).In fact,thevalueofthe sarilyconsideredequal to (1 - D) of (10) sincethe ratio
power n dependsupon the specificsoil-fluidpropertiesand {L[r(O)]/L(rr•f)} itselfmightbe raisedat a powergreater
varies considerablyfor different soils.On the basisof mea-
than 1 to representT(0). For example,a power of 2 was
suredRHC data of 45 soils,an optimalvalue of n = 0.5 was
already suggested[Carman, 1937; Porter et al., 1960] and
suggested byMualem[1976].Recently,workingon 401pairsof evolvesfrom the smoothfield approximationappliedto pore
water retentionand unsaturatedhydraulicconductivitydata, networkmodeling[Burganos and Sotirchos,
1987].In both(9)
Leij et al. [1997]haveobtaineda meanvalueof n = (- 0.72). and (11), r(0) andrref are definedby
The model in (8), with n = 0.5, performsthe bestwhen
comparedto the modelsof Averjanov[1950],Wyllieand Gard-
ner [1958],and Millingtonand Quirk [1961].However,some
remarkscanbe made:(1) The assumption leadingto thepower
r(O) =
Ir
rain
rf(r) dr, rref =
•rmax
., r min
rf(r) dr. (12)
 ASSOULINE: MODEL FOR SOIL RELATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 267

The power of 2 in (7) stemsfrom the representationof the where 3,(/3,u) and F(u) are the incompleteand the complete
pore systemby a pair of capillaryelementswhoselengthsare Gammafunctions,
respectively,
anda = (I gtl-• - Igtz•
I-•) •.
proportionalto their radii. It is suggested
to replacethe value A detailed descriptionof its derivation and performanceis
of 2 by a power givenbyAssoulineand Tartakovsky [2001].When (19) is used
shouldbe related also to the soil properties.As a result, the in (14), the resultingexpressionfor the RHC is
followingexpressionfor Kr( 0 ) is obtained:

min
rf(r) dr = {•_•/•1
gr(Se) (1)
• 3, 1e-eS
•, Ca--•T +I-•T•I
(21)
Kr(O)
= ar'' (13) In the followingthe expression
in (19) is adoptedto repre-
a r min
sentthe soil WRC. The expression in (20) servesas the refer-
with • = (a +/3 + u). Applyingthe capillarylaw r = ½/½ and encemodelof the RHC, and (21) is the expressionof the RHC
(5) to (13), one obtains whenthe newmodelproposedin thisstudy(equation(14)) is
applied.
The WRC can be well characterizedby the first and second
moment,namely,the mean,r•, andthe variance,02, of the
function
chosen
torepresent
it. For(19),r• and02aredefined
by

Kr(O)=
os•_•j'(14)
The quadraturesin (14) canbe evaluatednumerically,using
ro- +

o-2= •-2/•[F(1 + 2/g)- 1'2(1+ l/g)].

/101,

(23)
(22)

water retentioncurve(WRC) data. For someanalytical½(0)

functions,closed-form for Kr(O) in (14) The statisticalparameterthat addresses
analyticalexpressions both thesetwo char-
acteristicsis the coefficient of variation e, defined as the ratio
do exist.Brooksand Corey[1964] and van Genuchten[1980]
proposedthe most popularWRC functions.The Brooksand betweenthe squareroot of the varianceand the mean:
Corey model representsSe as a power functionof
e = o-/ro. (24)
Se(½)-- (½/½c)-h, ½< ½c,
The power •1 in (14) dependsupon the soil structureand
Se( texture,whichboth shapethe WRC. Therefore the hypothesis
of the proposedmodel is that the power •1is related to some
wheregtc and X are fittingparameters.The resultingexpression characteristicof the WRC and, more specifically,to the coef-
of the RHC when thisrelationshipis usedin (14) is ficient of variation e.

gr(Se)= S•2*l/h). (16)

