WATER CONTENT AND DENSITY OF SOIL INSITU BY THE PURDUE TDR METHOD

Vincent P. Drnevich1, Shafiqul I. Siddiqui 2, Janet Lovell3, and Quanghee Yi 4

1

School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, drnevich@purdue.edu

2
Earth Exploration, Inc., Indianapolis, IN 46214-2988, ssiddiqui@email.msn.com
3
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, lovell@purdue.edu
4
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, yiq@purdue.edu

ABSTRACT
The Purdue TDR Method is a new technology for determining both water content and density of soil by measuring the
apparent dielectric constant on two soil cables, one insitu and the other on the same soil in a compaction mold. This
method generally gives quite accurate water content values compared to oven dry values. Soil density determination is
relatively calibration free because it depends on the ratio of two apparent dielectric constant measurements.
Apparent dielectric constants are somewhat dependent on soil temperature. Corrections for temperature are given but are not
necessary for tests where soil temperatures are between 15 o C and 25o C. Density determinations are much less affected by
temperature if the soil temperature is approximately the same for both the insitu and compaction mold.
The Purdue TDR Method applies for a wide variety of soils, including particle sizes passing the 19 mm (3/4-in.) sieve. With
ongoing improvements, widespread evaluation, and standardization, it has the potential to become a useful and reliable tool
for the geotechnical community

INTRODUCTION
The Purdue TDR Method for water content and density is a story of two coaxial cables where the insulating material
between the coaxial lead and the shield is soil. Driving four metal spikes into the soil surface in a pattern that
simulates a cable creates one of the coaxial cables. The length of the spikes determines the length of the cable, typically 20
cm (8-inches). The principle of Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) is used to measure the travel time of an electromagnetic
wave in this cable. The travel time allows for determining the apparent dielectric constant of the soil contained between
the spikes. The word apparent is used because the dielectric permittivity of soil is a complex, frequency dependent function
(Siddiqui and Drnevich (1995)).
The second coaxial cable consists of a metal compaction mold filled with soil and a metal rod driven into the center of the
soil-filled mold for the center lead. The metal mold forms the shield. The compaction mold is placed on a non-metallic
base to complete the simulation. Again, TDR is used to measure the travel time from which the apparent dielectric
constant is determined. With the total density of the soil known in the compaction mold, the water content can be calculated
for the soil using a simple equation. Water contents determined by this method compare exceptionally well with those
obtained by oven drying.
If the soil in the compaction mold is the same soil and has the same water content as tested in the first cable (insitu), then
the density of the soil insitu is determined by a simple equation based on the average dielectric constants measured insitu and
in the compaction mold.
In practice, a cable is formed insitu and the dielectric constant of the soil is determined by TDR. The spikes are removed and
the soil between the spikes is excavated and quickly hand compacted into a compaction mold. The total density of the soil in
the compaction mold is determined by weighing, a center lead is installed, and the dielectric constant of the soil in the
compaction mold is determined. The latter dielectric constant and soil density allows for determination of the water content
of the soil. The insitu dielectric constant combined with the compaction mold dielectric constant and the soil density allow
for calculating the insitu density.
This process was conceived by the author and Dr. Shafiqul Siddiqui as part of his dissertation work at Purdue University and
was enhanced and improved by faculty colleagues, Dr. Richard Deschamps and Robert Nowack, by former graduate
students: Dr. Wei Feng, Dr. Chihping Lin, and Mr. Jie Zhang, by current graduate students Quanghee Yi and Xiong Yu, and
by our laboratory manager, Ms. Janet Lovell. This paper will describe in detail the above procedure and some work in
progress, especially the effects of particle size and temperature on the process.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Relationship Between Volumetric Water Content and Gravimetric Water Content
Siddiqui and Drnevich (1995), Feng et. al. (1998), Lin et. al. (2000) provide a reasonably complete history of the use of the
TDR method for water content determination. For more than 30 years, agronomists have been making extensive use of
dielectric properties for measuring the volumetric water content of soil (volume of water as a percentage of the total volume
of the soil). The volumetric water content is usually represented by the Greek letter theta, . Geotechnical engineers work
with the gravimetric water content of soil (mass of the water/mass of dry soil solids) and it is usually represented by the
letter, w. Both and w are expressed as percentages. Volumetric and gravimetric water contents are related by

w =

w
d

(1)

