A COMPARISON OF THE GREEN-AMPT AND A SPATIALLY VARIABLE INFILTRATION MODEL FOR NATURAL STORM EVENTS

Rainfall-runoff data collected from bare plots (20-216 m2) at 1-min intervals were used to compare the performance of the Green-Ampt infiltration model and a spatially variable infiltration model (SVIM). The two models have the same number of parameters. For 60 natural storm events from six sites in Australia and South-East Asian countries, the average Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency was 0.77 for the Green-Ampt model and 0.83 for the SVIM. At all sites, the SVIM consistently outperformed the Green-Ampt model when compared to runoff data at a range of time intervals and storm events, including events of very long duration. A larger hydrologic lag is needed for the Green-Ampt model to fit the measured hydrographs in comparison to the SVIM, suggesting that the Green-Ampt model tends to underestimate the infiltration rate when rainfall intensity is high. Measured rainfall and runoff rates show a positive relationship between rainfall intensity and infiltration rate. Considerable spatial variability in the infiltration capacity at the plot scale is implied by this positive relationship. This spatial variability clearly needs to be accommodated in infiltration models, and the SVIM represents a simple formulation of the infiltration rate as a function of rainfall intensity to address this spatial variability. SVIM parameters can be related to the Green-Ampt parameters, and they could therefore be estimated directly using soil properties.

[1]  Calvin Wyatt Rose,et al.  Methodology for a multi-country study of soil erosion management , 1995 .

[2]  M. A. Nearing,et al.  Determining the Green-Ampt Effective Hydraulic Conductivity from Rainfall-runoff Data for the WEPP Model , 1994 .

[3]  John Storrs Warinner,et al.  Application of the Green-Ampt infiltration equation to watershed modeling with estimated parameters , 1992 .

[4]  W. J. Rawls,et al.  A procedure to predict green and ampt infiltration parameters , 1983 .

[5]  M. Sharma,et al.  Spatial variability of infiltration in a watershed , 1980 .

[6]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing , 1987 .

[7]  Margaret Katherine Banks,et al.  Comparison of Spatial Variability of Infiltration Properties at Two Sites in Konza Prairie of East-Central Kansas , 1996 .

[8]  William J. Elliot,et al.  WEPP-Predicting water erosion using a process-based model , 1997 .

[9]  L. M. Risse,et al.  Estimation of Green-Ampt Conductivity Parameters: Part I. Row Crops , 1995 .

[10]  Bofu Yu,et al.  A NOTE ON SAMPLING ERRORS IN THE RAINFALL AND RUNOFF DATA COLLECTED USING TIPPING BUCKET TECHNOLOGY , 1997 .

[11]  Keith Loague,et al.  R‐5 revisited: 1. Spatial variability of infiltration on a small rangeland catchment , 1990 .

[12]  R. H. Hawkins,et al.  STEADY‐STATE ANALYSIS OF INFILTRATION AND OVERLAND FLOW FOR SPATIALLY‐VARIED HILLSLOPES , 1987 .

[13]  R. W. Skaggs,et al.  Experimental Evaluation of Infiltration Equations , 1969 .

[14]  James C. Ascough,et al.  The WEPP watershed model : I. Hydrology and erosion , 1997 .

[15]  M. A. Nearing,et al.  USING CURVE NUMBERS TO DETERMINE BASELINE VALUES OF GREEN-AMPT EFFECTIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES , 1995 .

[16]  D. R. Nielsen,et al.  Spatial variability of field-measured soil-water properties , 1973 .

[17]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .