Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Modeling thermal conductivity of clays: A review and evaluation of 28

predictive models
Lanmin Liu a, Hailong He a, b, *, Miles Dyck c, Jialong Lv a, d
a
College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, CAS&MWR, Northwest A&F University,
Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China
c
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada
d
Key Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and the Agri-Environment in Northwest China (Ministry of Agriculture), Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Effective thermal conductivity of clay (λeff) has essential applications in disciplines such as environmental and
Effective soil thermal conductivity earth science, agriculture and engineering. Much work has been done pertaining to model thermal conductivity
Normalized model of clay, but no work was found to collate and synthesize these works. This study aimed to conduct an extensive
Transient heat pulse method
review of the predictive models for thermal conductivity of clay and evaluate their performance with a large
Literature review
compiled dataset. A total of 28 models were collated and categorized and their performance was evaluated with a
Model comparison
large dataset consisting of 1250 measurements made on 65 clays from 21 studies. The result showed that the
DF1979 was the best performing model but not satisfactory, with root-mean-square-error (RMSE) = 0.35 W
m− 1 ◦ C− 1, average deviation (AD) = − 0.04 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and Nash-Sutcliff Efficiency (NSE) = 0.54. Further
investigations showed that these models are dataset dependent and fairly good performance might be found on
certain soils/dataset. Therefore, cares should be taken when selecting the most appropriate model for predicting
λeff in practice. Limitations of the thermal conductivity models for clays have been stated and perspectives on
future studies were also presented. This work would provide the novice or expert alike information on the
advantage and limitations on modeling thermal conductivity of clays for various purposes.

