Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
P. Ferre, D. Rudolph, R. Kachanoski (1998)
Water Content Response of a Profiling Time Domain Reflectometry ProbeSoil Science Society of America Journal, 62
J. Knight, P. Ferre, D. Rudolph, R. Kachanoski (1997)
A numerical analysis of the effects of coatings and gaps upon relative dielectric permittivity measurement with time domain reflectometryWater Resources Research, 33
W. Hook, N. Livingston, Z. Sun, P. Hook (1992)
Remote diode shorting improves measurement of soil water by time domain reflectometry.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56
(1986)
Microwave Measurement of Complex Permittivity by Free Space Methods and Their Application
A. Annan (1977)
Time-domain Reflectometry-air-gap Problem For Parallel Wire Transmission Lines
Malicki Malicki, Plagge Plagge, Renger Renger, Walczak Walczak (1992)
Application of time‐domain reflectometry (TDR) soil moisture miniprobe for the determination of unsaturated soil water characteristics from undisturbed soil coresIrrig. Sci., 13
I. White, J. Knight, S. Zegelin, G. Topp (1994)
Comments on ‘Considerations on the use of time‐domain reflectometry (TDR) for measuring soil water content’ by W.R. WhalleyEuropean Journal of Soil Science, 45
T. Heimovaara, W. Bouten (1990)
A Computer-Controlled 36-Channel Time Domain Reflectometry System for Monitoring Soil Water ContentsWater Resources Research, 26
P. Ferre, D. Rudolph, R. Kachanoski (1996)
Spatial averaging of water content by time domain reflectometry : Implications for twin rod probes with and without dielectric coatingsWater Resources Research, 32
G. Topp, J. Davis, A. Annan (1982)
Electromagnetic Determination of Soil Water Content Using TDR: I. Applications to Wetting Fronts and Steep GradientsSoil Science Society of America Journal, 46
J. Knight (1992)
Sensitivity of time domain reflectometry measurements to lateral variations in soil water contentWater Resources Research, 28
K. O'connor, C. Dowding, C. Jones (1994)
Time Domain Reflectometry in Environmental, Infrastructure, and Mining Applications
J. Baker, R. Allmaras (1990)
System for Automating and Multiplexing Soil Moisture Measurement by Time‐Domain ReflectometrySoil Science Society of America Journal, 54
J. Selker, Lynette Graff, T. Steenhuis (1993)
Noninvasive Time Domain Reflectometry Moisture Measurement ProbeSoil Science Society of America Journal, 57
W. Herkelrath, S. Hamburg, F. Murphy (1991)
Automatic, real-time monitoring of soil moisture in a remote field area with time domain reflectometry.Water Resources Research, 27
(1954)
Measurement of moisture content and electrical conductivity
A. Hippel, S. Morgan (1995)
Dielectric Materials and Applications
G. Topp, J. Davis, A. Annan (1980)
Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission linesWater Resources Research, 16
R. Kachanoski, I. Wesenbeeck, P. Bertoldi, A. Ward, C. Hamlen (1990)
Measurement of Soil Water Content during Three-Dimensional Axial-Symmetric Water FlowSoil Science Society of America Journal, 54
A. Nadler, S. Dasberg, I. Lapid (1991)
Time Domain Reflectometry Measurements of Water Content and Electrical Conductivity of Layered Soil ColumnsSoil Science Society of America Journal, 55
G. Topp, J. Davis (1985)
Measurement of Soil Water Content using Time‐domain Reflectrometry (TDR): A Field EvaluationSoil Science Society of America Journal, 49
We define the sample area in the plane perpendicular to the long axis of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry (TDR) probes based on the finite element numerical analysis of Knight et al. (1997) and the definition of spatial sensitivity ofKnight (1992). The sample area of conventional two‐ and three‐rod probes is controlled by the rod separation. Two‐rod probes have a much larger sample area than three‐rod designs. Low dielectric permittivity coatings on TDR rods greatly decrease the sample area. The sample area of coated rod probes decreases as the relative dielectric permittivity of the surrounding medium increases. Two alternative profiling probes were analyzed. The separation of the metal rods of Hook et al. (1992) probes controls the size of the sample area. Reducing the height or width of the rods improves the distribution of sensitivity within the sample area. The relative dielectric permittivity of the probe body does not affect the sample size. The sample size of the Redman and DeRyck (1994) probe is also controlled by the rod separation. Two alternative surface probe designs (White and Zegelin, 1992; Selker et al., 1993) are shown to have similar sample areas.
Water Resources Research – Wiley
Published: Nov 1, 1998
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.