An Appraisal on the Interpolation Methods Used for Predicting Spatial Variability of Field Hydraulic Conductivity

  • Biplab Ghosh
  • Sreeja PekkatEmail author


Knowledge of spatial variability of soil hydraulic conductivity is a key parameter for hydrological modeling. Spatial variability of soil hydraulic conductivity, Ks is attributed to soil heterogeneities associated with texture/structure, different initial conditions, meteorological changes, and clogging. The spatial variability is quantified by employing interpolation methods to point measurements performed in the field. There are not many studies reported in the literature that deals with the critical evaluation of the relative performance of different interpolation methods for predicting spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity. The primary objective of this study is to perform a critical evaluation of five interpolation methods, namely Kriging, Inverse Distance Weighted, Natural Neighbor, Spline and Trend for the spatial prediction of hydraulic conductivity. The accuracy of different methods was assessed by comparing the predicted values with the measured hydraulic conductivity of selected locations. It was noted that the Kriging method with exponential model gave a better spatial prediction as compared to other methods. The spatial variability of Ks was found to be in the same pattern as that of the percentage variation of the sand fraction for both the sites investigated in this study. It was further noted that the prediction of Ks was found to be more precise for those stations with a higher percentage of sand. A sudden transition of soil type from sand to silt was found to influence the accuracy of spatial prediction.


Comparison Hydraulic conductivity Infiltration Prediction Spatial interpolation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest



  1. Alizadehtazi B, DiGiovanni K, Foti R, Morin T, Shetty NH, Montalto FA, Gurian PL (2016) Comparison of observed infiltration rates of different permeable urban surfaces using a cornell sprinkle Infiltrometer. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering ASCE 21(7):06016003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angulo-Jaramillo R, Bagarello V, Iovino M, Lassabatere L (2016) Infiltration measurements for soil hydraulic characterization. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assouline S (2013) Infiltration into soils: conceptual approaches and solutions. Water Resour Res 49:1755–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM D 6938 (2015) Standard test methods for in-place density and water content of soil and soil-aggregate by nuclear methods (shallow depth). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM D 7928 (2017) Standard test method for particle-size distribution (gradation) of fine-grained soils using the sedimentation (hydrometer) analysis. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM D 854 (2014) Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM D 2216 (2010) Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM D 2487 (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. Babak O (2014) Inverse distance interpolation for facies modeling. Stoch Env Res Risk A 28:1373–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bean EZ, Hunt WF, Bidelspach DA (2007) Field survey of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates. J Irrig Drain Eng 133(3):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boissonnat JD, Cazals F (2002) Smooth surface reconstruction via natural neighbor interpolation of distance functions. Comput Geom 22:185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brouder SM, Hofmann BS, Morris DK (2005) Mapping soil pH: accuracy of common soil sampling strategies and estimation techniques. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:427–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown RA, Borst M (2014) Evaluation of surface infiltration testing procedures in permeable pavement systems. J Environ Eng 140(3):04014001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burrough PA (1987) Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 147–165Google Scholar
  15. Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (1998) Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 333Google Scholar
  16. Chahinian N, Moussa R, Andrieux P, Voltz M (2006) Accounting for temporal variation in soil hydrological properties when simulated surface runoff on tilted plots. J Hydrol 326:135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chidley TRE, Keys KM (1970) A rapid method of computing areal rainfall. J Hydrol 12:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dagadu JS, Nimbalkar PT (2012) Infiltration studies of different soils under different soil conditions and comparison of infiltration models with field data. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology 3(2):154–157Google Scholar
  19. David MF, César GC (2009) New method for monitoring soil water infiltration rates applied to a disk infiltrometer. J Hydrol 379:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franke R (1982) Smooth interpolation of scattered data by local thin plate splines. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 8(4):273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghosh B, Sreeja P (2018) A critical evaluation of measurement induced variability in infiltration characteristics for a river sub-catchment. Measurement 132:47–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grayson R, Blöschl G (2001) Spatial patterns in catchment hydrology: observations and modelling. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hembd J, Infanger CL (1981) An application of trend surface analysis to a rural-urban land market. Land Econ, University of Wisconsin Press 57(3):303–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchinson MF (1993) On thin plate splines and kriging. In: Tarter ME, Lock MD (eds) Computing and Science in Statistics 25, Interface Foundation of North America, University of California, Berkeley, pp 55–62 Google Scholar
  25. IS: 2720 (1975) Indian Standard Methods of Tests for Soils (Part XXIX) Bureau of Indians StandardsGoogle Scholar
  26. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Jiang G, Noonan MJ, Buchan GD, Smith N (2005) Transport and deposition of Bacillus subtilis through an intact soil column. Aust J Soil Res 43(6):695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Journel AG, Huijbregts CJ (1978) Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, London, p 600Google Scholar
  29. Kravchenko AN (2003) Influence of spatial structure on accuracy of interpolation methods. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1564–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kruizinga S, Yperlaan GJ (1978) Spatial interpolation of daily total of rainfall. J Hydrol 36:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latorre B, Moret-Fernándeza D, Peñaa C (2013) Applications and challenges estimate of soil hydraulic properties from disc infiltrometer three-dimensional infiltration curve: theoretical analysis and field applicability. Procedia Environ Sci 19:580–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latorre B, Peña C, Lassabatere L, Angulo-Jaramillo R, Moret-Fernández D (2015) Estimate of soil hydraulic properties from disc infiltrometer three-dimensional infiltration curve. Numerical analysis and field application. J Hydrol 527:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ledoux H, Gold CM (2004) An efficient natural neighbour interpolation algorithm for geoscientific modeling. In: Fisher PF (ed) Developments in spatial data handling—11th international symposium on spatial data handling. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  34. Lee RS, Welker AL, Traver RG (2016) Modeling soil matrix hydraulic properties for variably-saturated hydrologic analysis. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment 2(2):04015011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li J, Heap AD (2011) A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: performance and impact factors. Ecological Informatics 6:228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li X, Chen G, Lu L (2000) Comparison of spatial interpolation methods. Adv Earth Science 15(3):260–265Google Scholar
  37. Loaiciga HA, Huang A (2007) Ponding analysis with green-and-ampt infiltration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering ASCE 109(1):62–70Google Scholar
  38. Mishra SK, Tyagi JV, Singh VP (2003) Comparison of infiltration models. Hydrol Process 17(13):2629–2652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitas L, Mitasova H (1988) General variational approach to the interpolation problem. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 16(12):983–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moret-Fernández D, González-Cebollada C (2009) New method for monitoring soil water infiltration rates applied to a disc infiltrometer. J Hydrol 379:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Motaghian HR, Mohammadi J (2011) Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity from terrain attributes using regression, kriging, and artificial neural networks. Pedosphere 21(2):170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moyeed RA, Papritz A (2002) An empirical comparison of kriging methods for nonlinear spatial point prediction. Math Geol 34:365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mueller TG, Pusuluri NB, Mathias KK, Cornelius PL, Barnhisel RI, Shearer SA (2004) Map quality for ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted interpolation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:2042–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oliver MA, Webster R (1990) Kriging: a method of interpolating for geographical information system. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 4(3):313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pitt R, Chen SE, Clark SE, Swenson J, Ong CK (2008) Compaction’s impacts on urban storm-water infiltration. J Irrig Drain Eng 134(5):652–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robson SM (1997) Spherical methods for spatial interpolation: review and evaluation. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 24(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Romano N, Brunoneb B, Santini A (1998) Numerical analysis of one-dimensional unsaturated flow in layered soils. Adv Water Resour 21:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Serrano SE (1990) Modeling infiltration in hysteretic soils. Adv Water Resour 13(1):12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sibson R (1981) Interpolating multivariate data: chapter 2: a brief description of natural neighbor interpolation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Stauffer F, Dracos T (1986) Experimental and numerical study of water and solute infiltration in layered porous media. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 84:9–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tang YB (2002) Comparison of semivariogram models for kriging monthly rainfall in eastern China. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A 3(5):584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Usowicz B, Lipiec J (2017) Spatial variability of soil properties and cereal yield in a cultivated field on sandy soil. Soil Tillage Res 174:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wahba G (1990) Spline models for observational data. In: CBMSNSF regional conference series in applied mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, p 169Google Scholar
  54. Webster R, Oliver MA (2001) Geostatistics for environmental scientists. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang R (1997) Determination of soil sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity from the disc infiltrometer. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:1024–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang C, Chen B, Wu L (1995) Geographic information system. Higher Education Press, Beijing, pp 71–79Google Scholar
  57. Zhou S-M, Warrington DN, Lei T-W, Lei Q-X, Zhang M-L (2015) Modified CN method for small watershed infiltration simulation. J Hydrol Eng 20(9):04014095CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations