Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 21: 243–258, 2003.

243
# 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Technical Note

Electrical conductivity problems associated with


time-domain reflectometry (TDR) measurement
in geotechnical engineering

M. A. MOJID 1, G. C. L. WYSEURE2? and D. A. ROSE3


1
Department of Irrigation and Water Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh – 2202, Bangladesh
2
Faculty of Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences, K. U. Leuven,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 21, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium
3
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, U.K.
(Received 17 April 2001; revised 20 August 2002; accepted 6 November 2002)

Abstract. The effect of electrical conductivity (EC) of a dielectric material on its TDR-mea-
sured dielectric constant ea (called the apparent dielectric constant) was investigated both theo-
retically and experimentally. The effect of EC on the apparent dielectric constant eawas more
pronounced at low frequency of the electromagnetic pulse applied to measure ea. The assump-
tion of neglecting electrical losses in measuring the dielectric constant by TDR to represent er
was not valid for dielectric materials containing free charges, such as electrolyte solutions, ben-
tonite clay, and saline soils. A theory is proposed to separate the real part of the dielectric con-
stant er from the TDR-measured ea in lossy dielectrics. An EC – er relationship can be
developed that would provide ea ( ¼ er) at EC ¼ 0 to be used to determine soil-water contents
in conductive soils.
Na-bentonite mixed with distilled water resulted in considerable magnitude of bulk EC due
to the adsorbed cations on the surface of the particles. This EC caused energy loss of the TDR
pulse that depended on the length of the probe rod. For a 4.5 cm long probe, the reflected
TDR waveform was completely attenuated for EC between 3.05 dS m1 and 3.72 dS m1.
The waveforms generated in this range of EC were not suitable for analysis by TDR-support
software for dielectric constant. With the adsorbed cations, Na-bentonite behaved as a lossy
or dispersive material.
Key words. dielectric constant, dielectrics, electrical conductivity, time-domain reflectometry.

1. Introduction
Time-domain reflectometry (TDR) has become a recognized electromagnetic method
for nondestructive measurement of dielectric constant and electrical conductivity of
liquids and moist porous materials simultaneously with the same probe. The TDR-

? Corresponding author: Tel: þ32/16/32 9661, Fax: þ32/16/32 1964,


e-mail: guido.wyseure@agr.kuleuven.ac.be.
244 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

measured ea represents the real part of the dielectric constant er in nonconductive/


lossless dielectric materials where the dielectric loss due to polarization is negligible
within the frequency bandwidth of TDR. The elctrical conductivity (EC) of a lossy
dielectric material causes an increase in the total electrical loss (represented by a loss
tangent tan d) at a rate higher than that at which it reduces er with a resultant
increase in ea [ ¼ er f1 þ ð1 þ tan2 dÞ1=2 g=2]. The TDR technique, although popular
with soil scientists and hydrologists, is relatively new in the field of geotechnical engi-
neering. The real part of the dielectric constant of wet soil, being an indicator of soil-
water content, is an important parameter for the study of many engineering proper-
ties of soils such as liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limit, shear strength and dry
density. This is because these soil properties vary with water content in the soil,
which is related to the dielectric constant. However, currently there is no easy and
reliable technique for the measurement of dielectric constant available to geotechni-
cal engineers. Because of this limitation in measurement, the role of dielectric con-
stant on the engineering behavior of soils could not be studied fully. Recently,
Siddiqui et al. (2000) described some aspects of TDR for geotechnical
measurement. Only proper use of the TDR can provide a reliable measurement of
dielectric constant to study the geotechnical behavior of soils.
Fellner-Feldeg (1969) first applied TDR to measure the dielectric constant of
liquid, and Davis and Chudobiak (1975) measured that of wet soils. Dalton et
al. (1984) applied TDR to measure bulk soil EC. Topp et al. (1980) found an
empirical correlation between TDR-measured apparent dielectric constant ea and
volumetric soil-water content y that works well for a large number of relatively
coarse textured soils and is popular among TDR users. Zegelin et al. (1989) exten-
ded the use of TDR to different practical situations by providing the design cri-
teria of probes based on the distribution of electrical potential around the
probe. Siddiqui et al. (2000) suggested an alternative probe design that used a
detachable template with guide holes to align and guide the probe suitably for geo-
technical measurement. They evaluated the measurement error in dielectric con-
stant caused by the change in density and air gap due to the insertion of a
probe into the soil.
Energy loss is a constitutive factor of the dielectric constant of a material, but the
TDR method measures the dielectric constant based on the assumption that there is
insignificant loss of energy in the material. Mojid (1996), Wyseure et al. (1997), and
Robinson et al. (1999) reported that TDR overestimates water content in saline
soils by overestimating the real part of the dielectric constant. A complete treatment
of the effect of EC on the TDR measurement is needed to exploit the full potential
of the promising TDR technique. Such information is essential to those, including
geotechnical engineers, dealing with saline soils. This study was designed to inves-
tigate, both theoretically and experimentally, the effect on TDR measurement of
electrical conductivity of dielectric materials due to free charges in the materials.
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 245

