You are on page 1of 13

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 19, 1653– 1665 (2005)
Published online 22 December 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5594

A novel hysteresis model in unsaturated soil
Han-Chen Huang,1 Yih-Chi Tan,1 Chen-Wuing Liu1 * and Chu-Hui Chen2
1 Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, Hydrotech Research Institute, National Taiwan University, Taipei 106, Taiwan
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Chung Kuo Institute of Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan

Abstract:
This study presents a novel hysteresis model based on van Genuchten’s soil-moisture relationships. The proposed
model yields a series of closed-form relationships in which two shape factors ˛ and  are determined from the main
drying and wetting curves. Experimental and literature-cited data were used to assess model accuracy. The proposed
model was also compared with the Scott and KP models. Analytical results indicate that the present model is simple,
accurate and effective in constructing the series of wetting and drying scanning curves. Notably, the proposed model
outperforms the Scott and KP models in terms of model accuracy. Moreover, the novel model eliminates the pumping
effect and has perfect closure at scanning curve reversal points. Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS soil-moisture model; hysteresis; pumping effect

INTRODUCTION
The water content of unsaturated soil depends on complicated hydrological processes, such as infiltration,
evaporation and evapotranspiration. The dynamic change of soil water content generally does not follow the
same path as soil water retention curves. Besides the main drying and main wetting curves, there are primary
drying curves (from the wetting state to the drying state) and primary wetting curves (from the drying state
to the wetting state), and subsequently interactive exchange of drying and wetting states occurs to form a
series of scanning curves (Figure 1). The collective soil water retention curves of a given soil describe the
corresponding hysteresis properties.
Considerable effort has been focused on developing models that describe the hysteresis of the soil water
retention function  . The theory of independent domains was applied first (Poulovassilis, 1962), and
later the theory of dependent domains was developed (Mualem and Dagan, 1975; Kool and Parker, 1987).
The independent domain method assumes that all pore domains drain independently. The statistical method
evaluates the effect of pore radius on the drying and wetting processes (Topp, 1969; Mualem, 1974; Parlange,
1976, 1980). In reality, only pores with free access to the outside air can drain (Kutilek and Nielsen, 1994).
Moreover, this access depends on whether the surrounding pores are water or air-filled. To explain this
dependence, the domain-dependent model uses a domain-dependent factor to search its relationship with 
(Mualem and Dagan, 1975; Kool and Parker, 1987). Calibrating the domain-dependent model requires at
least a set of main wetting and main drying curves. The calibrated model generally yields accurate prediction
scanning curves for different media, although those models may be difficult to use.
Jaynes (1984) assessed four hysteresis methods (point, linear, slope and model II of Mualem and Miller,
1979) that were relatively easy to use, had been used previously, and only required knowledge of main soil
wetting and drying curves. Of the four methods, the model II and linear methods (Hanks et al., 1969) were
constructed to avoid pumping problems during cyclic change in soil water pressure. Meanwhile, the other

* Correspondence to: Chen-Wuing Liu, Ground Water Research Division, Dept of Bioenvironmental Systems, National Taiwan University,
No. 1, Section 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, Taiwan ROC. E-mail: lcw@gwater.agec.ntu.edu.tw

Received 28 March 2003
Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 25 February 2004

