WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 32, NO.

9, PAGES 2697-2703, SEPTEMBER 1996

Lognormal distribution model for unsaturated soil

hydraulic properties
Ken'ichirouKosugi
Laboratoryof ErosionControl, Departmentof Forestry,Facultyof Agriculture,Kyoto University
Kyoto, Japan

Abstract. The soil water retention model developedby Kosugiwas modified to be

compatiblewith Mualem'smodel in order to derivean analyticalexpressionfor the
relative hydraulicconductivityK r. The modifiedwater retention model is to be derived by
applyinga lognormaldistributionlaw to the soilpore radiusdistributionfunction.Parameters
of thisretentionmodelhavephysicalsignificance on the watercontent(0)-capillarypressure
(½) curveand are related directlyto the statisticsof the pore radiusdistribution.The
accuracyof the resultingcombinedwater-retention-hydraulic-conductivity model is verified
for observeddata setsfor six soils.Resultsshowedthat the proposedmodel produces
acceptablematcheswith observedwater retention curvesand adequatepredictionsof
hydraulicconductivities
in five out of sixcases.The 0 - ½andKF- ½ (or Kr - O) curves
generatedby thismodelare generallysimilarto thosegeneratedby van Genuchten'smodel.
.

Introduction tion laws to the model for the pore radius distributionand
derivedexpressionsfor the soilwater retention.By combining
The hydraulicpropertiesof unsaturatedsoilare represented some of these water retention models with the Childs and
by the relationshipbetweenthe volumetricwatercontent0 and Coilis-George[1950] model, Brutsaert[1968] obtained some
the soil capillarypressure• and the relationshipbetweenthe expressionsfor soil hydraulicconductivity.However, rather
unsaturatedhydraulicconductivityK and •. The 0 - • rela- complicatedformsof the derivedconductivitymodelslimited
tionshipis referred to as the soilwaterretentioncurve.It is their usefulnessfor modelingpurposes.Although Laliberte
basedon the soilpore radius(size)distribution. [1969] suggestedhis own distributionform for the soil pore
So•memodelsfor water retention [e.g.,Brooksand Corey, radius distribution and derived a water retention model, the
1964;van Genuchten,1980;Russo,1988]havebeen developed correspondingmodel for relative hydraulic conductivitywas
to be compatiblewith modelsby Burdine[1953] and Mualem not developed. This study proposes a combined water-
[1976a]for the purposeof derivinganalyticalexpressions that retention-hydraulic-conductivity
model,whichwas developed
can be used to predict the relative hydraulicconductivityof by applyinga distributionlaw availablein generalprobability
soil. The sets of the water retention model and the derived theory and whichhas a relativelysimplefunctionalform and
modelfor relativehydraulicconductivityare referredto asthe hencecanbe effectivelyusedboth for analysesof soilhydraulic
combinedwater-retention-hydraulic-conductivity models and propertiesand for numericalmodelsfor processes in soils.
havebeenwidelyusedfor modelingpurposes[e.g.,Russoet al., Recently,Kosugi[1994a] developeda soil water retention
1994;Lethaand Elango,1994].Thesemodelsare alsouseful model by applyinga three-parameterlognormaldistribution
for the inversemethodto determinethe soil hydraulicprop- law to the soilpore radiusdistributionfunction.Parametersof
erties from transient data associated with unsaturated soil wa- this retentionmodel have physicalsignificanceon the 0 - ½
ter flow [e.g.,Russoet al., 1991;Tootmanet al., 1992]. curveand arerelatedcloselyto the statistics
of the poreradius
The combinedwater-retention-hydraulic-conductivity mod- distribution.It hasbeenreportedthat this modelperformsas
els have been frequentlyusedfor analysesof hystereticphe- well asanyexistingempiricalmodelfor de[erminingretention
nomena found in the 0 - • and K - • relationshipsand curvesof varioussoils[Kosugi,
1994a,b], whilethemodelhas
spatialvariabilityof soil hydraulicproperties[e.g.,Lucknetet a relativelycomplicatedfunctionalform in comparisonwith
al., 1989;RussoandBouton,1992].Parametersof thesemodels widelyusedretentionmodels. Applyinga restriction
to oneof
have been related to the soil texture and other soil properties the parameters,thisretentionmodelis modifiedin thisstudyto
suchas bulk densityand percentageof organicmatter [e.g., be compatiblewith Mualem's[1976a]modelin order to derive
ClappandHornberger, 1978;W6stenand van Genuchten,1988]. an analyticalexpressionfor the relativehydraulicconductivity.
The accuracyof the resulting combined water-retention-
Mishra and Parker[1990] and Wiseet al. [1994]have analyzed
hydraulic-conductivitymodel is verifiedfor observeddata sets
the relationshipsbetweenthe saturatedhydraulicconductivity
for somesoilshavingwidelyvaryinghydraulicproperties.
andparametersof thesemodels.Despitetheir usefulness these
combinedmodelsuse empiricalcurve-fittingequationsfor the
soilwater retentioncurve.They do not emphasizethe physical Theory
significanceof their empiricalparameters.
On the other hand,Brutsaert[1966]appliedseveraldistribu- Three-ParameterLognormalDistribution Model for Soil
Water Retention
Copyright1996by the AmericanGeophysicalUnion.
The pore radiusdistributionfunction,#(r), is definedas
Paper number 96WR01776.
0043-1397/96/96WR-01776509.00 #(r) = d O/dr (1)
2697
2698 KOSUGI: COMBINED WATER-RETENTION-HYDRAULIC-CONDUCTIVITY MODEL