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. DIELECTRICS AND DIELECTRIC CONSTANT

Dielectrics (also known as insulators) are electrically neutral materials with their
positive and negative charges bound in position by atomic and molecular forces.
They become charged when polarized by an induced electric field. The induced
charges cannot migrate through the dielectrics as in conductors and semi-conduc-
tors. In dielectrics, there are gaps between the filled and empty energy levels for the
distribution of electrons in atoms. These gaps offer resistance to the movement of
the electrons by the external electric field. However, a strong electric field (the
strength depending on particular dielectric material) enables the electrons to move
and causes dielectric breakdown. All dielectrics, when polarized, store a certain
amount of electrical energy by shifting the relative positions of the internal bound
positive and negative charges against the molecular and atomic forces. This energy
produces dielectric fluxes and, hence, an electric field in the dielectrics. A measure
of this induced electric field is the dielectric permittivity, e0 (F m1), which is a
function of the frequency of the applied electric field. The dielectric permittivity
when expressed relative to the dielectric permittivity of free space, e0 (8.85
1012 F m1) is popularly known as the dielectric constant, although it is not actu-
ally a constant.
Dielectric permittivity e0 is a complex quantity with a real part e0 r (F m1) and an
imaginary part e0 i (F m1). The real part is a measure of the electrical energy stored in
dielectrics at a given frequency and the imaginary part represents the rate of dissipa-
tion of energy or the dielectric loss. At low frequencies of the applied electric field,
the induced charges in the particles of dielectrics reorientate, but, at high frequencies,
the particles deform (Clemmow, 1973). The inertia of the charged particles exerts a
force that resists the displacement of the particles. This force tends to prevent the
particles from keeping them in phase with the applied electric field and leads to a fric-
tional damping mechanism that causes loss of power in dielectrics (Cheng, 1989).
Presence of any free charges in dielectrics also causes loss of power due to conduc-
tion. Both the frictional loss and conductive loss are included in the imaginary part
of the dielectric permittivity. The complex dielectric permittivity, e0 , is expressed as
(Cheng, 1989):
 
0 s0
e ¼ e0r 0
 j ep þ ð1Þ
e0 o

where o is the angular frequency of the applied electric field (rad s1), e0 p is the ima-
ginary part of the dielectric permittivity due to polarization (F m1), s0 is the electri-
p
cal conductivity due to free charges in the dielectrics (S m1), and j ¼ (1), an
imaginary number.
246 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

2.2. COMPUTATION OF DIELECTRIC CONSTANT

When a transverse electromagnetic wave travels a complete return trip through a


probe of length L (m) in time t (s), the velocity of the wave v (m s1) is expressed
mechanically as:
2L
v¼ ð2Þ
t
The velocity of propagation of the wave in free space is expressed electrodynamically
in terms of the dielectric constant e0 and magnetic permeability m0 (4p 107 H m1)
of free space (Cheng, 1989) as:
1
v0 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð3Þ
m0 e 0
The velocity v of the wave in a dielectric material is given in terms of the apparent
dielectric permittivity e0a by (Davis and Annan, 1977):
1
v ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi0ffi ð4Þ
mea
where m is the magnetic permeability of the material (H m1) and e0a ¼ e0 r f1 þ ð1þ
tan2 dÞ1=2 g=2; tan d is called the loss tangent and is defined by fðe0 p þ s0 =oe0 Þ=e0 r g.
Equations (2) & (4) are identical, and so from Equations (2), (3) & (4),
1 2L
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0 ¼ ð5Þ
m ea tv0
m0 e0

The ratio m/m0 is the relative magnetic permeability of the material mr, which is
approximately unity for most materials (Cheng, 1989), and ea0 /e0 is the apparent
dielectric constant of the material ea. For most soils, the imaginary part of dielectric
permittivity is small relative to the real part at high frequencies used in TDR (Davis
and Annan, 1977) except for electrically conductive media such as dense compacted
clays, conductive minerals, or highly saline soils (White et al., 1994; Suwansawat,
1997). Thus, soils with no free charges can be considered lossless and the imaginary
component of the dielectric constant in such soils is assumed negligible so that ea
represents er. Nevertheless, in the assumption of a lossless material for TDR mea-
surement, some electrical losses are always ignored and, consequently, ea is referred
to as the ‘apparent’ dielectric constant of the material. Thus,
 2
v0 t
ea ð er Þ ¼ ð6Þ
2L
The product v0t is the distance that an electromagnetic wave travels in a complete
return trip through a probe in time t with a velocity v0 so that v0t/2 is the one-way dis-
tance of travel through the probe called the apparent travel path of the TDR wave
l (m). The TDR cable tester internally calculates the distance of travel of a launched
pulse as the relative velocity of this pulse in the material to that in free space. So, a
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 247

