IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-15, NO.
1, JANUARY 1977
criteria for multispectral remote sensing," in Int. Joint Conf.
Pattern Recognition, 5 pp., 1973; also Laboratory for Applications
of Remote Sensing, Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN, LARS Infor-
mation Note 042673.
1151 K. S. Fu and P. J. Min, "On feature selection in multiclass pattern
recognition," School of Electrical Engineering, Purdue Univ., W.
Lafayette, IN, Tech. Rep. TR-EE 68-17, July 1968.
A Theory of the Complex Dielectric Permittivity of
Soil Containing Water: The Semidisperse Model
DAROLD WOBSCHALL,
Abstract-A model of soil composed of a multiphase mixture of solid
particles, water, and air voids is proposed from which the complex
permittivity, or dielectric constant and conductivity, is calculated. It is
based on the Hanai/Bruggelman/Wagner theory of mixtures and con-
siders the ionic conducting water as partly dispersed and partly the
dispersing medium, an important distinction with this theory. The
permittivity as a function of frequency and water content is predicted.
The increase in dielectric constant with water volume fraction does not
differ greatly with soil type in the high-frequency limit and is approxi-
mated by a normal curve specified by the theory. A normal curve and
the marked increase in dielectric constant at lower frequencies has been
observed experimentally. It is concluded that this semidisperse theory
of the dielectric permittivity is successful in describing the behavior of
soils containing moisture in the high-frequency range (1 MHz-1 GHz).
Approximations to the more detailed theory and a series-parallel RC
equivalent circuit are given.
INTRODUCTION
IT HAS LONG BEEN recognized that the dielectric permit-
tivity of soil increased with its water content [1]. Indeed
such an effect is predicted by the theory of heterogeneous di-
electrics which was developed before this century. An exten-
sive review of this and subsequent work is given by Hasted [21
and by van Beek [3]. However it is not widely recognized,
although observed experimentally by Thomas [4] some time
ago, that the increase in permittivity with volume fraction of
water at high frequencies is quite similar for most soils in spite
of their diverse composition. The measurements we have
made [5 ] on a number of soils at radio frequencies is consistent
with this observation. Arulanandan et al. [6] and Hipp et al.
[7] observe generally higher permittivity for clays, but the
Manuscript received July 29, 1976. This work was supported in part
by the National Transportation Research Board under a contract to
develop a soil moisture sensor.
The author is with the Departments of Electrical Engineering and
Biophysical Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo,
NY 14226.
49
161 D. M.Gates, H. J. Keegan, J. C. Schleter, and V. R. Weidner,
"Spectral properties of plants," Appl. Opt., vol. 4, pp. 11-20,
1965.
1171 A. I. Obukhov and D. S. Orlov, Pochvovedeniye, 174, no. 2, 1964.
[181 R. Kumar, "Radiation from plants-Reflection and emission: A
review," Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN, AA & ES 72-2-2, Feb.
1972. 8 pp.
MEMBER, IEEE
form of the curve is similar even near microwave frequencies
where water dipole relaxation begins to dominate and where
this theory is not intended to apply [8]. In other words, a
"normal curve" exists which approximately describes the be-
havior of most soils [4], [9]. One aim of this paper is to show
that the approximate normal curve is predictable from an
extension of existing dielectric theories of mixtures. This
theory, termed the semidisperse soil model, also predicts the
variation in permittivity with frequency, specifically relating
it to the ionic conductivity of the water and the manner and
degree of dispersion in water in the soil.
HANAI/BRUGGELMAN/WAGNER (HBW) THEORY
A theory of two-phase heterogeneous dielectrics with com-
plex dielectric constants was developed by Hanai [10]. It is an
extension of Bruggelman's theory of the conductivity of mix-
tures, and is based on extrapolation of Wagner's more exact
theory of suspended dilute spheres to the concentrated state.
More recently Pearce, Hulse, and Walker [11] applied the
equations derived by Hanai to the calculations of the dielectric
permittivity of soil considered as a three-phase system (parti-
cles, air, and water). They were able to obtain rather good
agreement with experiment at high frequencies but the increase
in permittivity with decreasing frequency (dispersion) was un-
realistically small.
In Fig. 1 the steps in the development of the theory are
summarized. Wagner's theory [2] is derived for spheres widely
dispersed or suspended in a medium where both phases are
partially conducting dielectrics. For each phase a complex
permittivity e* can be defimed as
e _+ jc"Keo -
(1)
Co
where K is the real part of the dielectric constant, co is the
permittivity of free space (8.854 X 10-12 F/m), a is the con-
50 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, JANUARY 1977