Kosugi[1994a]obtainedthe followingexpression forf(½) by

0.003
a applyinga three-parameterlognormaldistributionlaw to #(r)'

0.002 f(tb)= (2•r)•/2

0-(tbc
- tb)
0.001

0.000
ßexp - 20.2 ½< ½c (5)
•p(cm) -200 -100 •P0 0 f(½) =0 ½-> ½c
-1.0

b where 0s and 0r are the saturatedand residualwater contents,

Q(-cO respectively,and ½c, ½o, and 0. are parameters.Parameter 0r
is definedas the water contentwhen ½ is infinitelysmall, and
0.5 • the soilwater conductivityis assumedto be zero. However, 0r
is commonlyregardedas an empiricalparameter.It is treated
as one of the fitted parametersin this study.Parameter ½cis
relatedto the maximumpore radiusin the mediumby (2) and
0.0 ½'ois the mode off(C). Equation(5) hasthe three-parameter
•p(cm) -200 -100 lpmlp0 0 lognormal distribution form because the distribution of
- 1.0 In { (½c - •)/(½c - ½o)} obeysthe normal distribution.
Dimensionless parameter0.(0.> 0) is the standarddeviationof
the distributionof ln{ (½c - ½)/(½c - ½o)}. Because0 = Or

C / '0.841
0.5
when ½ = -0% integrating(5) yieldsthe followingexpression
for water retention [Kosugi,1994a]'

0.159
1 {ln[(½c-
Se= 5 erfc ½)/(½c-½o)]-0-
2•/20. 2}½< ½c (6)
• , , 0.0 Se =1 ½->½c
ln(-lp) 5.5 5[ 4.5 3.5 3 2.5
(½in cm) • where erfc denotesthe complementaryerror function.Se rep-
In(-lpm)+
cr ln(-lpm)ln(-lpm)-
cr resents the effective saturation which is defined as

Figure 1. Curvesfor (a)f(½) - ½, (b) Se - lit, and (c) Se -- (0- Or)/(O

s-- Or) (7)
Se - In (-½) based on the lognormaldistributionmodel,
showingplotsof (9), (10), and (14) for ½o= -50 crn,½m= It hasbeen reportedthat (6) exhibitsgreat flexibilityfor de-
-71.7 cm (ln (--½m) = 4.27), 0- = 0.6, 0s = 0.4, and terminingretention curvesof varioussoils[Kosugi,1994a,b].
Or = 0.1. The other expressionfor (6) is
Se -- Q{ln [(½c- ½)/(½c- ½0)]/0.- 0.} ½ < ½c (6')
where r is the pore radius.Consequently, #(r) dr represents Se =1 ½-->½c
the volumeof full poresof radii [r, r + dr] per unit volumeof
medium.Here r is associated with ½ for a givensaturationby where Q is the complementarynormal distributionfunction
the capillarypressurefunction defined as

cos 13/pwgr= A/r (2)

(8)
where ,/is the surfacetension between the water and air,/3 is Q(x)= (2,r)
2/2
exp- dx
the contact angle, Pw is the densityof water, and g is the
accelerationof gravity.The constantvalue of -23/cos 13/pw Two-Parameter Lognormal Distribution Model for Soil
g = A = -0.149 cm2 [Brutsaert,
1966]is usedin thisstudy. Water Retention
On the basisof this direct correspondence of r and ½, the When the restrictionof ½c= 0 is applied,(6) still produces
distributiong(r) is transformedinto the distributionf(½) by acceptablematcheswith retention curvesof soilswhich have
the followingequation: no distinctbubblingpressure[Kosugi,1994a].With the restric-
f(½) = #(r) dr/de (3) tion of ½c = 0, (5) and (6') are transformedas follows:

Substituting(1) into (3) yields

f(½) = dO/d½ (4)
Os-Or{ [ln
f(½)= (2•r)V20.(_
½)exp- (½/½0)
--0-2]
2rr2 2} (9)

Se ---Q[ln (½/½0)/0.- 0.] (lO)