1. Introduction
Clays differ from other soils in many aspects including particle size
and shape, specific surface area and mineralogy (Farrar and Coleman,
1967; Hepper et al., 2006; Maček et al., 2013; Paterson, 2018), which
make it special in the thermal, hydraulic and mechanical characteristics
(Kang et al., 2015; María and Villar, 2004; Mozumder and Laskar, 2015;
Tang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2017a). With respect to this, clay has
been widely used in disciplines such as environmental and earth science,
agriculture and geotechnical/geological engineering. These applications
include water treatment (Chang and Juang, 2004), backfilling material
for buried high-voltage power cable and oil, gas or hot-water pipes
(Newson et al., 2002; Reno and Winterkorn, 1967; Ye et al., 2010) or
borehole heat exchanger (Luo et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2015), natural
geological engineering barrier for hazardous waste disposal including
radioactive nuclear waste (Gens et al., 2002; Madsen, 1998; Mügler
et al., 2006; Tang and Cui, 2007; Villar et al., 2005; Yoon et al., 2018)
and landfill (Ghorbel-Abid and Trabelsi-Ayadi, 2015; Kaya and Duru­
kan, 2004).
Effective thermal conductivity of clay (λeff), reciprocal of thermal
resistivity, is of critical importance and interest among these thermo-
hydro-mechanical characteristics. Because λeff of clay is required to de­
termines heat transmission through soil in order to optimize engineering
design (He et al., 2021; Reno and Winterkorn, 1967; Wang et al., 2016;
Xu et al., 2019b). Although great progress has been made in techniques
of λeff measurement (Bristow et al., 1994; Campbell et al., 1991; He et al.,
2018a; He et al., 2015; He et al., 2018b; Ren et al., 2003; Wang et al.,
2020a; Zhang et al., 2017b), λeff data are still rare and sparse compared
to that of soil hydraulic and mechanical properties. Therefore, many
efforts have been made to model λeff of clays (Abuel-Naga et al., 2009;
Akinyemi et al., 2011; Barry-Macaulay et al., 2011; Caridad et al., 2014;
Dao et al., 2014; de Zárate et al., 2010; Garnier et al., 2010; Jougnot and
Revil, 2010; Kang et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2008; Xu
et al., 2019d). However, it is interesting to note that there is a lack of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: liulanmin@nwafu.edu.cn (L. Liu), hailong.he@hotmail.com (H. He), miles.dyck@ualberta.ca (M. Dyck), ljlll@nwsuaf.edu.cn (J. Lv).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106107
Received 2 April 2020; Received in revised form 5 December 2020; Accepted 22 March 2021
Available online 2 April 2021
0013-7952/© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.
L. Liu et al.
study that tends to collate and synthesize these works.
It is also noted that many of these thermal conductivity models for
clay were commonly developed or tested on a small dataset composing 2
to less than 200 λeff measurements (Cai et al., 2015; de Zárate et al.,
2010; Xu et al., 2019d). In addition, there is a lack of study assessing
these models with a large dataset consisting of clays with wide range soil
physic properties (e.g. water content, mineralogy, and bulk density).
Previous studies (de Vries, 1952a; He et al., 2015; He et al., 2018b; Wang
et al., 2020a) have shown that soil thermal conductivity measured with
transient methods (e.g., heat pulse probe, thermal needle, and hot-wire
method) is more accurate for soils from dryness to saturation compared
to steady-state method (e.g., guarded hot plate, divided bar method, and
heat flux meter). The steady-state methods result in phase change of ice
for frozen soils or water redistribution in unfrozen soils under temper­
ature gradient, especially in unsaturated soils. Therefore, λeff measured
with the transient methods are recommended for development and
calibration of predictive models for soil thermal conductivity (He et al.,
2018b; Zhang et al., 2017b).
The objectives of this study, therefore, were threefold: (1) to conduct
an extensive review of the predictive models for thermal conductivity of
clay; (2) to compile a large dataset consisting of clays of various types
from dry to full saturation states and at different bulk densities; (3) to
evaluate the performance of the thermal conductivity models for clay
with the compiled dataset. It is hoped that this work would provide the
novice or expert alike information on the advantage and limitations on
modeling thermal conductivity of clays for various purposes.
2. A review of thermal conductivity models for clays
The extensive literature search returned 28 thermal conductivity
models for clays. These models were categorized into three groups: (1)
theoretical/semi-theoretical models (N = 2) and mixing models (N = 4);
(2) normalized models (N = 6); and (3) linear and non-linear regression
models (N = 14). The initials and year of publication were used to
represent the model for better science communications. It should note
that only models developed for clays were presented and evaluated in
this study.
2.1. Theoretical/semi-theoretical and mixing models
2.1.1. de Vries, 1963 (DV1963) model
_and de Vries (1952b) adapted the Maxwell-Eucken equation
(Eucken, 1932; Maxwell, 1881) for electric conductivity (of solute so­
lutions) to predict λeff. The de Vries model assumes that ellipsoidal
particles randomly distributed in continuous phase and it is expressed
as:
/ [
∑N -1 N -1
∑ λf
λeff = Fi θ i λ i Fi θ i (1)
i=0 i=0
where N is the number of soil components (e.g. solid, water and air) with
subscript i = 0 representing the continuous phase; θi is the volume
fraction of each phase; λi is the thermal conductivity of each phase,
W⋅m− 1⋅K− 1; Fi is the percentage of the average temperature gradient
across each phase, which is estimated by the following equation (de
Vries, 1963)
[ ( ) ]− 1
1 ∑ λi
Fi = 1+ − 1 gj (2)
3 j=a,b,c λ0
where ga, gb, and gc are depolarization factors (particle shape factors)
that depend on relative lengths of the major and minor axes of the
dispersed soil particles. For instance, special cases of gj = [1/3, 1/3, 1/
3], gj = [0,0,1], and gj = [0.5, 0.5, 0] represent spherical (e.g., sand),
discs-shaped (e.g., clay), and needle-shaped (e.g., silt) particles,
respectively (He and Dyck, 2013; Sihvola and Kong, 1988). Therefore, gj
2
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
= [0, 0, 1] is used in this study for predicting thermal conductivity of
clay. In addition, Yan et al. (2019) evaluated the use of air, water and
solid as the continuous phase and their results showed that the de Vries
(1952b) model with solid as the continuous phase performed the best
and this will used in this study.
2.1.2. Modified de Vries, 1963 (DV1963II) model
Tian et al. (2016) simplified the de Vries (1963) model, Eq. (1), by
introducing thermal conductivities of sand, silt, and clay (λsa, λsi and λcl)
and shape factors of sand, silt, clay, air, and ice particles (ga(sand), ga(silt),
ga(clay), ga(air) and ga(ice)). While the water was assumed to be continuum,
and ellipsoidal particles were confocal.For the soil solid phase,
λs = λfsasa λfsisi λfclcl (3)
ga(solid) = ga(sand) fsa + ga(silt) fsi + ga(clay) fcl (4)
where fsa, fsi and fcl are the fraction of sand, silt, and clay for soil solids
(gravimetric %). For this work, λsa = 7.70 (W⋅m− 1⋅K− 1), λcl = 1.93
(W⋅m− 1⋅K− 1), λsi = 2.74 W⋅m− 1⋅K− 1, ga(sand) = 0.182, ga(clay) = 0.00775
and ga(silt) = 0.0534.. For the soil air phase,
1( θair )
ga(air) = 1− (5)
3 P
where P is porosity and θair is volumetric content of air. The simplified
model presented by Tian et al. (2016) does not require calibration
because all of the parameters are specified priori.
2.1.3. Sakashita and Kumada, 1998 (SK1998) model
Sakashita and Kumada (1998) developed a heat transfer model for
compacted bentonite accounting for effects of soil’s microstructure. The
unknown constants were determined empirically and the model was
then modified as
{ }
λeff = λdry 1 + [(9.75P − 0.706)Sr ]0.285P+0.731 (6)
where P is porosity, Sr is the degree of saturation, λdry is thermal con­
ductivity of dry bentonite that is calculated by
λdry = 0.0479 + 0.222(1 − P) + 0.968(1 − P)3 (7)
2.1.4. Jougnot and Revil, 2010 (JR2010) model
Given the analogy between thermal conductivity and electrical
conductivity, Revil (2000) developed a differential effective medium
approach to evaluate λeff of 2-phase system by applying the Bruggeman-
Hanai-Sen approach (Sen et al., 1981), which was extended for 3-phase
system by Jougnot and Revil (2010).
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) ]
1
λ= FΘ + (1 − Θ) 1 − Θ + (1 − Θ)2 + 4FΘ (8)
F 2
where F = P m/(1-m) and Θ = λs/λf, λf is the thermal conductivity of the
fluid phase, which is calculated by a generalized second Archie law
(Jougnot and Revil, 2010)
( )
λf = λw Srn + 1 − Srn λair (9)
where λw and λair represent thermal conductivity of water and air, m is
the second Archie exponent, m = 2.0 and n = 2 were recommended in
their original study.
2.1.5. Donazzi et al., 1979 (DF1979) model
Donazzi et al. (1979) proposed an exponential relationship for esti­
mating λeff of various soils including clays
[ ]
λeff = λPw λ1−s P ⋅exp − 3.08P⋅(1 − Sr )2 (10)
where λs indicates thermal conductivity of soil particles, Donazzi et al.
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

