WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 39, NO. 10, 1276, doi:10.

1029/2002WR001860, 2003

Identification and parameterization of flow processes in artificial

capillary barriers
M. Kämpf,1 T. Holfelder, and H. Montenegro
Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany

Received 21 November 2002; revised 16 May 2003; accepted 3 June 2003; published 4 October 2003.

[1] Capillary barriers have increased in use for protecting sensitive underground regions
from downward infiltration. However, questions and uncertainties remain about
conceptualization and parameterization of capillary barriers for design and numerical
modeling. In order to identify and to parameterize the relevant flow processes in this fine-
over-coarse soil layer system, large-scale laboratory experiments were performed. The
data revealed that water is predominately diverted laterally in a saturated fringe within the
fine layer. Percolation through the system was found to be quite complex. At low
infiltration rates, small quantities of water seeped uniformly through the system. At higher
fluxes the seepage pattern changed to a more irregular distribution because of the
occurrence of preferential flow. Numerical investigations based on the laboratory results
demonstrated an extreme sensitivity of the system performance to the hydraulic functions
of both layers. INDEX TERMS: 1803 Hydrology: Anthropogenic effects; 1831 Hydrology: Groundwater
quality; 1894 Hydrology: Instruments and techniques; KEYWORDS: capillary barrier, top covers, layered
soils, funneled flow, parameter estimation
Citation: Kämpf, M., T. Holfelder, and H. Montenegro, Identification and parameterization of flow processes in artificial capillary
barriers, Water Resour. Res., 39(10), 1276, doi:10.1029/2002WR001860, 2003.

1. Introduction protective effect was reestablished as soon as the infiltration

[2] Artificial capillary barriers employ the characteristics
of unsaturated soils to minimize the amount of water
percolating through wastes by surface capping. The barrier
effect between fine-over-coarse soil layers arises under
unsaturated conditions. Up to a distinct capillary pressure,
the underlying coarse layer remains dry and therefore
relatively impervious to water infiltration. The textural
contrast between the two layers effectively delays the
vertical percolation of water. However, soil moisture that
builds up in the overlying topsoil has to be removed by
evapotranspiration to keep the system sufficiently dry. The
effectiveness of a capillary barrier can be improved by
sloping the system and by adding an unsaturated drainage
layer. This setup leads to the common capillary barrier
system consisting of a topsoil, a fine-textured layer (capil-
lary layer) for lateral diversion and a coarse layer (capillary
block) for capillary break.
[3] Field-scale lysimeter investigations on landfill slopes
have shown that extensive heavy rainfalls on a wetted
topsoil can lead to moisture release into the coarse layer.
In temperate latitudes these ‘‘breakthroughs’’ occur predom-
inately during the winter and spring months, when the
storage capacity of the topsoil is exhausted and infiltrated
rainfall percolates to the capillary barrier. In spite of lateral
drainage, soil water can accumulate to a level where
capillary forces cannot further prevent percolation into the
underlying coarse layer. Experiments have shown, that the
1 exclusively caused by potential gradients perpendicular to
Now at Brandt Gerdes Sitzmann Umweltplanung GmbH, Darmstadt,
Germany.
Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/03/2002WR001860
SBH
to the system decreased below the maximum amount of
water a capillary barrier can divert laterally [Kämpf and
Montenegro, 1997].
[4] These breakthrough patterns were first described
analytically by Ross [1990]. At the updip boundary of the
system the amount of water which has to be diverted
laterally is fairly small and can be transported in the fine
layer at low saturation. The corresponding capillary forces
are considerably high and the barrier is almost impervious.
At some distance downslope the saturation will increase due
to infiltration so that capillary forces can no longer prevent
the moisture from entering into the coarse layer and the
capillary barrier starts to release some water. At some
further distance downslope additional increase of the lateral
flow does not occur, and the diversion length L is reached.
Additional infiltrating water will not be diverted, and thus
will percolate entirely into the capillary block. Beyond this
point a capillary barrier will be ineffective. The lateral flow
rate at this regime Qmax is referred to as the diversion
capacity of the capillary barrier (Figure 1).
[5] A general mathematical formulation of the lateral flow
within a capillary barrier can be deduced from fundamental
considerations of hillslope flow processes, as described by
Zaslavsky and Sinai [1981] and Warrick et al. [1997].
Steady state conditions and the assumption of no infiltration
into the infinitesimal control volume yield uniform flow.
Under these conditions no matric potential gradients exist
parallel to the interface, and flow in the capillary layer is
the interface (hydrostatic pressure distribution in the capil-
lary layer). The discharge of the capillary layer in the
horizontal direction Q is calculated by the integration of
the flow velocity qx in the z direction (Figure 1). The
2-1
SBH 2-2 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS

characteristics were not confirmed in later research work

using a similar experimental setup under inclined conditions
[Walter et al., 2000]. Comparable research work by Glass et
al. [1989] and by Gregersen [1995] showed that the number
of fingers, the flux through a finger and finger diameter
increase at higher infiltration rates. The diameter of a finger
did not fall below a minimum value even at small infiltra-
tion rates. After the infiltration was substantially decreased,
the flow process became stable again [Yao and Hendrickx,
1996].
[7] This paper focuses on large-scale laboratory experi-
ments to inspect the relevant flow processes. Large-scale
Figure 1. Velocity profiles in a capillary barrier. experiments were needed to investigate the diversion be-
havior under characteristic flow conditions of capillary
barriers. For example, a greater understanding of the impact
of preferential flow on diversion performance was needed.
unsaturated conductivity function of the capillary layer is These experiments and associated numerical investigations
represented by ku, and n describes the inclination of the conceptualize and parameterize the relevant flow processes.
interface between the two layers. The lower limit of integra-
tion z1 is given by the matric potential y1 at the interface 2. Laboratory Experiments
between the two layers. The upper limit z2 is the matric
potential y2 at the top of the capillary layer. 2.1. Methods and Materials
[8] The experiments were carried out in two 8 m long
Zz2 Zz2 Zy2 flumes (width 0.2 m, height 1.2 m, Figure 3), where a
@y sin j capillary barrier was sliced vertically and reconstructed on a
Q¼ qx @z ¼ ku @z ¼ ku @y tan j ð1Þ
@z cos j 1:1 scale. The flume experiments emulated the downslope
z1 z1 y1
portion of a capillary barrier system. Because of a consid-
erable amount of water that accumulated through the
Following Ross’ definition the diversion capacity Qmax is
upslope part of the system, the local vertical infiltration in
reached when the infiltration q equals the percolation
the emulated downslope part was insignificant compared to
through the capillary block. Assuming gravitational flow
the lateral flow accumulated from the updip part of the
within the capillary block, the amount of infiltration q
cover. Water was injected by a small perforated tube over
coincides with the hydraulic conductivity of the coarse-
the flume width on the left boundary only to reproduce the
textured layer. The corresponding matric potential at the
lateral flux from the updip part of the barrier. This setup had
interface between the layers is referred to as the critical
the significant advantage of constant flux over the whole
matric potential ycrit. Because infiltration into the control
flow distance.
volume is disregarded, the matric potential y1 at the top of
[9] A drain section was mounted for collection of the
the capillary layer can be easily calculated by adding the
capillary layer discharges. In this way the drainage was
thickness of the capillary layer to the critical matric
collected without influencing the flow processes by creating
potential ycrit at the interface.
tail water conditions in the flume. The bottom of the flume
was divided into single sections by 0.1 m high crossbars for
Zy1
detailed examination of the spatial distribution of seepage
Qmax ¼ ku @y tan j ð2Þ response. One flume was divided into 8 sections and the
ycrit other one into 10 sections. The discharge of each section
was collected separately. One sidewall was assembled with
The hydraulic conductivity of each layer, the inclination glass panes to accurately position the soil layers. The other
angle j of the system, the diversion length L and the sidewall was constructed with PVC plates to support the
infiltration rate q are the fundamental characteristics of the
system. The basic relationships between these parameters
are depicted in Figure 2. The diversion capacity Qmax is
given by the area below the conductivity curve of the
capillary layer between the limits of ycrit and y1.
[6] Infiltration into the coarse layer may exhibit patterns
of preferential flow. Baker and Hillel [1990] observed in
horizontal layered soils experiments that water starts to
infiltrate into an initially dry coarse layer if the matric
potential increases to a value that allows water to fill the
finer pores of the coarse layer by capillary flow. They called
this capillary pressure the water entry point and linked this
pressure/water content relation to the inflection point at the
wetting branch of the retention curve of the coarse layer
(parameterization by the van Genuchten equation). This
strict correlation between the flow pattern and soil water Figure 2. Conductivity curves of a capillary barrier.
 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS SBH 2-3

Figure 3. Sketch of the flume experiments.

different measuring probes. In each flume experiment at
least two tensiometer profiles and one temperature probe
profile were mounted perpendicular to the interface between
the soil layers. With the exception of the capillary block
discharges, all test points were recorded by electronic
devices with a time resolution up to 15 min. The capillary
block discharges were measured manually by graduated
cylinders. The flumes were placed in a climatic chamber
for temperature control.
[10] Fine and medium sands were chosen for the fine-
textured capillary layer, while coarse sand and fine gravel
were selected for the capillary block. In addition to materi-
als obtained from natural sources such as washed river
sediments, industrial by-products such as crushed construc-
tion debris or cupola foundry slag were tested. Each material
had an uniform grain size distribution. The numbers after the
name in Figure 4 indicate the range of the grain sizes in mm.
In addition, saturated hydraulic conductivity for capillary
layer materials and the main drying and wetting curves of all
materials were measured in drainage-imbibition experiments
(hanging column method) with core samples (100 cm3). In a
supplementary test, the contact angles of the materials were
estimated in sorption experiments for a better understanding
of water retention behavior.
[11] In the flume experiments all materials were placed by
the same technique to ensure identical installation condi-
tions. The 0.2 m high coarse-textured capillary block was
constructed in two lifts. The interface of the layer was

Figure 4. Grain size distribution of materials tested in the flume experiments.

