2.1 Forward models

Assuming that the heater needle is an infinite line source in an infinite medium, the “late-time” change in temperature ΔΓ₁(t) of the heater probe SP device is given by Eq. (22a) of Blackwell (1954):

In Eq. (1) above, q is the rate of energy transferred per unit length of the probe, k is the thermal conductivity of the geomaterial, B, C, and D are constants, and the natural logarithm is utilized. The assumption of an infinite line source in an infinite medium is valid if the heater needle has a small diameter and the geomaterial is of sufficiently large dimension to be isotropic and homogeneous throughout so that the heat pulse does not interact with dissimilar boundaries (i.e., a container in which the soil is placed) over the time of the measurement (Kluitenberg et al., 1993, 1995; Liu et al., 2007). For $t\gg r_{\mathrm{n}}^{\mathrm{2}}/\mathit{\alpha }$, where r_n is the radius of the needle and α is the thermal diffusivity of the medium, the last term in Eq. (1) can be neglected (Bristow et al., 1994; Li et al., 2016). In this paper, Eq. (1) as a forward model is taken subject to the constraint that ΔΓ₁(t)>0 since negative values are not physically reasonable within the context of the model.

Assuming an infinite line source in an infinite medium for a DP device, the change in temperature γ₁(r,t) sensed at a radial distance r from the heater needle is as follows (Kluitenberg et al., 1993).

The thermal diffusivity of the medium is α, the density is ρ, and the specific heat capacity is c. The exponential integral function is E_i. The current through the nichrome wire is turned on at time t₀ and turned off at time t_h. Therefore, $t_{\mathrm{0}}<t\le t_{\mathrm{h}}$ is referred to as the heating period and t>t_h as the cooling period. Calibration to determine a radius using least-squares curve fitting will yield an effective radius that is representative of differences between the sensing system and the ideal model described above. This initial radius is referred to as r_initial and is taken as a constant.

2.2 Inverse models

2.3 Measurement of soil water content and density

The heat capacity k and thermal diffusivity α are determined using an inverse model as described in the previous sections of this paper. Neglecting the contribution of air, the volumetric heat capacity of soil C_h is calculated by Kluitenberg (2002):

Rearranging Eq. (17) and solving for volumetric water content yields the following.

In the equations above, C_m, C_o, and C_w are the volumetric heat capacities of mineral content, organic content, and water; θ_m, θ_o, and θ_w are the associated volume fractions; and C_h is the total volumetric heat capacity of the soil. The c_m and c_o are the specific heat capacities of the mineral and organic content, and the ρ_m and ρ_o are the associated densities. Experiments in which numerical values of θ_w<0 or θ_w>1 are not valid and indicate improper contact between the probe and the soil medium. The θ_w is numerically constrained to be within the range $\mathrm{0}\le {\mathit{\theta }}_w\le \mathrm{1}$. The mineral content of the soil θ_m is known, and the organic content θ_o can be easily determined from laboratory testing or an organic carbon soil map of a geographic area. For implementation using a microcontroller, θ_m and θ_o are stored in flash (non-volatile) memory, and these values change based on the geographic location of the soil. The density of the soil is determined by volume fractions:

In Eq. (19) above, the constituent densities and heat capacities are known. The θ_w is determined using Eq. (18).

2.4 Circuit theory and PID control

Figure 1 shows a conceptual block diagram of the system. Thermistors in half-bridge configurations are used to determine the temperatures of HPP needles.

The heat input into the soil by the heater probe is

In the above Eqs. (20) and (21), the electrical power is P, the total resistance of the nichrome heater wire is R_w, and ℓ is the length of the heater needle. Given a measured voltage drop ΔE over a four-terminal Kelvin sense resistor with known resistance R_s, the current though the heater wire is calculated using Ohm's law:

For a current I through the heater wire and sense resistor, the output voltage is measured as E_kn by an analog-to-digital converter (Fig. 1). Using Kirchhoff's voltage law for this circuit, the resistance R_w of the nichrome wire is determined at each sampling time step by

To set a constant q, a proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller (Ang et al., 2005) is utilized. The variable voltage source is adjusted at each discrete time step by a digital-to-analog-converter (DAC). Since ΔE and E_kn are measured at each discrete time step at a sampling rate of f_s, Eqs. (20) to (23) are used with the feedback loop shown in Fig. 1 to ensure that the q remains close to a set-point value during the time of experiment. The use of the PID controller requires a higher sampling rate f_s than a nominal HPP experiment to adjust the output q. The PID controller thereby ensures that the soil can heat up in a controlled fashion and considers resistance changes in the nichrome wire in lieu of using an assumed resistance. Figure 2a is a block diagram indicating how the system incorporates a microcontroller and communication interfaces.

2.5 Determination of temperature change curves

The sampled temperature inside the heater needle is denoted as Γ(t), and the sampled temperature inside the second needle at an offset distance from the heater needle is denoted as T(t). The sampled temperatures Γ(t) and T(t) are low-pass filtered using a fifth-order Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz applied as a zero-phase filter to reduce noise. The Butterworth filter was chosen since it is maximally flat in the passband, and the zero-phase filtering ensures that time shifts are minimized to ensure accurate application of the inverse models described in this paper using the collected data.

For the DP model calibration to find an initial r₀ using curve fitting, the sampled temperatures are processed by a moving-average filter over 1 s windows to further reduce noise before curve fitting. Alternately, for the DP inverse model (Sect. 2.2.2), a moving-average filter is used to obtain an equivalent sampling rate of 12 Hz to ensure that the E_i(x) inverse can be accurately computed using floating-point number representations.

The respective averaged initial temperatures of the needles before heating are determined as Γ_av and T_av. Therefore, the temperature changes are calculated as $\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(t\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(t\right)-{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\text{av}}$ and $\mathrm{\Delta }T\left(t\right)=T\left(t\right)-T_{\text{av}}$ after the application of any initial filtering. The temperature changes are used for the application of inverse models related to Eqs. (1) and (2).

2.6 Determination of heat inputs

Heat inputs into the soil are determined during the time of experiment and calculated using Eq. (21). When the current is applied and travels through the heater wire, there is a short time delay (≪1 s) before the set point q is attained when the heater needle increases in temperature. The interval of the time series for a constant calculated q during the time of experiment is determined using a step detection algorithm (Carter et al., 2008) based on the Student's t test (Ebdon, 1991; pp. 61–64) with a null hypothesis at a significance level of 1 % and a window size of 31 elements. The significance level and window size are dependent on the implementation of the sampling system and are thereby chosen to detect the step within the context of this experiment. To find an estimate of a constant value of q, the time series is averaged over the plateau of the step. The time series location of the step associated with a constant q is found by application of a sliding mean filter with a window size of 31 elements applied to a time series of electrical power P used for the computation of q using Eq. (21). The mean filter is applied to a binary sequence created by mapping non-rejection of the null hypothesis to binary 0 and rejection of the null hypothesis to binary 1. The plateau is coincident with a sequence of zeros away from the edges of the step. The edges of the step are indicated by nonzero elements in this sequence surrounded by zeros. The window size is appropriate for the sampling system described in the context of this paper.

2.7 Apparatus

A custom electronic circuit board was designed and constructed for the SCHEPP system (Fig. 2a and b). The circuit board was placed into an enclosure box and connected to the HPP by a cable and mating circular connectors. The HPP body was epoxied into a circular hole cut in the bottom of a cylindrical polyvinyl chloride (PVC) container of 10.0 cm diameter and 10.5 cm height that held 825 cm³ of soil. The HPP needles thereby protruded into the soil column formed by the PVC container (Fig. 2c).

Figures 1 and 2a graphically show the different subsystems of the PCB (Fig. 2b). In the analog front end (AFE), a two-channel 24 bit ADC with a precision 10 k (0.01 %, ± 5 ppm ^∘C) resistor half-bridge for each channel and a 2.5 V voltage reference (2 ppm ^∘C, ± 0.02 % voltage error) was used to determine the resistance of the thermistors inside each needle. The resistance of a thermistor was related to temperature by the Steinhart–Hart equation (Steinhart and Hart, 1968).

