Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Effects of rainfall intensity and antecedent soil water content on soil

infiltrability under rainfall conditions using the run off-on-out method
H. Liu a,c, T.W. Lei a,b,⇑, J. Zhao b, C.P. Yuan a, Y.T. Fan a, L.Q. Qu a
a
The Key Laboratory of Modern Precision Agriculture System Integration Research, College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University,
Beijing 100083, PR China
b
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, CAS and MWR, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, PR China
c
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100048, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: Soil infiltrability, or infiltration capacity, is the rate at which water penetrates into the soil at a rate
Received 10 March 2009 directly controlled by soil factors alone. The infiltrability is of great importance in understanding and
Received in revised form 9 May 2010 managing hydrological processes, crop water supply, irrigation, and soil erosion. The infiltration dynam-
Accepted 20 October 2010
ics measured with the run off-on-out (ROOO) method follows the changes in infiltrability during the infil-
This manuscript was handled by P. Baveye,
tration process under rainfall conditions. In this study, the ROOO method was used to quantitatively
Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance of measure the soil infiltrability under three rainfall intensities (20, 40 and 60 mm/h) and three antecedent
Chris Soulsby, Associate Editor soil moisture contents (2.6%, 10.4% and 19.5%, equivalent to 7.5% (air-dry), 30% and 60% of field capacity,
respectively, of a clay loam soil. The soil infiltrability determined by the ROOO method decreased with
Keywords: increase in initial soil water content, due to the lower hydraulic gradient at the wetting front. Surface seal
Rainfall intensity formation due to raindrop impact had a significant influence on soil infiltrability and was related to the
Soil water content soil water content. The faster wetting rate of drier soil under higher rainfall intensities, or when using the
Infiltrability double-ring infiltrometer for comparison, caused severe aggregate breakdown to promote surface seal-
Double-ring infiltrometer ing, and significant decrease in soil infiltrability. Cumulative infiltration increased rapidly at the begin-
ning of the infiltration process and then increased approximately linearly with time as the infiltration
rate approached to constant. The rate of increase in cumulative infiltration was less under higher initial
soil water contents, especially in the initial rainfall stage. Moreover, lower rainfall intensity resulted in
higher infiltration rates and greater cumulative infiltration. The soil infiltrability processes measured
with the ROOO method were fitted better by Kostiakov, Horton and Philip infiltration models than those
measured by the double-ring infiltrometer method. The ROOO method provided reliable data for the
entire infiltration process without the limitations of conventional rainfall simulation during the initial
phase or of the drawbacks of the double-ring infiltrometer method. The results will have introductory
meanings to further studies along this line.
Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction
The amount of water infiltrating the soil surface directly affects
the quantity of surface runoff and erosion, and the recharge of both
soil and ground water. Correctly estimating the infiltration process
over time is of importance in hydrologic budget determinations,
watershed management, and irrigation system design.
The maximum rate of infiltration into the soil, when limited
only by soil factors, was defined by Hillel (1980) as the infiltrability
or infiltration capacity of the soil. Generally, the infiltration capa-
bility of a dry soil is initially high but decreases at a rapid rate to
a more or less constant value equivalent to the saturated hydraulic
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: China Agricultural University, Qinghua Donglu,
Beijing 100083, PR China. Tel./fax: +86 10 6273 6367.
E-mail address: ddragon@public3.bta.net.cn (T.W. Lei).
conductivity of the limiting soil layer, usually that of the soil sur-
face. The infiltration rate is limited to the rainfall intensity when
the latter value is lower than the soil infiltrability, i.e., infiltration
is supply controlled or limited. When the rainfall intensity is higher
than the soil infiltrability, excess rainwater begins to pond on the
soil surface and then to run off as overland flow. The time at which
rainfall intensity is equal to the soil infiltrability is known as the
time to ponding (Hillel, 1998). Higher infiltration rates are often
observed with greater rainfall intensities but there appears to be
no consensus in the literature on an explanation for this behavior
(Foley and Silburn, 2002).
Soil infiltration during a rainstorm is closely related to a num-
ber of factors such as the intensity and kinetic energy of the rain-
fall, soil surface conditions and soil properties such as those related
to aggregate stability, e.g., texture and organic matter content, as
well as the antecedent or initial soil water content (Truman

0022-1694/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.10.028
 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32 25

et al., 1990; Le Bissonnais and Singer, 1992; Hawke et al., 2006). objectives of this study were to: (a) quantitatively estimate the ef-
These factors could affect infiltration process by influencing sur- fects of rainfall intensities and initial soil water contents on soil
face seal formation, which results from physical compaction and infiltrability; (b) evaluate the measured infiltrability processes
physicochemical dispersion processes because of raindrop impacts with Kostiakov, Horton and Philip infiltration models; and (c) com-
(Morin and Benyamini, 1977; Agassi et al., 1981; Assouline and pare the infiltration processes measured by this relatively new
Mualem, 1997; Assouline, 2004). The hydraulic conductivity of method with those obtained by a double-ring infiltrometer.
the surface seal is typically much lower than that of the underlying
soil layer and limits soil infiltrability (McIntyre, 1958). The degree
2. Materials and methods
to which a surface seal is formed depends on the extent of the
breakdown of the surface aggregates and this is directly related
2.1. Experimental materials
to the kinetic energy of the raindrops, the rainfall intensity, and
the duration of the rainstorm as well as the aggregate’s ability to
A clay loam soil was collected from the upper 250 mm layer of a
resist such breakdown, i.e., to aggregate stability. Moreover, an in-
cultivated field in Yangling, Shaanxi Province, China. The soil was
crease in soil water content decreases the hydraulic gradient thus
air-dried (2.6% m3/m3 soil moisture content) and visible organic
reducing the driving force responsible for water infiltration into
material was removed. The soil was gently crushed by hand to pass
the soil.
