The effect of soil electrical conductivity on moisture

determination using time-domain reflectometry in

sandy soil
Z. J. Sun, G. D. Young, R. A. McFarlane, and B.M. Chambers
E.S.I. Environmental Sensors Inc., 100-4243 Glanford Avenue, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8Z 4B9.
Received 1 December 1998, accepted 4 September 1999.

Sun, Z. J., Young, G. D., McFarlane, R. A. and Chambers, B. M. 2000. The effect of soil electrical conductivity on moisture
determination using time-domain reflectometry in sandy soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 80: 13–22. A series of laboratory experiments
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21

was conducted, in order to systematically explore the effect of soil electrical conductivity on soil moisture determination using
time domain reflectometry (TDR). A Moisture Point MP-917 soil moisture instrument (E.S.I. Environmental Sensors Inc.,
Victoria, BC, Canada) was used to measure propagation time (time delay) of a step function along a probe imbedded in fine sand
with different moisture and salinity. The volumetric soil water content was independently determined using a balance. With the
help of the diode-switching technique, MP-917 could detect the reflection from the end of the probe as the electrical conductivity
of saturated soil extract (ECe) increased to 15.29 dS m–1. However, the relationship between volumetric soil water content and
propagation time expressed as T/Tair (the ratio of propagation time in soil to that in air over the same distance) deviated from a lin-
ear relationship as the conductivity exceeded 3.72 dS m–1. At the same water content, the time delay in a saline soil was longer
than that in a non-saline soil. This leads to an over-estimation of volumetric soil water content when the linear calibration was
applied. A logarithmic relationship between volumetric soil water content and T/Tair has been developed and this relation includes
soil electrical conductivity as a parameter. With this new calibration, it is possible to precisely determine the volumetric water con-
tent of highly saline soil using TDR.
For personal use only.

Key words: Time domain reflectometry, time delay, bulk electrical conductivity (σ), volumetric soil water content (θ), relative
permittivity or dielectric constant (εr), propagation velocity Vp

Sun, Z. J., Young, G. D., McFarlane, R. A. et Chambers, B. M. 2000. Effets de la conductivité électrique des sols sablonneux
sur les measures d’humidité par la méthode de reflectométrie en domain temporel. Can. J. Soil Sci. 80: 13–22. Une série
d’expériences en laboratoire a été conduite dans le but d’explorer de façon systématique l’effet de la conductivité électrique du sol
sur la détermination du taux d’humidité du sol par Réflectométrie en Domaine Temporel (TDR). Un instrument de mesure d’hu-
midité du sol, Moisture Point MP-917 (E.S.I. Environmental Sensors Inc., Victoria, CB, Canada) était utilisé pour mesurer les
temps de propagation d’une impulsion carrée le long d’une sonde (ligne de transmission) immergée dans du sable fin, à différents
niveaux d’humidité et de salinité. L’humidité volumétrique était déterminée de facon indépendante par mesures gravimétriques à
l’aide d’une balance. A l’aide de la technique brevetée MoisturePoint utilisant des rupteurs à diodes, MP-917 pouvait détecter la
réflexion à la fin de la sonde, jusqu’à un niveau de conductivité électrique de 15.29 dS m–1. Cependant, la relation entre humidité
volumétrique et temps de propagation (exprimé sous la forme de T/Tair: le rapport du temps de propagation dans le sol sur le temps
de propagation dans l’air, pour la même distance et le même signal) s’écartait d’une relation linéaire pour les valeurs de conduc-
tivité supérieures à 3.72 dS m–1. A teneur en humidité égale, le temps de propagation dans une eau saline était plus long que dans
une eau non saline. En conséquence, l’humidité volumétrique était sur-estimée quand l’équation linéaire habituelle était appliquée.
Une relation logarithmique entre teneur en eau et T/Tair a été établie, et cette relation varie avec la conductivité électrique. Avec
cette nouvelle calibration, il est possible de déterminer avec précision l’humidité volumétrique de sols relativement salins par la
méthode de TDR.

Mots clés: Refléctométrie en Domaine Temporel, temps de propagation, conductivité electrique apparente (σ), humidité
volumétrique (θ), permittivité relative ou constante, diélectrique (εr), vitesse de propagation Vp

