Exponential Distribution Theory and the Interpretation of Splash Detachment
and Transport Experiments
A. I. J. M. van Dijk,* A. G. C. A. Meesters, and L. A. Bruijnzeel
ABSTRACT
Soil detachment and transport by rainsplash is usually the first step
in soil loss and sediment transport. It can be measured using a variety
of approaches, including splash cups, trays, and boards. However, the
results of splash experiments are affected by their geometry and not
readily translated into generally applicable parameters. In this study,
we develop a theory that can be used to interpret splash experiments.
It is based on the assumption that the spatial distribution of particles
splashed from a point source can be described by an exponential decay
function, for which there is considerable support in the literature. The
theory is evaluated for the cited experimental techniques, partly with
the use of a numerical model. It is made clear that conventional mea-
surements of splash and the true rate of detachment by splash are
two different entities that can be linked if the average splash length
is known. In principle, the theory is not valid for a sloping surface,
but analysis of the magnitude of the error involved indicates that in
many cases good estimates of detached amounts can still be obtained.
T he detachment and transport of soil particles en-
suing from the impact of raindrops, or splash for
short, is usually considered an important first step in the
chain of processes leading to loss of soil and subsequent
sediment transport. Falling raindrops are able to detach
much larger amounts of soil particles than unconcen-
trated overland flow, after which the detached particles
may be entrained and carried off by the flowing water
(Hudson, 1995). In addition, splash may result in signifi-
cant net transport of sediment on sloping soils (Moeyer-
sons and de Ploey, 1976; Wan et al., 1996). To quantify
splash detachment and transport, a range of techniques
has been developed with time.
Sreenivas et al. (1947) were among the first to use
round cups or funnels embedded in the soil to catch
splashed particles. They considered the mass of col-
lected material divided by the surface area of the cup
(with radius R, in m), denoted here by mR, as an indicator
of detachment rate on the surrounding soil. This method
has been applied in many subsequent studies, a number
of which were reviewed by Poesen and Torri (1988).
However, the cup splash rate (mR) is not independent
of cup size, as already put forward by Rose (1960) and
Bolline (1975). Furthermore, the relationship between
cup size and splash rate is also influenced by the distribu-
tion of distances over which the splashed particles travel:
Given a particular amount of soil detached per unit of
area outside the cup (i.e., detachment rate ␮, as mass
per unit area) more sediment will end up in the cup as
the distance over which splashed particles travel in-
creases. On the basis of the reciprocity principle, the
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije Univ. Amsterdam, De Boele-
laan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Received 14 May
2001. *Corresponding author (dija@geo.vu.nl).
Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1466–1474 (2002).
1466
same will be true for a similar experimental technique
in which a cup filled with soil is subjected to (artificial)
rain and the sediment ejected from the cup is collected
(Ellison, 1947; Rose, 1960; Al-Durrah and Bradford,
1981, 1982; Kinnell, 1982; Riezebos and Epema, 1985;
Sharma and Gupta, 1989). If the cup is small compared
with the average splash length, it can be argued that
the bulk of sediment splashed from the cup will end up
outside the cup (Rose, 1960). However, the use of very
small cups gives rise to practical problems, and therefore
cups are normally used with a diameter of a few to
⬎10 cm. Under such conditions, the resulting amount
of collected sediment can no longer be equated to de-
tachment rate, as is still commonly practiced.
Alternatives to circular cups include splash boards
(Ellison, 1944; Kwaad, 1977) and trays (Quansah, 1981;
Savat and Poesen, 1981; Wan et al., 1996), in which case
the amount of splash is expressed either per unit tray
area or length. The results are again not readily con-
verted to actual detachment rate (␮) because the
amounts of sediment ending up in the collectors them-
selves depend on the distribution of distances over
which the splashed particles travel. In addition, unless
the dimensions of the tray are several orders of magni-
tude greater than the average splash length, tray size
will also have a significant effect on measured splash
rates, as does the size of splash cups.
The problems outlined above complicate the interpre-
tation of experimental results much more than is often
acknowledged. Farmer (1973), for example, subjected
a soil-filled tray of 46 by 122 cm to artificial rainfall.
From the difference in particle size distributions be-
tween the original and splashed material, he inferred
preferential detachment of certain size classes. A com-
parable study by Gabriels and Moldenhauer (1978) used
trays of 30 by 45 cm. However, as Poesen and Torri
(1988) demonstrated, small particles are splashed over
greater distances than larger particles. Consequently, a
greater fraction of detached particles will end up outside
the tray for small size classes than for larger size classes.
Thus, wrong conclusions may be drawn from the mea-
surements (regardless of the possibility that smaller par-
ticles are indeed detached more easily).
Summarizing, the (apparent) detachment rates de-
rived from cup, tray, or splash board experiments must
be considered ill-defined, experiment-specific, and not
applicable to field situations, unless the geometry of the
experiment and the spatial distribution of the splashed
particles around their source are taken into account.
Recognizing this, Farrell et al. (1974) advanced a theory
describing the influence of experimental geometry on
splash measurements. The practical application of their
Abbreviations: FSDF, fundamental splash distribution function.
 VAN DIJK ET AL.: EXPONENTIAL SPLASH DISTRIBUTION THEORY
theory was limited initially, because little information
existed about the spatial distribution of splashed parti-
cles. However, the spatial distribution of splash has been
measured in later studies, such as those of Poesen and
Savat (1981), Savat and Poesen (1981), Riezebos and
Epema (1985), and Torri et al. (1987).
The objective of the current paper is to develop a
mathematical distribution theory that can be used to
assess the influence of geometry and splash length in
the type of experiments described above. In doing so,
it is initially assumed that the spatial distribution of
particles splashed from a point of raindrop impact can
be described by an exponential function, which will be
called the fundamental splash distribution function
(FSDF). It will be shown that there is considerable sup-
port for this in the literature. On the basis of the FSDF,
the relationship between observed amounts of splash
and actual detachment rates will be evaluated in terms
of a characteristic splash length and the geometry of
the experiment. In some cases, this is done analytically;
in others, a numerical model is used.
THEORY
Exponential Fundamental Splash
Distribution Function
Let the rate of detachment ␮ (in g m⫺2) be defined as the
mass per unit source area that has been detached by rainsplash.
Consider the splash from a small source area onto a small
target area at radial distance r; let the splash density mpoint(r)
(in g m⫺4) be the splashed mass per unit of source area, per
unit of target area. It is subsequently assumed that mpoint(r) is
described by the following exponential function:
␮
mpoint (r) ⫽ exp(⫺r/⌳), [1]
⌳2␲r
where ⌳ (in m) is the average splash length, that is, the mass-
weighted average radial distance over which the particles are
splashed. Within the context of the theory presented in this
paper, Eq. [1] may be called the FSDF, since all other equa-
tions are derived from it by integration.
There is empirical support for the assumption that the FSDF
conforms to an exponential equation. Riezebos and Epema
(1985) conducted laboratory experiments using a soil cup sur-
rounded by concentric rings at 5-cm intervals that collected
sediment splashed from the cup. Individual artificially pro-
duced water drops fell from different heights on the center
of the soil-filled cup. In all cases, the experimental results for
the mass splashed beyond a distance r were described very
well by an exponential function (Fig. 1). It can be shown that
this conforms to the assumed FSDF by considering the amount
of material Mring(r) (in g m⫺3) that is splashed from a small
source area at the center of impact, onto a very narrow ring
at a distance r from the source, per unit of radial distance and
per unit of source area:
␮ The distribution theory developed above can be applied to
exp冢⫺⌳冣 .
r
Mring (r) ⫽ 2␲r mpoint (r) ⫽ [2]
⌳
Since integration of Eq. [2] between r and infinity also yields
an exponential function, these results are in accordance with
the hypothesis. It should be noted, however, that because
Riezebos and Epema (1985) used a cup diameter of 5 cm,
1467
Fig. 1. The mass of soil splashed beyond a radial distance r from its
point source (data from Riezebos and Epema, 1985). Exponential
functions are fitted to the data, which represent splash resulting
from artificial drops falling from indicated heights.
the spatial distribution of particles close to the impact center
remains unknown.
In principle, the amount of material detached (splash mass,
M, in g) by a single impacting drop can be calculated once
the area of impact (a, in m2) is known:
∞
M⫽a 冮 Mring dr ⫽ a␮, [3]
0
which demonstrates that the use of ␮ in Eq. [1] is consistent.
In reality, the exact definition of a and ␮ may create some
problems. One reason is that Eq. [3] is only truly valid if the
area of impact a is of infinitely small size. However, a falling
raindrop will create an impact crater of up to a few millimeters
in diameter and then break up into droplets that carry soil
particles (Ghadiri and Payne, 1988). Therefore, the highest
density of transported particles will occur around the perime-
ter of the impact crater. This does not pose a major obstacle
to using Eq. [1], provided that the average splash length is
not of the same order of magnitude as the size of the impact
crater. Assuming, for example, that the impact of a raindrop
leaves a crater with a radius of 2 mm and the average splash
length (⌳) has a value of 0.1 m (a representative value, see
below), then the amount of material implicitly assumed by
Eq. [1] to be inside the crater would be only 2% of the total
amount of splashed material. Another point to be made in
this respect is that splash detachment itself is difficult to deter-
mine and even to define. Some soil particles may be detached
but returned to their original position, while others may be
pushed away to the perimeter of the impact crater without
actually leaving the soil surface, as has been demonstrated in
splash cup experiments (Kinnell, 1974, 1982) and in numerical
simulations of raindrop impact (Huang et al., 1982, 1983). For
pragmatic reasons, therefore, detachment is defined here as
the amount of soil that appears to have been detached based
on measurements of splash. In some cases, this may include
some pushed material as well (Kinnell, 1974, 1982).
Splash Distribution in One Dimension
a situation in which material is splashed across an (effectively)
infinitely long straight boundary. This is important to interpret
measurements made with, for example, splash trays and splash
boards. To this end, the radial form of Eq. [1] has to be
converted to a two-dimensional coordinate system first and
eventually to a single dimension. One way of doing this is to
1468 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002

Fig. 2. One-dimensional distribution of particles splashed from a source strip expressed as a density function of perpendicular distance x {vstrip(x );
Eq. [5]} and as a transport function indicating the fraction of detached material splashed beyond distance x {vbeyond(x ); Eq. [6]}. All variables
have been made dimensionless; dashed lines represent approximate exponential functions. K ⫽ average splash length.

