Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49

www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Linking hydraulic conductivity and tortuosity parameters to pore

space geometry and pore-size distribution
R.W. Vervoort*, S.R. Cattle
School of Land, Water and Crop Sciences, Bldg. A03, The University of Sydney, 2006 NSW, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
To enable a link between the pore size distribution of the soil measured in two dimensions and the hydraulic conductivity, a
factor, which includes the connectivity and tortuosity of the pore network in three dimensions, is needed. In order to increase
confidence in the models which predict hydraulic conductivity, this paper aims to gain insight into relationship between
tortuosity and connectivity parameters used in statistical models of hydraulic conductivity and soil structural form
measurements derived with image analysis. The analysis was based on a dataset of the hydraulic and soil structural properties of
19 Vertisol samples from Eastern Australia. The soil structural data were measured on large (200 mm height and 150 mm
diameter) cores at 5 – 7 depth slices. Several soil structural form parameters, including a pore size distribution, were calculated
using an image analysis program (Solicon v2.1 ). The hydraulic conductivity model developed by Kosugi [Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
63 (1999) 270] based on the lognormal pore size distribution was fitted to measured hydraulic conductivities. Hydraulic
conductivity was strongly related to porosity and a measure of connectivity in the horizontal direction (pore genus). The
tortuosity parameters a and b from the Kosugi [Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63 (1999) 270] model were related to the mean pore size,
with increasing mean pore size indicating decreasing tortuosity of the sample.
q 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pore size distribution; Hydraulic conductivity; Tortuosity; Connectivity

1. Introduction matching parameters often defined as connectivity and

1.1. Tortuosity and connectivity
The hydraulic conductivity or permeability of the
soil is determined by the arrangement of the pores and
solids, the pore and solid space geometry. Statistical
models for the permeability and hydraulic conductivity
of soil are based on the distribution of pore sizes (e.g.
Mualem, 1976; Kosugi, 1999), but the models include
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61-2-9351-8744; fax: þ 61-2-
9351-5108.
E-mail address: w.vervoort@acss.usyd.edu.au (R.W.
Vervoort).
0022-1694/03/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 1 6 9 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 5 3 - 6
tortuosity. Without these factors the pore size distri-
bution models would mimic the permeability of a
bundle of straight capillary tubes. Reality in a soil is
much more complex, with twisted and crooked pores,
dead-ending or connecting to other pores. This means
there is a need to scale the permeability from the
capillary tube model to include increased path length
due to crookedness of the path (tortuosity) or lack of
connection between points in the soil (connectivity). In
theory, the two parameters should be inversely related,
with highly connected (or highly porous) soils having
low tortuosities and vice versa (Vogel, 1997). For the
purpose of this paper we will consider the two
parameters interchangeable.
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
The connectivity and tortuosity parameters in
hydraulic conductivity models are generally rather
obscure matching parameters, which have been
defined differently throughout the literature. The
origin lies in the Kozeny – Carman equation (Bear,
1972):
c0 tf3
k¼ ð1Þ
s2
This equation relates the permeability of the soil to the
average hydraulic radius of the pore space.
The hydraulic radius is defined by the porosity (f )
and the average pore perimeter (s ). The equation also
includes two matching factors: tortuosity (t ) and a
pore shape factor (c0). These factors reduce the
‘straight and circular shaped pore’ value of the
permeability to a value supposedly representative
for the actual pore space geometry. Tortuosity in this
equation is also defined in terms of the ‘effective path
length’ (Le) Bear (1972):

2
L
t¼ ,1 ð2Þ
Le
where L is the length of the sample. The squaring
evolves from the fact that the path length affects both
the driving force (potential gradient) at the local scale
and the velocity as defined by Poiseuille’s law (e.g.
Bear, 1972, p. 110). Another common definition of
tortuosity is the ratio of the effective path length to the
sample length (Kutilek and Nielsen, 1994):
Le
t¼ .1 ð3Þ
L (re):
This means tortuosity would be in the denominator of
Eq. (1) since t . 1.
The Kozeny – Carman model is limited to the
prediction of the permeability of a sample at
saturation. Later models, based on the work by Childs
and Collis-George (1950), Millington and Quirk
(1960) and Marshall (1958), expand the concepts to
include unsaturated hydraulic conductivities or per-
meabilities at lower water contents. In these models
tortuosity is defined in terms of an effective area
available for flow through a sample section, and as
such affecting the relative hydraulic conductivity.
Mualem (1976) suggests the following model for the
relative hydraulic conductivity (Kr) as a function of
37
relative saturation (Se):
ðSe  ð1 2
Kr ¼ Se l 21
h dSe 21
h dSe ð4Þ
0 0
in which t ¼ Sel or t ¼ u l
In these equations l is an empirical parameter,
which is different for each soil, and generally we
consider t , 1 (Mualem and Dagan, 1978). Higher
values of l are thus related to lower values of t and
thus to higher effective path lengths (following
Eq. (2)). This concept of tortuosity is based on the
fact that pores are irregular and upon drying, water
will concentrate in small angles and crevices of the
pore system as water films (e.g. Tuller et al., 1999).
The result is an increased path length, less connection
and a more tortuous path with decreasing water
content (e.g. Vogel, 1997). This definition of
tortuosity is the macroscopic approach (Mualem and
Dagan, 1978), since it reduces the hydraulic
conductivity at the ‘whole soil’ level. It also seems
a description of pore roughness, which is the
definition used in the applications of fractal geometry
to the soil water characteristic and hydraulic conduc-
tivity (Crawford, 1994; Giminez et al., 1997), with
pore with higher pore roughness having a higher
tortuosity and lower connectivity.
Comparing the different statistical models, Mualem
and Dagan (1978) point out that another (microscopic)
representation of tortuosity can be based on Fatt and
Dijkstra (1951). In this case the tortuosity is inversely
proportional to a power function of the pore radius (r ),
which leads to the definition of the effective pore size
re2 ¼ r 2þb and t ¼ rb ð5Þ
where b is again an empirical parameter. Theoretically
this means that the tortuosity is a function of the pore
size, but is constant for each soil. Considering the
suggested power relationship, this definition seems
again fractal (Crawford, 1994), but at the pore, rather
than the whole soil level. Note that for both Eqs. (4) and
(5) the tortuosity is generally regarded to be smaller
than unity, that is, it reduces the hydraulic conductivity
calculated with the capillary tube model to its ‘real’
value. This would be consistent with the formulation of
tortuosity in Eq. (2), but not with the definition in
Eq. (3). The tortuosity or connectivity should also be
38 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
decreasing with increasing saturation or pore size
(Vogel, 1997). This means we can define the following
theoretical ranges for the parameters:
l,0 and 0 , Se , 1
b.0 if r , 1
b,0 if r . 1
However, it has been indicated before that many of the
fitting results on measured hydraulic conductivity
values can indicate values for these parameters well
outside these theoretical ranges (Kosugi, 1999).
Kosugi (1999) reformulated the general Mualem
model for the relative hydraulic conductivity (Mua-
lem and Dagan, 1978) to include the pore size
distribution:
2 ðr 3g
b
6 0 r gðrÞdr 7
Kr ¼ Sea 64 ð1
7
5 ð6Þ
gðrÞdr
0
Here, g(r ) is the pore size distribution and Se is the
relative saturation. The parameter a is equivalent to l
in Eq. (4), and is thus the equivalent macroscopic
description of tortuosity, similar to the adjustment in
the Kozeny –Carman equation, while b is related to b
in Eq. (5) and is the equivalent microscopic descrip-
tion of tortuosity. The parameter g is related to the
correlation between pores on either side of a slab soil
and thus again to the effective pore radius available
for flow (Mualem and Dagan, 1978). According to
Kosugi (1999), the model is rather insensitive to this
parameter and it can be set to 1. We have followed this
approach in this paper.
Fatt (1956) has suggested a different model based
on a network of interconnected pores based on the
principles of percolation theory (Broadbent and
Hammersley, 1957). In this approach randomness is
assigned to the medium, and not the fluid. The
probability of open and closed bonds is defined and
this defines the overall probability of a connected
network of pores through a medium. No flow in the
medium would occur unless a connected network
exists. Golden (1980) laid the theoretical groundwork
for the use of network percolation theory in
unsaturated media, by describing the similarity
between open and closed bonds by basing the
probability of open bonds on the suction, and thus to
the pore size. In theory, high porosity media tend to be
more connected and should have a lower tortuosity,
and thus the percolation threshold would define the
maximum tortuosity within the sample. Above the
percolation threshold the tortuosity should decrease to
a minimum value. This is a similar macroscopic
definition of tortuosity such as Eq. (4). Network
models predicting flow and permeability based on this
theory have been explored in soil physics and
hydrology (Berkowitz and Balberg, 1993; Yanuka
et al., 1986; Vogel and Roth, 1998; Peat et al., 2000),
but have generally remained a research tool due to the
computational complexity. Future developments in
algorithms and computational simplicity could see
more widespread use of these approaches.
Both the current macroscopic and microscopic
approach for tortuosity relate to the magnitude of the
relative hydraulic conductivity. This means that the
parameters represent relative tortuosities. However,
we would still expect a soil with a more connected
pore space to have lower relative tortuosities, since for
each pore size class there will be more connections
and thus a higher relative tortuosity. Even though
most of the theory behind the hydraulic conductivity
model suggests a clear relationship between soil
structure and tortuosity, in most cases the parameters
in models are treated as fitting parameters, and no
relation with soil physical or pore space geometry is
suggested. However, ensuring that these parameters
have physical significance will improve our ability to
scale hydraulic conductivities across spatial and
temporal scales.
1.2. Image analysis of pore and solid space geometry
In order to identify the pore size distribution and
such parameters as connectivity and tortuosity, image
analysis of soil sections has been employed (Vogel,
1997; Moreau et al., 1999). Berryman and Blair (1987)
calculated pore perimeter and pore area from thin
sections to calculate permeabilities using the K – C
model, but no attempt was made to calculate
connectivity or tortuosity. Fractal approaches have
also leaned on image analysis to calculate fractal
dimensions of pore space and solid (e.g. Anderson
et al., 1996; Crawford, 1994). Consecutive thin
sections of a soil block can be used to identify the
connectivity as defined by the Euler – Poincaré
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
characteristic, which is a measure of the number of
independent loops in a structure (e.g. Vogel, 1997;
Moreau et al., 1999). Vogel (1997), using this method,
demonstrated that the connectivity indeed tended to
increase with higher saturations. However, the thin
section method is labour intensive and not well suited
to large soil volumes. X-ray tomography can be used
on larger soil volumes (Perret et al., 1999), but requires
specialist equipment and costs and access limitations
can be significant. Both methods have delivered insight
in the magnitudes of parameters describing connec-
tivity and tortuosity.
Pore size distributions can be derived from a slice
through the medium, but this would assume an
isotropy in the vertical direction, which is generally
not true. Stereology can be used to infer three-
dimensional properties from two-dimensional pic-
tures (Serra, 1982), but the results are statistical
estimations of the third dimension based on the
measurement in two dimensions. Averaging the pore
size distributions of different slices might improve the
estimation of the real pore size distribution, but
increases the effort and cost. It can also be argued that
the connectivity and tortuosity parameters in the
hydraulic conductivity model will correct for the lack
of representativeness of the pore size distribution.
Although most work has concentrated on defining the
pore space geometry, it is very well possible that the
surrounding solid space defines the pore space and as
such the permeability, tortuosity and connectivity.
1.3. Aims of this paper
Trying to predict the hydraulic conductivity from
pore or solid space geometry, we are faced with two
problems. The first one is the problem caused by the
anisotropy of the medium in the horizontal direction.
This means a ‘representative’ pore size distribution
needs to be sampled from a representative elementary
volume (REV, Bear, 1972). This problem has
received ample attention in the literature. The other
is the lack of information on the pore or solid
geometry in the vertical direction once the pore size
distribution is known, e.g. the connectivity and
tortuosity. This problem is much less well studied.
Two approaches are generally taken; the first one is to
treat these values as a fitting parameter (the most
common approach); the second approach is to develop
39
a rapid and useful technique to actually measure
tortuosity. Considering the complexity of the pore
geometry and the anisotropy in the vertical direction,
this is not easy (Moreau et al., 1999; Perret et al.,
1999; Vogel, 1997). The aims of this paper are
twofold: the first is to describe the general soil
structural form of 19 Vertisol samples using image
analysis and to relate these measures to saturated
hydraulic conductivity; the second is to relate
measurements of soil structural form to tortuosity
and connectivity parameters in the general model for
hydraulic conductivity (e.g. Eq. (6)). This information
might not be of much use in terms of predicting
hydraulic conductivity (in contrast to pedotransfer
functions based on soil properties, e.g. Minasny and
McBratney (2000)), since it is more difficult to
perform the image analysis than it is to measure
hydraulic conductivity. However, it might increase
confidence in the physical model, understanding of
structural form effects on its behaviour, and its
applicability to different situations. Alternatively it
will allow interpretation of the parameters in the
hydraulic conductivity model in terms of soil
structural form.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sites and sampling
Fourteen sites, located in five different cotton-
growing areas in New South Wales and Southern
Queensland (Australia), have been sampled under this
project. All soils are classified as Vertisols (Soil
Survey Staff, 1996) or Vertosols (Isbell, 1996),
indicating soils with more than 35% clay in the B-
horizon and the existence of cracks, lenticular peds or
slickensides. Two of the sites consisted of soil pits
down to 2 m, in which different layers were sampled,
adding five subsoil samples leading to a total of 19
sampling points. The range of clay contents in the
samples was 39 –73%, with a mean value of 57%. The
sites were all located on irrigated cotton properties
and, within each field, were located at a minimum of
100 m from the tail drain or head ditch. At each site a
row in the cotton field was selected to perform the
experiments and sampling. Plant rows were selected
40 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49