Time-domain reflectometry has been used to measure volu-
metric water content of soil and other porous materials since
1980 (Topp et al. 1980, 1982, 1994; Topp and Davis 1985;
Heimovaara and Bouten 1990; Wraith and Baker 1991;
Whalley 1993; Zegelin and White 1994; Nielsen et al.
1995). Time-domain reflectometry measures round-trip
propagation time (time delay) of a step function propagating
down and back along a probe buried in the medium. The
time delay is converted to volumetric water content. The
propagation velocity of a step function is related to the per-
13
mittivity of the medium. Since water has a larger relative
permittivity or dielectric constant (εr), which is close to 80
at 20°C, than that of other soil constituents (εr = 1 for air and
εr = 2 to 5 for dry soil), the time delay will be extremely sen-
sitive to the amount of water present. Generally, soil texture
and composition do not have large influences on time delay
(Topp et al. 1980). Time-domain reflectometry has been
widely accepted as an accurate, quick and non-destructive
method to measure soil moisture. It has been found that
there was a linear relationship between volumetric soil
 14 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
water content and time delay when the latter is expressed as
T/Tair, where T is the time delay in soil and Tair is that in air
with the same distance (Hook and Livingston 1996).
Soil salinity, commonly expressed in terms of electrical
conductivity of soil solution (ECw), or electrical conductiv-
ity of saturated soil extract (ECe), or bulk soil electrical con-
ductivity (σ) will affect TDR moisture determination in
several ways. First, it attenuates the signal due to energy dis-
sipation by current flow; second, it causes a signal disper-
sion, resulting in a longer rise time; third, it will increase the
apparent dielectric constant (Topp et al. 1994), resulting in
decrease of propagation velocity, and consequently, a longer
time delay. These effects will cause a considerable mea-
surement error if the soil electrical conductivity exceeds a
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
certain threshold. Malicki et al. (1994) reported that the rela-
tionship between volumetric water content and permittivity
of a silty loam, which was determined by time delay mea-
surement, departs from normal when the ECw of the silty
loam was above 10 dS m–1. The frequency bandwidth of the
TDR instrument also has a profound influence on measure-
ment error caused by soil electrical conductivity. Shaun et
al. (1995) used a high-bandwidth (20 GHz) TDR system,
and found that moisture measurements were independent of
bulk electrical conductivity of the media, which was wetted
with up to 0.5 M concentration of KBr solution. However,
the common TDR systems have a bandwidth less than 2.5
For personal use only.
GHz, and ECw of soil in many areas can be higher than 10
dS m–1 because of prolonged drought and/or abusive irriga-
tion practice, such as in a greenhouse environment.
The paper presented here explores the effect of soil elec-
trical conductivity on water content determination for sandy
soil using TDR. The study of the same effect in clayey soil
is currently under investigation.
THEORY
1. Propagation velocity
The description of the propagation of the TDR step pulse
along the parallel-conductor transmission line of the probe
embedded in a material medium may be approached analyt-
ically with Maxwell’s equations (Rao 1987).
By using the phasor technique, the solution of Maxwell’s
equation is given in terms of exponential functions whose
complex exponent — the “propagation constant” — cap-
tures the signal behaviors of interest for TDR purposes: the
attenuation and velocity of propagation. The attenuation can
be determined by using so-called attenuation constant α:
ω µε ′  σ − ωε ′′ 
2 This is the equation that has been commonly used in TDR-
α= 1+   −1 (1)
2  ωε ′ 
and velocity can be determined by using so-called phase
constant β:
ω µε ′  σ − ωε ′′ 
2
β= 1+   +1 (2)
2  ωε ′ 
and the phase velocity of the wave along the direction of
propagation is given by
Vp = ω/β (3)
From the propagation velocity of sinusoidal signals, the time
taken for a single-frequency sinusoid to travel a length L is
given by
Lβ L µε ′
2
L  σ − ωε ′′ 
t= = = 1+ 1+   (4)
Vp ω 2  ωε ′ 
where all of the factors are specific electrical properties of
the medium:
µ, permeability, it equals µoµr, where µo is the permeability
of free space and µr is the relative permeability. For non-fer-
romagnetic such as sandy soil, µr = 1.
ε′, real part of permittivity, it equals εoεr, where ε0 is the per-
mittivity of free space and εr is the relative dielectric con-
stant.
ε″, imaginary part of permittivity,
σ, bulk electrical conductivity
And ω is the angular frequency of the sinusoid (ω = 2πf,
where f is the frequency).
2. The Effect of Electrical Conductivity on Time
Delay
(a) For non-conductive medium (σ = 0)
The term ε″ in Eq. 4 represents the energy dissipation due to
the relaxation of the molecules of a medium. Free water
molecule has a relaxation frequency of approximately 15
GHz; however, bound water molecules have a much lower
relaxation frequency in the range of several hundred MHz
depending on the binding force. For TDR instruments, the
operation frequency is below 2.5 GHz. Therefore, for sandy
soil or other soils with low clay contents, ε″ can be neglect-
ed. However, if the soil contains large amounts of clay, there
are numerous water molecules being bound to the surface of
clay particles, then, the effect of ε″ has to be taken into con-
sideration. For non-conductive sandy soils, both ε″ and σ
equal zero and µr = 1, then Eq. 4 can be simplified as:
t = ( L / c) ε r (5)
where c is the propagation velocity in free space, and it
equals 1/ µ 0 ε 0 .
based moisture meters to determine the dielectric constant
of the medium from measured time delay. To convert the
dielectric constant to volumetric water content of the medi-
um, an empirical relationship is used. In non-conductive
medium, there is no signal attenuation since α = 0 when σ
= 0 according to Eq. 1.
(b) For conductive medium (σ ≠ 0)
In conductive medium where σ cannot be neglected, then