where d is the dry density of the soil and w is the density of water.
Research into the dielectric properties of soil in soil science and in civil engineering led to the introduction of many
calibration equations. Lin et al. (2000) provides an in-depth evaluation of these calibration equations. The theoretical and
experimental study by Lin et al. (2000) suggested that the density-compensating calibration equation proposed by Siddiqui
and Drnevich (1995) provides the best relationship between soil water content and dielectric constant. The SiddiquiDrnevich calibration equation accounts for soil density and soil type:

w=

1 w

b d

Ka a

(2)

where d is the dry density of soil, w is the density of water, a and b are soil-dependent calibration constants. From tests on
a variety of soils the value of a is consistently near unity and the value of b is consistently near eight.
Determining the Apparent Dielectric Constant, Ka
Time Domain Reflectometry test devices were originally developed to find distances to breaks or discontinuities in metallic
cables. An electromagnetic wave travels down a cable with a velocity, v, given by

v=

c
Ka

(3)

where c is the velocity of an electromagnetic wave in free space (2.998 x 108 m/s). The travel time of the wave traveling
down and back in a cable of length, L, is given by

t=

2L
v

(4)

where t is the measured travel time (down and back). Combining Eqs. 3 and 4 yields

ct
Ka =

2L

The horizontal axis of the Tektronix 1502B is calibrated in values of

(5)

ct
ct
which has units of length and the value of
is
2
2

defined as apparent length, la . The horizontal axis was calibrated in length so that the distance to the break or discontinuity
could be quickly determined. Hence the apparent dielectric constant is calculated by

l
Ka = a
L

(6)

Figure 1 gives a typical curve for a Purdue TDR Method test. Algorithms have been developed and included in the data
reduction program TDR++ to automatically determine the apparent length, la .
Effects of Temperature on Apparent Dielectric Constant
Weast (1986) showed that the apparent dielectric constant of water, Ka, water , decreases linearly from a high of about 88 near
freezing to about 70 for 50 o C. Wraith and Or (1999) and others have noted that temperature effects for sandy soils behaves
similarly (but with reduced sensitivity) to temperature changes, but that clay soils exhibit the opposite behavior, i.e. Ka
increases with temperature. The apparent dielectric constant of dry soil minerals is not very temperature sensitive.
Experiments at Purdue determined the apparent dielectric constant of a variety of soils, each having a range of water contents
and density. A companion paper to this conference by Drnevich et al. (2001) provides the details.

Reflection from top of soil "cable"

4000
3000
Relative Voltage

2000
1000
0
-1000

ct/2 (m)
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

-2000
-3000
-4000

la

Reflection from end of

soil cable

Fig. 1. Typical TDR Curve for Soil and Measurement of Apparent Length, l a.
Based on this testing, we propose to adjust the values of apparent dielectric constant from the TDR test at a given temperature
to a standard temperature of 20oC. These values may be calculated from Eq. (7).

Ka ,20C = K a ,T C TCF

(7)

where
TCF

= Temperature Correction Function

= 0.97 + 0.0015 Ttest, T? C for cohesionless soils, 4 C Ttest, T? C 40C
= 1.10 - 0.005 Ttest, T? C for cohesive soils, 4 C Ttest, T? C 40C.

From Eq. (7) it can be seen that values of Ka, 20C will not exceed about ten percent for extremes in temperature covered by
this equation. Considering Eq. (2), we see that water content is related to the square root of Ka and hence temperature effects
on water content are relatively small. The authors suggest that temperature corrections are not needed for 15C Ttest, T? C
25C. Since the dielectric constant of ice has dramatically different properties from unfrozen water, the TDR method
described herein does not apply to frozen soil.

THE PURDUE TDR METHOD

Insitu Testing
A field cable is first tested to measure the dielectric constant of soil in place (Ka,field ). Four spikes are driven through a
template into a smooth and level soil surface as shown in Fig. 2 to form the field cable. The spikes used have a nominal
diameter of 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) and have a nominal length of 229 mm (9 inches). The template has a thickness of 25.4 mm (1
inch) so that about 200 mm (8 inches) of the spikes are in the soil. The template is removed from around the spikes as shown
in Fig. 3.
This leaves an air gap of approximately 25 mm (1 inch) between the top of the spikes and the soil surface. The length of the
spikes in the soil is the length of the field cable as shown in Fig. 4. Other length spikes could be used with the practical

range of lengths ranging from 150 mm (6 inches) to 300 mm (12 inches), however, for lossy soils, the practical length may be
limited to the lower end of this range.

