% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Huisman:62064,
      author       = {Huisman, J. A. and Lin, C. P. and Weihermüller, L. and
                      Vereecken, H.},
      title        = {{A}ccuracy of bulk electrical conductivity measurements
                      with {T}ime {D}omain {R}eflectometry},
      journal      = {Vadose zone journal},
      volume       = {7},
      issn         = {1539-1663},
      address      = {Madison, Wis.},
      publisher    = {SSSA},
      reportid     = {PreJuSER-62064},
      pages        = {426 - 433},
      year         = {2008},
      note         = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
      abstract     = {Accurate determination of bulk electrical conductivity with
                      time domain reflectometry (TDR) requires calibration or
                      direct measurement of the probe constant and the cable
                      resistance. The aims of this study were threefold. First,
                      the accuracy of an analytical expression for the direct
                      determination of the probe constant was evaluated for three
                      TDR probe designs by comparing the analytical result with
                      the probe constant obtained by calibration to TDR
                      measurements in solutions with varying electrical
                      conductivity. Second, the accuracy of direct measurement of
                      cable resistance was compared with the accuracy that can be
                      achieved by calibrating this resistance. The uncertainty in
                      directly measured and calibrated probe and cable properties
                      was determined in a Monte Carlo analysis. The results showed
                      that the analytical expression for the probe constant and
                      calibration of the probe constant do not provide
                      significantly different estimates when the uncertainty in
                      both approaches is considered; however, the uncertainty in
                      the calibrated probe constants was lower than or similar to
                      the uncertainty in the direct measurements. Directly
                      measured and calibrated cable resistance differed, which was
                      attributed to recording time issues. It was concluded that
                      calibration of probe and cable parameters should be
                      preferred over direct measurements to achieve accurate bulk
                      electrical conductivity measurements. The final aim of this
                      study was to quantify how the various sources of uncertainty
                      identified in this study affect the accuracy of TDR bulk
                      conductivity measurements. This uncertainty analysis showed
                      that the accuracy of TDR ranges between 0.6 and $1.2\%$ of
                      the bulk electrical conductivity if the reflection
                      coefficient varies between -0.75 and 0.75. Outside this
                      range, the accuracy of the bulk electrical conductivity
                      measurements made with TDR is lower.},
      keywords     = {J (WoSType)},
      cin          = {ICG-4 / JARA-ENERGY / JARA-SIM},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793 / $I:(DE-82)080011_20140620$ /
                      I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045},
      pnm          = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
      pid          = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
      shelfmark    = {Environmental Sciences / Soil Science / Water Resources},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000256204600004},
      doi          = {10.2136/vzj2007.0139},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/62064},
}