I.
plex permittivity of the mixture. Since 0', e*, and ed are
presumably known, e* can be obtained from (2), a cubic
X\ 'k ; equation with complex coefficients.
II Equation (2) was solved by a computer routine (ZANLYT)
\
capable of finding the roots to a third-degree polynomial with
(a)I complex coefficients. A procedure in which the imaginary
and real parts of (2) were solved iteratively also proved
efficient. Hanai gives the real part of (2) as
[(C Cd)2 +(C"- Cd)2 1 [(CXI)2 (Cl)2 1
+

2
[(Cl ElC)2 + (C' E )2 )2 +(EC )2 J

(3a)
and the imaginary part as
m
(b)
e e X(3- X2)
(3b)
" 1- 3X2
1+ ,
Em E
where
e Ed em Ed

X- Ed em Ed
(c) (3c)
Fig. 1. Theories of mixtures. (a) Dilute dielectric spheres (Wagner).
(b) Two-phase concentrated dielectric mixtures (Bruggelman/Hanai). ( Ed -
em E Ed Ed
(c) Three-phase mixture of solid particles, water, and air (Pearce et al.).
Trial values of c' and e" were inserted into (3a, b, c) and then
and C" were varied by computer iteration until both
ductivity (mho/m), w is the angular frequency (rad/s), and sides of the equations were equal.' Identification of the cor-
j = .-1 The dielectric permittivity of the mixture can be rect solution from the three roots was not always obvious
calculated from the permittivities and volume fraction of the since under some conditions more than one root is physically
components. The derivation involves the calculation of the allowable (e' > 1, e" < 0) but ambiguities were removed by
electric field in both phases through a matching of the bound- tracing the evolution of the root from the unambiguous high-
ary conditions at the sphere surface. frequency limit.
In applying the theory to soil it is assumed that soil particles, In applying (2) to any mixture, it is necessary to know which
although of irregular shape, are randomly distributed and thus phase is disperse because the results of this inexact theory can
have a spherical average. While objections can be raised be quite different if e* and Ed are interchanged (and O re-
against this assumption, a more serious problem is the require- placed by Om = 1 0). A lack of symmetry between phases
-

ment that the particle concentration be dilute, which is far for this approximate relation is not unexpected since it was
from true. Bruggelman [2], [3] approached this problem by derived assuming 0 << 1, but the distinction is more funda-
calculating the dielectric constant produced by a series of mental since dispersions of oil in water and water in oil show
infinitesimal additions to the disperse phase (spheres) with a a marked difference experimentally. Surprisingly in many
corresponding reduction in the dispersing medium. While the cases (2) has been found experimentally [10] to be approxi-
validity of this approach is not clear theoretically, in particular mately valid for ranging up to 0.7 or even 0.95, well beyond
that the boundary conditions still hold, the formulas derived the range which can be theoretically justified. Therefore a
have been verified experimentally in many mixtures. Bruggel- phase present even in high concentrations, such as particles in
man's derivation was intended to cover the case of real permit- soil, may be considered disperse, but the assignment of the
tivities, or to the analogous case of pure conductivities, but not disperse and suspending medium is not arbitrary and ultimately
complex permittivities. However, Hanai [10] found that the must be justified experimentally.
result for complex permittivities (e*) was the same as that for It is instructive to examine the character of the solutions of
real permittivities (e) or conductivities (a), specifically for a (2) for mixtures of a conducting high-dielectric phase (water)
two-phase mixture and a low-dielectric phase (soil particles, for example) which
may be conducting or nonconducting. Frequency plots of the
Ce -d (>) (2) real and imaginary parts of the permittivity expressed in terms
cm Ed
of dielectric constant and conductivity are given in Fig. 2 for
where ¢ is the volume fraction of the disperse phase, Ed and
e* are the complex permittivities of the disperse phase and Computer programs may be obtained from the author. ZANLYT is
medium in which dispersed, respectively, and e* is the com- an IMSL routine.
WOBSCHALL: DIELECTRIC PERMITTIVITY OF SOIL 51