Fig. 2. Driving Spikes Through a Template for Field Test

Fig. 3. Removal of the Template
A specially designed multiple rod probe head is placed
on the four spikes as shown in Fig. 5. This head forms a
transition unit between the spikes and the cable that
connects to the TDR test device. All tests to date made
use of a Tektronix, model 1502B TDR Cable Tester
equipped with a serial port that connects to the serial
port on a notebook computer. A computer program,
TDR++, developed by Wei Feng et al. (1998) as part
of this research, controls the Tektronix 1502B, acquires
the data, operates on it, and stores it along with other
salient information about the apparatus, test, date, and
location. The important information from the field test
is the apparent dielectric constant, Ka, field . Use of this
will be discussed later.

Coaxial lead
Shield

Cable length, L

Fig. 4. Cable of Soil" Created by Driving Spikes into Soil

Surface

Once the information is stored in the computer, the

probe head is removed and the spikes are removed. The soil
is then excavated from the space defined by the outer three
spikes. A battery-operated power drill with a 26 mm (1-in)
diameter wood auger bit works well for loosening the soil for
removal with a small hand scoop (See Fig. 6.). Unlike the
sand cone test, disturbance of the soil adjacent to the
excavated soil is not a problem.
Compaction Mold Testing
A special compaction mold is used for these tests. It
resembles the conventional compaction mold specified by
ASTM D698 except that it has twice the length and the
bottom plate is made of a non-metallic material. The longer
length allows for getting most of the soil from the insitu test
into the mold and it allows for more accurate measurements
of the travel time.

Fig. 5. Placement of Multiple Rod Probe Head on Spikes

Soil is compacted into this mold using any desired compaction energy that produces a relatively uniform specimen in the
mold. (An aluminum rod 38 mm (1.5 in) in diameter by 400 mm (16 in) in length works well as a hand tamper for routine
field tests.) The mass of the soil and mold is determined. Subtracting the mass of the empty mold gives the mass of the soil
and with the volume of the mold, the total density of the soil in the mold, t ,mold is determined.

Coaxial Lead
Shield

Coaxial cable length, L

Fig. 6. Loosening Soil with a Power Drill

Fig. 7. Compaction Cylinder Soil Cable

The mold containing soil is placed on a firm surface and a guide template is placed on the mold. A center rod is then driven
into the mold and the guide template is removed. The mold with the center rod simulates a cable of soil as shown in Fig. 7.
A special adapter ring is placed on the mold and the same probe head used for testing insitu is placed on the adapter ring as
shown in Fig. 8. A TDR measurement gives the average apparent dielectric constant for the soil in the mold, Ka,mold .

Fig. 8. Compaction Mold with Adapter Ring and Probe Head

Calculation of Water Content and Density
Equation 2 allows for the calculation of water content with the use of apparent dielectric constant and the soil dry density.
The dry density of the soil in the mold, d, mold , is related to the total density, t, mold , through

 d , mold =

t , mold

(8)

1+ w

Substituting Eq. 8 into Eq. 2 and solving for w yields

K a, mold a
wmold =
b

t , mold
w

t , mold
w

(9)

K a , mold

If the process of removal the soil from the hole in the field and placement into the compaction mold is done quickly, it is
valid to assume that the water contents in the mold and in the field test are identical

w field = wmold

(10)

If Eq. 2 is written twice, once for the field test and once for the compaction test and with consideration of Eq. 8, the dry
density of the soil in the field, d ,field , may be calculated from

d , field =

K a , field

t , mold

(11)

K a , mold 1 + w field

Note that Eq. 11 does not contain any calibration factors or soil constants. Hence, the accuracy of d ,field is dependent on the
accuracy of the total density measurement in the compaction mold, the accuracy of the water content determination, and the
accuracy in measuring the apparent dielectric constant in the field and in the compaction mold. With the use of the same
probe head and procedures for data acquisition and reduction, there is potential for accurate measurement of these
parameters.
Determination of Soil Dependent Parameters a and b
Equation 2 determines water content in the Purdue TDR method. This equation requires values of a and b. The easiest way
to determine values of a and b for a given soil is to run a
series of tests in the compaction mold with different
y = 7.6642x + 1.1109
water contents.
R 2 = 0.9853

Measure the total density and apparent dielectric constant

and the water contents for each test by oven drying.