Hencef(½)d½ representsthe volumeof full poresin which
water is retainedby capillarypressure½ to ½ +d½ per unit
volume of medium. Thereforef(½) can be regardedas the
pore capillarypressuredistributionfunction.From (4) it is
evidentthatf(½) is identicalto the water capacityfunction.
Figuresla and lb showplotsof (9) and (10), respectively, for
½o- -50 cm, 0. = 0.6, 0s = 0.4, and 0r = 0.1. The distri-
bution expressedby (9) is not symmetrical.Notice that ½o
correspondsto the capillarypressureat the inflectionpoint on
 KOSUGI: COMBINED WATER-RETENTION-HYDRAULIC-CONDUCTIVITY MODEL 2699

the Se - ½ curve. The value of Se at the inflection point is functionalrelationships betweenKr and Se andKr and •. The
foundby substituting• = ½ointo (10): integralin (16) is transformedas follows:
Se(½0)= Q ( - 0-) (11)
Consequently,0-is the parameterwhich determinesthe value
of Se( ½0)' Small0-valuereducesSe(½0) valueand makesthe
foSedSe
l Orfødo
--Os- 1Orf*l•f(½) d½
= Os-
retentioncurvesteepat the inflectionpoint. This is confirmed
by substituting½ = ½ointo (9) to showthat f(½o) becomes
higher as 0- decreases.The Se - ½ curveshownin Figure lb
hasthe Se(½o)valueof 0.73.The medianoff(C) expressed as
= Os lor
- Or) r#(r)dr (17)
(9) (era) is givenby substituting
Se = 0.5 into (10): When #(r) is expressed as (15), the integrationcanbe carried
out withoutdifficulties(seeAppendixA):
½•n= ½0exp(0'2) (12)
Inverting(12) with respectto ½oand substituting
(10) yields
into (9) and
fo
Se
dSe 1exp(0-2/2)Q[ln
I½l- ICml (•/•m)/0-
+ 0-] (18)
SubstitutingSe = 1 (that is, • = 0) into (18) yields
Os--Or{ [In(C/era)]
f(½)= (2,r)1/20-(
__½)exp- 20-22} (•3)

Se = Q[ln (•/•m)/0-]
Equation(13) has the lognormaldistributionform sincethe
(14)
fo•dSe 1exp(0-2/2)
I½-ICml (19)
distribution of In (-½) obeys the normal distribution Hence (16) becomes
N[ln (-era), 0-2].Consequently,
½mis identical
to the geo-
metricmeanoff(C). A plot of (14) for ½m= --71.7 cm (that Kr = S•/2{Q[ln(•/•m)/0- q-0-]}2 (20)
is, In (-era) = 4.27) and 0- = 0.6 is shownusinga semiloga- By substituting
(14) into (20), Kr canbe expressed
in the term
rithmicscalein Figure lc. This ½mvalueis obtainedfrom (12) of Se or ½:
by substituting ½o= -50 cm and 0-= 0.6whichare usedfor the
f(½) - ½ and Se -- ½ curvesshownin Figures la and lb, Kr(Se)= S}/2{Q[Q-•(Se)
+ 0-]}2 (21)
respectively.It can be seenthat ½mis identicalto the capillary
pressureat the inflectionpoint on the Se - In (-½) curve.
Kr(½)= {Q[ln (½/½m)/0-]}l/2{Q[ln
(•/•m)/0- + 0-]}2 (22)
Noticethat 0-is equalto the differencebetweenIn (- era) and whereQ- • denotes
the inversefunctionof Q definedas(8)
the In (-½) value at Se = 0.841 or the differencebetween and representsa percentagepoint of the normal distribution.
In ( - era) andthe In (- ½)valueat Se = 0.15 9. Consequently, The combinationof the water retention model expressedas
Se -- In (--½) curve becomessteeperaround the inflection (10) or (14) andthe hydraulicconductivity modelexpressedas
point as0-becomessmaller.With a large0-valuethe curvehas (21) and (22) is referred to as the lognormal distribution
consistently smalldecreasesin Se as In (-½) increases. model. Note that another expressionfor K• can be derivedby
The pore radiusdistributionfunction#(r) corresponding to combining(14) with Burdine's[1953]modelfor predictingthe
the water retention model expressedas (14) is derived by relativehydraulicconductivity(see AppendixB).
substituting(2) and (13) into (3) and differentiating Plots of (21) for different0-valuesare shownusinga loga-
rithmic scalein Figure 26. When 0- --> 0, the medium has a