The variable voltage source was constructed from a DC–DC switcher for efficiency and thereby reduced power consumption in lieu of a linear regulator. The DC–DC switcher could be turned off for an output voltage of 0 V or turned on and adjusted from ∼ 0.49 to ∼ 8.965 V using a DAC that injected current into the feedback loop of the switcher. With design criteria including a heater needle length of ℓ=3.0 cm and a nichrome wire resistance of R_w≈34 Ω, the heater output was limited by software to be within the range of q≈0.24 to $q\approx \mathrm{79}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-\mathrm{1}}$. The precision sense resistor was chosen as R_s=0.01 Ω (0.1 %, ± 15 ppm ^∘C) to reduce the voltage drop over this circuit element and to ensure that the output voltage could be accurately adjusted. This resistance is smaller than the 1 Ω current sense resistor nominally used in other HPP experiments (Bristow et al., 1994; Li et al., 2016; Liu and Si, 2011, 2008; Valente et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2011). Moreover, the precision sense resistor had a Kelvin terminal connection for precision and was physically large to reduce self-heating by current flow. The voltage drop over a sense resistor was determined by a precision difference amplifier and a 16 bit ADC, allowing for a 1 LSB step size of 2.5 µV. The output voltage E_kn (Fig. 1) was also measured by a 16 bit ADC and amplifier, resulting in a 1 LSB step size of 1.25 mV.

A 32 bit microcontroller with a system clock of 300 MHz was used to control the HPP experiment and perform floating-point calculations (Fig. 2a). The system clock had to be set at 300 MHz to allow the microcontroller to sample all ADCs in the system at f_s=120 Hz and also perform floating-point calculations associated with this application. The system clock speed is provided here to provide a starting point for engineering of similar designs. The DAC used to control the output voltage was also updated at the same sampling rate with the PID controller output. The 120 Hz sampling rate enabled functioning of the PID controller feedback loop and allowed for digital filtering for signal processing.

The microcontroller had an integrated USB transceiver for communication with a computer. RS-232 and SDI-12 interfaces were also integrated into the system for communication with a computer or datalogger as machine-to-machine (M2M) interfaces. SDRAM stored data from the experiment and provided temporary memory for heap allocation of arrays and data structures. Code for the microcontroller was written in the C programming language.

A command-line serial port interface permitted changing the duration of the experiment, the set-point q value, and the time of heating. For each experiment, the microcontroller monitored the maximum temperature rise at the heater needle and terminated the experiment if the temperature rise exceeded the maximum operating temperature of the thermistors.

The mechanical construction and design of the HPP used for this paper have been reported and rationalized in other papers (Li et al., 2016; Liu and Si, 2008, 2010). The needles of length ℓ=3.0 cm were constructed from stainless-steel tubing (1.28 mm o.d. and 0.84 mm i.d.) and filled with thermally conductive epoxy. The sense thermistor was placed in the geometric middle of each needle to prevent edge effects associated with heat conduction, and the needles were filled with thermal epoxy (Saito et al., 2007). The nominal spacing between the heater needle and the sense needle was 6 mm. During laboratory testing of SCHEPP (Fig. 2c and d), the experiment was initiated by a laptop computer connected to the circuit's USB port, and communication was conducted over the USB interface.

Table 1Quantities utilized for sand and peat HPP experiments.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

2.8 Data collection

Following Campbell et al. (1991), calibration was conducted to find r_initial using a 5 g L⁻¹ agar gel solution. The thermal conductivity k of the agar gel was taken to be the same as the thermal conductivity of water (Saito et al., 2007). Reported values for thermal conductivity (Ramires et al., 1995) and heat capacity (Wagner and Pruß, 2002) of water were used.

