Abstract
On one hand, direct methods of measurement of saturated hydraulic conductivity coefficient are time consuming, and on the other hand, laboratory methods are cost consuming. That is why the popularity of empirical methods has increased. Their main advantages are speed of calculations and low costs. Comparison of various empirical methods (pedotransfer functions) for the determination of saturated hydraulic conductivity coefficient was the purpose of this work. The methods used were Shepard’s, Hazen’s, USBR (United States Bureau of Reclamation), Saxton et al.’s, Kozeny–Carman’s, Krüger’s, Terzaghi’s, Chapuis’s, Sheelheim’s, Chapuis’, and NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command) methods. Calculations were carried out for the soil samples of differential texture. The obtained results shows the methods used for the determination of permeability coefficient differ considerably. Mean values obtained by analysed methods fluctuated between 0.0006 and 12.0 m·day−1. The results of calculations by the chosen methods were compared with the results of the laboratory method. The best compatibility with laboratory method was obtained by using the Terzaghi method.