through a 5 mm mesh. Particle size analysis using the hydrometer
A further mechanism by which aggregates can be broken down,
method (Bouyoucos, 1936) and sieving determined that the
and thus enhances seal formation or promotes the destruction of
mineral soil comprised 9% sand (>0.05 mm), 57% silt (0.05–
the soil structure, is the process of slaking. Slaking occurs when
0.005 mm), and 34% clay (<0.005 mm). The experiments were con-
the aggregate is not strong enough to withstand the stresses pro-
ducted in the laboratory flume, 2 m long  1 m wide  0.35 m
duced by differential swelling, the pressure of entrapped air, the
deep at the State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland
rapid release of heat during wetting, and the mechanical action
Farming on the Loess Plateau.
of moving water (Emerson, 1977; Collis-George and Green, 1979;
The air-dried soil material was divided into three parts, one of
Kay and Angers, 1999). The slaking process is controlled by the
which was kept at the original 2.6% moisture content while the
wetting rate of the soil: the faster the wetting, the stronger the
other two were mixed with water to attain moisture contents of
slaking forces and the greater the proportion of aggregates that un-
either 10.4% or 19.5% that were equivalent to 7.5%, 30% and 60%
dergo slaking. Furthermore, aggregates will be subjected to weaker
of the field capacity of the soil, respectively. The soil materials were
slaking forces when wet than when dry. Thus, it can be seen that
covered with plastic sheet for 7–10 days, to facilitate uniform
slaking may also affect soil infiltrability and that this is in turn af-
water content distribution before being used in the flume experi-
fected by the antecedent moisture content.
ments. The flume was prepared by packing a layer of sand
In order to measure the infiltration process, rainfall simulation
(10 cm deep) at the bottom to form a water and air permeable
is often used. This type of sprinkler infiltrometer has become com-
boundary. Soil of determined mass was then packed uniformly into
monly used as a research tool for infiltration studies (Tricker, 1979;
the flume to obtain a dry bulk density of about 1.3 g/cm3, approx-
Bhardwaj and Singh, 1992). Sprinkler infiltrometers offer the
imating the cultivated field bulk density, in 5 cm deep layers to a
advantage of simulating the raindrop impacts throughout the infil-
total depth of 20 cm for all the experimental treatments. The
tration process and can be applied to a sloping soil surface. How-
packed soil was covered with plastic film before running the exper-
ever, the initially high infiltrability values of the soil are typically
iments on the following day with the aim of reducing evaporation
greater than the applied rainfall intensities commonly used by
while further ensuring uniform soil water content.
sprinkler infiltrometers and cannot, therefore, be determined di-
The rainfall simulator used in the ROOO measurement system
rectly by measurement but are estimated by extrapolating infiltra-
was 2 m long and 0.5 m wide, and was capable of applying a range
tion rate curves back to the start of the storms (Morin and
Benyamini, 1977). The practical use of the sprinkler infiltrometer
in the field has been limited due to complex design, poor transport-
ability and high costs as well as the need for relatively large quan-
tities of water supply (Lei et al., 2006a). An adaptation of a
sprinkler infiltrometer, adding a overland flow to the upper end
of the slope under study was proposed by Lei et al. (2006b). The
use of this run-off-on-out (ROOO) method benefits from the addi-
tional water added to make it possible to measure the whole pro-
cess of soil infiltrability under rainfall conditions, upon slopes of
different landforms and under different rainfall intensities (Lei
et al., 2006b).
A common method for measuring infiltration rate in the ab-
sence of rainfall is to use cylinder infiltrometers (Reynolds et al.,
2002). The double-ring infiltrometer is a standard technique for di-
rect measurement of soil infiltration rate (Bouwer, 1986; ASTM,
2003). However, the double-ring infiltrometer cannot be applied
to a naturally sloped surface. Furthermore, disturbance to the soil
may occur when the rings are inserted into the soil. Although the
double-ring infiltrometer is expected to measure the whole infil-
trability process, the practicality of supplying a sufficient flow of
water to the soil surface, while also establishing the desired water
head, makes determination of the initial soil infiltrability infeasible
(Lei et al., 2006b; Mao et al., 2008). Fig. 1. Annotated photographs of the run-off-on-out (ROOO) system used for
In this study, the ROOO method was used to measure the whole measuring soil infiltrability with a rainfall simulator (a) and of the soil surface in the
transient process of soil infiltrability under rainfall conditions. The flume (b) (the flume is positioned directly under the rainfall simulator at a 2° slope).
26 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32

of rainfall intensities from 20 to 60 mm/h (Fig. 1). In each experi-
mental run, the soil surface was divided by thin plastic barriers
into three equal strips, 2 m in length and 0.15 m wide, along the
slope representing three replicates (Fig. 1). Raindrop diameter ran-
ged from 0.20 to 3.65 mm, increasing with rainfall intensity, with a
median size of 2.50 mm. Three rainfall intensities were studied, 20,
40 and 60 mm/h, and each simulated rainfall lasted for 1 h, during
which runoff was collected continuously at intervals to estimate
the infiltrated water volume by water balance.
A double-ring infiltrometer was also used to measure soil infil-
trability for each of the soil samples with the different initial soil
water contents. The soil materials were packed into the flume in
the similar manner to that described above, to provide a compari-
son with the infiltration process measured by the ROOO method.
The inner and outer cylinders of 28 and 53 cm diameter, respec-
tively, were pushed concentrically into the soil to a depth of
15 cm. A layer of permeable material was used to cover the soil
surface of the inner ring to minimize soil disturbance.
infiltrability of the soil permits the infiltration of both the direct
rainfall and the run-on water coming from the covered upper sec-
tion such that the runoff front advances only a very short distance
over the soil surface of the lower section. Over time the soil infiltra-
bility decreases and the runoff front covers an increasingly greater
area of the soil surface until the whole lower section is covered and
the excess runoff runs out of the lower section. Decrease in soil
infiltrability is thus indicated by the runoff front advancement
and, subsequently, the volume of run-out water collected from
the end of the lower section.
Soil infiltrability was derived from the area covered by the
advancement of the runoff front over the soil surface of the lower
section and from the water volume running out of the lower sec-
tion, as functions of time. The computational model for soil infiltra-
bility (i) at any given time was given by Lei et al. (2006b) as:
 
Aupper q
i¼P þ1  ð1Þ
Alower Alower cos a

where P is rainfall intensity, mm/h; a is the slope gradient in

2.2. Experimental design
The experimental design included two factors (initial soil water
content and rainfall intensity) at three levels (Table 1). Each treat-
ment combination for the three soil water contents (2.6%, 10.4%
and 19.5%) and three rainfall intensities (20, 40 and 60 mm/h) were
made in three replications, as determined by three equal strips di-
vided by thin plastic barriers in the flume.
The three soil water contents represented soil conditions when
air-dried and at 30% and 60% of the field capacity, relevant levels
for practical irrigation management decisions. The three rainfall
intensities are typical of those encountered on the Loess Plateau,
to compare results under the same rainfall intensity increment
(20 mm/h).
2.3. Experimental methodology
2.3.1. The ROOO methodology
The experiments were conducted under the three different rain-
fall intensities for each of the three soil water contents in the flume
that was set at a 2° slope to facilitate runoff of excess rainwater.
The 2 m long soil strips under the ROOO device were divided into
two sections of equal length. The upper section was used for runoff
generation by covering the soil surface with an impermeable panel.
The lower section received direct rainfall in addition to the runoff
from the upper covered slope. The run-on water from the upper
section supplied the water flow required for advances of water
flow at the soil surface, for determinating the soil infiltrability.
The runoff advancement over the soil surface quantified the reduc-
tion rate in infiltrability.
For a given rainstorm, the interactions of the transient infiltra-
tion and the rainfall/runoff are as follows: Initially the very high
Table 1
Experimental design for the run-off-on-out (ROOO) method and double-ring
infiltrometer method with different rainfall intensities and initial soil gravimetric
water contents.
Method Initial soil gravimetric
water content (%)
The ROOO method 2.6
10.4
19.5
Double-ring infiltrometer method 2.6
10.4
19.5
a
NA = not applicable.
degree, °; q is the runoff flow rate at the outlet of the experimental
slope, L/h; Aupper is the area of upper section used for run-on
generation, m2; Alower is the area of the lower section’s surface
covered by the runoff flow, m2.
The advancing area of the runoff water on the lower slope sec-
tion was recorded with a digital camera at designated time inter-
vals throughout the experiments. The advancement areas were
quantified from the digital images using AutoCAD.
2.3.2. The double-ring experiments
In the double-ring infiltrometer experiment, the infiltrated
water was determined from the weight change of the water in
the Mariotte bottle, which was placed on an electronic balance. A
constant water level of about 5 cm depth was kept within the inner
ring. Infiltration rates were calculated by dividing the averaged
flow rate of the supplied water from the bottle by the soil surface
area within the inner ring.
2.4. Data analysis
The infiltration data from the ROOO and double-ring infiltrom-
eter methods were fitted with three commonly-used infiltration
models, i.e., the Kostiakov, Horton, and Philip models. Multifactor
analysis of variance was used to test differences in the infiltration
rate data (SAS Institute, 1995).
3. Results
3.1. Effect of rainfall intensity on soil infiltrability
Fig. 2 presents the soil infiltrabilites measured by the ROOO
method under the three different rainfall intensities, and also those
measured by the double-ring infiltrometer method, for each of the
three different soil water contents. Lower soil infiltrability as a
function of time was associated with higher rainfall intensity. All
soil infiltrabilities measured by the ROOO method were generally
greater than those measured by the double-ring infiltrometer,
Rainfall especially in the early stages of infiltration when they were consid-
intensity erably higher for a given initial soil water content. In addition, the
20 mm/h soil infiltrability processes and the final infiltration rates observed
40 mm/h under 20 mm/h rainfall were significantly higher than those values
60 mm/h under 40 and 60 mm/h rainfall intensities for a given initial soil
NAa water content. Results showed that the effects of rainfall intensity
NA and soil water content on the infiltration processes and the steady
NA
infiltration rates measured by the ROOO method were highly sig-
nificantly (P < 0.001). The infiltrabilities under 40 and 60 mm/h
 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32 27

Fig. 2. Soil infiltrability as a function of time determined by the run-off-on-out (ROOO) method under three different rainfall intensities and by the double-ring infiltrometer
method for an initial soil water (SW) content of (a) 2.6%, (b) 10.4%, and (c) 19.5%.

rainfall intensities were closer in value as compared with those un-
der 20 mm/h rainfall for each initial soil water content.
The soil infiltrabilities measured by the ROOO method were still
significantly higher than those measured by the double-ring infil-
trometer after 0.2 h of infiltration, especially under 20 mm/h rain-
fall intensity.
Table 2 presents the regressed results of the infiltration data by
the three commonly-used infiltration models (Kostiakov, 1932;
Horton, 1940 and Philip, 1969). Comparison between the experi-
mental data and the modeled values gave determination coeffi-
cients, R2, from 0.94 to 0.99 for the data obtained by the ROOO
method, which indicated a much better fit than the R2 values, from

Table 2
Models relating infiltration (i) to time (t) fitted to data determined by the run-off-on-out (ROOO) method, using three different rainfall intensities (RI), and by the double-ring
infiltrometer method for various initial gravimetric soil water contents (SW).

Method SW Kostiakov model R2a Horton model R2 Philip model R2

RI
ROOO method 2.6% i = 91.99t0.89 0.99 i = 102.08 + 854.31e5.28t 0.99 i = 243.89t1/2  167.20 0.98
20 mm/h
2.6% i = 60.97t0.72 0.98 i = 79.84 + 649.93e8.76t 0.98 i = 130.51t1/2  82.83 0.97
40 mm/h
0.66 11.37t 1/2
2.6% i = 52.04t 0.98 i = 71.06 + 593.72e 0.98 i = 99.55t  60.13 0.97
60 mm/h
10.4% i = 88.08t0.88 0.99 i = 97.11 + 831.98e5.41t 0.99 i = 233.96t1/2  159.64 0.98
20 mm/h
10.4% i = 61.89t0.60 0.95 i = 81.45 + 674.47e11.67t 0.98 i = 104.42t1/2  55.19 0.94
40 mm/h
0.80 6.43t 1/2
10.4% i = 48.12t 0.97 i = 59.07 + 451.37e 0.97 i = 113.81t  73.25 0.98
60 mm/h
0.86 6.66t 1/2
19.5% i = 68.74t 0.99 i = 83.61 + 792.61e 0.99 i = 189.82t  136.20 0.98
20 mm/h
19.5% i = 53.12t0.56 0.94 i = 68.44 + 510.02e11.61t 0.98 i = 79.16t1/2  34.97 0.94
40 mm/h
19.5% i = 44.69t0.70 0.98 i = 56.10 + 361.47e7.15t 0.95 i = 83.52t1/2  43.63 0.99
60 mm/h
Double-ring 2.60% i = 48.16t0.57 0.86 i = 4.84 + 206.19e1.98t 0.99 i = 42.94t1/2 + 17.37 0.76
infiltrometer 10.4% i = 55.16t0.48 0.93 i = 45.20 + 181.77e3.39t 0.99 i = 41.87t1/2 + 21.22 0.84
19.5% i = 26.86t0.87 0.86 i = 1.81 + 267.35e2.91t 0.97 i = 59.58t1/2  22.65 0.77
a
R2 = coefficient of determination.
28 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32
0.77 to 0.99 for the models fitted to the data obtained by the dou-
ble-ring infiltrometer method. The steady infiltration rates as given
by fitting the double-ring measured data with the Horton and
Philip models differed dramatically and showed no consistent
trends for different soil moisture conditions. These occurred due
to the fact that the initial infiltration processes measured by the
double-ring method were influenced too much and randomly by
surface sealing. This also indicated that the infiltrability curves
measured by the ROOO method were reasonable and consistent
with the Horton, Kostiakov and Philip infiltration models. The
Horton infiltration model fitted the infiltration data obtained by
the double-ring infiltrometer method better than the Kostiakov
and Philip models. Similar results were also reported by Shukla
et al. (2003). All of the models predicted the initial infiltration rate
trends. The exponents in the Horton model generally decreased
(more negative) with increased rainfall intensity for the dry soil.
Those for wetter soils were higher (less negative) under 20 and
60 mm/h rainfall intensities and lower under the 40 mm/h rainfall
intensity. Though the Philip model modeled the experimental data
well, as indicated by the very high coefficients of determination, all
the negative values of the constants in the fitting functions, which
conceptually represent the constant steady infiltration rates, indi-
cates its poor performances of predicting the steady infiltration
rates with the experimental data.
3.2. Effect of initial soil water content on soil infiltrability
Fig. 3 shows that the soil infiltrability processes measured by
the double-ring infiltrometer were all significantly lower than
Fig. 3. Soil infiltrability as a function of time and initial soil water content determined by the double-ring infiltrometer method, and the run-off-on-out (ROOO) method under
rainfall intensities of: (a) 20 mm/h, (b) 40 mm/h, and (c) 60 mm/h.
those measured by the ROOO method for a given rainfall intensity,
particularly evident at the beginning of the infiltration events.
Steady state infiltration rates determined by the ROOO were con-
siderably higher than those by the double-ring infiltrometer meth-
od for the three antecedent soil water contents (P < 0.001). This
was attributed to the greater degree of slaking occurred in the dou-
ble-ring infiltrometer method (see Section 4.2).
There were greater differences among the ROOO infiltrability
curves under different initial soil water contents for the lowest
rainfall intensity (Fig. 3a) than those for the higher rainfall intensi-
ties (Fig. 3b and c). Higher infiltrability values were found under
the lower rainfall intensities, which could be ascribed to the lower
kinetic energy of that rainstorm (see Section 4.1), the lower rate of
decline of the hydraulic gradient, and possibly to lesser degrees of
aggregate slaking (see Section 4.2).
Whereas the infiltration curves determined by the double-ring
infiltrometer indicated that the initial infiltration rates tended to
increase with initial soil water content, the corresponding steady
infiltration rates decreased (Fig. 3). The trend for the initial infiltra-
tion rates was opposite to that observed when using the ROOO
method.
3.3. Influences of initial moisture and rainfall intensity on cumulative
infiltration
Fig. 4 compares the cumulative infiltrations determined by the
double-ring infiltrometer to those obtained by the ROOO method
under different rainfall intensities. A power function including a
term for sorptivity S (mm/h1/2), which quantifies the effect of
 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32 29

Fig. 4. Cumulative infiltration as a function of time and initial soil water content determined by the double-ring (DR) infiltrometer method and the run-off-on-out (ROOO)
method under rainfall intensities of: (a) 20 mm/h, (b) 40 mm/h, and (c) 60 mm/h.

capillarity on liquid movement into a soil, was fitted to the cumu- 3.4. Comparison of seal formation
lative infiltration rate curves (Philip, 1957b, 1969):
I ¼ St 1=2 þ At ð2Þ Fig. 5 shows the soil surface conditions following the various
infiltration processes under (a) the double-ring infiltrometer and
where t is the infiltration time, h; and A is the steady state infiltra-
(b)–(d) under the ROOO method for the three different rainfall
tion rate, mm/h; S is sorptivity, mm/h1/2; and I is the cumulative
intensities. The soil surface after using the double-ring infiltrome-
infiltration, mm.
ter method was much smoother than those after using the ROOO
Table 3 gives the sorptivity values from the fitted data by both
method. This indicated that the seal formation caused by the dou-
the ROOO and double-ring infiltrometer methods. The sorptivity
ble-ring infiltrometer was possibly greater than that by the ROOO
values derived from the ROOO method data were significantly
method. It may also reflect the different nature of the seal forma-
higher than those from the double-ring infiltrometer method data.
tion under the double-ring method to that under the ROOO meth-
od (see Section 4.4).
Table 3
Regression analysis of cumulative infiltration and sorptivity.
4. Discussion
Method Conditions Sorptivity (mm/h1/2) R2a
SW, RI
4.1. Effects of different rainfall intensities on the kinetic energy of the
The ROOO method 2.6%_20 mm/h 298.03 0.89
10.4%_20 mm/h 187.75 0.93 rainstorm
19.5%_20 mm/h 139.12 0.91
2.6%_40 mm/h 89.20 0.93 The different rainfall intensities (20, 40 and 60 mm/h) resulted
10.4%_40 mm/h 66.73 0.94 in rainstorms with different kinetic energies, which had significant
19.5%_40 mm/h 51.48 0.95
2.60%_60 mm/h 105.53 0.78
effects on soil infiltrability. The effect on infiltrability was due to the
10.4%_60 mm/h 121.37 0.82 surface seal formation, in turn dependent on the kinetic energy of
19.5%_60 mm/h 84.15 0.88 the rainstorm (McIntyre, 1958; Bradford et al., 1987). The main fac-
Double-ring infiltrometer 2.6% 57.66 0.98 tor that influences the soil infiltration rate under raindrop impacts
10.4% 47.25 0.98 is the degree of surface seal formation (Morin et al., 1981; Ben-Hur
19.5% 67.59 0.92 et al., 1985, 1987). The rainfall energy for each rainfall intensity was
SW = initial soil gravimetric water content. computed by the equation of Brown and Foster (1987):
RI = rainfall intensity.
a
R2 = the coefficient of determination. KEi ¼ 29ð1  0:72e0:05p Þ ð3Þ
30 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32
Fig. 5. Comparisons of soil surfaces after 60 min under (a) the double-ring infiltrometer method and (b–d) the run-off-on-out (ROOO) method using rainfall intensities of: (b)
20 mm/h, (c) 40 mm/h, and (d) 60 mm/h.
where KEi is the rainfall kinetic energy, J/m2/mm, and p is rainfall
intensity, mm/h. The rainfall kinetic energies of KE20, KE40 and
KE60 were 21.3, 26.2 and 28.0 J/m2/mm, respectively. Thus the rain-
fall intensity of 20 mm/h generated the lowest rainfall kinetic en-
ergy, which was considerably different from those of the higher
rainfall intensities (40 and 60 mm/h) that were more similar in va-
lue. This relationship of rainfall intensity to kinetic energy was re-
flected in the soil infiltrabilities measured at the end of the storm.
4.2. Effect of wetting rate of the surface soil on infiltrability
The wetting rate of the soil surface is another factor that may
affect the infiltrability under different rainfall intensities. Fast wet-
ting of soil aggregates results in large slaking forces to cause aggre-
gate breakdown. The faster wetting rates under the more intense
rainstorms could cause greater degrees of aggregate slaking lead-
ing to more severe aggregate breakdown, to generate greater quan-
tities of finer materials to result in a greater degree of seal
formation (Levy and Mamedov, 2002). Higher rainfall intensities
not only supplied more direct rainfall water but also generated
more runoff water from the upper section covered with imperme-
able material, to cause the faster wetting of the soil. The sensitivity
of this effect is more likely to be observed between the lowest rain-
fall intensity and the higher ones than between the two higher
intensities. Levy and Mamedov (2002) and Warrington et al.
(2009) reported the differences in infiltration rates in a loess soil
as a result of different wetting rates, albeit under more extreme
conditions than in our study.
The more rapid decline in the hydraulic gradient under the more
intense rainstorms is a further factor in the reduction of infiltrabil-
ity observed between the storms of lower and higher intensities.
Differences in soil infiltrabilities measured by either the ROOO
or the double-ring method may be due to the simulated rainfall
in the ROOO method causing a lesser degree of seal formation at
the soil surface compared with that occurring in the double-ring
method. In the latter method, very rapid wetting occurs that would
aggravate aggregate breakdown to result in a greater degree of sur-
face seal formation. In contrast, in the ROOO method, under the
lowest rainfall intensity, wetting is considerably slower leading
to lower levels of aggregate breakdown and potentially a less
well-developed seal. Furthermore, the nature of the seal formed
during the double-ring infiltrometer method probably differs from
that formed during the ROOO method (see Section 4.4).
4.3. Effects of the initial soil water content on surface seal formation
Lado et al. (2004) reported that not only the wetting rate but
also the initial soil water content determined the magnitude of
the slaking forces causing aggregate breakdown and, hence, the
destruction of the soil surface structure and subsequent formation
of a seal. These forces are greater as soil water content decreases
and, thus, a greater reduction in soil infiltrability would be ex-
pected in drier soils. However, the infiltrability estimated by the
ROOO method decreased with higher initial soil water contents
at all infiltration stages, an effect that is most clearly seen under
the 20 mm/h rainstorm (Fig. 3a). Higher initial soil water contents
may lead to greater swelling of clay particles in the soil to cause a
reduction in soil pore space and consequently a reduction in per-
meability while the hydraulic gradient, and hence the soil infiltra-
bility, is reduced under higher soil water contents. It can be
hypothesized that these mechanisms have a greater influence on
the infiltrability than the slaking in the ROOO method.
