Ubc 1992 Spring Kra Eric y

THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTS OF AN IN SITU CAPACITANCE MOISTURE
SENSOR AND A PORTABLE CAPACITANCE MOISTURE METER FOR ORGANIC SOIL AND
SAWDUST
By
Eric Y. Kra
B.Sc. (Agricultural Mechanization), University of Ghana, 1986
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Department of Bio-Resource Engineering
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
July, 1992
Eric Kra, 1992
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her repres&tatives. It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Department of R,O-p9$0c4frc6 eAf4-,AfILr
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
Date
__________
DE-6 (2/88)
Abstract
A capacitance chamber was constructed to measure the capacitance and hence the moisture
content of a sawdust sample placed within it. Five readings of capacitance were taken for each
sawdust moisture content level. The readings varied widely for each moisture content level suggesting
some conditioning of the sample will be necessary if this type of chamber is used as an accurate
alternative to the gravimetric oven method of moisture content determination.
A simple in situ capacitance moisture meter was also designed and constructed. The device
consisted of a 2.0 x3.0 xO.6 cm sensor and a hand-held digital multimeter with a capacitance range.
The sensitivity of this moisture meter was compared to that of a commercially available fibreglass
resistance type. In a series of experiments, two sensors (one of the capacitance type and one of the
fiberglass resistance type) were installed in a different saturated soil and sawdust samples and the
readings of the meters and weights of the samples were recorded at regular intervals. Of the two
moisture meters, the capacitance moisture meter was found to be more sensitive to small changes in
moisture content. With a few modifications (discussed in Chapter 5) to the sensor design, to improve
accuracy, it is possible to monitor small changes in small volumes of organic soil and sawdust with this
simple in situ capacitance moisture meter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables
x
List of Symbols
xii
Acknowledgements
xlv
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1 .2 Justification for study
5
1 .3 Objectives
7
Chapter 2 - THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
9
2.1 Capacitors
9
2.1 .1 Dielectric (or insulator)
10
2.1.2 Capacitance and Charge
10
2.1 .3 Calculation of capacitance from dimensions 11
2.2 Relative permittivity or dielectric constant
13
2.2.1 Variation of dielectric constant with a-c current frequency 16
2.3 Charging a capacitor
19
2.4 Discharging a capacitor
20
2.5 Capacitance Measurement
23
2.5.1 Bridge Circuits
23
2.5.2 Digital Capacitance Meter
24
III
Table of Contents
2.5.3 Sensitivity of a Meter 24
2.5.4 Resolution of a Meter 25
Chapter 3 - LITERATURE REVIEW 26
3.1 Principles of measuring soil water content by soil dielectric properties 26
3.2 Earlier Experiments with Capacitance Moisture meters 27
3.3 The Time-Domain Reflectometry (TDR) Method of Measuring Dielectric Constant . 31
3.4 Capacitor-type Moisture Sensors in Industrial Process Control 33
3.4.1 Capacitance-moisture Measurement in Slurries, Pastes and Emulsions 33
3.4.2 Capacitance-moisture Measurement in Solids 34
3.5 Porous Material Conductivity Measurement Methods 35
3.5.1 Direct Soil Conductivity Measurement Methods 35
3.5.2 Porous Block Conductivity Methods 35
3.5.3 The Fibreglass Resistance Instrument 36
Chapter 4 - MATERIALS AND METHODS 39
4.1 PART 1 - Design, Construction, and testing of a capacitance chamber 39
4.1 .1 Objectives
39
4.1.2 The design of the chamber 40
4.1.3 Materials
43
4.1.4 Procedure
44
4.1.5 Method of Analysis of Data
45
4.2 PART 2 - Design, construction and testing of the capacitance moisture sensors . . . 46
4.2.1 Objectives
46
4.2.2 Materials
46
4.2.3 Construction
47
4.3 Comparison of the two types of in situ moisture sensors 47
4.3.1 Apparatus
47
iv
Table of Contents
4.3.2 Procedure . 49
4.3.3 Method of Analysis of Results 51
Chapter 5 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 53
5.1 Abbreviations and Terminologies Used in the Discussion 53
5.2 Important Notes 54
5.3 In situ Sawdust Moisture Content Measurement by Capacitance Sensors 55
5.4 Likely Factors Causing Differences in Calibration Curves 58
5.4.1 Differences in Dielectric Sawdust Packing Density 58
5.4.2 Contraction of Dielectric Sawdust During Drying 59
5.5 In situ Organic Soil Moisture Content Measurement by Capacitance Sensors 60
5.6 Mathematical Relationships between Capacitance of Capacitance Moisture Sensors
and Sawdust and Organic Soil Moisture Content 63
5.6.1 Linear Regression Models For the capacitance of Sensor Cl in Sawdust 64
5.6.2 Linear Regression Models For the capacitance of Sensor C2 in Sawdust 68
5.6.3 Sudden Change in Slope of Linear Regression Models in Sawdust 69
5.6.4 Linear Regression Models for Sensor C3 in Organic Soil 73
5.6.5 Linear Regression Models for Sensor C4 in Organic Soil 76
5.7 Sensitivity of the Resistance and Capacitance Sensors Compared 79
5.8 Moisture Content versus Capacitance of Chamber 83
Chapter 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 86
List of References
88
APPENDIX
A.1 Calculation of Sensitivities
A.3 Calculations of Mass of Soil Moisture
v
Table of Contents
A.4 Calculations of Moisture Contents (% dry weight basis)
19.)-
A.5 Calculations of Moisture Contents (% dry volume basis)
tO 2
vi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Some geometrical shapes of capacitors; (a) parallel plate (b) parallel conductor and (c)
cylindrical 9
Figure 2.2 Physical dimensions and capacitance; (a) parallel plate capacitor, (b) concentric spheres,
and (c) cylindrical capacitor 12
Figure 2.3 A typical frequency dependency of dielectric constant. (Source: Blech, 1989). . 18
Figure 2.4 Simple RC capacitor charging circuit 19
Figure 2.5 The voltage across a charging capacitor 21
Figure 2.6 Simple RC capacitor discharge circuit 21
Figure 2.7 Voltage across a 1 F discharging capacitor 22
Figure 2.8 A bridge-type circuit for measuring an unknown capacitance 23
Figure 2.9 A schematic diagram of a digital capacitance meter using the 3905 Timer 25
Figure 3.1 Relationship between the frequency, f, in MHz and the soil moisture content 0 in percent
by volume for bess and silty sand. (Source: Kur et al, 1970) 28
Figure 3.2 Relationship between moisture content and capacitance reading, clay loam, Hughenden,
N. Queensland. (Source: De Plater, 1955) 29
Figure 3.3 Simplified fibreglass moisture sensor 37
Figure 3.4 Construction of fibreglass soil moisture cell. (Source: Colman and Hendrix, 1949). 38
Figure 4.1 (a) cross-sectional view of capacitance chamber, and (b) with lid in place
vii
List of Figures
and clamped 42
Figure 4.2 Dimensions of chamber; (a) side view and (b) plan of lid or base 43
Figure 4.3 Construction of capacitance moisture sensor 48
Figure 4.4 Placement of a fibergass resistance sensor and a capacitance sensor in the
same pot of organic soil or sawdust 50
Figure 5.1 Four calibration curves for Cl in sawdust 57
Figure 5.2 Four calibration curves for C2 in sawdust 57
Figure 5.3 Four calibration curves for C3 in orgainc soil 62
Figure 5.4 Four calibration curves for C4 in orgainc soil 62
Figure 5.5 Linear regression lines for test 1 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.951 for line 1 and 0.994
for line 2
66
Figure 5.6 Linear regression lines for test 2 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.971 for line
1, and 0.995 for line 2
66
Figure 5.7 Linear regression model for test 3 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.986 67
Figure 5.8 Linear regression line for test 4 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.998 67
Figure 5.9 Linear regression lines for test 1 of C2 in sawdust. R2 = 0.984 for line 1 and 0.998 for
line 2
71
Figure 5.10 Linear regression model for test 2 of C2. R2 = 0.983 for line 1 and 0.996 for line
2
71
VIII
Figure 5.12
Figure 5.13
Figure 5.14
Figure 5.15
Figure 5.16
Figure 5.17
Figure 5.16
1.0
72
74
74
75
75
77
77
78
78
List of Figures
Figure 5.11 Linear regression model for test 3 of C2 in sawdust. R2 = 0.943 for
for line 2
line 1 and
Linear regression model for test 4 of C2 in sawdust. R2 = 0.981 72
Linear regression model for test 1 of C3 in organic soil. R2 = 0.994
Linear regression model for test 2 of C3 in organic soil. R2 = 0.990.
Linear regression model for test 4 of C3. R2 = 0.958
Linear regression model for C4 for test 2 in organic soil. R2 = 0.998
R2 = 0.988
Figure 5.19 Linear regression model for test 3 of C4 in organic soil.
Figure 5.20 Linear regression model for C4 in organic soil. R2 = 0.974.
Figure 5.21 Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with sawdust moisture content, when
using capacitance and resistance moisture instruments with Ri and Cl connected. 81
Figure 5.22 Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with sawdust moisture content, when
using capacitance and resistance moisture instruments with R2 and C2 connected. 81
Figure 5.23 Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with organic soil moisture content, when
Figure 5.24 Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with organic soil moisture content, when
Figure 5.25 Capacitance of moisture content chamber versus sawdust sample moisture content. The
single line is the average value of the five replicates 84
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Dielectric constants: Typical values (T= 20C;atmospheric pressure; f< 1 MHz) . . 16
Table 5.1 Changes in moisture content (i.e. s in equation (4.1)) that produced a unit change in
capacitance and current meter reading. Calculations are based on the difference
between meter readings at 10 and 40 % moisture content 80
Table 5.2 Data obtained from tests of capacitance chamber with sawdust 83
Table Al. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within two different saturated
sawdust samples being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 1
Table A2. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within re-saturated sawdust
samples (from Table Al.) being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 2
Table A3. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within two new saturated sawdust
samples being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 3
Table A4. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within the fresh sawdust samples
(see Table A3.) being air-dried in the laboratory after re-saturation - Test 4
Table A5. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within two different saturated
organic soil samples being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 1
Table A6. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within re-saturated organic soil
samples (from Table A5.) being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 2
Table A7. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within two new saturated organic
soil samples being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 3
x
List of Tables
Table A8. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within the fresh orgnaic soil
samples (see Table A87.) being air-dried in the laboratory after re-saturation - Test 4
/
Table A7. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within two new saturated organic
soil samples being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 3
Table A8. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within the fresh orgnaic soil
samples (see Table A87.) being air-dried in the laboratory after re-saturation - Test 4 IJO
xi
List of Symbols
= the slope of the capacitance-0 5 curve of a particular sensor within a specified O, range.
= intercept on the
Ow-axis of the O,-C graph (10 2m3water/rn 3 sawdust or organic soil).
Ekc = the average change in capacitance of the capacitance sensor over a specified range of
moisture content (nF).
Al = the average change in the current through the fiberglass resistance moisture sensor, over
a specified moisture content range (pA).
= dielectric constant or permittivity of a dielectric (F/m).
= permittivity of vacuum (F/rn).
r = relative permittivity.
9 = volumetric moisture content.
volumetric water content (m 3/rn 3).
p = bulk density of soil.
0dc
= the direct current conductivity of a dielectric.
= frequency of an electromagnetic wave (radians/sec).
a.c. = alternating electric current.
A,B = empirical constants.
c = propagation velocity electromagnetic wave in space.
C = capacitance (farads).
Cl = Capacitance sensor #1
C2 = Capacitance sensor #2
C3 = capacitance in vacuum (F).
Cs = capacitance of a standard capacitor (farads).
C = capacitance of the unknown capacitor (farads).
d = distance between parallel plates (m).
D = electric flux density in vacuum (F/rn).
D0 = electric flux density in dielectric other than vacuum.
e = natural logarithim (2.71 83).
XII
List of Symbols
E = electric field (v/rn).
Err = absolute error of estimation of m.c. (m 3/m 3)
f = frequency of electromagnetic wave or electric current (Hz).
k = relative dielectric constant.
K = overafl dielectric constant.
K = the real component of the dielectric constant, K.
K = the imaginary component of the dielectric constant.
K1,K 2= emperical constants.
L = inductance of a circuit (henrys).
= moisture content.
P = polarization (C/rn 2).
r = the resolution of the particular range of the meter used for measuring capacitance or
current (nF or pA).
R = resistance (ohms,c).
r1 = radius of inner sphere.
Ri = Resistance sensor #1
= radius of outer sphere.
R2 = Resistance sensor #2.
= regression coefficient as computed by Quattro-Pro Spreadsheet.
RB = resistance of balancing resistor (ohms).
= resistance of ratio resistor (ohms).
t = time (seconds).
T = temperature.
= time constant.
= the amount of time it takes the capacitor to charge to a reference capacitance.
V = aplied voltage or maximum voltage (volts).
V = voltage across capacitor.
s = the sensitivity index for a capacitance sensor, as defined in equation (4.1).
xm
Acknowledgements
The works of the Lord are great, studied by all who have pleasure in them (Ps. 111:2). I am grateful
to God for the pleasure of researching into this small portion of His vast and great creation. I thank
Him for giving me such a wonderful Professor.
I am very thankful to Dr. S.T. Chieng, my Professor, for allowing me the freedom, and encouraging
me to explore those areas of this research of greatest interest to me, while at the same time continuing
to offer invaluable suggestions. I am also very grateful to Professor L.M. Staley and Dr. A.K. Lau for
taking time off their very busy schedules to make great contributions to this thesis.
I deeply indebted to the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Ghana for awarding me the
graduate scholarship, enabling me to study here at the University of British Columbia.
I am very grateful to all those wonderful friends of mine like Catherine, Selena, Edgar, Els, Akosua,
Dawn, Marlene, Sam, Isaac, Ikuko, Guangxi, Redi, Shipra, Moez, Jun, Awal and all the others who I
cannot mention here not because their contribution was of little value, but because of the limitation of
space. I thank you all for the ways you contributed directly and indirectly to my work here over the past
three years.
My special thanks to Neil and Jourgen for their invaluable technical contribution in setting up the
apparatus for the experiments.
xiv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
An accurate knowledge of water content in soil is very important in agriculture. In order to design
an efficient irrigation system, the appropriate crop water requirements and the available water in the
soil must be known. The crop water requirement data is usually obtained by monitoring changes in the
soil water content or by estimation from environmental variables such as temperature, radiation, relative
humidity, etc. But even when estimation methods such as the Penman Evapotranspiration (ET)
formula, are used, their accuracy must be verified by measurements made directly in the soil.
There are numerous growth media in use for agricultural crop production, particularly in the
greenhouses. Some of the more common ones are organic soil, sawdust, and compost. In modelling
efficient irrigation systems for these growth media, an essential step is experimentation with the actual
medium. The quantification of the hydraulic properties of the medium can only be made through
measurement of its moisture content at various points within its profile. In this respect, methods which
do not entail destructive sampling of the medium are particularly more desirable.
There are several devices and procedures today for obtaining soil moisture measurements for
agricultural irrigation purposes. The principles behind these methods have long been established.
Haise and Hagan (1967), classified them broadly under these headings - sampling and drying (or the
gravimetric method); electrical resistance; neutron scattering; gamma-ray absorption. Hillel, (1980)
broadens this to include techniques based on soil thermal properties on water content and the use of
ultrasonic waves, radar waves, and dielectric properties.
Each method has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The gravimetric method is simple,
Introduction
2
but time-consuming and can therefore be prohibitively expensive. Although this method is usually the
standard by which the accuracy of most other methods are judged, it is not very convenient in many
studies because of destructive sampling (i.e. the sample whose moisture content is determined cannot
continue to be part of the experiment). The spatial variation of moisture content within even a small
area of soil also limits the usefulness of this method.
Tensiometers are relatively simple and inexpensive. However they are limited to potentials up to
about 0.8 bar and require frequent servicing for proper functioning, and because they measure potential
only in the immediate vicinity of the unit, several tensiometers are needed to give a reliable spatial
average (Campbell and Campbell, 1982).
Gypsum resistance blocks, because they are inexpensive, are often a very popular option for
measuring soil moisture content. But one of their main drawbacks is that they require frequent
calibration to give measurements that are better than qualitative (Topp and Davis, 1985). The gypsum
blocks contain suitable electrodes separated by the gypsum. The resistance between the electrodes
varies with the moisture content of the gypsum.
The electrical conductivities of these blocks when they reach moisture equilibrium, are regarded as
an index of soil water content. But the water content of the porous block (i.e. gypsum) depends upon
the energy status of the water rather than upon the water content of the soil with which it is in contact
(Gardner, 1986).