Log (Frequency) - Hz

Log (Frequency) - Hz
Fig. 2. Permittivity of solid-water dispersions as a function of frequency
as calculated by the Hanai theory. The solid is the low dielectric
phase. Comparisons of the conducting, nonconducting, disperse, and
nondisperse solid phases are shown.

the cases of a) the high-dielectric-constant phase (H) dispersed
and b) the low-dielectric-constant phase (L) dispersed. It
should be noted that marked variation of the dielectric con-
stant with frequency2 occurs only if L is conducting. Very
high dielectric constants at low frequencies are predicted if
L is disperse as well as conducting. Some frequency depen-
dence occurs for L nonconducting, but it is quite small. The
frequency dependence of the conductivity of the mixture
follows a similar behavior. Further, if L is nonconducting with
H disperse, the net conductivity is small and indeed approaches
zero in the low-frequency limit. Clearly the theory predicts
quite different results for H rather than L disperse.
The physical reason for the increase in dielectric constant at
lower frequencies is the accumulation of charge at the
2Care must be taken to avoid confusion of the variation of the di-
electric constant with frequency, usually referred to as dispersion,
with the disperse phase.
conductor-dielectric interface. For appreciable charge to be
accumulated the low-dielectric material (here considered a
solid particle) must act as a conductor at the measurement
frequency. This will occur when the relaxation time (e/a) is
small compared to the period (27r/c). The higher dielectric
material (water) acts as a pure dielectric (or at least has a
substantially longer relaxation time). In effect the conducting
particles separated by thin insulating regions act as a series of
capacitors. Since the electric field is concentrated across the
thin high-dielectric material the charge accumulation can be
very large. At high frequencies the particle conductivity be-
comes unimportant and the material acts as a mixture of pure
dielectrics.
SEMIDISPERSE SOIL MODEL
Soil consists of irregular particles containing crevices and
pores (air-filled voids) which are gradually filled by water as
the moisture content increases. No single disperse phase is
52 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, JANUARY 1977