imagine an array of very small unit source areas, forming a
narrow source strip. First, the splash density pattern resulting
from one such source strip will be considered. Taking the
y-axis along the source strip, it is easy to see that splash density
will be a function of the distance 兩x兩 (perpendicular to the
source strip) alone. This function can be determined by consid-
ering an element of the source strip (having length dy and
width dx) positioned at (0, y) and a target element positioned
at (x, 0). The contribution of the source element to the splash
density in (x, 0) is then given by mpoint(r)dxdy, where r is the
Euclidean distance (Eq. [1]). The contribution of all elements
forming the source strip to the splash density at (x,0) will be
denoted by vstrip(x)dx. Because this involves the entire length
of the strip, vstrip(x) has the dimension of mass per unit width
of strip per unit target area (i.e., g m⫺3). It can be found by
integration along the length of the strip:
∞ is infinitely large at one side of a boundary. The amount of
vstrip (x)dx ⫽ dx 冮 dy ⫻ mpoint (√x2 ⫹ y2).
⫺∞
Thus, vstrip(x) is the one-dimensional equivalent of the radial
splash density function represented by Eq. [1]. It can be shown
that the solution of Eq. [4] involves a zero-order modified
Bessel function denoted by K0 (Eq. [9.6.24] in Abramowitz
and Stegun, 1965):
∞
␮ q⫽
vstrip (x)dx ⫽ dx 冮 dy exp(⫺√x ⫹ y /⌳)2
⫺∞ ⌳2␲√x2 ⫹ y2
⫽
␮
␲⌳
K0
⌳冢 冣
兩x兩
dx.
up beyond (a boundary at) a distance x. This can be found
by integration of Eq. [5], between x and infinity. The result
may be called the transport function, denoted by vbeyond(x). It
represents the splashed mass ending up beyond a boundary
line at distance x, per unit width and per unit of boundary
length. Therefore, vbeyond(x) has the dimension of mass per
area (in g m⫺2). The integration is written as:
∞
vbeyond (x) ⫽ 冮 vstrip (x⬘) dx⬘, [6]
x
where x⬘ is the integration variable. There is no simple analyti-
cal solution to this integral but its numerical solution is rela-
tively straightforward, except for very small values of x (Abra-
mowitz and Stegun, 1965, Eq. [11.1.9]; see Fig. 2). Taking
things one step further, a source area of soil is considered that
[4] material transported across this boundary may be called the
rate of transport, denoted by q and expressed in mass per unit
boundary length (g m⫺1). It represents the cumulative amounts
of vbeyond(x) for the entire assembly of possible source strips
positioned between zero and an infinitely large distance from
the boundary. The value of q may be found by single integra-
tion of Eq. [6] between 0 and infinity:
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
冮 dx 冮 dx⬘vstrip (x ⫹ x⬘) ⫽ 冮 dx 冮 dx″ vstrip (x″)
2
0 0 0 x
∞ x″ ∞
⫽ 冮 dx″ vstrip (x″) 冮 dx ⫽ 冮 dx″ vstrip (x″)x″, [7]
[5] 0 0 0

where x″ is defined by x⬘ ⫽ x″⫺ x. The solution of this compli-

This result implies that when the exponential FSDF is applied cated integration is surprisingly simple (Abramowitz and
to a one-dimensional strip source, it does not retain its expo- Stegun, 1965, Eq. [11.4.22]):
nential form. However, it does resemble an exponential func-
tion at larger distances from the source (Fig. 2). Another ⌳
characteristic of Eq. [5] is that, like Eq. [1], it attains an infinite q⫽ ␮. [8]
␲
value for x ⫽ 0. Mathematically, this is not a problem since
integration across a distance larger than zero will always yield Eq. [8] describes the relationship between splash detachment
a finite value. In further calculations, it is important to know rate (␮) and splash transport rate (q) across a straight line.
what amount of material splashed from the source strip ends Provided that ⌳ is known, Eq. [8] can, in principle, be used
 VAN DIJK ET AL.: EXPONENTIAL SPLASH DISTRIBUTION THEORY 1469

to calculate detachment rates from measurements of splash

across a straight boundary, for example, from a soil tray.
However, the source area of an experimental tray is not
infinitely large. Momentarily assuming a tray of (effectively)
infinite length but of finite width (w in m), the transport rate
over one side of the tray [q(w), in g m⫺1] can still be obtained
using Eq. [6], which is now integrated across 0 ⬍ x ⬍ w,
resulting in:
w ∞

冮 dx 冮 dx⬘ K0冢 冣
␮ x ⫹ x⬘
q(w) ⫽ . [9]
␲⌳ 0 0
⌳
For comparative purposes, it will prove useful to express q(w)
as a fraction Fw of the infinite splash transport rate (q), by
isolating the latter in Eq. [8] and substitution into Eq. [9],
after which the resulting equation can be simplified (reversing
Fig. 3. Rates of splash transport [q(⌬X )] onto 10-cm wide strips,
the order of integration and rewriting; Eq. [11.3.27] in Abra- placed at increasing distances from a soil tray subjected to artificial
mowitz and Stegun, 1965) to: rainfall and filled with different soils (approximate median grain
w ∞ size indicated; data from Savat and Poesen, 1981) with Eq. [12c]
冮 dx 冮 dx⬘ K0 冢 冣
q(w) 1 x ⫹ x⬘
Fw ⫽ ⫽ 2 fitted to the data.
q ⌳ 0 0
⌳
∞
Clearly, these equations too are based on an approximation
⫽1⫺
w
⌳ 冤
K1 (w/⌳) ⫺ 冮
w/⌳
d␰K0 (␰) , 冥 [10]
of the actual geometrical correction factor (Eq. [11] vs. Eq.