 SUN ET AL. — ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND TDR MEASUREMENT
the term σ/ωε′ in Eq. 4 must be taken into account. The time
delay increases as the conductivity σ increases. Only in a
high-frequency range, where σ/ωε′ << 1, the effect of σ on
time delay can be neglected.
The propagation time (t) of an electromagnetic wave
propagating along a transmission line with length L buried
in a conductive medium is given by (where ε″ is negligible):
1 + (σ / ωε 0 ε r ) + 1
2 Turnhout, Belgium), and the pH value for the saturated
t = ( L / c) ε r (6)
2 Point MP-917 (E.S.I. Environmental Sensors Inc., Victoria,
By comparing Eqs. 5 and 6, one may expect that the propa-
gation time would increase at least by a correction factor of
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
1 + (σ / ωε 0 ε r ) + 1
2
. TDR instruments failed to show the reflection signal (Hook
2
There are two challenges of directly using Eq. 6. First, TDR
instruments send a step function that consists of a band of
frequencies rather than a single one; second, the electrical
conductivity σ might also be a function of frequency
(Hasted 1973).
In determining the propagation time using diode differ-
ence functions (Hook et al. 1992), the intercept of the dif-
ference function base line and the line of the steepest slope
For personal use only.
of the reflection are used. The steepest slope corresponds to
the maximum frequency component in a frequency band.
The maximum frequency (fm) in the frequency band can be
estimated by the rise time of the reflection signal using the
simple relation (Oliver and Cage 1971)
fm (MHz) = 0.35/rise time (microsecond) (7)
As a first order approximation, the maximum frequency in a
band calculated by the measured rise time can be used in Eq.
6 to estimate the time delay error caused by electrical con-
ductivity of the medium.
The effect of σ on wave propagation properties is gov-
erned by the expression (σ/ωε′)2; consequently, at high fre-
quencies, the effect declines and is more important at low
frequencies. It is found (Nyfors and Vainikainen 1989) that
σ is independent of frequency in the range where its effects
are observable. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that σ
is a constant with respect to frequency.
3. Signal Dispersion in Conductive Medium
For a signal comprising a band of frequencies, in non-con-
ductive medium (σ = 0), different frequency components
travel at the same velocity according to Eqs. 2 and 3, there-
fore, the waveform shape is maintained during propagation.
However, in a conductive medium different frequency com-
ponents do not maintain the same phase relationships as
they propagate in the medium according to Eqs. 2 and 3.
Different frequency components travel at different veloci-
ties. This phenomenon is known as “dispersion”, causing
distortion of the composite wave shape. The distortion caus-
es the reflected signal to have an increased rise time, which
has been shown to be a cause of increased time delay mea-
surement error (Hook and Livingston 1996).
15
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The sand used was collected from Cordova Bay area of
Victoria, BC, Canada, and passed through a 2-mm sieve
before a particle size analysis was conducted using hydrom-
eter method. The particle size distribution for sand was:
sand, 90%; silt, 8.0% and clay 2.0%. The electrical conduc-
tivity of its saturated extract is 0.34 dS m–1 measured using
K320 Microcomputer Conductometer (Consort pvba,
extract was 6.3. The TDR instrument used was Moisture
BC, Canada). MP-917 utilises TDR as its baseline technol-
ogy, but it also employs switching diode technique (Hook et
al. 1992) to produce non-ambiguous time marks. This inno-
vation enhanced the ability of MP-917 to detect the highly
attenuated signal in high saline medium when other standard
et al. 1992). The probe used in this experiment consisted of
two 30-cm rectangular stainless steel bars (1.3 cm in width)
separated 1.5 cm by epoxy between them. Switching diodes
were mounted at both ends of the probe. The probe was pre-
viously calibrated in air and distilled water. The length of
cable between MP-917 and probe was 2.0 m.
The sand was air dried for more than 1 mo and placed in
a half cylinder (52.5 cm in length and 15.2 cm in diameter
PVC pipe) (Fig. 1). The total volume of sand was 4.76 L.
The probe was installed in the middle of the half cylinder.
With this configuration, all of the sand was included in the
sensitive range of the probe. This was further demonstrated
by the observation of only 0.0025 m3 m–3 to 0.0038 m3 m–3
increase in indicated volumetric water content when a
beaker of water was placed on the top of the half-cylinder.
That is, bringing a volume of water next to the volume occu-
pied by the experimental sand had negligible effect on the
measurement.
The whole apparatus was set horizontally on a balance
(Ohaus, Florham Park, NJ, USA). The probe was connected
to an MP-917 and a computer with the balance connected to
a second computer. This set-up supported continuous mea-
surement and logging of the time delay through the moist
sand and its changes in weight.
At the beginning of the experiment, 1.43 L of distilled
water was added to the sand and the volumetric soil water
content measured at 0.30 m3 m–3 using the balance. The
cylinder was then covered with a plastic sheet to prevent
water loss through evaporation. Continuous monitoring of
the time delay measurement showed that 5 to 6 h after
adding water the reading from MP-917 became stable, indi-
cating that a stable water distribution had been reached.
After an additional equilibrium interval of several hours,
about 200 sequential time delay readings were obtained and
the average calculated. The plastic sheet was then removed
to expose the sand to the air, and a fan was used to blow the
air across it to facilitate evaporation. Under these condi-
tions, the moisture content of the sand decreased by approx-
imately 0.03 m3 m–3 in 8 h.
The cylinder was then re-covered and the automatic
acquisition and logging of the propagation time and weight
readings re-started. After an equilibrium interval of more
 16 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21