1 ◦ -1
(1979) used λs = 2.3 W m− C for clays. m− 1 ◦ C− 1 (λother = 3 for fquartz ≤ 20% at 20 ◦ C) (Johansen, 1977). It was
assumed that λeff = λdry when Sr < 0.1 in this study to avoid numeric
2.1.6. Kiyohashi and Banno, 1995 (KB1995) model error of the logarithm function used to calculate Ke.
Kiyohashi and Banno (1995) extended the Woodside and Messmer
(1961) model for 3-phase bentonite system (solid, water, and air) (Ould- 2.2.2. Knutsson, 1983 (KS1983) model
Lahoucine et al., 2002): Based on the model of Johansen (1975), Knutsson (1983) investi­
gated the measurement of metal film for measuring of λeff of highly
λeff = (1 − P)− θair /P
⋅[λs (1 − P) + λw P ]1− P ⋅λθwv ⋅λθairair (11) compacted pure Mx-80 bentonite, assuming λw = 0.56 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and
λs = 2 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1, which resulted in
where θv and θair are volumetric fraction of water and air, respectively, λs
( )
is calculated based on temperature (◦ C) and bulk density (kg m− 3) of λeff = 0.034P− 2.1 + (1 + log10 Sr ) 0.56P 21− P − 0.034P− 2.1 (16)
bentonite.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 2.2.3. Côté and Konrad, 2005 (CK2005) model
λs = 5.71 exp( − 0.00129T)⋅exp( − 0.679ρb ) (12)
Côté and Konrad (2005) improved the Johansen (1975) model by
where T is temperature (◦ C). introducing an texture-dependent factor (k). The resulted equation is
k⋅Sr ( P 1− P )
λeff = λ λ − χ 10− η⋅P
+ χ 10− η⋅P
(17)
2.1.7. Gens et al., 2009 (GA2009) model 1 + (k − 1)Sr w s
Gens et al. (2009) proposed a geometric mean model to estimate λeff
of clays where the parameter k = 1.9 and 0.85 for silts and clays at unfrozen and
frozen conditions, respectively. χ = 0.75 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1, η = 1.2 for natural
λeff = λSsatr λ1−drySr (13)
mineral soils, and λs was calculated in the same way as Johansen (1975).
Eq. (17) was incorporated to DOS-TEM to estimate λeff by Yi et al. (2013)
where λsat is thermal conductivity of saturated clays. Values of λdry =
on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau.
0.5205 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1, λsat = 1.234 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 were recommended by
Yoon et al. (2018) with R2 = 0.83.
2.2.4. Lee et al., 2016 (LJ2016) model
Lee et al. (2016) proposed the following equation for estimating λeff
2.1.8. Cho et al., 2011 (CW2011) model
of compacted bentonite
Cho et al. (2011) proposed a modified geometric mean model for
estimating λeff of compacted bentonite and bentonite-sand mixture: λeff =
λdry − λsat
[( )/ ] + λsat (18)
1 + exp Sr − Savg A
2.099ϕbentonite ( θv θair )A
(14)
1.303ϕ
λeff = λsand sand λbentonite λw λair
where Savg is the degree of saturation when λeff = 1/2(λdry + λsat), and A is
where λsand and λbentonite are thermal conductivity of sand and bentonite, fitting parameter. Values of Savg = 0.6906, λdry = 0.6608 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1,
respectively, λsand = 4.302 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and λbentonite = 1.232 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 λsat = 1.2410 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and A = 0.0878 were recommended by Yoon
were used by Cho et al. (2011), ϕsand = fsand ρb/ρs and ϕbentonite = fbentonite et al. (2018) with R2 = 0.91.
ρb/ρs are volumetric fraction of sand and bentonite, respectively; fsand
and fbentonite are mass fraction of sand and bentonite, respectively; ρs is 2.2.5. RÓżański and Stefaniuk, 2016 (RS2016) model
particle density (g cm− 3); A = 0.564 were suggested with R2 = 0.83 in RÓżański and Stefaniuk (2016) modified Johansen (1975) model
the original study. with a new equation for calculating λs

λs = a1 aSSA
2 + a3 (19)
2.2. Normalized models
where SSA is specific surface area (m2 g− 1), a1 = 5.7, a2 = 0.988, a3 =
2.2.1. Johansen, 1975 (JO1975) model 2.0 are the best fitting parameters used by RÓżański and Stefaniuk
Johansen (1975) proposed the normalized concept for estimating λeff (2016).
( )
λeff = Ke λsat − λdry + λdry (15) 2.2.6. Zhang et al., 2016 (ZN2016) model
Zhang et al. (2016) further modified the Côté and Konrad (2005)
where, Ke = Log10Sr + 1 is the Kersten number or the normalized thermal
model with experimental data measured on sand-kaolin clay mixtures
conductivity, Sr = θv/P, λdry λdry = (0.135ρb + 0.0647)/(ρs − 0.947ρb)
with thermo-TDR method, the resulted formula is
and λsat λsat = λPwλ1− s
P
. λs is calculated based on mass fraction and thermal
conductivity of quartz (fquartz, λquartz) and other minerals (λother),λs =
λfquartz
quartz
λ1− fquartz
other with λquartz = 7.7 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 at 20 ◦ C and λother = 2.0 W

[ ]
2.168 × 10− 5 e(fquartz /7.903) + 1.252 Sr
λeff = [ ] ⋅
1 + 2.168 × 10− 5 e(fquartz /7.903) + 0.252 Sr
{ [ ] }
( )1− P [ ] − 0.003exp(
fquartz /16.452) − 1.84 P (20)
1.216 × 10 exp(fquartz /6.599) + 3.034 × 10
fquartz 1− fquartz
λPw λquartz λkaolin − − 6