SBH 2-4 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS

Table 1. Discharges of Capillary Layer and Capillary Block at

Different Influxes of Flume Experiment 1
Discharge of Capillary Discharge of Capillary
Layer, L/(d m) Block, L/(d m)

Drying Branch
157 3.1
116 1.64
37 0.71
19 0.46

Wetting Branch
19 0.38
37 0.62
110 0.85
Figure 5. Influx and discharges measured in the flume 153 7.3
experiment.

smoothed by a trowel. The capillary layer was placed in

three lifts with intensive manual compaction. To reduce The experiment concluded with the estimation of the
heterogeneous properties, the upper part of each lift was diversion capacity (171 L/(d m)) at a temperature of
loosened after compaction. Quality control by core sam- 23C. The temperature dependent diversion capacities were
pling after each experiment showed a relatively uniform measured at an inclination of 10.
compaction with a variation of less than 7% in bulk soil [15] The succeeding sequences examined the influence of
density. hysteresis on the flow pattern in a capillary barrier. The dip
angle was 10 throughout these sequences. For this purpose
2.2. Results the influx was first diminished stepwise to zero and, after
drying out the barrier, raised stepwise again until the
[12] Ten combinations of materials were investigated in
diversion capacity was exceeded. These measurements were
flume experiments. Each experiment was conducted in
performed at a constant temperature of 18C. The dis-
different sequences with constant boundary conditions.
charges of the capillary layer and the capillary block are
The boundary conditions were varied when matric poten-
depicted in Table 1. During the drying sequences, the
tials and discharges of the soil layers were constant for more
discharges from the capillary layer immediately reflected
than one day. The flux rates were increased stepwise until
reductions of the influx. At the wetting branch a different
the diversion capacity was exceeded. Additional investiga-
discharge characteristic of the capillary layer was observed.
tions evaluated the influence of temperature, inclination,
At low loading rates there was a significant time lag
and hysteresis on the flow processes.
between increased influx and higher capillary layer dis-
[13] The flume experiment used sediment from the Rhine
charges. Here additional water accumulated in the capillary
River (Rhine sand 0/1) for the capillary layer and crushed
layer before the discharge of capillary layer reflected the
bedrock (0,7/2) for the capillary block is presented in detail
new level of influx rates.
in the following paragraphs. This experiment investigated
[ 16 ] Examination of the capillary block discharges
the flow pattern at different hydraulic flux rates, and
revealed clear differences in the distribution of the dis-
included additional sequences for the inspection of hyster-
charges onto the capillary block outlets at the different flux
esis, temperature, and system inclination. Figure 5 depicts
rates (Figure 6). The discharge of the capillary block was
the influx (dashed), the discharge of the capillary layer
concentrated at distinct sections for both diversion capacity
(solid), and the sum of the discharges of the capillary block
and at high influxes. Under these hydraulic loadings water
outlets (long- and short-dashed line). Under steady state
percolated predominately along preferential flow paths,
conditions, discharge of the capillary block is represented
with some of them visible at the glass plates. On the drying
by the difference between influx and capillary layer
discharge.
[14] The diversion capacity was first estimated under
different inclinations. As infiltration from the surface was
ignored in the lab experiments, the definition of diversion
capacity had to be slightly modified from Ross’ definition.
In the flume experiment the diversion capacity was defined
to represent the maximum flux of water diverted laterally
within the capillary layer over the entire flume length. At
this point an additional increase of the influx led only to
higher capillary block discharges, especially in the upper
sections of the flume. The diversion capacity at the
end of these sequences was 76 L/(d m) at 5 inclination,
162 L/(d m) at 10, and 226 L/(d m) at 15 slope. Average
temperature at these sequences of the experiment was 18C.
After decreasing the temperature from 18C to 14C (days Figure 6. Sectional distribution of the seepage through the
54– 70) the diversion capacity decreased to 152 L/(d m). capillary barrier.
 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS SBH 2-5