[10]), and therefore should not be used at very small distances
from the boundary. The practical application of the equations
where the integration variable ␰ is equal to (x/⌳). Fw may be above is that through a plot of distance on the x-axis vs. the
regarded as a correction factor that may be used to correct amount of material splashed beyond or before X on the y-axis,
measurements of splash from a tray of limited width but infi- an exponential function can be drawn, the exponent of which
nite length. Equation [10] is still not readily solved analytically, yields the average splash length (⌳; Eq. [12a] or [12b]). Once
but it can be solved numerically (Abramowitz and Stegun, ⌳ is known, the detachment rate (␮) can be calculated from
1965; Eq. [11.1.9] and [11.1.18]). The resulting solution is not the coefficient of the fitted function.
an exponential function itself, but Fw can be approximated Examples of experimental results that can be interpreted
very well by the following exponential function: with Eq. [12c] include those of Savat and Poesen (1981), who
measured splash from a soil-filled tray (100 ⫻ 20 cm) onto a
q(w) series of 10-cm wide strips next to the long side of the tray
Fw ⫽ ≈ 1 ⫺ exp(⫺1.30w/⌳). [11] (Poesen and Savat, 1981). The results are shown in Fig. 3;
q
the average splash lengths (⌳) derived from the exponential
This expression agrees within 1% with values calculated using curves that were fitted to the data were between 0.11 and
Eq. [10] for 1 ⬍ w/⌳ ⬍ 100. For 0.2 ⱕ w/⌳ ⱕ 1, the difference is 0.15 m. However, strictly speaking, Eq. [12c] could not be
still ⬍10%. In principle, the detachment rate can be calculated used in this case because the tray width was limited to 20 cm
from the results of soil tray experiments using the geometrical and numerical calculation is therefore needed. Cursory analy-
correction factor given by Eq. [11], but the average splash sis using Eq. [11] in combination with the determined ⌳ values
length (⌳) will need to be known. Its value may be derived suggests that total splash transport from the experimental
from measurements of splash over a range of distances, as tray would have been about 8 to 18% less than that from an
will be described below. Of course, Eq. [11] still assumes an infinitely large area. Similarly, the results of soil tray experi-
infinitely long tray. This problem will be approached with a ments (size 200 by 50 cm) by Torri et al. (1987) were described
numerical model further on. very well by exponential functions, the application of which
A situation analogous to the one described above concerns yielded average splash lengths of 0.10 to 0.12 m. In this case,
splash transport from an infinitely large source area on one application of Eq. [11] suggested an underestimation of true
side of a boundary, onto the area between distance 0 and X transport rate (q) of ⬍0.5%. The fact that simple exponential
from it, denoted here by q(⬍X). Because of the mathematical functions fitted the measurements so well in both cases offers
reciprocity of this situation compared to that of a tray of further support to the theory outlined above, although of
limited width, Eq. [8] and [11] can also be used here, substitut- course the distribution of splash very close to the source re-
ing X for w in the latter. In a similar manner, equations can mained unknown in these experiments.
be derived for splash beyond a distance X and splash between
distances X1 and X2, denoted by q(⬎X) and q(⌬X), respec-
tively. The resulting equations read:
APPLICATIONS
Splash from or onto a Rectangular Area
⌳␮
q(⬍X) ⫽ [1 ⫺ exp(⫺1.30X/⌳)] [12a] A more complicated situation arises when an area of
␲
both limited width and limited length is considered.
⌳␮ The question now is how the observed transport rates
q(⬎X) ⫽ exp(⫺1.30X/⌳) [12b]
␲ compare with true transport rates (q). Dimension analy-
⌳␮ sis shows that the three variables involved include the
q(⌬X) ⫽ [exp(⫺1.30X1/⌳) ⫺ [12c] average splash length (⌳) and the sides of the tray,
␲ denoted by A and B (see Fig. 4a). Furthermore, two
exp(⫺1.30X2/⌳)] dimensionless groups can be formed from these vari-
1470 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002
Fig. 4. Illustration of (a) the matrix used to model the distribution of particles splashed from a rectangular area (the meaning of the areas
labelled SCREEN and CORNER is explained in the text); (b) a soil tray bordered by a very wide collecting screen having the same length;
(c) a soil tray bordered by an infinitely large horizontal collecting screen; and (d) a soil tray bordered by a collector with vertical splash
guards on three sides.
ables by considering the ratios A/⌳ and B/⌳ or, more
conveniently, A/⌳ and A/B.
The problem was approached using a simple matrix
model involving the density function represented by Eq.
[1]. For the calculations, input values of ⌳, A/⌳, and
A/B were needed. Detachment rate (␮) was set at unity.
A matrix was constructed with elements of unit area
and of such a size that the edge of the matrix was at a
distance of five times ⌳ from the central tray on all
sides. Application of Eq. [12b] suggests that under these
conditions, ⬍0.15% of the amount of material splashed
from the tray would be unaccounted for. All elements
were given (x, y) coordinates and the elements repre-
senting the soil in the tray were labeled (Fig. 4a). For
each target matrix element (x1, y1), the amount of mate-
rial (per unit area) received from any source matrix
element (x2, y2) was calculated using Eq. [1] (provided
of course that the source element was part of the tray
area). As will be apparent from Eq. [1], calculations
cannot be made if the source and target area are one,
but this will not affect the final result since the source
(tray) and target (receiving) areas are always separate.
However, to allow a check on numerical errors in the
model, an accurate substitute value for this special case
was determined (details about the followed procedure
are available from the authors upon request). The out-
put of the model consists of a matrix in which the total
amount of material deposited on each element, ex-
pressed as a fraction of (unit) detachment rate, was
assigned to that element. As a control on numerical
errors, the total amount of material for the entire target
matrix was calculated and divided by the number of
source elements; the resulting value should be close to
unity. If the latter deviated by ⬎1%, the values of ⌳,
A, and B were doubled to reduce numerical errors, and
the model was run again.
