Fort A.P. Hill Soil Permittivity and Conductivity 

Measurements for the Wide Area Airborne Minefield 

Detection Program 

by Gregory D. Smith and Brian J. Stanton 

ARL-TR-3049 September 2003 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197 

ARL-TR-3049 September 2003 

Fort A.P. Hill Soil Permittivity and Conductivity 

Measurements for the Wide Area Airborne Minefield 

Detection Program 

Gregory D. Smith and Brian J. Stanton 

Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2003 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2002 to March 2003 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Fort A.P. Hill Soil Permittivity and Conductivity Measurements for the Wide 

Area Airborne Minefield Detection Program 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

3NE4I2 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Gregory D. Smith and Brian J. Stanton 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-SE-RU 

2800 Powder Mill Road 

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3049 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

NVESD 

AMSEL-RD-NV-ST-CM 

10221 Burbeck Rd 

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

This report discusses the soil permittivity and conductivity measurements at various test environment locations at Ft A.P. Hill

for use in modeling predictions in support of the Wide Area Airborne Mine Detection (WAAMD) program. The WAAMD 

sensor suite consists of four optical sensors and three radar systems. The radars are stand-alone systems operating in different 

bands: Mirage (300–2800 MHz), Stanford Research Institute (200–450 MHz), and Veridian (8.16–10 GHz). Soil sample sites 

were located in the drop zone, Lightweight Airborne Mine Detection (LAMD) area, and Area 71A. The drop zone was divided 

into six test environments. The environments consisted of mines in (1) bare dirt, (2) short grass, and (3) tall grass, and 

backgrounds of the (4) bare dirt, (5) short grass, and (6) tall grass. The backgrounds were sections of the test sites used to

provide ambient data (no mines) of the test environments. Two soil sample sites were selected for characterizing the mines in 

bare dirt, three sites were selected for characterizing the mines in tall grass, and two sites were selected for characterizing the 

mines in short grass. A single site was selected for each of the background areas. The LAMD site had four soil sample sites 

and Area 71A, lane 19 had two soil sample sites. There were 16 soil sample sites selected from these areas. Samples were 

taken on 21 October 02, 29 October 02, and 25 November 02. Permittivity and conductivity values were measured from 100 to 

3000 MHz. The water mass per unit volume of the soil was calculated after completing permittivity and conductivity 

measurements. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Permittivity, conductivity, water content, wide area airborne mine detection 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Gregory D. Smith 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION

OF 

ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

58 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

(301) 394-4849 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures v 

List of Tables vi 

Acknowledgments vii

Summary 1

1. Introduction 3

2. Background 3

2.1 Modeling Techniques......................................................................................................3 

2.2 Soil Permittivity and Conductivity for Modeling............................................................4 

3. Purpose 4

4. Description of Test Equipment 4

4.1 Damaskos Model 3000T Liquid/Powder Cell Permittivity/Permeability System ..........4 

4.2 HP8510 Network Analyzer/Damaskos System Overview..............................................5 

5. Soil Sample Site Locations and Conditions 5

5.1 Drop Zone........................................................................................................................5 

5.2 Mines in Bare Dirt...........................................................................................................6 

5.3 Background of Bare Dirt .................................................................................................6 

5.4 Background of Short Grass .............................................................................................8 

5.5 Background of Tall Grass................................................................................................8 

5.6 Mines in Short Grass .......................................................................................................9 

5.7 Mines in Tall Grass .......................................................................................................10 

5.8 LAMD Area ..................................................................................................................11 

5.9 Area 71A .......................................................................................................................13 

5.10 Soil Collection Summary ..............................................................................................13 

6. Test Methods and Procedures 15
iv 

7. Chronology 15

8. Results 16

8.1 Soil Measurement Results and Trends ..........................................................................16 

8.2 Water Content Results...................................................................................................34 

8.3 Comparison of Drop Zone Mine and Background Sites ...............................................36 

8.3.1 Bare Dirt............................................................................................................36 

8.3.2 Short Grass Environment ..................................................................................37 

8.3.3 Tall Grass Environment.....................................................................................38 

8.4 Max–Min Permittivity of Bare Dirt, Short, and Tall Grass Environments ...................40 

8.5 Rainfall Effect on Bare Dirt ..........................................................................................41 

8.6 LAMD and Area 71A Environments ............................................................................42 

8.7 Tailored Data.................................................................................................................43 

9. Conclusions 47

10. References 48
v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Site 1 mine, bare dirt. .......................................................................................................6 

Figure 2. Site 1 mine, bare dirt. .......................................................................................................6 

Figure 3. Site 2 mine, bare dirt. .......................................................................................................7 

Figure 4. Site 2 mine, bare dirt. .......................................................................................................7 

Figure 5. Site 3 background, bare dirt..............................................................................................7 

Figure 6. Site 3 background, bare dirt..............................................................................................7 

Figure 7. Site 4 background, short grass..........................................................................................8 

Figure 8. Site 4 background, short grass..........................................................................................8 

Figure 9. Site 5 background, tall grass.............................................................................................9 

Figure 10. Site 5 background, tall grass...........................................................................................9 

Figure 11. Site 6 mine, short grass.................................................................................................10 

Figure 12. Site 7 mine, short grass.................................................................................................10 

Figure 13. Site 8 mine, tall grass....................................................................................................11 

Figure 14. Site 9 mine, tall grass....................................................................................................11 

Figure 15. Site 10 mine, tall grass..................................................................................................11 

Figure 16. Site 11 mine, sand/stone...............................................................................................12 

Figure 17. Site 12 mine, sand.........................................................................................................12 

Figure 18. Site 13 mine, tall grass..................................................................................................12 

Figure 19. Site 14 mine, gravel......................................................................................................12 

Figure 20. Sites 15, 16 mine, gravel and clay................................................................................13

Figure 21. Sites 15, 16 mine, gravel and clay................................................................................13

Figure 22. Site 1 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................17 

Figure 23. Site 2 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................18 

Figure 24. Site 3 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................19 

Figure 25. Site 4 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................20 

Figure 26. Site 5 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................21 

Figure 27. Site 6 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................22 

Figure 28. Site 7 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................23 

Figure 29. Site 8 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................24 

Figure 30. Site 9 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ....................................................25 

Figure 31. Site 10 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................26 
vi 

Figure 32. Site 11 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................27 

Figure 33. Site 12 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................28 

Figure 34. Site 13 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................29 

Figure 35. Site 14 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................30 

Figure 36. Site 15 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................31 

Figure 37. Site 16 permittivity and conductivity measurements. ..................................................32 

Figure 38. Permittivity histogram for bare dirt..............................................................................37

Figure 39. Permittivity histogram for the short grass environment...............................................38 

Figure 40. Permittivity histogram for the tall grass environment..................................................39 

Figure 41. Permittivity histogram for the drop zone (bare dirt, short, and tall grass). ..................40 

Figure 42. Drop zone max-min permittivity comparison. .............................................................41 

Figure 43. Rainfall effect on the bare dirt......................................................................................42 

List of Tables 

Table I. Soil permittivity measurement statistics.............................................................................2

Table 1. Ft A.P. Hill soil sample site collection summary. ...........................................................14 

Table 2. Ft A.P. Hill soil sample set weather conditions...............................................................14 

Table 3. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 100 to 3000 MHz.............................33 

Table 4. Water content comparison of soil samples. .....................................................................34 

Table 5. Comparison between mines and background bare dirt environment...............................36 

Table 6. Comparison of mines and background short grass environment.....................................37 

Table 7. Comparison of mines and background tall grass environment........................................38 

Table 8. Average water content of drop zone test environments...................................................40 

Table 9. Comparison of LAMD and Area 71A, lane 19 environments.........................................42 

Table 10. Soil measurement statistics............................................................................................43 

Table 11. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 194.25 to 455.25 MHz...................44 

Table 12. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 295.75 to 2804.25 MHz.................45 

Table 13. Soil measurement estimates...........................................................................................47 
vii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank E. Sholar from the Fort Belvoir Meteorological Team, Fort A.P. 

Hill Section, for providing a detailed history of the weather. 
viii 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 

Summary 

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi was tasked with providing electromagnetic (EM) 

modeling predictions for comparison to Wide Area Airborne Minefield Detection (WAAMD) 

radar measurements. The WAAMD sensor suite consists of four optical sensors and three radar 

systems. The radars are stand-alone systems operating in different bands: Mirage (300–2800 

MHz), Stanford Research Institute (SRI) (200–450 MHz), and Veridian (8.16–10 GHz). The 

purpose of this project was to measure the permittivity and conductivity of soil at various test 

environment locations for use in modeling predictions. 

The WAAMD data collection site was at Ft. A.P. Hill in Virginia. Various types of fiducials and 

mines were placed in an assortment of soils representing expected operational conditions. Soil 

sample sites were located in the drop zone, Lightweight Airborne Mine Detection (LAMD) area, 

and Area 71A. The drop zone was divided into six test environments. The environments 

consisted of mines in (1) bare dirt, (2) short grass, and (3) tall grass, and backgrounds of the 

(4) bare dirt, (5) short grass, and (6) tall grass. The backgrounds were sections of the test sites 

used to provide ambient data (no mines) of the test environments. Most of the sites in the drop 

zone contained slopes with gentle hills, resulting in different drainage rates with respect to 

location. With this in mind, each of the six test environments in the drop zone was further 

subdivided. Site selection was based on ground contour, variations in soil composition and 

vegetation, drainage, and water content variations. Soil samples were taken from each site, 

resulting in cases where multiple soil samples were collected from the same test environment. 

Two soil sample sites were selected for characterizing the mines in bare dirt, three sites were 

selected for characterizing the mines in tall grass, and two sites were selected for characterizing 

the mines in short grass. A single site was selected for each of the background areas. This 

resulted in the drop zone having 10 soil sample sites. The LAMD site had four soil sample sites 

and Area 71A, lane 19 had two soil sample sites. Samples were taken on 21 October 2002, 29 

October 2002, and 25 November 2002. 

Permittivity and conductivity values were measured from 100 to 3000 MHz. The soil samples 

were packed as tight as possible into the Damaskos liquid/powder cell. Packing the cell with the 

maximum density of soil provided the most repeatable method for consistently preparing the 

samples. After completing permittivity and conductivity measurements, the soil was removed 

from the Damaskos liquid/powder cell and weighed. The sample was then placed in an oven and 

baked (dried) at 75 o

C for ~10 hr. The soil was removed from the oven and weighed again, and 

the water mass per unit volume of the soil was calculated. 

The variability of the soil permittivity for the different test site locations is summarized in Table 

I. Some of the variation can be explained by the change in the moisture content of the soils due 

to the spatial and temporal differences of the soil samples. However, water content does not 
2 

Table I. Soil permittivity measurement statistics. 