4.4. Different processes of surface seal formation with different
measurement methods
Based on the double-ring infiltrometer method, the initial rapid
addition of water to the soil surface within the rings was required
 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32
to maintain a constant water head in as much as practically possi-
ble, aggregates were more likely to be broken apart regardless of
the initial water content. The soil surface pore system would prob-
ably have been damaged as a result of seal formation, and the sur-
face soil would have undergone some disturbance. All of the soil
particles, suspended in the water during this period of disturbance,
would then have settled back onto the underlying soil during the
subsequent infiltration process to form a depositional seal. Such
a seal is composed of soil particles that, to a certain extent, have
been differentiated in terms of their size and that have been ori-
ented so that longer particle surfaces lie parallel to the soil surface
and the clay-sized particles are predominantly on the seal surface
(Valentin and Bresson, 1992). The clayey and oriented nature of the
seal surface gives rise to the smooth, shiny appearance observed in
Fig. 5a.
In contrast, the seals formed by the ROOO method are structural
seals and the degree to which they are formed depends on the ex-
tent of aggregate breakdown due to both the rate of wetting and
the initial water content as discussed above in Sections 4.2 and
4.3 (Levy and Mamedov, 2002), and the kinetic energy of the rain-
storm (Section 4.1). Thus, when the wetting rate was lowest, i.e.,
under the 20 mm/h rainfall, less aggregate breakdown occurred
and it is possible to identify individual aggregates at the surface
(Fig. 5b). In contrast, the surfaces of the more intense rainstorms,
i.e., 40 and 60 mm/h, are smoother due to the greater degree of
aggregate breakdown (Fig. 5c and d). Similarly, since the degree
of seal formation is also influenced by the amount of rain applied,
i.e., by the total kinetic energy absorbed by the soil surface from
the raindrops, and this in turn was related to the rainfall intensity
in the study, surface seals under the more intense rainstorms were
more developed (Fig. 5c and d).
Thus, in both methods, a seal was developed, to produce greater
bulk density, finer pore structure, and lower saturated hydraulic
conductivity than the underlying soil (McIntyre, 1958; Fox et al.,
1998; Gal et al., 1984; Wakindiki and Ben-Hur, 2002), which led
to a large decrease in infiltration rate, but the means and the de-
gree to which these seals were developed differed significantly.
Depositional seals, such as those developed when using the dou-
ble-ring method (Fig. 5a), tend to have lower hydraulic conductiv-
ities than the structural seals developed under the ROOO system
(Fig. 5b–d) (Fox et al., 1998).
4.5. Further comparison of the methods used
In the ROOO method, it was possible to measure the high initial
infiltration rate. In contrast, the water supply for the double-ring
infiltrometer is limited initially by the practicalities of establishing
the water head, the flow capabilities of the system and accurately
recording the change in mass of the Mariotte (Lei et al., 2006b; Mao
et al., 2008). Thus, the infiltration curves derived from the double-
ring method showed relatively flattened or linear sections in the
first part of the infiltration process with values lower than the ac-
tual soil infiltrability. This suggests that the ROOO method gives a
better estimate of the initial soil infiltrability than the double-ring
infiltrometer method.
Nevertheless, the initial soil infiltrabilities measured by the
double-ring infiltrometer were higher than the rainfall intensities
used in this study, which were typical of rainfall simulation studies
(e.g., Bouwer, 1986 and Tricker, 1978). This indicates that the tra-
ditional rainfall simulators would also not be capable of directly
determining the initial infiltration rate. Due to this practical limita-
tion of most rainfall simulators, the initial infiltration rates ob-
tained by rain simulation are usually derived by extrapolation of
the infiltration curve (Morin and Benyamini, 1977). This practice
typically gives values for the initial infiltrability to increase with
rainfall intensity (Stone et al., 2008), which contradicts both to
31
the fact that initial soil infiltrability is an inherent soil property
and also to the observations presented in this study.
The seal formation mechanism for this soil due to aggregate
breakdown was not the dominant one in the case of the ROOO
method (Section 4.3) whereas, in the case of the double-ring infil-
trometer method, it appears to have had a much greater influence
due to the very high rates of wetting incurred. After the initial infil-
tration stage, the main controlling process for infiltration changes
gradually to the hydraulic gradient of soil water whereby drier soil,
with a greater hydraulic gradient, promotes water infiltration.
Therefore, a decrease in initial soil moisture content results in a de-
crease in initial infiltration rate (surface seal controlled) but an in-
crease in steady infiltration rate (hydraulic gradient controlled),
when measured with the double-ring infiltrometer. Tisdal (1951)
and Philip (1957a) also reported similar results. They found that
initial water content was the dominant factor determining infiltra-
tion rate in the steady infiltration stage, and was less important in
initial infiltration stages.
More serious destruction and sealing of the soil surface were
most likely caused by the faster wetting rate used for the dou-
ble-ring infiltrometer method than occurred with the ROOO meth-
od resulting in lower sorptivity values. Eldridge et al. (2000)
similarly observed that the presence of crusts reduced sorptivity
and infiltration and that removal of the crust would enhance these
soil properties.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the surface seals formed un-
der the ROOO method did not contain all of the soil particles de-
tached from the soil surface, as in the case of the double-ring
infiltrometer. Soil particles may be preferentially removed by the
runoff in certain cases. For example, Warrington et al. (2009) ob-
served that sediments in the runoff from interrill areas were gen-
erally enriched by clay particles when compared to the parent
soil. In contrast, other studies have reported that such sediments
were enriched in sand at the expense of the silt and clay size frac-
tions (Alberts et al., 1980). The particles remaining on the soil sur-
face will be a factor in determining the porosity of the surface seal,
whereby more porous seals would probably develop from coarser
material.
