A numerically based analysis of the sensitivity of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes

Paul A Ferre, J. H. Knight, D. L. Rudolph, R. G. Kachanoski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Conventional time domain reflectometry (TDR)probes are comprised of two or three parallel metal rods. Other probes have been designed for water content profiling [Hook et al., 1992; Ferre et al., 1998b; Redman and DeRyck, 1994], surface water content measurement [White and Zegelin, 1992; Selker et al., 1993], or measurement in electrically conductive media. We use the numerical approach of Knight et al. [1997] to predict the responses of variants of these probes when surrounded by materials with different relative dielectric permittivities. These predictions are compared with published calibration curves and analytical solutions where available. Conventional rods are shown to be most sensitive to changes in the water content of the medium. The Hook et al. [1992] probe shows the highest sensitivity of the alternative designs; both surface probes can be used to measure the water content at the soil surface nonintrusively with similar sensitivities. All of the alternative probes have sensitivities that vary with the soil water content, leading to incorrect averaging of the water content if the water content varies along the probes. However, those probes that place nonmetallic components in series with the soil have more pronounced errors than those that place these materials and the soil more nearly in parallel.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2461-2468
Number of pages8
JournalWater Resources Research
Volume36
Issue number9
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

time domain reflectometry
probes (equipment)
Water content
probe
water content
Soils
soil
analysis
permittivity
Surface waters
soil water content
surface water
soil surface
Permittivity
calibration
Metals
soil water
metals
Calibration
prediction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aquatic Science
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

A numerically based analysis of the sensitivity of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes. / Ferre, Paul A; Knight, J. H.; Rudolph, D. L.; Kachanoski, R. G.

In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 36, No. 9, 2000, p. 2461-2468.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ferre, Paul A ; Knight, J. H. ; Rudolph, D. L. ; Kachanoski, R. G. / A numerically based analysis of the sensitivity of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes. In: Water Resources Research. 2000 ; Vol. 36, No. 9. pp. 2461-2468.
@article{e4fbc4ee159046ab898616213e47c184,
title = "A numerically based analysis of the sensitivity of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes",
abstract = "Conventional time domain reflectometry (TDR)probes are comprised of two or three parallel metal rods. Other probes have been designed for water content profiling [Hook et al., 1992; Ferre et al., 1998b; Redman and DeRyck, 1994], surface water content measurement [White and Zegelin, 1992; Selker et al., 1993], or measurement in electrically conductive media. We use the numerical approach of Knight et al. [1997] to predict the responses of variants of these probes when surrounded by materials with different relative dielectric permittivities. These predictions are compared with published calibration curves and analytical solutions where available. Conventional rods are shown to be most sensitive to changes in the water content of the medium. The Hook et al. [1992] probe shows the highest sensitivity of the alternative designs; both surface probes can be used to measure the water content at the soil surface nonintrusively with similar sensitivities. All of the alternative probes have sensitivities that vary with the soil water content, leading to incorrect averaging of the water content if the water content varies along the probes. However, those probes that place nonmetallic components in series with the soil have more pronounced errors than those that place these materials and the soil more nearly in parallel.",
author = "Ferre, {Paul A} and Knight, {J. H.} and Rudolph, {D. L.} and Kachanoski, {R. G.}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "2461--2468",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A numerically based analysis of the sensitivity of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes

AU - Ferre, Paul A

AU - Knight, J. H.

AU - Rudolph, D. L.

AU - Kachanoski, R. G.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Conventional time domain reflectometry (TDR)probes are comprised of two or three parallel metal rods. Other probes have been designed for water content profiling [Hook et al., 1992; Ferre et al., 1998b; Redman and DeRyck, 1994], surface water content measurement [White and Zegelin, 1992; Selker et al., 1993], or measurement in electrically conductive media. We use the numerical approach of Knight et al. [1997] to predict the responses of variants of these probes when surrounded by materials with different relative dielectric permittivities. These predictions are compared with published calibration curves and analytical solutions where available. Conventional rods are shown to be most sensitive to changes in the water content of the medium. The Hook et al. [1992] probe shows the highest sensitivity of the alternative designs; both surface probes can be used to measure the water content at the soil surface nonintrusively with similar sensitivities. All of the alternative probes have sensitivities that vary with the soil water content, leading to incorrect averaging of the water content if the water content varies along the probes. However, those probes that place nonmetallic components in series with the soil have more pronounced errors than those that place these materials and the soil more nearly in parallel.

AB - Conventional time domain reflectometry (TDR)probes are comprised of two or three parallel metal rods. Other probes have been designed for water content profiling [Hook et al., 1992; Ferre et al., 1998b; Redman and DeRyck, 1994], surface water content measurement [White and Zegelin, 1992; Selker et al., 1993], or measurement in electrically conductive media. We use the numerical approach of Knight et al. [1997] to predict the responses of variants of these probes when surrounded by materials with different relative dielectric permittivities. These predictions are compared with published calibration curves and analytical solutions where available. Conventional rods are shown to be most sensitive to changes in the water content of the medium. The Hook et al. [1992] probe shows the highest sensitivity of the alternative designs; both surface probes can be used to measure the water content at the soil surface nonintrusively with similar sensitivities. All of the alternative probes have sensitivities that vary with the soil water content, leading to incorrect averaging of the water content if the water content varies along the probes. However, those probes that place nonmetallic components in series with the soil have more pronounced errors than those that place these materials and the soil more nearly in parallel.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033862770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033862770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033862770

VL - 36

SP - 2461

EP - 2468

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - 9

ER -