Location Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev 

Drop Zone 

Bare Dirt 8.19 14.20 10.98 2.06 

Short Grass 8.28 19.43 13.87 3.54 

Tall Grass 6.59 24.00 14.24 5.33 

LAMD 

Sand/Stones 5.05 7.14 6.22 1.07 

Sand 14.78 17.45 15.97 1.36 

Tall Grass 14.95 21.24 17.64 3.24 

Gravel 6.20 7.78 7.11 0.82 

Area 71A 

Gravel 6.60 16.39 10.22 5.37 

Clay 11.35 15.97 13.08 2.52 

solely influence the permittivity; the composition of the soil also plays a role. Generally, an 

increase in water content resulted in an increase in the real component of the permittivity. 

The average water content and delta (∆) (difference between the maximum and minimum water 

content) of the bare dirt, short grass, and tall grass were examined. The short grass environment 

had the highest average water content; however, the tall grass environment had the largest ∆

between samples and the most extreme maximum and minimum water content values. The more 

moisture contained in the soil, the higher the real component of the permittivity. 
3 

1. Introduction 

The Night Vision and Electronics Sensor Directorate (NVESD) tasked the U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory (ARL) Adelphi (1) with providing electromagnetic (EM) modeling predictions for 

comparison to Wide Area Airborne Minefield Detection (WAAMD) radar measurements. The 

WAAMD sensor suite consists of four optical sensors and three radar systems. The radars are 

stand-alone systems operating in different bands: Mirage (300–2800 MHz), Standford Research 

Institute (SRI) (200–450 MHz), and Veridian (8.16–10 GHz). Modeling predictions will be 

completed for each radar system. This presents the research team with a theoretical method of 

understanding the radar signatures of targets and clutter to develop effective discrimination 

techniques. 

2. Background 

2.1 Modeling Techniques 

Method of Moment (MoM) modeling techniques will be used to predict the measured radar 

returns from the targets. In modeling equations, complex permittivity (ε), permeability (μ), and 

conductivity (σ) are commonly varied parameters. All three parameters are frequency 

dependent. Permittivity is used for describing dielectric materials and consists of a real 

component (associated with the dielectric constant) and an imaginary component (associated 

with energy losses). The permeability is analogous to permittivity with regard to magnetic 

materials. Conductivity is related to the complex permittivity and describes the loss in a 

dielectric material. The radar return from the target can be accurately modeled by measuring the 

ε and σ of the reflecting dielectric media and target. The target may be an unexploded shell or 

landmine on the surface or buried just under the surface (buried within the dielectric media). 

The equation used in MoM modeling (2) is given as follows: 

∫∫ ∫∫ = − ⋅ ′ − ∇ ∇′ ⋅ ′

S S

e

s K Jds

J E j K Jds

εω

ωμ . (1) 

And the permittivity is described as (3), 

ω

σ

ε ε ε j = ′ − j ′′ − . (2) 
4 

2.2 Soil Permittivity and Conductivity for Modeling 

The permittivity and conductivity of the fudicals, targets, and surrounding soil are taken into 

account by the model. The aluminum fudicals and metal mines are treated as perfect conductors. 

The permittivity and conductivity of plastic targets are determined by referring to tables. The 

surrounding soil presents a unique problem because of variations in type, consistency, and water 

content. The water content of the soil strongly influences the permittivity and conductivity. 

Values will be higher when the soil is moist and lower when dry. In essence, the permittivity 

and conductivity of the soil are dependent on recent environmental conditions. In order to obtain 

current test condition values, soil samples were collected and measured prior to the beginning of 

three flight test periods. 

3. Purpose 

The purpose of this project was to measure the permittivity and conductivity of soil at various 

test environment locations for use in MoM modeling predictions. 

4. Description of Test Equipment 

A Hewlett-Packard (HP) model 8510 Network Analyzer interconnected with a Damaskos Model 

3000T Liquid/Powder Cell Permittivity/Permeability Measurement System was used to measure 

the permittivity and conductivity of the soil samples from 100 to 3000 MHz. A desktop 

computer containing the Damaskos high-performance software package, called MU-EPSLN, 

interfaces with the HP8510 Network Analyzer. The software package takes the raw data from 

the network analyzer and calculates the permittivity and conductivity of the sample. 

4.1 Damaskos Model 3000T Liquid/Powder Cell Permittivity/Permeability System 

The Damaskos system is a unique and specialized system that measures the complex 

permittivity, permeability, and conductivity of various types of materials. The system can 

measure soils, liquids, and solids. The Damaskos system uses a high-performance software 

package, called MU-EPSLN, to do one- and two-port coax and waveguide measurements using 

computers running Microsoft Windows or Apple Power PC Macintosh operating systems. The 

MU-EPSLN program is a complete software package for making S-parameter measurements. 

Data reduction routines are provided for taking the raw data (S-parameter measurements) and 

calculating the soil ε, μ, and σ. The program does all the instrument control and real time data 

processing. A complete description of the HP8510 can be found in reference (4) and the 

description of the Damaskos system can be found in reference (5). 
5 

4.2 HP8510 Network Analyzer/Damaskos System Overview 

A sine wave is applied to the Damaskos system, which contains the soil sample. As the wave 

travels, it is affected by characteristics of the transmission line, which in this case is the soil. The 

wave travels along the transmission line essentially unchanged as long as the characteristic 

impedance of the line remains the same. Because the characteristic impedance of the soil sample 

is not the same as the transmission line, some of the energy is reflected, some is absorbed, and 

some is transmitted. The HP8510 network analyzer measures the magnitude and phase of the 

reflected and transmitted signals (the S-parameters). The S-parameters of a test device are a 

precise and complete means of describing how a device will respond to a microwave stimulus. 

For a general two-port device, there are four S-parameters, two of which describe the complex 

reflection coefficients at each port (S11 and S22), and two describing the forward and reverse 

transmission coefficients (S21 and S12). These raw data are imported into the MU-EPSLN 

program, which calculates the permittivity and conductivity. 

5. Soil Sample Site Locations and Conditions 

The WAAMD data collection site was at Ft. A.P. Hill, Virginia. Test environment sites were 

selected to represent different operating conditions. Various types of fiducials and mines were 

placed at each of the test sites. Soil sample sites were located in the drop zone, Lightweight 

Airborne Mine Detection (LAMD) area, and Area 71A. There were 16 soil sample sites selected 

from these areas. Samples were taken on 21 October 2002, 29 October 2002, and 25 November 

2002. 

5.1 Drop Zone 

For purposes of taking soil samples, the drop zone was divided into six test environments. The 

environments consisted of mines in (1) bare dirt, (2) short grass, and (3) tall grass, and 

backgrounds of the (4) bare dirt, (5) short grass, and (6) tall grass. The backgrounds were 

sections of the test sites used to provide ambient data (no mines) of the test environments. Most 

of the sites contained slopes with gentle hills, resulting in different drainage rates with respect to 

location. As discussed earlier, the amount of water content in the soil influences the permittivity. 

With this in mind, each of the six test environments in the drop zone was further subdivided. 

Site selection was based on ground contour, variations in soil composition and vegetation, 

drainage, and water content variations. Soil samples were taken from each site, resulting in cases 

where multiple soil samples were collected from the same test environment. Two soil sample 

sites were selected for characterizing the mines in bare dirt, two sites were also selected for 

characterizing the mines in short grass, while three sites were selected for characterizing the 

mines in tall grass. A single site was selected for each of the background areas. This resulted in 

the drop zone having 10 soil sample sites. 
6 

5.2 Mines in Bare Dirt 

The mines in the bare dirt environment were divided into two sites. The intent was to collect one 

soil sample with high water content and one with low water content. Site 1 was located at one of 

the highest points in the test environment next to a fiducial (Figures 1 and 2). As can be seen 

from the figures, the site is located at the top of a slightly sloping hill. This site was selected 

because the drainage rate in this area was thought to be one of the highest for this test 

environment, providing a soil sample with low water content. Site 2, also located adjacent to a 

fiducial, was located in the test environment drainage ditch. Rainwater runoff from most of the 

test environment passed through this drainage ditch (Figures 3 and 4). This site was selected 

because of the expected higher water content of the soil. The soil samples from this test 

environment consisted of a brownish tan sand with clay underneath. Samples from these sites 

were taken from within the areas marked by the red-orange fluorescent paint. 

Figure 1. Site 1 mine, bare dirt. 

Figure 2. Site 1 mine, bare dirt. 

5.3 Background of Bare Dirt 

A single site, site 3, was selected for characterizing the soil in the bare dirt background. Site 3 

was located midway down a slightly sloping area next to a fiducial (Figures 5 and 6). The entire 

test environment was located on the side of a slightly sloping hill. Drainage appeared uniform 

throughout the test environment. Visual surveys did not reveal any pooling water, drainage 

ditches, or variations in soil composition and vegetation. Based on this, only one site was 

selected for collecting soil samples from this test environment. The soil samples from this test 
7 

environment consisted of a brownish tan sand with clay underneath. Samples from this site were 

taken from within the area marked by the red-orange fluorescent paint. 

Figure 3. Site 2 mine, bare dirt. 

Figure 4. Site 2 mine, bare dirt. 

Figure 5. Site 3 background, bare dirt. 

Figure 6. Site 3 background, bare dirt. 
8 

5.4 Background of Short Grass 

Site 4 was used to characterize the soil for the short grass background. The test environment 

consisted of a flat, grassy area. The sample site was located adjacent to one of the fiducials 

(Figures 7 and 8). The sloping hill, observed in the figures, is located beyond the short grass 

background boundary. Drainage appeared to be uniform throughout the short grass test 

environment. Visual surveys did not reveal any pooling water, drainage ditches, or drier than 

“normal” locations. Based on this, only one site was selected for collecting soil samples from 

this test environment. Vegetation consisted of thick grass ~4–6 in high. The soil was uniform 

throughout the test environment. The soil samples from this test environment consisted of 

topsoil on the surface with brown clay underneath. The samples contained roots, but grass was 

not included. Samples from this site were taken from within the area marked by the red-orange 

fluorescent paint. 

Figure 7. Site 4 background, short grass. 

Figure 8. Site 4 background, short grass. 

5.5 Background of Tall Grass 

Site 5 was used to characterize the soil for the tall grass background. The test environment 

consisted of a flat, grassy area. The soil sample site was located ~2 m from one of the fiducials, 

marked by the red-orange fluorescent stake (Figures 9 and 10). Drainage appeared to be uniform 

throughout the tall grass test environment. Visual surveys did not reveal any pooling water, 

drainage ditches, or drier or wetter than normal locations. Based on this, only one site was 

selected for collecting soil samples from this test environment. Vegetation consisted of thick 
9 

Figure 9. Site 5 background, tall grass. 

Figure 10. Site 5 background, tall grass. 

grass ~7–12 in high and single stem weeds with small leaves. The soil was uniform throughout 

the test environment. The soil samples from this test environment consisted of a brownish clay 

soil and some roots. Grass was not included with the sample. 

5.6 Mines in Short Grass 

The mines in the short grass environment were divided into two sites. The majority of the test 

environment consisted of a flat, grassy area. The exception to this was on the eastern side of the 

test environment, which had a sloping hill. Site 6 (Figure 11) was located in the flat grassy area 

while site 7 (Figure 12) was located on the slope. Two sites were selected to characterize the soil 

in this environment because of anticipated water content variations between locations. Drainage 

appeared to be uniform throughout the flat grassy area test environment. Visual surveys did not 

reveal any pooling water, drainage ditches, or drier than normal locations at either site. The 

drainage rate for the slope was significantly greater than the flat grassy area. Vegetation at both 

sites consisted of thick grass ~4–6 in high. The soil was uniform throughout the test 

environment. The soil samples from this test environment consisted of topsoil on the surface 

with brown clay and roots underneath. Grass was not included with the sample. 
10 

Figure 11. Site 6 mine, short grass. 

Figure 12. Site 7 mine, short grass. 

5.7 Mines in Tall Grass 

The mines in the tall grass environment were divided into three sites. The test environment was 

located on a sloping, grassy area. The highest point was located on the northwestern corner and 

the lowest point was at the southeastern corner. Drainage was not uniform throughout the test 

environment. Visual surveys revealed pooling water in the southeast corner. Additionally, 

variations in the quantity of vegetation varied between locations within the test environment. 

Vegetation in the northwest corner was sparse due to the close proximity of the dirt road. This 

area can best be described as the shoulder of the road. Vegetation in the center of the test 

environment consisted of thick grass ~7–12 in high and single stem weeds with small leaves. 

The vegetation in the southeast corner consisted of brown grass, probably from the long periods 

of being submerged in water, ~7–12 in tall. Three sites were selected to characterize the soil in 

this environment because of anticipated water content variations between locations. Site 8 was 

selected in the northwest corner (Figure 13) to collect soil from an area with a high drainage rate. 

Site 9 was located at the center of the test environment (Figure 14). This site was selected 

because the water content of the soil was anticipated to be between the northwest corner and the 

southeast corner. Finally, site 10 was located in the southeast corner (Figure 15). This was the 

lowest point in the test environment and had the highest water content. The soil samples from 

this test environment consisted of brown clay and some roots. Grass was not included with the 

sample. Samples from sites 8 and 10 were taken from within the area marked by the red-orange 

fluorescent paint. Samples from site 9 were taken adjacent to the stake located in the lower 

center of Figure 14. 
11 

Figure 13. Site 8 mine, tall grass. 

Figure 14. Site 9 mine, tall grass. 

Figure 15. Site 10 mine, tall grass. 

5.8 LAMD Area 

For the purpose of taking soil samples, the LAMD area was divided into four test environments. 

The environments consisted of mines in (1) sand/stone, (2) sand, (3) tall grass, and (4) gravel. 

All of the environments were located in controlled lanes. Drainage rates did not appear to vary 

with location; so only one site per environment (or lane) was selected to characterize the soil. 

The tall grass lane consisted of topsoil with thick grass ~7–12 in tall. Soil samples were taken of 

the topsoil, which included the roots. Grass was not included in the sample. There was no 

vegetation present in the other three lanes. Site 11 was in the sand/stone lane (Figure 16); site 12 

was in the sand lane (Figure 17); site 13 was in the tall grass lane (Figure 18); and site 14 was in 

the gravel lane (Figure 19). Samples from these sites were taken from within the area marked by 

the red-orange fluorescent paint. 
12 

Figure 16. Site 11 mine, sand/stone. 

Figure 17. Site 12 mine, sand. 

Figure 18. Site 13 mine, tall grass. 

Figure 19. Site 14 mine, gravel. 
13 

5.9 Area 71A 

For the purpose of taking soil samples, Area 71A was divided into two test environments. The 

environments consisted of mines in (1) gravel and (2) clay. All of the environments were located 

in lane 19. Drainage rates did not appear to vary with location; so only one site per environment 

(or lane) was selected to characterize the soil. Vegetation was not present in either lane. Site 15 

was in the gravel (Figures 20 and 21), and site 16 was in the clay (Figures 20 and 21). Samples 

from these sites were taken from within the area marked by the red-orange fluorescent paint. 

Figure 20. Sites 15, 16 mine, gravel and clay. 

Figure 21. Sites 15, 16 mine, gravel and clay. 

5.10 Soil Collection Summary 

A summary of the soil sample sites can be found in Table 1. The sample column provides the 

sample number. Three sets of each sample were collected to characterize the soil over the course 

of the flight test program. The location provides the site where the samples were taken. DZ is 

the drop zone, LAMD is the Lightweight Airborne Mine Detection area, and 71A is Area 71A, 

lane 19. The latitude and longitude were measured using a differential Global Positioning 

System (GPS). Values are presented in north (N) or west (W) in degrees, minutes, and seconds. 

The Area Description provides a general description of the test environment. The last three 

columns, located on the right of the table, provide the date and time that the sample sets were 

collected. As can be seen, samples were collected on 21 and 29 October 2002 and 25 November 

2002. These times were selected because flight test periods were scheduled to begin on or about 

these dates. 
14 

Table 1. Ft A.P. Hill soil sample site collection summary. 

Sample Location Latitude 

(N d m s.s) 

Longitude 

(W d m s.s) 

Area Description 

Date 

21 Oct 2002 

Set 1 

Time 

Date 

29 Oct 2002 

Set 2 

Time 

Date 

25 Nov 2002 

Set 3 

Time 

1 DZ 38 10 06.590 77 22 53.182 Mine, bare dirt 1121 0945 1000 

2 DZ 38 10 04.954 77 22 51.487 Mine, bare dirt 1125 0947 1003 

3 DZ 38 10 05.047 77 22 46.298 Bkgrd, bare dirt 1130 0953 1005 

4 DZ 38 09 54.867 77 22 38.447 Bkgrd, short grass 1147 0957 1008 

5 DZ 38 09 38.724 77 22 28.140 Bkgrd, tall grass 1209 1030 1020 

6 DZ 38 09 37.450 77 22 24.718 Mine, short grass 1217 1003 1028 

7 DZ 38 09 37.673 77 22 22.318 Mine, short grass 1225 1007 1031 

8 DZ 38 09 36.363 77 22 25.698 Mine, tall grass 1240 1012 1034 

9 DZ 38 09 34.672 77 22 24.822 Mine, tall grass 1243 1019 1037 

10 DZ 38 09 32.523 77 22 24.518 Mine, tall grass 1247 1022 1040 

11 LAMD 38 08 48.102 77 21 35.291 Mine, sand/stones 1300 1044 1048 

12 LAMD 38 08 48.206 77 21 35.872 Mine, sand 1303 1041 1050 

13 LAMD 38 08 48.538 77 21 35.690 Mine, tall grass 1306 1043 1052 

14 LAMD 38 08 48.805 77 21 34.681 Mine, gravel 1310 1045 1053 

15 71A 38 06 15.385 77 11 59.252 Mine, gravel 1400 1130 1127 

16 71A 38 06 15.348 77 11 59.198 Mine, clay 1402 1131 1128 

Table 2 provides a summary of the weather conditions at Ft A.P. Hill at the time the soil samples 

were collected. The values for temperature, humidity, dew point, wind, pressure, and visibility 

are averages for the period over which the soil samples were collected. For example, the 

temperature for sample set 1 is the average temperature that occurred between 1121 and 1402. 

The conditions describe the weather at the time the samples were collected, where MC is mostly 

cloudy. The maximum and minimum temperatures are the highs and lows for the day. The last 

24, 48, and 72 hr are a summary of events for the previous days, where OC is overcast. 

Table 2. Ft A.P. Hill soil sample set weather conditions. 

21 Oct 2002 29 Oct 2002 25 Nov 2002 

Sample Set 1 2 3 

Temperature (oF) 56.3 44.3 53.6 

Humidity (%) 57.5 70 55.8 

Dew point (oF) 41.5 34.8 38.0 

Wind (mph) 6.2 8.4 0.0 

Pressure (in) 30.12 30.10 30.11 

Visibility (mi) 10.0 4.8 10.0 

Conditions MC Rain Clear 

Max temp (oF) 59.0 48.2 69.8 

Min temp (oF) 44.6 41.0 30.2 

 

Last 

24 hr Rain Rain Clear 

48 hr Clear OC Clear 

72 hr Rain Rain Mist 
15 

6. Test Methods and Procedures 

Soil samples with a diameter and depth of ~20 cm were collected using a typical, garden variety 

shovel. The samples were placed top-down in hermetically sealed plastic jars with twist-on lids. 

The diameter of a jar is ~17 cm with a depth of ~19 cm. The lids have a pressure-sensitive foam 

liner with a 0.05-cm thickness. Excess soil was returned to the site. 

The HP8510 Network Analyzer and Damaskos Liquid/Powder Cell Permittivity/Permeability 

System were calibrated prior to soil measurements. The accuracy of the calibration was verified 

by measuring the permittivity of air, which is ~1 + j0. Additionally, the air measurements were 

repeated periodically, usually after each soil sample, to provide a high degree of confidence that 

the soil measurements were consistent. Any variations in the permittivity of more than ± 0.02 in 

the real or imaginary part over the frequency band of 100–3000 MHz resulted in a system 

recalibration. 

Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 100 MHz to 3000 MHz were made with the 

soil samples packed as tight as possible into the Damaskos liquid/powder cell. Packing the cell 

with the maximum density of soil provided the most repeatable method for consistently 

preparing the samples. Additionally, only minor differences in the permittivity and conductivity 

were measured between tightly and loosely packed soil. For example, tightly packed soil would 

have a permittivity of 12, while the loosely packed soil would have a value of 11.6. The impact 

of packing density was investigated using 3 of the 16 samples. 