for the main measurements to avoid complication due with a slow-curing resin mixture containing an
to slaking and wheel traffic in furrows. ultraviolet (UV)-fluorescent yellow dye. The fluid
components of this mixture, as detailed in McBratney
2.2. Hydraulic conductivities et al. (1992), are resin, diluent, hardener and opacifier,
mixed in the ratios of 34:34:32:1. Considering the
On the row, infiltration was characterised using shrink-swell nature of Vertisols, drying of the cores
disc permeameter measurements at five different between excavation from the field and application of
supply potentials (2 150, 2 100, 2 70, 2 50 and the resin could have influenced the pore geometry.
2 20 mm). The infiltration data were used to calculate Soil wetness of the cores was therefore measured by
hydraulic conductivities at the mid points between the sampling some soil from the top and bottom of the
supply potentials (2 35, 2 60, 2 85 and 2 125 mm) core just before the application of the resin, and
and at the 2 20 and 2 150 mm supply potential subsequently oven dried at 105 8C. These values were
(Ankeny et al., 1991). To calculate the saturated compared to the wetness of samples taken in the field
hydraulic conductivity (Ks), Gardner’s equation for at the time of sampling. Following the hardening of
hydraulic conductivity (Gardner, 1958) was fitted to the applied resin mixture, each soil core was ground
the data using standard least squares techniques and down in horizontal section using an angle grinder, and
extrapolated towards a zero supply potential. This images of the exposed surface captured with a digital
extrapolation of the unsaturated hydraulic camera under UV light at 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80 and
conductivities is probably representative for the soil 100 mm depth. In some cases only the 20, 40, 60, 80
matrix and might underestimate the true Ks. Table 1 and 100 mm depth were collected and on some
gives an overview of the hydraulic conductivity data samples every 10 mm between 0 and 100 mm was
used in this study. collected. The colour images (composed of yellow
pores and black solids) captured from each core were
2.3. Soil structural analysis downloaded to a computer and segmented into black
and white binary images. These images where then
At each site, two large, undisturbed soil columns analysed using the program Solicon v2.1 (Cattle et al.,
(150 mm diameter and 200 mm height) were exca- 2001) whose predecessor Structura and the under-
vated from the same row where the hydraulic lying stereological model have been described earlier
conductivity measurements were carried out. The (McBratney et al., 1992; Anderson et al., 1996). Using
soil cores were encased in polyvinylchloride (PVC) various pixel-counting procedures, Solicon v2.1 was
piping and transported to the laboratory. In the used to estimate the structural parameters of porosity,
laboratory, the cores were irrigated to saturation surface area (SA), mean pore intercept length (MPIL),
mean solid intercept length (MSIL), pore star length
Table 1 (PSL), solid star length (SSL), pore genus (PG) and
An overview of the hydraulic conductivity dataset used in this study solid genus (SG). In addition, distributions of the pore
sizes in each layer were made using the histogram
Supply Geometric Max Min Geometric
potential mean (mm h21) (mm h21) SD function for the pore intercept length (PIL). Most of
(mm) (mm h21) the images were between 650 £ 650 and 750 £
750 pixels for a 100 mm £ 100 mm image. This
Fitted Ks 107.2 1224.0 1.0 0.72 meant that one pixel represented a pore diameter
220 25.6 189.0 0.59 0.58 between 0.15 and 0.13 mm. Hence, the porosity
235 11.2 60.0 0.37 0.53
calculated in this manner is probably representative
260 3.4 31.8 0.14 0.59
285 0.87 5.51 0.10 0.44 for the macroporosity (Beven and Germann, 1982;
2125 0.27 1.99 0.33 0.51 Watson and Luxmoore, 1986). Porosity is calculated
2150 0.22 1.66 0.03 0.48 as the number of pixels representing pore space
The table lists geometric means, maxima, minima and divided by the total number of pixels in the image,
geometric standard deviations (SD) of the hydraulic conductivity while SA, a measure of the pore/solid interface, is
(K ) at saturation (Ks) and at the six other supply potentials. calculated from the length of the boundary between
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
pixels representing pore space and pixels representing
solids. The MPIL is a measure of the one-dimensional
continuity of pores, and is estimated by counting and
averaging the continuous lengths of pixels represent-
ing pore space in four directions (0, 45, 90 and 1358),
over the entire image. In terms of pore sizes, the MPIL
represents a mean pore diameter. The MSIL is
calculated in the same fashion, but for pixels
representing solids. PSL and SSL are estimates of
the average size of each phase, and are calculated as
the expected continuous length of pore or solid
encountered in any direction from a random point
within that phase (Serra, 1982). The PG and SG are
defined as a measure of the number of independent
loops (Vogel and Roth, 1998). Solicon v2.1 uses the
algorithm developed by Chen and Yan (1988) to
calculate the Euler– Poincaré number and subtracts
the number of features in the image. This leads to a
value representing the number of loops per mm2.
Further description of the stereological models used in
Solicon v2.1 is made in McBratney and Moran (1990)
and McBratney et al. (1992).
As the resin was applied to the soil surface in each
core, the analysed pore phase features are representa-
tive of the connected macroporosity, or the part of the
macroporosity domain with a direct connection to the
soil surface. All structural parameters were lognormal
distributed and the data were therefore log trans-
formed before taking averages.
2.4. Calculation of tortuosity
The log mean (m ) and standard deviation (s ) of
the pore size distributions of the top 20 mm each core
were calculated by fitting a lognormal distribution
function to the cumulative PIL distribution calculated
using Solicon v2.1. We chose the top 20 mm of the
core because this would be the pore size distribution
observed directly below the infiltration measurement,
which would be representative for most field
observations. Until recently (e.g. Perret et al., 1999),
it was probably representative for most available
image analysis observations of pore size distributions,
that is, from a two-dimensional slice through the
medium. Using this information, the statistical
hydraulic conductivity model developed by Kosugi
(1999) was subsequently fitted to the measured
41
unsaturated hydraulic conductivities (K(h) ). We used
  