The van Genuchtenmodel representsSe as a more complex 3. Results and Discussion
power function of
Calibrationand testingof the modelis carriedout on 13 soils
Se(½)= [ ] -3-(½/½1)8j-q0, (17)
for whichmeasuredwater retentioncurve(WRC) and relative
with gq,8, and q>beingfittingparameters.When q>= (1 - 1/8), hydraulicconductivity(RHC) data are available [Mualem,
(14) transformsinto 1974].These soilsrepresenta wide range of soil structureand
texturefrom sandto silty clay loam (Table 1). Intentionally,
gr(Se)= [1 - (1 - S?/qø))qø]*/. (18) clay soilsare not considered,as it is likely that shrink-swell
processesaffect the relationshipsbetweenthe WRC and the
Recently,Assoulineet al. [1998]havederivedan expression RHC even under laboratoryconditions.
for the WRC from basic soil properties.Starting from the The WRC expression(equation(19)) is fitted to the mea-
premise that soil structure evolvesfrom a uniform random sured data. For each soil the parameters• and/x are deter-
fragmentationprocess,they arrivedat a two-parametermodel mined,usingan iterativenonlinearregressionprocedurebased
for the WRC:
on the Marquardt-Levenbergalgorithm. The corresponding
Se(½): 1 - exp (19) coefficientsof variation e characterizingeachWRC are com-
putedusing(22), (23), and (24). The valuesare shownin Table
0 1 and correspondto ½valuesexpressed in meters.For eachsoil
where •z• is the capillaryhead at the wilting point and the referenceRHC function(equation(20)) is computed.
are fitting parameters.ApplyingMualem'smodel (equation
(8)) to (19), the resultingexpressionof the RHC, with n = 3.1. Calibration of the RHC Model
0.5, is The data of the first eight soils in Table 1 constitutethe
calibration data set of the model. The data of the five remain-

=•e {•_•/•
•13'
(1
•,•a)- •-•
1e_•+I-•l
I 2 (20)
ing soils(footnotedin Table 1) are not includedin the cali-
Kr(Se) bration data set and are usedfurther to checkthe predictive
ability of the calibratedmodel.
+ The expressionof the proposedmodel (equation (21)) is
268 ASSOULINE: MODEL FOR SOIL RELATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

Table 1. WRC Parameters of the Soils That Constitute the 4.0

Data Set for the Calibration and the Verification of the
3.5
RHC Model a rl: 1.18s
'ø'6•
3.0 r2= 0.83
Catalog
2.5
Soil Type Number
t=' 2.0
Fine sand 4133 0.590 1.540 0.66
Pouder River sand 4123 0.0028 5.380 0.21 1.5
Sable de riviere 4118 0.0008 4.480 0.25
1.0
Gilat sandyloam 3504 1.145 0.666 1.54
Pachappafine sandyclay 3503 1.025 0.915 1.09 0.5
Adelanto loam 3404 3.660 0.959 1.02
0.0
Pachappaloam 3403 1.973 1.163 0.85
Amarillo siltyclay loam 3002 0.880 2.840 0.38 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Rehovot sandb 4121 0.195 1.045 0.96
Coefficient of variation - c
Rubiconsandyloamb 3501 0.506 3.943 0.28
Guelphloamb 3407 1.028 0.958 1.01 Figure 1. The relationshipbetweenthe coefficientof varia-
Weldsiltyclayloamb 3001 0.151 3.268 0.34 tion of the water retentioncurve,•, and the powervalue of the
Silt Mont Cenisb 2002 0.850 0.281 6.25 model, r•, and the fitted expression.
aWRC is water retentioncurve;RHC is relativehydraulicconduc-
tivity. The WRC data are taken from the catalogof Mualem [1974],
and the parameterscorrespondto ½ in meters. squaresnonlinear regression,this relationship can be ex-
bThis soil is not included in the calibration data set but is used to
verify the RHC model. pressedquantitativelyby

• -' 1.18•-ø'61 (r2= 0.83). (26)

fitted to eachof the eight RHC data of the calibrationset and
the corresponding bestfit parameterrt definedby meansof the
leastroot-mean-square deviations(RMSD):
RMSD
= • • [grmod
(Sei)
- Kr....(Sei)]2.
•=1
(25)
Fitting is carried out on measuredKr - Se valuesrepre-
sentedon a linear scale.This choiceis madebecausefitting on
a logarithmicscalefor the K r - Se valuesoveremphasizes the
importanceof the low values,while a good fit is preferable
especiallyin the highKr-valuesrange.The differentbestfit r•
values and the correspondingRMSD for each soil are pre-
sented in Table 2. The reference RMSD, representingthe
agreementbetween(20) and the data,are alsoshownin Table
2. Exceptfor the Amarillo siltyclayloam soilwherethe bestfit
RMSD is practicallysimilarto that of (20), the fitted model
improvessignificantlythe agreementbetweencalculatedand
measuredRHC, comparedto (20).
The premiseof the proposedmodelis that the RHC param-
eter, r•, is related to the coefficientof variation, s, character-
izing the soil WRC. The resultingrelationshipbetweenr• and
s for the calibrationdata set is shownin Figure 1. Using least
The predictedrt valuesfrom (26) are presentedin Table 2,
along with the RMSD resultingfrom the use of thesevalues
insteadof the bestfit onesin (21). For four of the eightsoils,
two sands,a sandy loam, and a sandy clay soil, the RHC
obtainedfrom the predictedr• value fits the data better than
(20). The RMSD of the predictedcurvesare closeto the best
fit onesand are significantlysmallerthan thosecharacterizing
the agreementbetween(20) and the data. For the remaining
four soils,one sand,two loams,and one siltyclayloam soil,the
RMSD of the predictedRHC usingthe predictedr• valuesare
higherthanthoseobtainedwhen(20) is applied.Figures2a-2d
depictthe agreementbetweenthe predictedandthe measured
RHC for two soilsfrom the "better" groupand two soilsfrom
the "worst"group.For the Sablede riviere sand(Figure2a)
the improvementis obtained for Se > 0.5, while it is for
practicallythe wholerangein the caseof the Gilat sandyloam
(Figure 2b). When the overallperformanceof the model is
lowerthan that of (20), still the predictedRHC is closeto the
measureddata. For the Pouder River sand (Figure 2c) the
model evenperformsbetter for Se < 0.75 but underestimates
the data for highersaturationvalues.On the contrary,for the
Amarillo siltyclay loam soil (Figure 2d) the differentresults
are virtuallyundistinguishable. For the two loam soils(results
not depicted)the modelpredictsthe RHC databetterfor Se >

Table 2. Values of r• and the RMSD Correspondingto the Best Fit Procedureand to the
Model Prediction,and the RMSD of the ReferenceExpression(Equation(20)), for the
Calibration Data Set

r/ RMSD r/ RMSD RMSD

Soil Type BestFit BestFit Equation(26) Model Equation(20)
Fine sand 1.50 0.121 1.52 0.121 0.164
Pouder River sand 2.58 0.074 3.02 0.084 0.076
Sable de riviere 2.78 0.013 2.73 0.014 0.036
Gilat sandyloam 0.67 0.073 0.91 0.105 0.252
Pachappafine sandyclay 0.98 0.107 1.12 0.111 0.178
Adelanto loam 1.49 0.021 1.17 0.065 0.042
Pachappaloam 1.77 0.037 1.30 0.085 0.060
Amarillo silty clay loam 2.29 0.016 2.13 0.024 0.014
 ASSOULINE: MODEL FOR SOIL RELATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 269

1.0
Table 3. Values of •/and the RMSD Correspondingto the

0.8
Sable
de
riviere
-- Eq.(20)
Prediction of the Model, and the RMSD of the RHC
expressions
in Equations(20) and (27), for the
Verification Data Set
ß Data
•-0.6 - •i RMSD RMSD
Equation RMSD Equation Equation

Model
.
0.4 - Soil Type (26) Model (20) (27)
Rehovot sand 1.21 0.263 0.319 0.287
0.2 - Rubicon sandyloam 2.54 0.033 0.047 0.046
Guelph loam 1.17 0.084 0.036 0.037
Weld silty clay loam 2.40 0.029 0.030 0.038
0.0 Silt Mont Cenis 0.39 0.177 0.392 0.188
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Effective saturation - Se

1.0
0.85 but overestimates them for lower saturation values. Tak-

0.8 Gilatsandy
loam ßj ing into accountthe low accuracythat generallycharacterizes
• Eq.
(20) // measuredhydraulicconductivityvalues,one can saythat even
for the caseswhere the proposedmodel doesnot perform the
•'0.6 e.•DMaot;el // best, it still allowsa reasonablepredictionof the RHC func-
tion.
'"""0.4
3.2. Verification of the Model