the interface of about 0.07 m was measured at the diversion

Figure 7. Matric suction measured in the flume experiment.
branch the barrier leaked primarily in sections 5 and 6 at
diversion capacity and in sections 5, 6, and 8 at a high
influx of 160 L/(d m). On the wetting branch, 70% of the
entire discharge was concentrated on section 8 at an influx
of 160 L/(d m), and sections 5, 6, and 8 again at diversion
capacity. At lower loading rates a uniform seepage over the
entire length of the flume was observed.
[17] Two tensiometer profiles were located in sections 4
and 7 of the flume perpendicular to the interface. The
mounting distance between tensiometers in the capillary
layer was 0.10 m. In each profile the measurements were
identical between the instruments with the same distance to
the interface. Figure 7 shows the data from section 4 during
the sequences investigating hysteresis. During the measure-
ment of the diversion capacity at different temperatures and
inclinations, the critical matric suction ycrit was maintained
at a constant value of 0.07 m.
[18] In the capillary layer the recorded pressure difference
in the tensiometers coincided exactly with the perpendicular
elevation difference of 0.10 m. The matric suction in each
tensiometer differed by the gravitational portion of the
hydraulic potential only, indicating that in the capillary
layer a hydrostatic pressure distribution existed during all
flow regimes. Consequently, the characteristic matric pres-
sure at the interface can be calculated by subtracting the
distance to the interface of each tensiometer from the
measured matric suction. A minimum matric suction at
capacity. Decreasing the influx slightly below the diversion
capacity at day 70, the matric suctions increased signifi-
cantly from 0.07 m to about 0.11 m. The matric pressure
reacted immediately to any subsequent reduction of the
influx with a stepwise increase. The stepwise rewetting of
the system after day 136 caused a corresponding decrease
of the matric suction. It was observed that at the same
influxes, the matric suction of the wetting branch was
significantly lower than on the drying branch.
[19] Both tensiometers in the coarse-textured capillary
block recorded matric suctions similar to the pressures at the
interface at the beginning of the test. Unit gradient con-
ditions dominated the flow conditions in the capillary block.
The stepwise reduction of the influx resulted in an increase
of the matric suction. Because of the low hydraulic con-
ductivity of the capillary block at low flux rates, there was a
significant time lag between changes in influx and matric
suction in the capillary block. The tensiometer placed
0.135 m below the interface failed after day 130.
2.3. Discussion
[20] Suitable combinations of capillary barrier materials
showed several common flow characteristics. Low influxes
were diverted almost completely by lateral flux within the
capillary layer. Increasing the influx rates close to the
diversion capacity resulted in higher discharges through
the capillary block. Successfully tested combinations of
materials tended to reach a characteristic state of maximum
lateral drainage, termed diversion capacity. Additional
increases of the flux rate had no impact on the amount of
water that was diverted laterally over a distance of several
meters. The diversion capacity increased proportionally to
the inclination of the system in the investigated slope range
between 5 and 15 (Table 2). These findings coincide well
with the theoretical considerations (equation (1)).
[21] It appears that the hydraulic properties of a capillary
layer dictate the saturation conditions in a capillary barrier.
The capillary layer adjusts its saturation/conductivity profile
to infiltration for lateral diversion. The evaluation of the
flume experiments showed that only small fluxes were
diverted under unsaturated conditions. At higher hydraulic
flux rates most of the infiltrated water was transported
laterally in the capillary fringe (saturated conditions), which

Table 2. Diversion Capacities of Different Combinations of Materials at a Temperature of 18Ca

Capillary Block Diversion Capacity, L/(d m)

Fraction of
Fines <0.5 mm, Contact Inclination Inclination Inclination
Experiment Capillary Layer Material Percent of Weight Angle of 5 of 10 of 15 ycrit, m