1 bs
KðhÞ ¼ Ks Sea erfc erfc21 ð2SeÞ þ pffiffi
2 2
ð8Þ
 
1 lnðh=hm Þ
Se ¼ erfc pffiffi
2 s 2
in which a and b are fitting parameters, h is the
potential at which the relative conductivity is
calculated, hm is the potential related to m, Ks is the
saturated hydraulic conductivity and Se is the relative
saturation. Nineteen pairs of a and b were thus
calculated, one pair for each of the PIL distributions
calculated with Solicon v2.1. These pairs of par-
ameters would then represent the tortuosity and
connectivity of unobserved section of the samples
below 20 mm.
We also calculated the tortuosity as a function of
potential by comparing the measured hydraulic
conductivities with hydraulic conductivities calcu-
lated using a straight capillary pore model (Jury et al.,
1991)
Kc ðhÞ
tðhÞ ¼ ð9Þ
Km ðhÞ
where Km(h ) is the measured hydraulic conductivity,
and Kc(h ) is the conductivity calculated using (Jury
et al., 1991):
f2 Du X 1
Kc ðhÞ ¼
mrw g h2
where Du are the increments in water content, again
derived from the PIL distributions of the upper 20 mm
of the samples, rw is the density of water, g the
acceleration due to gravity, w the liquid – solid contact
angle and m the viscosity. This torturosity parameter
(based on the conductivity ratio) would again
represent the tortuosity and connectivity of the
unobserved section of the sample below 20 mm.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Structural form attributes of Vertisols and
relation to hydraulic conductivity
The structural attributes of the sampled Vertisol
soil cores varied with depth from the soil surface
42 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49