[ ]
[ ] − 0.003exp(
fquartz /16.452) − 1.84 P
+ 1.216 × 10 e(fquartz /6.599)− 6
+ 3.034 × 10

3
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

where λquartz = 7.5 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and λkaolin is thermal conductivity of 2.3.6. Campbell, 1985 (CG1985) model
kaolin (2.9 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1), Kaolin is assumed to be clay in this study, and McInnes (1981) measured λeff of five field soils from the eastern
λs was calculated in the same way as Johansen (1975). Washington state (USA) and developed an empirical function:
[ ]
λeff = A + Bθv − (A − D)exp − (Cθv )E (26)
2.3. Linea/non-linear thermal conductivity models
where A, B, C, D, and E are empirical parameters. Campbell (1985)
2.3.1. Kersten, 1949 (KM1949) model demonstrated that parameters of Eq. (26) are dependent on and can be
Kersten (1949) proposed an empirical model to predict λeff of un­ related to the volumetric fraction of soil components (e.g., minerals,
frozen silt/clay: organic matter, and clay), they can be calculated by (Campbell, 1985;
( )
λeff = UC1 0.9logθg − 0.2 × 100.01UC2 ⋅ρb (21) Tarnawski and Leong, 2012):
0.57 + 1.73ϕquartz + 0.93ϕother
where UC1 = 0.144228 and UC2 = 62.427961 are the parameters used to A=
1 − 0.74ϕquartz − 0.49ϕother
− 2.8ϕs (1 − ϕs )
convert from “Btu in ft-2 h-1 ◦ F-1” to “W m-1 ◦ C-1” and from “g cm− 3” back
to “lb ft.− 3”, respectively; θg is the total soil water content on gravimetric B = 2.8ϕs D = 0.03 + 0.7ϕ2s (27)
basis (in %mass); ρb is dry bulk density (g cm− 3), volumetric water /√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
content θv = 0.01 θg/ ρb. λeff = 0.25 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 was assumed when θg < C = 1 + 2.6 fclay E=4
1.7% to avoid negative values of estimated λeff.
where and total volume fraction of solids ϕs = ϕquartz + ϕother. For soils
2.3.2. Makowski and Mochlinski, 1956 (MM1956) model with no or negligible quartz content and soil particle density ρs = 2.65 g
Makowski and Mochlinski (1956) presented an empirical model cm− 3, Eq. (27) can be simplified to A = 0.65 − 0.78ρb + 0.60ρ2b , B =
similar to the Kersten (1949) model, 1.06ρb, and D = 0.03 + 0.10ρ2.b Campbell (1985) model has been widely
[ ] used (Ross, 2014; Steele-Dunne et al., 2010) and been incorporated into
λeff = alog10 θg + b 100.01UC2 ρb (22)
numerical simulation models such as the Soil–Vegetation–Atmosphere
Scheme (SVATS), HYDRUS (Simunek et al., 1997), and Soil-Litter-Iso
where, a and b are related to clay content (fclay, %), a = 0.142408 − 4.65
(SLI) (Haverd and Cuntz, 2010).
× 10− 4fclay, b = 0.04192 − 3.13 × 10− 4fclay. λeff = 0.25 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 was
assumed when θg < 1.7% to avoid negative values of estimated λeff with
2.3.7. Chung and Horton, 1987 (CH1987) model
the MM1956 model.
Chung and Horton (1987) proposed an empirical relationship for λeff
√̅̅̅̅̅
2.3.3. van Rooyen and Winterkorn, 1959 (VW1959) model λeff = a + bθv + c θv (28)
van Rooyen and Winterkorn (1959) developed an empirical equation
to predict λeff as a function of the Sr, ρb, mineral type, and particle shape where, a, b, and c are parameters pertaining to soil physical properties
(Fricke et al., 2002) including bulk density, porosity, and organic matter, with a = − 0.197, b
( ) = − 0.962, c = 2.521 for clay. The scheme of Chung and Horton (1987)
λ−eff1 = 0.01 A10− BSr + S (23)
has been incorporated in HDS-SPAC, with one parameter for loam was
used (Yang, 2015) and HYDRUS (Simunek et al., 1997). λeff = 0.25 W
where coefficient 0.01 was to convert “cm ◦ C W-1” to “m ◦ C W-1”,
m− 1 ◦ C− 1 was assumed when θv < 0.04 to avoid negative values of
parametersA = 10a1− 0.44ρb2, B = b1 − 5.5ρb, S = S1 − S2ρb, a1, b1, S1, and
estimated λeff.
S2 are functions of soil texture and mineral components. For clays, a1 =
3.55, b1 = 5.6 × 10-4fclay + 9.58, S1 = 317 and S2 = 155, b1 is assumed to
2.3.8. Becker et al., 1992 (BB1992) model
be 9.58 if fclay is not available (Farouki, 1982).
Becker et al. (1992) developed an unified methodology for predicting
λeff of gravel, sand, silt, clay and peat in both the frozen and unfrozen
2.3.4. Oriol et al., 1978 (OF1978) model
states using literature data (Dissanayaka et al., 2012)
Oriol et al. (1978) proposed an empirical model for expanded clay
[ ( ) ]
with R = 0.73 Sr = 0.01a1 sinh 6.9348a2 ⋅λeff + a3 − sinh(a4 ) (29)
λeff = 0.1UC3 (0.013θv + 0.558) (24)
or

{ [ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] }/
λeff = UC1 log [(100Sr )/a1 + Sinh(a4 ) ] + [(100Sr )/a1 + Sinh(a4 ) ]2 + 1 − a3 a2 (30)

where coefficient 0.1 is used to convert “mW cm-1 ◦ C -1”to “W m-1 ◦ C -1”,
UC3 = 4.1868 is used to covert “cal cm-1 ◦ C-1 s-1” to “W m− 1 ◦ C -1”.
2.3.5. Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos, 1982 (KV1982) model
Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos (1982) investigated λeff of Mx-80 Na-
bentonite and Montigel Ca-bentonite and developed the following
expression
λeff = − 0.56 + 0.6ρb + 0.004θg ⋅ρ3b
where 0.01 is the coefficient to covert the Sr to be decimal value ranging
from 0 to 1, λeff is multiplied by UC1 = 1/6.9348 = 0.1442 to convert the
SI unit (W m− 1 ◦ C− 1) back to “Btu in. ft-2 hr-1 ◦ F-1” for consistence with
the original study. a1 to a4 are coefficients depending on soil types. For
clay, the values of parameter a1 to a4 are 27.0, 0.265, − 1.5 and − 0.97,
respectively.
2.3.9. Thomas et al., 1994 (TH1994) model
(25) Thomas et al. (1994) presented an empirical equation for analysis of
coupled water and heat transfer in unsaturated clay

4
 Table 1

L. Liu et al.
Selected soil properties of the compiled dataset.
No. Literature source Soil Name No. Meas. Temp Soil texture fquartz ρs ρb P Water content Method