For all experiments, the temperature of the probe needles was measured for 1 s at a sampling rate of f_s=120 Hz before electrical current was applied to the nichrome wire. This initial temperature measurement for each trial was averaged over the 1 s period.

The agar gel was washed out using distilled water, and the cylindrical container was packed with soil. Two types of soil were used for the HPP tests: sand and peat. These soils are indicative of the physical extent of soil thermal properties. The soils were collected from field sites near Fort McMurray, Alberta. The sand contained small amounts of bitumen as representative of the Alberta Oil Sands area. Two independent laboratory analyses with incineration at 1100 ^∘C were conducted on the sand, finding the total carbon content to range between a mean of 0.44 % and 0.75 % by mass. The soil properties are summarized in Table 1.

The water content for the sand was chosen so that the sand was saturated, whereas the water content for the peat was chosen so that the soil would remain as wet as possible (Table 1). Due to the absorbent characteristics of the peat soil, it was not possible during the time of the laboratory experiment to completely saturate the pore spaces of the soil column. However, the volumetric water content θ for both soils was chosen to ensure adequate contact between the probe and the soil and also to reduce air gaps that can increase thermal contact resistance and decrease the accuracy of the measurement (Liu and Si, 2010). These air gaps can occur in drier soils with lower water contents. Since comparisons are required to be made between heat pulse probe and gravimetric measurements for testing the in situ calibration procedure described in this paper, the presence of air gaps represents an additional source of error that was controlled.

Table 2Heat pulse strengths, time of heating and cooling, and total time for each experiment conducted on sand and peat. The experiment identifier is an alphabetical letter that identifies the experiment set. “No.” indicates the total number of experiments conducted per set.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

Since the soil dried out over the time of multiple experiments, some additional water was added between successive days to ensure that the volumetric water content θ was close to the target value. Between trials, the top of the container was covered with a cap to reduce evaporation of water from the soil. Changes in water content occurred over the time of the experiment due to evaporation since the cap did not create a hermetic seal between the top of the container and the soil column. Table 1 shows quantities used for the application of HPP forward and inverse models to peat and sand.

Experiment sampling durations, q heat inputs, and heat durations are summarized in Table 2. Trial numbers of each experiment refer to groups of experiments conducted temporally close together.

The heat pulse strength and time of heating were chosen to minimize interaction of the heat pulse with the container boundaries. Due to the short time span over which each experiment was conducted in a laboratory setting, explicit correction was not applied for changes in ambient temperature (Young et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2014). Between each experiment, the temperature of the soil column returned to a level that approximated the initial temperature before the probe was heated again for the next trial. All experiments were conducted at room temperature (∼ 20 ^∘C).

Numerical comparisons were made using the root mean squared difference (RMSD) and mean bias (MB). The RMSD indicates the overall differences between two datasets. The MB indicates whether the model underpredicts or overpredicts relative to the observations.

3.1 Synthetic experiments

Synthetic heating curves were constructed using Eqs. (1) and (2) to serve as a forward model and provide a test of the signal processing. The SP and DP curves are shown as Figs. 3 and 4 and were generated using the model inputs given in Table 3. For the DP, the assumed change in probe spacing radius is shown for a linear increase (Fig. 4b), decrease (Fig. 4e), and Brownian random-walk-scaled so that the numerical values are between a starting and ending radius (Fig. 4h).

Figure 3Synthetic example of SP signal processing. (a) Forward model and reconstruction of the forward model by the inverse model. (b) Numerical difference between the forward and inverse models. (c) Forward model ΔΓ₅(t) from the signal processing compared to the theoretical model of ΔΓ₅(t). (d) Numerical difference between the forward model ΔΓ₅(t) and the theoretical model.

Download

Figure 4Synthetic example of DP forward and inverse models. (a, d, g) DP temperature change ΔT with a fixed and variable radius. (b, e, h) Known change in r(t) as a variable radius. The forward and inverse model (reconstruction by signal processing) is shown. (c, f, i) Numerical difference between the forward and inverse models. Each row of Fig. 4 corresponds to a numerical experiment with an associated change in r(t) given in the second column (b, e, h).