ratio vp of the velocity of the wave in the material to the velocity of the wave in free
space is used to represent v0t/2 as:
v0 t l
¼ ð7Þ
2 vp
Equations (6) & (7) directly lead to:
 
l 2
ea ¼ ð8Þ
Lvp
When the dielectric materials contain free charges and cause conduction loss (also
called ohmic loss), the imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity e0 i must be taken
into account. The velocity v of the electromagnetic wave through a TDR probe in
such materials is expressed by (Cheng, 1989):
1
v ¼ vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð9Þ
u 2sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 0 2
3
u 0
umer 4 ei
t
2 1 þ 0 þ 15
er

2sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
 0 2
e0r 4
where 2 1 þ 0i þ 15
e
er
is the apparent dielectric permittivity e0 a of the material.

Equations (2), (3) & (9) lead to,


1 2L
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3ffi ¼ v t ð10Þ
u 2sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 0 2
u 0
ue r 4 ei 5
t 1þ 0 þ1
2 er

Due to the similar effects of the conductive and polarization losses (Topp et al.,
2000), they are included in the imaginary part e0 i (Hasted, 1973) as:
s0
e0i ¼ e0p þ ð11Þ
o

where e0 p is the imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity due to polarization


(F m1). The total loss is represented as an equivalent conductivity, which is assumed
to be equal to the total electrical conductivity of the material s (S m1) (Hasted,
1973) and is expressed as:
s ¼ oe0i ð12Þ
Equations (6), (10) & (12) yield:

s2
er ¼ ea  ð13Þ
4ea o2 e00
248 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

Note that TDR-measured ea (Eq. 6) includes both polarization and conduction los-
ses (tan d) and is assumed to represent er when tan d is negligible. So, combining
Equation (6) with Equations (10) & (12) does not create inconsistencies for the mean-
ing of their parameters. Although the Tektronix application note (Tektronix, 1983) is
not explicit about the frequency of the Tektronix 1502C TDR cable tester, a specific
frequency is needed to use Equation (13). This frequency can be estimated by fitting
Equation (13) to measured apparent dielectric constant ea and electrical conductivity
s of a salt solution in pure water. The dielectric constant of pure water (¼ 80 at 20 C)
is assumed to represent the real part er only. Such an approach to estimate o was
used by Wyseure et al. (1997).

3. TDR Principle to Measure Dielectric Constant


TDR determines the apparent dielectric constant ea of a material by measuring the
travel time of an electromagnetic pulse in it according to Equations (6) & (8). A
probe is inserted into a dielectric material and the TDR cable tester launches a very
fast rise time (200 ps) step-voltage pulse through a coaxial cable connected to the
probe. The probe serves as a wave-guide and the surrounding medium as the dielec-
tric material. A part of the launched voltage pulse reflects back when it enters the
probe rod from the coaxial cable. The remaining part reaches the end of the probe
and then reflects back to the source. These reflections occur due to the change of
impedance in the transmission line (coaxial cable and probe). The amplitudes of
the reflected waves are detected and displayed by the cable tester as the impedance
of the wave in an equivalent distance of the transmission line. The impedance drops
down as the pulse enters a material of capacitive nature such as wet soil, and rises up
in a material of inductive nature such as air. At the end of the probe, the impedance
rises steeply. A typical TDR waveform is displayed in Figure 1.
The apparent dielectric constant of the material ea is determined by measuring the
apparent distance of travel of the pulse l (Equation (8), Figure 1) usually by using a
computer algorithm. An initial and a final point on the waveform that represent the
reflections of the TDR pulse from the beginning and end point of the probe, respec-
tively, are utilized for the interpretation of ea. Substantial efforts have been made to
locate these two points (Baker and Allmaras, 1990; Heimovaara and Bouten, 1990;
Evett, 1998; Or et al., 1999) since their locations on the waveform are not clearly
defined as shown in Figure 1. TDR-support software utilizes the first derivative of
the waveform to estimate l. The initial point of reflection (point C in Figure 1) is
defined at the intersection of a horizontal line passing through the global maximum
of the waveform before the global minimum and a line tangent drawn through the
inflection point of the waveform located at the point of its lowest first derivative
(point A in Figure 1). Or et al. (1999) defined C by the intersection of two tangent
lines drawn at the inflection points of the waveform about its global maximum
(points E & F in Figure 1). The final point of reflection (point D in Figure 1) is loca-
ted at the intersection of a horizontal line or a tangent line passing through the
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 249

Figure 1. A TDR waveform and its first derivative in a Na-bentonite suspension. ‘A’ and ’B’ on the first
derivative represent the points of inflection of the waveform. ‘C’ and ‘D’ are the points of initial and final
reflection of TDR pulse from the beginning and end of the probe. l is the apparent travel path of the TDR
pulse used for calculating dielectric constant ea .