After completing permittivity and conductivity measurements, the soil was removed from the 

Damaskos liquid/powder cell and weighed. The sample was then placed in an oven and baked 

(dried) at 75 oC for ~10 hr. The soil was removed from the oven and weighted again. The water 

mass per unit volume of the soil was calculated using equation 3, 

sample

sample wet sample dry

Volume

Mass Mass , − , . (3) 

7. Chronology 

The following is a chronology of this project’s major milestones: 

• Test environments subdivided into sites for soil collection 21 October 2002 

• Soil sample set 1 collected from Ft. A.P. Hill 21 October 2002 
16 

• Soil sample set 1 analyzed at ARL 25–31 October 2002 

• Soil sample set 2 collected from Ft. A.P. Hill 29 October 2002 

• Soil sample set 2 analyzed at ARL 31 October 2002–5 November 2002 

• Soil sample set 3 collected from Ft. A.P. Hill 25 November 2002 

• Soil sample set 3 analyzed at ARL 26 November 2002–9 January 2003 

• WAAMD soil analysis report 10 January 2003–14 February 2003 

8. Results 

8.1 Soil Measurement Results and Trends 

The soil samples were characterized by measuring the permittivity, conductivity, and water 

content. The permittivity and conductivity of the samples were measured from 100 to 3000 MHz 

in 7.25-MHz steps, resulting in 401 data points across the frequency band. The permittivity and 

conductivity plots are contained in Figures 22–37. Referring to the figures, the soil site location 

indicates the area from which the soil sample was taken. The area description provides a general 

description of the test environment. The latitude and longitude of each site are also given. The 

permittivity plots are located on the left, and the conductivity plots are on the right. Each plot is 

labeled with the site number, date of sample, and grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) of water. 

The relative permittivity plots contain both the real component (blue line) and imaginary 

component (magenta line). The conductivity plots are shown by the blue line and are in units of 

Siemens per meter (S/m). 

Examination of the plots revealed a roll-off occurring between 100 and 500 MHz. The three sets 

of sample 5 raw data were processed in a number of different ways to determine if the roll-off 

was data related or an artifact from the calibration. In all cases, the results were essentially the 

same, indicating the roll-off was a characteristic of the soil and not a calibration artifact. 

Additionally, research of the literature revealed similar results in this frequency range (6, 7). 
17 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 10 06.590 

Area Description: Mine, Bare Dirt Longitude: W 77 22 53.182 

 

Figure 22. Site 1 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 1 25 NOV 02 0.1994 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 1 21 OCT 02 0.2207 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 1 21 OCT 02 0.2207 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 1 29 OCT 02 0.2227 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 1 29 OCT 02 0.2227 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 1 25 NOV 02 0.1994 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
18 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 10 04.954 

Area Description: Mine, Bare Dirt Longitude: W 77 22 51.487 

 

Figure 23. Site 2 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 2 21 OCT 02 0.1520 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 2 29 OCT 02 0.2285 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 2 25 NOV 02 0.1459 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 2 25 NOV 02 0.1459 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 2 29 OCT 02 0.2285 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 2 21 OCT 02 0.1520 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
19 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 10 05.047 

Area Description: Background, Bare Dirt Longitude: W 77 22 46.298 

 

Figure 24. Site 3 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 3 21 OCT 02 0.2475 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 3 21 OCT 02 0.2475 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 3 29 OCT 02 0.2726 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 3 29 OCT 02 0.2726 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 3 25 NOV 02 0.2478 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 3 25 NOV 02 0.2478 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
20 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 54.867 

Area Description: Background, Short Grass Longitude: W 77 22 38.447 

 

Figure 25. Site 4 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 4 21 OCT 02 0.2670 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 4 21 OCT 02 0.2670 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 4 29 OCT 02 0.2858 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 4 29 OCT 02 0.2858 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 4 25 NOV 02 0.3373 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 4 25 NOV 02 0.3373 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
21 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 38.724 

Area Description: Background, Tall Grass Longitude: W 77 22 28.140 

 

Figure 26. Site 5 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 5 21 OCT 02 0.2005 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 5 21 OCT 02 0.2005 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 5 29 OCT 02 0.2225 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 5 25 NOV 02 0.1650 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 5 25 NOV 02 0.1650 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 5 29 OCT 02 0.2225 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
22 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 37.450 

Area Description: Mine, Short Grass Longitude: W 77 22 24.718 

 

Figure 27. Site 6 permittivity and conductivity measurements.

SITE 6 21 OCT 02 0.1915 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 6 21 OCT 02 0.1915 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 6 29 OCT 02 0.2269 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 6 29 OCT 02 0.2269 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 6 25 NOV 02 0.1557 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 6 25 NOV 02 0.1557 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
23 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 37.673 

Area Description: Mine, Short Grass Longitude: W 77 22 22.318 

 

Figure 28. Site 7 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 7 21 OCT 02 0.2796 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 7 21 OCT 02 0.2796 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 7 29 OCT 02 0.3231 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 7 29 OCT 02 0.3231 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 7 25 NOV 02 0.2436 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 7 25 NOV 02 0.2436 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
24 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 36.363 

Area Description: Mine, Tall Grass Longitude: W 77 22 25.698 

 

Figure 29. Site 8 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 8 21 OCT 02 0.1793 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 8 21 OCT 02 0.1793 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 8 29 OCT 02 0.2071 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 8 29 OCT 02 0.2071 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 8 25 NOV 02 0.1188 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 8 25 NOV 02 0.1188 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
25 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 34.672 

Area Description: Mine, Tall Grass Longitude: W 77 22 24.822 

 

Figure 30. Site 9 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 9 21 OCT 02 0.2503 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 9 21 OCT 02 0.2503 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 9 29 OCT 02 0.2888 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 9 29 OCT 02 0.2888 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 9 25 NOV 02 0.2740 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 9 25 NOV 02 0.2740 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
26 

Soil Site Location: Drop Zone Latitude: N 38 09 32.523 

Area Description: Mine, Tall Grass Longitude: W 77 22 24.518 

 

Figure 31. Site 10 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 10 21 OCT 02 0.2438 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 10 21 OCT 02 0.2438 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 10 29 OCT 02 0.3868 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 10 29 OCT 02 0.3868 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 10 25 NOV 02 0.3574 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 10 25 NOV 02 0.3574 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
27 

Soil Site Location: LAMD Latitude: N 38 08 48.102 

Area Description: Mine, Sand/Stones Longitude: W 77 21 35.291 

 

Figure 32. Site 11 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 11 21 OCT 02 0.1000 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 11 21 OCT 02 0.1000 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 11 29 OCT 02 0.1146 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 11 25 NOV 02 0.0771 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 11 25 NOV 02 0.0771 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 11 29 OCT 02 0.1146 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
28 

Soil Site Location: LAMD Latitude: N 38 08 48.206 

Area Description: Mine, Sand Longitude: W 77 21 35.872 

 

Figure 33. Site 12 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 12 21 OCT 02 0.2630 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 12 21 OCT 02 0.2630 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 12 29 OCT 02 0.2973 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 12 29 OCT 02 0.2973 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 12 25 NOV 02 0.2688 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 12 25 NOV 02 0.2688 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
29 

Soil Site Location: LAMD Latitude: N 38 08 48.538 

Area Description: Mine, Tall Grass Longitude: W 77 21 35.690 

 

Figure 34. Site 13 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 13 21 OCT 02 0.3173 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 13 21 OCT 02 0.3173 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 13 29 OCT 02 0.3915 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 13 29 OCT 02 0.3915 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 13 25 NOV 02 0.3239 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 13 25 NOV 02 0.3239 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
30 

Soil Site Location: LAMD Latitude: N 38 08 48.805 

Area Description: Mine, Gravel Longitude: W 77 21 34.681 

 

Figure 35. Site 14 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 14 21 OCT 02 0.1014 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 14 21 OCT 02 0.1014 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 14 29 OCT 02 0.1074 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 14 29 OCT 02 0.1074 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 14 25 NOV 02 0.0864 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 14 25 NOV 02 0.0864 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
31 

Soil Site Location: Area 71A Latitude: N 38 06 15.385 

Area Description: Mine, Gravel Longitude: W 77 11 59.252 

 

Figure 36. Site 15 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 15 21 OCT 02 0.1073 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 15 21 OCT 02 0.1073 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 15 29 OCT 02 0.2257 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 15 29 OCT 02 0.2257 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 15 25 NOV 02 0.0976 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 15 25 NOV 02 0.0976 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
32 

Soil Site Location: Area 71A Latitude: N 38 06 15.348 

Area Description: Mine, Clay Longitude: W 77 11 59.198 

 

Figure 37. Site 16 permittivity and conductivity measurements. 

SITE 16 21 OCT 02 0.2157 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 16 21 OCT 02 0.2157 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 16 29 OCT 02 0.2652 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 16 29 OCT 02 0.2652 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m

SITE 16 25 NOV 02 0.2112 g/cm3 H2O

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Relative Permittivity 

Real Part (rel)

Imag Part (rel)

SITE 16 25 NOV 02 0.2112 g/cm3 H2O

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Frequency GHz

Conductivity S/m 

Conductivity S/m
33 

The plots reveal the influence of soil water content on the permittivity and the conductivity. This 

influence is also tabulated in Table 3 for easy comparison. Generally, as shown in the plots and 

summarized in Table 3, an increase in water content resulted in an increase in the real component 

of the permittivity. The water content and the minimum, maximum, and average values of the 

permittivity (both real and imaginary components) and conductivity are contained in Table 3 for 

each soil sample. These values are based on measurements from 100 to 3000 MHz. The average 

permittivity and conductivity values were calculated across the frequency band to provide a 

“starting” point for the MoM modeling predictions. The average values also proved useful in 

providing an insight into the data trends. 