Download

Table 3Synthetic SP and DP model inputs.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

The time-variable radius is r(t), and the associated curve is shown on the plots as a DP variable radius. The DP fixed radius curve is calculated using the first element of the r(t) used for a particular DP variable radius curve. The fixed radius is taken to be constant over the time of heating and cooling.

For the SP, Fig. 3a shows the forward model and the reconstruction of the forward model by the inverse model proposed in Sect. 2.2.1. The numerical difference between the forward and inverse models is shown by Fig. 3b and is on the order of $\mathrm{1}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{7}}$. This difference occurs due to discretization of the numerical derivatives and floating-point round-off error from the homodyning process. The simplified model given by ΔΓ₅(t) is shown by Fig. 3c and demonstrates the reduction of terms from the original model (Eq. 1). Figure 3d is the numerical difference between the forward and inverse models associated with ΔΓ₅(t). The numerical difference remains small over the time of heating.

Figure 5Example signal processing for sand showing (a) the measured and modelled SP heating curves; (b) the measured and modelled DP heating curves along with the detected peak time; (c) the detected change in effective radius r(t) from the signal processing. The effective radius r(t) as obtained from signal processing compensates for model error, experimental error, and physical changes in the spacing of the heater needles.

Download

Table 4Comparisons for sand example.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

Figure 4 demonstrates the heating and cooling curves for a DP model with fixed radius and variable radius. The assumed time-variable radius r(t) is given along with the application of the inverse model proposed in Sect. 2.2.2. The first row of Fig. 4 (a–c) is for a linear increase; the second row of Fig. 4 (d–f) is for a linear decrease; and the third row of Fig. 4 (g–i) is for the Brownian random walk. The difference between the forward and inverse models is on the order of $\mathrm{1}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{15}}$ for all changes in probe spacing radius (Fig. 4c–i), indicating that for a synthetic model the error is mostly associated with floating-point calculations and that the inverse model is accurate.

Figure 6Example signal processing for peat showing (a) the measured and modelled SP heating curves; (b) the measured and modelled DP heating curves along with the detected peak time; and (c) the detected change in effective radius r(t)from the signal processing. The effective radius r(t) as obtained from signal processing compensates for model error, experimental error, and physical changes in the spacing of the heater needles.

Download

Table 5Comparisons for peat example.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

3.2 Soil data

Since the signal processing SP and signal processing DP models are applied together, hereafter these will be referred to as the signal processing SP and DP model. The late-time SP model is described in Sect. 2.2.1. The heating and cooling DP model refers to the nominal curve fitting using Eq. (2).

Figure 5 provides an example of the models applied to sand (Table 4). The peak time corresponding to t_p+t_a is indicated as a vertical line in Fig. 5b. Changes in effective radius r(t) determined by signal processing are shown as Fig. 5c. The rapid fluctuations in the effective radius r(t) occur due to temperature drift, model error, and experimental error. The signal processing thereby compensates for these effects using r(t) as an effective radius. Table 4 shows that the quantities found using all models have the same orders of magnitude and indicates that the signal processing SP and DP model is more accurate than the heating and cooling DP model compared to the gravimetric values used for the laboratory experiment.

Figure 6 shows the signal processing SP and DP model applied to peat (Table 5). Compared to the sand example given above, the thermal conductivity k and diffusivity α are lower for the peat, demonstrating that the peat takes longer to warm up during the time of experiment. The heating and cooling curves are thereby distinctively different between sand and peat. However, in the same manner as the sand example, the quantities found using all models are of similar orders of magnitude. Figure 6c shows that there are fewer rapid fluctuations in the effective radius r(t) determined for peat compared to sand. Moreover, the change in effective radius is less pronounced for peat compared to sand due to smaller temperature drift associated with lower k and α. Also, in a similar fashion to sand, the percentage difference (PD) and numerical difference demonstrate that the signal processing models introduced in this paper are more accurate than the nominal models.