Fig. 1. The set up of the experiment.

For personal use only.

Fig. 2. The relation between T/Tair and vol-

umetric soil water content when the electri-
cal conductivity of saturated soil extract is
equal to or less than 3.72 dS m–1.

Fig. 3. Volumetric soil water content measured

using balance (Y) vs. that measured using MP-917
(X) when the electrical conductivity of saturated
soil extract is equal to or less than 3.72 dS m–1.

than 24 h, about 200 data points were collected and aver- weight readings obtained from the balance. This procedure
aged. The volumetric soil water content was then calculated was repeated until the volumetric soil water content reached
using the appropriate equation (Hook et al. 1992) from the approximately 0.05 m3 m–3. The time to equilibrium
time delay readings obtained from the MP-917 and the increased as the soil became drier because of the decrease of
 SUN ET AL. — ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND TDR MEASUREMENT 17

Table 1. The overestimation of water content determined by TDR as soil water content and salinity increase
Electrical conductivity of saturated extract
6.37 dS m–1 9.27 dS m–1 11.73 dS m–1 13.73 dS m–1 15.29 dS m–1
0.040m3m–3 (0.004)z (0.007) (0.009) (0.007) (0.013)
0.082 m3m–3 (0.012) (0.017) (0.016) (0.017) (0.048)
0.120 m3m–3 NA NA NA (0.079) (0.115)
0.126 m3m–3 (0.021) (0.019) (0.032) NA NA
0.160 m3m–3 NA NA NA (0.127) (0.184)
0.165 m3m–3 (0.026) (0.057) (0.066) NA NA
0.200 m3m–3 NA NA NA (0.183) (0.214)
0.210 m3m–3 (0.024) (0.058) (0.067) NA NA
0.250 m3m–3 (0.029) (0.043) (0.071) (0.185) (0.334)
0.270 m3m–3 NA NA NA NA (0.396)
0.300 m3m–3 (0.084) (0.132) (0.148) (0.233) NA
zThe numbers in parentheses are the overestimations of volumetric water content in unit of m3m–3
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
For personal use only.

Fig. 4. The relationship between

T/Tair vs. volumetric water content
when the electrical conductivity of
saturated soil extract (ECe) exceeds
3.72 dS m–1.

unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity. For example, when
the soil moisture level was below 0.10 m3 m–3, the time to
equilibrium gradually increased to more than 72 h.
In a sand, pore water hysteresis is greater than in most
soils, and this may result in differing spatial moisture distri-
bution. In order to remove the effect of the hysteresis, the
above procedure was repeated but in the opposite direction,
from dry to wet. The same sand column was then oven dried
at 105°C for 48 h and the soil moisture was gradually
increased at increments of 0.05 m3 m–3 to 0.30 m3 m–3 by
adding distilled water. At each moisture level, about 200
propagation time readings were taken after a stable moisture
distribution had been reached. The difference in measured
time delay for these two procedures was approximately 170
ps, which translated into 0.01 to 0.02 m3 m–3 in soil mois-
ture. Normally, the propagation time measurement in the
drying procedure was longer than that in the wetting one.
The mean of time delay was used in analysis.
The different soil salinity was generated by adding differ-
ent concentrations of salt solution (NaCl) instead of distilled
water to the soil. In order to maintain a constant salt quanti-
ty in soil at different water contents, at the beginning of the
experiment approximate 2 g of NaCl was added to 1429 mL
of distilled water, which would bring the volumetric soil
water content to 0.30 m3 m–3 (close to its saturation) with
1.54 dS m–1 electrical conductivity for saturated soil extract
(ECe ). As soil dried the bulk soil electrical conductivity
decreased; however, the amount of salt in the soil remained
unchanged as well as the electrical conductivity of soil-sat-
urated extract.
As the experiment progressed, the same soil sample had
additional salt added to produce higher ECe levels. For a
desired ECe for an increased salinity series, the total salt was
calculated, then an amount required in addition to that
already present from the previous series was added.
The whole database included eight ECe levels and soil
moisture ranged from dry to 0.30 m3 m–3 at each ECe level.
The saturated extract was collected by first wetting 0.5 L
saline soil to saturation, the soil was then placed in a funnel
and filtered by a quantitative 1 filter paper. A vacuum pump
 18 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
Table 2. The comparison of calculated time delay using Eq. 6 and measured one at 0.30 m3m–3 volumetric soil water content with different
electrical conductivity
f MAX
σ (dS m–1) Rise time (ns) (MHz)
0.22 2.783 126.00
0.40 3.594 97.40
0.62 4.020 87.07
0.85 6.063 57.73
1.12 7.563 46.28
was used to facilitate the extraction. The electrical conduc-
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
tivities of the extract ECe were measured using a K320
Microcomputer Conductometer (Consort pvba, Turnhout,
Belgium). They were (at 0.30 m3 m–3 volumetric soil water
content): 0.34 dS m–1, 1.54 dS m–1, 3.72 dS m–1, 6.37 dS
m–1, 9.27 dS m–1, 11.73 dS m–1, 13.73 dS m–1 and 15.29 dS
m–1 generated by adding an appropriate amount of salt. The
time delay in the saline soil was measured using the same
MP-917 and probe as mentioned before.
All the above experiments were conducted in ESI
research laboratory at room temperature of 22 to 23°C.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For personal use only.
1. For Soils with Low Electrical Conductivity (ECe
≤ 3.27 dS m–1)
The results of time delay (T/Tair) and volumetric soil water
content measurements for soil with low ECe (0.34 dS m–1,
1.54 dS m–1, and 3.72 dS m–1) were pooled together,
because the relationship between T/Tair and volumetric
water content all appeared linear in this electrical conduc-
tivity range (Fig. 2). At next electrical conductivity level
where ECe = 6.37dS m–1, this relation obviously deviated
from linear. The slope 0.1195 was smaller than the pub-
lished 0.1257 (Sun 1995; Hook and Livingston 1996).
However, if the point at the upper right corner was exclud-
ed, then the equation became y = 0.1233x – 0.2030. The
slope was very close to the published one. The intercept of
0.2030 was very close to 0.2090 from another experiment
by Sun (Sun 1995). The point at the upper right corner rep-
resented the measurement at 0.30 m3 m–3 water content and
3.72 dS m–1 ECe conditions. TDR overestimated approxi-
mately 0.05 m3 m–3 in water content at this condition. This
indicated that salt started affecting the measurement at rela-
tively low concentration if the water content was high.
In general the volumetric water content determined using
MP-917 agreed well with that measured using the balance
(Fig. 3). If the upper right point was excluded, then the pub-
lished linear calibration of time delay vs. volumetric water
can be used for saline soil when ECe is no more than 3.72
dS m–1. As soil dries, the concentration of the soil solution
increased; however, the impedance (tortuosity) associated
with current flow through the water phase increases as well,
and this offset the effect of the increase in ionic concentra-
tion on bulk soil electrical conductivity.
The lack of influence of electrical conductivity on time
delay measurement using TDR when ECe was smaller than
Difference
Calculated time between
delay (ns) Measured measured and
using Eq. 9 time delay (ns) calculated
8.372 8.328 0.014
8.528 9.107 0.579
8.861 9.544 0.683
10.027 10.817 0.790
11.526 12.817 1.291
3.72 dS m–1 could be further demonstrated by the following
calculation. Assuming that the volumetric soil water content
θv is 0.30 m3 m–3, ECe was 1.54 dS m–1, then the calculated
bulk soil electrical conductivity σ using Archie’s formula