Os--Or
{ [ln
#(r)= (27r)1/20-(r/rm)]
r exp-
20-22} (•5) uniform pore radius.It is dear from Figure 26 and alsofrom
(21) that for thiscase,K• is expressed
asa powerfunctionof Se
whererm is the pore radiuswhichis relatedto ½mby (2) (that (thatis,Kr = Se 2-s)whichisidentical to theK• modelderived
is, rm = _/l/½m) . Equation(15) representsa lognormaldistri- by applying the Kozeny equation [cf.Kutœlek
andNielsen,1994].
butionsinceIn (r) obeysN[ln (rm), 0-2].It shouldbe noted As 0-becomeslarge, the ratio of changeof K• near saturation
thatrm is equalto the medianandthe geometricmeanof #(r). becomesgreat. Figure 2b showsthe relationshipsbetweenK•
Parameter 0- is related to the width of #(r) since it is the and the reducedcapillarypressure(•/•m) obtainedby (22)
standarddeviationof the distributionof In (r). Value of 0- is for different0-values.Actual • valuesare obtainedby shifting
smallfor a soilwhichhasa narrowpore radiusdistributionand the logarithmicscaleby log (- ½m)' With a small0-value,K•
is largefor a soilwith a wide pore radiusdistribution. remainsnear 1 for the small •/•m value, and then there is an
immediatesharp decline.With a large 0-value the curve has
Two-Parameter Lognormal Distribution Model for Relative consistently smalldecreasesin Kr as • decreases.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Mualem's[19766]modelfor predictingthe relativehydraulic
Kr from soilwater retentioncurveiswrittenin the Comparison With Experimental Data
conductivity
form
To verify the accuracyof the lognormaldistributionmodel,
observedwater retention curvesand hydraulicconductivities

gr=K/Ks=Se•/2{
loSeaSe/
T•/foldSel
•-I2 (16)
for six soilswere analyzed.Data setsfor five soilshave been
alreadyanalyzedby van Genuchten[1980]usingthe combined
water-retention-hydraulic-conductivitymodel suggestedby
where Ks and K are the saturatedand unsaturatedhydraulic himself.This model has been reportedto perform relatively
conductivities, Combining(14) with (16) givesthe well in comparisonwith other modelssuchas the Brooksand
respectively.
2•00 KOSUGI:COMBINEDWATER-RETENTION-HYDRAULIC-CONDUCTIVITY
MODEL

0
0.01 0.1 1100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

0.3
a
10o
Hygienesandstone

./ I i• "' - 10-1

/
/'
/
XJ.Jl:,
/ //,, I •1/.'
,,
,' I 0.2
/ / / • /" • i!11 .,' 10-2
/ß
,'x x//,,-
• //'I,,,, r/,:'
, , I
////,,,,
! / .,.' / ,',' I it.r,' !-1o• 10-3
X/l,",,' ' ""
/ ./....
,,-.-.,,:ß t.,. I tlIt" I-
,. , .... I ;'I.'i -103 -102
0.1 ................
-101 -103 _102 -101
10-4

9 (cm) •p(cm)
/ ,' / /•' •0-•0 lognormaldistribution ....................
vanGenuchtenI
a = 0 0.5 ....................1.5 2.5
Figure 3. (a) Observedand fitted 0 - • curvesand (b) ob-
1.0 ....................2.0 3.0
servedand predictedKr - • curvesfor Hygienesandstone.
Figure 2. Curvesfor (a) K• - Se and (b) K• - •/•m based
on the lognormaldistributionmodel,showingplotsof (21) and
(22) for differenta values. The combinationof the water retentionmodel expressedas
(23) and the hydraulicconductivity modelexpressedas (27)
and (28) is referredto as the van Genuchtenmodel.
Corey model [Brooksand Corey,1964] and has been used In Figures3 through7 the observed0 - • and Kr - •
extensively in numericalmodeling[vanGenuchtenandNielsen, curvesfor five soilstaken from Mualem's catalog[Mualem,
1985;Juryet al., 1991]. 1976b]are comparedwith the fitted 0 - • andthe predicted
Van Genuchten's water retention model is
Kr - • curvesobtainedby the lognormaldistributionmodel.
Se= {1 + (al½l)n}-m (23) Parameters•o, 0-, and Or in (10) were optimizedto fit the
functional 0 - • curvesto the observedretention data sets
wherea andn (n > 1) are parametersandrn is relatedto n usinga nonlinearleastsquaresoptimizationprocedurebased
by rn = 1 - 1/n (0 < rn < 1). Equation (23) can be on Marquardt'smaximumneighborhoodmethod[Marquardt,
transformedto includethe capillarypressureat the inflection 1963],andthen •m wascomputedby (12) usingthe estimated
pointon the 0 - • curve(•ov) whichisgivenbydifferentiating •o and 0-.ApplyingMarquardt'smethod,the Osvalueswere
(23) twicewith respectto $ (that is, Soy = -ml-m/øt) taken from Mualem's catalog.The Kr - • curveswere pre-
[Kosugi,1994a]: dictedby substituting
the estimated•m and 0-into (22). The
Se= { 1 + rn(•/•ov) 1/1-m}-m (24) estimatedparametersfor eachsoilare summarized in Table 1
with the Osand Ks valuestaken from the catalog.The fitted
Kosugi[19941]hasalreadyshown(24) is analogous to (10) by 0 - • and the predictedK r - • curvesobtainedby the van
analyzingthe retentiondatasetsfor 50 soils.The residualsum
of squaresof the fitted versusobservedwater contentsob-
tainedby usingboth modelsfor eachretentiondata setresem-
0 gr
bled each other. For most data sets,•ov took on nearly the
samevalue as •o in (10). It has been also shownthat the
relationshipbetweenrn and 0-in (10) is expressed as
0'2"- (1- m)In {(2l/m-- 1)/m} (25)
a
Toucher silt loam