Figure 7 shows the thermal conductivity k and diffusivity α for the sand and peat determined for the experimental trials. For the sand, the nominal heating and cooling DP model provides estimates of k that are mostly higher than the signal processing SP and late-time SP models. The late-time SP model provides estimates of k that are intermediate between the other two models. The signal processing SP model produces the lowest estimates of k. However, the estimates of k made by all three models are the same orders of magnitude and remain relatively constant over experiments conducted on each soil type. The thermal diffusivity estimates provided by the heating and cooling DP model are slightly higher than the estimates provided by the signal processing SP and DP model for sand (Fig. 7c), whereas for peat (Fig. 7d) the thermal diffusivity for both models is approximately similar.

Figure 7Thermal conductivity k and thermal diffusivity α for each of the experiments. (a) Thermal conductivity for sand. (b) Thermal conductivity for peat. (c) Thermal diffusivity for sand. (d) Thermal diffusivity for peat.

Download

Results corresponding to Figs. 7 an 8 are shown by Tables 6 and 7. These tables show the RMSD, MB, and PD, and the results of these calculations are discussed below.

Table 6RMSD, MB, and PD comparisons for θ_w.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

Table 7RMSD, MB, and PD comparisons for ρ.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

Figure 8 shows the determined values of water content θ_w and density ρ. Overall, for the sand and peat experiments, the nominal heating and cooling DP model has a higher-magnitude RMSD, MB, and PD compared to the signal processing SP and DP model introduced in this paper, indicating that the determination of the effective r(t) by signal processing improves estimates of θ_w and ρ.

Figure 8Water content θ_w and density ρ for each of the experiments. (a) Water content for sand. (b) Water content for peat. (c) Density for sand. (d) Density for peat.

Download

For all sand experiments, the signal processing SP and DP model reduces the θ_w RMSD by 0.10 (10 %), the MB by 0.33 (33 %), and the PD by 4.2 % compared to the nominal heating and cooling DP model. For all peat experiments, the corresponding reduction for θ_w is 0.07 (7 %) for the RMSD, 0.41 (41 %) for the MB, and 12.3 % for the PD.

For the density ρ of sand, the signal processing SP and DP model reduces the RMSD by 102 kg m⁻³, the MB by 338 kg m⁻³, and the PD by 0.85 %. For the density ρ of peat, the signal processing SP and DP model reduces the RMSD by 94 kg m⁻³, the MB by 407 kg m⁻³, and the PD by 5.1 %.

Figure 9Sensitivity analysis for water content θ_w for sand and peat with respect to the different models. (a) RMSD for changes in the calibrated initial radius r. (b) MB for changes in the calibrated initial radius. (c) RMSD for changes in the organic volume fraction θ_o. (d) MB for changes in the organic volume fraction θ_o. (e) RMSD for changes in the mineral volume fraction θ_m. (f) MB for changes in the mineral volume fraction θ_m. (g) RMSD for changes in the time delay t_a. (h) MB for changes in the time delay t_a.

Download

Figure 10Sensitivity analysis for density ρ for sand and peat with respect to the different models. (a) RMSD for changes in the calibrated initial radius r. (b) MB for changes in the calibrated initial radius. (c) RMSD for changes in the organic volume fraction θ_o. (d) MB for changes in the organic volume fraction θ_o. (e) RMSD for changes in the mineral volume fraction θ_m. (f) MB for changes in the mineral volume fraction θ_m. (g) RMSD for changes in the time delay t_a. (h) MB for changes in the time delay t_a.

Download

For experiment identifiers A, B, C, and D associated with sand, the RMSD, MB, and PD magnitudes are lowest for θ_w determined from the signal processing SP and DP model compared to the nominal heating and cooling DP model. The RMSD, MB, and PD magnitudes are also lower for most sand estimates of ρ other than experiment identifier D, for which the RMSD and MB magnitudes are larger than magnitudes associated with the nominal heating and cooling DP model. The heat pulse strength and duration were of greater magnitude for experiment identifier D, but since ρ is being calculated as a function of θ_w this indicates a change in soil constituents (see Eq. 19) in the vicinity of the probe for experiment identifier D and demonstrates sensitivity of the signal processing to this change.