shown in Fig. 9. Fit a straight line to the data. The value

of a is the zero-intercept of the straight line and b is the
slope. Experience from conducting hundreds of tests on
different soils indicates that the value of a is typically
near unity and the value of b is typically near eight. The
amount of compaction energy used in these tests, while
important for obtaining the compaction curve, does not
appear important for determining values of a and b for a
given soil.

w/ d

2.5

(Ka)0.5

Then plot K a w versus w from the test results as

d

2.7

2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Oven-Dry Water Content

Fig. 9. Plot for Determining Values of a and b

TYPICAL RESULTS
Water Content
Tests on a variety of soils with the Purdue TDR Method and a nuclear moisture-density meter, as reported by Lin et al.
(1999) in Fig. 10 show that the Purdue TDR Method appears to be more accurate based on oven-dry water contents. The
Purdue TDR Method measures average moisture over the entire length of the soil cable which is typically the entire lift
thickness. See Lin et al. (2000) for additional discussion on water content determination.
Field Density
A number of field density tests have been performed around the state of Indiana where side by side comparisons were made
with nuclear density measurements and some also with the sand cone method (ASTM D1556). The results are shown in Fig.
11 where the TDR-measured density is plotted on the abscissa and the nuclear and sand cone densities are plotted on the
ordinate.
Some variation of data in Fig. 11 is to be expected because of the spatial variation in density that is likely to occur in the
field. The comparison of methods is further complicated by the fact that none of the methods currently available directly
measure the field density. Lin et al. (1999) report on TDR tests performed in simulated field tests where soil was compacted
to controlled density in a large mold. Agreement between the actual and TDR-measured densities was very good.

0.250

Water Content

0.200

0.150

0.100

Ovendry
TDR
Nuclear

0.050

0.000
0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

Oven-dry Water Content

Fig. 10. Field Water Content by Purdue TDR and Nuclear Methods (after Lin et al. (1999))

WORK IN PROGRESS
Particle Size Limitations
Coarse-textured soils, particularly those containing gravel or rock, occur at many sites. Work is being performed by
Quanghee Yi to study the effects of testing large particle-sized materials on the Purdue TDR Method. Based on preliminary
tests and the work of Siddiqui and Drnevich, 1995, the authors are recommending that this method can be used for soils
where particle sizes do not exceed 20 mm (3/4-in.) and where less than 50 percent of the sample has particle sizes exceeding
the No. 4 sieve. This requirement is consistent with particle size specifications of ASTM D-698 (Compaction Test) where

the maximum particle size passes the 19 mm (3/4-in.) sieve. Details for the basis of this recommendation are given in the
companion paper to this paper (Yi, et al., (2001)).

Total density (Mg/m^3)

2.5

1.5

Nuclear
Sand cone
1:1 Line

0.5

+/- 5%
0
1.8

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Total density by TDR (Mg/m^3)

Fig. 11. Comparison of Field Densities by Nuclear and Sand Cone with TDR-Measured Densities (After Lin et al. (1999))
Standardization
A draft ASTM Standard was created and the process of getting a Standard for this method approved is in the early stages. In
ASTM, this work is under the jurisdiction of Committee D18, Subcommittee D18.08. Also, a Beta Testing Program is just
getting started that will involve twelve agencies/firms/universities from around the country. The purpose of the program is to
improve the equipment and procedures and to obtain data for use in precision and bias determination. Standardization and
results from a wide spectrum of users will identify shortcomings and establish levels of confidence in the method.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Purdue TDR Method determines the water content and density of soil by measuring the apparent dielectric constant on
two soil cables, one insitu and the other in a compaction mold. The process is based on the Siddiqui-Drnevich equation
(Eq. 2) that allows for calculating water content of soil in terms of apparent dielectric constant, soil density, and two soildependent parameters, a and b. Several compaction tests at significantly different water contents with water contents
determined by oven drying determine values of a and b. The value of a is typically near unity and the value of b is
approximately eight.
This method generally gives quite accurate water content values compared to oven dry values. Soil density determination is
relatively calibration free because it depends on the ratio of two apparent dielectric constant measurements, one on the soil
insitu and the other of the same soil in a compaction mold. The same equipment is used to make both measurements.
Apparent dielectric constants are somewhat dependent on soil temperature. For determining water contents, it appears that
corrections for temperature are not necessary for tests where soil temperatures are between 15o C and 25o C. Density
determinations are much less affected by temperature if the soil temperature is approximately the same for both the insitu and
compaction mold tests because density determination is based on a ratio of the two apparent dielectric constants.
The Purdue TDR Method applies for a wide variety of soils. It may be used for large particle sizes, consistent with particle
size specifications of ASTM D-698 where the maximum particle size passes the 19 mm (3/4-in.) sieve.