1 Rhine sediment 0/1 crushed bedrock 0,7/2 0.9 4 76 163 226 0.058
2 Rhine sediment 0/1 river sediment 1/4 0.4 10 111 221 358a 0.047
3 Rhine sediment 0/1 boiler slag 1/4 1.2 83 98 197 283 0.055
4 Rhine sediment 0/1 constr. debris 0,5/6,3 3.2 90 252 0.055
5 Rhine sediment 0/1 boiler slag 0/10 8.0 83 no lateral no lateral no lateral
diversion diversion diversion
6 furnace sand 0/0,5 cupola slag 1/6,3 0.3 48 242 0.031
7 sand 0/2 boiler slag 2/4 0.1 83 46 0.032
8 Rhine sediment 0/2 boiler slag 1/4 1,2 83 46 104 157 0.055
9 sand gravel
10 Rhine sediment 0,3/1 slag of high temperature 4.4 90 168 0.084
waste incineration 0,5/6,3
a
Measured on the primary wetting branch.
SBH 2-6 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS
Figure 8. Seepage pattern through the capillary barrier at
different combinations of materials.
remained above the interface. At diversion capacity, the best
performing materials (such as uniform sands with the grain
size primarily between 0.2 and 1 mm) conduct over 80% of
the water in the saturated capillary fringe. As expected, the
height of the capillary fringe dropped off significantly in
coarser materials. The larger saturated hydraulic conductiv-
ity of coarser sands was not sufficient to counterbalance the
reduction of the height of the capillary fringe, and these
sands showed an inferior diversion performance. Sands like
the Rhine sediment 0/2 (with a grain size up to 2 mm)
represent the coarsest possible materials for the capillary
layer. A reverse situation exists with finer materials, where
the increase of the capillary fringe is not sufficient to
compensate for the lower permeability according to the
nonlinearity of hydraulic soil properties.
[22] Percolation through the capillary block was distrib-
uted uniformly over the flume length under conditions of
low influxes. Under initial dry conditions the movement of
the wetting front was visible through glass panes by color
changes from light to dark. During these sequences it took
several weeks before discharges from the capillary block
were measured. Increased influxes led to a less uniform
discharge distribution. Additional water seeped predomi-
nantly along preferential pathways through the capillary
block. Materials with very few fines or water repellent
materials (contact angle close to 90) tended to have a
nonuniform discharge distribution. Other materials showed
a uniform percolation over a wide range of the influxes. Of
note was that the lowest preferential discharge (approxi-
mately 0.001 L/(d m), boiler slag 1/4) was almost 1,000
times less than the highest amount of uniform capillary
block discharge (0.9 L/(d m)) using crushed bedrock (0.7/2)
or crushed construction debris (0.5/6.3). Both coarse mate-
rials had a comparatively high amount of fines (Figure 8).
At diversion capacity preferential flow dominated the seep-
age through the barrier. The observation that percolation
concentrated on the same sections at the beginning and at
the end of this experiment coincide with other findings
regarding the stability of preferential flow paths [Gregersen,
1995; Yao and Hendrickx, 1996]. The experiments demon-
strate that the occurrence of preferential flow did not mark
the hydraulic limit of a capillary barrier for lateral diversion.
In some experiments, the diversion capacity was several
times larger than the lateral flow when preferential flow
occurred initially.
[23] Comparing the diversion capacity of different com-
binations of materials with their grain size distribution
reveals that the critical matric suction ycrit is predominately
influenced by the fine fraction and to a lesser extent by the
mean diameter of the grain size distribution of the capillary
block material. A significant correlation was noted between
the fraction smaller than 0.5 mm diameter in the grain size
distribution and the increase of the hydraulic permeability.
The matric suctions at which the coarse layer allows
infiltration increase significantly (and consequently the
diversion capacity decreases) if this fraction is greater than
6% to 8% of weight in the grain size distribution curve. In
addition, water repellency decreased the critical matric
suction ycrit. (Table 2 and Figure 4).
3. Numerical Investigations
[24] The task of numerical evaluation of the flume experi-
ments revolved around two questions: first, which soil
hydraulic functions best describe the observed flow pattern
and, second, how can the respective parameters be estimated.
Flume experiments were simulated with HYDRUS-2D,
a Galerkin type finite element code based on Richards’
equation for the computation of water flow in variably
saturated porous media [Simúnek et al., 1996]. The hydraulic
properties are described by a modified 9-parametric
Mualem-van Genuchten model (Vogel and Cislerova as
discussed by Simúnek et al. [1996]). These modifications
add flexibility to the original parametric model and allow the
description of a soil water characteristic with a significant
air-entry point, for example. As opposed to the official
program version which evaluates material properties at the
nodes (and thus tends to smear the hydraulic contrast at
material interfaces), the version used in these studies eval-
uated soil properties at the element. This study did not
consider the hysteresis and temperature dependence of the
soil hydraulic properties explicitly.
[25] The flow region of the 8 m long flume consisted of a
0.6 m thick capillary layer and a 0.2 m thick capillary block,
designed to represent a two dimensional, vertical plane
section. The two layers were assumed to be homogenous
and isotropic. The flow domain was divided into a network
of 2383 triangular elements and 1292 nodes (Figure 9).
Boundary conditions were specified as closely as possible to
the experimental setup in the flume. In the numerical model,
water was applied at the left side by Neumann type source
nodes corresponding to the imposed water injection. The
boundary conditions at the drain section to discharge the
flux within the capillary layer were described as a unit
gradient boundary condition, since constant capillary pres-
sure was observed in the flume experiments. The discharge
of the block layer was implemented by unit gradient type
nodes coinciding with the sections of the flume. The
inclination of the system was 10.
[26] The following three methods were used to estimate
the hydraulic parameters. The first is measurement of the
retention curves and prediction of the conductivity func-
tions. During testing of the soils for the flume experiments,
retention curve and saturated hydraulic conductivity
were measured for each material at a core sample scale
 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS SBH 2-7

Figure 9. Finite element mesh of the flume experiment.

(100 cm3). These data were fitted by the program RETC
[van Genuchten et al., 1991] to the original van Genuchten-
Mualem model.
[27] Next is estimation of the conductivity function
through evaluation of the flume experiment. The parame-
ters for the capillary layer were estimated by evaluating
equation (1) for the different influxes of the flume
experiment. On the basis of the measured hydrostatic
capillary pressure, the theoretical flow velocity profile
(Mualem equation) was adjusted to the measured dis-
charge (integral of the flow velocity over the height of
the capillary layer). Each sequence of the flume experi-
ment provided one parameter set. The parameters that best
represented all measured discharges were selected. Since
the flume experiments revealed a relevant flow within a
saturated fringe in the capillary layer, the parameters of the
hydraulic function were fitted to the modified Mualem-van
Genuchten equation, where the additional fictitious param-
eter (qm) is used to describe the air-entry pressure of the
retention curve.
[28] As the capillary block was under constant pressure,
the flow velocity in the capillary block could be calculated
by dividing the measured discharge by its cross-sectional
area at the interface. Each influx provided one value in the
conductivity-matric suction function.
[29] The final method is the inverse method. The param-
eters of the original Mualem-van Genuchten equation of
both layers were estimated by running the model of the
flume experiment several times. The simulated discharges
were adjusted to the measured one by fitting the hydraulic
parameters of both layers.
[30] It is important to note that none of these methods
were able to describe the observed flow pattern in the
capillary block in a physically correct manner, because the
preferential flow occurring at higher hydraulic loadings was
averaged over the whole cross-sectional area of the core
sample or flume.
[31] The modeling results are shown here for the flume
experiment presented in section 3. The period between day
60 and 185 of the experiment was chosen for the modeling
task. This period included complete drying and wetting of
the capillary barrier with extreme transient conditions
around day 90, when the pump failed. The three different
methods for parameter estimation were combined into four
reasonable variations to investigate the impact of these
methods on the modeling results for the capillary layer
and the capillary block separately (Table 3). The measured
diversion capacity was 162 L/(d m) and the according
critical matric suction ycrit was 0.07 m in the experiment.
[32] In variant 1 the parameter sets of both layers were
taken from core sample measurements. The barrier effect
was described rudimental only and the dynamics of the
measured fluxes were reproduced poorly. Using the param-
eter set from the flume experiment for the capillary block
and keeping the parameters from the core sample measure-
ments for the capillary layer (variant 2) led to a significant
improvement of the modeling results. The modeling results
yielded a significant increase of lateral diversion (see Table 3).
The main reason for the improvement was the sufficient
prediction of the n parameter by evaluating the flume
experiment. If preferential flow occurred, the discharge of
the capillary block increased with a comparatively small
decrease in matric suction. Consequently, such a flow pattern
leads to a large n parameter that is not predicted from retention
curve measurements.
[33] Further improvement was observed by using the
parameter set estimated from the flume experiment for both
layers. Variant 3 featured the modified Mualem-van
Genuchten model and was capable to describe the hydraulic
properties of the capillary layer (capillary fringe) correctly.

Table 3. Parameters Used in the Variants for the Simulation of the Flume Experiment 1
van Genuchten Parameters
Crit. Matric Diversion Capacity
Variant Method qr qs qm a, 1/m n ks, m/s Suction ycrit, m Qmax, L/(d m)