The electrical conductivity of most porous blocks is due primarily to the permeating fluid rather than
to the solid matrix. Thus it depends upon the electrolytic solutes present in the fluid as well as upon
the volume content of the fluid. Blocks made of such inert meterials such as fiberglass, for instance
are highly sensitive to even small variations in salinity of the soil solution. An undesirable consequence
of the solubility of gypsum is that these blocks eventually deteriorate in the soil. Hence the relationship
between electrical resistance and moisture suction varies not only from block to block, but also from
each block as a function of time, since the gradual dissolution of the gypsum changes the internal
Introduction 3
porosity and pore-size distribution of the blocks. For these and other reasons (e.g., temperature
sensitivity) the evaluation of soil wetness by means of electrical resistance blocks is likely to be of
limited accuracy (Hillel, 1980).
Nevertheless, blocks are often used to indicate water content of a soil even though precision in such
use is rather low. However, the popular use of porous blocks likely stems from their utility as indicators
of water conditions favourable for or unfavourable to plant growth rather than their ability to indicate soil
water content (Gardner, 1986).
Another electrical resistance moisture content device is the fibreglass Electrical Soil Moisture
Instrument (Colman and Hendrix, 1949). One model from
SoilTest*
has moisture sensors made up of
two metal plates separated by a fibreglass binding which provides a coupling that varies with soil
moisture content. But the accuracy of this instrument may also be affected by the salinity of the soil,
since the conductivity between the two electrodes is governed primarily by the ions in the permeating
fluid rather than on the solid fiberglass matrix itself (Hillel, 1980).
The use of conventional in situ soil moisture sensors such as the tensiometer or gypsum block may
be hampered by properties of the test materials which differ considerably from those of mineral-derived
soils for which these sensors are designed (Baliscio and Lomax, 1989). Materials such as sawdust,
peat and compost have typical values of moisture content much greater than what these instruments
are used to measure. Secondly, water incorporated in organic matter such as the straw component
of compost may not be detected by some sensors. Thirdly, poor contact between the sensors and the
test material may result in misleading readings (Baliscio and Lomax, 1989).
The neutron scattering and gamma-ray absorption methods are also highly accurate, and the results
are available immeditely in volumetric units. But their high costs and possible health hazards which
might result from inappropriate use of the radioactive probe, limit their widespread use. Although this
instrument is expensive, it provides the opportunity of repeated soil water measurements at the same
location in a representative volume of soil within the field (Heermann et al, 1990, Hillel, 1990).
Introduction
4
Moisture content measurement methods which depend upon the effects of moisture content on the
dielectric properties of soil and other media have always attracted the attention of many researchers
(Gardner, 1987). A dielectric is an electrical insulator or a non-conductor of electricity. The dielectric
property of the medium that is normally measured is the capacitance. Capacitance (symbol, c, unit,
farad) is the property exhibited by two conductors separated by a dielectric, whereby an electric charge
becomes stored between the conductors. A dielectric is a non-conductor of electricity eg. glass, wood,
plastic (Turner and Giblisco, 1991).
Capacitance is a function of dielectric constant which changes with moisture content. Relative to
other substances, pure water has a high dielectric constant. When water is present in any material its
quantity modifies the capacitance of the material in which it is found compared to the dry material.
Topp et al, (1980 a), found a strong dependence of the dielectric constant on volumetric water content
for a number of soils with varying grain sizes.
Various methods have been developed for measuring the capacitance of soil and other media for
moisture content determination. Many of these employ some form of capacitor so arranged that a
typical soil sample would be located between the plates of such a capacitor (Holmes et al, 1982).
Gardner (1987), related that the greatest discouragement encountered by researchers on this technique
has been the difficulty in achieving a suitable design for the electrodes which does not introduce
unacceptable and extraneous capacitance. He however pointed out that, nevertheless, this approach
has so much to commend that it has never been totally forsaken.
The capacitance has been measured by applying an alternating electrical current (the test signal)
to an electrical circuit which includes the capacitor. By manipulating the frequency of this test signal,
while monitoring the current through a certain point of the circuit, the unknown capacitance can be
determined. One such method is the Wein Bridge circuit which is described in the Literature Review.
Another method of measuring soil water content based on the soil dielectric properties is called the
time-domain reflectometry (discussed further in Chapter 2 - Theoretical Background), and may
Introduction
5
eventually supplant the neutron meter, but at this stage it is still largely experimental and the
commercially units currently available are very expensive (Topp and Davis, 1985; Baliscio and Lomax,
1989).
1.2 Justification for study
This present study is the result of an initial experiment to study the effects of temperature, emitter
flow rate, and other variables on the moisture distribution pattern in the wetted cone (zone) of organic
soil and sawdust under trickle irrigation. A detailed study of that nature required the placement of many
small, very sensitive moisture sensors in the irrigated medium.
The IRAMS moisture meter, which works on the principle of time domain reflectometry was initially
selected for the study. The experiment was modified to use a single probe, due to the rather
unaffordable cost of the probes. But the readings from this modified setup were unsatisfactory, and
so work on the study was suspended until a suitable moisture meter could be acquired. It was
therefore decided to direct attention towards the development of an inexpensive and yet accurate
moisture meter. This new moisture sensor when constructed will be evaluated against another
commercially available moisture meter (less expensive than the IRAMS moisture meter), with a
fibreglass resistance type of moisture sensor
Nelson (1973), showed that the dielectric constant which determines capacitance is itself dependent
upon the frequency of the electrical test current. Baliscio and Lomax (1989) also found that the
dielectric constant and hence the capacitance was highly sensitive to measurement frequency, the
former decreasing with increasing frequency. This frequency dependence is a major disadvantage of
the Wein bridge device since frequency is manipulated as part of the measurement procedure.
The effect of the frequency-dependence of the dielectric constant can be minimized by using test
frequencies in excess of 10 - 30 MHz (Nelson, 1973, Wobschall, 1978 and Schmugge et al, 1980).
Introduction
6
However Baliscio and Lomax (1989) point out that the disadvantage of working with frequencies that
high is that greater care must be taken in dealing with extraneous effects due to such factors as the
inherent capacitance or inductance of circuit conductors and components. They therefore recommend
that improvements in the design of the capacitance measurement circuit need not focus on increasing
the frequency of the measurement signal, but could instead be directed towards developing a circuit
that would work at a single frequency or a very small range of frequencies.
Recent advances in Electronics have made available at very affordable costs, high quality digital
capacitance meters which work at a single frequency. One such meter, the EMCO Model DMR - 2012
Digital multimeter with capacitance range (having a resolution of 1 pf (pico-Farad)), uses a test
frequency of 400 Hz. At such a low test frequency, extraneous effects due to such factors as the
inherent capacitance or inductance of circuit conductors and component, are very much minimal.
Higher capacitance values will also be obtained at such a low test frequency, increasing the potential
of miniaturizing the capacitors; small moisture sensors are important in many experiments such as
studies of moisture distribution within the wetted cone of a trickle-irrigated soil.
Baliscio and Lomax (1989) suggested that an in situ sensor small enough to measure the moisture
content of a small surrounding volume of growth medium would have a very low value of capacitance
(less than one pico-Farad (pF)), that it might be difficult to reliably measure such small capacitances.
However, as explained in section 2.3, the frequency of the a-c signal of the capacitance test circuit
influences the dielectric constant of the dielectric and hence the measured value of capacitance. That
is the dielectric constant of any dielectric is not really a constant, but is dependent upon the a-c signal
frequency to which it is subjected. The capacitance of a capacitor is directly related to the dielectric
constant. Therefore the capacitance of a capactitor measured with a circuit operating on a power
frequency will be higher than that obtained using a test circuit operating with a higher frequency in the
UHF range, for example. Now if the effective area of a given parallel plate capacitor is reduced, the
capacitance (measured with a UHF test signal frequency) would be reduced accordingly. However from
the above discussion it can be concluded that the reduction in capacitance resulting from the reduction
Introduction 7
in effective capacitor plate area will be lower if the reduction in plate area is combined with a switch
to a lower test signal frequency. Therefore even though Baliscio and Lomax (1989) suggested the
impossibility of small in situ capacitance sensors, it might be possible if a capacitance test circuit
operating at a power frequency is used to measure the capacitance of the small in situ sensor.
Verification of this conclusion is one of the objectives of this study.
Given the above-mentioned facts there is therefore a great potential for the development of a
moisture meter with the following desirable features:
(i) Miniature size sensors;
(ii) High accuracy;
(iii) Inexpensive;
(iv) High sensitivity to changes in moisture content;
(iv) Fast response time to moisture content variations.
1.3 Objectives
The main objectives of this study are therefore:
(i) to design, construct, and test a capacitance chamber whose capacitance would be measured
by a digital capacitance meter employing a constant, low frequency (400 Hz), test signal.
(ii) to determine the potential of the use of the chamber as a viable alternative (the gravimetric
oven method) of determining the moisture content of sawdust samples placed inside the
chamber;
(iii) to design, construct, and test miniature in situ capacitance moisture content sensors (for
Introduction
8
sawdust and organic soil) for use with a low-cost, low-frequency, and single test frequency
digital capacitance meter, and
(iv) to compare the sensitivities (to changes in moisture content) of the capacitance moisture
sensors in (iii), to those of a commercially available fibreglass resistance moisture meter -
The Soil Test MC-3 13 Model moisture meter.
The EMCO Model DMR -2012 Digital multimeter with a capacitance range was selected for measuring
the capacitances of the chamber and the in situ sensors because it is one of the least expensive ones
and readily available from most electronic hardware dealers.
Sawdust and organic soil media were chosen because they are widely used as growth media in
green houses. Accurate, miniature and inexpensive moisture sensors for use in soil and sawdust would
greatly facilitate hydrological studies involving such media. For example in trickle irrigation studies, it
is desirable to have many inexpensive moisture sensors to monitor the moisture content in various parts
of the wetted cone of the irrigated growth medium.
Chapter 2
2.1 Capacitors
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A capacitor is a passive electronic-circuit component consisting of, in basic form, two metal electrodes,
or plates separated by a dielectric (or insulator) (Turner and Giblisco, 1991). Figure 2.1 shows three
different types of capacitor geometry.
IflsuItor
conductor
IflSuItQr
(c)
conductor
(b)
InsuIutQr
Figure 2.1 Some geometrical shapes of capacitors; (a) parallel plate (b) parallel conductor and (C)
cylindrical.
conductor
9
Theorectical Background
10
2.1.1 Dielectric (or insulator)
A dielectric (or an electrical insulator) is a material that ideally, conducts no electricity; it can
therefore be used for isolation and protection of energized circuits and components. Although such
common nonconductors as glass, wood and plastic might first come to mind, dry air too is a dielectric,
as is pure water.
2.1.2 Capacitance and Charge
When a voltage is applied to the plates or electrodes of a capacitor, lines of electric flux form in the
dielectric between the electrodes. The amount of flux developed is a measure of the capacitance
formed by the conductors and the dielectric (Levine, 1988). Capacitance (symbol c, unit farad) is the
property exhibited by the capacitor, whereby an electric charge becomes stored between its electrodes.
(Turner and Giblisco, 1991).
A body becomes electrically charged when charge carriers are transferred to it or from it. A charge
carrier is a mobile particle whose movement constitutes electric current e.g. a mobile electron e or hole
p in a semiconductor. The negative charge U acquired on one body is equal to the positive charge
Q lost from the other, so that 0 = Q. The magnitude of any charge is equal to an integral number
of n transported elementary charges e or p, so that U =ne or U = np (Dudley, 1989).
When a dc voltage is applied to the terminals of a capacitor, a charge is developed on the plates
of the capacitor. Theoretically, capacitance is expressed as a ratio of electric charge to the applied dc
voltage (Gore, 1989).
c 2.
(2.1)
where,
11
C = capacitance (farads),
Q = charge (coulombs), and
V = applied voltage in volts.
Unlike a resistor which dissipates energy, a capacitor stores energy and returns it to the circuit in
which it is connected (Joerg, 1988) When a capacitor is charged, it stores energy. The energy w
stored in a capacitor is given by (Levine, 1988).
w I Cv 2 (2.2)
2
where,
W = energy (joules),
C = capacitance (farads), and
V = applied voltage (volts).
When an alternating current is applied to a capacitor, the capacitor is alternately charged and
discharged. The charging and discharging of the plates through the external circuit makes it look as
though charges (current) flow through the capacitor. Actually since the plates are separated by an
insulator (or dielectric), the charges cannot flow between the plates through the capacitor, hence there
is no physical transfer of charges between the plates (Wilson, 1988 b).
2.1.3 Calculation of capacitance from dimensions
For systems of simple geometry (see Figure 2.2), the capacitance between two conductors
separated by a single, homogeneous isotropic dielectric may be calculated in terms of the physical
dimensions of the conducting electrodes, and the perrnittivity or dielectric constant of the dielectric
substance (see Table 2.1).
12
Figure 2.2 Physical dimensions and capacitance; (a) parallel plate capacitor, (b) concentric spheres, and (c)
cylindrical capacitor.
For a parallel plate capacitor, the capacitance is given by
where,
C=.EA_
d
A = the effective area of the plates (m 2),
d the distance between the plates (m), and
= permittivity of dielectric (farads/meter).
(2.3)
(a)
(b)
(C)
Theorectical Background 13
The capacitance the system of concentric spheres (b) is
c
= 4ltE
(2.4)
(1/r 1/r 2)
where,
r1 = the radius of the inner sphere (m),
= the radius of the outer sphere (m), and
The capacitance of a system of coaxial cable is given by
c
= 2ItEL
(2.5)
In(r 2/r 1)
where,
r, = the radius of the inner conductor (m),
r2 = the radius of the outer conductor (m), and
2.2 Relative permittivity or dielectric constant
The relative dielectric constant k compares the flux in a vacuum (k = 1) with the flux in the dielectric
material. The electric flux is the lines of force which are believed to extend in all directions from an
14
electric charge (Turner and Giblisco, 1991).
The electric flux density, D, of an electric field, is the number of lines of force per unit area (C/rn 2). It
is proportional to a property of space called the permittivity,
=
(2.6)
where,
D0 = electric flux density in vacuum (C/rn 2),
= permittivity of vacuum (F/m), and
E = electric field (V/rn).
Similarly the flux density in a dielectric is defined by Blech (1989), as
D=EE
(2.7)
where,
D = electric flux density in dielectric (C/rn 2),
= perrnittivity of dielectric (F/rn), and
E = electric field (V/rn).
Frorn the definition of k above,
(2.8)
D0 E0E
E
From equation (2.3), the capacitance of a capacitor in a dielectric, relative to that in a vacuum is given
by
15
.2 =.. (2.9)
C0 d d E
where,
C, = capacitance in vacuum (F),
C = capacitance with dielectric (F),
d = distance between parallel plates (m), and
Er = relative permittivity.
Thus the dielectric constant is also defined, for a dielectric material as relative to the ratio of the
value of a two-plate capacitor using the dielectric material to the value of the equivalent capacitor with
free space as the dielectric. Table 2.1 lists the Approximate values of some common dielectrics.
16
Table 2.1 Dielectric constants: Typical values (T = 20C;atmospheric
pressure; f< 1 MHz)
Dielectric type k
Air 1.0059
Amber 2.9
Asphalt 2.7
Bakelite 6 (3.5 to 8.5)
Beeswax 2.7
Celluloid 6.2
Ceramic 5.5 x io (4k to 7k)
Distilled water 78
Ebonite 2.8
Ethyl 26
Glass (window) 6
Glycerin 56
Mica
5 (6 to 7.5)
Mylar
3
Paper 2.5 (2 to 4)
Paraffin 4 (3 to 5)
Petroleum 4 (2 to 6)
Polyethylene 2.3
Polystyrene 2.6
Porcelain 6.5 (6 to 7.5)
Quartz 3.8
Pyrex (glass) 4.8
Rubber 3 (2 to 3.5)
Slate 6.8
Soil 2.9
Teflon 2
Vacuum 1.0
Vaseline 2.2
Water 81
Wood
5.5 (2.5 to 8.5)
*Approximate
values are given. (Source: Joerg, 1988)
2.2.1 Variation of dielectric constant with a-c current frequency
The electric polarization is the addition in electric flux density in a dielectric material to the density
in free space, i.e.
P=DE 0E
(2.10)
where,
P = polarization (C/rn 2),
D = electric flux density (C/rn 2),
= permittivity of free space (F/rn), and
E = electric field strength (V/rn).
The polarization is the total dipole moment induced in a unit volume of dielectric.
From equation (2.10), and equation (2.6),
P=EEE 0E
(2.11)
and
= P + E p
(2.12)
E E
Therefore, the relative permittivity or dielectric constant is proportional to the electric polarization,
... =.......+1 (2.13)
E E0E
The polarization within the dielectric material is determined by the displacement of charges. Four
sources for polarization exist in the material: electronicpolarization, due to displacement of electronic
charges; dipole polarization, due to reorientation of permanent dipoles; ionic polarization, due to
displacement of ions; and polarization by space charges, due to macroscopic displacement.
Since the polarization process takes place in a finite time at any given temperature, it is expected
that the relative permittivity, E, will be frequency dependent. A typical frequency dependence of the
dielectric constant is seen in Figure 2.3.
