Accuracy of Bulk Electrical Conductivity Measurements with Time Domain Reflectometry

Accurate determination of bulk electrical conductivity with time domain reflectometry (TDR) requires calibration or direct measurement of the probe constant and the cable resistance. The aims of this study were threefold. First, the accuracy of an analytical expression for the direct determination of the probe constant was evaluated for three TDR probe designs by comparing the analytical result with the probe constant obtained by calibration to TDR measurements in solutions with varying electrical conductivity. Second, the accuracy of direct measurement of cable resistance was compared with the accuracy that can be achieved by calibrating this resistance. The uncertainty in directly measured and calibrated probe and cable properties was determined in a Monte Carlo analysis. The results showed that the analytical expression for the probe constant and calibration of the probe constant do not provide significantly different estimates when the uncertainty in both approaches is considered; however, the uncertainty in the calibrated probe constants was lower than or similar to the uncertainty in the direct measurements. Directly measured and calibrated cable resistance differed, which was attributed to recording time issues. It was concluded that calibration of probe and cable parameters should be preferred over direct measurements to achieve accurate bulk electrical conductivity measurements. The final aim of this study was to quantify how the various sources of uncertainty identified in this study affect the accuracy of TDR bulk conductivity measurements. This uncertainty analysis showed that the accuracy of TDR ranges between 0.6 and 1.2% of the bulk electrical conductivity if the reflection coefficient varies between −0.75 and 0.75. Outside this range, the accuracy of the bulk electrical conductivity measurements made with TDR is lower.

[1]  Steven R. Evett,et al.  Response to “Comments on ‘TDR Laboratory Calibration in Travel Time, Bulk Electrical Conductivity, and Effective Frequency’” , 2006 .

[2]  Johan Alexander Huisman,et al.  Clarification and Calibration of Reflection Coefficient for Electrical Conductivity Measurement by Time Domain Reflectometry , 2008 .

[3]  C. Reece Simple Method for Determining Cable Length Resistance in Time Domain Reflectometry Systems , 1998 .

[4]  K. Giese,et al.  Determination of the complex permittivity from thin-sample time domain reflectometry improved analysis of the step response waveform , 1975 .

[5]  W. Bouten,et al.  Comparison of calibration and direct measurement of cable and probe properties in Time Domain Reflectometry , 1999 .

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

[7]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[8]  Marnik Vanclooster,et al.  Comparison of three methods to calibrate TDR for monitoring solute movement in undisturbed soil , 1996 .

[9]  Willem Bouten,et al.  Assessing temporal variations in soil water composition with time domain reflectometry , 1995 .

[10]  Chih-Ping Lin,et al.  Accurate time domain reflectometry measurement of electrical conductivity accounting for cable resistance and recording time , 2007 .

[11]  Steven R. Evett,et al.  Time Domain Reflectometry Laboratory Calibration in Travel Time, Bulk Electrical Conductivity, and Effective Frequency , 2005 .

[12]  Johan Alexander Huisman,et al.  Comments on “Time Domain Reflectometry Laboratory Calibration in Travel Time, Bulk Electrical Conductivity, and Effective Frequency” , 2006 .

[13]  James A. R. Ball Characteristic impedance of unbalanced TDR probes , 2002, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas..

[14]  John Knight,et al.  The sample areas of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes , 1998 .

[15]  Peter J. Shouse,et al.  The Effect of Ohmic Cable Losses on Time-Domain Reflectometry Measurements of Electrical Conductivity , 2003 .