fsand fsilt fclay θg θv Sr

3
◦
C —%— % —g cm− — % cm3cm− 3
1 Barry-Macaulay et al. (2013) Basaltic Clay 15 25.00ab 0.00 40.00 60.00 57.00 2.67 1.04–1.71 0.36–0.58 3.7–32 0.04–0.46 0.07–0.99 Thermal needle probe
2 Beziat et al. (1988) Ca-Smectite 19 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 7.00 2.65a 1.40–2.00 0.25–0.55 6.00–17.00 0.10–0.31 0.24–0.95 hot-wire method
3 Beziat et al. (1988) Illite 5 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 7.00 2.65a 1.20–1.60 0.40–0.55 12.00–17.00 0.17–0.27 0.36–0.69 hot-wire method
4 Beziat et al. (1988) Palygorskite 4 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 10.00 2.65a 1.40–1.80 0.32–0.47 6.00–12.00 0.10–0.22 0.24–0.67 hot-wire method
5 Beziat et al. (1988) Ca-Smectite 52 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 7.00 2.65a 0.90–2.10 0.25–0.58 5.00–18.00 0.06–0.33 0.11–1.04 hot-wire method
6 Beziat et al. (1988) Na-Smectite 20 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 15.00 2.65a 1.35–1.96 0.26–0.49 6.00–17.00 0.10–0.30 0.26–0.86 hot-wire method
7 Beziat et al. (1988) Illite 14 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 7.00 2.65a 1.36–1.67 0.37–0.49 6.00–12.00 0.08–0.19 0.17–0.49 hot-wire method
8 Beziat et al. (1988) Palygorskite 20 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 10.00 2.65a 1.12–1.57 0.45–0.58 8.00–25.00 0.09–0.36 0.16–0.80 hot-wire method
9 Börgesson et al. (1994) Mx-80 11 25.00a 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.00a 2.65a 1.69–1.97 0.45–0.47 13.20–28.40 0.24–0.56 0.45–0.97 Thermal probe
10 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Clayey sandstones 2 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 59.70 2.67 2.18–2.45 0.09–0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 needle probe
11 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Limestones 12 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00 2.69 1.41–2.69 0.01–0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 needle probe
12 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Dolomites 7 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00 2.86 2.46–2.82 0.02–0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 needle probe
13 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Anhydrites 2 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00 2.96 2.89–2.92 0.01–0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 needle probe
14 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Smectite 9 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 27.90 2.64 1.87–1.97 0.25–0.27 10.25–14.71 0.220–0.28 0.75–0.95 needle probe
15 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Illite-Kaolinite 10 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 7.00 2.65 1.66–1.87 0.30–0.37 9.97–17.25 0.17–0.29 0.52–0.94 needle probe
16 Brigaud and Vasseur (1989) Kaolinite 10 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 26.00 2.65 1.65–1.94 0.27–0.38 13.78–22.73 0.27–0.38 1.00 needle probe
17 Caridad et al. (2014) Hectorite 18 20.05 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.04–1.09 0.59–0.61 90.00–94.00 0.97–0.98 1.60–1.67 KD2 Pro
18 Caridad et al. (2014) Sodium bentonite 12 20.15 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.07–1.12 0.58–0.60 85.00–90.00 0.95–0.96 1.62–1.65 KD2 Pro
19 Caridad et al. (2014) Magnesium bentonite 24 20.27 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.17–1.42 0.46–0.56 55.00–75.00 0.78–0.88 1.55–1.68 KD2 Pro
20 Caridad et al. (2014) Common clay 24 19.97 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.12–1.77 0.33–0.58 35.00–80.00 0.62–0.90 1.44–1.87 KD2 Pro
21 Caridad et al. (2014) Clay rosa 18 19.94 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.32–1.45 0.45–0.50 45.00–65.00 0.65–0.86 1.44–1.71 KD2 Pro
22 Caridad et al. (2014) Clay cocoa 18 20.17 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.34–1.72 0.35–0.49 35.00–55.00 0.60–0.74 1.49–1.72 KD2 Pro
23 Caridad et al. (2014) Clay sabhasana 18 20.07 0.00 0.00 100.00 15.00a 2.65a 1.35–1.64 0.38–0.49 35.00–55.00 0.58–0.74 1.51–1.56 KD2 Pro
24 Cho et al. (2011) Sand-bentonite mix 1 18 25.00 10.00 0.00 90.00 10.90 2.65a 1.60 0.32–0.40 13.08–20.00 0.21–0.32 0.57–0.97 QTM-500
5