ß .
[ b [10
010_1

Equation(25) was obtainedby assumingthat the medianof

10-2
f(•) basedon the lognormaldistributionmodel(•m) (which
is definedas(12)) isthe sameasthatbasedon vanGenuchten's
10-3
[1980]water retentionmodel(•mV); ½mVis givenby substi-
tutingSe = 0.5 into (24):
10-4
•mV= •t0•{(2l/m-- 1)/m}•-m (26)
VanGenuchten
[1980]substituted(23) into(16) andintegrated ...... r.......... 10'$
-104 -103 -102 -101 -100 -104 -103 -102 -101 -100
to yield
gr(Se)-- 5•/2{1- (1 -- Se1/m
)rn
}2 (27) 9 (era) 9 (cm)
lognormal
distribution
....................
van Genuchten
I
{1 - (al½[)n-•[1+ (al½[)n]-m}
2
gr(½)
= {1+ (a[½l)n}
m/2 (28) Figure 4. (a) Observedand fitted 0 - • curvesand (b)
observedand predictedKr - • curvesfor Touchetsilt loam
(m = 1- I/n) G. E. 3.
 KOSUGI:
COMBINED
WATER,
RETENTION-HYDRAULIC'CONDUCTiVITY
MODEL 2701

0 Kr 0
0.5

b ooo.....o•
100
a a

Silt loam G. E. 3
0.4 10-1
Beit Netofaclay
0.5

0.4
o....ø..ø,
-"'"' 10 4
10-2 _10-2
0.3

10-3 0.3 10-3

0.2
10-4 10-4
0.2

........ r ....... r .... "' ' I...... ; ' O.1 ß 10-5 10-5
_104 _103 _102 -10 • -100 -104 -103 -102 -101 -100 -105 -104 -103 -102 -101 -100 -105 -104 .103 -102 -10• -100
lp(cm) q;(cm) •p(cm) •p(cm)
lognormal
distribution
....................
van Genuchten
I I lognormal
distribution
...................
van Genuchten
Figure5. (a) Observed
andfitted0 - ½curvesand(b) ob- Figure7. (a) Observedandfitted0 - ½curvesand(b) ob-
servedandpredicted
Kr - ½ curvesfor SiltloamG. E. 3. servedandpredicted
Kr - ½ curvesfor Beit Netofaclay.

Genuchten
[1980]
model
(.(23)
and(28))are
also
shown
inthe
figures.
These
curves
Were
Plott
edUSing
the
ßestimated
param- uite well for the

etervalues
summarized
in Tabl
e 1 .of-Van
Genuchten
[1980], observed 0 - s.

with the exceptionof the soil.shown.in :Figure6. Fi.gure5 sh E. 3 [Reisenauer,

1963](Mualem's
.soiIindex:3310):
•AsvanGenUchten
[1980]
Figure
3 shows
[Brooks
results
andCorey,
obtained,
forHygiene
1964](mualem"s
sandstone
Soilihdex
4130).
The
pointedout,.only'a
limitedportionof thewaterretentioncurve
fitted 0 - • curve generatedby the lognormaldistribution was observedforthis'soil. This
cauSed adifferencebetween Or
model matchesthe observed0 -• curve as well as the fitted estimatedbYthe lognormaldistribution modeland that esti-
curveby the van Genuchten[1980] model.Van Genuchten mated by thevanGenuchten •model.
Twofitted curves resem:
pointedout that a rather narrowpore radius-distributionof ble each.otherin the regionWherethe observedretentiondata
this soilcausedthe water retentioncurveto becomevery steep exist.
ThePredicte
d'Kr'
, q•Curves
bYboth
models
match
the
at around • = -125 cm. This is clearly describedby the observedKr .- q• cU•e.
estimatedparametersof the lognormaldistributionmodel:o-
wasestimatedto be rathersmall(o-- 0.16), andthe estimated
The
da,
ta
(MUalemset
forGraVelly
ssoil sand
indeX4i35),
shownG.E.9[Reisenauer,
in'.Figu;e not1963]
6,has been
•o valuewas -125 cm (Table i). Figure3b showsboth the analyzedby van Genuchten [1980].HenceMarquardt's [1963]
lognormaldistributionand the van Genuchtenmodelsmatch methodwasusedto fit (23) to the observedretentiondataset.
the observedKr - • curveequallywell. Estimated
values
of Or,a, andn were0.079,0.0150cm-a,and
Resultsfor Touchet silt loam G. E. 3 [Brooksand Corey, 2.84, respectively.
Again, the lognormaldistributionmodel
1964](Mualem'ssoilindex3307)aregivenin Figure4. Again, predictedthe observedKr - ½ curve as well as the van
Genuchten model.
In Figure 7, both the lognormaldistributionand the van
0 gt.
Genuchten[1980] modelsprovidepoor predictionsof the
0.4 Kr - ½ curveobservedfor Beit Netofa clay [Rawitz,1965]
(Mualem'ssoilindex1006).Two predictedcurvesare slightly
a [ b I lO
o different from each other.