(a)
Figure 2.3 A typical frequency dependency of dielectric constant. (Source: Blech, 1989).
18
The series of inflexions in the curve occurs at the relaxation times for the various polarization
processes. For example, the dipoles of the material represented in Figure 2.3 can follow audio
frequencies (20 Hz - 20 KHz), but cannot follow infrared frequencies. The dielectric constant at infrared
frequencies is decreased by the dipole component and contains only the ionic and electronic
components. Therefore the dielectric constant and therefore capacitance is higher at audio frequencies
is higher than at infrared frequencies.
Dip
10
Electron
Power Audio UHF Intrared UV X-rays
Frequency
2.3 Charging a capacitor
A simple circuit for charging a capacitor is shown in Figure 2.4
F
I
p
V
____
I
LJ1C
Figure 2.4 Simple RC capacitor charging circuit.
Here the capacitor, the charge power source (i.e. the battery), and a resistor are connected in series.
When the circuit is open, the capacitor does not charge. But once the circuit is closed, the voltage
across the capacitor begins to rise, rapidly initially. The rate of voltage increase across the capacitor
slows down with time until there is no apparent increase (Wilson, 1987). The voltage across the
capacitor (please see Figure 2.5) is described by
v =vii
1
(2.14)
where,
C = capacitance in farads,
R = resistance, in ohms,
= time, in seconds,
20
V,, = voltage across capacitor,
V maximum voltage (battery voltage), in volts, and
e = 2.7183.
Practically, the length of time required to fully charge a capacitor is 5 7 (i.e. five time constants),
where
T
= RC
(2.15)
where,
T0 = time constant,
R = resistance (in ohms), and
C = capacitance (in farads).
Figure 2.5 shows the charging curve of a 1 F capacitor, with R = 1 ohm, and V = 1 volt.
2.4 Discharging a capacitor
After charging a capacitor, the acquired potential across its plates is retained, even when removed
from the charging circuit, until it is discharged. An RC (Resistance-Capacitance) discharging circuit is
shown in Figure 2.6.
When the switch is closed, a discharge current will flow through resistor R. The voltage across the
capacitor t seconds after closing the switch is given by
0.9
0.8
0.7
C
g 0.6
C.
0.5
0.4
0
0.3
0
0.2
>
0.1
0
Figure 2.5 The voltage across a charging capacitor.
21
4
jC
Figure 2.6 Simple RC capacitor discharge circuit.
= V(e t/RCJ
(2.16)
4 5 6
TTme (seconds)
where,
R = resistance (ohms),
= time (seconds),
V = voltage across capacitor (volts),
V = maximum voltage or battery voltage (volts), and
e = 2.7183.
22
The voltage across a 1 F capacitor in an RC discharging circuit, with R = 1 ohm, and V = 1 volt
is shown in Figure 2.7. Practically, it requires 5 T to discharge a capacitor in an RC discharge circuit.
0.9
Co
0.8
0.7
0
0.6
0.4
C)
D
e
0.3
0)
a
0.2
>
0.1
0
4 5 6
Time (seconds)
Figure 2.7 Voltage across a 1 F discharging capacitor
2.5 Capacitance Measurement
2.5.1 Bridge Circuits
Bridge circuits are commonly used to measure the value of unknown capacitors. Bridge-type
instruments work by comparing an unknown value of a component to a known value of another
component of the same type (Lewis, 1988). An a-c type bridge set up for measuring capacitance is
shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8 A bridge-type circuit for measuring an unknown capacitance.
A known standard capacitor C is connected in one arm, and the unknown C is in the other. An
a-c source with a suitable frequency is connected to the bridge, and the bridge is balanced with
RA and
RB, the phasing control R, and the Wagner ground control R, as required. The Wagner ground control
is adjusted with S2 in position 2 for the best null. Then S2 is returned to position 1. The Wagner ground
circuit is used to balance out any stray capacitance. When the bridge is unbalanced, a potential
difference exists between the terminals of the head set, and a tone is heard. (The pitch of the tone is
A-C SOURCE
determined by the frequency of the a-c source connected to the bridge). RB is adjusted until the bridge
is balanced i.e. no sound is head on the head set, at which point
C,
=
C R8
where,
C = capacitance of the unknown capacitor (farads),
C = capacitance of a standard capacitor (farads),
RB = resistance of balancing resistor (ohms), and
RR = resistance of ratio resistor (ohms).
2.5.2 Digital Capacitance Meter
Figure 2.9 shows the schematic diagram of a digital capacitance meter. The trigger input pulse
starts the capacitor on a charge cycle. The amount of time it takes the capacitor to charge to a
reference capacitance is marked T on the output signal. The smaller the capacitance the less time it
will take to complete the output pulse. Likewise a larger capacitor will produce a broader output pulse.
The crystal oscillator signal, counted down to produce very accurate timing pulses, is also delivered to
the enable gate. The number of timing pulses that pass through the enable depends on the width of
T, which, in turn depends on the capacitance of C, (Wilson, 1988 b).
2.5.3 Sensitivity of a Meter
Sensitivity should not be confused with instrument accuracy. Sensitivity is the ratio of the linear
motion along the scale by the instrument pointer, or indicator to the change of the physical quantity the
instrument is intended to indicate. Thus the sensitivity represents the output response per unit change
Figure 2.9 A schematic diagram of a digital capacitance meter using the 3905 Timer.
of input (Ambrosius et al, 1966).
According to the above definition then, the sensitivity of a capacitance moisture meter is defined as
the change in capacitance per unit change in soil or sawdust moisture content. Similarly the sensitivity
of the fiberglass resistance moisture instrument is the change in the current through the sensor or the
change in its resistance per unit change in moisture content.
2.5.4 Resolution of a Meter
The resolution of a measuring system is defined as the smallest increment of the measured quantity
which can be distinguished. The resolution of an indicating instrument depends on the deflection or
increment per unit input (Thompson, 1989). The resolution of the EMCO capacitance meter is 1 pF.
TR I GGER
HTx_
II
ENABLE
111111111
Chapter 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Principles of measuring soil water content by soil dielectric properties
Measurements which depend upon the high dielectric constant for water have long been appealing.
This is an intrinsic property of water, which serves to distinguish it quite readily from other materials in
many contexts (Gardner, 1987).
Topp et al., (1980 a,b and c) showed that water content was the factor mainly determining the
dielectric constant of soil material. Factors such as temperature, soil type, density of sample, and salt
content had essentially insignificant effects (Topp and Davis, 1985).
According to Kuraz et al., (1970), the dielectric constant E of a mixture of different materials may
be obtained, for example by the theory of Odelevskii (1951) by the relation
E,E
v.=o
(3.1)
i-i
1+2E
where V, is the partial volume of the i-th phase, and is the dielectric constant of the i-th phase.
Equation (3.1) cannot be used for the direct calculation of of soils because of neglecting the geometry
of the soil phases (i.e. solid, liquid and gaseous phases). However, it demonstrates a general
dependence of upon the moisture content.
From Table 2, the dielectric constant of air (soil air) is roughly 1, that of soil water is 81 and that of
the soil (solid) phase is 2.9. The E of soil actually fluctuates according to the composition of the soil
in rough ranges from 2 to 10 (Kuraz etal., 1970). The partial volume of the water contained in the soil
26
Literature Review 27
is the soil moisture content. Therefore changes in dielectric constant of the soil-air-water mixture will
result from changes in the soil moisture content.
3.2 Earlier Experiments with Capacitance Moisture meters
Kuraz et a!., (1970) described a method of measuring soil moisture content, by measuring the
resonant frequency of an oscillator circuit of which the soil capacitor is apart (please see their result
in (Figure 3.1). They pointed out that an empirical expression (Kaspar, 1969) originally found for
determining the moisture content of porous building materials could be used:
A
(3.2)
(B
- 0)2
where,
A and B are empirical constants
0 = volumetric moisture content, and
= dieectric constant of the material
Now the resonant frequency, 1, of an LC (i.e. Inductor-capacitor) circuit (Wilson, 1988 a) is given by
1
1
(3.3)
2it/T
where,
L = inductance of the circuit (henrys), and
C = capacitance of the circuit (farads).
Since the capacitance, C = EK, where K is a constant expressing the geometric arrangement of the
Literature Review
28
electrodes, and since the circuit inductance, L = constant, then from equantions (3.2) and (3.3), it can
be proved that
(3.4)
where K1 and K2 are empirical constants, which have to be found by calibration.
Thus they showed that there exists a linear relationship between frequency f, of the resonant circuit
and the moisture content of the porous material. They tested this using the capacitance probe they
described as consisting of two semi-circular, rigidly connected electrodes placed on the periphery of
a glass tube. The electrodes had the form of a 2 cm. high cylinder sliding freely on the tube filled with
the soil. Their calibration curves for two soil samples - bess (bulk density p = 1.41 g cm 3)and silty
sand (p = 1.58 g cm 3), is shown in Figure 3.1.
Their test frequencies were of the order of 100 MHz. According to them, the use of such a high
frequency reduces errors due to ion conductivity in the soil.
De Platar (1955), described a capacitance meter suitable for field or laboratory investigations. His
capacitance meter utilized a bridge circuit with a Hartley oscillator providing a 1000 Hz a.c. signal
source. His probe consisted of two stainless steel plates mounted on a suitable insulating handle; the
plates were not insulated from the soil. For convenience in measuring moisture near an exposed soil
surface, plates 2.54 cm wide at a separation of 2.54 cm and penetrating into the soil for 1 .27 cm were
used. The calibration curve presented in their report is shown in Figure 3.2. The experimental data
was not published. The break in the calibration curve was reported to occur after field capacity is
reached which was approximately 30% moisture content for the soil used. He noted that although
Anderson (1943) found the relationship between capacitance and moisture content to be independent
of soil type, Slyter (1954) found that variations can occur in some Australian soils, particularly at high
moisture content levels. There was however nothing reported on the repeatability or accuracy of the
calibration curve for the same soil sample.
Literature Review
29
160
150
140
(Mhz)
130
120
110
100
Figure 3.1 Relationship between the resonant frequency, f, in MHz and the soil moisture content 0 (% by
volume) for bess and silty sand. (Source: Kur et al, 1970).
Halbertsm et al (1987), described a capacitive method of soil water content measurement based
on the measurement of capacitance of a capacitor with the soil-water-air mixture as the dielectric
medium. Thefr probe consisting of conductive plates or rods surrounded with soil, formed the capacitor.
This capacitor was then connected into a resonant circuit of an oscillator. Changes in the water
content, and thus changes in the capacitor capacitance, will change the resonance frequency of the
oscillator. In this way the water content is indicated by a resonance frequency shift.
They noted that an important source of error with the capacitive technique (employing conductive
plates) is the sensitivity for the electrical conductivity of the soil which influences the resonance
frequency of the oscillator. Their instrument was developed by the Technical and Physical Engineering
0 10 20 30
moisture content (% by volume)
capc tunc
(mm F)
007
006
005
001
003
.002
.001
Figure 3.2 Relationship between moisture content and capacitance reading, clay loam, Hughenden, N.
Queensland. (Source: De Plater, 1955).
Research Services in Wageningen, Netherlands. No details of the design were however disclosed.
Each probe had to be calibrated individually and for each soil. They reported an accuracy of better
than 0.02 m3/m 3,provided that no changes in the matrix density occurred as is the case in swelling
soils. After installing the probes, no further disruption of the profile occurred. They found that the
response of the instrument was almost instantaneous and even small water content changes can be
measured.
Baliscio and Lomax (1989) experimented with a parallel plate capacitance sensor. This sensor was
designed as a chamber into which the material to be tested is placed. it measures the dielectric
constant of any material placed between the plates. Compost and peat were used as test materials.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
% Moisture (volume busTs)
The capacitance was measured using a modified Wein bridge circuit similar to one described by
Layman (1979). A predetermined weight of air-dried compost or peat was placed in plastic bags, and
water was added to bring the batch to the desired moisture content. Uniform distribution of water within
the sample was achieved by thorough mixing and by use of a microwave procedure reported by Horton
etal. (1982).
Baliscio and Lomax (1989), found volumetric water content to be correlated with two circuit
parameters: capacitance of the filled chamber, and frequency of the measurement a.c. signal. The
following quadratic surface, with R2 = 0.999, was fitted to their peat sample data points for moisture
content up to 0.591 m3 1m 3
= 0.004736 0.03075C + 0.04182f + 0.03125C 2 0.05596fC + 0.1418f 2
(3.5)
where,
= volumetric water content (m 3/m 3),
C = capacitance (nF), and
= frequency (MHz).
The following linear model with R2 = 0.965 was also fitted to their set of data points for the compost
sample for 0 up to 0.71 04 m3 /m 3
= 0.200949 C 0.0436 (3.6)
where the terms are as defined in Equation 3.5. It was however not made clear if the data were from
repeated testing of the moisture sensor or from just one test. They however pointed out that the
capacitance of the filled chamber was found to be highly sensitive to the test frequency the test
frequency was manipulated as part of the capacitance measurement procedure.
Literature Review
32
3.3 The Time-Domain Reflectometry (TDR) Method of Measuring Dielectric Constant
Time-Domain Reflectometry(TDR), a technique operating over a range of radio frequencies which
can be used to measure the high-frequency electrical properties of materials, has been applied to
measuring soil water content, both in the field and laboratory (Davis, 1975; Davis and Chudobiak, 1975;
Topp eta!., 1980 a,b, and c).
In soil application, TDR is used to measure the dielectric constant of the soil. In the TDR technique,
a step voltage pulse is propagated along a transmission line. The signals propagation velocity and the
polarity of the reflected signal are dependent upon the electrical properties of the materials making up
the transmission line. Parallel pair transmission lines are usually used for measuring soil moisture
contents. The parallel rods or wires serve as conductors and the soil in which the rods are inserted
serves as the dielectric medium. The pair of rods acts as a waveguide and the signal propagates as
a plane wave in the soil. The signal is reflected from the end of the transmission line in the soil and
returns back to the TDR receiver. The signal propagation velocity is dependent on the volumetric
moisture content of the soil (Topp and Davis, 1985).
3.3.1 Propagation Velocity and Water Content
The dielectric is related to the signal propagation velocity by
v = cI{K [1 + (1 + tan 2) 5]I2} 112
(3.7)
where c is the propagation velocity of an electromagnetic wave in free space (3 x
108
mIs). The loss
Literature Review
33
tangent is given by
[K
+
(3.8)
tan8=
K
where K is the real component of the dielectric constant, K. K is the imaginary component of the
dielectric constant,
0d,
is the direct current conductivity of the dielectric, o is the angular frequency
(2itf), and e,, is the free space permittivity (8.854 x10 12 F/rn). In soils, tan S is usually much less than
1 so that K K; thus
v (3.9)
K112
where Kis the overall dielectric constant. According to Topp etal., (1985) equation (3.9) is satisfactory
for all soils sampled.
Topp and Davis (1980) found that in general, the dielectric constant is given by
I 2
K=12!I
(3.10)
L. 2 L)
where K is the dielectric constant, t is the propagation time, c is the velocity of light in vacuum, and L
is the waveguide length. Topp eta!., (1980 a), fitted the following empirical equation to their data
=
- 5.3x10 + 2.9 x 10K -5.5 x 10 4K2+ 4.3 x 10K 3
(3.11)
where 0,, is the volumetric water content.
In further studies they found that the empirical equation (3.11), above applied not only for coaxial
transmission lines, but also for parallel pair transmission lines placed in the soil (Topp and Davis, 1982).
3.4 Capacitor-type Moisture Sensors in Industrial Process Control
3.4.1 Capacitance-moisture Measurement in Slurries, Pastes and Emulsions
Capacitance sensors are used in moisture measurement in slurries, pastes and emulsions. The
capacitance electrodes can be placed in the walls of the pipes and bases of chutes and belts, and
hence the technique is applicable to this range of materials. However, most gases, including air have
very low dielectric constants compared with solids, and if entrained in the material, cause major errors
in the measured moisture content. Correction for entrained gas may be possible with slurries by
measuring the capacitance at two different pressures. This technique is good for determining relatively
high water contents of slurries, pastes and emulsions (Carr-Bion, 1986).
3.4.2 Capacitance-moisture Measurement in Solids
The dielectric constant of water is considerably higher than that of most other materials and this
factor is used to determine the moisture content of solids such as natural vegetable products which do
not vary widely in composition. The dielectric constant also depends on the bulk density and chemical
composition of the solids, (especially varying concentrations of ionic conductors such as salt) and it is
for this reason that the method is mainly of value with materials of roughly constant composition.
The capacitance is determined in most cases by high precision bridge techniques, with built-in
compensation for variations in material temperature, bulk density and electrolytic conduction. In suitable
applications this method has a limit of 0.2 per cent moisture over the range up to 30% moisture. In
the 30 - 60% moisture content range, repeatability is between 0.5 and 2.0 % moisture, (Carr-Bion,
1986).