The ROOO method should find application in the field. Practical
difficulties such as portability and finding a suitable water supply
would also apply to existing sprinkler infiltrometers used in the
field. The size of the apparatus and the amount of the water re-
quired for the ROOO would not exceed some of these other sprin-
kler infiltrometers. A clear advantage of the ROOO method over the
double-ring method in the field is that it can be used on slopes,
while also avoiding depositional seal formation. The surface area
of soil under investigation in the ROOO method was about 2.5
times greater than that examined by the double-ring method.
Since the soil in the field is more heterogeneous than the soil used
in the laboratory, the greater surface area under examination
should give a more accurate estimate of infiltrability although it
is envisaged that a number measurements would also be needed.
Finally, the fact that an accurate average initial infiltration rate
can be determined is an advantage the ROOO method has over
the other methods used in the field.
5. Conclusions
The influences of rainfall intensity and initial soil water content
on soil infiltrability were investigated by the ROOO method. The
double-ring infiltrometer method was used for comparison
purposes.
Soil infiltrabilities over time determined by the ROOO method
were generally higher than those obtained by the double-ring infil-
trometer. The ROOO method was capable of measuring the initial
32 H. Liu et al. / Journal of Hydrology 396 (2011) 24–32
soil infiltrability, which traditional rainfall simulation is generally
unable to do directly because it is often much higher than the rain-
fall intensities used. Furthermore, the double-ring infiltrometer
method underestimated the initial soil infiltrability due to the ra-
pid destruction of the soil surface aggregates that occurred during
the rapid addition of water required by the methodology, and also
the impracticality of accurately measuring the high initial water
flow rate.
Soil infiltrabilities measured by the ROOO method over time de-
creased more rapidly with higher rainfall intensities. This was as-
cribed to greater degrees of aggregate breakdown associated with
more rapid wetting and consequently more severe slaking, to great-
er degrees of surface seal formation caused by the higher rainfall ki-
netic energy, and to faster reductions in the hydraulic gradient.
Higher antecedent soil moisture contents reduced soil infiltra-
bilities due to lower hydraulic gradients under the ROOO method
but, for a given rainfall intensity, did not appear to significantly con-
tribute to slaking. The results determined by the double-ring infil-
trometer indicated that higher antecedent soil moisture contents
lead to higher initial infiltrabilites but lower steady state infiltration
rates. The surface seal formation caused by fast wetting signifi-
cantly reduced initial soil infiltrability. However, after the initial
infiltration stage, infiltrability was increasingly controlled by the
hydraulic gradient, which decreased with higher soil water content.
The infiltration rates measured by the ROOO method were bet-
ter fitted by three infiltration models, namely the Kostiakov, Hor-
ton and Philip models, when compared with those determined
by the double-ring infiltrometer.
The ROOO method was thus able to provide a new way to ob-
tain a good estimate of the initial soil infiltrability and to monitor
the infiltration process under artificial rainfall. It provides a useful
tool to investigate runoff generation and associated soil erosion
under rainfall conditions.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of
China under Project No. 40635027, the Program for the Chinese
Academy of Sciences (CAS) Innovation Research Team, as well as
the Program for Changjiang Scholars and the Innovative Research
Team in the University.
References
Agassi, M., Shainberg, I., Morin, J., 1981. Effect of electrolyte concentration and soil
sodicity on infiltration rate and crust formation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 848–851.
Alberts, E.E., Moldenhauer, W.C., Foster, G.R., 1980. Soil aggregates and primary
particles transported in rill and interrill flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 590–595.
Assouline, S., Mualem, Y., 1997. Modeling the dynamics of seal formation and its
effect on infiltration as related to soil and rainfall characteristics. Water Resour.
Res. 33, 1527–1536.
Assouline, S., 2004. Rainfall-induced soil surface sealing: a critical review of
observations, conceptual models and solutions. Vadose Zone J. 3, 570–591.
ASTM, 2003. D3385-03 standard test method for infiltration rate of soils in field
using double-ring infiltrometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standards 04.08. ASTM,
West Conshohocken, Penn..
Ben-Hur, M., Shainberg, I., Bakker, D., Keren, R., 1985. Effect of soil texture and
CaCO3 content on water infiltration in crusted soils as related to water salinity.
Irrig. Sci. 6, 281–284.
Ben-Hur, M., Shainberg, I., Morin, J., 1987. Variability of infiltration in a field with
surface-sealed soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 1299–1302.
Bhardwaj, A., Singh, R., 1992. Development of a portable rainfall simulator
infiltrometer for infiltration, runoff and erosion studies. Agric. Water Manage.
22, 235–248.
Bouwer, H., 1986. Intake rate: cylinder infiltrometer. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 1. second ed. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, Agron. Monog. vol.
9, pp. 825–844.
Bouyoucos, G.J., 1936. Directions for making mechanical analyses of soils by the
hydrometer method. Soil Sci. 42, 225–230.
Bradford, J.M., Ferris, J.E., Remley, P.A., 1987. Interrill soil erosion processes: I. Effect
of surface sealing on infiltration, runoff, and soil splash detachment. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 51, 1566–1571.
Brown, L.C., Foster, G.R., 1987. Storm erosivity using idealized intensity
distributions. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 30, 386–397.
Collis-George, N., Green, R.S.B., 1979. The effect of aggregate size on the infiltration
behaviour of a slaking soil and its relevance to ponded irrigation. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 17, 65–73.
Eldridge, D.J., Zaady, E., Shachak, M., 2000. Infiltration through three contrasting
biological soil crusts in patterned landscapes in the Negev, Israel. Catena 40,
323–336.
Emerson, W.W., 1977. Physical properties and structure. In: Russell, J.S., Greacen,
E.L. (Eds.), Soil Factors in Crop Production in a Semi-arid Environment.
University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, pp. 78–104.
Foley, J.L., Silburn, D.M., 2002. Hydraulic properties of rain impact surface seals on
three clay soils – influence of raindrop impact frequency and rainfall intensity
during steady state. Aust. J. Soil Res. 40, 1069–1083.
Fox, D.M., Le Bissonnais, Y., Quetin, P., 1998. The implications of spatial variability in
surface seal hydraulic resistance for infiltration in a mound and depression
microtopography. Catena 32, 101–114.
Gal, M., Arcon, M.L., Shainberg, I., Keren, R., 1984. The effect of exchangeable Na and
phosphogypsum on the structure of soil crust – SEM observation. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 48, 872–878.
Hillel, D., 1980. Applications of Soil Physics, vol. 7. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Hillel, D.J., 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York.
Hawke, R.M., Price, A.G., Bryan, R.B., 2006. The effect of initial soil water content and
rainfall intensity on near-surface soil hydrologic conductivity: a laboratory
investigation. Catena 65, 237–346.
Horton, R.E., 1940. Approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration
capacity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 5, 399–417.
Kay, B.D., Angers, D.A., 1999. Soil structure. In: Sumner, M.E. (Ed.), Handbook of Soil
Science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. A229–A276.
Kostiakov, A.N., 1932. On the dynamics of the coefficient of water-percolation in
soils and on the necessity for studying it from a dynamic point of view for
purpose of amelioration. Trans. Int. Congr. Soil Sci., 17–21.
Lado, M., Ben-Hur, M., Shainberg, I., 2004. Soil wetting and texture effects on
aggregate stability, seal formation, and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 1992–
1999.
Le Bissonnais, Y., Singer, M., 1992. Crusting, runoff, and erosion response to soil
water content and successive rainfalls. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56, 1898–1903.
Lei, T.W., Pan, Y.H., Liu, H., Zhan, W.H., Yuan, J.P., 2006a. A run off-on-ponding
method and models for the transient infiltration capability process of sloped
soil surface under rainfall and erosion impacts. J. Hydrol. 319, 216–226.
Lei, T.W., Liu, H., Pan, Y.H., Zhao, J., Zhao, S., Yang, Y., 2006b. Run off-on-out method
and models for soil infiltrability on hill-slope under rainfall conditions. Sci.
China Ser. D 49, 193–201.
Levy, G.J., Mamedov, A.I., 2002. High-energy-moisture-characteristics aggregate
stability as a predictor for seal formation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 1603–1609.
Mao, L.L., Lei, T.W., Li, X., Liu, H., Huang, X.F., Zhang, Y.N., 2008. A linear source
method for soil infiltrability measurement and model representations. J. Hydrol.
353, 49–58.
McIntyre, D.S., 1958. Permeability measurements of soil crust formed by raindrop
impact. Soil Sci. 85, 185–189.
Morin, J., Benyamini, Y., 1977. Rainfall infiltration into bare soils. Water Resour. Res.
14, 813–817.
Morin, J., Benyamini, Y., Michaeli, A., 1981. The effect of raindrop impact on the
dynamics of soil surface crusting and water movement in the profile. J. Hydrol.
(Amsterdam) 52, 312–355.
Philip, J.R., 1957a. The influence of initial moisture content. Soil Sci. 84, 329–339.
Philip, J.R., 1957b. The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration
equation. Soil Sci. 84, 257–264.
Philip, J.R., 1969. Theory of infiltration. Adv. Hydrosci. 5, 215–296.
Reynolds, W.D., Elrick, D.E., Youngs, E.G., 2002. Single-ring and double- or
concentric-ring infiltrometers. In: Dane, J., Topp, G. (Eds.), Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 4, Physical Methods. SSSA Book Series No. 5, Madison, WI, USA,
pp. 821–826.
Institute, S.A.S., 1995. SAS Guide for Personal Computers. Version 6.07. SAS
Institute, Cary, NC.
Shukla, M.K., Lal, R., Unkefer, P., 2003. Experimental evaluation of infiltration
models for different land use and soil management systems. Soil Sci. 167, 178–
191.
Stone, J.J., Paige, G.B., Hawkins, R.H., 2008. Rainfall intensity dependent infiltration
rates on rangeland rainfall simulator plots. Trans. ASABE 51, 45–53.
Tisdal, A.L., 1951. Antecedent soil moisture and it’s relation to infiltration. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 2, 342–348.
Tricker, A.S., 1978. The infiltration cylinder: some comments on its use. J. Hydrol.
36, 383–391.
Tricker, A.S., 1979. The design of a portable rainfall simulator infiltrometer. J.
Hydrol. 41, 143–147.
Truman, C., Bradford, J., Ferris, J., 1990. Antecedent water content and rainfall
energy influence on soil aggregate breakdown. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 1385–
1392.
Valentin, C., Bresson, L.M., 1992. Morphology, genesis and classification of surface
crusts in loamy and sandy soils. Geoderma 55, 225–245.
Wakindiki, I., Ben-Hur, M., 2002. Soil mineralogy and texture effects on crust
micromorphology, infiltration and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 897–905.
Warrington, D.N., Mamedov, A., Bhardwaj, A.K., Levy, G.L., 2009. Primary particle
size distribution of eroded material affected by degree of aggregate slaking and
seal development. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60, 84–93.