(Table 2). The so-called crumb layer, or self-mulched
layer, is a distinctive feature of these soil types, and
was typically 20 mm deep. This crumb layer is
characterised morphologically by abundant, small,
irregularly shaped macropores interspersing a matrix
of medium granular (5 –10 mm diameter) and med-
ium subangular blocky (10 – 20 mm diameter) aggre-
gates. Such morphology was reflected in the image
analysis data of all sites by large values of porosity
(mean, 0.23 mm 3 mm 23) and SA (mean,
, 0.92 mm2 mm23), and small values of MSIL
(, 7 mm). In contrast the soil below 40 mm is much
more dense which is characterised by smaller values
of porosity, SA and larger values of MSIL. Due to the
irregular actual depth of the crumb layer, the 30 and
40 mm depths act as transition layers. Porosity and SA
decreased gradually with depth, while MSIL and SSL
gradually increased. In contrast, the pore related
parameters MPIL and PSL appeared to decrease
rapidly below the 10 mm depth, but attain an
approximate constant value below this layer. This
means that although the average ped size increases
only slowly, the packing density of the peds increases
more sharply below the crumb layer.
Because there was some time between the field
sampling and the impregnation of the cores, differ-
ences in soil water content could have caused changes
in structural form in these shrink swell soils.
However, comparison of soil water contents measured
in the field and before impregnation revealed only
slight differences with the mean field water content
being 0.28 ^ 0.01 and being 0.27 ^ 0.01 g g21 just
before impregnation.
PG describes the number of independent loops in
an image (Vogel, 1997). In the samples in this study,
Table 2
Geometric means of image analysis parameters by depth
PG values generally decreased with depth (Table 2),
indicating less connectivity lower in the profile. Note
that it is probably a stronger indication of the decrease
in horizontal connectivity than of the actual vertical
connectivity in the core. However, if each value is
representative for the observed depth slice, than the
average value over all slices for each core could be
interpreted as the mean vertical connectivity. The
relationship (Table 3) between porosity and PG
confirms that more porous samples tend to be more
connected. In addition, PG was well correlated to
MSIL (Table 3), with the relationship indicating a
decrease in horizontal connectivity with an increase in
ped size. This relationship is not surprising since
MSIL and porosity were also strongly correlated. In
contrast, there was less of a relationship with pore-
related parameters such MPIL and PSL, even though
the PG itself is a pore-related parameter. The number
of independent loops in the pore domain is thus more
dictated by the space filling characteristics of the solid
phase, e.g. the average pedsize and porosity, than by
the average size of the pores. Solid genus also had a
much lower correlation to the pore related structural
parameters, but was correlated to SA indicating that
soils with a larger SA (more irregular shapes) tended
to have more independent loops in the solid phase.
The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) was well
correlated to a number of the soil structural form
parameters (Table 3). In particular, porosity and SA
were positively correlated with Ks, with greater SA
probably indicating more distinct pores. The mean
ped size (MSIL) was negatively correlated with Ks,
indicating a decrease in conductivity with an increase
in mean ped size. Note that most of the pore related
parameters (such as MPIL) had little or no

Depth Porosity SA MPIL MSIL PSL SSL PG SG

(mm) (mm3 mm23) (mm2 mm23) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) ( £ 1022 mm22) ( £ 1022 mm22)

10 0.17a 0.75a 0.98a 3.87a 2.37 12.03a 1.68a 12.24

20 0.15a 0.71ab 0.88ab 3.93a 1.86 12.46a 1.66a 12.03
30 0.06ab 0.36abc 0.75ab 7.78ab 1.46 21.93ab 0.51ab 8.11
40 0.07ab 0.37abc 0.77ab 7.31ab 1.52 22.26ab 0.67ab 8.06
60 0.06b 0.34abc 0.70b 8.91b 1.49 25.41b 0.45ab 9.30
80 0.05b 0.31bc 0.72ab 9.95b 1.56 28.52b 0.37b 9.08
100 0.03b 0.21c 0.71ab 13.98b 1.48 35.60b 0.22b 6.16

Different letters (a,b) in a column indicate difference in means at the p , 0.05 level using the Tukey–Kramer means separation test.
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49 43

Table 3
Correlations between saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and structural form parameters derived using Solicon v2.1

Log10 ðKs Þ Ks Porosity SA MPIL MSIL PSL SSL PG

Log10 ðKs Þ 1.00 – – – – – – – –

Ks 0.84 1.00 – – – – – – –
Porosity 0.72 0.62 1.00 – – – – – –
SA 0.73 0.57 0.90 1.00 – – – – –
MPIL 0.54 0.53 0.75 0.45 1.00 – – – –
MSIL 20.75 0.54 20.74 0.87 20.26 1.00 – – –
PSL 0.56 0.55 0.74 0.44 0.98 20.29 1.00 – –
SSL 20.68 0.50 20.78 0.91 20.26 0.96 0.27 1.00 –
PG 0.58 0.50 0.93 0.71 0.83 20.57 0.82 0.60 1.00
SG 0.50 0.33 0.44 0.76 20.13 20.76 0.08 0.78 0.18

relationship to Ks. After log transformation most of
the relationships were stronger, with the strongest
being the relationships between either log(MSIL) or
log(porosity) and log(K s) (r 2 ¼ 0:60 and 0.66,
respectively, Fig. 1). These relationships appear to
indicate that, again, the size and the packing of the
solid phase (represented by MSIL and porosity),
determining the connectedness of the pore space (PG),
have the largest influence on the magnitude of Ks.
This is further confirmed by the multi-linear relation-
ship between the combination of porosity and SSL
(being another measure of mean ped size) and
Ks (logðKs ) ¼ log(porosity) þ log(SSL), r 2 ¼ 0:76).
3.2. Pore size distributions and hydraulic conductivity
fitting results
The PIL distributions were generally lognormally
distributed, which meant the lognormal distribution
model fitted the data well, with an average root mean
squared error (RMSE) of fit of 0.03. Using the
standard model suggested by Kosugi (1999), with
parameter a set at 2 0.3 and b set at 1.8, hydraulic
conductivities were predicted using the average pore
size distributions of the top 20 mm of the cores.
The model was able to predict the hydraulic
conductivities fairly well with an r 2 of 0.58 for

Fig. 1. Strong relationships between soil structural form and the saturated hydraulic conductivity are between Log10 ðKs Þ and Log(Porosity) and
Log(MISL).
44 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49

Fig. 2. Predicted versus measured hydraulic conductivity (a) using the standard Kosugi model with a ¼ 20:3 and b ¼ 1:8 and (b) using the
Kosugi model, but fitting a and b for the individual samples.