This use of capacitors requires electrically isolated conductors very close to the material being
measured. This method has been used to determine the moisture content of a wide range of
foodstuffs, tobacco, chemicals, sugar beet pulp, fertilizers, drugs, soap flakes, powdered coal, sands,
wood and textiles. The capacitance is normally measured at radio frequencies: 2 - 12 MHz being
typical (Carr-Bion, 1986).
3.5 Porous Material Conductivity Measurement Methods
3.5.1 Direct Soil Conductivity Measurement Methods
Electrical conductivity of porous materials varies with water content. Electrical resistance of
materials can ordinarily be measured with great precision; and if a reliable correlation with water content
existed, moisture content measurements based upon this principle would have considerable utility.
Unfortunately, such measurements made directly in the soil have not resulted in unique correlations with
water content and have therefore not come into general use. The major obstacles to the successful
use of direct electrical resistance methods, seems to be soil heterogeneity, which prevents uniform flow
of current in the soil mass, and uncertain electrical contact between electrodes and soil (Gardner,
1986).
Gardner (1987), also points out that the problem with this method is that is not the water itself that
is conducting the electricity, but the ions dissolved within the water and the double-layer ions
associated with surfaces. He noted too, the fact that conductivity is also used as a measure of soil
solution concentration.
3.5.2 Porous Block Conductivity Methods
Electrical conductivity methods made in porous blocks inserted in the soil yield far more dependable
results than those made directly in the soil. The electrodes are embedded in the porous blocks a fixed
distance apart. Porous blocks now available are made of a variety of materials ranging from nylon cloth
and fibreglass to casting plasters and numerous others, the most common being some form of gypsum.
Blocks are often used to indicate water content of a soil even though precision in such use is rather
low. However, the popular use of porous blocks likely stems from their utility as indicators of water
conditions favourable for, or unfavourable to plant growth rather than their ability to indicate soil water
content (Gardner, 1986).
According to Topp and Davis (1985), although gypsum blocks are the least expensive option in soil
moisture measurement, they require frequent calibration to give measurements that are better than
qualitative. There are numerous sources of error involved in the measurement of moisture content by
resistance blocks and it appears that precisions better than 2% water content should not be expected
and errors as great as 100% are possible (Gardner, 1986).
3.5.3 The Fibreglass Resistance Instrument
A simplified design of a fibreglass resistance soil moisture sensor is shown in Figure 3.3. Basically
it consists of a fibreglass (or nylon cloth) sandwiched between two conductors. The electrical
resistance of the fibreglass changes with its moisture content. Thus moisture content can be calibrated
against resistance or current flow. The main difference between this and the capacitance method is
that the capacitance chamber method measures the capacitance rather than the electrical resistance
between the two plates.
A more elaborate design of a fibreglass resistance soil moisture sensor is shown in Figure 3.4. A
fibre-glass soil-moisture meter consists of two parts: the soil unit (or the soil cell) and the meter unit.
The soil unit is intended to be buried permanently at the point where moisture measurement is required.
The meter unit is used to measure the electrical resistances of those elements of the soil unit with
which soil moisture and temperature can be determined.
The sensor (Figure 3.4) consists of a moisture-sensitive element enclosed in a monel case. The
moisture sensitive element is a sandwich composed of two monel screen electrodes separated by two
metal plates
Figure 3.3 Construction of a simple fibreglass moisture sensor.
berg I ass
layers of fibreglass cloth (or nylon) and wrapped around with three layers of the same material. The
electrical resistance between screens (electrodes) through the fibreglass cloth, varies in response to
changes in moisture content of the soil in which the unit rests.
The monel case of the sensor (or soil cell), consists of two identical half-shells of 25-gage metal
which are die-formed to ensure dimensional accuracy and rigidness. When assembled and spot welded
along the flange-edges, the case serves to compress the fibreglass uniformly and good capillary contact
between soil and fibreglass is ensured by the thinness of the metal (Colman and Hendrix, 1949).
electrical
connector
to plate
38
case
f berg as
3 layer
monel screen
fiberglas
2 layer
mone screen
electrical
connectors
/
holes
for contact
between soil
and fiberglass
fiberglass
3 layers
Figure 3.4 Construction of fibreglass soil moisture cell. (Source: Colman and Hendrix, 1949)
Chapter 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiments for this research were divided into two main sections as follows:
(a) PART 1 - Design, construction, and testing of a capacitance chamber.
(b) PART 2 - Design, construction and testing of the capacitance moisture sensors and their
comparison with the fibreglass resistance cells.
The objectives of each part, the materials used, and the respective experimental procedures are
outlined below.
4.1 PART 1 - Design, Construction, and testing of a capacitance chamber.
4.1.1 Objectives
(i) To design and construct a chamber which would measure the capacitance and hence the
moisture content of any sawdust sample placed in it, as a rapid alternative to the laborious
and time-consuming gravimetric oven method.
(ii) To determine whether the use of a low test frequency (400 Hz) significantly increases the
magnitude of the capacitances obtained (i.e. compared to the similar experiment by Baliscio
and Lomax, 1989).
(iii) To test the reliability of the capacitance chamber in predicting moisuture content by
39
Materials and Methods 40
(a) determining the variation of the chambers capacitance with increasing moisture
content of the sawdust sample inside it.
(b) determining whether repeatability of the moisture content-capacitance data pairs is
very sensitive to changes in bulk density of the sample, and to unavoidable spatial
variation of density within each test sample.
4.1.2 The design of the chamber
The capacitance chamber will indirectly measure the moisture content of a sawdust sample that is
placed within it, by measuring the capacitance of the chamber containing a sample. The box-like shape
of the chamber was selected in order to have a valid basis of comparison of the results with those
obtained by Baliscio and Lomax (1989); the capacitance readings using a very low test frequency (400
Hz in this experiment) will be compared to the results from using a higher frequencies (.02435 MHz -
8.366 MHz in their experiment). Their capacitance measuring chamber had two copper plates,
dimensions 30 cm by 30 cm at 1 .0 cm apart i.e. the effective area of the plates is 900 cm 2. Since
higher capacitance readings were expected, it was decided to use an effective plate area of at most
half of 900 cm 2 (30cm x30 cm). Therefore 18cm x25 cm (i.e. 450 cm 2) was selected. Even though
the effective area of the plates of this chamber is half the size of that used by Baliscio and Lomax
(1989), a valid basis of comparison still exists because the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor is
directly proportional to the effective area of the plates. Therefore, all other conditions being equal, the
capacitance of the chamber used in this experiment should be half that obtained in theirs. Values much
larger than half of what they obtained would suggest that the combination of a low test frequency and
appropriate insulation of the plates can make possible small in situ capacitance moisture sensors.
Since the water-soil/sawdust-air mixture will conduct electricity, the capacitance readings obtained
would be inaccurate and lower than if there was no conduction between the plates. To avoid using a
complex circuit to compensate for the conductivity of the dielectric between the capacitance plates,
electrically insulated aluminium plates were used. Insulation was achieved by wrapping each plate with
electrical insulation tape. A cross-sectional view of the chamber is shown in Figure 4.1. A non-
conductive coating (or paint) like that used for the in situ sensors could also be used, but there was not
enough time to test one, given that a lot of time had already been spent on the original experiment
which was suspended in order to solve some of the problems encountered in the course of it. However
a paint could be used in place of the electrical insulation tape, in a future experiment.
The chamber has a lid which consists of an insulated aluminium plate attached to a rigid plastic
block. The sides of the chamber are also made of 1 .2 cm thick perspex. The base of chamber, like
the lid, consists of an insulated aluminium plate fixed to a rigid plastic block. Rigid perspex glass was
selected because non-rigidity of the chamber will give unstable readings as the distance between the
plates will vary at the application of the least external pressure, thus affecting the capacitance of the
chamber.
The sample is placed in a sample bag (dimensions 25cm x18 cm), before placing in the chamber.
This procedure will ensure that all the water added at each wetting of the sample can be conveniently
mixed into all of the sample by shaking the bag. Given the very small depth of chamber it would be
very difficult to mix up the sawdust after each wetting without losing some of the sample. To further
ensure that no deflections of the plate could occur, each time, before closing the lid, the sawdust
sample would be shaken and conditioned to ensure that the lid of the chamber does not touch it during
measurements.
Figure 4.1. shows the cross-sectional view of the capacitance chamber with sawdust sample
between the lid (the upper plate) and the base (the lower plate). The dimensions of the lid various parts
the capacitance chamber are shown in the Figure 4.2.
c
J
n
a
,

a
,
a
,
-
o
-
a
a
,
a
,
a
,
a
a a
,
a
,
a
,
I
a
,
c
-
,
0
a
,
-
,
=
.
a
,
=
0
0
a
,
-
o a
,
-
,
0
a
0
-
o a
,
a
,
a
,
a
,
0
a
_
_
_
_
_
-
0
-
a
)
E C
u
0
-
D C C
u
a
)
0 C
u
C
-
Q
-
D C C
u
a
)
-
Q E C
u
0 a
)
0 C C
u
C
-
)
C
u
0 C
u
0 0 a
)
> C
u
C 0 C
)
a
)
U
)
C
,)
C
)
0 C
)
C
u
C
)
I
L
I
a
,
a
,
a 0
Materials and Methods
43
0.5cm
1,2cm
0.5cm
T
1.5cm
T
18cm
t
1.5cm
T
28 cm
Figure 4.2 Dimensions of chamber; (a) side view and (b) plan of lid or base.
0.1cm
ki,Ocm
H
last i
insulated
I am in i um
plate
4.1.3 Materials
(i) Capacitance meter: EMCO Model DMR - 2012 Digital multimeter with capacitance range.
Resolution is 1 pP Measuring frequency is 400 Hz. Measuring range is 1 pF- 21 pP
(a)
I.
25cm
(b)
(ii) Mist Bottle: 1 litre bottle with mist sprayer.
(iii) Weighing scale: Electronic Beam balance.
The dimensions of the capacitance chamber are shown in Figure 4.2.
4.1.4 Procedure
(i) The capacitance chamber was electrically connected to the digital capacitance meter.
(ii) About 40 g of air-dry sawdust was weighed into an empty pre-weighed plastic sample bag,
and placed in the capacitance chamber. The lid of the chamber was put in place and
clamped as shown in Figure 4.1.
(iii) After reading the capacitance of the chamber, it was unclamped, the lid was removed and
the moisture content of the sample increased by spraying some water onto it with the aid of
the mist bottle. The sample bag (with the wet sample) was weighed for its moisture content
calculations at the end of the experiment. After that, the sample was shaken together in an
attempt to distribute the added water evenly within the sample;
(iv) The sample bag was sealed and placed in the chamber, arranging it in such a way that the
lid of the chamber did not touch the sample when the chamber was covered. After placing
the lid and clamping it in place, the capacitance of the chamber was again measured with
the digital capacitance meter;
(v) The sample was then removed from the chamber and shaken vigourously (in order to re
arrange the particles in a different way) and returned to the chamber for another reading of
the capacitance of the chamber. In this way five readings of chamber capacitance were
determined for each moisture content point. The capacitance readings were repeated
beacause the main objective of this experiment is to determine whether the capacitance of
the chamber will remain essentially constant, irrespective of how the sample is arranged in
it (i.e. the capacitance of the chamber is dependent only on the quantity of water between
its plates).
(vi) After taking the five readings of capacitance, the moisture content of the sample was raised
a little, and steps (iii) to (v) repeated untill the sawdust was compltetly saturated. Saturation
was assumed at the point when after adding more water to the sample and having shaken
it to mix the water in, droplets of water remained visible on the inner surface of the
transparent sample bag.
4.1.5 Method of Analysis of Data
(i) A scatter graph of capacitance versus moisture content (% of dry weight) was plotted for the
all the data pairs obtained. A graph of the average capacitance-moisture content curve was
also plotted on the same graph. The deviations of moisture content measurements from the
average line were examined for some of the points as an indication of the possible errors
of measuring sawdust moisture content with the capaciance chamber.
(ii) The minimum and maximum determined capacitance of this chamber were compared with
those obtained by Baliscio and Lomax (1989) in their experiments to determine whether the
use of a lower signal test frequency significantly increases the capacitance of the chamber.
(iii) Determine from the graphs whether capacitance of the chamber increases with increasing
moisture content, as expected from theory and other experiments reported in the literature.
4.2 PART 2 - Design, construction and testing of the capacitance moisture sensors
4.2.1 Objectives
The objectives of this experiment are,
(i) To design, construct and test a capacitance-type of moisture sensor for in situ moisture
content determination of small surrounding volumes of moist organic soil and sawdust.
(ii) To determine if easily measurable capacitances can be obtained from the capacitance
sensors in (i).
(iii) To determine the smallest changes in moisture content that can be detected by the
capacitance sensors and compare this to the moisture content resolution (in sawdust and
organic soil) of a commercially available fibreglass resistance moisture meter - The SoilTest
MC-3 13 Model moisture meter.
(iv) To compare the sensitivities (to changes in moisture content) of the capacitance moisture
sensors in (i), to those of commercially available fibreglass resistance moisture meter - The
Soil Test MC-3 13 Model moisture meter.
4.2.2 Materials
(i) An ample supply of 1 mm thick aluminium plate;
(ii) 16 #4-40 screws and nuts;
(iii) About 5 meters of AWG 24 insulated copper wire.
(iv) Slab of 0.5 cm thick perspex, about 10 cm x10 cm.
(v) A metal-plastic bonding glue, e.g. Lepage
Lepage is the manufacurer of a variety of commercial epoxy glues that bond metals, ceramic, glass, plastics etc.
(vi) Varathane 2
4.2.3 Construction
Various shapes and designs, using a variety of materials were tried out in the laboratory, but are
not recorded here because they are considered to be outside the scope of the objectives of this paper.
The procedure that gave the best results during preliminary tests, is described below.
Eight pieces of 2.5 cm x3.0 cm aluminium plate pieces were cut out of a larger piece. This size
was selected as reasonable for in situ moisture content determination, since the commercially available
fibreglass cells measured 3.8 cm x2.7 cm on the largest side.
Eight plastic blocks measuring 0.5 cm x0.5 cm x2.5 cm were cut from the original larger piece.
Two holes, (used for attaching the cable and connector), were drilled in each small piece of aluminium.
The aluminium plates were insulated with varathane and each sensor put together as shown in
Figure 4.3.
4.3 Comparison of the two types of in situ moisture sensors
4.3.1 Apparatus
(i) Four plastic pots with perforated sides, dimensions: base: 7.4 cm x7.4 cm, height: 9 cm,
top: 10cm xlO cm
(ii) Sawdust;
(iii) Organic Soil;
2
Varathane is a registered trade name of a wood finishing system manufactured by Flecto Coatings Ltd. Richmond,
B.C. Canada.
/
0.1cm
e I ec tr I ca
connector
topIa
nsu ated
a um n I um
plate
(c)
Figure 4.3 Construction of capacitance moisture sensor.
(iv) Four Fibreglass resistance moisture cells;
(v) Four Capacitance moisture cells;
(vi) One Digital capacitance meter (range: 1 pf - 20 sit)
(vii) Fibreglass moisture meter;
(a)
[42
0.6cm
copper
plastic block
Materials and Methods
49
(viii) Digital multimeter (for use with fibreglass moisture meter).
4.3.2 Procedure
(i) Two of the plastic pots were filled with soil to a uniform depth of about 1 cm;
(ii) The gap between the electrodes of each capacitor cell will be filled with soil, taking care to
pack the soil to about the same density as the soil into which the cell is to be placed;
(iii) One filled capacitor cell and one fibreglass cell were then positioned near the center of a soil
pot while filling the rest of the pot with soil to a total depth of about 7.5 cm as shown in
Figure 4.4;
(iv) Step (iii) wiH be repeated with another pair of cells and steps (i) - (iii) for sawdust;
(v) The soil in each pot will be wetted with water to saturation and then allowed to drain to field
capacity (i.e. allowed to drain for 2 days) in a moisture chamber
(vi) The pots are taken out of the moisture chamber and the capacitance or resistance of each
cell will be determined, and the pot weighed at least once every 24 hours as the
soil/sawdust dried out, until the medium becomes fairly dry (i.e. very little changes in total
pot weight with time);
(vii) When the medium sample in each pot had dried (i.e. no more changes in weight with time),
it will be re-saturated and steps (v) - (vi) repeated;
(viii) The cells in each pot were then taken out and weighed while each sample will be
transferred to a moisture can for overnight oven-drying at 105C;
(ix) Steps (i) - (viii) were then repeated with fresh samples of each media.
cdble to
cpc tnce
meter
soi or
w d u s
cpc I tnce
sensor
Figure 4.4 Placement of a fiberglass resistance sensor and a capacitance sensor in the same pot of
organic soil or sawdust.
cable to
ml cromrneter
meter
ELZE7L
i berg I ass
res stance
sensor
p1 ast Ic
pot
4.3.3 Method of Analysis of Results
(i) For the cells in each pot, a graph of soil moisture content versus capacitance or current (or
resistance) were plotted for all the different experimental conditions, i.e.