The matrix model was used to find relationships be-
tween A/⌳ and A/B on the one hand, and transport rate
on the other, depending on the boundary conditions of
the problem. For example, consider a tray of soil with
a horizontal collecting screen on one side, having the
same length as the tray and a width of five times the
average splash length in the direction of the tray (numer-
ically, this will be virtually equal to a screen that effec-
tively extends infinitely in the direction of the tray; see
Fig. 4b). The total amount of material splashed onto
this screen (as a ratio to detachment rate) is obtained
by summing the amounts for all elements in the area
labeled “SCREEN” in Fig. 4a. This total was calculated
for a range of A/K and A/B values. The results were
then compared with transport rates (q) from an infi-
nitely large area of soil (Eq. [8], again using unit detach-
ment rate). The ratios of the two values listed in Table 1a
for various combinations of A/⌳ and A/B are shown in
Fig. 5a. These ratios can be used to correct the results
of experiments involving splash trays and screens for
their geometry.
Similarly, the total amount of material splashed from
the tray onto a larger screen extending to either side of
the area labeled SCREEN is obtained by summation
of all elements in the areas denoted SCREEN and
“CORNER” (Fig. 4a, c). Again, these values were calcu-
lated for a range of A/⌳ and A/B values and the corre-
sponding ratios to actual transport rate (q) are listed in
Table 1b and plotted in Fig. 5b. A third situation con-
cerns a tray having (on one side) a splash collector with
vertical guard screens on all other sides (Fig. 4d). The
guards intercept material that would otherwise be de-
posited beyond or next to it (Wan et al., 1996). In the
case of a square source tray with collectors on all sides,
it is not difficult to see that the amount of material
 VAN DIJK ET AL.: EXPONENTIAL SPLASH DISTRIBUTION THEORY 1471

Table 1. Geometrical correction factors for splash transport measured in tray experiments, for a range of tray dimensions (A and B)
and average splash lengths, ⌳. The length A of the considered side of the tray is made dimensionless through division by average
splash length ⌳, while tray dimensions are expressed in the aspect (A/B). The geometrical correction factor represents measured
transport as a fraction of transport from an infinitely large area. Factors are calculated for the situation of a tray equipped with (a)
a very wide screen having the same length as the side A of the tray and (b) an infinitely large screen.
(a) Finite screen (b) Infinite screen
A/B A/B
A/⌳ 1/2 2/3 1/1 3/2 2/1 1/2 2/3 1/1 3/2 2/1 A/⌳
0.1 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.1
0.2 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.2
0.5 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.72 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.28 0.5
1 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.24 0.21 0.91 0.83 0.73 0.55 0.47 1
2 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.47 0.42 0.99 0.97 0.91 0.79 0.71 2
5 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 5
10 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10
25 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25
50 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50
100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100

intercepted by one splash collector and its guards should Because of mathematical reciprocity, Eq. [14] is valid
be equal to the sum of elements in the area denoted for both ejecting and receiving splash cups. However, it
SCREEN plus half the elements in the two areas de- proved very difficult to evaluate Eq. [14] in an analytical
noted CORNER in Fig. 4a. Clearly, this will not change manner and therefore again a numerical model was
if the other collectors are removed. However, if the tray constructed, similar to the one described for a rectangu-
is rectangular instead of square, the solution becomes lar source area. The representation of a circular area in
less straightforward. Nevertheless, as long as A/⌳ and a matrix introduced additional numerical errors, but
B/⌳ are sufficiently large, the rate of transport can be
calculated in the same manner without introducing large
errors. Consequently, the correction factor needed for
this type of experiment can be approximated by averag-
ing the correction factors for the appropriate combina-
tion of A/B and A/⌳ values listed in Table 1a and 1b, re-
spectively.

Splash from or into a Round Cup

In studies with splash cups, it is important to know the
relationship between the cup splash rate mR (i.e., the
amount of material splashed into or out of a cup of ra-
dius R per unit area of cup, in g m⫺2) and the detachment
rate (␮). In principle, the mass (M[⬎r], in g m⫺2) that
is splashed beyond a radial distance r of a small unit
source area is easily obtained by integration of Eq. [2]:
∞
␮
M (⬎r) ⫽ 冮 dr⬘ ⌳ exp(⫺r⬘/⌳) ⫽ ␮exp(⫺r/⌳). [13]
r

However, a circular source area represents a population

of individual sources whose distance to the perimeter
is a function of direction (except for the very center
point), and this complicates the calculation of the distri-
bution of splashed material. Torri and Poesen (1988)
attempted a combined analytical and numerical solution
to this problem and presented a table listing the factors
that relate detachment rate to cup diameter and average
splash length. However, similar to the approach fol-
lowed for the case of a rectangular soil tray, it may be
seen that cup radius R and average splash length (⌳)
can be combined into one dimensionless variable, R/⌳.
Furthermore, the cup splash rate (mR) can be expressed Fig. 5. Splash transport onto (a) a wide screen having the same length
as a side A, and (b) an infinitely large screen, both placed along
as a function of R/⌳ and detachment rate (␮), to yield a side A of a tray with dimensions A and B, as a function of the
the geometrical cup splash correction factor Fr: dimensionless length of that side, A/K, and for a number of different
values of the aspect (A/B ) of the tray. Splash transport was made
mR
FR ⫽ ⫽ f (R/⌳). [14] dimensionless by expressing it as a fraction of the transport from
␮ an infinitely large area of soil.
