Parallel Plates Compared with Conventional Rods as TDR Waveguides for Sensing Soil Moisture

Dielectric methods of estimating the water content of soils, especially TDR, have become accepted as routine measurement techniques. Basic to the TDR technique is the waveguide, which is inserted into the soil for obtaining measurements of the effective soil permittivity, from which water content is estimated. In this study we compare the use of flat stainless steel plates with cylindrical stainless steel rods. We suggest that the use of plates gives a more even distribution of electromagnetic energy within the soil volume sampled and reduces the so called ``skin effect'' where the electromagnetic energy is concentrated close to the surface of the electrodes. Plates will not be suitable for all measurement purposes but wherever they can be applied they should result in more representative measurements from the medium under investigation. Calculations of electrical field intensity are presented to compare the relative energy density between the electrodes. Field and laboratory studies were alsoconducted considering some of the practicalities of using the alternative waveguides.

[1]  S. Zegelin,et al.  Improved field probes for soil water content and electrical conductivity measurement using time domain reflectometry , 1989 .

[2]  M. Ghodrati,et al.  COMPARISON OF TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETRY, FIBER OPTIC MINI-PROBES, AND SOLUTION SAMPLERS FOR REAL TIME MEASUREMENT OF SOLUTE TRANSPORT IN SOIL , 1999 .

[3]  W. R. Whalley Considerations on the use of time‐domain reflectometry (TDR) for measuring soil water content , 1993 .

[4]  J. Knight Sensitivity of time domain reflectometry measurements to lateral variations in soil water content , 1992 .

[5]  R. Kachanoski,et al.  A numerical analysis of the effects of coatings and gaps upon relative dielectric permittivity measurement with time domain reflectometry , 1997 .

[6]  John S. Selker,et al.  Using short soil moisture probes with high-bandwidth time domain reflectometry instruments , 1995 .

[7]  J. Baker,et al.  THE SPATIAL SENSITIVITY OF TIME‐DOMAIN REFLECTOMETRY , 1989 .

[8]  T. Heimovaara Design of Triple‐Wire Time Domain Reflectometry Probes in Practice and Theory , 1993 .

[9]  Tammo S. Steenhuis,et al.  Noninvasive Time Domain Reflectometry Moisture Measurement Probe , 1993 .

[10]  S. Friedman A saturation degree‐dependent composite spheres model for describing the effective dielectric constant of unsaturated porous media , 1998 .

[11]  C. Dirksen,et al.  IMPROVED CALIBRATION OF TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETRY SOIL WATER CONTENT MEASUREMENTS , 1993 .

[12]  J. Heilman,et al.  Measurements of Soil Water Content, Heat Capacity, and Thermal Conductivity with a Single Tdr PROBE1 , 1996 .

[13]  Willem Bouten,et al.  Frequency domain analysis of time domain reflectometry waveforms: 2. A four‐component complex dielectric mixing model for soils , 1994 .

[14]  N. Livingston,et al.  Remote diode shorting improves measurement of soil water by time domain reflectometry. , 1992 .

[15]  A. P. Annan,et al.  Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines , 1980 .

[16]  David E. Elrick,et al.  Soil water content and potential measured by hollow time domain reflectometry probe , 1994 .

[17]  G. C. Topp,et al.  Time-Domain Reflectometry (TDR) and Its Application to Irrigation Scheduling* , 1985 .

[18]  Allan J. Delaney,et al.  Dielectric properties of soils at UHF and microwave frequencies 36R. J. Geophys. Res. V79, N11, Apr. 1974, P1699–1708 , 1974 .