0.2
The data of the five soils that are not used for the calibration
constitutethe verificationdata set. The predictedvaluesof •/
0.0 : ; ß , ß ,•....•, b corresponding to the s valueof eachsoil (Table 1) are com-
0.0
putedusing(26). Then the referenceRHC is computedusing
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(20) and the predictedRHC, evaluatedaccordingto (21). The
Effective saturation - Se
resultingfunctionsare comparedwith the widely used RHC
1.0 functionobtainedwhenMualem's[1976]model(equation(8)),
with n - 0.5, is applied to the Brooks and Corey [1964]
0.8 Pouder
River
sand
m Eq. (20)
q expressionfor the WRC (equation(15)):

•'0.6
ßData
--Model
// gr(We)
-- S•2+2'SA)/A, (27)
wherethe valueof A for eachsoilis takenfromMualem [1976].
0.4 The predicted• valuesand the RMSD valuesrepresenting
the agreementbetween(20), (21), and (27) and the data are
0.2
presentedin Table 3. In all the casesthe proposedmodel
performsbetter than (27). In four casesit alsoperformsbetter
than (20). For the loam soil, (20) givesa better predictionof
0.0
the RHC. The predictiveability of the model is depictedin
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Figures 3a-3d. For the Rehovot sand (Figure 3a) and the
Effective saturation - Se Rubiconsandyloam (Figure3b) the proposedmodelimproves
the RHC predictionfor the wholeSe range,and (20) is the less
1.0
representativeof the data,(27) providingintermediateresults.
Amarillo silty clay loam For the loam soil (Figure 3c) both (20) and (27) provide a
0.8 better fit to the data. This result is consistent with that obtained
-- Eq. (20) in the calibrationphase,with respectto the loam soils.For the
ß Data
•'0.6 •Model
Weld siltyclayloam (Figure3d), there is onlylittle difference
betweenthe three models,and the overallagreementis very
0.4 good.

3.3. Sensitivity of the Model

0.2
The sensitivityof the model is tested consideringtwo as-
0.0 ,_• , d pects:(1) the sensitivityto the calibrated,/(s) relationshipin
(26) and (2) the sensitivity
of the computedRHC valuesto the
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Effective saturation - Se
parameter,/. The relationshipbetween,/and • (equation(26))
is based on the data from the calibration set, where the values
Figure 2. The predicted relative hydraulic conductivity of • vary between0.21 and 1.54 (Table 1). The valuesof •
(RHC) accordingto the proposedmodel and equation(20), characterizingfour of the five soilsin the verificationset are
comparedto measureddata from the calibrationset for (a) alsowithin this range,while the value of • for Silt Mont Cenis
Sablede riviere,(b) Gilat sandyloam, (c) PouderRiver sand, is 6.25, by far out of the calibrationrange.The predictedRHC
and (d) Amarillo siltyclayloam. obtainedwhen(26) is usedfor an s valueout of the calibration
270 ASSOULINE: MODEL FOR SOIL RELATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

1.0

0.8/ --Eq.(20)
Rehovot sand

' //
0.8 Silt
Mont
Cenis
-- eq.(20)
ß
! ß Data ß ß Data
I- --Model ß •r// 0.6 --Model /,/ II

L--Eq.
(27) ß// 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Effective saturation - Se Effective saturation - Se

1.0 Figure 4. The predicted RHC accordingto the proposed

model, equations(20) and (27), comparedto measureddata
0.8 Rubicon
sandy
- -- Eq.
(20)
loam •
/ for silt Mont Cenis soil.

ß Data •'
•'0.6 - --Model //. rangeis depictedin Figure4. The predictedRHC is within the
range of the measureddata. Moreover, the proposedmodel
•'0.4 performsbetterthan(20) and(27) andprovidesthe bestagree-
ment with the measured data. This result indicates that the
0.2 r•(s) relationshipin (26) mightbe stable.
The sensitivityof the model to r• is testedfor two soilsof the
0.0 • I I same type, Rubicon and Gilat sandyloam, characterizedby
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 different s values of 0.28 and 1.54, respectively,at the two
Effective saturation - Se edgesof the calibrationrange (Table 1). The variationof the
relativeerroronthepredicted
RHC value,(Kilt - Kpred)/Kfit
,
1.0 with Se is depictedin Figure 5 for variationsof _+20%in the