Table 3. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 100 to 3000 MHz. 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

)

1 21 Oct 2002 10.2–12.2 10.62 0.8–3.6 1.22 0.02–0.22 0.097 0.2207 

1 29 Oct 2002 11.2–13.2 11.55 1.0–3.7 1.30 0.02–0.22 0.104 0.2227 

1 25 Nov 2002 9.6–11.5 9.80 0.7–3.7 1.04 0.02–0.15 0.078 0.1994 

 

2 21 Oct 2002 8.1–8.9 8.39 0.2–1.1 0.56 0.01–0.13 0.050 0.1520 

2 29 Oct 2002 13.3–14.9 13.63 0.6–2.4 1.17 0.01–0.25 0.106 0.2285 

2 25 Nov 2002 8.0–8.9 8.19 0.4–1.5 0.60 0.01–0.10 0.051 0.1459 

 

3 21 Oct 2002 10.8–12.5 11.09 0.9–3.0 1.16 0.02–0.22 0.096 0.2475 

3 29 Oct 2002 13.8–16.5 14.20 1.2–4.3 1.62 0.02–0.30 0.134 0.2726 

3 25 Nov 2002 11.0–13.3 11.31 0.7–3.5 1.23 0.02–0.21 0.098 0.2478 

 

4 21 Oct 2002 13.6–16.2 13.95 0.8–3.7 1.57 0.02–0.32 0.133 0.2670 

4 29 Oct 2002 16.1–17.8 16.41 0.9–2.9 1.57 0.02–0.36 0.145 0.2858 

4 25 Nov 2002 18.9–21.0 19.43 1.1–3.5 1.98 0.02–0.45 0.182 0.3373 

 

5 21 Oct 2002 10.4–13.4 10.80 1.0–5.1 1.56 0.03–0.24 0.116 0.2005 

5 29 Oct 2002 13.0–16.4 13.40 1.2–6.2 1.78 0.03–0.25 0.134 0.2225 

5 25 Nov 2002 8.4–10.7 8.78 0.8–3.9 1.14 0.02–0.18 0.084 0.1650 

 

6 21 Oct 2002 9.9–12.1 10.22 1.0–4.4 1.39 0.02–0.24 0.107 0.1915 

6 29 Oct 2002 12.0–14.8 12.28 1.0–5.7 1.67 0.03–0.26 0.126 0.2269 

6 25 Nov 2002 8.0–9.8 8.28 0.7–3.6 1.09 0.02–0.18 0.081 0.1557 

 

7 21 Oct 2002 14.2–16.4 14.67 1.3–3.8 1.82 0.02–0.40 0.157 0.2796 

7 29 Oct 2002 16.9–19.5 17.38 1.2–4.9 2.23 0.03–0.46 0.199 0.3231 

7 25 Nov 2002 11.9–13.4 12.21 0.9–5.8 1.61 0.03–0.25 0.125 0.2436 

 

8 21 Oct 2002 9.3–12.5 9.66 1.0–6.1 1.62 0.03–0.22 0.115 0.1793 

8 29 Oct 2002 12.0–16.1 12.45 1.6–8.9 2.25 0.05–0.27 0.157 0.2071 

8 25 Nov 2002 6.4–8.3 6.59 0.6–3.7 0.94 0.02–0.13 0.065 0.1188 

 

9 21 Oct 2002 13.7–17.6 14.27 1.6–7.3 2.26 0.04–0.37 0.174 0.2503 

9 29 Oct 2002 15.7–19.9 16.22 1.8–8.3 2.60 0.05–0.43 0.202 0.2888 

9 25 Nov 2002 15.5–19.8 16.21 2.4–11.8 3.14 0.07–0.44 0.232 0.2740 

 
34 

Table 3. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 100 to 3000 MHz (cont’d). 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3)

10 21 Oct 2002 14.8–17.4 15.13 1.2–4.0 1.62 0.02–0.32 0.135 0.2438 

10 29 Oct 2002 23.2–27.7 24.00 2.4–8.1 3.55 0.04–0.75 0.309 0.3868 

10 25 Nov 2002 22.6–28.1 23.36 2.6–9.6 3.80 0.05–0.74 0.328 0.3574 

 

11 21 Oct 2002 6.3–7.3 6.46 0.4–1.9 0.57 0.01–0.09 0.043 0.1000 

11 29 Oct 2002 7.0–8.0 7.14 0.5–1.8 0.61 0.01–0.10 0.048 0.1146 

11 25 Nov 2002 4.9–5.7 5.05 0.2–1.6 0.41 0.01–0.06 0.029 0.0771 

 

12 21 Oct 2002 14.3–17.7 14.78 1.2–5.6 1.98 0.03–0.33 0.156 0.2630 

12 29 Oct 2002 16.9–20.7 17.45 1.3–6.2 2.14 0.03–0.37 0.169 0.2973 

12 25 Nov 2002 15.3–18.7 15.67 1.4–6.3 1.99 0.03-0.36 0.154 0.2688 

 

13 21 Oct 2002 14.4–17.0 14.95 0.3–4.2 1.90 0.01–0.42 0.166 0.3173 

13 29 Oct 2002 20.5–23.7 21.24 1.8–6.4 2.74 0.04–0.57 0.237 0.3915 

13 25 Nov 2002 16.3–18.8 16.73 1.6–7.8 2.42 0.04–0.43 0.192 0.3239 

 

14 21 Oct 2002 7.1–8.8 7.36 0.6–2.9 0.90 0.02–0.12 0.066 0.1014 

14 29 Oct 2002 7.5–9.1 7.78 0.7–2.8 0.93 0.02–0.13 0.070 0.1074 

14 25 Nov 2002 6.0–7.3 6.20 0.4–2.7 0.73 0.01–0.10 0.051 0.0864 

 

15 21 Oct 2002 7.4–8.9 7.66 0.7–3.0 0.95 0.02–0.13 0.070 0.1073 

15 29 Oct 2002 16.0–18.5 16.39 1.5–5.2 1.95 0.03–0.36 0.164 0.2257 

15 25 Nov 2002 6.4–7.7 6.60 0.3–2.7 0.77 0.02–0.14 0.055 0.0976 

 

16 21 Oct 2002 11.6–13.2 11.91 0.7–2.8 1.18 0.02–0.23 0.099 0.2157 

16 29 Oct 2002 15.6–17.9 15.97 1.2–3.8 1.61 0.02–0.32 0.138 0.2652 

16 25 Nov 2002 11.0–13.0 11.35 0.7–3.0 1.22 0.02–0.24 0.103 0.2112 

8.2 Water Content Results 

The results were sorted based on increasing water content in Table 4. The water content and 

associated minimum, maximum, and average values of the permittivity (both real and imaginary 

components) and conductivity are tabulated in Table 4. The spread or difference between the 

“wettest” and “driest” sample was 314.4 mg/cm3. As shown in Table 4, the water per unit 

volume is strictly increasing among all the soil samples; however, the permittivity is not strictly 

increasing. Water content does not solely influence the permittivity; the composition of the soil 

also plays a role. 

Table 4. Water content comparison of soil samples. 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

)

11 25 Nov 2002 4.9–5.7 5.05 0.2–1.6 0.41 0.01–0.06 0.029 0.0771 

14 25 Nov 2002 6.0–7.3 6.20 0.4–2.7 0.73 0.01–0.10 0.051 0.0864 

15 25 Nov 2002 6.4–7.7 6.60 0.3–2.7 0.77 0.02–0.14 0.055 0.0976 
35 

Table 4. Water content comparison of soil samples (cont’d). 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

)

11 21 Oct 2002 6.3–7.3 6.46 0.4–1.9 0.57 0.01–0.09 0.043 0.1000 

14 21 Oct 2002 7.1–8.8 7.36 0.6–2.9 0.90 0.02–0.12 0.066 0.1014 

15 21 Oct 2002 7.4–8.9 7.66 0.7–3.0 0.95 0.02–0.13 0.070 0.1073 

14 29 Oct 2002 7.5–9.1 7.78 0.7–2.8 0.93 0.02–0.13 0.070 0.1074 

11 29 Oct 2002 7.0–8.0 7.14 0.5–1.8 0.61 0.01–0.10 0.048 0.1146 

8 25 Nov 2002 6.4–8.3 6.59 0.6–3.7 0.94 0.02–0.13 0.065 0.1188 

2 25 Nov 2002 8.0–8.9 8.19 0.4–1.5 0.60 0.01–0.10 0.051 0.1459 

2 21 Oct 2002 8.1–8.9 8.39 0.2–1.1 0.56 0.01–0.13 0.050 0.1520 

6 25 Nov 2002 8.0–9.8 8.28 0.7–3.6 1.09 0.02–0.18 0.081 0.1557 

5 25 Nov 2002 8.4–10.7 8.78 0.8–3.9 1.14 0.02–0.18 0.084 0.1650 

8 21 Oct 2002 9.3–12.5 9.66 1.0–6.1 1.62 0.03–0.22 0.115 0.1793 

6 21 Oct 2002 9.9–12.1 10.22 1.0–4.4 1.39 0.02–0.24 0.107 0.1915 

1 25 Nov 2002 9.6–11.5 9.80 0.7–3.7 1.04 0.02–0.15 0.078 0.1994 

5 21 Oct 2002 10.4–13.4 10.80 1.0–5.1 1.56 0.03–0.24 0.116 0.2005 

8 29 Oct 2002 12.0–16.1 12.45 1.6–8.9 2.25 0.05–0.27 0.157 0.2071 

16 25 Nov 2002 11.0–13.0 11.35 0.7–3.0 1.22 0.02–0.24 0.103 0.2112 

16 21 Oct 2002 11.6–13.2 11.91 0.7–2.8 1.18 0.02–0.23 0.099 0.2157 

1 21 Oct 2002 10.2–12.2 10.62 0.8–3.6 1.22 0.02–0.22 0.097 0.2207 

5 29 Oct 2002 13.0–16.4 13.40 1.2–6.2 1.78 0.03–0.25 0.134 0.2225 

1 29 Oct 2002 11.2–13.2 11.55 1.0–3.7 1.30 0.02–0.22 0.104 0.2227 

15 29 Oct 2002 16.0–18.5 16.39 1.5–5.2 1.95 0.03–0.36 0.164 0.2257 

6 29 Oct 2002 12.0–14.8 12.28 1.0–5.7 1.67 0.03–0.26 0.126 0.2269 

2 29 Oct 2002 13.3–14.9 13.63 0.6–2.4 1.17 0.01–0.25 0.106 0.2285 

7 25 Nov 2002 11.9–13.4 12.21 0.9–5.8 1.61 0.03–0.25 0.125 0.2436 

10 21 Oct 2002 14.8–17.4 15.13 1.2–4.0 1.62 0.02–0.32 0.135 0.2438 

3 21 Oct 2002 10.8–12.5 11.09 0.9–3.0 1.16 0.02–0.22 0.096 0.2475 

3 25 Nov 2002 11.0–13.3 11.31 0.7–3.5 1.23 0.02–0.21 0.098 0.2478 

9 21 Oct 2002 13.7–17.6 14.27 1.6–7.3 2.26 0.04–0.37 0.174 0.2503 

12 21 Oct 2002 14.3–17.7 14.78 1.2–5.6 1.98 0.03–0.33 0.156 0.2630 

16 29 Oct 2002 15.6–17.9 15.97 1.2–3.8 1.61 0.02–0.32 0.138 0.2652 

4 21 Oct 2002 13.6–16.2 13.95 0.8–3.7 1.57 0.02–0.32 0.133 0.2670 

12 25 Nov 2002 15.3–18.7 15.67 1.4–6.3 1.99 0.03–0.36 0.154 0.2688 

3 29 Oct 2002 13.8–16.5 14.20 1.2–4.3 1.62 0.02–0.30 0.134 0.2726 

9 25 Nov 2002 15.5–19.8 16.21 2.4–11.8 3.14 0.07–0.44 0.232 0.2740 

7 21 Oct 2002 14.2–16.4 14.67 1.3–3.8 1.82 0.02–0.40 0.157 0.2796 

4 29 Oct 2002 16.1–17.8 16.41 0.9–2.9 1.57 0.02–0.36 0.145 0.2858 

9 29 Oct 2002 15.7–19.9 16.22 1.8–8.3 2.60 0.05–0.43 0.202 0.2888 

12 29 Oct 2002 16.9–20.7 17.45 1.3–6.2 2.14 0.03–0.37 0.169 0.2973 

13 21 Oct 2002 14.4–17.0 14.95 0.3–4.2 1.90 0.01–0.42 0.166 0.3173 

7 29 Oct 2002 16.9–19.5 17.38 1.2–4.9 2.23 0.03–0.46 0.199 0.3231 

13 25 Nov 2002 16.3–18.8 16.73 1.6–7.8 2.42 0.04–0.43 0.192 0.3239 

4 25 Nov 2002 18.9–21.0 19.43 1.1–3.5 1.98 0.02–0.45 0.182 0.3373 

10 25 Nov 2002 22.6–28.1 23.36 2.6–9.6 3.80 0.05–0.74 0.328 0.3574 

10 29 Oct 2002 23.2–27.7 24.00 2.4–8.1 3.55 0.04–0.75 0.309 0.3868 

13 29 Oct 2002 20.5–23.7 21.24 1.8–6.4 2.74 0.04–0.57 0.237 0.3915 
36 

The samples taken on 25 November 2002, which had been “drying” for at least 72 hr prior to 

collection (Table 2), were not the sample sets with the least amount of water per unit volume as 

expected. Likewise, the sample sets from 21–29 October 2002, which had both been subject to 

rain one and three days prior to collection (Table 2), did not have approximately equal amounts 

of water per unit volume. This is likely due to the sloping terrain described in section 5. 

8.3 Comparison of Drop Zone Mine and Background Sites 

8.3.1 Bare Dirt 

The variability of the soil measurements from the bare dirt test environment was examined. The 

bare dirt environment is composed of sites 1, 2, and 3. Sites 1 and 2 contained mines while site 3 

had no mines (ambient). The permittivity, conductivity, and water content measurements from 

these sites are contained in Table 5. 

Table 5. Comparison between mines and background bare dirt environment. 

Site Date Area Description 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

) 

1 21 Oct 2002 Mine, bare dirt 10.62 1.22 0.097 0.2207 

1 29 Oct 2002 Mine, bare dirt 11.55 1.30 0.104 0.2227 

1 25 Nov 2002 Mine, bare dirt 9.80 1.04 0.078 0.1994 

 

2 21 Oct 2002 Mine, bare dirt 8.39 0.56 0.050 0.1520 

2 29 Oct 2002 Mine, bare dirt 13.63 1.17 0.106 0.2285 

2 25 Nov 2002 Mine, bare dirt 8.19 0.60 0.051 0.1459 

 

3 21 Oct 2002 Bkgrd, bare dirt 11.09 1.16 0.096 0.2475 

3 29 Oct 2002 Bkgrd, bare dirt 14.20 1.62 0.134 0.2726 

3 25 Nov 2002 Bkgrd, bare dirt 11.31 1.23 0.098 0.2478 

Results reveal that the soil samples from the background site (site 3) always had higher water 

content then the two sample sites that had mines. Site 3 had 26.8 mg/cm3

 more water than site 1 

on 21 October 2002, 49.9 mg/cm3

 more on 29 October 2002, and 48.4 mg/cm3 more on 

25 November 2002. With regard to site 2, site 3 had 95.5 g/cm3

 more water on 21 October 2002, 

44.1 mg/cm3

 more on 29 October 2002, and 101.9 mg/cm3 more on 25 November 2002. 

Although the parameters measured at site 3 should not be used in modeling the targets, it may be 

useful in characterizing the clutter backscatter. 

The average conductivity and permittivity at sites 1 and 3 increased with increasing water 

content. Average permittivity real values at site 2 also increased with increasing water content. 

However, this was not the case for site 2 conductivity and average imaginary permittivity values. 

A possible explanation for this may be due to measurement errors of the Damaskos system. 
37 

A permittivity histogram of the bare dirt environment is contained in Figure 38. The bins are 

based on the average permittivity real component values. The x-axis is marked such that the 

number denotes the upper limit of the bin. For example, site 2’s average real permittivity values, 

8.39 and 8.19, are contained in the same bin, which would have an upper limit of 9.00. The 

minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation values, contained in Figure 38, are based on 

the real, average permittivity values and not the bin values. 

Figure 38. Permittivity histogram for bare dirt. 

8.3.2 Short Grass Environment 

The variability of the soil measurements from the short grass was examined. The short grass 

environment is composed of sites 4, 6, and 7. Site 4 did not contain any mines (background) 

while sites 6 and 7 contained mines. The permittivity, conductivity, and water content 

measurements from these sites are contained in Table 6. 

Table 6. Comparison of mines and background short grass environment. 

Site Date Area Description 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3) 

6 21 Oct 2002 Mine, short grass 10.22 1.39 0.107 0.1915 

6 29 Oct 2002 Mine, short grass 12.28 1.67 0.126 0.2269 

6 25 Nov 2002 Mine, short grass 8.28 1.09 0.081 0.1557 

 

7 21 Oct 2002 Mine, short grass 14.67 1.82 0.157 0.2796 

7 29 Oct 2002 Mine, short grass 17.38 2.23 0.199 0.3231 

7 25 Nov 2002 Mine, short grass 12.21 1.61 0.125 0.2436 

 

4 21 Oct 2002 Bkgrd, short grass 13.95 1.57 0.133 0.2670 

4 29 Oct 2002 Bkgrd, short grass 16.41 1.57 0.145 0.2858 

4 25 Nov 2002 Bkgrd, short grass 19.43 1.98 0.182 0.3373 
38 

Background sample (site 4) measurement results were between those of sites 6 and 7 on 21 and 

29 October 2002. This was not the case for samples taken on 25 November 2002. For these 

samples, site 4 had the greatest water content. The driest samples were collected from sites 6 

and 7 on 25 November 2002, which was expected (Table 2). However, the sample collected 

from site 4 on 25 November 2002 had the greatest water content of all the samples taken in the 

short grass, which was not expected because the soil was drying for at least 72 hr. Although the 

parameters measured at site 4 should not be used in modeling the targets, it may be useful in 

characterizing the clutter backscatter. 

The average conductivity and permittivity at sites 4, 6, and 7 increased with increasing water 

content. Notice that the average permittivity imaginary component at site 4 on 21 and 29 

October 2002 are the same. Again, this may be due to the tolerance of the Damaskos system. 

A permittivity histogram of the short grass environment is contained in Figure 39. The bins are 

based on the average permittivity real component values. 

Figure 39. Permittivity histogram for the short grass environment. 

8.3.3 Tall Grass Environment 

The tall grass environment is composed of sites 5, 8, 9 and 10. Site 5 did not contain any mines 

(background) while sites 8 through 10 contained mines. The permittivity, conductivity, and 

water content measurements from these sites are contained in Table 7. 

Table 7. Comparison of mines and background tall grass environment. 

Site Date Area Description 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3) 

8 21 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 9.66 1.62 0.115 0.1793 

8 29 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 12.45 2.25 0.157 0.2071 

8 25 Nov 2002 Mine, tall grass 6.59 0.94 0.065 0.1188 
39 

Table 7. Comparison of mines and background tall grass environment (cont’d). 

Site Date Area Description 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

) 

9 21 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 14.27 2.26 0.174 0.2503 

9 29 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 16.22 2.60 0.202 0.2888 

9 25 Nov 2002 Mine, tall grass 16.21 3.14 0.232 0.2740 

 

10 21 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 15.13 1.62 0.135 0.2438 

10 29 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 24.00 3.55 0.309 0.3868 

10 25 Nov 2002 Mine, tall grass 23.36 3.80 0.328 0.3574 

 

5 21 Oct 2002 Bkgrd, tall grass 10.80 1.56 0.116 0.2005 

5 29 Oct 2002 Bkgrd, tall grass 13.40 1.78 0.134 0.2225 

5 25 Nov 2002 Bkgrd, tall grass 8.78 1.14 0.084 0.1650 

Results reveal that the soil samples from the background site (site 5) always had lower water 

content then sample sites 9 and 10. With regard to site 8, site 5 always had higher water content. 

The driest samples were collected from sites 8 and 5 on 25 November 2002, which was expected 

(Table 2). Site 10 typically had the most water, which was expected because this was the lowest 

point in the tall grass area and water tended to pool there. Although the parameters measured at 

site 5 should not be used in modeling the targets, it may be useful in characterizing the clutter 

backscatter. 

The conductivity and permittivity at sites 5 and 8 increased with increasing water content. The 

average permittivity real values at sites 9 and 10 also increased with increasing water content. 

However, this was not the case for the conductivity and imaginary permittivity components at 

sites 9 and 10. Again, this may be due to the measurement error of the Damaskos system. 

A permittivity histogram of the tall grass environment is contained in Figure 40. 

Figure 40. Permittivity histogram for the tall grass environment. 
40 

Figure 41 combines the bins from the bare dirt, short grass, and tall grass environments. In 

essence, this is the drop zone area. The minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation 

values, contained in Figure 41, are based on the real permittivity average values from the bare 

dirt, short grass, and tall grass environments. 

Figure 41. Permittivity histogram for the drop zone (bare dirt, short, and tall grass). 

8.4 Max–Min Permittivity of Bare Dirt, Short, and Tall Grass Environments 

The average water content and delta (∆) (difference between the maximum and minimum water 

content) of the bare dirt, short grass, and tall grass are contained in Table 8. The water content 

averages for the bare dirt and short grass are based on nine samples while the tall grass average is 

based on 12 samples. The ∆’s were calculated by subtracting the max water content from the 

min water content for each environment. The short grass environment had the highest average 

water content; however, the tall grass environment had the largest ∆ between samples and the 

most extreme max and min water content values. The comparison between the maximum and 

minimum real permittivity for the bare dirt, short, and tall grass environments are contained in 

Figure 42. The solid black line represents the maximum real permittivity for the tall grass 

environment, while the dotted black line denotes the minimum real permittivity for the tall grass 

environment. The red lines correspond to the short grass environment and the blue lines 

correspond to the bare dirt environment. As can be seen, the more moisture contained in the soil, 

the higher the real component of the permittivity. 

Table 8. Average water content of drop zone test environments. 

Environment Water Content Avg. 

(g/cm3) 

Max Content 

(g/cm3) 

Min Content 

(g/cm3) 

∆ (Max–Min) 

(g/cm3

) 

Bare dirt 0.2152 0.2726 0.1459 0.1267 

Short grass 0.2567 0.3373 0.1557 0.1816 

Tall grass 0.2412 0.3868 0.1188 0.2680 
41 

Figure 42. Drop zone max-min permittivity comparison. 

8.5 Rainfall Effect on Bare Dirt 

As noted earlier, average permittivity real component values increased with increasing water 

content for measurements made on the same type of soil. It would be beneficial to be able to 

form a correlation between historical site rainfall and the current soil moisture content. Figure 

43 plots five different columns of amplitude data vs. time in days. The light blue bars shown in 

the background represent a weighted running daily rainfall average where the running average is 

calculated by adding up the rainfall of all days from the beginning of October 2002 to the current 

day shown on the graph and then dividing by the number of days used during the summation. 

The weight is an average of the rainfall during the four days prior to and inclusive of the current 

day on the graph. This five-day average is then added to the running average. The theory is that 

the prior four days’ and the current day’s rainfall have a greater influence on the current soil 

moisture content than rainfall which occurred more than five days prior. For this particular 

location, the actual numbers work out well, but we do not conclude that this model is applicable 

to all soils and historical weather conditions. The dark blue bars represent actual rainfall, and the 

red, yellow, and purple bars represent permittivity measurements in the bare dirt areas (sites 1, 2, 

and 3). The permittivity values are the real relative values. All of the bars, except actual rainfall, 

have been scaled to fit the graph vertical (z) axis. This graph is presented as a coarse correlation 

method only. 
42 

Figure 43. Rainfall effect on the bare dirt. 

8.6 LAMD and Area 71A Environments 

The variability of the soil measurements from the LAMD and Area 71A sites were examined. 

The LAMD environment is composed of sites 11, 12, 13, and 14. Sites 15 and 16 are contained 

in Area 71A, lane 19. All of these sites contained mines. The permittivity, conductivity, and 

water content measurements from these sites are contained in Table 9. 

Table 9. Comparison of LAMD and Area 71A, lane 19 environments. 

Site Date Area Description 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

) 

LAMD 

11 21 Oct 2002 Mine, sand/stones 6.46 0.57 0.043 0.1000 

11 29 Oct 2002 Mine, sand/stones 7.14 0.61 0.048 0.1146 

11 25 Nov 2002 Mine, sand/stones 5.05 0.41 0.029 0.0771 

 

12 21 Oct 2002 Mine, sand 14.78 1.98 0.156 0.2630 

12 29 Oct 2002 Mine, sand 17.45 2.14 0.169 0.2973 

12 25 Nov 2002 Mine, sand 15.67 1.99 0.154 0.2688 

 

13 21 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 14.95 1.90 0.166 0.3173 

13 29 Oct 2002 Mine, tall grass 21.24 2.74 0.237 0.3915 

13 25 Nov 2002 Mine, tall grass 16.73 2.42 0.192 0.3239 

 

14 21 Oct 2002 Mine, gravel 7.36 0.90 0.066 0.1014 

14 29 Oct 2002 Mine, gravel 7.78 0.93 0.070 0.1074 

14 25 Nov 2002 Mine, gravel 6.20 0.73 0.051 0.0864 
43 

Table 9. Comparison of LAMD and Area 71A, lane 19 environments (cont’d). 

Site Date Area Description 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3) 

Area 71A 

15 21 Oct 2002 Mine, gravel 7.66 0.95 0.070 0.1073 

15 29 Oct 2002 Mine, gravel 16.39 1.95 0.164 0.2257 

15 25 Nov 2002 Mine, gravel 6.60 0.77 0.055 0.0976 

 

16 21 Oct 2002 Mine, clay 11.91 1.18 0.099 0.2157 

16 29 Oct 2002 Mine, clay 15.97 1.61 0.138 0.2652 

16 25 Nov 2002 Mine, clay 11.35 1.22 0.103 0.2112 

The average conductivity and permittivity at sites 11, 13, 14, and 15 increased with increasing 

water content. Average permittivity real values at sites 12 and 16 also increased with increasing 

water content. However, this was not the case for the site 12 and 16 conductivity and site 16 

average imaginary permittivity values. This may be due to the measurement error of the 

Damaskos system. 

The LAMD and Area 71A statistics, shown in Table 10, are based on three samples for each 

environment. 

Table 10. Soil measurement statistics. 

Location Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev 

LAMD 

Sand/stones 5.05 7.14 6.22 1.07 

Sand 14.78 17.45 15.97 1.36 

Tall grass 14.95 21.24 17.64 3.24 

Gravel 6.20 7.78 7.11 0.82 

Area 71A 

Gravel 6.60 16.39 10.22 5.37 

Clay 11.35 15.97 13.08 2.52 

8.7 Tailored Data 

Table 11 results are tailored to the SRI radar (200–450 MHz) and are based on measurements 

from 194.25 to 455.25 MHz. Table 12 results are tailored to the Mirage radar (300– 

2800 MHz) and are based on measurements from 295.75 to 2804.25 MHz. The Veridian radar 

(8.16–10 GHz) exceeded the operational frequency range of the Damaskos system; hence, there 

are no tailored results. 
44 

Table 11. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 194.25 to 455.25 MHz. 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

) 

1 21 Oct 2002 11.1–11.4 11.25 1.3–2.2 1.53 0.02–0.03 0.027 0.2207 

1 29 Oct 2002 12.0–12.3 12.21 1.4–2.3 1.60 0.02–0.04 0.028 0.2227 

1 25 Nov 2002 9.8–10.6 10.15 1.3–2.3 1.77 0.025–0.033 0.031 0.1994 

 

2 21 Oct 2002 8.3–8.9 8.63 0.6–0.9 0.76 0.01–0.02 0.014 0.1520 

2 29 Oct 2002 13.6–14.3 13.86 1.0–1.6 1.26 0.017–0.024 0.022 0.2285 

2 25 Nov 2002 8.2–8.5 8.39 0.6–0.9 0.72 0.01–0.02 0.013 0.1459 

3 21 Oct 2002 11.2–11.8 11.46 1.2–1.9 1.61 0.02–0.03 0.028 0.2475 

3 29 Oct 2002 14.4–15.5 14.76 1.7–2.8 2.28 0.030–0.044 0.040 0.2726 

3 25 Nov 2002 11.4–12.4 11.79 1.3–2.3 1.87 0.02–0.04 0.033 0.2478 

4 21 Oct 2002 13.8–15.3 14.16 1.4–3.1 2.17 0.03–0.04 0.036 0.2670 

4 29 Oct 2002 16.5–17.2 16.64 1.1–2.0 1.56 0.02–0.03 0.027 0.2858 

4 25 Nov 2002 19.7–20.8 19.94 1.5–2.7 1.95 0.03–0.04 0.033 0.3373 

5 21 Oct 2002 11.3–12.2 11.60 1.9–3.3 2.50 0.04–0.05 0.043 0.2005 

5 29 Oct 2002 13.5–14.9 13.97 2.2–4.1 3.07 0.04–0.06 0.053 0.2225 

5 25 Nov 2002 9.0–9.8 9.34 1.5–2.6 1.97 0.03–0.04 0.034 0.1650 

6 21 Oct 2002 10.5–11.3 10.76 1.6–2.9 2.20 0.03–0.04 0.038 0.1915 

6 29 Oct 2002 12.3–13.9 12.80 2.0–3.8 2.96 0.04–0.06 0.051 0.2269 

6 25 Nov 2002 8.5–9.2 8.82 1.4–2.3 1.80 0.025–0.034 0.031 0.1557 

7 21 Oct 2002 15.3–15.9 15.45 1.7–2.5 1.99 0.03–0.04 0.035 0.2796 

7 29 Oct 2002 17.2–18.8 17.52 1.6–3.7 2.57 0.04–0.05 0.043 0.3231 

7 25 Nov 2002 12.4–13.0 12.62 1.8–3.5 2.52 0.04–0.05 0.043 0.2436 

8 21 Oct 2002 9.8–11.2 10.34 2.2–4.0 3.10 0.04–0.06 0.054 0.1793 

8 29 Oct 2002 13.1–14.3 13.53 3.2–5.6 4.09 0.06–0.08 0.071 0.2071 

8 25 Nov 2002 6.6–7.5 7.02 1.4–2.5 1.90 0.03–0.04 0.033 0.1188 

9 21 Oct 2002 14.8–16.1 15.14 2.6–4.9 3.54 0.05–0.07 0.061 0.2503 

9 29 Oct 2002 16.7–18.2 17.18 3.0–5.3 3.97 0.06–0.08 0.069 0.2888 

9 25 Nov 2002 16.9–18.2 17.31 4.0–7.4 5.26 0.08–0.10 0.091 0.2740 

10 21 Oct 2002 15.4–16.4 15.72 1.7–2.8 2.16 0.03–0.04 0.037 0.2438 

10 29 Oct 2002 24.3–25.8 24.78 3.1–5.7 4.09 0.06–0.08 0.071 0.3868 

10 25 Nov 2002 23.5–24.9 23.77 3.0–7.4 4.67 0.077–0.081 0.079 0.3574 

11 21 Oct 2002 6.6–6.9 6.72 0.7–1.2 0.89 0.01–0.02 0.016 0.1000 

11 29 Oct 2002 7.3–7.6 7.39 0.6–1.2 0.81 0.01–0.02 0.014 0.1146 

11 25 Nov 2002 5.2–5.4 5.31 0.7–1.0 0.77 0.01–0.02 0.014 0.0771 

12 21 Oct 2002 15.8–16.3 16.02 2.4–3.4 2.68 0.04–0.06 0.048 0.2630 

12 29 Oct 2002 18.0–19.2 18.40 2.5–4.2 3.12 0.05–0.06 0.054 0.2973 

12 25 Nov 2002 16.0–17.2 16.35 2.3–4.3 3.12 0.05–0.06 0.054 0.2688 
45 

Table 11. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 194.25 to 455.25 MHz (cont’d). 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3) 

13 21 Oct 2002 14.4–16.5 15.37 1.9–3.4 2.85 0.03–0.06 0.050 0.3173 

13 29 Oct 2002 22.0–22.7 22.26 2.6–3.9 3.05 0.04–0.06 0.053 0.3915 

13 25 Nov 2002 17.5–18.1 17.62 2.9–4.8 3.52 0.05–0.07 0.061 0.3239 

 

14 21 Oct 2002 7.6–8.2 7.86 1.2–1.9 1.46 0.02–0.03 0.026 0.1014 

14 29 Oct 2002 8.2–8.5 8.28 1.1–1.8 1.32 0.02–0.03 0.023 0.1074 

14 25 Nov 2002 6.3–6.9 6.59 1.1–1.7 1.35 0.02–0.03 0.024 0.0864 

15 21 Oct 2002 8.1–8.4 8.25 1.3–1.9 1.46 0.02–0.03 0.026 0.1073 

15 29 Oct 2002 16.7–17.4 17.10 2.1–3.0 2.40 0.03–0.05 0.042 0.2257 

15 25 Nov 2002 6.7–7.2 6.96 1.1–1.7 1.37 0.02–0.03 0.024 0.0976 

16 21 Oct 2002 12.1–12.7 12.39 1.2–1.8 1.57 0.02–0.03 0.028 0.2157 

16 29 Oct 2002 16.5–16.9 16.72 1.7–2.3 1.87 0.02–0.04 0.033 0.2652 

16 25 Nov 2002 11.4–12.3 11.73 1.2–2.1 1.74 0.023–0.032 0.030 0.2112 

Table 12. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 295.75 to 2804.25 MHz. 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

) 

1 21 Oct 2002 10.2–11.3 10.57 0.8–1.8 1.13 0.02–0.20 0.094 0.2207 

1 29 Oct 2002 11.2–12.3 11.49 1.0–1.7 1.23 0.02–0.20 0.102 0.2227 

1 25 Nov 2002 9.6–10.3 9.74 0.7–1.9 0.94 0.03–0.14 0.078 0.1994 

 

2 21 Oct 2002 8.1–8.9 8.36 0.2–0.9 0.54 0.01–0.11 0.047 0.1520 

2 29 Oct 2002 13.3–14.0 13.60 0.6–1.5 1.11 0.02–0.23 0.103 0.2285 

2 25 Nov 2002 8.0–8.5 8.17 0.4–0.7 0.58 0.01–0.10 0.051 0.1459 

3 21 Oct 2002 10.8–11.6 11.04 0.9–1.8 1.08 0.03–0.19 0.093 0.2475 

3 29 Oct 2002 13.9–14.8 14.12 1.2–2.6 1.49 0.04–0.28 0.130 0.2726 

3 25 Nov 2002 11.0–11.9 11.23 0.7–2.1 1.14 0.03–0.19 0.096 0.2478 

4 21 Oct 2002 13.6–14.3 13.88 0.8–2.4 1.43 0.03–0.29 0.128 0.2670 

4 29 Oct 2002 16.2–16.9 16.38 0.9–2.1 1.49 0.03–0.32 0.139 0.2858 

4 25 Nov 2002 19.0–20.0 19.38 1.1–2.6 1.88 0.03–0.40 0.175 0.3373 

5 21 Oct 2002 10.5–11.6 10.72 1.0–2.6 1.42 0.04–0.22 0.114 0.2005 

5 29 Oct 2002 13.0–13.9 13.31 1.2–3.3 1.60 0.05–0.25 0.133 0.2225 

5 25 Nov 2002 8.4–9.4 8.71 0.8–2.1 1.02 0.03–0.16 0.082 0.1650 

6 21 Oct 2002 9.9–10.8 10.15 1.0–2.4 1.26 0.04–0.21 0.104 0.1915 

6 29 Oct 2002 12.0–12.8 12.18 1.0–3.3 1.50 0.05–0.24 0.123 0.2269 

6 25 Nov 2002 8.0–8.9 8.22 0.7–1.9 0.98 0.03–0.16 0.078 0.1557 

7 21 Oct 2002 14.2–15.4 14.60 1.3–2.2 1.71 0.03–0.34 0.150 0.2796 

7 29 Oct 2002 16.9–17.9 17.31 1.2–2.8 2.07 0.04–0.42 0.194 0.3231 

7 25 Nov 2002 11.9–12.6 12.17 0.9–2.7 1.45 0.04–0.25 0.123 0.2436 
46 

Table 12. Permittivity and conductivity measurements from 295.75 to 2804.25 MHz (cont’d). 

Site Date 

Real ε

Min–Max 

Real ε

Avg. 

Imag ε

Min–Max 

Imag ε

Avg. 

σ

Min–Max 

σ

Avg. H2O 

(g/cm3

) 

8 21 Oct 2002 9.3–10.5 9.55 1.0–3.3 1.44 0.05–0.21 0.112 0.1793 

8 29 Oct 2002 12.0–13.6 12.32 1.6–4.2 2.02 0.07–0.25 0.156 0.2071 

8 25 Nov 2002 6.4–7.1 6.53 0.6–2.0 0.83 0.03–0.13 0.065 0.1188 

 

9 21 Oct 2002 13.8–15.0 14.17 1.6–3.7 2.05 0.06–0.33 0.169 0.2503 

9 29 Oct 2002 15.7–17.2 16.10 1.8–4.2 2.36 0.07–0.40 0.197 0.2888 

9 25 Nov 2002 15.5–17.3 16.09 2.4–5.4 2.82 0.09–0.43 0.229 0.2740 

10 21 Oct 2002 14.8–15.7 15.06 1.2–2.3 1.50 0.04–0.29 0.130 0.2438 

10 29 Oct 2002 23.2–24.8 23.86 2.4–4.3 3.31 0.07–0.67 0.297 0.3868 

10 25 Nov 2002 22.6–24.1 23.26 2.6–4.7 3.48 0.08–0.69 0.317 0.3574 

11 21 Oct 2002 6.3–6.7 6.43 0.4–0.9 0.52 0.01–0.08 0.042 0.1000 

11 29 Oct 2002 7.0–7.4 7.11 0.5–0.8 0.56 0.01–0.10 0.047 0.1146 

11 25 Nov 2002 4.9–5.3 5.02 0.2–0.8 0.37 0.01–0.06 0.028 0.0771 

12 21 Oct 2002 14.3–16.1 14.68 1.2–2.8 1.85 0.04–0.30 0.153 0.2630 

12 29 Oct 2002 16.9–18.4 17.34 1.3–3.2 1.96 0.05–0.34 0.164 0.2973 

12 25 Nov 2002 15.3–16.3 15.56 1.4–3.2 1.79 0.05–0.29 0.149 0.2688 

13 21 Oct 2002 14.4–15.8 14.86 0.3–3.4 0.175 0.01–0.37 0.159 0.3173 

13 29 Oct 2002 20.6–22.2 21.16 1.8–3.2 2.59 0.05–0.49 0.229 0.3915 

13 25 Nov 2002 16.4–17.6 16.66 1.6–3.6 2.20 0.06–0.39 0.186 0.3239 

 

14 21 Oct 2002 7.1–7.9 7.31 0.6–1.5 0.83 0.03–0.11 0.066 0.1014 

14 29 Oct 2002 7.5–8.3 7.74 0.7–1.3 0.87 0.02–012 0.069 0.1074 

14 25 Nov 2002 6.0–6.7 6.16 0.4–1.4 0.65 0.02–0.09 0.050 0.0864 

15 21 Oct 2002 7.4–8.3 7.61 0.7–1.4 0.88 0.02–0.12 0.070 0.1073 

15 29 Oct 2002 16.1–17.3 16.33 1.5–2.5 1.83 0.04–0.33 0.160 0.2257 

15 25 Nov 2002 6.4–7.0 6.55 0.3–1.4 0.68 0.02–0.13 0.052 0.0976 

16 21 Oct 2002 11.6–12.5 11.86 0.7–1.7 1.10 0.03–0.21 0.095 0.2157 

16 29 Oct 2002 15.7–16.8 15.91 1.2–2.0 1.53 0.03–0.29 0.133 0.2652 

16 25 Nov 2002 11.1–11.7 11.29 0.7–1.9 1.12 0.03–0.23 0.099 0.2112 
47 

9. Conclusions 

A roll-off in the relative permittivity data is expected between 100 and 500 MHz (see section 

8.1). 

Increases in water per unit volume results in increased permittivity (see section 8.1). 

Water content is not the sole factor influencing soil sample permittivity; soil composition plays a 

role (see section 8.2). 

The average permittivity imaginary component does not always increase with increasing water 

content (see section 8.3.3). 

The average conductivity does not always increase with increasing water content (see section 

8.3.3). 

Good estimates for the real part of the permittivity for the various test environments are 

summarized in Table 13 (see sections 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3, and 8.6). 

Table 13. Soil measurement estimates. 

Location Minimum Maximum Mean Std Dev 

Drop Zone 

Bare dirt 8.19 14.20 10.98 2.06 

Short grass 8.28 19.43 13.87 3.54 

Tall grass 6.59 24.00 14.24 5.33 

 

LAMD 

Sand/stones 5.05 7.14 6.22 1.07 

Sand 14.78 17.45 15.97 1.36 

Tall grass 14.95 21.24 17.64 3.24 

Gravel 6.20 7.78 7.11 0.82 

 

Area 71A 

Gravel 6.60 16.39 10.22 5.37 

Clay 11.35 15.97 13.08 2.52 
48 

10. References 

1. FY03 ARL Support for NVESD Lab Wide Area Airborne Minefield Detection (WAAMD) 

Program. 

2. Sullivan, A.; Geng, N.; Carin, L.; Ressler, M.; Sichina, J. Electromagnetic Modeling Efforts 

With Application to Ground Penetrating Radar; Advanced Sensor Consortium Proceedings, 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD, February 1999; pp 205-210. 

3. Plonsey R.; Collen, R. E. Principles and Applications of Electromagnetic Fields; McGrawHill: New York 1961; p 312. 

4. HP8510 Network Analyzer Operating and Service Manual, 1984. 

5. Damaskos Student Guide, Basic Network Measurements Using the HP8510 Network 

Analyzer System, Edition 4.0; July 1991. 

6. Hipp, J. E.; Soil Electromagnetic Parameters as Functions of Frequency, Soil Density, and 

Soil Moisture; Proceedings of the IEEE, 1974, vol. 62, no. 1, pp 98–103. 

7. Carin, L. Duke University, Department of Electrical Engineering. Private communication, 

1996. 
49

Distribution

Night Vision Directorate

ATTN AMSEL-RD-NV-CM D Weaver

ATTN AMSEL-RD-NV-CM E Lespedes

ATTN AMSEL-RD-NV-ST-CM K

Sherbondy

ATTN AMSEL-RD-NV-ST-CM M Miller

10221 Burbeck Rd

Ft. Belvoir VA 22060

Ohio State Univ

Electrical Engineering Depart

ElectroScience Lab

ATTN B Baertlein

1320 Kinnear Rd

Columbus OH 43212-1191

US Army Rsrch Ofc

ATTN AMSRL-RO-EM R Harmon

PO Box 12211

Research Triangle Park NC 27709-2211

US Army Rsrch Lab

ATTN AMSRL-CI-IS-R Mail & Records Mgmt

ATTN AMSRL-CI-IS-T Techl Pub (2 copies)

ATTN AMSRL-CI-OK-TL Techl Lib

(2 copies)

ATTN AMSRL-SE-RU B Stanton (5 copies)

Adelphi MD 20783-1197
Distribution

50

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK