Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
Hi Y'all! (said with a strange Australian accent!)
Am doing so NEC work for my QTH and need to get an idea of the ground conditions here. I started with the "Rich soil" of DallasLincoln but was advised that it was more clay and likely to be typical of that in central VA. Any information helpful. Cheers Bob W5/VK2YQA The 4NEC2 manual extract is attached inline below; Pastoral, low hills, rich soil, typical from Dallas, TX, to Lincoln, NE 0.0303 20 Very Good Pastoral, low hills, rich soil, typical of OH and IL 0.01 14 Good Flat country, marshy, densely wooded, typical of LA near the Mississippi River 0.0075 12 Pastoral, medium hills, and forestation, typical of MD, PA, NY (exclusive of mountains and coastline) 0.006 13 Pastoral, medium hills, and forestation, heavy clay soils, typical of central VA 0.005 13 Average Rocky soil, steep hills, typically mountainous 0.002 12-14 Poor Sandy, dry, flat, coastal 0.002 10 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
"Bob Bob" wrote in message ... Hi Y'all! (said with a strange Australian accent!) Am doing so NEC work for my QTH and need to get an idea of the ground conditions here. I started with the "Rich soil" of DallasLincoln but was advised that it was more clay and likely to be typical of that in central VA. Any information helpful. Cheers Bob W5/VK2YQA The 4NEC2 manual extract is attached inline below; Pastoral, low hills, rich soil, typical from Dallas, TX, to Lincoln, NE 0.0303 20 Very Good Pastoral, low hills, rich soil, typical of OH and IL 0.01 14 Good Flat country, marshy, densely wooded, typical of LA near the Mississippi River 0.0075 12 Pastoral, medium hills, and forestation, typical of MD, PA, NY (exclusive of mountains and coastline) 0.006 13 Pastoral, medium hills, and forestation, heavy clay soils, typical of central VA 0.005 13 Average Rocky soil, steep hills, typically mountainous 0.002 12-14 Poor Sandy, dry, flat, coastal 0.002 10 Bob, According to my 1977 edition of "Reference Data for Radio Engineers" Soil conductivity along the south bank of the red river is 30mS/m (Most of the OK side is shown as 15 mS/m). Since the map is not very detailed, and without going to the extent of graphic overlays, it seems that Dallas is in a region of lower conductivity at 15 mS/m. If you are interested I can scan the map for you. I went to the trouble of measuring my soil conductivity; using the "4 rod method", with 60 Hz AC, as per the ARRL handbook (Measured 52 mS/m in Calgary). I believe I have JPEGs of the relevant pages someplace. Also some guys I was working with, a couple of years ago, devised a method of measuring the complex permittivity with a capacitor structure. There were some problems with the method, which they eventually corrected. The information was required to analyze short range VHF transmission underground. 73. Frank, VE6CB |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
I went to the trouble of measuring my soil conductivity; using the "4 rod
method", with 60 Hz AC, as per the ARRL handbook (Measured 52 mS/m in Calgary). I believe I have JPEGs of the relevant pages someplace. Also some guys I was working with, a couple of years ago, devised a method of measuring the complex permittivity with a capacitor structure. There were some problems with the method, which they eventually corrected. The Frank, The measurement method in the Handbook is seriously flawed. You will almost always measure something many times better than the soil really is at radio frequencies. Since soil conductivity varies widely over small distances, and since it also has seasonal variations, a rough guess from a book is about as good as anything. Myself, I don't worry about it. I just use average soil in models. 73 Tom |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
The measurement method in the Handbook is seriously flawed. You will
almost always measure something many times better than the soil really is at radio frequencies. Since soil conductivity varies widely over small distances, and since it also has seasonal variations, a rough guess from a book is about as good as anything. Myself, I don't worry about it. I just use average soil in models. 73 Tom Thanks for your comments Tom, and you raise some valid points. Jerry Sevick "The Short Vertical Antenna and Ground Radial", pp 25, 26, does state that the procedure is accurate to within 25%, but does not provide any independant verification of these claims. The method was developed by M. C. Waltz at Bell Labs, but, again, nothing was ever published. It would be interesting to develop a more accurate method. While my measurement of 52 mS/m may not be very realistic it is evident that this region does have a very high soil conductivity. Ground-wave daylight reception of AM broadcast stations, with strong signals, at well over 300 miles is possible. 73, Frank |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
Frank's wrote:
Thanks for your comments Tom, and you raise some valid points. Jerry Sevick "The Short Vertical Antenna and Ground Radial", pp 25, 26, does state that the procedure is accurate to within 25%, but does not provide any independant verification of these claims. The method was developed by M. C. Waltz at Bell Labs, but, again, nothing was ever published. It would be interesting to develop a more accurate method. While my measurement of 52 mS/m may not be very realistic it is evident that this region does have a very high soil conductivity. Ground-wave daylight reception of AM broadcast stations, with strong signals, at well over 300 miles is possible. There are more accurate methods to calculate ground conductivity, but what's the point? The skin depth in soil is on the order of 10 or 20 feet, depending on the frequency and soil quality. This means that substantial current is flowing down to a few times this depth. Certainly where I live, and I'd bet that in most locations, the conductivity is far from uniform. So in order to know the conductivity of the soil which is carrying current, you'd need to measure it down to several tens of feet. Once you had that data, what would you do with it? Currently available modeling programs assume homogeneous ground to an infinite depth. So you'd have to choose some single value from among your measurements if your objective is to get better accuracy from a program. But there's no evidence that a homogeneous ground with any single value of conductivity will behave the same as a stratified ground. So having even an extremely accurate measure of surface conductivity at a particular radio frequency (and it does vary with frequency) still gives you much too little information to build even a crudely accurate model of the actual ground in which the current is flowing. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
Hi Roy..
And I only wanted a simple answer. sigh Was just trying to limit some of the variables and learn some at the same time! The FCC map says its roughly 8 mS/M here... That will do.. Cheers Bob VK2YQA Roy Lewallen wrote: There are more accurate methods to calculate ground conductivity, but what's the point? The skin depth in soil is on the order of 10 or 20 feet, depending on the frequency and soil quality. This means that |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Soil dielectric constand and conductivity for East Texas
There are more accurate methods to calculate ground conductivity, but
what's the point? The skin depth in soil is on the order of 10 or 20 feet, depending on the frequency and soil quality. This means that substantial current is flowing down to a few times this depth. Certainly where I live, and I'd bet that in most locations, the conductivity is far from uniform. So in order to know the conductivity of the soil which is carrying current, you'd need to measure it down to several tens of feet. Once you had that data, what would you do with it? Currently available modeling programs assume homogeneous ground to an infinite depth. So you'd have to choose some single value from among your measurements if your objective is to get better accuracy from a program. But there's no evidence that a homogeneous ground with any single value of conductivity will behave the same as a stratified ground. So having even an extremely accurate measure of surface conductivity at a particular radio frequency (and it does vary with frequency) still gives you much too little information to build even a crudely accurate model of the actual ground in which the current is flowing. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Certainly, all valid points. I was more interested in actually doing precise measurements, but considered it might improve my model accuracy. I even thought of digging a hole to see how the soil varied. Doubt I would have dug down 20 or 30 ft. Most of the ground here is clay, and then probably bedrock, at this elevation of just over 4,000 ft ASL. Ansoft's HFSS, or CST, could probably handle an accurate, stratified, ground model. Frank |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|