Guelph
loam
low and the high r/values correspondingto the high and the
0.8 low e values,respectively.The predictedRHC is more sensi-
-- /// tive to high values of r/ (soilswith low e). This sensitivity
A0.6 ß Data /// decreasesas the effective saturation increases.Also, the RHC
' --Model
•-,,• Eq. (2
is more sensitiveto underestimatesthan to overestimatesof r•.
0.4 At very low effectivesaturation(Se --- 0.1) the relativeerror
varies between 60 and 80% for an overestimationof r• and
varies between 200 and 450% if r• is underestimated.At me-
0.2
dium effectivesaturation(Se ---'0.5) the relative error drops
to 40% for overestimatedr• and drops to 65% for underesti-
0.0
mated r•. From that point the relative error decreaseslinearly
0.0 O.2 O.4 O.6 O.8 1.0 with Se. Consideringthe large error that is generallyinherent
Effective saturation - Se to hydraulicconductivitydata, the range of error depictedin
Figure 5 indicatesthat the model is stable,even for relatively
1.0
low saturationdegreevalues.

0.8
Weld
silty
clay
-- loam /
Eq. (20)
ß Data ßß 1.0
'•' 0.6 -- Model

--• Eq. (27) 0.0

0.4
-1.0
0.2

d
-2..0
(+0.2q); s=0.28
.0 ----O ------'a- ' I I I -3.0
(-0.2n); s=0.28
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -4.0 (+0.2q); •=1.54
Effective saturation - Se - - - (-0.2n); s=1.54
I
-5,0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 3. The predicted RHC accordingto the proposed
Effective saturation - Se
model, equations(20) and (27), comparedto measureddata
from the verificationset for (a) Rehovot sand, (b) Rubicon Figure 5. The relative error on gr(Se) for 20% variationin
sandyloam, (c) Guelphloam, and (d) Weld siltyclayloam. r/in the caseof soilswith low and high e values.
 ASSOULINE: MODEL FOR SOIL RELATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 271

4. Conclusion Effectivemediumtheoryand smoothfield approximation,

The statisticalapproachto predictingthe RHC of soilscom-
putes Kr(S•) with regard to the soil physicalpropertiesas
reflected by the measuredretention curve. In the model of
Mualem [1976],Kr(S•) is relatedto the relativecontributionof
the poresfilled with water at the square,multipliedby a cor-
rectionfactorS•. The valueof the powern dependsuponthe
specificsoil-fluidpropertiesand thus varies considerablyfor
different soils.Therefore a constantvalue of n = 0.5 is gen-
erally usedfor predictivepurposes.As a result, the resulting
Kr(S•) expression presentstwo constantpowervalues,0.5 and
AIChE J.,
33, 1678-1689, 1987.
Carman, P. C., Fluid flow througha granularbed, Trans.Inst. Chem.
Eng., 15, 150-156, 1937.
Childs, E. C., and G. N. Coilis-George,The permeabilityof porous
materials, Proc. R. Soc. London A, 201, 392-405, 1950.
Fatt, I., and H. Dykstra,Relativepermeabilitystudies,Trans.Am. Inst.
Min. Metall. Pet. Eng., 192, 249-255, 1951.
Feder, J., Fractals, Plenum, New York, 1988.
Gardner, W. R., Some steadystate solutionsof the unsaturatedmois-
ture flow equation with application to evaporation from a water
table, Soil Sci., 85, 228-232, 1958.
Hillel, D., Introductionto Soil Physics,Academic,San Diego, Calif.,
1982.