1 capillary layer core sample 0.08 0.37 - 5.5 4.4 1.5  104 0.102 76
1 capillary block core sample 0.04 0.34 - 23.6 4.8 3.6  103 0.102 76
2 capillary layer core sample 0.08 0.37 - 5.5 4.4 1.5  104 0.074 135
2 capillary block flume 0.03 0.34 - 22.6 7.2 6.3  104 0.074 135
3 capillary layer flume 0.09 0.37 0.43 5.4 4.9 1.2  104 0.076 182
3 capillary block flume 0.03 0.34 - 22.6 7.2 6.3  104 0.076 182
4 capillary layer inverse 0.09 0.33 - 6.0 5.1 2.1  104 0.074 162
4 capillary block inverse 0.03 0.34 - 22.6 7.2 6.3  104 0.074 162
SBH 2-8 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS
Figure 10. Measured and simulated discharges of the
flume experiment.
This simulation showed some improvements in the drying
and wetting dynamics but significantly overpredicted the
diversion capacity (Figure 10a). This method for parameter
estimation pointed out the sensitivity of the flow in a capillary
barrier to the hydraulic properties of the layers and the
limitations of even large setups for parameter estimation in
particular. Reducing the saturated conductivity of the capil-
lary layer by 10% fitted well to the measured diversion
capacity, for example.
[34] The inverse method (variant 4) emphasized the
capabilities of numerical modeling to predict the integral
flow processes in a capillary barrier. The discharges of the
capillary layer could be simulated very closely to the
measurements of the flume experiment (Figure 10b). This
is a remarkable result because the original Mualem-van
Genuchten model does not describe precisely the soil
hydraulic properties in the pressure range around the air-
entry point. The inability to describe a distinct air-entry
point is compensated by an increase of the saturated
hydraulic conductivity ks of the fine layer in the fitting
process (see Table 3).
[35] The parameters were fitted to the drying period of the
flume experiment. The calculated discharges of the capillary
layer corresponded to the measurements for the drying
period as well as for the rewetting period. These results are
reasonable due to the uniqueness of the ku-q function. The
capillary layer uses the same saturation profile on the drying
branch and on the wetting branch at identical hydraulic
loadings. Because of the fitting of the model parameters to
the wetting branch, there was a slightly worse correlation
between simulated and measured discharges of the capillary
block on the drying branch. Hysteresis is more pronounced
in the finer material of the capillary layer. Consequently the
capillary block remains dryer and is less permeable on the
wetting branch than on the drying branch at the same
hydraulic load. It is notable that the measured discharges
could be reproduced by various combinations of a and n
parameters. A unique parameter set could be identified only
when the capillary pressure was taken into account as well.
[36] Additional calculations were carried out for the
flume experiments with the furnace excess sand 0/0.5 (fine
material) and the Rhine sediment 0/2 (coarse material) to
assess the parameter range of suitable materials for the
capillary layer. The simulations yielded for the furnace
excess sand 0/0.5: a = 4.6; n = 3.6; ks = 9.5  105 m/s
and for the Rhine sediment 0/2: a = 9.2; n = 2.5; ks = 3.2 
104 m/s as the characteristic parameters for the modified
Mualem-van Genuchten equation.
4. Conclusions
[37] The protective effect of a capillary barrier is based
on significant contrast in the hydraulic conductivity func-
tions due to sufficient textural contrast between two layers.
In a distinct pressure range, the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity of the drainage layer needs to be several
orders of magnitude higher than the overlying topsoil and
the underlying coarse layer for an effective lateral diver-
sion. The diversion capacity is the most important charac-
teristic of the capillary barrier under humid climatic
conditions.
[38] The experiments confirm the theoretical considera-
tions that the diversion capacity is a linear function of the
inclination of the system. This allows us to define the
diversion capacity as a value that depends on the soil
hydraulic properties of both layers only. This property is
presented by the integral of equation (2) only, and is referred
to as the specific diversion capacity of a combination of
materials for a capillary barrier.
[39] The hydraulic properties of the capillary layer deter-
mine flow profile and pressure level for lateral transporta-
tion of the infiltrated water. The hydraulic properties of the
capillary layer also determine the infiltration rate at which
the critical matric potential ycrit is reached. The critical
matric potential ycrit is a characteristic of the hydraulic
properties of the capillary block only, which have to
maintain the hydraulic contrast to the capillary layer.
[40] The soil of the fine-textured capillary layer has to
fulfill two contrasting requirements. High permeability due
to large pores is required for effective lateral drainage.
However, small pores are required to form a distinct textural
contrast to the underlying coarse capillary block. The
hydraulic properties of the capillary layer dictate the satu-
ration state in a capillary barrier. The capillary layer adjusts
its saturation/conductivity profile to the infiltration for
lateral diversion. At higher influx rates most of the infil-
trated water was transported laterally in the capillary fringe
(saturated conditions).
[41] An uniform distribution of seepage through the
barrier was observed when the influxes to the system were
low and the corresponding matric suctions were high. At
increasing influxes, the discharge of the coarse layer
changed to a less regular distribution. Percolation through
the barrier was concentrated on singular flow paths (‘‘fin-
gering’’), especially in the state of the maximum lateral
diversion. The occurrence of preferential flow did not mark
the limit of a capillary barrier for lateral diversion.
[42] The discharges of a capillary block vanish almost
completely when the influx rate is decreased again below