conductivity, due, of course, to dissolved salts, is a well-defined

quantity which can be measured independently.
At each stage in the calculation (2), or (3), is used to obtain
the permittivity of the mixture from two subphases, one dis-
persed and the other the dispersing medium. In each case, the
permittivities of the two subphases and the fraction by volume
of the dispersed subphase must be known. Volume fractions
defined with respect to the two-phase system are denoted /.
This must be related to the volume fractions of the soil as a
whole, denoted 4. The various interrelations follow.
The volume fraction in the soil of solid nonconducting
particles 4p is
Vp = 1 - i/l (5)
where 4', is the void volume fraction or soil porosity. Given
non-dispersed' the volume fraction of all the water in the soil 1/w, the volume
water fraction of air 0Ia is seen to be
Fig. 3. Sketch of particles and water dispersed in soil.
4a = QvI- i/w (6)
obvious over the entire range of moisture content. It is pro- Of the total water, a small amount (4' ) is located within
posed here that the water and particles are in fact mutually crevices in the particles, but the maximum volume fraction of
interdispersed as illustrated in Fig. 3. Here various hypotheti- crevice water is equal to the volume fraction of crevice or
cal intermediate phases are defined to allow the two-phase micro voids, f'. We prefer to define the crevice volume as a
HBW theory to be applied to a multiphase system. This fraction (,B) of the particle volume, leading to the following
method of calculation, which involves the assumption of a relation:
hypothetical intermediate phase, follows the approach of
Pearce et al. [11]. A key concept is a moist particle phase (' = 4pQ (7)
consisting of a solid particle within which water-filled crevices
or micropores are dispersed and around which is a water layer so that for high water
or coating. The moist particles and air are dispersed in the 1w4=O', for 4w > B' (8a)
remaining water. In other words, in this semidisperse model
the water is considered partly dispersed and partly the dispers- and for low water
ing medium. The effective fraction of water dispersed is a 4W4 = XW for Pw < 3' (8b)
parameter of the model which is adjusted to fit the experi-
mental data. where the assumption has been made that the water first fills
Calculation proceeds in four stages. In the first stage, the the crevices (capillary action) and the remainder then fills the
permittivity of a hypothetical conducting particle phase c*, larger voids. The volume fraction of the conducting particle
consisting of a nonconducting solid with crevices containing phase 4', consisting of the solid particles plus water in the
water, is calculated. Here the solid is considered dispersed in a crevices, is
small amount of water. In the next stage, the permittivity of Ip= Qp + QW' (9)
the moist particle phase Ec is calculated assuming that some
conducting water is dispersed in pores within the conducting Only a fraction (a) of the water in the larger voids is con-
particle. In the third stage, the moist particle phase is dis- sidered dispersed. Its volume fraction JJe in the soil is
persed in the remaining water to form the air-free phase c*. ike = a(1kw -3 ) (1 Oa)
Finally, the voids containing air are dispersed in the air-free
phase, resulting in the complete soil sample e*. with the exception of
The soil particle dielectric constant Kp is presumed known 4e= 0, for 4'w < '. (lOb)
as well as the water dielectric constant K, and conductivity
oa. Of these parameters, Kw is the most accurately known: Likewise the volume fraction of the remaining water, which is
nondispersed, is
Kw = 87.8 - 0.37 T (4)
where T is the temperature (°C). The decrease in water per-
;2m = (1 - °a)(;w 03) (lla)
mittivity at very high frequencies has been neglected. It hap- with the exception of
pens that Kp varies little with soil type and is approximately
equal to 3.5. Further, the contribution of Kp to the total di- 4m = 0, for Vw <:'. (llb)
electric constant is small at higher water content as a conse- In the first stage in the calculation where the solid is con-
quence of the high dielectric constant of water. Pore water sidered dispersed in a small amount of (crevice) water, the
WOBSCHALL: DIELECTRIC PERMITTIVITY OF SOIL
two-phase volume fraction of the disperse phase is
O=1-¢'I. (12)
Referring to (2), here Ed = coKp (nonconducting particles),
e* = e*, and the mixture (conducting particle) permittivity
C* is calculated where
* = eoK _ i ( . (13)
If a distinction between the conductivity of microcrevice
water a' and pore water a, is made, then a' replaces ow for
the first stage only.
In the second stage, water is considered dispersed in pores
within the conducting particle phase to make up the moist
particle phase q, the two-phase volume fraction is
Oq= e
+ 4/e
(14)
Here ed = c , e* = eZ, and e* is calculated by (2), or (3).
In the third stage, the moist particle phase is considered dis-
persed in the remaining water to form the air-free phase c. The
volume fraction of the disperse phase is
_4/m4/a
/= I- I- (15)
Here Ed =4,e = *,and e* is calculated.
E*
*
In the fourth and final stage, air is considered dispersed in
the air-free phase (particles + water), which is then the soil
phase. The volume fraction of the disperse phase is
a = ¢/a- (16)
Here Ed = co, c* = e*, and e* is calculated. Therefore the
permittivity of the mixture, that is, the soil as a whole, is cal-
culated as
e* =eoKs_j
(- ) (17)
where, in accordance with the previous definition, Ks is the
(real) dielectric constant of the soil and rs is the soil conduc-
tivity at the measurement frequency.
An alternate form of the semidisperse theory was studied in
which the first step, the calculation of the conducting particle
permittivity c*, was eliminated by directly assuming a value
for e* = Eo0K - jap/w, where ap is the particle conductivity.
In this case up takes the place of : as an adjustable parameter.
There is no reduction in the number of parameters even
though the number of steps in the calculation is reduced from
four to three. The difference between the three- and four-step
process is primarily whether the conducting particle permittiv-
ity is independent of or dependent on frequency. However
because the low-dielectric-constant nonconducting phase is
disperse in the first step of the four-step process, the variation
of the dielectric constant and conductivity with frequency is
small (see Fig. 2) and the distinction is not very significant.
We feel also that the mechanism by which the particle con-
53
ductivity is due to water in small crevices is physically more
reasonable than attributing the conductivity to the solid
particle. For these reasons we prefer the four-stage calculation
even though it is lengthier. Actually a five-stage calculation
may be more realistic for very inhomogeneous soils such as
clays which have not been thoroughly mixed.
It might be supposed, in view of the rather large number of
parameters and variables introduced, that the solutions ob-
tained by this procedure would be complicated and conse-
quently would have little predictive value. This is not the case
for the range of parameters appropriate to most soils, and, in
fact, rather a fairly narrow range of solutions exist which, at
high frequencies, approach the normal curve experimentally
observed. To demonstrate this, the dependence of the solu-
tions (K, and a,) on the various parameters will be examined.
The variables and parameters may be grouped as follows:
Variables:
volume fraction of water,
f frequency in Hz (= cl/21r),
Fixed Parameters:
Kw dielectric constant of water (- 79),
Kp dielectric constant of soil particles (n3.5),
Measurable Parameters:
ow conductivity of pore water (containing dissolved salts)
in mmho,
ay conductivity of microcrevice water (or' = ac unless
noted),
volume fraction of voids or soil porosity,
Adjustable Parameters:
a dispersed water fraction,
crevice water fraction.
The designation of 4w and f as variables implies that these
quantities can be changed at will for any soil type. Of course,
0w cannot exceed since this corresponds to saturation.
4,
The fixed parameters are nearly constant for all soils. Ac-
tually Kw varies slightly with temperature and frequency [7]
(see (4)) but this variation is insignificant. Neglect of the
variation of Kp with soil type is justified by the argument that
Kp is nearly the same for all soils (Kp 3.5). It is not clear
-
that this argument is valid for soils in which a substantial part
of the water is chemiadsorbed (some clays).
Measurable parameters can be determined for any soil by
laboratory tests. For most soils below saturation the void
volume fraction is between 0.3 and 0.6; a typical value of 0.5
has been chosen for many of the calculations given here.
Water conductivities typically range from 0.01 to 50 mmho/
cm, depending on the concentration and kind of dissolved salt.
Further ow might vary with moisture content, specifically de-
creasing at high values of 4w as the salt is diluted by the added
water which presumably contains less salt.
Both ao and are quantities associated with the hypothetical
moist particle phases. They are treated here as theoretical
parameters which can be adjusted to f1tthe model to the ob-
served permittivity data. Independent experimental measure-
54 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, JANUARY 1977