global minimum of the waveform and a line tangent drawn through the inflection
point of the waveform that is located at the point of its highest first derivative (point
B in Figure 1). The distance between C and D is the apparent length of travel of the
TDR pulse through the probe l. The average apparent dielectric constant of the sur-
rounding material ea sampled by the cable tester’s measurement system is calculated
using Equation (8), which gives a valid approximation of er for low lossy materials.
Equation (13) shows that the real part of the dielectric constant er decreases directly
with the square of the conductivity of the material s and inversely with the square of
the frequency of the TDR wave o. The loss term (imaginary part) is additive to the
real part of the dielectric constant and, consequently, ea becomes significantly larger
than er in materials with free charges. Under such conditions, the fact that the real
part of dielectric constant er depends strongly on soil-water content and only weakly
on other soil properties (Davis and Annan, 1977; Topp et al., 2000) (on which TDR
measurement of soil-water content is based) does not hold. For TDR-measured
water content to be accurate, ea must be predicted at negligible electrical losses (tan d
! 0). Equation (13) allows one to calculate er in conductive materials. Then, from er
and s one can establish the relationship between er and s. The ser relationship
would provide er ( ¼ ea) at s ¼ 0 that is to be used in determining soil-water content
accurately in conductive soils.

4. TDR Measurement in Electrolyte Solution and Bentonite Clay


Several electrolyte solutions were prepared by mixing NaCl in distilled water with
concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 0.1M. The samples were kept for 48 h at
250 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

25  1 C to achieve homogeneous salt solutions. The EC of these solutions was mea-


sured by a HORIBA ACT D-20 digital conductivity meter of Horiba Jobin Yvon
Co., Ltd., Japan and also by the TDR method. The apparent dielectric constant
of the solutions ea was measured using a Tektronix 1502C cable tester, a 4.5 cm long
3-rod probe (rod diameter ¼ 0.1 cm and spacing between the two outer rods ¼ 1.1 cm)
and TDR support software called WinTDR99, developed by Or et al. (1999). A
2-rod probe is strongly affected by EC of the sampled medium (Cabral et al.,
1999). So, the 3-rod probe was chosen to get a balanced and clear signal (Nadler
et al., 1991; Whalley, 1993) even though Kelly et al. (1995) suggest that the trace
from a 3-rod probe, at low soil-water content, is more difficult to interpret than a
2-rod probe. The clarity of a signal defined in terms of the sharpness of the pulse
reflection at the probe ends depends on the pulse travel time through the probe
and the rise time of the pulse that is governed by the bandwidth of the TDR system
(Kelly et al., 1995). The rise time of the Tektronix 1502C cable tester is 4 200 ps
(Tektronix, 1987). The length of the probe and the dielectric constant of the medium
control the pulse travel time (Equation (6)). It is possible to interpret TDR wave-
forms properly for dielectric constant as long as the pulse travel time through the
probe is greater than the pulse rise time, preferably 5 300 ps (Amato and Ritchie,
1995; Mojid, 2002). The selection of the 4.5 cm long probe, important for small-scale
measurements, satisfied this criterion.
Na-bentonite clay was selected for testing (Kunigel-VI, Kunimine K.K. Co. Ltd.,
Yamagata, Japan) containing 50% montmorillonite with particle density qp of
2.6 Mg m3, cation exchange capacity CEC of 60 meq/100 g, and exchangeable
sodium percentage ESP of 90. Air-dry bentonite was mixed with distilled water using
a stirrer to prepare samples with volumetric water content y (defined by the ratio of
the volume of water to the total sample volume) ranging between 0.84 m3 m3 and
0.96 m3 m3 (corresponding water content on the basis of weight w between 200%
and 1000%) with a 50% increment. For y lower than 0.84 m3 m3 (w< 200%), the
stirrer could not mix water with bentonite uniformly. Therefore, several samples with
low water contents were prepared by spraying water on air-dry bentonite and mixing
them manually. These samples were kept for 3 months in plastic bags to attain uni-
form water content distribution. For TDR measurement, each sample was kept in a
5 cm diameter and 5 cm high acrylic column with the bottom closed. One TDR probe
was inserted in the sample horizontally 2 cm above the bottom of the column
through a groove on it. Cabral et al. (1999) and Suwansawat and Benson (1999)
reported the minimum distance between the probe rod and cell wall as 3 cm and that
between the tip of the probe rod and the base/wall of the sample cell as 2 cm for TDR
measurement to be independent of sample cell size. However, these minimum distan-
ces depend on the diameter and spacing of the probe rods since TDR measures a
cylindrical volume of the sample approximately equal to 1.4 times the spacing of
the probe rods (Zegelin et al., 1989). Also, for small diameter and spacing of the
probe rods, it is assumed that the electrical potential field remains within the length
of the probe rods. In addition to this, the electrical field around a 3-rod probe is
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 251