Gravelly
san•
G.E. 9 0.3
[10-•
For illustrationof a typicalretentiondata set in which a
hystereticphenomenonis found, the observeddata set for
Guelphloam[ElrickandBowman,1964]is comparedwith the
0.2 fitted 0 - ½andthe predictedKr - 0 curvesgeneratedby the
- 10-2 lognormaldistributionmodel in Figure 8. The 0 - ½ and
Kr - 0 curvesgenerated by thevanGenuchtenmodel(Figure
0.1 9 of van Genuchten[1980])are alsoshownin Figure8. Mar-
- 10-3
quardt'smethodwasappliedto optimizeparameters in (10)
for the observedretentiondatasetusingthe sameassumptions
0.0 ....... r......... 10-4 asvan Genuchtendid: 0sfor the wettingbranchwasassumed
-104 •1•'•' -102 10' •10
0 -10 4 -103 -102 -10 • -100 to be the highestmeasured value(0s = 0.434), and Orfor the
lp(cm) lp(cm) wetting branch was assumed to be the sameas Orestimated
from the dryingbranch(seeTable 1). In Figure8b theKr - 0
lognormal
distribution ....................
van
Genuchten
I curvespredictedfor the wettingbranchwere matchedto the
Figure 6. (a) Observedandfitted 0 - ½curvesand (b) ob- highestKr valueobserved duringthewettingprocess. It canbe
servedandpredictedKr - ½curvesfor GravellysandG. E. 9. seenthat the lognormaldistribution modelperformsaswell as
2702 KOSUGI: COMBINED WATER-RETENTION-HYDRAULIC-CONDUCTIVITY MODEL

Table 1. Fitted Values for Parametersof the LognormalDistribution Model for the
Retention CurvesPlotted in Figures3 through8
Ks,* I•to, •m,?
SoilName cm/s 0s* Or cm cm

Hygienesandstone 1.25E-3 0.250 0.154 -125. -1.28E+2 0.161

Touchet silt loam G. E. 3 3.51E-3 0.469 0.191 -192. -2.05E+2 0.253
Silt loam G. E. 3 5.74E-5 0.396 0.158 -150. -3.47E+2 0.916
GravellysandG. E. 9 2.78E-4 0.326 0.083 -52.9 -8.35E+ 1 0.675
Beit Netofa clay 9.50E-7 0.446 0.000 -6.41 -2.42E+4 2.87
Guelphloam(drying) 3.66E-4 0.520 0.237 -52.3 -1.33E+2 0.966
Guelphloam(wetting) ... 0.434 0.237 -35.8 -5.46E+ 1 0.649
*Taken from Mualem'scatalog[Mualem,1976b].
?Computedby (12) usingthe estimated½oand