(a) Experiment I: Using the same sample in each pot until sample became dry;
(b) Experiment II: Repeating experiment I by re-saturating the sample when it became very dry;
(C) Experiment III: Repeat of experiment I with a fresh sample of soil sawdust in each pot;
(d) Experiment IV: Repeat of experiment III using the re-saturated sample of experiment Ill.
(ii) In order to have a valid basis of comparison of the sensitivities to changes in organic soil and
sawdust moisture content of the two types of sensors, graphs of counts of meter (or resolution
units) versus moisture content would be plotted. The count of a digital meter is used here to refer
to a stepwise change in the meter indicator in response to a change in the variable being monitored.
The above graphs would be compared on the basis of changes in sensitivity (as defined below),
repeatability, and any other observable trends over specified ranges of moisture content.
The sensitivity of the capacitance and resistance sensors to changes in moisture content will be
compared by the following sensitivity index:
Lo
S = __:.
Au
(4.1)
Au = .L =
r r
where,
s = Index of sensitivity (% moisture content),
0,, = moisture content (% of volume of oven-dry soil or sawdust),
= the average change in capacitance of the capacitance sensor over a specified range of
moisture content (nF),
= the average change in the current through the fiberglass resistance moisture sensor, over
a specified moisture content range (pA),
r = the resolution of the particular range of the meter used for measuring capacitance or
current (nF or pA), and
= changes in capacitance or current meter readings, in units of resolution (dimensionless)
i.e. a change of 3 pA measured on a scale with a resolution of 0.1 pA, is equavalent to
30 units.
This sensitivity index, s, could be defined as the reciprocal of the resolution of each moisture
measuring system as a whole (i.e. the indicating meter plus the moisture sensor). It indicates the
smallest change in moiture content that can be detected by either the capacitance moisture content
instrument or the reisistance type. Therefore a higher s implies a lower sensitivity to changes in soil
or sawdust moisture content.
Chapter 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Abbreviations and Terminologies Used in the Discussion
Test 1: Two fresh samples (one sawdust, and the other organic soil) were used.
Test 2: The samples used in test 1 were re-saturated and used for this test.
Test 3: Two new samples (one sawdust, and the other organic soil) were used for this test.
Test 4: The samples used in this test were the re-saturated samples from test 3.
Cl: Capacitance sensor #1
C2: Capacitance sensor #2
Ri: Resistance sensor #1
R2: Resistance sensor #2
Dielectric sawdust or soil: Used to refer to that part of the soil or sawdust sample contained
between the plates of the capacitor.
53
Results and Discussion
54
m.c = moisture content.
Err = absolute error of estimation of m.c. (m 31m 3)
R2 = regression coefficient as computed by Quattro-Pro Spreadsheet.
Moisture exchange area = the total area of contact between the dielectric soil, or sawdust
and the surrounding soil or sawdust.
C Capacitance, in nano-farads
= moisture content (% of dry volume)
I = current in micro-amperes.
a = the slope of the capacitance-Ow curve of a particular sensor within a specified e range.
s = the sensitivity index for a capacitance sensor, as defined in equation (4.1).
5.2 Important Notes
1. The 200 nF range of the digital capacitance meter was used for measuring the capacitance of the
capacitance sensors in sawdust. The resolution of this range is 0.1 nF;
2. The 2000 nF range of the digital capacitance meter was used for measuring the capacitance of the
capacitance sensors in organic soil. The resolution of this range is 1 nF;
3. The 100 pA range of the digital multimeter was used to measure the current through the resistance
sensors. The resolution of this range of the meter is 1 pA.
4. The SOILTEST soil-moisture instrument (Model MC-305B) is fitted with an ohmmeter scale reading
0 to 1 .5 M2 with its resolution ranging from a minimum of 5 K1 at the zero end of the scale to 500
Mi2 towards the end of the scale. According to the manufacturer, an alternating current of 93 Hz
is generated in the solid-state circuitry, passed through the soil cell (or sensor) and rectified for
Results and Discussion 55
indication on a d.c. micro-ammeter. Thus the manufacturers readout of this instrument is actually
a micro-ammeter re-calibrated to read resistance of the fibreglass sensors in ohms (ci). During
preliminary testing of this instrument in sawdust, it was observed that the pointer of the analog
meter (manufacturers) was 0 Q at saturation point of the sawdust. During a typically calibration it
increased slowly to about 10 Kc2 and remained there until the sawdust was almost completely dry,
at which point the reading suddenly drops to K The Department electricians therefore
connected a digital micro-ammeter at an appropriate point in the circuit to measure directly the
current through the moisture sensors, in an attempt to monitor whatever minute changes there might
be in current when the sawdust is nearly saturated. The digital meter was easier to read with less
likelihood of reading errors.
5. Temperature is not mentioned in the discussions because the temperature throughout the
experiments was virtually constant at about 24 C.
6. In Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.20, it should be noted that the linear regression lines are fitted only for the
m.c. data in the range 10% to 45%, since this is the range of moisture content normally of
monitored in drip/trickle irrigation.
5.3 In situ Sawdust Moisture Content Measurement by Capacitance Sensors
Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2, show the graphs of sawdust moisture content versus capacitance of
capacitance sensor Cl and C2 respectively. For both sensors Cl and C2, capacitance decreased with
decreasing sawdust moisture content.
Test 1 and Test 2 of both sensors (Cl and C2 in sawdust) produced essentially repeatable data
pairs up to about 30 % m.c. Beyond 30 % m.c., the capacitances obtained in test 2 in both cases was
significantly higher than those for test 1. The difference between the two curves was greatest at about
40 % m.c. and gradually decreasing to almost zero as m.c. approached 50 % m.c.
The capacitances of Cl and C2 in test 4 were at all m.c. points greater than those I or test 3, except
for the crossover of the curves in the case of Cl (please see Figure 5.1). Apart from that, the curves
for test 3 and test 4 are similar in shape. The main difference therefore seems to be a an upward shift
in the calibration curves from test 3 to test 4.
The observed general pattern of decreasing capacitance with decreasing moisture content agrees
with the results of similar experiments reported by Kuraz eta!. (1970) and De Plater (1955) (please see
Chapter 4 - Literature Review). They however did not describe the repeatability of the data pairs,
except that Halbertsma et a!.(1 987) reported an accuracy of better than 0.02 m3/m 3, provided that no
changes in matrix density occurred as is the case in swelling soils. But the sawdust and soil used in
our experiment are both swelling types.
The shifts and differences in the curves in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 could be explained by
differences in the packing density of the dielectric sawdust in each test as explained below.
Results
and
D
is
c
5
5
1
0
0
cJ
C,
0
o
20
10
0
Figu,
5.1
C
0
C-)
0
C)
0
0
0
c 20
10
0
57
60
Four
caIibratjo
Curves
for Ci Ifl
Sawdust
Figure
5.2 Four
calibration
curves
for
C2 in
sawdust
5.4 Likely Factors Causing Differences in Calibration Curves
The capacitance moisture meter measures the capacitance of the composite dielectric (made up
of sawdust or soil, air, water and the capacitor plate insulation) between the plates of the capacitance
sensor. Theoretically therefore in order to obtain the same capacitance at a given moisture content,
then the dielectric constant of the dielectric soil or sawdust must be the same at each moisture level
during all tests of each sensor. This condition was not satisfied during the tests of the capacitance
sensors due to the following factors:
5.4.1 Differences in Dielectric Sawdust Packing Density
Care was taken to pack the dielectric sawdust into the gap between the plates of the capacitor,
without compressing it. No special technique or instrument was employed for this. It is therefore
expected that differences in the degree of compaction (packing or matrix density) would occur from test
to test. Since the volume of the dielectric gap is a constant (3.5 cm 3), a more highly compacted
dielectric sawdust in the gap implies a smaller partial volume available to the air but more to sawdust
and water.
According to the theory of Odelevskii (equation 4.1), the partial volumes of the air, water and
sawdust determine the overall capacitance of the capacitor. Sawdust (woOd) has a dielectric constant
of 2.5 to 8.5, that of air is 1 .0 and that of water is 81 (please see Table 2.1). Since the moisture
content of the sawdust is mostly the water contained within the particles, changes in packing density
will result in more wood particles and therefore more water per unit volume of the dielectric gap,
increasing the overall dielectric constant by a certain factor of 81. Also more sawdust per unit volume
would also increase the dielectric constant by a certain factor of 2.5 - 8.5. Therefore changes in the
dielectric sawdust compaction influence its dielectric constant and hence the capacitance of the sensor
capacitor.
59
5.4.2 Contraction of Dielectric Sawdust During Drying
Both the sawdust and the organic soil used expand with increasing moisture content and vice versa.
During the preliminary experiments, it was observed that the tightness of the contact between the
dielectric (i.e. soil or sawdust) and the insulated plates of the capacitor greatly affects the value of the
measured capacitance. A saturated dielectric organic soil or sawdust is at its maximum volume
therefore presses firmly against the capacitor plates. The contraction that occurs as it dries out,
reduces the tightness of the contact between the plates and dielectric. The coefficient of expansion
depends in part on the initial bulk density of the dielectric. This could partially account for the slight
differences in slope of the various m.c. versus sensor capacitance curves.
5.4.3 Moisture Equilibrium between Capacitor and Ambient Sawdust
The moisture exchange area is the total surface area of contact between the dielectric sawdust and
the surrounding sawdust. The area of contact between the dielectric soil and the surrounding soil is
the major limiting factor of the rate of moisture exchange between the capacitor and the surrounding
soil. The resistance to flow of water due to a moisture content differential, is directly proportional to the
total moisture exchange area.
The volume of the dielectric sawdust for each capacitance sensor is 3.5 cm 3 with a moisture
exchange area is 2.8 cm 2. That means 0.8 cm 2/cm 3 of dielectric sawdust. This is an indication of the
rate of moisture migration in and out of the capacitor in response to moisture content changes in its
surrounding medium. Increasing this exchange area per unit volume would increase the rate of
attainment of moisture equilibrium between the dielectric sawdust and its surrounding. Thus the
moisture content of the dielectric sawdust will be more nearly equal to that of the surrounding sawdust.
This proposed modification is supported by the fact that at the time of removing Cl and C2 from
the samples (for ovendried weight determinations) the surrounding soil was visually dry and also had
60
a dry feel, while the dielectric sawdust was visibly wet compared to the surrounding sawdust. Therefore
the moisture content of the dielectric sawdust was not in equilibrium with that of its surroundings. Thus
while in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2, the capacitance axes represents the capacitance corresponding to
the wetter dielectric sawdust, the moisture content axis essentially, represents the moisture content of
the drier surrounding sawdust.This explains in part, the differences in the calibration curves shown.
Due to lack of time, the effect of this modification could not be tested. Some proposed changes to the
sensor design for the next experiment can be found in Chapter 6 -Conclusions and Recommendations
for further research.
5.5 In situ Organic Soil Moisture Content Measurement by Capacitance Sensors
Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 contain the curves of the variation of capacitance with organic soil
moisture content for capacitance sensors C3 and C4. Each curve was obtained using a different
sample of organic soil.
In both Figures the curves for C3 and C4 lie closer together for m.c. up to about 40 %, indicating
a high repeatability of the data pairs within this m.c. range. The high level of repeatability of the
calibration curve for organic soil in this region for C3 is indicated by the linear regression analysis
performed (using the Quattro Pro Computer Programme) on all the data points generated for all the
tests of C3. The linear model is
= 0.246C7.621 (5.1)
with R2 = 0.932 and error of estimation, Err = 0.024 m3/m 3.
A similar model fitted for C4 is
with R2 = 0.897 and Err = 0.030 m3/m 3.
= O.282C1O.735
(5.2)
Equations (5.1) and (5.2) are similar to equation (4.7) obtained by Baliscio and Lomax (1989) using peat
in their capacitance chamber.
From the above discussion it is obvious that the capacitance moisture sensors in their current
design, give much more reproducible results when used in organic soil than they give in sawdust.
However eliminating the effects of the differing packing densities of the dielectric organic soil (as in the
case of sawdust discussed above) is expected to improve the accuracy of estimation for organic soil
too. The discussions of the dielectric sawdust in section 5.2 apply to organic soil too, since it also
expands upon absorbing water.
500
400
L
C
300
a,
Ci
0
C)
200
C-)
100
0
Moisture Content (% volume)
Figure 5.3 Four calibration curves for C3 in organic soil.
350
300
250
a, 200
150
a
0
C)
100
50
0
Moisture Content (% volume)
Figure 5.4 Four calibration curves for 04 in organic soil.
5.6 Mathematical Relationships between Capacitance of Capacitance Moisture Sensors and
Sawdust and Organic Soil Moisture Content
Examining the calibration curves individually, it was found that the relationship between the
measured capacitance of the capacitance sensors and the sawdust or organic soil moisture contents
was a linear one. This is proved by the very high linear regression coefficients (R 2) obtained in all
cases ranging from 0.9 to 1 .0 for both media.
All the linear regression models described below for the particular tests of the individual capacitance
sensors, are of the form
(5.3)
where,
= volumetric moisture content (1 02m3water / m3 soil)
= change in moisture content per unit change in O (10 2m3water / nF)
13
= a constant (10 2m3water / m3 sawdust)
C = capacitance (nF)
The sensitivity of the capacitance moisture instrument to changes in 0, is the rate of change of the
capacitance of its sensor (or probe) to changes in 0, i.e.
dC/d0
dC
= d0 = 1 (5.4)
d0
dC
where c is the slope of the capacitance-Ow curve of a particular sensor within a specified 0,, range.
Therefore c is the same as the coefficient of C in the following discussion of the linear regression
models for the capacitance sensors in sawdust and organic soil.
5.6.1 Linear Regression Models For the capacitance of Sensor Cl in Sawdust
The regression lines through the data points for Cl in the four tests are shown in Figure 5.5 to
Figure 5.8.
The equations for the regression model shown in Figure 5.5 for test 1 of Cl is
= 4.821 C0.723 (for O<26%)
(5.5)
with R2 = 0.951 and Err = 0.013 m3/m 3; and
= 1 .032 C+20.378 (for
26%<O<40%)
(5.6)
having R2 = 0.994 and Err = 0.003 m3/m 3. A sudden change in the slope of the regression line
occurred at about 26 % m.c. The regression model for test 2 of Cl shown in Figure 5.6 is
0, = 6.600C8.853 (for
9<26%)
(5.7)
with R2 = 0.971 and Err = 0.009 m3/m 3; and
0, = 2.252C+13.791 (for
26.<0<40%)
(5.8)
with R2 = 0.995 and Err = 0.003 m3/m 3. The equation of the single regression line fitted to the data
for test 3 shown in Figure 5.7, is
= 2.114 C8.363 (for
0<45%)
(5.9)
with R2 = 0.986 and Err = 0.013 m3/m 3. The test data for test 4 also followed a single linear
regression line as shown in Figure 5.8. Its equation is
= 1.740C-10.894 (for
8<40%)
(5.10)
with R2 = 0.998 and Err = 0.004 m3/m 3.
The ratio of the slope of the linear regression line 2 to that of line 1 decreased from 4.9 in test 1
to 6.6 in test 2, while the slope of the single regression lines decreased from 2.114 in test 3 to 1.740
in test 4.
C)
0
a,
ci
a
0
a
0
a
C-)
Li
C)
0
a)
0
C
a
0
0
a
a
C-)
15 20 25 30 35 40
Sawdust Moisture Content
(
volume)
20
16
12
8
4
0
10
Figure 5.5 Linear regression lines for test 1 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.951 for line 1 and 0.994 for
line 2.
12
10
8
6
4
2
45
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sawdust Moisture Content (% volume)
45
Figure 5.6 Linear regression lines for test 2 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.971 for line 1, and 0.995 for line 2.
30
25
C
0
20
4-
0
ci,
U
C
215
U
C
a
a
0
10
5
10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 5.7 Linear regression model for test 3 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.986.
30
25
I-I
C
o
20
4-
0
a)
U
C
a
U
a
a
a
0
1 5
10
5
45
45
67
40
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Sawdust Moisture Content (Z volume)
Linear regression line for test 4 of Cl in sawdust. R2 = 0.998.
Figure 5.8
5.6.2 Linear Regression Models For the capacitance of Sensor C2 in Sawdust
The equations for the linear regression models shown in Figure 5.9 for test 1 are:
= 10.91008.026 (for
O<29%)
(5.11)
with R2 = 0.984, and Err = 0.008 m3/m 3
;
and
0, = 1.546C+23.082 (for
0<40%)
(5.12)
which has an R2 = 0.998 and Err = 0.002 m3/m 3.
The linear regression model shown in Figure 5.10 for test 2 of C2 is
= 10.541 04.295 (for
0<29%)
(5.13)
with R2 = 0.983, and Err = 0.008 m3/m 3; and
= 2.447C21.562 (for 29%.c0<40%)
(5.14)
with R2 = 0.996 with Err = 0.003 m3/m 3.