(Ferré at al.1998) would be 0.22 dS m–1. The measured rise
time was 2.783 ns and the calculated fm according to Eq. 7
is 126 MHz. This caused 14 ps longer in time delay (calcu-
lated using Eq. 9) than that in nonsaline soil with the same
water content. The difference was within the accuracy of
MP-917.
2. For Soils with High Electrical Conductivity (ECe
≥ 6.37 dS m–1)
There was an overestimation of volumetric soil water con-
tent using TDR when the electrical conductivity of soil solu-
tion at saturation was above 6.37 dS m–1 and the magnitude
of overestimation increased as ECe increased at moisture
saturation (Table 1).
Two general patterns are shown in Table 1. First, at each
ECe level, the overestimation increased with increase of soil
water content. Second, at each water content, the overesti-
mation increased with increase of electrical conductivity.
Both patterns could be explained by an increase in ionic
conductivity in soil either by increasing the amount of con-
ductive carriers, and/or by increasing the facility of migra-
tion of the ions as soil moisture increases. Both mechanisms
would increase σ, resulting in a longer time delay according
to Eq. 6. The overestimation was as large as 0.40 m3 m–3 at
0.270 m3 m–3 moisture level (balance measured) when the
ECe reached 15.29 dS m–1. There were several data in
Table1 out of the expected descent/ascent pattern. For
example, at 9.27 dS m–1 conductivity, the overestimation at
0.25 m3 m–3 moisture level was less that at 0.21 m3 m–3. At
0.08 m3 m–3 moisture level, the overestimation at 11.73 dS
m–1 conductivity was less than that at 9.27 dS m–1 level. The
cause of the inconsistency might be the results of uneven
distribution of water and ions, and/or different soil com-
pacting in different measurements since the same soil sam-
ple had been repacked at each salinity level. However, the
inconsistency was not detectable when the soil water con-
tent was above 0.08 m3 m–3 with ECe above 11.73 dS m–1.
This indicates that at this moisture and salinity levels, the
overestimation in water content due to electrical conductiv-
ity overwhelmed the errors caused by other reasons. Clearly,
TDR cannot measure volumetric soil water content correct-
 SUN ET AL. — ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND TDR MEASUREMENT
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
For personal use only.
Fig. 6. The comparison of reflected
signal between ECe = 15.27 dS m–1
and 0.34 dS m–1 at 0.12 m3 m–3 water
content.
ly without a suitable calibration when the soil electrical con-
ductivity and moisture exceed a certain threshold.
When the ECe reached 6.37 dS m–1 or higher, the relation
between T/Tair vs. θv deviated from linear, and the deviation
increased as the soil electrical conductivity elevated (Fig. 4).
As conductivity increased, time delay increased significant-
ly. For example, at 0.20 m3 m–3 volumetric water content,
the measured time delay expressed as T/Tair increased from
3.510 when ECe = 6.37 dS m–1 to 4.905 when ECe = 15.29
dS m–1, and this would translate into approximately 0.18 m3
m–3 increase in displayed moisture reading.
The reason for a non-linear relation at high soil electrical
conductivity can be explained by the fact that the effect of
addition of salt on time delay increases with increasing soil
water as the ions become more mobile. In this situation, the
19
Fig. 5. The relationship between the normal-
ized rise time (the ratio of rise in saline soil to
that for no saline dry soil), soil water content
and electrical conductivity.
increase in time delay (T/Tair) is no longer directly propor-
tional to the increase in water content. A large portion of the
increase of time delay is attributed to the soil electrical con-
ductivity. Figure 4 shows that at the same soil water content,
the time delay increases with the increase in soil electrical
conductivity. On the other hand, soils with different water
content may correspond to the same time delay when their
electrical conductivity is different.
It is interesting to see whether Eq. 6 is adequate to explain
the increased time delay in highly conductive soils when
using TDR. Calculated and measured time delays for soil
with 0.30 m3 m–3 water content but different electrical con-
ductivity are summarized in Table 2. The εr in Eq. 6 can be
determined by using the relationship between volumetric
water content θV and travel time T for non-saline soils, if θV
 20 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
For personal use only.
is known. The first column is the bulk electrical conductiv-
ity σ calculated using Archie’s formula. The second column
is the rise time that can be measured using fine scan in
Moisture.Point MP-917. The third column is the maximum
frequency calculated using Eq. 7. Table 2 shows that using
Eq. 6 alone was not adequate to explain the increased time
delay in highly conductive soils. For example, when σ =
1.12 dS m–1, there was still 1.291 ns increased time delay
unexplainable by applying Eq. 6. The divergence between
the calculated and measured time delay increased when soil
electrical conductivity increased. The remaining overesti-
mation might be explained by:
(a) The rise time of the reflection signal increases signifi-
cantly when soil electrical conductivity increases. The
slope of the reflection signal becomes so low that iden-
tification of the portion of the waveform with the steep-
est slope becomes very difficult. The commonly used
method to identify the time mark by intercepting the
steepest slope and time base line might be not valid
when the rise time becomes very large. There may be an
increase of rise time related measurement error as men-