the diversion capacity. Materials without a significant
amount of fines (grain size fraction < 0.5 mm) or water
repellent materials especially showed this abrupt change in
 KÄMPF ET AL.: FLOW PROCESSES IN CAPILLARY BARRIERS
the barrier effect. Nevertheless, only small amounts of
seepage were observed over the large range of influxes.
[43] The numerical simulations confirm the experimental
results regarding the sensitivity of the discharges to the
shape of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function in
the low pressure range of both layers. The precise estima-
tion of the saturated conductivity, as well as the correct
description of the saturated fringe in the capillary layer, are
fundamental for an adequate prediction of the diversion
capacity.
[44] Soil hydraulic functions with an explicit air-entry
value are needed to describe the flow in the capillary layer
in a physically correct manner. Because of the nonlinearity
of the unsaturated conductivity function, medium sands
with steep grain size distributions perform best as capillary
layers. The hydraulic properties of such soils can be
assessed by a values between 4 and 6 and n > 3, using
the parameterization by Mualem and van Genuchten. The
corresponding saturated conductivity of such materials is
not larger than 2  104 m/s. Sands like the Rhine sediment
(0/2) with less capability for water retention (a = 9.2)
represent the coarsest possible materials for the capillary
layer. The greater saturated hydraulic conductivities of such
materials are not sufficient to counterbalance the reduction
of the height of the capillary fringe, where the most
effective flux occurs.
[45] The experiments showed that hysteresis had an
impact on the discharges of the capillary block (protective
effectiveness) of a capillary barrier, and need to be consid-
ered for parameter estimation. The diversion capacity indi-
cates the state of maximum saturation of the system.
Therefore soil parameters for a capillary barrier have to be
estimated on the wetting branch of the retention curve.
[46] Because of the extreme changes in the conductivity
properties of the capillary block in the relevant pressure
range, the critical matric potential ycrit is relatively inde-
pendent of the infiltration rate to the system. These hydrau-
lic properties lead to extreme parameters (a > 29, n > 7) for
the capillary block. It is extremely difficult to accurately
measure representative hydraulic properties for capillary
block media. Traditional outflow experiments at core sam-
ple scale are not able to reproduce these observed flow
pattern in drainage-imbibition experiments. The selected
approach to describe observed locally concentrated prefer-
ential flow by Darcy-Law leads to an averaging (‘‘smear-
ing’’) of the actual flow processes. This approach is
constrained to the estimation of soil hydraulic properties
in experiments at a relevant scale, which induce the char-
SBH 2-9
acteristic flow processes. Capillary barrier flow experiments
have to be carried out in setups like the presented flume
experiment, where soil water is displaced over distances of
several meters under the actual flow conditions of the
system. Through this method, fingering can take place over
a sufficiently large cross-sectional area. This allows the
estimation of effective parameters that sufficiently describes
the fluxes in the system, and which are representative on
larger scales, e.g., landfill slopes.
[47] Acknowledgments. The authors like to thank J. Simúnek for the
adaptation of the HYDRUS-2D code to an element-based evaluation of the
hydraulic properties.
References
Baker, R. S., and D. Hillel, Laboratory tests of a theory of fingering during
infiltration into layered soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 54, 20 – 30, 1990.
Glass, R. J., J.-Y. Parlange, and T. Steenhuis, Wetting front instability:
2. Experimental determination of relationships between system
parameters and two-dimensional Unstable flow field behavior in initially
dry porous media, Water Resour. Res., 25, 1195 – 1207, 1989.
Gregersen, J., Experimental and numerical investigation of two-dimen-
sional unsaturated flow in layered soils, Ser. Pap. 59, Inst. of Hydrodyn.
and Hydraul. Eng., Tech. Univ. of Denmark, Lyngby, 1995.
Kämpf, M., and H. Montenegro, On the performance of capillary barriers as
landfill cover, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 1, 925 – 929, 1997.
Ross, B., The diversion capacity of capillary barriers, Water Resour. Res.,
26, 2625 – 2629, 1990.
Simúnek, J., T. Vogel, and M. T. van Genuchten, The HYDRUS-2D code
for simulating water flow and solute transport in two dimensional vari-
ably saturated media, Res. Rep. 132, U.S. Salinity Lab., U.S. Dep. of
Agric., Riverside, Calif., 1996.
van Genuchten, M. T., F. J. Leji, and S. R. Yates, The RETC code for
quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils, EPA Rep. 600/2-
91/065, U.S. Salinity Lab., Riverside, Calif., 1991.
Walter, M. T., J.-S. Kim, T. S. Steenhuis, J. Y. Parlange, A. Heilig, R. D.
Braddock, J. S. Selker, and J. Boll, Funneled flow mechanisms in a
sloping layered soil: Laboratory investigations, Water Resour. Res., 36,
841 – 849, 2000.
Warrick, A. W., P. J. Wierenga, and L. Pan, Downward water flow through
sloping layers in the vadose zone: Analytical solutions for diversions,
J. Hydrol., 192, 321 – 337, 1997.
Yao, T., and J. M. H. Hendrickx, Stability of wetting front in dry homo-
geneous soils under low infiltration rates, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 60, 20 –
28, 1996.
Zaslavsky, D., and G. Sinai, Surface hydrology: IV—Flow in sloping,
layered soils, J. Hydraul. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 107, 53 – 64, 1981.


T. Holfelder and H. Montenegro, Institute of Hydraulic and Water
Resources Engineering, Darmstadt University of Technology, 64277
Darmstadt, Germany.
M. Kämpf, Brandt Gerdes Sitzmann Umweltplanung GmbH, 64297
Darmstadt, Germany. (dj1r@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de)