Figure 5.11 shows the linear regression model for test 3 of C2:
= 3.592C26.132 (for
O<25%)
(5.15)
with R2 = 0.943, and Err = 0.012 m3/m 3; and
= 0.974C10.181 (for
25%<0<40%)
(5.16)
with R2 = 1 .0 and Err = 0.001 m3/m 3.
69
The equation of the line shown in Figure 5.12 is
= 0.982C+3.377 (for
(5.17)
with R2 = 0.981 and Err = 0.013 m3/m 3.
The slope of the capacitance versus moisture content lines for test 1 and test 2 changed sharply
between about 27 % and 29 % O,, becoming much steeper above 29 % m.c. Thus according to
equation (5.4), sensor C2 was most sensitive to sawdust 9, changes in test 3, in the range 29 % - 40
%, when sensitivity cC
= Q974i
nF/m 3or 1 .027 m3/nF. The lowest sensitivity of cC = 10.91
0.1
nF/m 3
or .092 m3/nF occurred during test 1 when 0, < 29 %. In all cases the sensitivity of C2 to changes in
0,
was very high at high sawdust moisture contents, ranging between 0.409 nF/m 3to 1 .027 nf/m 3.
Except for test 4 the sensitivity of C2 was generally lower at lower moisture contents.
Even though the linear regression models for the various tests were different, the lowest R2 value
obtained for any of the tests was 0.951 with an accuracy of 0.013 m3/m 3or 1.3 % in test 1 of Cl.
These figures are encouraging, and suggest that there is a great potential in these sensors for a highly
accurate and affordable in situ moisture sensor for sawdust growth medium. The fact that the
relationship between C and 0,, was found to be linear is encouraging since that suggests ease of
calibration and errors due to calibration, would be held to a minimum. Also the need for calibration
could be eliminated all together by simply initializing the capacitance meter with its sensor in a
saturated sample of the sawdust whose moisture content is to be monitored. It is expected that more
repeatable calibration curves would be obtained after modifying the design of the capacitance sensors
according to the recommendations outlined in Chapter 6.
5.6.3 Sudden Change in Slope of Linear Regression Models in Sawdust
The break in the calibration curves for the capacitance sensors in sawdust was observed in all
cases except for tests 3 & 4 of Cl and test 4 of C2. The sudden change in the slope of the linear
calibration curves can be attributed to the expansion of sawdust with rising moisture content. This
expansion and contraction affects the tightness of the contact between the plates of the capacitance
and the sawdust dielectric.
In preliminary experiments with the capacitance chamber, the pressure of the dielectric sawdust on
the plates was observed to increase in the measured capacitances. This observation could explain the
sudden change in the fitted linear calibration curves of the sensors in sawdust. It was observed with
the capacitance chamber tests that beyond a certain limit increasing the pressure did not result in any
further increases in the measured capacitance at a given sawdust moisture content. Now the dielectric
sawdust expands with increasing moisture content. At the start of the experiment, dry sawdust was
packed into the dielectric gap of the capacitance sensors. Now this dielectric sawdust expanded upon
wetting. The expansion increases the pressure it exerts on the plates of the capacitor. The critical
pressure (i.e. above which capacitance does not increase) occurs at about 26 %. Below 26 % moisture
content, the dielectric sawdust is no longer under pressure, resulting in a reduction of the slope C, of
the capacitance-moisture content line. There could be other explanations of this observed
phenomenon, but a full discussion of this is outside the scope of the objectives of this current study.
71
11
10
9
cJ
C-)
7
0
a,
6
0
C
Figure 5.9 Linear regression lines for test 1 of C2 in sawdust. R2 = 0.984 for line 1 and 0.998 for
line 2.
8
7
n
C
C%1
(,
5
0
ci
0
C.)
0
0
0
0
2
1
Figure 5.10 Linear regression model for test 2 of C2. R2 = 0.983 for line 1 and 0.996 for
line 2.
C
C%J
C-)
I
a
U
a
U
a
a
C-)
35
30
20
15
20 30 35
Linear regression model for test 3 of C2 in sawdust. R2 = 0.943 for line 1 and
1.0 for line 2.
10
5
0
10
Figure 5.11
50
45
-c:-
40
C
35
4-
0
a)
30
C)
C
a
25
a
0
o 20
15
10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 5.12 Linear regression model for test 4 of C2 in sawdust. R2 = 0.981.
45
5.6.4 Linear Regression Models for Sensor C3 in Organic Soil
Unlike the tests with the sawdust samples, the lines of best fit for the variation of moisture content with
capacitance of C3 in organic soil were all single lines, for the m.c. range 0 to 45 %.
The linear regression model for test 1 of C3 is shown in Figure 5.13. Its equation with R2 = 0.994 and
Err = 0.009 m3/m 3, is
0, 0.253C+5.600 (for
(5.18)
The model for the data from test 2 (shown in Figure 5.14) is
0v
= 0.2830+7.466 (for
(5.19)
with R2 = 0.990 and Err = 0.011 m3 /m 3
The model for test 3 is shown in Figure 5.15. Its equation with R2 = 0.980 and Err = 0.016 m3/m 3
is
= 0.240C5.784 (for 9<45%)
(5.20)
The linear model for test 4 shown in Figure 5.16 has the lowest R2 of 0.958 and Err = 0.021 m3 /m 3.
Its equation is
= 0.20609.647 (for
0<45%)
(5.21)
As can be seen, the R2 values for all the tests were very high ranging between 0.959 and 0.994.
The differences between the slopes of the individual fitted calibration lines were not as much as was
observed in the case of the tests with sawdust. This is probably due to the fact that the dielectric
organic soil, because of the smaller size of its particles made better hydraulic contact with the
surrounding organic soil. The slopes of the lines ranged between 3.5 to 4.6. The error of estimation
of moisture content from the linear models was also very low, with the highest being 2.1 % for test 4,
and the lowest 0.9 % obtained for test 1.
C
4)
C-)
I
0
a,
U
C
U
0
C-)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
15 20 25 30 35 40
Organic Soil Moisture Content (2 vol.)
Linear regression model for test 1 of C3 in organic soil. R2 = 0.994.
45
0
10
Figure 5.13
140
120
C
C)
._
80
0
a,
U
60
C,
0
c3 40
C-)
20
0
20
Organic Soil Moisture Content (% vol.)
Figure 5.14 Linear regression model for test 2 of C3 in organic soil. R2 = 0.990.
75
C
C-)
0
0
C
0
C)
0
0
C)
C)
I
0
0
C
0
C)
0
0
0
C)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
20
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Organic Soil Moisture Content
(
vol.)
40
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20 25 30 35
Figure 5.16 Linear regression model for test 4 of C3. R2 = 0.958.
76
5.6.5 Linear Regression Models for Sensor C4 in Organic Soil
The linear regression model for the data of test 1 of C4 shown in Figure 5.17 is
= 0.267C9.468 (for 0<45%)
(5.22)
with R2 = 0.994 and Err = 0.009 m3/m 3.
The data for test 2 (please see Figure 5.18) had a slightly better linear model with R2 = 0.998 and Err
= 0.005 m3/m 3. Its equation is
= 0.384C9.386 (for
(5.23)
The data for test 3 was fitted with a model (see Figure 5.19) which had a slightly lower R2 = 0.988 and
Err = 0.011 m3/m 3.The linear regression model for test 3 of C4 is
= 0.279C-f8.023 (for
<O%)
(5.24)
The linear regression model for test 4 of C4 is shown in Figure 5.20
0, = 0.291 C+11.273 (for
0<40%)
(5.25)
with R2 = 0.974 and Err = 0.014 m3/m 3,the lowest for all four tests.
Comparing the linear regression models, the regression coefficients obtained for organic soil were
similar to those obtained for sawdust. However the performance in organic soil appears to be better
in one respect - In all tests, it was possible to describe the relationship between the sensor
capacitance and organic soil moisture content by a single regression line. In both cases however the
values of capacitance obtained were much higher than those obtained by Baliscio and Lomax (1989),
thus proving that the use of small in situ capacitance moisture sensors in small surrounding volumes
of soil or sawdust or other growth media is possible.
0
SI
0
a)
U
0
0
a
0
C)
C
-1.
C)
SI
0
a,
0
C
0
0
0
0
C
C)
1 20
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 5.18 Linear regression model for C4 for test 2 in organic soil. R2 = 0.998.
40 45
C-)
0
a,
U
0
C-)
0
t2.
a
C.)
C-)
I
0
a,
0
a
C-)
a
0.
a
C.)
1 20
100
80
60
40
20
0
20 25 30 35
Organic Soil MoTsture Content (% vol.)
100
80
60
40
20
0
25 30 35
Organic Soil Moisture Content (% voL)
Figure 5.20 Linear regression model for C4 in organic soil. R2 = 0.974.
45
5.7 Sensitivity of the Resistance and Capacitance Sensors Compared
Table 5.1, shows a comparison of the sensitivities of the capacitance and resistance moisture
instruments when used with the indicated sensors. The 200 nF range (a with resolution of 0.1 nF) of
the digital capacitance meter was used for measuring the capacitance of the capacitance sensors in
sawdust. The 2000 nF range (having a resolution of 1 nF) of the digital capacitance meter was used
for measuring the capacitance of the capacitance sensors in organic soil.
The pA range of the digital micro-ammeter was used to measure the current through the fibreglass
resistance sensors. In order to have a common basis of comparison the scales of the digital meters
were reconverted to their uncalibrated units, where a unit is used to mean the smallest stepwise change
in the meter indication. Please refer to equation (4.1) for further explanations. According to this
sensitivity index, the higher the sensitivity index value of a particular moisture content instrument, the
less sensitive the instrument is to small changes is moisture content.
It can be seen from the table that the capacitance sensors were able to detect smaller changes in
sawdust and organic soil moisture content, than the fibreglass resistance sensors. Also, the resistance
sensors were very insensitive to changes in sawdust moisture content. A graphical comparison of the
two instruments is shown in Figure 5.21 to Figure 5.24. The calibration curve for the resistance meters
using Ri and R2 was unusable in the useful range of 10 to 40 % m.c. since it was virtually a straight
line, parallel to the moisture content axis (please see Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22). Thus the resistance
meter is not useful in monitoring sawdust moisture content. As can be seen, the calibration curves for
the capacitance sensors were more useful except for the fact that they were not very reproducible, due
to the factors explained earlier in section 5.2.
Figure 5.23 and Figure 5.24 show a comparison of the calibration curves for the two instruments.
As can be seen, the shapes of the calibration curves for both types of instruments are very similar to
each other up to about 40 % m.c. when the calibration curve for R3 and R4 become nearly parallel to
the moisture content axis. But the slope of the calibration curves for C3 and C4 become slightly
80
steeper as m.c. increased beyond 40%. Thus the capacitance sensors are more sensitive to high m.c.
changes at even at high organic soil moisture contents, though the differences between their predicted
moisture contents become wider.
These values for the fiberglass resistance sensor R2 are correct. They are rather high because of the very poor
response (low sensitivity) of this sensor to changes in sawdust moisture content.
in the Appendix.
Table 5.1 Changes in moisture content (i.e. s in equation (4.1)) that produced a
capacitance and current meter reading. Calculations are based on
between meter readings at 10 and 40 % moisture content.
SENSITIVITIES
unit change in
the difference
Sensor Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Average
Cl (sawdust) L2 c2 o______ c2
C2 (sawdust) 03 c2____ 0.1 O3
C3 (organic soil) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
C4 (organic soil) 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
Ri (sawdust) 5.9 4.0 6.3 12.5 7.2
R2 3 (sawdust) 14.7 33.3 25.0 14.3 21.8
R3 (organic soil) 0.4 0.3 0.4 2.4 0.9
R4 (organic soil) 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
To verify please refer to Tables Al to A4
Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with sawdust moisture content,
when using capacitance and resistance moisture instruments with Ri and Cl
connected.
Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with sawdust moisture content,
when using capacitance and resistance moisture instruments with R2 and C2
10 20 30 40
Sawdust Moisture content (% of volume)
450
400
C,
350
300
250
200
-o
o 150
- 100
50
0
Figure 5.21
600
C,
C
.2 400
C
U,
cC
-- 300
C)
- 200
a)
I
c1
a 100
0
Figure 5.22
20 30 40
Sawdust Moisture content (% of volume)
connected.
400
350
C,
C
300
C
0
250
0
C,
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 523 Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with organic soil moisture
content, when using capacitance and resistance moisture instruments with R3
300
g 250
C
.2 200
0
11)
a)
-.- 150
C
-D
o 100
a)
a)
a) 50
0
Figure 5.24
and C3 connected.
Variation of meter reading (in resolution units) with organic soil moisture
content, when using capacitance and resistance moisture instruments with R4
and C4 connected.
60
20 30 40
Soil Moisture content (% of volume)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Soil Moisture content
(
of volume)
5.8 Moisture Content versus Capacitance of Chamber
One of the main objectives of constructing and testing the capacitance moisture chamber was to
test the possibility of instantly determining the moisture content of sawdust samples without having to
dry it in an oven to first determine the mass of water contained. To be useful for this purpose, the
chamber will have to be fairly accurate. The results of the tests of the moisture content chamber are
summarized by Table 5.2 and the graph in Figure 5.25. It shows the variation of capacitance of the
capacitance chamber with increasing sawdust moisture content. The scatter of data points about the
average of the five replicates for each moisture content value, is too large to be considered accurate.
Baliscio and Lomax (1989) in their experiment with the moisture content chamber, hinted that the
readings of capacitance might be sensitive to spatial variations in density of the sample in the density
of the sample. But they did not show how serious this could be as a source of error this could be in
predicting moisture content with the chamber.
Table 5.2 Data obtained from tests of capacitance chamber with sawdust.
Moituie
Capacitance Readings (pF) Average Standard
f d
Capaci- Deviation
eht)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
reaings
(pF)
0.0 116.0 124.0 118.0 115.0 116.0 117.8 3.6
9.4 186.0 197.0 150.0 168.0 159.0 172.0 19.3
19.9 208.0 179.0 186.0 166.0 174.0 182.6 16.0
33.0 270.0 212.0 262.0 184.0 222.0 230.0 35.8
43.1 267.0 209.0 217.0 254.0 307.0 250.8 39.8
55.1 260.0 281.0 341.0 262.0 237.0 276.2 39.4
68.5 424.0 337.0 360.0 282.0 242.0 329.0 70.4
78.6 450.0 328.0 348.0 358.0 448.0 386.4 58.2
93.5 592.0 435.0 297.0 330.0 300.0 390.8 125.7
114.1 1065.0 900.0 937.0 650.0 700.0 850.4 172.3
133.7 1061.0 1092.0 900.0 930.0 804.0 957.4 118.8
146.7 1062.0 870.0 655.0 770.0 730.0 817.4 157.2
159.4 1029.0 845.0 980.0 1053.0 1074.0 996.2 91.5
177.2 821.0 915.0 770.0 660.0 640.0 761.2 114.3
189.9 749.0 660.0 670.0 660.0 760.0 699.8 50.3
204.3 602.0 580.0 680.0 650.0 640.0 630.4 39.6
Volumetric moisture content is not used for the analysis of the results of the capacitance chamber because of the
inevitable changes in volumetric moisture content of the sample each time it is shaken before replacing it in the chamber.
Figure 5.25 Capacitance of moisture content chamber versus sawdust sample moisture
content. The single line is the average value of the five replicates.
The large variations of capacitance between the replicates at each moisture content, especially at
higher moisture contents shows that the chamber is very highly sensitive to variations of density within
the sample. At about 100 % moisture content (by weight) for example, the difference between the
highest and lowest readings is as large as 300 pF. Similar figures were obtained at all the other
moisture contents. This implies that, in order to use the chamber to predict accurately moisture
content, the spatial variations of density within each sample would have to be conditioned to more or
less a fixed standard. In other words, each sample has to be packed in exactly the same way with
the same pore space distribution, and other physical
1100
900
0
700
cD
U
C
-I
U
500
0
C-)
300
100
0 50 100 150 200
Moisture content (% of dry weight)
250
dimensions, a task which is just impossible to accomplish, without special tools. It is also noted that
the error in estimating moisture content from the average capacitance versus moisture content line is
too great for the chamber to be considered accurate. For example, at 300 pF the maximum error of
estimation of moisture content is more than 50 %.
85
In general capacitance increased with increasing sawdust moisture content up to about 140 % m.c.
when it became unpredictable and eventually reduced with increasing sawdust moisture content. The
values of capacitance obtained were much higher than those obtained by Baliscio and Lomax (1989),
with their twice larger chamber.