1653– 1665 (2005) .4) Primary wetting curve (q 2. However. MODEL DEVELOPMENT Various models of water retention relationships have been proposed (Brooks and Corey. 1 ). 3) denote reversal points two methods. ½0 1 where Se denotes the effective saturation.1) (qs (1). Process. 1980). significantly affecting algorithm performance when simulating numerous soil wetting–drying cycles.1654 H. both displayed pronounced pumping. <0 s  r Se D 1.-C. Ltd.  represents the volumetric moisture content l3 l3 . point (Dane and Wierenga. 19.2) Main wetting curve qw (y. (2 . but modified to account for air entrapment. ˛l1  and  represent the curve shape parameters and m D 1  1/. 1975) and slope. Kool and Parker (1987) developed a concise closed-form relation for describing hysteretic soil hydraulic properties based on the van Genuchten (1980) parametric model and the Scott et al. the pumping effect occurs when there is cyclic pressure variation. The most popular of these models is the van Genuchten model. (qr (1).y1) (q 3. The accuracy of the proposed model is evaluated by comparing it with the Scott and KP models using data from the laboratory and the literature. HUANG ET AL. hereafter called the KP model.1) Tertiary wetting curve qw (y. This study presents a revised hysteresis model which modifies the Kool and Parker (1987) model. requires less computer memory. 1964. van Genuchten. This model assumes that the main drying and wetting retention curves can be described accurately by the expression   r Se D D 1 C j˛ j m . and retains much of the accuracy of the other methods. The linear method is thus superior to the other three methods since it is easier to formulate. for describing soil-moisture retention curves and eliminating the pumping effect.yr (1)) Negative pressure head (q 1.ys (1)) 0 Water content Figure 1. Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. 2) and (3 . h is the pressure head (l). where (1 . The model provided a convenient and simple method of incorporating hysteretic effects into numerical flow models to significantly improve prediction accuracy with minimal data requirements. Curves given by Equation (1) with r d D r w and s d D s w . 1965. s and r denote the saturated and residual water contents respectively. King.y2) qw (y.3) Main drying curve qd (y.y3) Secondary drying curve qd (y. Hydrol. (1983) empirical hysteresis model (Scott model).

the relationships of r d 1 D r w 1 D r and s 1 D s w 1 D s are imposed to close the main hysteresis loop. Moreover. ˛w . In practice. Additionally. 2. 4. 1) and (s . 1653– 1665 (2005) . Thus the relationship of  – for the ith-order scanning curve with no pumping effect can be obtained using s w i and r w i. 1. The reversal point of  d  . each member of the family of scanning curves is assumed to be described by Equation (1) with the same shape parameters ˛ and . The sand was then compacted using a high-speed vibrator. s ). d are assigned the same values in describing various wetting and drying scanning curves. A computer data acquisition system was used for automatic data collection and storage. Ltd. van Genuchten (1980) described a graphical procedure for estimating ˛ and . s ) into (2) yields 1  r w 2 w mw D 1 C j˛w 1j  3 s 2  r w 2 w s  r w 2 w mw D 1 C j˛w sj  4 s w 2  r w 2 Solving s w 2 and r w 2 using Equations (3) and (4) with ˛w and w can describe  w  . or s d i and r d i. Thus the description of the main wetting and drying curves  w  . including one main drying curve  d  . respectively. 3 can be obtained similarly. and were connected to the transducers directly.  d  . 1 ) requiring  w  . The following notations are used: the main drying curve   is denoted by  d  . 20 cm wide and 6 cm deep. 1 is described by the parameters [s w 1. The measured negative water pressure head and moisture content data were stored electronically over a set time interval using a computer-driven data acquisition system (Figure 2). The tank was 15 cm high. 2 to satisfy  w  . d ]. 1 and  d  . 1 ) and (s . The parameters s . ˛ and  in Equation (1) are unknowns to be determined such that the main wetting curve  w  . the tertiary wetting curve is denoted by  w  . The packed sand had a bulk density of 1Ð68 g cm3 and a porosity of 0Ð36. 1 and its derivative curves  w  . w and ˛d . 2.  w  . w ] and [s . 19. The tensiometer and reflectometer used to measure the negative water pressure head and the moisture content at the beam position were installed via threaded holes in the sand tank. to eliminate the pumping effect. Oven-dried white silica sand with grain diameters between 0Ð074–0Ð297 mm was placed uniformly in an acrylic tank. moisture content was measured using TDR (time domain reflectometry) (reflectometer manufactured by IMKO MICROMODULTECHNIK GMBH). r . Two experimental sets of hysteresis scanning curves were measured. r . s and r may be obtained from data compiled on different soil types (van Genuchten and Nielsen. Substituting (1 . HYSTERESIS MODEL IN UNSATURATED SOIL 1655 Additionally. ˛d . 1 occurs at (1 . 3. the primary wetting curve is denoted by  w  . the main wetting curve is denoted by  w  . 2. r w 1. In modelling the scanning curves in the  – relationships. 1985). and so on (see Figure 1). ˛w . 2 also passes through the reversal points at (1 . Water pressure was measured using tensiometers manufactured by UMWELTANALYTISCHE MESS- SYSTEME GMBH. 3. ˛w . and found that s and r are easy to determine using laboratory experimental data. a laboratory experiment was performed to establish the series of hysteresis scanning curves. w ]. 2  r w 2 w w D 1 C j˛w j m 2 s w 2  r w 2 The primary wetting curve  w  . Hydrol.  d  . Process. 4 and one main wetting curve and its Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. r . LABORATORY EXPERIMENT To evaluate the accuracy of the present model. 1 is revised to [s . Moreover. 1. the secondary drying curve is denoted by  d  .