approximately three times more concentrated than that surrounding a 2-rod probe
(Knight et al., 1994). Thus, the sample cell and the placement of the probe in it
should not cause any significant error in our experiments. This was confirmed by
the comparable soil-water contents from TDR-measurement in this sample cell
and gravimetric measurement in calibration experiments.
The dielectric constant and EC of the bentonite samples were measured by TDR
and the waveform for each sample was recorded. The preparation and measurement
of the bentonite samples were performed at a constant room temperature of
25  1 C. After the TDR measurement, the water content of the samples was mea-
sured gravimetrically by drying them in an oven and was expressed on the basis of
weight w and also on the basis of volume y. By comparing y based on the measured
w and the particle density qp of the bentonite with the measured y, we confirmed that
the sample was saturated for y 5 0.6 m3 m3(w 5 50%).

5. Results and Discussion


5.1. ENERGY LOSS IN DIELECTRIC MATERIALS

The imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity due to polarization of the dielectric
material and free charges in it represents the total energy loss (represented by tan d)
of an electromagnetic wave. Figure 2 shows a plot of the real and imaginary part
of the dielectric constant of distilled water (er and ei) that was calculated by the
Cole–Cole equations (Hasted, 1973, Equations (1.64) & (1.65)) as a function of
frequency. The Cole–Cole equations estimate the imaginary part ei (e0 r/e0) due to
polarization of the water molecules only since the EC of distilled water is negligible.

Figure 2. The real and imaginary part of dielectric constant (er and ei ) of distilled water at 20 C as a func-
tion of frequency as calculated by the Cole–Cole equations. Also shown are the values of ei of electrolyte
solution for four different values of electrical conductivity s (dS m1).
252 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

The total imaginary part ei was predicted by Equation (13) and is also displayed in
Figure 2 for four different values of EC of electrolyte solution in distilled water. Both
the real part er and the total imaginary part ei decrease with the increasing frequency
of the wave. The polarization losses become considerable only at frequencies higher
than 0.5 GHz. At lower frequencies, these losses are negligible. Due to the EC of the
solutions, ei increases sharply with decreasing frequency causing a proportional
decrease in er according to Equations (12) & (13). The conductive losses, however,
become negligible in the higher frequency range. For an EC of the electrolyte solu-
tion s ¼ 20 dS m1 the conductive losses are predominant at frequencies below
15 GHz and are negligible at frequencies exceeding 20 GHz. Davis and Annan
(1977) reported that the real part of the dielectric constant er in soils did not appear
to be frequency dependent in the frequency range from 1 MHz to 1 GHz. However,
Figure 2 clearly demonstrates that the measurement of dielectric constant is very sen-
sitive to EC at low frequency of the applied electromagnetic wave. Fortunately, the
TDR cable tester operates on a frequency bandwidth assumed to be between
16.6 kHz and 3.18 GHz (Tektronix, 1983) within which the energy loss due to a cer-
tain magnitude of EC is reasonably small, although not always negligible.

5.2. WAVEFORM ATTENUATION

The Na-bentonite resulted in considerable magnitude of EC due to the adsorbed


cations on the surface of the particles and caused significant energy loss of the laun-
ched and reflected TDR pulses in the form of ei. This energy loss increased with
increasing EC of the bentonite in response to the decreasing water content of the
samples from a dilute condition. Figure 3 shows two waveforms in bentonite samples
for y ¼ 0.72 m3 m3 and 0.96 m3 m3 (w ¼ 91% and 1000%). The EC of the two sam-
ples was 3.66 dS m1 and 1.29 dS m1, respectively. As the EC increased, the impe-
dance of the waveform decreased due to the loss of energy of the pulses (wave 2
in Figure 3). For the 4.5 cm long probe, the reflected waveform was completely atte-
nuated for EC between 3.05 dS m1 and 3.72 dS m1 corresponding to y between
0.45 m3 m3 and 0.87 m3 m3 (w between 31% and 250%). For a longer TDR probe,
the waveform would be attenuated at an EC lower than this range because of the
cumulative energy loss along the entire probe rod. Topp et al. (2000) also reported
that the reflected waveforms from 0.15 and 0.20 m probes in Temora soil (clay con-
tent: 20% in the A horizon and 55% in the B horizon) of New South Wales saturated
with 0.05 M KCl solution were completely attenuated. The waveforms obtained
within this range of water content and EC became unsuitable for analysis for dielec-
tric constant by TDR-support software. The first derivative of the attenuated wave-
form (derivative 2 in Figure 3) does not show any well-defined highest positive peak
after the global lowest negative peak to locate the inflection point as found for the
first derivative of waveform 1 (point A). The program algorithm could choose the
inflection point either at B or C or D. Consequently, the program algorithm could
not determine the point of the final reflection (point D in Figure 1) accurately under
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 253

Figure 3. Two TDR waveforms in Na-bentonite samples with volumetric water content y ¼ 0:72 m3 m3
and 0:96 m3 m3 showing different degrees of attenuation for the corresponding electrical conductivity
s ¼ 3:66 dS m1 and 1.29 dS m1.

such condition as is similar to the case for the salt affected soils (Mojid et al., 1998).
However, the use of an insulated probe can prevent the conduction loss of energy to
a considerable extent and enable measurement of dielectric constant by providing a
reasonably well-defined waveform in conductive materials (Mojid et al., 1998).
It may be noted that the objective of this note is not to solve the problem of wave-
form attenuation but to deal with the conductive and dielectric losses (tan d) that
always exist in TDR-measured ea. The attenuation of the reflected TDR waveforms
depends mainly on the EC of the sampled material and to some extent on the length
of the probe rod. Since cumulative energy loss increases with the increasing length of
the probe rod, attenuation of reflected waveforms from a long probe is higher than
that from a small probe for a given EC of the material. Therefore, by adjusting the
probe length it is possible to obtain a reasonable magnitude of reflected waveform
from a material with a certain high EC to be analyzed for ea. However, the measured
ea obviously includes the effect of conductive and dielectric losses according to Equa-
tion (13) (Wyseure et al., 1997; Robinson et al., 1999; Topp et al., 2000). The main
focus of this paper is to estimate er at EC ¼ 0 from the TDR-measured ea in conduc-
tive media irrespective of the TDR probe configuration, especially the length of the
probe rod to be used in measuring ea. Topp et al. (2000) also investigated such a pro-
blem and reported a way for removing conductivity and dielectric loss contributions
from ea to give an improved estimate of er using the TDR waveform.

5.3. EFFECT OF EC ON DIELECTRIC CONSTANT

Based on the assumption of Equation (8), the TDR-measured apparent dielectric


constant ea was expected to represent the real part er only since the imaginary part
254 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

ei was assumed negligible. This proposition was based on the fact that in the fre-
quency bandwidth of TDR (16.6 kHz–3.18 GHz), ei was very small compared to er
(Figure 2). This assumption might be valid for dielectric materials without any free
charges where the velocity of a TDR wave was independent of frequency (Equation
(4)). But, when there are free charges in the dielectric materials such as electrolyte
solutions and saline soils, the velocity of the wave is dependent on frequency accord-
ing to Equations (9) & (11) and the TDR-measured ea obviously does not represent er
only. Figure 4 illustrates that ea continuously increased as the EC of the electrolyte
solution s increased. The real and imaginary parts of the dielectric constant (er and
ei) as predicted by Equation (13) are also shown in Figure 4. In this prediction, a fre-
quency of 0.127 GHz (o ¼ 0.8 109 rad s1) was used according to Wyseure et al.
(1997). The real part er decreased and the imaginary part ei increased with increasing
s. Since the same TDR equipment with a fixed frequency bandwidth performed all
the measurements, we thought that ei might result from the EC of the electrolyte
solution only; the contribution of polarization to ei was negligible in this frequency
range (Figure 2). These results revealed that Equation (8) no longer provided er from
TDR measurement in dielectric materials containing free charges, and that TDR
might overestimate er and hence soil-water content in such materials as reported
by Wyseure et al. (1997) and Robinson et al. (1999). Fortunately, the overestimation
of soil-water content was small up to a certain low value of EC depending on the
type of soil but was considerable at high EC. For Temora soil (mentioned earlier)
saturated with tap water, Topp et al. (2000) obtained ea that was very close to er
and ei was negligible at water contents < 0.14 m3 m3. But, for water contents

Figure 4. The variation of the real er and imaginary ei part of dielectric constant and TDR-measured
apparent dielectric constant ea of electrolyte solutions with their electrical conductivity s (dS m1). In cal-
culating er and ei , a frequency of 0.127 GHz ð¼ 0:8 109 rad s1 Þ (according to Wyseure et al., 1997) was
used.
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 255

Figure 5. The relationship between the TDR-measured apparent dielectric constant ea and electrical con-
ductivity s (dS m1) of Na-bentonite both as a function of the volumetric water content uðm3 m3 Þ of the
samples.