the log – log relationship (Fig. 2a). Using the model in and b values are well within the range reported by
this way assumes a constant tortuosity and connec- Kosugi (1999). Using these values for a and b
tivity for all the samples. The general relationship thus improves the prediction of the hydraulic conductivity
reflects the relationship between the average pore considerably with and r 2 ¼ 0:91 for the log – log
distribution and the hydraulic conductivity, while the relationship (Fig. 2b), indicating that the spread in the
spread in the data is a reflection of the differences in data in Fig. 2a is indeed a reflection of the differences
tortuosity and connectivity of the individual cores in tortuosity and connectivity.
below 20 mm depth. There was little variation in the The question remains how, and whether, these
mean pore size (m ) and standard deviation of the pore parameters relate to measures of structural form (e.g.
size distribution (s ) of the cores calculated using a Table 2). The best relationship between measures of
lognormal pore size distribution model (Table 4), but structural form and tortuosity parameters was between
there was considerable variation in the a and b. All a MPIL and a (Table 5 and Fig. 3). At first glance the
relationship seems counter intuitive, smaller a should
Table 4 mean lower tortuosities and this would be expected in
Summary of tortuosity parameters calculated using the hydraulic samples with greater mean pore sizes, not in samples
conductivity model based on a lognormal pore size distribution, the
Kosugi model (Kosugi, 1999) with smaller pore sizes. The interpretation of the
actual effect of a on the hydraulic conductivity is
Mean Std. Dev. Max Min complicated by the fact that the term Sea does not
have an effect on the absolute magnitude of Ks, but
Mean pore 0.71 0.3 1.38 0.39
size (rm, mm)
only on the slope of the log(K ) –log(Se) plot. The
Mean capillary 23.5 6.71 38.2 10.9 figure indicates that the magnitude of a, representing
pressure (hm, mm) the slope of the log(K ) –log(Se) plot is governed by
Sigma (s ) 0.84 0.13 1.16 0.66 the mean pore size, with larger pore mean pore sizes
Alpha (a ) 20.06 0.65 1.28 21.69
Beta (b ) 0.84 1.22 2.78 21.07
having steeper slopes. As long as a is positive, this
means that the tortuosity decreases with increasing
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49 45

Table 5 between the two parameters causes the b parameter to

Correlations between parameters in the Kosugi model (Kosugi, correct for positive slopes due to a (Table 5). In
1999) and measures of soil structural form, indicating the highest
practice, it means that a smaller a value (positive or
correlation between the tortuosity parameters and pore related
structural parameters such as MPIL and PSL negative) corresponds to a flat slope (small decrease in
tortuosity with increasing supply potential), which
Alpha (a ) Beta (b ) Mu (m ) Sigma (s ) can only happen if the width of the pore size
distribution (s ) is small. Although the relationship
Alpha (a ) 1.00 – – –
is not strong, there is a general positive relationship
Beta (b ) 20.64 1.00 – –
Mu (m) 0.63 20.49 1.00 – between s and a, indicating that smaller values of a
Sigma (s ) 0.50 20.59 0.84 1.00 were somewhat related to narrower pore size
Porosity 0.69 20.21 0.68 0.38 distributions (Table 5). The relationship between
SA 0.47 0.02 0.44 0.05 MPIL and a indicates that samples with a greater
MPIL 0.77 20.54 0.78 0.67
mean pore size tend to have greater values for a and,
MSIL 20.31 20.17 20.25 0.20
PSL 0.73 20.47 0.70 0.59 as such, a sharper increase in tortuosity with
SSL 20.32 20.16 20.29 0.12 decreasing pore size. Considering the fact that the
PG 0.71 20.40 0.80 0.59 conductivity is related to the fourth power of the pore
SG 20.03 0.42 20.15 20.50 radius, a greater mean pore size will tend to have a
greater Ks. The relationship developed here indicates
pore size (considering Eqs. (4) and (2)), and samples that this sample will also have a steeper hydraulic
with larger pores would have shorter path lengths. In conductivity curve (greater a ), and a wider pore size
other words, the average path length, or the distribution. This can be confirmed by the existence of
connectivity increases, as the sample desaturates a reasonable multi-linear relationship between Ks,
(Vogel, 1997). At MPIL values of around 1 mm, a MPIL and s (log(Ks) ¼ log(MPIL) þ s, r 2 ¼ 0:52).
becomes negative. Negative a values are related to So, even though a does not have a direct effect on the
positive slopes on the log(K )– log(Se) plot, which magnitude of Ks, it still seems that greater a values
would indicate higher conductivities at lower Se will correspond to greater values of Ks. Apart
values. This is of course not possible and the interaction from four samples, which were clearly outside

Fig. 3. The relationship between the mean pore intercept length (MPIL) and the a parameter from Kosugi (1999) model indicating an decrease
in tortuosity with larger MPIL.
46 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49

Fig. 4. Relationship between a and log10 ðKs Þ indicating that larger a values correspond to larger values of Ks.

the relationship (open circles, these points were
incidentally all subsoil samples), this relationship
seems to exist in this dataset (Fig. 4).
Little or no correlation existed directly between b
and the measures of soil structural form (Table 5).
However, inspection of the results indicates that for
most of the samples there is a relationship between
pore related structural form measures and b (with
MPIL having the best relationship). The general
relationship (Fig. 5) indicates an increasing tortuosity,
or decreasing connectivity (greater b values), with
decreasing pore size. There are however three samples

Fig. 5. Relationship between mean pore intercept length (MPIL) and the b parameter in Kosugi (1999) model, indicating decreasing tortuosity
with increasing mean pore intercept length.
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
lying outside the general relationship. These three
samples all had negative b values around 2 1,
compared to mainly positive or slightly negative
values in the other samples. There was only one other
sample, which had a negative b value close to 2 1.
Negative b values are possible if the pore size (r ) is
greater than unity (see Eq. (5)). Two of the samples
with negative b values had indeed a mean pore size
(represented by MPIL) greater than unity. The two
other samples had lower mean pore sizes. The
curvature of the log(K )–log(Se) plot for the samples
with negative b values is convex, in contrast to the
mainly concave shape of all the other samples. In
terms of tortuosity, a negative b value indicates an
increasing tortuosity with increasing pore size
(Eq. (5)), similar to the negative a results. Positive
b values are once again related to more logical
tortuosity values (increasing with decreasing pore
size). The negative b values were always related to
positive a values (Table 5).
The structural form parameter PG, even though it
should represent the connectivity of the sample, never
had a real strong correlation with either a or b. The
correlation between a and PG in Table 5 is dominated
by a few samples with high PG values. The
relationship, however, seems to indicate that samples
with more independent loops have an increasing
tortuosity with increasing pore size (steeper slopes of
the log(K )–log(Se) plot, a is positive). SG was not
directly correlated to either of the parameters, but its
effect might be more complex. Using a multi-linear
model, the combination of porosity and SG has a
major effect on a (a ¼ log(porosity) þ log(SG),
r 2 ¼ 0:63), with a decreasing with increasing SG.
This indicates that for the more connected solid
phases, the difference in tortuosity between the largest
and smallest pores decreases (flatter slopes of the
log(K )– log(Se) plot).
The ratio of the hydraulic conductivity based on
straight capillary tubes to the observed hydraulic
conductivity (Jury et al., 1991) should also represent a
measure of tortuosity. This allows calculation of
tortuosities at each supply potential. Although there
was a wide variation in tortuosities (ranging from
1025 to 2 £ 1023), there was no significant variation
in tortuosity with supply potential. This would
indicate similar path lengths at each supply potential.
A few samples had higher than average tortuosities,
47
but there was no relationship between the earlier
calculated a and b parameters and this version of
tortuosity (averaged over all supply potentials). There
was also no correlation between this version of
tortuosity and any of the soil structural form
parameters. Part of this could be due to the fact that
this version of tortuosity includes the effect of the
magnitude of Ks. However, no combination of Ks, a
and b indicated any relationship with the tortuosity
based on the conductivity ratio.
The calculation of the tortuosity of a sample is
apparently more complex than just the lack of fit from
a capillary model. On the other hand, the parameters a
and b were both clearly correlated to pore related
structural form, although none of the relationships
was particularly strong. In contrast, the direct
relationship between soil structural form and Ks was
much stronger. Part of this is caused by the fact that a
and b are related to the relative hydraulic conductivity
and not to the magnitude of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity. The few multi-linear relationships also
point at the complexity of the actual relationship. The
analysis is further complicated by the theoretical
limitation that a should not be negative, while in
practice many of the curve-fitting results are negative.
Part of this can be related to the correlation between
the two parameters, which causes the slope of
the log(K )–log(Se) to be in the correct direction.
However, the actual relationships of a and b and the
mean pore size (MPIL) did indicate the expected
relationship with more porous samples with larger
pores having smaller tortuosities and thus higher
connectivities. But, considering the lack of really
clear relationships, the results presented here could
also indicate that:
1. the parameters in the hydraulic conductivity model
have little physical significance (e.g. Vogel, 2000);
2. that the model is wrong;
3. that we are incapable of measuring the structural
features influencing the hydraulic conductivity; or
4. that the parameters are a complex convolution of
different effects.
Current thinking concentrates on the first issue,
with the parameters being treated as fitting variables
(the empirical approach) for the ‘soil structural
effect’. This, however, limits our ability to predict
48 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
hydraulic conductivity across scales, or draw
conclusions about soil structure from the fitting
results and it reduces the search for parameters to
predict hydraulic conductivities to random curve
fitting. Further complexity is introduced by the fact
that the parameters in the model are not totally
independent. If the parameters have a clear physical
meaning, this would allow the derivation of logical
estimates. The actual hydraulic conductivity model
could be wrong, and the recent efforts by Tuller et al.
(1999) and continued efforts in percolation modelling
(e.g. Peat et al., 2000) might deliver new avenues in
this direction. This paper and the efforts by Perret et al.
(1999), Moreau et al. (1999) and Vogel (1997) try to
address the third issue, but much work still remains to
be done. The fourth issue is limited by our technical
abilities on this third issue and can also be an outcome
of applying the new hydraulic conductivity models.
However, without meaningful and quantitative
measures of soil structural form, we cannot decide
whether tortuosity and connectivity parameters in any
model have a physical meaning, or whether other
effects than soil structure need to be taken into
account. It is therefore important that continued effort
is being put in methods to rapidly assess soil structural
parameters, preferably in three dimensions.
4. Conclusions
Saturated hydraulic conductivity was well corre-
lated to several measures of structural form, in
particular porosity and PG. The general model for
hydraulic conductivity based on the lognormal pore
size distribution (Kosugi, 1999) was able to accurately
predict the measured hydraulic conductivities, with
the range of a and b parameters indicating the range