An increase in water content is apparent for experiment identifiers E to G associated with peat. The increase in water content occurred since the HPP experiments were initially conducted less than an hour after water was added to the soil column. Since the soil column was opaque, the infiltration of water in the column and the associated wetting front could not be tracked, and thereby localized volumes of water surrounding the HPP caused a rise in water content. Since the rise is consistent and shown by the heating and cooling DP model as well as the signal processing SP and DP model for θ_w and ρ (Fig. 8b and d), this indicates that both models are in physical agreement. Lower RMSD, MB, and PD values for the signal processing SP and DP model indicates that the signal processing introduced in this paper also improves estimates of θ_w and ρ when the water content changes during the time interval of experiment identifier E.

For experiment identifiers F and G, the determined θ_w and ρ remain approximately constant over time for peat. Compared to experiment identifier E, a reduction in water content has occurred due to infiltration over time and some loss of water due to evaporation. For these experiments, the RMSD, MB, and PD are lower for the signal processing SP and DP model compared to the heating and cooling DP model.

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

To identify the effects of model parameters on the RMSD and MB of model outputs θ_w and ρ, a sensitivity analysis (Figs. 9 and 10) was conducted over all data collected. The sensitivity analysis utilized the OAT (one-at-a-time) approach, whereby one variable at a time is changed, whereas the other model inputs are held constant (Hamby, 1994). Overall, for a range of nominal model inputs, Figs. 9 and 10 demonstrate that the signal processing associated with the signal processing SD and DP model reduces the RMSD and MB compared to the nominal heating and cooling DP model. This also indicates that the signal processing method produces more accurate estimates than the curve-fitting models nominally used for heat pulse probe experiments.

For all models and soils used to determine θ_w and ρ, the RMSD and MB are lowest when the initial radius r_initial is close to the calibrated value, indicating the importance of calibration for all models. If the r_initial is underpredicted, the MB indicates an overprediction of θ_w and ρ, whereas an overprediction of r₀ indicates an underprediction of θ_w and ρ.

For sand θ_w, an organic content θ_o<0.1 produces the lowest-magnitude RMSD and MB, whereas for peat θ_w, an organic content close to θ_o≈0.40 produces the lowest-magnitude RMSD and MB. This physically approximates the composition of the sand and peat soils used for these experiments. The MB for sand and peat indicates a model overprediction for θ_o values lower than these thresholds and a model underprediction for θ_o values higher than these thresholds. A similar effect is also shown for the mineral content θ_m, with θ_m≈0.60 resulting in the lowest-magnitude RMSD and MB for sand. For peat, θ_m≈0.15 results in the lowest-magnitude RMSD and MB.

For sand θ_w the time delay t_a≈1.5 s is a good assumption to provide the lowest values of RMSD and MB for the signal processing SD and DP model for both sand and peat. For peat ρ the time delay is t_a≈0 s. The time delay t_a is not a parameter for the nominal heating and cooling DP model, and a sensitivity analysis is not conducted for t_a when using this model. Applied to peat, the signal processing SD and DP model is relatively insensitive to the time delay t_a due to the lower thermal conductivity k and diffusivity α relative to sand that dampens changes in the effective radius r(t) as determined by signal processing.

In the context of the sensitivity analysis, as θ_o increases for sand, the RMSD and MB related to ρ also increase. For peat, a concomitant increase in θ_o is associated with an increase in the RMSD and MB, indicating that for ρ it is not possible to calibrate for θ_o and an approximation of θ_o must be known for model application within the context of these experiments. A mineral content of θ_m≈0.55 for sand produces the lowest RMSD and MB related to ρ. As θ_m increases for peat, the RMSD and MB also increase, indicating that for ρ it is once again not possible to calibrate for θ_m and an approximation must be utilized.