HUANG ET AL. Ltd.-C. 1 cm Porous Plate Computer Control Control Valve Valve Figure 2. 1656 Adjustable Water Tank 6 cm Tensiometer Transducer TDR Transducer Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. 1653– 1665 (2005) . Illustration of the hysteresis laboratory experiment setup Hydrol. Sand Tank Data logger 15 cm H. Process. 19.

3. w or ˛d . hd adjust parameters to qs (n − 2). The soil water content of the current time step can be evaluated using the relationship at the reversal points of Equations (3) and (4) to determine s n and r n. ad. d . 1653– 1665 (2005) . qr (n − 1). Figure 3 illustrates the flow chart for evaluating soil water content based on a series of soil water retention curves. hysteresis occurs under continuous drying or wetting and the soil water content can be evaluated using the previously established soil water retention curve parameters. Soil drying and wetting conditions change dynamically. hd calculate q j + 1 (y j + 1) Figure 3. Ltd. aw. 19. hw No check y j + 1 falls on qd (y. qr (n − 2). aw. 4. Flow chart displaying the evaluation of soil water content from a series of soil water retention curves derivatives  d  . qr (n ). the process is changing from either drying to wetting or wetting to drying. 2. hw ] No No check reversal of check y j + 1 falls on drying or wetting qw (y. qr (n + 1). HYSTERESIS MODEL IN UNSATURATED SOIL 1657 tension head y j [qs (n ). If the pressure head difference between the tension of the current and previous time steps is positive. The present model compares the calculated negative pressure head of the current and previous time steps according to the hysteresis relationship. These two sets of data were used to compare the performance of the present model with the Scott and KP models. n − 1) curve Yes adjust parameters to qs (n − 1). Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. Meanwhile. MODEL EVALUATION The developed hysteresis model needs an efficient algorithm to accurately establish a series of scanning curves. ad. Process. and update the shape parameters ˛w .  w  .  d  . n − 2) curve Yes Yes adjust parameters to qs (n + 1). Hydrol. if the pressure head difference is negative.

Em . and the deviations among them were generally within 0Ð0070. Table I lists the average absolute deviations between the experimentally measured data and the results of the three models.-C. ˛. The Scott model used r . while  i represents the difference between the measured and fitted soil water contents at the ith point. s d D s w and r d D r w . . s d D s w . Ltd. the Em values of the present model are all below 0Ð0082 and achieve much more accurate water content predictions than the other two models. 1653– 1665 (2005) . Process. are used to assess the performance of the three models. HUANG ET AL.1658 H. Additionally. defined as 1 n Em D ji j 5 n i where i and n denote the ith data point and the total number of data points evaluated in water retention curves. The three models performed equally well on primary scanning curves. the KP model used ˛. Hydrol. The present model imposes a closed condition on the reversal points during the hysteresis of the drying 250 250 : Measured data : Measured data : Fitted by : Fitted by Scott model Scott model : Predicted by : Predicted by Scott model Scott model 200 200 Negative pressure head (cm) Negative pressure head (cm) 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Water content (%) Water content (%) (a) (b) Figure 4. Comparison of laboratory measured scanning curves with (a) primary drying and (b) primary wetting versus the Scott model prediction Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. Experimental data Figures 4 to 6 illustrate the hysteresis scanning curves with primary drying or wetting of the experimental measured data versus those obtained with the Scott. For the secondary and tertiary scanning curves. and the present model used ˛. The average absolute deviations. r d D r w and d D w . 19.  and s d D s w as variables. The present model is compared with the Scott and KP models. KP and present models.

Literature-cited data Model performance was compared using hysteresis data of three soils taken from the literature. the present model obtains similar Em values to the Scott model. s d and s w denote the measured data. Both models produced reasonable and accurate simulated results. 1653– 1665 (2005) . If the model requires no specific treatment to generate a series of closed scanning curves. Table III lists the average absolute deviation. which eliminates the pumping effect since negative water pressure varies cyclically (Figure 6). Hydrol. Rubicon sandy loam (Mualem. Ltd. the Scott and KP models create a false pumping effect (see Figures 4 and 5). Meanwhile. while other parameter values used in the three models were obtained via least square fitting. the resulting pumping effect causes a large error in soil water content prediction during modelling of periodical wetting–drying cycles. The pumping effect is an aberration of the algorithm and not an actual soil property.. of the measured and three model-fitted boundary (main drying and main wetting) curves for the above three soils. Comparison of the laboratory measured scanning curves with (a) primary drying and (b) primary wetting versus the KP model prediction and wetting processes. Process. Notably. Table II lists the parameters used in the three models to simulate the hysteresis curves of three soils. The KP model has the highest Em values among the three models for all soils. HYSTERESIS MODEL IN UNSATURATED SOIL 1659 250 250 : Measured data : Measured data : Fitted by : Fitted by KP model KP model : Predicted by : Predicted by KP model KP model 200 200 Negative pressure head (cm) Negative pressure head (cm) 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Water content (%) Water content (%) (a) (b) Figure 5. 19. The predicted water content tends to decrease with changing negative water pressure. including Rideau clayey loam. Table IV lists the Em obtained by measurement Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. 1979). 1976) and Dune sand (Gillham et al. Em .

as in drying from a saturated state. This type of soil is a domain-dependent medium. 1653– 1665 (2005) . Hydrol. Ltd. The same hysteresis parameters used were as listed in Table I. 250 250 : Measured data : Measured data : Fitted by : Fitted by present model present model : Predicted by : Predicted by present model present model 200 200 Negative pressure head (cm) Negative pressure head (cm) 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Water content (%) Water content (%) (a) (b) Figure 6.-C. All models yield large Em values for the Rubicon sandy loam. Average absolute deviations (Em ) between the experimentally measured data and the prediction results for the three models Scanning curve Model Scott KP Present Wetting Drying Wetting Drying Wetting Drying Main 0Ð0031 0Ð0026 0Ð0105 0Ð0108 0Ð0036 0Ð0025 Primary 0Ð0033 0Ð0070 0Ð0035 0Ð0028 0Ð0035 0Ð0066 Secondary 0Ð0029 0Ð0035 0Ð0054 0Ð0095 0Ð0050 0Ð0031 Tertiary 0Ð0099 0Ð0128 0Ð0130 0Ð0137 0Ð0082 0Ð0042 and the three models when predicting the primary wetting and drying curves of the three soils. In domain-dependent media. Comparison of the laboratory measured scanning curves with (a) primary drying and (b) primary wetting versus the present model prediction Table I. Process. HUANG ET AL. The largest Em of 0Ð0175 is found in the KP model of the Rubicon sandy loam in the primary drying curve. and were obtained from the fitted boundary curves.1660 H. groups of similar size pores (or domains) Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. 19.

19.Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. 1653– 1665 (2005) 1661 . Table II. Ltd. Process. Parameters used in the three models for simulating the hysteresis curves of the three soils [˛ cm1 ] Soil type Measured Scott model KP model Present model sd sw rd rw ˛d ˛w d w r ˛d ˛w d r ˛d ˛w d w Rideau clayey loam 0Ð416 0Ð416 0Ð290 0Ð279 0Ð017 0Ð061 3Ð41 1Ð91 0Ð288 0Ð018 0Ð047 2Ð63 0Ð284 0Ð017 0Ð048 2Ð98 2Ð30 Rubicon sandy loam 0Ð381 0Ð381 0Ð176 0Ð140 0Ð011 0Ð052 6Ð31 1Ð87 0Ð170 0Ð013 0Ð037 3Ð30 0Ð165 0Ð011 0Ð040 5Ð18 2Ð43 Dune sand 0Ð301 0Ð301 0Ð098 0Ð093 0Ð030 0Ð054 8Ð90 4Ð26 0Ð101 0Ð030 0Ð052 6Ð77 0Ð097 0Ð030 0Ð052 8Ð59 4Ð95 HYSTERESIS MODEL IN UNSATURATED SOIL Hydrol.

-C. The developed model used two shape functions ˛ and . The pumping effect is magnified as the pressure head undergoes cyclic variations. Hydrol. Domain dependence does not occur during the main drying process. 19. Average absolute deviations (Em ) between measured data cited in the literature and the primary scanning curves of three soils predicted by the three models Soil type Model Scott KP Present Wetting Drying Wetting Drying Wetting Drying Rideau clayey loam 0Ð0038 0Ð0050 0Ð0024 0Ð0065 0Ð0034 0Ð0071 Rubicon sandy loam 0Ð0106 0Ð0141 0Ð0118 0Ð0175 0Ð0076 0Ð0105 Dune sand 0Ð0074 0Ð0096 0Ð0096 0Ð0151 0Ð0057 0Ð0096 do not drain independently. Specifically. The scanning hysteresis loop comprises a primary wetting and a secondary drying curve. The scanning curves generated by the present model display a perfect closed loop. Notably. An empirical hysteresis model or domain-independent model based on the simple rescaling parameters of the main drying curve thus cannot accurately describe the primary drying and subsequent scanning curves of the domain-dependent medium. The Rubicon sandy loam has a narrow pore-size distribution and small pressure head changes cause significant changes in water content. respectively. To further assess model performance.  d D  w . HUANG ET AL. The present model was checked using the experimental Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. Figures 7–9 show the simulated and measured scanning hysteresis curves for Dune sand obtained using the Scott.  and s d D s w . some similar sized pores may remain water-filled while water drains completely from surrounding pores. the secondary drying curve passes through the reversal point as the primary wetting curve departs from the main drying curve. ŁŁ KP model variables: ˛ and  d D  w . s s r r ŁŁŁ Present model variables: ˛. However. since the pore volume is drained partially and air can freely enter the pores. Moreover. Process.  d D  w . CONCLUSION This study presents a novel hysteresis model using the van Genuchten relationship. the hysteresis scanning loops were not closed and the subsequent drying curves departed from the main drying curves. KP and present models. ˛. Table III.1662 H.e. domain-dependent media with high and well-defined air-entry pressure in the main hysteresis curves generally do not occur in common soils. the present model eliminates the pumping effect.  and  d D  w . determined from the main drying and wetting curves. Ltd. s s r r Table IV. i. and the pressure head is smaller than the local air entry value. to construct a series of closed-form expressions of hysteresis scanning curves. Average absolute deviation (Em ) between the measured data cited in the literature and boundary curves of three soils predicted by the three models Soil type Model ScottŁ KPŁŁ PresentŁŁŁ Rideau clayey loam 0Ð0032 0Ð0057 0Ð0057 Rubicon sandy loam 0Ð0045 0Ð0130 0Ð0055 Dune sand 0Ð0027 0Ð0080 0Ð0031 Ł Scott model variables: r . d D w . 1653– 1665 (2005) .

Hydrol. 19. Scanning loop predicted by the KP model for Dune sand Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. Process. Scanning loop predicted by the Scott model for Dune sand 60 Measured data (drying) Measured data (wetting) 50 Main drying curve Main wetting curve Primary wetting curve Negative pressure head (cm) Secondary drying curve 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content (%) Figure 8. 1653– 1665 (2005) . Ltd. HYSTERESIS MODEL IN UNSATURATED SOIL 1663 60 Measured data (drying) Measured data (wetting) 50 Main drying curve Main wetting curve Primary wetting curve Negative pressure head (cm) Secondary drying curve 40 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content (%) Figure 7.