tioned before (Ferré et al. 1999). Figure 5 showed that
the rise time of the reflected signal (estimated from the
Fig. 7. (a) The relationship between elec-
trical conductivity of saturated soil extract
and coefficient C1. (b). The relationship
between electrical conductivity of soil
solution and coefficient C2.
TDR trace displayed using MP-917 soil moisture
instrument) increased with the increase of soil moisture
and soil electrical conductivity. More research is need-
ed to explore the relationship between the rise time and
measurement error.
(b) In TDR, the transmitted signal comprises a band of fre-
quencies. According to Eq. 6, the time delay would be
longer for low frequency components. In our calcula-
tion, only one frequency, the maximum frequency was
used, and the effect of the low frequency components
was not considered.
(c) The relaxation related dielectric loss ε″ is neglected in
the above calculation. The calculated time delay would
have been be longer if this term had been included.
Figure 6 shows the superimposed actual reflecting signals
from sandy soil with ECe of 0.34 dS m–1 and 15.27 dS m–1
at 0.12 m3 m–3 volumetric water content. It clearly shows
increases in rise time, signal attenuation and time delay due
to the raise of salinity, if the conventional steepest slope
line method was applied. Even when the water content was
the same, the time delay (T/Tair) increased by 0.912; that
translates into 0.115 m3 m–3 of overestimation of water
content.
 SUN ET AL. — ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY AND TDR MEASUREMENT
3. The Logarithm Calibration
The results indicate that using the linear relationship
between T/Tair and θv plus theoretical correction using Eq. 6
is not adequate to explain all the increase in time delay in
highly conductive media. Our experimental data suggest
that it is better to use a logarithm calibration (Fig. 5). All the
calibrations shown in Fig. 5 were conducted on sandy soil
and the upper limit for ECe was 15.29 dS m–1. The general
form of the logarithm calibration is given as
θv = C1 ln(T/Tair) + C2 (8)
where coefficient C1 and C2 are functions of electrical con-
ductivity of soil saturated extract. The dependence of C1 and
C2 on ΕCe is shown in Fig. 7. As the conductivity increases,
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
C1 declines and C2 increases (less negative).
Using Eq. 8 to obtain correct moisture readings in saline
soil requires the information of soil electrical conductivity.
This can be achieved either by a direct measurement using
salinity sensors or estimated from a TDR wave trace (Dalton
et al. 1984; Topp et al. 1988). Nevertheless, Figs. 4 and 7
provide useful information that can be used to eliminate the
discrepancy between the actual soil moisture and that mea-
sured using TDR in saline soil conditions. For the medium
with conductivity above 15.29 dS m–1, the signal will be
greatly attenuated according to Eq. 1 and final reflection is
For personal use only.
barely detectable unless the TDR probe is coated with elec-
trical insulation material with the expense of reduced instru-
ment sensitivity. It is necessary to conduct a separate
calibration for coated probe.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of soil electrical conductivity on volumetric soil
water content determination using TDR has been studied. A
very large amount of data for soil water content, soil electri-
cal conductivity and time delay for sandy soil have been col-
lected, and the empirical logarithmic calibrations among
these three have been established. The ordinary linear rela-
tion between T/Tair and soil water content θ is not valid as
the electrical conductivity of saturated soil extract (ECe) at
saturation is above 6.37 dS m–1. The overestimation of soil
water content is attributed to the increase in soil electrical
conductivity and increase in rise time of the reflected signal,
which lead to a longer time delay. The correction of the soil
water content reading obtained using TDR in saline soils
can be conducted by using the logarithmic calibration pre-
sented, but it requires an independent measurement of ECe
or σ at the same time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Dr. Nigel Livingston, Biology Department,
University of Victoria, for permitting the use of equipment.
This research was supported, in part, by grants from the
Science Council of British Columbia.
Campbell, J. E. 1988. Dielectric properties of moist soils at RF
and microwave frequency. Ph.D. dissertation. Dartmouth College,
Hanover, NH.
Campbell, J. E. 1990. Dielectric properties and influence of con-
21
ductivity in soil at one to fifty megahertz. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:
332–341.
Dalton, F. N., Herkelrath, D. S., Rawlins, D. S. and Rhoades, J.
D. 1984. Time-domain reflectometry: Simultaneous measurement
of soil water content and electrical conductivity with a single
probe. Science 224: 989–990.
Ferré, P. A., Redman, J. D., Rudolph, D. L. and Kachanoski,
R. G. 1998. The dependence of the electrical conductivity mea-
sured by time domain reflectometry on the water content of a sand.
Water Resour. Res. 34: 1207–1213.
Ferré, P. A., Hook, W. R., Livingston, N. J. and Bassey, C.
1999. Errors in TDR-determined water content in saline sand.
Pages 253–256 in Collection of papers presented at the Third
Workshop on Electromagnetic Wave Interaction with Water and
Moist Substances. USA Department of Agriculture, Agriculture
Research Service, Athens, GA.
Hasted, J. B. 1973. Aqueous dielectrics. Chapman and Hall,
London, UK. p. 238.
Heimovaara, T. J. and Bouten, W. 1990. A computer-controlled
3-channel time domain reflectometry system for monitoring soil
water contents. Water Resour. Res. 26: 2311–2316.
Hilhorst, M. A. and Dirksen, C. 1994. Dielectric water content
sensors: Time domain versus frequency domain. Pages 23–33 in
Symposium and Workshop on Time Domain Reflectometry in
Environmental, Infrastructure, and Mining Applications. United
States Department of Interior Bureau of Mines, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.
Hook, W. R., Livingston, N. J., Sun, Z. J. and Hook, P. B. 1992.
Remote diode shorting improves measurement soil water by time
domain reflectometry. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56: 1383–1391.
Hook, W. R. and Livingston, N. J. 1996. Errors in converting
time domain reflectometry measurements of propagation velocity
to estimates of soil water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 35–41.
Malicki, M. A., Walczak, R. T., Koch, S. and Fluhler, H. 1994.
Determining soil salinity from simultaneous readings of its electri-
cal conductivity and permittivity using TDR. Pages 328–336 in
Symposium and Workshop on Time Domain Reflectometry in
Environmental, Infrastructure, and Mining Applications. United
States Department of Interior Bureau of Mines, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.
Nadler, A. and Frenkel, H. 1980. Determination of soil solution
electrical conductivity from bulk soil electrical conductivity mea-
surements by the four-electrode method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:
1216–1221.
Nielsen, D. C., Large, H. J. and Anderson, R. L. 1995. Time-
domain reflectometry measurements of surface soil water content.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59: 103–105.
Nyfors, E. and Vainikainen, P. 1989. Dielectric properties of
materials. Page 99 in Industrial microwave sensors. Artech House,
Norwood, NY.
Oliver, B. M. and Cage, J. M. 1971. Band width and rise time.
Page 372–373 in Electronic measurements and instrumentation.
MaGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ramo, S., Whinnery, J. R. and Van Duzer, T. 1994.
Transmission line. Pages 218–219 in Fields and waves in com-
munucation electronics 3th ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York, NY.
Rao, N. N. 1987. Wave equation and solution for material medi-
um. Pages 286–293 in Elements of engineering electromagnetics.
2nd ed. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.
Rhoades, J. D. and Van Schilfgaarde, J 1976. An electrical con-
ductivity probe for determining soil salinity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
40: 647–650.
Rhoades, J. D. 1984. Principles and methods of monitoring soil
 22 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
salinity. Pages 103–142 in I. Shainberg and J. Shalhevet, eds. Soil
salinity and irrigation – processes and management. Vol. 5.
Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Rhoades, J. D., Manteghi, N. A., Shouse, P. J. and Alves, W. J.
1989. Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: New formula-
tions and calibrations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 433–439.
Rhoades, J. D. and Loveday, J. 1990. Salinity in Irrigation agri-
culture. Pages 1089–1142 in B. A. Stewart and D. R. Nielsen, eds.
Irrigation of agricultural crops. SSSA, Inc., Madison, WI.
Shaun, F. K., Selker, J. S. and Green, J. L. 1995. Using short
soil moisture probes with high-bandwidth time domain reflectom-
etry instrument. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59: 97–102.
Sun, Z. J. 1995. Water use by 10 white spruce crosses as deter-
mined by time domain reflectometry. Pages 35–55 in Stable carbon
isotopes as indicators of increased water use efficiency and bio-
mass production in white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) voss)
Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 197.25.197.6 on 02/15/21
seedlings grown under different water and nitrogen regimes. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Biology Department, University of Victoria, Victoria,
BC.
Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L. and Annan, A. P. 1980.
Electromagnetic determination of soil water content:
Measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resour. Res.,
16: 574–582.
Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L. and Anna, A. P. 1982. Electromagnetic
determination of soil water content using TDR: I. Applications to
wetting fronts and steep gradients. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:
672–684.
For personal use only.
Topp,G. C. and Davis, J. L. 1985. Measurement of soil water
content using TDR: A field evaluation. 1985. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
49: 10–24.
Topp, G. C., Zegelin, S. J. and White, I . 1994. Monitoring soil
water content using TDR: An overview of progress. Pages 67–80
in Symposium and Workshop on Time Domain Reflectometry in
Environmental, Infrastructure, and Mining Applications United
States Department of Interior Bureau of Mines, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.
Whalley, W. R. 1993. Consideration on the use of time-domain-
reflectometry (TDR) for measuring soil water content. J. Soil Sci.
44: 1–9.
Wraith, J. M. and Baker, J. M. 1991. High-resolution measure-
ment of root water uptake using automated tine-domain-reflectom-
etry. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55: 928–932.
Zegelin, S. J. and White, I. 1994. Calibration of TDR for appli-
cations in mining, grains, and fruit storage and handing. Pages
115–129 in Symposium and Workshop on Time Domain
Reflectometry in Environmental, Infrastructure, and Mining
Applications. United States Department of Interior Bureau of
Mines, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.