the van Genuchten model for both drying and wetting can be transformedto containparameter •m insteadof •o.
branches of the Kr - 0 curve. Both ½m and 0- have statisticalsignificanceon the soil pore
radiusdistributionfunction#(r): ½mis relatedto the median
of #(r) by the capillarypressurefunctionand 0-representsthe
Summary and Conclusions widthof #(r). As a resultthe lognormaldistributionmodelcan
In this study the soil water retention model proposedby be effectivelyusedfor analysesof soil hydraulicpropertiesas
Kosugi[1994a]wasmodifiedto be compatiblewith Mudlet's well as for numericalmodelsfor processes in soils.
[1976a]modelfor the purposeof derivingan analyticalexpres-
sionfor the relativehydraulicconductivityKr. The accuracyof
the resultingcombinedwater-retention-hydraulic-conductivity Appendix A: Procedure for Deriving (18)
model(the lognormaldistributionmodel)wasverifiedfor ob-
In order to derive analyticalexpressions for Kr based on
serveddata setsfor sixsoils.Resultsshowedthat the lognormal
Mualem's [1976a] model, the following integral should be
distributionmodelproducesacceptablematcheswith observed solved:
water retentioncurvesand adequatepredictionsof hydraulic
conductivitiesin fiveout of sixcases.The 0 - • andKr - • (or
Kr - 0) curvesgeneratedby thismodelare generallysimilar
to thosegeneratedbyvanGenuchten's [1980]model,whichhas
been used extensivelyin numericalmodeling.
G= Os-O• r#(r)dr f0
r (A1)
The lognormaldistributionmodelwas developedby apply- When #(r) is expressed as (15), (A1) becomes
ing a lognormaldistributionlaw to the soilpore radiusdistri-
bution.The parametersof the modelhavephysicalsignificance
on the 0 - • curve:•o is the capillarypressureat the inflection
point on the 0 - • curve,and 0-is a dimensionless parameter
G= (2z.)•/20- llor{[ln(r/rm)]2
•
exp- 20.2j dr (A2)
whichdecidesthe effectivesaturationSe at the inflectionpoint. Substituting y = In (r/rm) into (A2) leadsto
The capillarypressurewhen Se is equal to 0.5 (½m) is ex-
pressedby the functionwithrespectto $oand0-,andthe model
Fm f_•
ln(r/rm)
G=(2z.)•/20.
exp
(y-y2/20.2)
dy (A3)
0 Kr Substitution
ofz = (0.2_ y)/(2•/20.)into(A3)gives

aGuelph
10
b oo 10ø rm
exp
(0.2/2)
G= _ z.•/2
f{tr2-1n(r/rm)}/2
exp( - z2)dz (A4)

ß wetti 10-1 Theerror

function
(erf)isdefined
as

(A5)
I dYing
[ erf(x)=•-•exp(-x2)dx
-104 -103 -102 -10• -10ø 0.2
I /y
• ; , ß , ß , . ,10 4
0.3 0.4 0.5
I10-3
0.6
Because
erf
(c•)
=1,
combining
(A5)
with
G=
(m4)
yields
rmexp(0.2/2)
2
((1 - erf{[0.2- In (r/rm)]/2•/20.})) (A6)

½ (ca) 0 Sincethe complementary

normaldistributionfunction(Q) is
• lognormal
distribution
....................
van Genuchten} relatedto the errorfunction
by erf(x) = 1 - 2Q(2•/2x),
(A6) is transformedas
Figure 8. (a) Observedand fitted 0 - ½ curvesand (b) ob-
served
andpredicted
Kr - 0 curves
for Guelphloam. G = rmexp(0.2/2)Q[ln(rm/r)/0.+ 0.] (AY)
 KOSUGI: COMBINED WATER-RETENTION-HYDRAULIC-CONDUCTIVITY MODEL 2703

Substitutingr = A/½ and rm = A/Om into (A7) yields Kosugi, K., Analysis of water retention curves of forest soils with
three-parameterlognormaldistributionmodel,NipponRin Gakkai-
A shi, 76(5), 433-444, 1994b.
G= ½-•
exp(tr2/2)Q[ln
(½/½m)/tr
+ tr] (A8) Kutilek, M., and D. R. Nielsen,Soil Hydrology,pp. 104-105, Catena
Verlag, Cremlingen,Germany, 1994.
Dividing(A8) by IAI gives(18). Laliberte, G. E., A mathematicalfunction for describingcapillary
pressure-desaturation data,Bull.Int. Assoc.Sci.Hydrol.,14(2), 131-
149, 1969.
Letha, J., and K. Elango, Simulationof mildly unsaturatedflow, J.
Appendix B: Equation for Kr Based Hydrol.,154, 1-17, 1994.
on Burdine's [1953] Model Luckner, L., M. T. van Genuchten, and D. R. Nielsen, A consistent set
Burdine's[1953] model for predictingK r is written in the of parametricmodelsfor the two-phaseflow of immisciblefluidsin
form
the subsurface,
WaterResour.Res.,25(10), 2187-2193, 1989.
Marquardt,D. W., An algorithmfor least-squares estimationof non-
linear parameters,J. Soc.Ind. Appl. Math., 11,431-441, 1963.
Mishra, S., and J. C. Parker, On the relation between saturated con-

gr=K/Ks:
S• ½12/
i½1
= (m9) ductivity and capillary retention characteristics,Ground Water,
28(5), 775-777, 1990.
Mualem, Y., A new modelfor predictingthe hydraulicconductivityof
The integralin (A9) is transformedas follows: unsaturatedporous media, Water Resour.Res., 12(3), 513-522,
1976a.
Mualem, Y., A catalogueof the hydraulicpropertiesof unsaturated

fO
sedse ]s__Or) •0
l• = iAi2(o rr2g(r)dr (A10) soils,Proj. 442, 100 pp., Technion-IsraelInst. of Technol., Haifa,
Israel, 1976b.
Rawitz, E., The influence of a number of environmental factors on the
Wheng(r) is expressedas(15), (A10) canreadilybe integrated availabilityof soil moistureto plants(in Hebrew), Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Hebrew Univ., Rehovot, Israel, 1965.
Mth the s•flar procedureasmentioned• Append• A: Reisenauer,A. E., Methodsfor solvingproblemsof multi-dimensional
partially saturatedsteadyflow in soils,J. Geophys.Res., 68, 5725-
5733, 1963.