1472 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002
Fig. 6. Relationship between dimensionless cup radius R/K and the
amount of soil splashed out of the cup, expressed as a fraction of
the total amount of detached sediment (FR ).
these can be reduced by increasing the radius of the
source area. As a control on these errors, the number
of source elements representing the cup area was com-
pared with the theoretical area (␲R2) for each model
run. If the difference was ⬍0.5% the result was accepted,
otherwise the values of both R and ⌳ were doubled
and the model was run again. The summed amounts of
material deposited outside the circular source area were
calculated and divided by the sum for all elements to
determine the geometrical correction factor, FR, for
splash from or into a cup of radius R.
When plotted on a semilogarithmic scale, the results
indicate an S-shaped function (Fig. 6). For low values
of R/⌳, the results approach those of Eq. [13] and, conse-
quently, FR approaches unity. For high values of R/⌳,
on the other hand, the fact that the area is not infinitely
large becomes progressively less important and eventu-
ally the situation approaches that of splash across the
boundary of an (effectively) infinitely large circular
area, AR. The total length of the boundary equals the
circumference of this circle, while transport rate (q)
across the boundary is defined by Eq. [8]. In that case,
cup splash rate out of or into a cup of radius R (mR, g
m⫺2) is given by:
mR(∞) q ⫻ 2␲R
FR (∞) ⫽ ⫽ of all particles ejected from the point of impact, or
␮AR ␮ ⫻ ␲R2
1 sumed that these distributions and the amounts of parti-
⌳␮ ⫻ 2␲R
␲ 2 ⌳.
⫽ ⫽ [15]
␮ ⫻ ␲R 2
␲R
Again, this equation only depends on the ratio of R to
⌳ and not on their absolute values. Using the boundary
conditions stated above, it was found empirically that
the model results were well described by:
FR ⫽
mR
␮ 冤
⫽ 1 ⫺ exp ⫺ 冢
␲ R 2 ⌳.
2 ⌳ ␲R 冣冥 [16]
Predictions by Eq. [16] agreed with the numerical model
results within 4% (Fig. 6). Probably a significant part
of this difference relates to numerical errors within the
model itself. Predictions of splash transport based on
Fig. 7. Application of the theory for interpreting splash cup data (Eq.
[16]) to data collected by Poesen and Torri (1988). The exponential
equation proposed by Poesen and Torri (1988) is shown for com-
parison. mR ⫽ cup splash rate, R ⫽ radius.
Eq. [16] were compared with the measurements of
Poesen and Torri (1988), who used receiving splash
cups. As shown in Fig. 7, Eq. [16] fits the experimental
data slightly better than the exponential function pro-
posed by the authors themselves. Whereas they inferred
a detachment rate of 790 g m⫺2 and an average splash
length of 0.060 m (Poesen and Torri, 1988; Torri and
Poesen, 1988), Eq. [16] yielded values of 950 g m⫺2 and
0.035 m, respectively. It should be noted, however, that
the exponential function derived by Torri and Poesen
(1988) is not compatible with the theoretical require-
ment that an inverse relationship (mR ⵑ 1/R) is ap-
proached for large cup sizes.
Splash on a Sloping Surface
A number of problems arise when the theory devel-
oped above is applied to splash on a slope. For ballistic
reasons alone, a particle that is splashed downslope will
travel a longer horizontal distance before meeting the
soil surface again, compared with a particle that is
splashed upslope. In principle, the resulting anisotropic
distribution of particles can be calculated using conven-
tional ballistic equations, but this requires knowledge
of the distribution of vertical angles and initial velocities
assumptions about these. Moreover, it needs to be as-
cles splashed do not vary in the different horizontal
directions. These assumptions fail to describe the actual
characteristics of splash on a slope. Laboratory experi-
ments by Ghadiri and Payne (1988) demonstrated that,
compared with splash on a horizontal surface, splash
on sloping surfaces (i) produced droplets with a lower
average vertical splash angle in the downward direction,
and a higher angle in the upslope direction; (ii) produced
droplets with comparable velocity distributions in all
directions; (iii) detached similar amounts of particles as
drops falling on a horizontal slope; yet, (iv) produced
more large droplets splashing in the downslope direc-
tion, carrying more detached particles than droplets
splashed upslope.
 VAN DIJK ET AL.: EXPONENTIAL SPLASH DISTRIBUTION THEORY
Clearly, extremely detailed information on the distri-
bution of particles in all vertical and horizontal direc-
tions as well as the corresponding initial velocities would
be needed to develop a mathematical framework for
splash on a slope. To make matters worse, the experi-
ments of Ghadiri and Payne (1988) also demonstrated
that the effect of slope on the splash process varies,
depending on the material involved. This suggests a
wide range of possible slope ⫺ (net) splash transport
relationships, and indeed a considerable number of such
relationships has been reported for different soil types
(Foster and Martin, 1969; de Ploey, 1969; Mosley, 1973;
Moeyersons and de Ploey, 1976; Quansah, 1981; Sa-
vat, 1981).
An alternative, more pragmatic approach is to use
the equations derived earlier for a horizontal surface to
interpret measurements of splash on a slope and to
try and obtain an estimate of the error involved. For
example, consider measurements made using a series
of long compartments, placed perpendicularly to the
slope gradient, to measure downslope or upslope splash
transport, or along the slope gradient to measure lateral
splash transport. By interpreting these measurements
using one-dimensional theory (Eq. [12a–c]), different
apparent average splash lengths will be obtained for
each direction in which transport was measured. This
apparent directional splash length represents a mass-
weighted average of the respective average directional
splash lengths of particles splashed in the various hori-
zontal directions. An error is likely to be introduced if
these apparent splash lengths and observed transport
rates are used to estimate detachment rate using Eq.