in connectivity and tortuosity between the different
samples. The parameters a and b were also related to
measures of soil structural form. The strongest
relationship was between the MPIL and a and b.
This relationship indicated that greater MPIL values
were related to smaller b and greater a values. The
relationships confirmed the theoretical expectations.
Pore and SG numbers, although measures of horizon-
tal connectivity of the pore and solid phase, only had
limited effect on the tortuosity parameters. This
means the relationship between the genus numbers
and a and b is possibly complex.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Australian Cotton Cooperative
Research Centre for funding this work.
References
Anderson, A.L., McBratney, A.B., FitzPatrick, E.A., 1996. Soil
mass, surface and spectral fractal dimensions estimated from
thin sections photographs. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 962 –969.
Ankeny, M.D., Ahmed, M., Kaspar, T.C., Horton, R., 1991. Simple
field method for determining unsaturated hydraulic conduc-
tivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55, 467 –470.
Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Elsevier, New
York.
Berkowitz, B., Balberg, I., 1993. Applications of percolation theory
in hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 29, 775– 794.
Berryman, J.G., Blair, S.C., 1987. Kozeny– Carman relations and
image processing methods for estimating Darcy’s constant.
J. Appl. Phys. 57, 2374–2384.
Beven, K.J., Germann, P., 1982. Macropores and water flow in soils.
Water Resour. Res. 18, 1311–1325.
Broadbent, S.R., Hammersley, J.M., 1957. Percolation processes,
crystals and mazes. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 53, 629–641.
Cattle, S.R., Farrell, R.A., McBratney, A.B., Moran, C.J., Roesner,
E.A., Koppi, A.J., 2001. q Solicon—PC Version 2.1. The
University of Sydney and Cotton Research and Development
Corporation.
Chen, M.H., Yan, P.-F., 1988. A fast algorithm to calculate the
Euler number for binary images. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 8,
295 –297.
Childs, E.C., Collis-George, N., 1950. The permeability of porous
materials. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 201, 392– 405.
Crawford, J.W., 1994. The relationship between structure and the
hydraulic conductivity of soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 45, 493 –502.
Fatt, I., 1956. The network model of porous media. 1. Capillary
pressure characteristics. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet.
Engng 207, 144–181.
Fatt, I., Dijkstra, H., 1951. Relative permeability studies. Trans.
Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Pet. Engng 192, 249 –255.
Gardner, W.R., 1958. Some steady state solutions of the unsaturated
moisture flow equation with applications to evaporation from a
water table. Soil Sci. 85, 28–232.
Giminez, D., Allmaras, R.R., Hugins, D.R., Nater, E.A., 1997.
Prediction of the saturated hydraulic conductivity-porosity
dependence using fractals. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 1285–1292.
Golden, J.M., 1980. Percolation theory and models of unsaturated
porous media. Water Resour. Res. 16, 201–209.
Isbell, R.F., 1996. The Australian Soil Classification, CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood, Vic.
 R.W. Vervoort, S.R. Cattle / Journal of Hydrology 272 (2003) 36–49
Jury, W.A., Gardner, W.R., Gardner, W.H., 1991. Soil Physics,
Fifth ed, Wiley, New York.
Kosugi, K., 1999. General model for unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity for soils with lognormal pore-size distribution.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 270–277.
Kutilek, M., Nielsen, D.R., 1994. Soil Hydrology, Catena Verlag,
Cremlingen Destedt, 370p.
Marshall, T.J., 1958. A relation between permeability and size
distribution of pores. J. Soil Sci. 9, 1–8.
McBratney, A.B., Moran, C.J., 1990. A rapid method for
analysis of soil macropore structure. II. Stereological model,
statistical analysis and interpretation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
54, 509 –515.
McBratney, A.B., Moran, C.J., Stewart, J.B., Cattle, S.R., Koppi,
A.J., 1992. Modifications to a method of rapid assessment of
soil macropore structure by image analysis. Geoderma 53,
255–274.
Millington, R.J., Quirk, J.P., 1960. Permeability of porous solids.
Trans. Faraday Soc. 57, 1200–1207.
Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., 2000. Hydraulic conductivity
pedotransfer functions for Australian soil. Aust. J. Soil Res.
38, 905 –926.
Moreau, E., Velde, B., Terribile, F., 1999. Comparison of 2D and
3D images of fractures in a Vertisol. Geoderma 92, 55 –72.
Mualem, Y., 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour. Res.
12, 2187–2193.
Mualem, Y., Dagan, G., 1978. Hydraulic conductivity of soils:
unified approach to the statistical models. Soil Sci. Am. J. 42,
392–395.
49
Peat, D.M.W., Matthews, G.P., Worsfold, P.J., Jarvis, S.C., 2000.
Simulation of water retention and hydraulic conductivity in soil
using a three-dimensional network. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 51, 65–79.
Perret, J., Prasher, S.O., Kantzas, A., Langford, C., 1999. Three-
dimensional quantification of macropore networks in undis-
turbed soil cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1530–1543.
Serra, J., 1982. Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology,
Academic Press, London.
Soil Survey Staff, 1996. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Seventh ed,
Natural resource conservation service of the USDA, Washing-
ton, DC.
Tuller, M., Or, D., Dudley, L.M., 1999. Adsorption and capillary
condensation in porous media: liquid retention and interfacial
configurations in angular pores. Water Resour. Res. 35,
1949–1964.
Vogel, H.J., 1997. Morphological determination of pore connec-
tivity as a function of pore size using serial section. Eur. J. Soil
Sci. 48, 365–377.
Vogel, H.J., 2000. A numerical experiment on pore size, pore
connectivity, water retention, permeability and solute transport
using network models. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 51, 99–105.
Vogel, H.J., Roth, K., 1998. A new approach for determining
effective soil hydraulic functions. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 49, 547–556.
Watson, K.W., Luxmoore, R.J., 1986. Estimating macroporosity in
a forest watershed by use of a tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 50, 578–582.
Yanuka, M., Dullien, F.A.L., Elrick, D.E., 1986. Percolation
processes and porous media. I. Geometrical and topological
model of porous media using a three-dimensional joint pore size
distribution. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 112, 24 –41.