The average capacitances recorded by Lomax and Baliscio (1989) ranged between 0.2 nF and 5.0
nF. The capacitances recorded from our experiment (see Figure 5.25), ranged between 0.1 to about
1.0 nF. This translates to a range of 0.2 to 2.0 nF when compared to the chamber used by Baliscio
and Lomax since their chamber size was twice the size of ours. The order of magnitude of capacitance
is about the same as that obtained by Baliscio and Lomax (1989). It appears then that the use of a
lower test frequency does not in practice yield higher values of capacitance as expected from the
literature (Blech, 1989). This might be due in part to the differing materials used. They tested their
chamber with peatmoss and compost, while ours was tested with sawdust. However, a more likely
cause of these results is to the kind of insulation (electrical insulation tape) used for the plates of the
capacitance chamber.
This is obvious when the results for the capacitance moisture chamber are compared with those
obtained from the miniature capacitance sensors which were insulated with a different material
(Varathane). The effective area of the plates of the in situ capacitance sensors was about seventy five
times that of the capacitance chamber. And yet the average maximum capacitances measured for the
in situ capacitance sensors was about 30 nF, which is more than 2000 times the maximum obtained
with the capacitance chamber.
Due to the sever limitation of time (the experiments started in November, 1991 and had to be
completed as soon as possible due to the impending cut in funding. Please see section 1 .2 for further
explanations), if further modifications (such as the use of a different insulator) could not be implemented
and tested. Future experiments on the chamber should look into the effect on the measured
capacitances by the use of different and thinner plate insulations. All the same it can be concluded
from the results of these experiments that it is very feasible to use miniature in situ capacitance
moisture sensors to monitor the moisture content of small surrounding volumes of sawdust and other
growth media.
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The capacitance moisture sensors respond very well to changes in soil and sawdust moisture content.
Connected to the digital capacitance meter they were capable of detecting organic soil moisture content
changes as small as 0.2 %, and sawdust moisture content changes as 0.1 %. The reproducibility of
the calibration curves in organic soil is comparable to those obtained for the commercially available
fibreglass resistance moisture sensors. The capacitance-moisture content calibration curve for the
capacitance sensors was linear for all the sensors tested. This linearity is very important in reducing
errors in moisture content estimation resulting from calibration errors.
The main problem with the capacitance sensors was shifts in the calibration curves, especially
when used in sawdust. This was not a serious problem in the case of organic soil. Nevertheless the
performance could be improved in organic soil too. The main cause of this problem of the capacitance
sensors can be attributed to the difficulty of attaining moisture equilibrium between the dielectric
medium and the surrounding medium due to the small area of contact between the dielectric sawdust
(or soil) and the surrounding media. This was more easily noticeable in the case of sawdust. To
overcome this problem, the following modifications to the design of the capacitors are proposed for
future research. (Modifications to the existing design could not be carried out and tested due to lack
of time, but they will be made and tested in a future experiment):
1. The width of the capacitance sensors should be reduced from the present 2.0 cm to 0.6 cm. This
would reduce the effective area of the capacitor to one-third of its present value. Theoretically,
since capacitance is proportional to the effective plate area, the value of the capacitances
measured will also be reduced by the same factor. The average capacitances would then
between 1 nF - 4 nF, values which would be easily measurable by the digital capacitance meter
which has a minimum resolution of 1 pF. By this modification the moisture exchange area per unit
86
Conclusions and Recommendations 87
volume of sawdust will increase by a factor of three, allowing for faster rates of equilibrium
attainment.
2. Instead of reducing the size of the sensors as suggested in (1) above, circular holes could be
drilled on the plates to allow for more contact between the dielectric soil or sawdust and the
surrounding medium.
3. The distance between the plates of the capacitor could be reduced, and the inter-electrode gap
filled with a suitable material which easily absorbs water. At the same time holes would be drilled
on the sides of the plates to increase the total area of moisture interchange between the capacitor
and the surrounding soil or sawdust.
The fibreglass resistance sensors were virtually useless in monitoring changes in sawdust
moisture content. The indicated moisture content remained essentially unchanged between saturation
and just before the sawdust goes completely dry. Then the readings suddenly drop to zero at about
0 % moisture content. In organic soil, the indicated moisture content varied with decreasing moisture
content. The main problem was that the calibration curve was different with each test of the same
sensor. It was also not possible to indicate differences in organic soil moisture content above about
40%.
The capacitance moisture content chamber gave greatly varying values of capacitance for the
same sawdust moisture content. The readings were found to be too sensitive to differences in
compaction within the sample. Therefore, in its present design, it cannot be used to accurately
determine the moisture content of samples placed in it unless a reliable method can be found to
precondition each sample to the same density. Further research on this could be directed at
determining the effect on the capacitance readings of compacting each sample to a specified volume.
Another recommendation for further study is the replacement of the electrical insulation tape on the
plates, with a thin coating of a non-conductive coating. This would greatly increase the capacitances
obtained, which might possibly improve the stability of capacitance values obtained at a given moisture
content.
List of References
Anderson, A.B.C. (1943). A method of determining soil moisture content based on the variation of
electrical capacitance of a soil at low frequency, with moisture content. Soil Science 56: 29 - 41.
Ambrosius, E.A., Fellows, R.D., Brickman, A. D. (1966). Mechanical Measurement and Instrumentation.
pp
41 -42. The Ronald Press Co. New York.
Baliscio, C.C., and Lomax, K.M. (1989). A Comparative Study of Moisture Sensors for Use in
Mushroom Beds. Transactions of the ASAE vol 32(3),
pp
928 - 933.
Blech, l.A. (1989). Properties of Materials. In: Electronic Engineers Handbook (D.G. Fink and D.
Christiansen, eds) 3rd Edition,
pp.
6-1 to 6-119. McGraw-Hill, New York, U.S.A.
Campbell, G.S., and Campbell, M.D. (1982). Irrigation Scheduling using soil moisture measurements.
In: Advances in Irrigation (D. Hillel,e, vol. 3,
pp
107- 127. Academic Press, New York.
Carr-Bion, K. (1986). Moisture Sensors in Process Control. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers,
London and New York.
pp
42 - 54
Colman, E.A., and Hendrix, T.M., (1949). The fibreglass Electrical Soil-Moisture Instrument. Soil
Science (67)6: 425 - 438, June, 1949.
Davis, J.L. (1975). Relative permittivity measurements of a sand and clay soil in situ. Geol. Surv. Can.,
Ottawa, Paper. 75-iC, 361-365 (Report of Activities).
Davis, J.L., and Chudobiak, W.J. (1975). In situ meter for measuring relative permittivity of soils.
Geol. Surv. Can., Ottawa, Pap. 75-lA, 75-79 (Report of Activities).
De Platar, C.V., (1955). A portable capacitance-type soil moisture meter. Soil Science vol 80,
pp
391
- 395.
Dudley, B. (1989). Basic Phenomena of Electronics. In: Electronic Engineers Handbook (D.G. Fink
and 0. Christiansen, eds) 3rd Edition,
pp.
Gardner, W.H. (1986). Water content. In: Methods of soil analysis. Part I. American Society of
88
89
Agronomy, pp 493 -544. Madison, WI.
Gardner, W.R. (1987). Water Content: An Overview. In; Proceclings of International Conference on
Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, volume 1 - soils,
pp.
7-9. In commoration of the
Centennial of Utah State University, July 6-10, 1987, Logan, Utah, U.S.A.
Gore, Jr. T.S. (1989). Capacitors. In: Electronic Engineers Handbook (D.G. Fink and D. Christiansen,
eds) 3rd Edition,
pp.
Haise, H.R. and Hagan, R.M. (1967). Soil, plant and evaporative measurements as criteria for
scheduling irrigation. Agronomy 11,
pp.
557 - 604.
Halbertsma, J., Przybyla, C., and A Jacobs (1987). Application and accuracy of a dielectric soil water
content meter. In: Proceedings of International conference on measurement of soil and plant water
status. vol. 1. Utah State University, July 6 -10 1987.
Heermann, D.F., Martin, D.L., Jackson, R.D., Stegman, E.C. (1990). Irrigation Scheduling Controls and
Techniques. In: Irrigation of Agricultural Crops - Agronomy Monograph no. 30 (R.R. Bruce, E.T.
Kanemasu, M.H. Niehaus, J.R. Gilley, eds).
pp.
531 - 536.
Hillel, 0. (1990). Role of Irrigation in Agricultural Systems. In: Irrigation of Agricultural Crops -
Agronomy Monograph no. 30 (R.R. Bruce, E.T. Kanemasu, M.H. Niehaus, J.R. Gilley, eds).
pp.
5 - 30.
Hillel, 0. (1980). Fundamentals of Soil Physics. pp 126 - 134. Academic Press, New York.
Holmes, J.W., Taylor, S.A., and S.J. Richards (1982). Measurement of Soil Water. In: Irrigation of
Agricultural Lands (R.M. Hagan, H.R. Haise, T.W. Edminster (eds)). pp.275 -303. American Society of
Agronomy Publisher, Madison, U.S.A.
Horton, R., P.J. Wierenga and Nielsen, D.R. (1982). A rapid technique tor obtaining uniform water
content distributions in unsaturated soil columns. Soil Sd. 133(6):397-399.
Joerg, E.A. (1988), AC circuit analysis, In: Handbook of Electronics Calculations for Engineers and
Technicians -2nd Edition, (M. Kaufman and A.H.Seidman, 1989, eds) pp 3.1 -3.26.
Kaper, I. (1969). M?enI vlhkosti stavebnIch materilu (Techniques of measurement of the moisture
of building materials.) Thesis, Fac, Civ. Eng., Technical University Prague.
Kurz, V., KutIlek, M., and Kaper, I. (1970) Resonance-capacitance soil moisture meter. Soil Science
vol. 110, No.4,
pp
278 -279.
Layman, R.W. (1979). Use of a modified Wien bridge to measure soil moisture in sand, silts and
90
clays. Dartmouth College Plasma Laboratory, DCPPL-SM-4.
Levine, M.E. (1988) Selecting R,L, and C components. In: Handbook of Electronics Calculations for
Engineers and Technicians - 2nd Edition, (M. Kaufman and A.H.Seidman, 19, eds)
pp
4.1-4.27
Lewis, D.T. (1988) Bridge-Type Instruments. lntext Inc. Norwalk Connecticut, U.S.A.
Nelson, S.C. (1973). Electrical properties of agricultural products (A critical Review). ASAE Special
Publication No. SP-05-73. St. Joseph, Ml: ASAE.
Odelevskii, V.1. 1951 Razchet obobshchennoi provodimosti geterogennykh sitem (Calculation of a
generalized permeability of heterogeneous systems.) Zhurn. Tekhn, Phys. 21:678 - 685.
Schmugge, T.J., Jackson, T.J., and McKim, H.L. (1980). Survey of Methods for soil moisture
determination. Water Res. 16(6): 961 - 979.
Slatyer, R.O. (1954) Private communication (Land Research and Regional Survey Section, C.S.I.R.O,
Canberra, A.C.T). 1954.
Thompson, F.T. (1989). Measurement and Control Circuits. In: Electronic Engineers Handbook (D.G.
Fink and D. Christiansen, eds) 3rd Edition,
pp.
17-1 - 17-62. McGraw-Hill, New York, U.S.A.
Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., and Annan, A.P. (1980 c). Electromagnetic determination of soil water content
using TDR: I. Applications to wetting fronts and steep gradients. Soil Sd. Soc. Am. J. 46, 672-678.
Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P. (1980 a). Electromagnetic determination of sol water content:
Measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Res. Res. 16(3):574-582.
Topp, G.C., and Davis, J.L. (1982). Measurement of soil water content using time-domain
reflectometry. Can. Hydrol. Symp. Assoc. Comm. Hydrol., Nat!. Res. Council Can., Ottawa
pp.
269-
287.
Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., and Annan, A.P. (1980 b). Electromagnetic determination of soil water content
using TDR: II. Evaluation of installation and configuration of parallel transmission lines. Soil Sc!. Soc.
Am. J. 46, 678-684.
Topp, G.C., and Davis, J.L. (1985). Time-Domain Reflectometry and its application to Irrigation
Scheduling. In: Advances in Irrigation. (D. Hillel,et, vol. 3
pp
107 -933.
Turner, R.P. and Giblisco, S. (1991). The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics. 5th Edition. TAB Books,
Blue Ridge Summit, PA U.S.A.
91
Wilson, S., (1 988). Resonant Cicuits. Intext, Inc. Norwalk, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Wilson, S. (1987). Resistive, Capacitive and Inductive Components. Intext Inc. Norwalk Connecticut,
U.S.A.
Wilson, S. (1988). Inductance and Capacitance. Intext Inc. Norwalk Connecticut, U.S.A.
Wobschall, D. 1978. A frequency shift dielectric soil moisture sensor. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
Electronics, GE-i 6(2):1 12-118.
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Table Al. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within two different saturated sawdust samples
being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 1
Sensor mass of mass of mois- mois- Current Capa- Mass of Oven- Weightt
moist sawdust ture ture flowing citance sensors dried of
sawdust + content content in R# of C# & weight drying
+box + moisture (% dry box of can
sensors (% by wt sample
(g) (g) volume) basis) (g) (g) (g)
80.3 69.9 6.1
(pA) (nF)
Cl and RI 3385 1822 492 2856 1000 169
320.6 164.3 44.3 257.5 100.0 17.3
304.8 148.5 40.1 232.8 100.0 17.1
291.6 135.3 36.5 212.1 100.0 15.3
286.2 129.9 35.0 203.6 100.0 14.4
273.0 116.7 31.5 182.9 99.0 11.1
266.7 110.4 29.8 173.0 98.0 9.1
258.5 102.2 276 160.2 97.0 6.8
248.7 92.4 24.9 144.8 96.0 5.5
236.4 80.1 21.6 125.5 95.0 4.7
229.1 72.8 19.6 114.1 95.0 3.8
218.3 62.0 16.7 97.2 95.0 3.5
211.3 55.0 14.8 86.2 95.0 3.1
202.9 46.6 12.6 73.0 95.0 2.9
193.3 37.0 10.0 58.0 95.0 2.5
184.7 28.4 7.7 44.5 95.0 2.1
175.6 19.3 5.2 30.3 94.0 0.8
169.9 13.6 3.7 21.3 93.0 0.2
C2andR2 3148 1630 504 2926 1000 122
296.3
144.5 44.7 259.4 100.0 12.2
280.6 128.8 39.8 231.2 100.0 10.9
267.5 115.7 35.8 207.7 100.0 8.1
262.0 110.2 34.1 197.8 100.0 7
249.5 97.7 30.2 175.4 99.0 4.7
243.4 91.6 28.3 164.5 98.0 3.4
236.1 84.3 26.0 151.3 98.0 3.1
227.7 75.9 23.5 136.3 98.0 2.8
217.2 65.4 20.2 117.4 98.0 2.5
210.5 58.7 18.1 105.4 98.0 2.5
201.4 49.6 15.3 89.0 98.0 2.1
195.3 43.5 13.4 78.1 98.0 2
188.2 36.4 11.2 65.4 98.0 1.8
179.7 27.9 8.6 50.1 98.0 1.4
172.3 20.5 6.3 36.8 98.0 0.9
164.4 12.6 3.9 22.6 20.0 0.2
159.6 7.8 2.4 14.0 96.0 0.1
159.2 7.4 2.3 13.3 6.0 0
82.5 62.5 6.8
Appendix A IL
Table A2. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within re-saturated sawdust samples (from Table
Al.) being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 2
mass of mass of moisture moisture Current Capa- Mass of Oven-d Weight of Sensor
number moist sawdust content content flowing in citance sensors ed drying
sawdust + moisture R# of C# & weight of can
box + box sample
sensor (% dry
(% by
(g) (g) volume) (g)
6.1
weight
basis) (VA) (nF) (g) (g)
CI and RI 3473 1910 515 2994 ThO 93 803 9
328.0 171.7 46.3 269.1 100 13.7
318.0 161.7 43.6 253.4 99 12.9
299.0 142.7 38.5 223.7 99 10.8
289.6 133.3 36.0 208.9 99 10.0
274.6 118.3 31.9 185.4 98 8.2
269.3 113.0 30.5 177.1 98 7.3
264.3 108.0 29.1 169.3 96 6.8
258.5 102.2 27.6 160.2 96 6.1
245.5 89.2 24.1 139.8 95 5.0
238.5 82.2 22.2 128.8 94 4.7
225.4 69.1 18.6 108.3 94 4.2
220.1 63.8 17.2 100.0 94 3.9
215.1 58.8 15.9 92.2 93 3.6
204.6 48.3 13.0 75.7 93 3.2
200.2 43.9 11.8 68.8 92 3.4
196.5 40.2 10.8 63.0 92 3.0
188.3 32.0 8.6 50.2 92 2.3
178.5 22.2 6.0 34.8 90 1.0
C2:d:R2: 323.0 171.2 52.9 307.4 100 12.4 82.5 62.5
305.6 153.8 47.5 276.1 100 10.2
296.3 144.5 44.7 259.4 99 9.2
278.5 126.7 39.2 227.5 99 7.1
270.3 118.5 36.6 212.7 99 6.3
256.3 104.5 32.3 187.6 99 4.3
251.4 99.6 30.8 178.8 97 3.7
247.0 95.2 29.4 170.9 99 3.3
241.7 89.9 27.8 161.4 99 3
229.8 78.0 24.1 140.0 99 2.6
223.5 71.7 22.2 128.7 99 2.5
211.7 59.9 18.5 107.5 98 2.3
206.8 55.0 17.0 98.7 98 2.1
202.4 50.6 15.6 90.8 98 1.9
192.8 41.0 12.7 73.6 98 1.6
188.5 36.7 11.3 65.9 98 1.5
185.2 33.4 10.3 60.0 98 1.3
177.9 26.1 8.1 46.9 98 0.7
169.0 17.2 5.3 30.9 96 0.2
6.8
Appendix A
(pA) (nF) (g) (g)
100.0 25.8 80.6 62.1
100.0 24.5
100.0 20.6
100.0 20.5
100.0 17.1
98.0 14.8
98.0 12.9
98.0 12.4
97.0 11.9
97.0 10.7
96.0 9.6
90.0 9.1
16.0 7.4
0.0 5.2
100.0 31.5 83.2 65.1
100.0 28.2
100.0 26.7
100.0 23.8
100.0 20.1
99.0 13.8
99.0 12.9
98.0 11.9
98.0 11.7
98.0 11.2
98.0 11.1
Table A3. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within two new saturated sawdust samples being
air-dried in the laboratory - Test 3
Sensor mass of mass of moisture moisture Current Capa- Mass Oven-dr Weight
number moist sawdust content content flowing citance of ied of
sawdust moisture in R# of C# sensor weight drying
box+ s& of can
sensor box sample
(%by (%drywt
(g) (g) volume) (g)
6.2 :C1:ridR1:: 311.2
287.0
267.6
257.5
245.8
222.6
215.1
207.2
198.7
195.1
185.2
179.0
172.6
168.3
C2afldlR2 3236
298.0
277.4
268.1
255.7
232.1
224.0
217.2
208.9
205.3
196.1
190.0
183.5
178.5
162.3
138.1
118.7
108.6
96.9
73.7
66.2
58.3
49.8
46.2
36.3
30.1
23.7
19.4
168.4
142.8
122.2
112.9
100.5
76.9
68.8
62.0
53.7
50.1
40.9
34.8
28.3
23.3
50.0
42.5
36.5
33.4
29.8
22.7
20.4
18.0
15.3
14.2
11.2
9.3
7.3
6.0
49.8
42.2
36.1
33.4
29.7
22.7
20.3
18.3
15.9
14.8
12.1
10.3
8.4
6.9
basis)
290.3
247.0
212.3
194.3
173.3
131.8
118.4
104.3
89.1
82.6
64.9
53.8
42.4
34.7
289.3
245.4
210.0
194.0
172.7
132.1
118.2
106.5
92.3
86.1
70.3
59.8
48.6
40.0
6.9
99.0
99.0
99.0
10.2
10.1
8.7
Appendix A
Table A4. Calibration data for moisture sensors #1 and #2 placed within the fresh sawdust samples (see Table A3.)