[8]. Arguably, the most important source of error lies
in the preferential splash of particles downslope. The
order of magnitude of this error can be investigated
analytically. For the special case that all detached parti-
cles are splashed downslope, with equal amounts of
particles still being splashed in all downslope directions,
it is readily shown that detachment rate estimated with
Eq. [8], using measurements of downslope splash, will
result in an overestimate of twice the actual value. It
can also be shown that detachment rate determined
from lateral splash measurements will still be correct.
If the radial distribution of particles is even more asym-
metrical than this, the associated error will be greater.
The extreme situation is represented by a situation in
which all particles are splashed at very small angles
to the slope gradient; in that case, lateral and upslope
transport are virtually and absolutely absent, respec-
tively. Furthermore, it may be assumed that the distribu-
tion function for splash from a narrow strip perpendicu-
lar to the slope gradient, becomes the one-sided function
␮ ship between the two proved surprisingly simple and
exp冢⫺⌳↓冣
x
Mdown (x) ⫽ (x ⬎ 0), [17]
⌳↓
where ⌳↓ is the weighted-average downslope splash
length, x is the distance downslope from the source area,
and Mdown(x) (in g m⫺3) is the splash mass per unit of
distance per unit source area. Following an approach
that is more or less similar to the one described with
1473
regard to the FSDF (but less complex), the relationship
between transport rate (q) and detachment rate (␮) can
be evaluated. Eventually, this relationship is given by:
␮ ∞ ∞ x⫹x⬘
q⫽
⌳↓
冮 dx 冮 dx⬘exp冢⫺ ⌳ 冣 ⫽ ␮⌳↓.
↓
[18]
0 0
Results obtained with Eq. [18] can be compared with
those of Eq. [8], but it should be noted that if splash
has indeed become entirely one-dimensional as de-
scribed by Eq. [17], then interpreting the splash mea-
surements with radial theory will yield an apparent
splash length that differs from the actual average down-
slope splash length (K↓) by a factor of ≈1.30 (Eq. [12a–
c]). Eventually, the maximum relative difference be-
tween apparent detachment rate (␮a) found using Eq.
[12a–c] and true detachment rate (␮) based on Eq. [18]
is given by:
␮a ␲q ⌳↓
≈ ≈ 2.42. [19]
␮ 1.30⌳↓ q
It follows that detachment rate estimated from measure-
ments of downslope splash using the radially isotropic
theory for splash on a horizontal plane can be up to
2.42 times higher than the actual detachment rate (in
contrast, measurements of upslope and lateral splash
will yield an underestimate that, in theory, can become
infinitely large). Uncertainties from these considera-
tions are less than variations in the detachability of dif-
ferent soils (defined as the detachment per unit erosive
energy input), which cover several orders of magnitude
(Poesen and Savat, 1981; Poesen and Torri, 1988).
Therefore, despite the error involved, measurements of
downslope, upslope, and lateral splash transport and
the associated apparent splash lengths on a sloping sur-
face may still be interpreted with the theory developed
in this paper, and will result in useful (albeit initial)
estimates of detachment rate.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present theoretical study shows that experiments
to determine detachment and transport by rain splash
must take into account the spatial distribution of the
splashed particles. There is considerable empirical evi-
dence to suggest that an exponential FSDF adequately
describes reality. On the basis of the FSDF, a theory was
developed that facilitates the interpretation of various
kinds of splash measurements. Several theoretical appli-
cations of the FSDF compared very well with results of
experiments involving splash cups and splash trays. It
is evident from the theory that the rate of splash detach-
ment (␮) and observed rates of splash transport (q)
constitute two different entities. However, the relation-
only requires knowledge of the average splash length
(⌳). A number of equations and correction factors are
presented that can be used to interpret the results of
splash experiments on a horizontal surface. The distri-
bution of splashed particles is anisotropic on a slope
and, consequently, splash experiments become more
difficult to interpret. It was shown that one-dimensional
1474 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002
(i.e., downslope, upslope, or lateral) measurements of
splash transport may still be interpreted using the pro-
posed theory, but the magnitude of the uncertainty in-
volved increases with slope.
The geometry of splash experiments is shown to have
a significant effect on the results. The use of soil trays
introduces edge effects, and correction factors for these
were proposed. However, the use of these correction
factors for tilted trays leads to errors that increase with
slope gradient. In such cases, the tray should be suffi-
ciently large to minimize edge effects. Furthermore, the
distribution of splash distances needs to be known, for
example, through the use of segmented splash collec-
tors, boards, or screens (Savat and Poesen, 1981). Simi-
larly, splash transport rates measurements using receiv-
ing splash cups can only be interpreted correctly if cups
of different sizes are used (Poesen and Torri, 1988). In
the case of ejecting cups, the distribution of material
splashed from the cups also needs to be measured; for
example, through the use of a series of concentric ring
collectors (Riezebos and Epema, 1985).
The practical application of the presently proposed
theory to field measurements using splash cups on sub-
horizontal terrace beds and splash boards on steep, bare
terrace risers in Java, Indonesia, as well as experiments
involving soil trays similar to those used by Wan et al.
(1996) are dealt with in two separate papers (van Dijk
et al., 2002a,b).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was performed within the framework of the Ciku-
mutuk Hydrology and Erosion Research Project (CHERP,
http://www.geo.vu.nl/苲geomil) in Malangbong, West Java, In-
donesia. A.I.J.M. van Dijk was supported by a grant from the
Netherlands Foundation for the Advancement of Tropical
Research (WOTRO, grant no. W76-193), which is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I.A. Stegun. 1965. Handbook of mathematical
functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables. Dover
Publications, New York.
Bolline, A. 1975. La mesure de l’intensité du splash sur sol limoneux.
Mise au point d’une technique de terrain et premiers résultats.
Pédologie 25:199–210.
de Ploey, J. 1969. L’érosion pluviale: Experiences à l’aide de sables
traceurs et bilans morphogéniques. Acta Geogr. Lovaniensia 7:1–28.
Al-Durrah, M.M., and J.M. Bradford. 1982. The mechanism of rain-
drop splash on soil surfaces. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:1086–1090.
Al-Durrah, M.M., and J.M. Bradford. 1981. New methods of studying
soil detachment due to waterdrop impact. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
45:949–953.
Ellison, W.D. 1944. Studies of raindrop erosion. Agric. Eng. 25:131–
136, 181–182.
Ellison, W.D. 1947. Soil erosion studies—Part V. Soil transportation
in the splash process. Agric. Eng. 28:349–351.
Farmer, E.E. 1973. Relative detachability of soil particles by simulated
rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:629–633.
Farrell, D.A., W.C. Moldenhauer, and W.E. Larson. 1974. Splash
correction factors for soil erosion studies. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
38:510–514.
Foster, R.L., and G.L. Martin. 1969. Effects of unit weight and slope
on erosion. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 95(IR4):551–561.
Gabriels, D., and W.C. Moldenhauer. 1978. Size distribution of eroded
material from simulated rainfall: Effect over a range of textures.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:954–958.
Ghadiri, H., and D. Payne. 1988. The formation and characteristics
of splash following raindrop impact on soil. J. Soil. Sci. 39:563–575.
Huang, C., J.M. Bradford, and J.H. Cushman. 1982. A numerical study
of raindrop impact phenomena: the rigid case. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 46:14–19.
Huang, C., J.M. Bradford, and J.H. Cushman. 1983. A numerical study
of raindrop impact phenomena: the elastic deformation case. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:855–861.
Hudson, N.W. 1995. Soil conservation. 3rd ed. Batsford Ltd., London.
Kinnell, P.I.A. 1974. Splash erosion: Some observations on the splash
cup technique. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38:657–660.
Kinnell, P.I.A. 1982. Laboratory studies on the effect of drop size on
splash erosion. Agric. Eng. Res. 27:431–439.
Kwaad, F. 1977. Measurements of rainsplash erosion and the forma-
tion of colluvium beneath deciduous woodland in the Luxemburg
Ardennes. Earth Surf. Processes 2:161–173.
Moeyersons, J., and J. de Ploey. 1976. Quantative data on splash
erosion, simulated on unvegetated slopes. Zeitschr. Geomorphol.
Suppl. Band 25:120–131.
Mosley, M.P. 1973. Rainsplash and the convexity of badland divides.
Zeitschr. Geomorphol. Suppl. Band 18:10–25.
Poesen, J., and J. Savat. 1981. Detachment and transportation of loose
sediments by raindrop splash. Part II: Detachability and transport-
ability measurements. Catena 8:19–41.
Poesen, J., and D. Torri. 1988. The effect of cup size on splash detach-
ment and transport measurements. Part II: Field measurements.
Catena Suppl. 12:113–126.
Quansah, C. 1981. The effect of soil type, rain intensity and their in-
teractions on splash detachment and transport. J. Soil Sci. 32:215–223.
Riezebos, H.T., and G.F. Epema. 1985. Drop shape and erosivity.
Part II. Splash detachment, transport and erosivity indices. Earth
Surf. Processes Landforms 10:69–74.
Rose, C.W. 1960. Soil detachment caused by rainfall. Soil Sci. 89:28–35.
Savat, J. 1981. Work done by splash: Laboratory experiments. Earth
Surf. Processes Landforms 6:275–283.
Savat, J., and J. Poesen. 1981. Detachment and transportation of loose
sediments by raindrop splash. Part I: The calculation of absolute
data on detachability and transportability. Catena 8:1–17.
Sharma, P.P., and S.C. Gupta. 1989. Sand detachment by single rain-
drops of varying kinetic energy and momentum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 53:1005–1010.
Sreenivas, L., J. Johnston, and H. Hill. 1947. Some relationships of
vegetation and soil detachment in the erosion process. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 12:471–474.
Torri, D., and J. Poesen. 1988. The effect of cup size on splash detach-
ment and transport measurements. Part II: Theoretical approach.
Catena Suppl. 12:127–137.
Torri, D., M. Sfalanga, and M. Del Sette. 1987. Splash detachment:
Runoff depth and soil cohesion. Catena 14:149–155.
van Dijk, A.I.J.M., L.A. Bruijnzeel, and E.H. Eisma. 2002. A method-
ology to study rain splash and wash processes under natural rainfall.
Hydrol. Process. (in press).
van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Bruijnzeel, L.A., and Wiegman, S.E. 2002. Mea-
surements of rain splash on bench terraces in a humid tropical
steepland environment. Hydrol. Process. (in press).
Wan, Y., S.A. El-Swaify, and R.A. Sutherland. 1996. Partitioning
interrill splash and wash dynamics: A novel laboratory approach.
Soil Technol. 9:55–69.