o Iw=0.47 w- 1.0
0e9 =O.5O 3:0.05
o0.7
_0ao.3
VI,
-o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\o-3
a:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=.

z°t
zo
-
r
u a's
M a-oos3 am-0.o*s0.7
ro
C?~~~~~4 O azo.9

00
.oo 6'so a.oo 6'.GO 7.00 7 .60 8'.oo 8.5 B'.oo -lb
L0G(FREQUENCY) -- HZ
Fig. 4. Permittivity of soil as a function of frequency as calculated by the semidisperse theory. Results for several values
of the disperse index (oe) are shown. Note the approach to the high- and low-frequency limits of dielectric constant
(K., and Ko) and conductivity (a., and o0).

100(-
/Low
Frequency
7 " / Limit (KJ Kw
7~~~~~'
1.0 o.oI-L e7-0 02 Lneor , /

1' 50 / Proportion-r- /

0.5 --- / ' ,/ligh

Frequency
25 , Limit (K.)
0.0 0.5 1.0
a
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
8.0
(a)
-.--.. -,
Water Volume Fruction (* )
Fig. 6. Sketch of the high- (K.,) and low-frequency (Ko) limits of the
permittivity as a function of water content.
7.5 -

noted that KS asymptotically approaches both high- and low-

70 f/ / 0.01 frequency limits. The high-frequency limit is independent of
water conductivity ow, strongly dependent on iw, and more
0.02 weakly dependent on the other parameters.
6.5 -. 1, The difference in the high- and low-frequency limits of the
, : ~~~~~~~~0.
0.05
10
ForaOW - dielectric constant may be expressed in terms of an index
=
6.0
.0.1 1.0 10 (DK) defined as
O.w
(b) (18a)
Fig. 5. Interrelation of parameters with the semidisperse theory.
K0

(a) High-to-low-frequency limit index (D) as a function of and ,. a

where Ko and K., are the low- and high-frequency limits,
(b) Break frequencies (fx) as a function of p and water conductivity.
respectively. The conductivity index Da is similarly defined as
ments or estimates of these quantities may be feasible
however. D,=-- 1. (18b)
In Fig. 4 the dependence of the soil permittivity on fre-
quency as calculated by the theory is presented. It should be As Fig. 5(a) indicates, DK and D, depend on a and (. Further
WOBSCHALL: DIELECTRIC PERMITTIVITY OF SOIL 55

Fig. 7. High-frequency limit of the permittivity as a function of water content. Results for several values of a are shown.