•o
s•
dSe 1exp(2a2)Q[ln
i½1==
i½m2 (½/½m)/a
+2a] (All) Russo,D., Determiningsoilhydraulicpropertiesby parameterestima-
tion: On the selectionof a modelfor the hydraulicproperties,Water
Resour.
Res.,24(3),453-459,1988.
Consequently,
K r basedon Burdine'smodel is expressedas Russo,D., and M. Bouton,Statisticalanalysisof spatialvariabilityin
unsaturatedflow parameters,WaterResour.Res.,28(7), 1911-1925,
Kr = S•Q[ln(½/½m)/•+ 2a] (A12) 1992.
Russo,D., E. Bresler,U. Shani,and J. C. Parker, Analysesof infiltra-
tion eventsin relation to determiningsoil hydraulicpropertiesby
Acknowledgments. I expressmy gratitude to S. Kobashi, T. Mi- inverseproblemmethodology, WaterResour.Res.,27(6), 1361-1373,
1991.
zuyama,
andN. Ohte(all of KyotoUniversity)
forvaluable
comments
andcriticisms
of the manuscript.
Thisresearchwaspartlysupportedby Russo, D., J. Zaidel, and A. Laufer, Stochasticanalysisof solute
a grant from the Fund of Monbusyo for Scientific Research transport in partially saturatedheterogeneoussoil, 1, Numerical
(07760151). experiments,
WaterResour.Res.,30(3), 769-779, 1994.
Toorman, A. F., P. J. Wierenga, and R. G. Hills, Parameterestimation
of hydraulicpropertiesfrom one-stepoutflow data, WaterResour.
References Res.,28(11), 3021-3028, 1992.
van Genuchten, M. T., A closed-formequation for predicting the
Brooks,R. H., and A. T. Corey,Hydraulicpropertiesof porousmedia, hydraulicconductivityof unsaturatedsoils,Soil Sci. Soc.Am. J., 44,
Hydrol.Pap.3, Civ. Eng. Dep., Colo. StateUniv., Fort Collins,1964. 892- 898, 1980.
Brutsaert,W., Probabilitylaws for pore-sizedistributions,Soil Sci., van Genuchten,M. T., and D. R. Nielsen,On describingand predict-
101, 85-92, 1966. ing the hydraulicproperties of unsaturatedsoils,Ann. Geophys.,
Brutsaert,W., The permeabilityof a porousmediumdeterminedfrom 3(5), 615-628, 1985.
certainprobabilitylawsfor pore sizedistribution,WaterResour.Res., Wise, W. R., T. P. Clement, and F. J. Molz, Variably saturatedmod-
4(2), 425-434, 1968. eling of transientdrainage:Sensitivityto soil properties,J. Hydrol.,
Burdine,N. T., Relativepermeabilitycalculationfrom sizedistribution 161, 91-108, 1994.
data, Trans.Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Eng., 198, 71-78, 1953. W6sten, J. H. M., and M. T. van Genuchten,Using textureand other
Childs,E. C., and N. Coilis-George,The permeabilityof porousma- soil propertiesto predict the unsaturatedsoil hydraulicfunctions,
terials,Proc. R. Soc.LondonA, 201,392-405, 1950. Soil Sci. Soc.Am. J., 52, 1762-1770, 1988.
Clapp,R. B., andG. M. Hornberger,Empiricalequationsfor somesoil
hydraulicproperties,WaterReSour.Res.,14(4), 601-604, 1978. K. Kosugi,Laboratoryof ErosionControl, Departmentof Forestry,
Elrick,D. E., and D. H. Bowman,Note on an improvedapparatusfor Facultyof Agriculture,KyotoUniversity,Kyoto60601,Japan.(e-mail:
soil moisture flow measurements,Soil Sci. Soc.Am. Proc., 28, 450-
f54174@sakura.kudpc.kyoto-u.ac.jp)
453, 1964.
Jury, W. A., W. R. Gardner, and W. H. Gardner, Soil Physics,pp.
107-109, John Wiley, New York, 1991.
Kosugi, K., Three-parameterlognormal distributionmodel for soil (ReceivedOctober9, 1995;revisedMarch 28, 1996;
water retention,WaterResourRes.,30(4), 891-901, 1994a. acceptedJune 6, 1996.)