Fort Collins. 1969. The present model was also compared with the Scott and KP models. 1984. Kool JB. the hysteresis scanning loops of the Scott model are not closed and the pumping effect occurs when there is cyclic pressure variation. 1965. For the experimental data. the KP model has the highest Em values among the three models for all soils. 1975. Measurement and numerical simulation of hysteretic flow in a heterogeneous porous medium.1664 H. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 29: 359– 362. Ltd. Effect of hysteresis on the prediction of infiltration. REFERENCES Brooks RH. accurate and effective in constructing a series of hysteresis scanning curves. and evaporation of water from soil. CO. The present model eliminates the pumping effect and achieves perfect closure at the reversal point of the scanning curve. and easy to use for practical application. 60 Measured data (drying) Measured data (wetting) 50 Main drying curve Negative pressure head (cm) Main wetting curve Primary wetting curve 40 Secondary drying curve 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content (%) Figure 9. Dr Cheng-Kaw Lee and Dr Kuo-Chin Hsu are appreciated for their valuable comments. Scanning loop predicted by the present model for Dune sand and literature-cited data to evaluate model performance. A numeric method for estimating infiltration. Klute A. However. Hanks RJ. NSC 89-2313-B-002-243. Klute A. Journal of Hydrology 75: 287–299. but the present model achieves much more accurate water content prediction than the other two models. Water Resources Research 5: 1064– 1069. Hydrol. Parker JC. redistribution. Corey AJ. Wierenga PJ. three models performed equally well on primary scanning curves. drainage. 1987. King LG. Development and evaluation of closed-form expressions for hysteretic soil hydraulic properties. For the literature-cited data. Dane JH. The Scott model yielded slightly lower Em values than the present model. Jaynes DB. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financially supporting this research under Contract No. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 1061– 1067. redistribution and drainage of water in a layered soil. Water Resources Research 23: 105–114. HUANG ET AL. Comparison of soil-water hysteresis models. Heermann DF. Gillham RW. The comparison results indicate that the present model outperforms the Scott and KP models. 19. Description of soil characteristics for partially saturated flow. 1979. 1964. Process. 1653– 1665 (2005) . Hydraulic properties of porous media.-C. Journal of Hydrology 25: 229– 242. Bresler E. The present model is simple. Colorado State University. Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. Hydrology Paper 3.

Annales Geophysicae 3: 615–628. Hydrol. Soil Science Society of America Journal 43: 1067– 1073. 1974. A close-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. 1962. Copyright  2005 John Wiley & Sons. 1976. Israel Institute of Technology. Catena-Verlag: Cremlingen-Destedt. Nielsen DR. HYSTERESIS MODEL IN UNSATURATED SOIL 1665 Kutilek M. 1980. A catalogue of the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soils. Water Resources Research 12: 224– 228. 19. Hysteresis of pore water. Parlange JY. Farquhar GJ. 1980. Water Resources Research 10: 514– 520. Haifa. Mualem Y. On describing and predicting the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soil. 1976. Kouwen N. Advances in Infiltration 11–83: 163– 170. A hysteresis model based on an explicit domain-dependence function. Mualem Y. Germany. Miller EE. Process. Hysteretic effects on net infiltration. Technion. 1979. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 12: 77– 102. Mualem Y. 1975. Parlange JY. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44: 892–898. an application on the concept of independent domain. 73. Water Resources Research 11: 452–460. Dagan G. van Genuchten MT. van Genuchten MT. 1969. 1985. Scott PS. Research Project Report 442. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 33: 645–651. Water transport in soils. Soil-water hysteresis measured in a sandy loam and compared with the hysteretic domain model. Ltd. 1983. Capillary hysteresis and the relationship between drying and wetting curves. A dependent domain model of capillary hysteresis. Topp GC. 1653– 1665 (2005) . A conceptual model of hysteresis. Soil Hydrology. Mualem Y. 1994. Poulovassilis A. Soil Science 93: 405–412. Nielsen DR.