the break frequency fxk, defined as the frequency at which K,

is the average of the high- and low-frequency limits, depends
on these same quantities (Fig. 5(b)). Similarly fk, is defined 3 L_. O K..
in terms of a. The indices and break frequencies calculated
here are comparable to those observed experimentally [6] and 0 I

much higher than those obtained theoretically by Pearce et al. Fig. 8. Soil equivalent circuit.
[11]. It should be pointed out that very large values of dielec-
tric constant at low frequencies, much above that of water, are
theoretically possible with an appropriate selection of parame- tion of water content, with a and : as parameters, is
ters. The theoretical dielectric-constant limits are sketched in
Fig. 6, which is intended to show an overview of the dielectric- K.-~Ao +A l w +A24iw (19a)
constant variation with water volume fraction. The low- where
frequency limit, in particular, depends critically on the water Ao = (Kp - 1)(1 - Qv) + 0.8 + 12.40
dispersion and conductivity. In the high-frequency limit, how- (19b)
ever, the composite dielectric constant cannot exceed, and is A1 = 29.4- 21.1a- 90a43- 80f (19c)
generally less than, the average of the dielectric constant of the A2 =29+l150
individual components, weighted according to their volume
. (1 9d)
fractions. The conductivity limit is
Of particular practical interest is the high-frequency limit of
u*. (wu(Bo +B1jw +B244) (20a)
K, because it depends primarily on the volume fraction of
water and its dispersion, and not on its conductivity (see where
Fig. 7). Soil conductivity as is proportional to water conduc-
tivity a,, and nonlinearly dependent on volume fraction 4. Bo = 0.12(, (20b)
It is convenient to plot the high-frequency limit of the ratio B1 =0.28+1.7cta-0.31a- (20c)
aslaw as a function of 4,, as shown in Fig. 7 because this ratio B2 =0.62 + 2f3- 0.25 p3- 1.2a. (20d)
is nearly independent of or,
These approximations are accurate to at least ±5 percent in
POLYNOMIAL APPROXIMATION AND AN the range: 0.2 > 4, > 0.6, 0.3 > a > 0.9, 0.01 > 3 > 0.1, and
EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT 1.5 >Kp >5.0.
Because the calculations required by the theory are tedious An approximation for the frequency dependence in terms of
even when done by computer, a simpler mathematical expres- D and f, is
sion is desirable. An approximate expression of the results
(Fig. 7) was obtained by a polynomial curve fitting procedure.
The high-frequency limit of the dielectric constant as a func- +1 +(flfXk)2] (21)
56 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, JANUARY 1977

TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF THEORETICAL CURVES IN FIGS. 9 AND 10
ID Suil Type Ref f aw
C Comments
~~~ 1
!_
v

A Various 4 Var 30* 0.9 0.07 6.0 0.50 Avr. 10 soils

B Same as A - Var co 0.9 0.07 6.0 0.50

C Clay/Sand 6 O.8,*Vac. 0.9 . 037 12 . 0 .85 -Actual
D Clay Loam 7 0.24* Var. 0.95 0.2 1.0 0.50 a ' = 40.

E Sandy Loam T 10.26* Var. 0.2 0.05 10. 0.50

Units
it Mhz Mmho

Var = Variable * Known Experimentally

This paper (Previously unreported).

and grettably a complete set of such data was not found published.
Partial data are available for many soils, however, and a few
selected examples of such data [4], [6], [7] will be compared
UsUO [1+1 +(fxa/f)2l (22) with the theory in order to demonstrate that it can be fitted to
a range of soil types.
where Dk, D, fxk, and fxa are given by Fig. 5. It should be emphasized that the permittivity is a function
Frequency dependence can be modeled in terms of the of water content expressed as a volume fraction, that is,
equivalent circuit of Fig. 8. It is represented, in terms of soil volume of water per total soil volume (including solids, air,
impedance defined for a specific test chamber with a given and water). When water content is expressed as mass percent
electrode configuration, as which is more conventional, the correlation is much poorer
1 = jcoc*a = jweoaKs + aa (23) experimentally. With this theory the poor correlation is
expected since the dielectric permittivity is only slightly de-
where a is the ratio of capacitance to dielectric constant which pendent on porosity (4'). Soil density is an irrelevant variable
depends on the geometry of the test chamber (a = coA/d for a and if put into the expression for moisture content (by weight)
parallel plate capacitor; A is the electrode area and d the and element of randomness is introduced.
sample thickness, assumed small). Expressing Zs explicitly in The volume fraction of water l,1 is related to the moisture
terms of frequency as implied by Fig. 8 and inserting a* into content Wc, expressed as weight of water per weight of soil in
(1 7), an equation similar in form to (21) and (22) is obtained. percent, by the following equation:
A defect of this model is that the same break frequency
(f D=D uO/27rDKK.) is predicted for both the capacitance w = 0-
WC (24)
and conductance components while in fact fxK and fx a (equa- W1000'y
tions (21) and (22)) are unequal except for higher values of,B where 'y is the density of the soil. In the cm-gm-s system of
(see Fig. 5). It was found by curve fitting that log (fx) units, Qw is numerically equal to Mu, the mass of water per
log (f,) = 7.24 log (u,). unit volume.
An alternative equivalent circuit for soil with four capacitors Data obtained on the high-frequency dielectric constant as a
and four resistors has been described by Arulanandan and co- function of moisture content (by volume) are compared with
workers [6]. It is based on an intuitive, and in our view over- the theory in Fig. 9. (See Table I for the parameters of the
simplified, model introduced by Sachs and Spiegler [12] in curves in Figs. 9 and 10.) An adequate fit in the high-frequency
which the particle and water capacitance and conductance are limit is obtained for a = 0.9 (,B- 0.07), which corresponds to
individually lumped together to form a resultant series-parallel the normal curve discussed above. A fairly narrow range of
RC network. Because of the larger number of adjustable limiting curves is expected by the theory because the dielectric
parameters, matching of the frequency dependence can be constant in the high-frequency limit is independent of particle
done more accurately than with the simpler model of Fig. 8, shape and size, is nearly independent of soil porosity and pore
but at the expense of a greater number of arbitrarily adjustable water conductivity, and varies only moderately with dispersion
parameters. A more serious disadvantage is that the depen- (as characterized by a and ,B). Although the theory is intended
pendence on water content is inaccurately predicted. to apply to all types of soil, it is more likely to be valid for
sand than for clay since sand particles more closely approxi-
COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENT mate the solid low-dielectric-constant spherical particles as-
A critical test of the theory would require data on the sumed in the derivation. In spite of our theoretical reserva-
dielectric constant and conductivity as a function of water tions, it appears experimentally that clays also approach nearly
volume fraction and frequency on a soil sample of known the same normal curve as sand although the limit is reached at
porosity, water conductivity, and particle permittivity. Re- much higher frequencies (0.3-3 GHz). Data taken in the
 WOBSCHALL: DIELECTRIC PERMITTIVITY OF SOIL 57

orS

* Average of 10 soils (Ref 4)

U;_ X Clay Loam, Son Antonio (Ref 7) 0
k-
co
0*)

A Normal Curve #
La
at 30 MHZ ,

WC) /8_Normal Curve

LO - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(High Frequency Limit)

.00 0.0o 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.35 o.40

WRTER VOLUME FRRCTION (*t0.30) 0.46

Fig. 9. Dielectric constant of the soil high-frequency limit as a function of water content. A comparison of experiment
with theory (Table I) is shown.

c.-I

* Montmorillonite/Sand (Ref 6)
* Cloy Loorm, San Antonio (Ref 7)
X Sandy Loom, New Hampshire
I-

a)
zo