The Purdue TDR Method is a totally new and different technology for determining both water content and density of soil.
With ongoing improvements, widespread evaluation, and standardization, it has the potential to become a useful and reliable
tool for the geotechnical community.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Indiana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration for the
financial support through projects Indiana HPR-2094, C-36-5S, and Indiana SPR-2201 and assistance with the field
experiments. Development of the procedures and theories supporting them has truly been a team effort and the author
acknowledges the efforts of all who contributed especially: Dr. Shafiqul Siddiqui, Dr. Richard Deschamps, Dr. Wei Feng, Dr.
Chih Ping Lin, Dr. Robert Nowack, Dr. Jody Tishmack, Mr. Jie Zhang, Mr. Xiong Yu, and Mr. Charlie Crowe (machinist).
The author also wishes to acknowledge the enthusiastic support and creative ideas of the Study Advisory Committee for these
projects. The members are: Mr. Peter Capon (Rieth Riley Construction), Mr. Donald Johnson (FHWA), Mr. Thomas Kuhn
(Kuhn Construction), Dr. Sam Mansukhani (FHWA), Dr. Tommy Nantung (INDoT), Mr. Wes Shaw (INDoT), and Mr.
Nayyar Zia (INDoT).
REFERENCES
ASTM, D698 (1998). Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
(12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, pp. 77-84.
ASTM, D1556 (1998). Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone Method,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, pp. 120-125.
Drnevich, V.P., Lovell, J., Tishmack, J., Yu, X., and Zhang, J., (2001). "Temperature Effects on Dielectric Constant
Determined by Time Domain Reflectometry," TDR 2001: Innovative Applications of TDR Technology, Infrastructure
Technology Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, September.
Feng, W., Lin, C.P., Drnevich, V.P., and Deschamps, R.J., (1998). Automation and Standardization of Measuring Moisture
Content and Density Using Time Domain Reflectometry, Report No.: FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/4, Joint Transportation Research
Program, Indiana Department of Transportation - Purdue University, September, 122 p.
Feng, W., Lin, C.P., Deschamps, R.J., and Drnevich, V.P., (1999). "Theoretical Model of a Multi-Section TDR Measurement
System," Water Resource Research, Vol. 35, No. 8, Aug., pp. 2321-2331.
Lin, C.P., Drnevich, V.P., Feng, W., and Deschamps, R.J., (2000). Time Domain Reflectometry For Compaction Quality
Control, Presented at and publication in Proc. GeoDenver2000, Use of geophysical methods in construction, Soheil
Nazarian and John Diehl, Editors, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 108, ASCE GeoInstitute Conference, Denver
Colorado, August 5-8, pp. 15-34.
Lin, C-P., Siddiqui, S. I., Feng, W., Drnevich, V. P., and Deschamps, R. J., (2000). "Quality Control of Earth Fills Using
Electromagnetic Waves," Constructing and Controlling Compaction of Earth Fills, ASTM STP 1384, D. W. Shanklin, K. R.
Rademacher, and J. R. Talbot, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 290-310.
Siddiqui, S.I., and Drnevich, V.P., (1995). A New Method of Measuring Density and Moisture Content of Soil Using the
Technique of Time Domain Reflectometry, Report No.: FHWA/IN/JTRP-95/9, Joint Transportation Research Program,
Indiana Department of Transportation - Purdue University, February, 271 p.
Siddiqui, S.I., Drnevich, V.P., and Deschamps, R.J., (2000). Time Domain Reflectometry Development for Use in
Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 23, No. 1, March, pp. 9-20.
Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L., and Annan, A. P. (1980), Electromagnetic Determination of Soil Water Content and Electrical
Conductivity Measurement Using Time Domain Reflectometry, Water Resources Research, Vol. 16, pp. 574-582.
Weast, R.C. (1986), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 67th ed., CRC Press.
Yi, Q., Drnevich, V.P., and Lovell, J., (2001). "Limitations of the Purdue TDR Method for Soils with Large Particles," TDR
2001: Innovative Applications of TDR Technology, Infrastructure Technology Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL, September.