2, and has no degreesof freedom.A new model basedon the Irmay, S., On the hydraulic conductivityof unsaturated soils, Eos
Trans.AGU, 35, 463-467, 1954.
same approach,but relaxingsome of the constraintson the
Leij, F. J., W. B. Russell,and S. M. Lesch,Closedform expressions
for
pore configuration,is proposedfor nonswellingsoils.The re- water retentionand conductivitydata, GroundWater,35(5), 848-
sultingK•(S•) is a powerfunctionof the relativecontribution 858, 1997.
of the poresfilled with water. Comparedto Mualem'sexpres- Millington, R. J., and J.P. Quirk, Permeabilityof poroussolids,Fara-
sion, the correctionfactor S• vanishes,along with the prob- day Soc. Trans.,57, 1200-1206, 1961.
Mualem, Y., A Catalogueof the Hydraulic Propertiesof Unsaturated
lematic value of n. Also, the value of the power in the pro- Soils, Technion-Israel Inst. of Technol., Haifa, 1974.
posed model, •q, is not constantbut dependson the soil Mualem, Y., A new model of predictingthe hydraulicconductivityof
structureand texture.On the basisof 13 pairsof water reten- unsaturatedporousmedia, WaterResour.Res., 12, 513-522, 1976.
tion and unsaturatedhydraulicconductivitydata representing Mualem, Y., Hydraulic conductivityof unsaturated porous media:
a wide rangeof soil textures,a strongrelationshipbetween•q Generalizedmacroscopic approach,WaterResour.Res.,14, 324-334,
1978.
and the e, the coefficientof variationcharacterizingthe WRC, Mualem, Y., Hydraulicconductivityof unsaturatedsoils,predictions
is found.In mostof the casesit seemsthat the RHC predicted and formulas,in Methodsof Soil Analysis,Agron. Monogr.,vol. 9,
by the new model is in better agreementwith measureddata, chap. 31, pp. 799-823, Am. Soc.of Agron., Madison,Wis., 1986.
althoughthe model presentedrelativelylower performances Mualem, Y., and G. Dagan, Hydraulic conductivityof soils:Unified
approachto the statisticalmodels,Soil Sci.Soc.Am. J., 42, 392-395,
wheneverthe soil typewas loam. The applicationof the pro- 1978.
posedmodelfollowsfour steps:(1) Fit (19) to the WRC data Pachepsky,Y., MathematicalModelsof PhysicalChemistryin Soil Sci-
of the soilunderinterest.(2) Computee using(22), (23), and ence(in Russian),Nauka,Moscow,1990.
(24). (3) Compute •q using (26). (4) Predict the soil RHC Porter, L. K., W. D. Kemper, R. D. Jackson,and B. A. Stewart,
functionusing(14) or its analyticalexpressions. Chloride diffusionin soilsas influencedby moisturecontent,Soil
Sci. Soc.Am. Proc., 24, 460-463, 1960.
Purcell, W. R., Capillarypressures--Theirmeasurementsusingmer-
Acknowledgments. The author thanks A. W. Warrick and curyand the calculationof permeabilitytherefrom,Trans.Am. Inst.
Min. Metall. Pet. Eng., 186, 39-48, 1949.
M. Tuller for their insightfuland constructivecomments.Contribution
Sahimi, M., Flow and Transportin PorousMedia and FracturedRock,
of the AgriculturalResearchOrganization,Instituteof Soil,Water and
Weinheim, New York, 1995.
EnvironmentalSciences,Bet Dagan, Israel, 613/00.
Shepard,J. S., Using a fractal model to computethe hydrauliccon-
ductivityfunction,Soil. Sci. Soc.Am. J., 57, 300-306, 1993.
References van Genuchten, M. T., A closed-formequation for predicting the
hydraulicconductivityof unsaturatedsoils,Soil Sci. Soc.Am. J., 44,
Assouline,S., and D. M. Tartakovsky,Unsaturatedhydraulicconduc- 892-898, 1980.
tivity functionbasedon a soil fragmentationprocess,WaterResour. Wyllie, M. R. J., and G. H. F. Gardner, The generalizedKozeny-
Res.,in press,2001. Carman equation: A novel approach to problems of fluid flow,
Assouline,S., D. Tessier,and A. Bruand, A conceptualmodel of the World Oil Prod. Sect, 146, 210-228, 1958.
soil water retention curve, Water Resour.Res., 34, 223-231, 1998.
Averjanov,S. F., About permeabilityof subsurfacesoilsin caseof S. Assouline,Department of EnvironmentalPhysics,Institute of
incompletesaturation,in EnglishCollection,vol. 7, pp. 19-21, 1950. Soil, Water and Environment Sciences, Agricultural Research
Brooks,R. H., andA. T. Corey,Hydraulicpropertiesof porousmedia, Organization, Volcani Center, POB 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel.
Hydrol.Pap. 3, 27 pp., Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins,1964. (vwshmuel@volcani.agri.gov.il)
Brutsaert,W., Somemethodsof calculatingunsaturatedpermeability,
Trans.ASAE, 10, 400-404, 1967.
Burdine,N. T., Relativepermeabilitycalculationsizedistributiondata,
Trans.Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Eng., 198, 71-78, 1953. (ReceivedJanuary26, 2000;revisedJuly 27, 2000;
Burganos,V. N., and S. V. Sotirchos,Diffusion in pore networks: acceptedAugust15, 2000.)