cl:

z
o)
(JO.
.
to

u
Cl-.
Lo-
t
LL

_; D
0 O.
EoW
x > S_Va
v

-I6 .7 7.0 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.2

..
8-s 8.8
I
9.1 9.4
LOG(FREQUENCY) -- HZ
Fig. 10. Dielectric constant of several soils as a function of frequency. A comparison of experiment with theory
(Table I) is shown.

10-1 00-MHz range may differ appreciably from the high- above 0kw 0.35. Such a spread is expected theoretically
frequency limit. In this range especially, it is better to think because Ks depends on the conductivity below the high-
of the normal curve as a band centered about some mean frequency limit, and the conductivity varies greatly with soil
value. At 30 MHz, for example, the values of K. observed for type. At higher frequencies the percent difference between
various soils [4] lie 5 percent to over 50 percent above the Ks and its high-frequency limit is roughly proportional to the
high-frequency limit with the deviation increasing rapidly soil conductivity (of the order of 3-15 percent per mmho/cm
58 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, JANUARY 1977
at 30 MHz), and, therefore, a correction based on the conduc-
tivity of K. at a given frequency to the normal curve at the
high-frequency limit may be feasible.
In Fig. 10 the experimentally measured frequency depen-
dence of the dielectric constant of several soils is plotted
together with the theoretical results. The theoretical parame-
ters at and ,B as well as a, were adjusted to obtain a fit with
the experimental results, demonstrating that it is possible to fit
several soil types, including clays, with the theory. The pur-
pose of the figure is to demonstrate that the theory is capable
of matching a variety of soil types. A definitive test of the
theory could not be done because a full set of experimental
data (K., and a0 versus 4', K, and a, versus f, ,b v ow) was
not available for even one soil, much less a variety. Indeed,
from the available experimental data it is not even certain
whether high- and low-frequency limits of the dielectric con-
stant and conductance exist for all or most soils. Because the
degree of dispersion of the water of clays affects, theoretically
at least, the dielectric properties and because the uniform
mixing of water into clays is known to be difficult experi-
mentally, these variables would have to be determined with
care and due consideration to these factors for a critical test
of the theory. Yet the capacity of the theory to fit the fre-
quency dependence of a wide range of soil types, through the
adjustment of two to five parameters with physical interpreta-
tions, we think is a significant advance.
Although the semidisperse theory of mixtures has been de-
scribed here in terms of soil containing water, it has a more
general character which might apply to a variety of inhomoge-
neous mixtures, ranging from colloided dispersions to agricul-
tural products such as moist grain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The instruction and consultation of Dr. Ernest Selig was
indispensible.
REFERENCES
[1 E. T. Selig and S. Mansukhani, "Relationship of soil moisture to
dielectric properties," J. G. T., ASCE, vol. 101, pp. 760-770,
1975.
[21 J. B. Hasted, Aqueous Dielectrics. London, England: Chapman
and Hall, 1973.
[31 L. K. H. van Beek, "Dielectric behavior of heterogeneous
systems," in Progress in Dielectrics, vol. 7, J. Birks, Ed. Cleve-
land, OH: CRC Press, 1965, pp. 69-114.
[4] A. M. Thomas, "In situ measurement of moisture in soil and
similar substances by fringe capacitance," J. Sci. Instrum., vol.
43, pp. 21-27, 1966.
[51 E. T. Selig, D. Wobschall, S. Mansukhani, and A. Motiwala,
"Capacitance instrumentation for measurement of moisture in
bases, subgrades, and earth materials," National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Rep., 1973.
[6] K. Arulanandan and R. Basu, "The significance of the magnitude
of dielectric dispersion in soil technology, Univ. of California,
Davis, Research Rep., 1972.
[71 J. E. Hipp, "Soil electromagnetic parameters as a function of
frequency, soil density, and soil-moisture," Proc. IEEE, vol. 62,
pp. 98-103, 1974.
[81 J. R. Birchak, C. G. Gardner, J. E. Hipp, and J. M. Victor, "High
dielectric constant microwave probes for sensing soil moisture,"
Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, pp. 93-98,1974.
[91 G. Y. Chermyak, "Dielectric methods for investigating moist
soils," a momograph published by the State Geological Com-
mittee of the U.S.S.R. (1964). A Russian translation (1967) is
available from the U.S. National Translation Center (Chicago).
[10] T. Hanai, "Dielectric theory on the interfacial polarization for
two-phase mixtures," Bull. Inst. Chem. Res., Kyoto Univ., vol.
39, pp. 341-368, 1961. Also see "Electrical properties of emul-
sions," in Emulsion Science, P. Sherman, Ed. New York:
Academic Press, 1968.
[111 D. C. Pearce, W. H. Hulse, Jr., and J. W. Walker, "The application
of the theory of heterogeneous dielectrics to low surface area
soil systems," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron., vol. GE-il, pp.
167-170, 1973.
[121 S. B. Sachs and K S. Spiegler, "Radio frequency measurements
of porous conductive plugs, ion-exchange resin systems," J. Phys.
Chem., vol. 68, pp. 1214-1222, 1964.
[13] R. J. Lytle, "Measurement of earth medium characteristics:
Techniques, results, and applications," IEEE Trans. Geosci.,
Electron., vol. GE-1 2, p. 81, 1974.