> 0.15 m3 m3, ei increased very steeply with water content, equaling or exceeding
the magnitude of er at conditions of high salt (0.05 M KCl) and water content.
Figure 5 shows the inter-relationship between the TDR-measured ea, volumetric
water content y, and electrical conductivity s of Na-bentonite samples. The EC of
the bentonite increased with increasing y of the samples from their air dry condition
(y ¼ 0.16 m3 m3, w ¼ 14%) and leveled off at about y ¼ 0.60 m3 m3 (w ¼ 50%).
Then the EC decreased gradually with further increase in y but increased again
at higher values of y (Figure 5). The highest EC was 3.88 dS m1, which was
obtained at the lowest limit of saturated water content of the samples. Under satu-
rated condition, EC decreased from 3.88 dS m1 at y ¼ 0.60 m3 m3 (w ¼ 50%) to
1.29 dS m1 at y ¼ 0.96 m3 m3 (w ¼ 1000%). The TDR-measured ea, which depends
predominantly upon the water content, increased from 4.7 at y ¼ 0.16 m3 m3
(w ¼ 14%) to 20.3 at y ¼ 0.24 m3 m3 (w ¼ 200%); the EC increased from
0.08 dS m1 to 1.65 dS m1. At this EC, the energy loss of the TDR waveform
as quantified in terms of ei became considerable. With further increase in EC
due to increased y, the energy loss also increased and caused attenuation of the
waveform. When EC increased to about 3.0 dS m1, the waveform was completely
attenuated (wave 2 in Figure 3) and the program algorithm failed to analyze it for
dielectric constant. This situation appeared for y ranging between 0.46 m3 m3 and
0.87 m3 m3 (w ¼ 31% and 250%) in our measurements. The TDR-measured
dielectric constants of the bentonite samples with EC > 3.0 dS m1 were irrationally
high (Figure 5) because of the failure of the program algorithm to analyze the atte-
nuated waveforms. In the saturated bentonite, the EC decreased with increasing y
and the reflected waveform reappeared and enabled the program algorithm to
256 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

analyze it. The dielectric constant continued increasing with increased dilution of
the suspension.

6. Summary and Conclusions


The TDR-measured apparent dielectric constant ea of a material is expected to be
equivalent to the real part er only since the imaginary part ei was assumed negligible
in the assumption for TDR measurement. However, the electrical conductivity EC of
electrolyte solution caused considerable increase in ei and reduced er; the resulting ea
was significantly greater than er. The EC of electrolyte solution contributed to ei,
which increased sharply with the decreasing frequency of the applied electric field.
This demonstrated that the measurement of dielectric constant was very sensitive
to EC at low frequency. The TDR-measured ea increased from its value in distilled
water since the increase in ei was higher than the decrease in er due to the effect of
EC. This result invalidated the assumption of neglecting ei for TDR measurement
in dielectric materials containing free charges.
The EC of Na-bentonite in distilled water increased with the increasing water con-
tent in unsaturated condition and leveled off at about y ¼ 0.60 m3 m3 (w ¼ 50%).
Then EC decreased with further increase in y before increasing again at higher values
of y. The highest EC of 3.88 dS m1 was obtained at the lowest limit of saturated
water content of the samples (y ¼ 0.60 m3 m3 & w ¼ 50%). Under the saturated con-
dition, the EC decreased from 3.88 dS m1 to 1.29 dS m1 when y increased to
0.96 m3 m3 (w ¼ 1000%). The EC affected TDR measurement in bentonite by
increasing ei, which caused energy loss of the TDR pulse. For a 4.5 cm long probe,
the reflected waveform was completely attenuated for EC values between
3.05 dS m1 and 3.72 dS m1. The waveform would be attenuated at EC even lower
than this range with long probe because of continuous energy loss along the probe
rod. The attenuated waveforms were unsuitable for analysis for dielectric constant
using TDR-support software. This situation occurred for water contents ranging
between 0.46 m3m3 and 0.87 m3 m3 (between 31% and 250%).
In order to obtain an appropriate dielectric constant of a material containing free
charges by TDR that is to be used for the prediction of water content, two points
should be noted. Firstly, depending on the length of the probe rod, a high EC of
the material can completely attenuate TDR waveforms and cause failure of the
TDR method. Secondly, a material with free charges in it would be lossy/dispersive
rather than a perfect dielectric material. With a high EC, the material would behave
not as a dielectric material but as a conductor. Wet saline soil is an example of such a
material. TDR-measured ea would significantly overestimate the real part of the
dielectric constant er in such materials. An EC - er relationship is needed to estimate
er at EC ¼ 0 that is to be used for the accurate prediction of water content in disper-
sive materials.
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY PROBLEMS 257