being air-dried in the laboratory after re-saturation - Test 4.
Sensor mass of mass of moisture moisture Current Capa- Mass of Oven- Weight
number moist sawdust content content flowing in citance sensors dried of
R# of C# & weight of drying
box sample can
sawdust moisture
+ box +
sensor
(%by (%drywt
(g) (g) volume) basis) (g) (g)
62.1 6.2
(pA) (nF) (g)
Cl and Ri 3326 1837 566 3286 100 418 806
316.2 167.3 51.5 299.3 100 37.9
299.6 150.7 46.4 269.6 100 35.5
271.0 122.1 37.6 218.4 100 27.8
262.0 113.1 34.8 202.3 100 25.9
244.8 95.9 29.5 171.6 100 23.5
237.3 88.4 27.2 158.1 100 22.1
225.2 76.3 23.5 136.5 99 19.9
220.0 71.1 21.9 127.2 99 19.1
213.8 64.9 20.0 116.1 98 17.7
209.8 60.9 18.8 108.9 98 17.0
200.4 51.5 15.9 92.1 98 15.2
195.6 46.7 14.4 83.5 98 14.4
188.6 39.7 12.2 71.0 98 13.3
173.2 24.3 7.5 43.5 98 6.2
C2and R2 3290 1738 514 2986 100 510 832
313.8 158.6 46.9 272.5 100 49.5
296.3 141.1 41.7 242.4 100 45.1
269.9 114.7 33.9 197.1 100 39.5
261.6 106.4 31.5 182.8 100 36.6
245.2 90.0 26.6 154.6 100 30.4
238.3 83.1 24.6 142.8 100 27.3
227.3 72.1 21.3 123.9 99 23.9
222.4 67.2 19.2 115.5 99 22.6
216.7 61.5 18.2 105.7 98 21.1
213.1 57.9 17.1 99.5 98 19.4
204.6 49.4 14.6 84.9 98 18.9
200.2 45.0 13.3 77.3 98 18.8
193.0 37.8 11.2 64.9 98 16.7
178.2 23.0 6.8 39.5 98 13.1
65.1 6.9
Appendix A
Table A5. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within two different saturated organic soil samples
being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 1.
Sensor mass of mass of moisture moisture Current Capa- Mass of Oven- Weight of
number moist soil content content flowing in citance sensors dried drying
soil + moisture R# of C# & weight of can
box + (% dry box sample
sensor (% by weight
(g) (g) volume) basis) (pA) (nF) (g) (g) (g)
458.2 203.5 76.2 125.7 100.0 194.0 78.6 169.0 7.1
439.6 184.9 69.2 114.2 100.0 195.0
424.8 170.1 63.7 105.1 100.0 199.0
412.8 158.1 59.2 97.7 100.0 190.0
407.8 153.1 57.3 94.6 100.0 189.0
396.1 141.4 52.9 87.3 99.0 186.0
390.3 135.6 50.8 83.8 99.0 186.0
382.8 128.1 48.0 79.1 98.0 176.0
374.0 119.3 44.7 73.7 96.0 166.0
365.4 110.7 41.4 68.4 91.0 147.0
352.6 97.9 36.6 60.5 76.0 122.0
345.0 90.3 33.8 55.8 71.0 109.0
333.0 78.3 29.3 48.4 63.0 90.0
324.7 70.0 26.2 43.2 57.0 77.0
313.7 59.0 22.1 36.4 46.0 64.0
301.5 46.8 17.5 28.9 36.0 49.0
292.0 37.3 14.0 23.0 28.0 36.0
282.2 27.5 10.3 17.0 12.0 20.0
276.7 22.0 8.2 13.6 1.0 9.0
C4and R4 4572 2064 789 1301 1000 2070 800 1647 61
439.2 188.4 72.0 118.8 98.0 206.0
424.2 173.4 66.3 109.3 96.0 192.0
412.4 161.6 61.8 101.9 95.0 180.0
407.7 156.9 60.0 98.9 93.0 177.0
396.3 145.5 55.6 91.7 91.0 172.0
390.9 140.1 53.5 88.3 93.0 169.0
384.1 133.3 50.9 84.0 93.0 164.0
375.8 125.0 47.8 78.8 88.0 154.0
367.7 116.9 44.7 73.7 86.0 141.0
355.3 104.5 39.9 65.9 82.0 118.0
348.2 97.4 37.2 61.4 76.0 106.0
337.4 86.6 33.1 54.6 72.0 85.0
329.2 78.4 30.0 49.4 64.0 72.0
318.9 68.1 26.0 42.9 61.0 59.0
306.7 55.9 21.4 35.2 57.0 44.0
296.6 45.8 17.5 28.9 51.0 31.0
285.9 35.1 13.4 22.1 47.0 17.0
279.3 28.5 10.9 18.0 42.0 7.0
Appendix A
number
Table A6. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within re-saturated organic soil samples (from
Table A5.) being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 2.
Sensor mass of mass of moisture moisture Current Capa- Mass of Oven-d Mass
content content flowing citance sensors ned of
in R# of C# & box weight drying
sensor of can
sample
(g) (g) (g)
78.6 169.0 7.1
moist soil
soil + moist-
box + ure
sensor
________________
(g)
______
(g)
:::Cafld:R3:::
415.9 161.2
413.8 159.1
397.5 142.8
388.5 133.8
370.9 116.2
362.7 108.0
348.9 94.2
344.1 89.4
339.3 84.6
334.9 80.2
322.0 67.3
315.4 60.7
303.9 49.2
299.3 44.6
295.1 40.4
286.8 32.1
285.0 30.3
281.6 26.9
275.5 20.8
269.7 15.0
:44
417.3 166.5
416.5 165.7
415.0 164.2
400.2 149.4
391.6 140.8
376.0 125.2
368.7 117.9
356.2 105.4
351.8 101.0
346.8 96.0
343.1 92.3
331.1 80.3
324.7 73.9
312.5 61,7
307.5 56.7
302.2 51.4
293.0 42.2
289.9 39.1
286.5 35.7
279.4 28.6
272.0 21.2
(% by
volume)
60.3
59.6
53.5
50.1
43.5
40.4
35.3
33.5
31.7
30.0
25.2
22.7
18.4
16.7
15.1
12.0
11.3
10.1
7.8
5.6
63.6
63.3
62.7
57.1
53.8
47.8
45.1
40.3
38.6
36.7
35.3
30.7
28.2
23.6
21.7
19.6
16.1
14.9
13.6
10.9
8.1
(% dry
weight
basis)
99.6
98.3
88.2
82.6
71.8
66.7
58.2
55.2
52.3
49.5
41.6
37.5
30.4
27.5
25.0
19.8
18.7
16.6
12.8
9.3
105.0
104.5
103.5
94.2
88.8
78.9
74.3
66.5
63.7
60.5
58.2
50.6
46.6
38.9
35.8
32.4
26.6
24.7
22.5
18.0
13.4
(pA)
100
100
100
99
98
96
86
81
73
72
64
58
48
43
38
27
10
6
0
0
100
100
100
100
99
98
98
95
93
89
85
63
69
59
54
49
40
29
25
11
0
(nF)
220
240
195
178
139
122
96
88
83
77
60
53
43
36
31
20
10
6
2
0
149
169
181
143
133
107
97
81
76
73
67
53
48
38
32
28
18
13
11
5
0
80.0 164.7 6.1
Appendix A
Table A7. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within two new saturated organic soil samples
being air-dried in the laboratory - Test 3.
Sensor mass of mass of moisture moist- Current Capa- Mass of Oven-dri Weight
number moist soil content ure flowing citance sensors ed of
soil + moist- content in R# of C# & weight drying
box + ure box of can
sensor sample (% dry
(% by weight
(g) (g) volume) basis) (pA) (nF) (g) (g) (g)
C3andR3 3915 1618 715 1180 1000 2470 782 1443 72
364.8
135.1 59.7 98.5 100.0 208.0
345.2 115.5 51.1 84.2 100.0 189.0
336.4 106.7 47.2 77.8 98.0 178.0
325.6 95.9 42.4 69.9 97.0 161.0
299.8 70.1 31.0 51.1 68.0 96.0
290.7 61.0 27.0 44.5 64.0 80.0
282.3 52.6 23.3 38.4 58.0 69.0
272.4 42.7 18.9 31.1 49.0 57.0
268.2 38.5 17.0 28.1 45.0 50.0
258.5 28.8 12.7 21.0 24.0 32.0
253.2 23.5 10.4 17.1 6.0 24.0
248.2 18.5 8.2 13.5 0.0 13.0
244.6 14.9 6.6 10.9 0.0 4.0
C4andi4 4005 1705 751 1239 1000 2450 802 1437 61
376.7 146.7 64.6 106.6 100.0 213.0
360.2 130.2 57.3 94.6 100.0 198.0
351.8 121.8 53.6 88.5 99.0 190.0
341.1 111.1 48.9 80.7 99.0 178.0
316.0 86.0 37.9 62.5 88.0 114.0
307.6 77.6 34.2 56.4 81.0 91.0
298.6 68.6 30.2 49.9 77.0 76.0
288.2 58.2 25.6 42.3 71.0 60.0
283.6 53.6 23.6 39.0 67.0 53.0
272.3 42.3 18.6 30.7 56.0 36.0
266.3 36.3 16.0 26.4 52.0 30.0
260.0 30.0 13.2 21.8 42.0 21.0
255.4 25.4 11.2 18.5 24.0 15.0
Appendix A
laD
Sensor
number
Table A8. Calibration data for moisture sensors #3 and #4 placed within the fresh orgnaic soil samples (see Table
A87.) being air-dried in the laboratory after re-saturation - Test 4.
mass of mass of moist- moisture Current Capa- Mass of Oven- Weight
moist soil ure conteflt flowing citance sensors dried of
soil + moist- content in R# of C# & weight drying
box + ure box of can
sensor (% dry (% dry sample
volume weight
(g) (g) (g)
78.2 144.3 7.2
(g) (g) basis) basis) (pA) (nF)
03 and R3 3713 1416 626 1033 100 3980
355.1 125.4 55.4 91.5 100 339.0
327.6 97.9 43.3 71.4 99 200.0
318.3 88.6 39.2 64.6 98 156.0
298.9 69.2 30.6 50.5 96 92.0
290.8 61.1 27.0 44.6 96 71.0
277.4 47.7 21.1 34.8 95 48.0
272.0 42.3 18.7 30.9 95 40.0
266.3 36.6 16.2 26.7 94 31.0
262.9 33.2 14.7 24.2 94 25.0
255.4 25.7 11.4 18.7 93 17.0
252.2 22.5 9.9 16.4 86 14.0
247.4 17.7 7.8 12.9 70 5.0
239.9 10.2 4.5 7.4 55 1.0
C4and.R4 3810 1510 665 1097 100 3160
363.9 133.9 59.0 97.3 100 251.0

337.6 107.6 47.4 78.2 99 172.0
329.5 99.5 43.8 72.3 99 145.0
313.4 83.4 36.7 60.6 96 94.0
305.8 75.8 33.4 55.1 94 75.0
292.5 62.5 27.5 45.4 88 50.0
286.7 56.7 25.0 41.2 84 43.0
280.1 50.1 22.1 36.4 79 34.0
276.3 46.3 20.4 33.6 75 28.0
267.9 37.9 16.7 27.5 65 20.0
263.7 33.7 14.8 24.5 50 16.0
258.2 28.2 12.4 20.5 43 10.0
247.7 17.7 7.8 12.9 31 2.0
80.2 143.7 6.1
Appendix A
/01
A.1 Calculation of Sensitivities
The sensitivities of the various sensors were calculated using the capacitance and current values
corressponding to approximately 10 % and 40 % soil or sawdust moisture content levels. For example
for Cl and Ri (please see Table Al), the moisture content levels used were 40.1 and 10.0. The
corresponding values of capacitance are 17.3 nF and 2.5 nF respectively. The change in capacitance,
AC is, therefore 14.8 nF. The total change in moisture content, 9,,, corresponding to this range is 30.1
%. The resolution of the capacitance meter used for this measurement is 0.1 nF. Therefore the
sensitivity index, s, for the capacitance sensor, according to equation (4.1), is calculated as
=
______
= (40.1 -10.0)
= 0.2
(AC /r) (17.1 -2.5)
0.1
The s value for the fiberglass resistance sensor Ri, and all the other sensors were calculted in a similar
way.
A.2. Spreadsheet Calculations
All calculations were performed with the QUATTRO PRO computer spreadsheet programme. The
spreadsheet name for each of column headings for Table Al to A8 are shown below: A copy of the
computer program is kept in the Bio-Resource Engineering Department.
A Sensor number
8 Mass of moist sawdust or soil + box + sensors
C Mass of sawdust or soil + moisture
D Moisture Content (% by volume)
Appendix A
/o.
E Moisture Content (% by weight)
F Current flowing through R#
G Capacitance of C#
H Mass of sensors and box
Oven-dried weight of sample
J Mass of drying can.
The above letter designations are used in the explanations of the spreadheet calcultions which follow.
The explanations are based on Table 1, in which the other ordinate of the first line of figures is 13 i.e.
the cell address of the weight of drying can 6.1 g is J13.
A.3 Calculations of Mass of Soil Moisture
E = B13-H13-l13-J13
AA Calculations of Moisture Contents (% dry weight basis)
E
= C13*1OO/(l13J13).
A.5 Calculations of Moisture Contents (% dry volume basis)
Both the soil and sawdust expand on absorbing water. The volumes of the samples were
therefore not constant throughout the experiment. It was therefore decided to base the volumetric
moisture content calculations on the average volume of the oven dried sample. The average specific
volume of the oven-dried sawdust sample was 5.81 g/cc, and that of the organic soil was 1 .65 g/cc.
Therefore D is E13 / 5.81 for sawdust and E13 / 1.65 for organic soil.

Ubc 1992 Spring Kra Eric y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubc 1992 Spring Kra Eric y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTS OF AN IN SITU CAPACITANCE MOISTURE

363.9 133.9 59.0 97.3 100 251.0

You might also like