References
Amato, M. and Ritchie, J. T. (1995), Small spatial scale soil-water content measurement with
time-domain reflectometry, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 59, 325–329.
Baker, J. M. and Allmaras, R. R. (1990), System for automating and multiplexing soil moist-
ure measurement by time-domain reflectometry, Soil Science Society of America Journal,
54, 1–6.
Cabral, A. R., Burnotte, F. and Lefebvre, G. (1999), Application of TDR technology to water
content monitoring of capillary barriers made of pulp and paper residues, Geotechnical
Testing Journal, 22, 39–43.
Cheng, D. K. (1989), Field and Wave Electromagnetics, Addison & Wesley, Reading, Ma,
USA.
Clemmow, P. C. (1973), An Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory, Cambridge University
Press.
Dalton, F. N., Herkelrath, W. N., Rawlines, D. S. and Rhoades, J. D. (1984), The time-
domain reflectometry: simultaneous measurement of soil-water content and electrical con-
ductivity with a single probe, Science, 224, 989–990.
Davis, J. L. and Annan, A. P. (1977), Electromagnetic determination of soil moisture: Pro-
gress report I, Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 3, 76–86.
Davis, J. L. and Chudobiak, W. J. (1975), In situ meter for measuring relative permittivity of
soils, Paper 75-1A, Geological Survey of Canada. Energy, Mines, and Resources of
Canada, Ottawa.
Evett, S. R. (1998), The TACQ computer program for automatic measurement of water con-
tent and bulk electrical conductivity using time-domain reflectometry, Paper no.983182,
presented at the Annual International Meeting of ASAE, 12–15 July, Orlando, Florida.
Fellner-Feldeg, H. (1969), The measurements of dielectrics in time domain, Journal of Physical
Chemistry, 73, 616–623.
Hasted, J. B. (1973), Aqueous Dielectrics, Chapman and Hall, London.
Heimovaara, T. J. and Bouten, W. (1990), A computer-controlled 36-channel time-domain
reflectometry system for monitoring soil-water contents, Water Resources Research, 26,
2311–2316.
Kelly, S. F., Selker, J. S. and Green, J. L. (1995), Using short soil moisture probes with high
bandwidth time-domain reflectometry instruments, Soil Science Society of America Jour-
nal 59, 97–102.
Knight, J. H., White, I. and Zegelin, J. (1994), Sampling volume of TDR probes used for water
content monitoring, Symposium and Workshop on Time-Domain Reflectometry in Envir-
onmental, Infrastructure, and Mining Applications. Special Publication SP 19–94. U.S.
Department of Interior Bureau of Mines. pp. 93–104.
Mojid, M. A. (1996), Use of time-domain reflectometry to measure water content and solute-
transport parameters in unsaturated soils, Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, U.K.
Mojid, M. A. (2002), Practical considerations on the use of down-sized time-domain reflecto-
metry (TDR) probes, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 6, 949–955.
Mojid, M. A., Wyseure, G. C. L. and Rose, D. A. (1998), The use of insulated time-domain
reflectometry sensors to measure water content in highly saline soils, Irrigation Science, 18,
55–61.
Nadler, A., Dasberg, S. And Lapid, I. (1991), Time-domain reflectometry measurements of
water content and electrical conductivity of layered soil columns, Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 55, 938–943.
258 M. A. MOJID ET AL.

Or, D., Fisher, B., Hubscher, R. A. and Wraith J. (1999), WinTDR99, Users guide, Utah State
University, Utah, USA.
Robinson, D. A., Gardner C. M. K. and Cooper J. D. (1999), Measurement of relative per-
mittivity in sandy soils using TDR, capacitance and theta probes: comparison, including
the effects of bulk soil electrical conductivity, Journal of Hydrology, 223, 198–211.
Siddiqui, S. I., Drnevich, V. P. and Deschamps. R. J. (2000), Time-domain reflectometry
development for use in geotechnical engineering, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 23, 9–20.
Suwansawat, S. (1997), Using time-domain reflectometry for measuring water content in com-
pacted clays, M. S. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Suwansawat, S. and Benson, C. H. (1999), Cell size for water content-dielectric constant cali-
brations for time-domain reflectometry, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 22, 3–12.
Tektronix. (1983), TDR Cable Testing, Application Note AX-3241-1, Tektronix, Inc. Beaver-
ton, OR97077, USA.
Tektronix. (1987), 1502C Metallic Time-domain Reflectometer: Operator Manual, Tektronix,
Inc. Beaverton, OR97077, USA.
Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L. and Annan, A. P. (1980), Electromagnetic determination of soil-
water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines, Water Resources Research,
16, 574–582.
Topp, G. C., Zegelin, S. and White, I. (2000), Impacts of the real and imaginary components
of relative permittivity on time-domain reflectometry measurements in soils, Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 64, 1244–1252.
Whalley, W. R. (1993), Considerations on the use of time-domain reflectometry (TDR) for
measuring soil-water content, Journal of Soil Science, 44, 1–9.
White, I., Zegelin, S., Topp, G. C. and Fish, A. (1994), Effect of bulk electrical conductivity on
TDR measurement of water content in porous media. Symposium and Workshop on Time-
Domain Reflectometry in Environmental, Infrastructure, and Mining Applications. Special
Publication SP 19–94. U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Mines. pp. 298–308.
Wyseure, G. C. L., Mojid, M. A. and Malik, M. A. (1997), Measurement of volumetric water
content by TDR in saline soils, European Journal of Soil Science, 48, 347–354.
Zegelin, S. J., White, I. and Jenkins, D. R. (1989), Improved field probes for soil-water content
and electrical conductivity measurement using time-domain reflectometry, Water Resour-
ces Research, 25, 2367–2376.

Вам также может понравиться