25 Cho et al. (2011) Sand-bentonite mix 2 15 25.00 20.00 0.00 80.00 20.80 2.65a 1.60 0.32–0.40 13.08–20.00 0.21–0.32 0.58–0.97 QTM-500
26 Cho et al. (2011) Sand-bentonite mix 3 14 25.00 30.00 0.00 70.00 30.70 2.65a 1.60 0.32–0.40 13.08–20.00 0.21–0.32 0.58–0.97 QTM-500
27 Cho et al. (2011) Sand-bentonite mix 4 74 25.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.00 2.65a 1.20–1.80 0.32–0.55 10.65–20.00 0.13–0.36 0.26–1.10 QTM-500
28 Chu (2009) Kaoline 27 25.00a 32.00 44.00 24.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.30–1.80 0.32–0.51 0.73–16.98 0.01–0.29 0.02–0.81 Thermal probe
29 Chu (2009) ZH-bentonite 25 25.00a 27.50 37.50 35.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.40–1.80 0.32–0.47 0.61–7.17 0.01–0.13 0.02–0.40 Thermal probe
30 Chu (2009) Wyoming bentonite 27 25.00a 3.00 22.00 75.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.30–1.70 0.32–0.51 0.84–15.49 0.01–0.26 0.02–0.73 Thermal probe
31 de Zárate et al. (2010) Magnesium bentonite 2 38.90 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 2.65a 1.27–1.56 0.41–0.56 40.00–660.00 0.62–0.76 1.46–1.52 hot-wire method
32 JNC (2000) Kunigel V1 bentonite 14 25.00a 30.00a 0.00a 70.00a 60.00a 2.65a 1.80 0.35 0.05–18.51 0.00–0.33 0.00–0.94
33 Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos (1982) MX-80 30 32.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.00a 2.65a 1.45–2.36 0.11–0.45 0.00–14.00 0.00–0.331 0.00–1.86 Hot-wire method
34 Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos (1982) Montigel 9 35.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00a 2.65a 1.86–2.14 0.19–0.30 0.00–6.00 0.00–0.15 0.78 Hot-wire method
35 Kasubuchi et al. (2007) Kuroboku 9 25.00a 27.70 14.30 58.00 45.00 2.44 0.85 0.65 0.12–76.11 0.01–0.65 0.00–1.00 DPHP-Twin-heat probe
36 Knutsson (1983) MX-80 bentonite4 12 25.00a 0.00 15.00 85.00 3.00a 2.65a 2.17 0.18 1.89–4.47 0.04–0.10 0.23–0.54 transient hot strip
37 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) B-1 14 25.00a 0.00 0.00 100.00 60.00a 2.65a 1.35–2.17 0.30–0.50 0.00–25.69 0.00–0.47 0.00–0.93 Point heat source
38 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) M-1 8 25.00a 13.60 0.00 86.40 60.00a 2.65a 2.04–2.30 0.30 0.00–11.22 0.00–0.26 0.00–0.86 Point heat source
39 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) M-9 6 25.00a 21.20 0.00 78.80 60.00a 2.65a 2.12–2.40 0.30 0.00–12.00 0.00–0.29 0.00–0.96 Point heat source
40 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) M-15 8 25.00a 38.60 0.00 61.40 60.00a 2.65a 2.32–2.56 0.30 0.00–9.65 0.00–0.25 0.00–0.82 Point heat source
41 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) M-23 3 25.00a 13.20 0.00 86.80 60.00a 2.65a 1.84–2.17 0.39 0.42–17.79 0.01–0.39 0.02–0.99 Point heat source
42 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) M-26 6 25.00a 11.86 0.00 88.14 60.00a 2.65a 1.78–2.08 0.40 0.00–14.54 0.00–0.30 0.00–0.76 Point heat source

Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

43 Ould-Lahoucine et al. (2002) M-32 13 25.00a 19.70 0.00 80.30 60.00a 2.65a 1.64–2.36 0.42–0.63 0.73–25.69 0.01–0.53 0.02–0.99 Point heat source
44 Reno and Winterkorn (1967) Natural kaolinite 33 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00a 2.61 0.65–1.25 0.52–0.72 3.80–32.30 0.03–0.40 0.03–0.77 Transient needle probe, SPHP
45 Reno and Winterkorn (1967) Sodium kaolinite 26 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00a 2.61 0.90–1.09 0.53–0.66 1.24–30.56 0.01–0.38 0.02–0.72 Transient needle probe, SPHP
46 Reno and Winterkorn (1967) Calcium kaolinite 25 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00a 3.29 0.90–1.31 0.48–0.74 1.44–33.66 0.01–0.42 0.02–0.88 Transient needle probe, SPHP
47 Reno and Winterkorn (1967) Aluminum Kaolinite 26 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 0.00a 2.61 0.83–1.25 0.52–0.68 1.23–34.78 0.01–0.43 0.01–0.83 Transient needle probe, SPHP
48 Singh and Devid (2000) Black cotton clay 35 25.00a 0.00 4.00 96.00 0.00a 2.72 1.00–1.40 0.49–0.63 0.00–30.00 0.00 0.00–0.20 SPHP
49 Tien et al. (2005) Pure B.H. Bentonite 27 25.00a 0.00a 0.00a 100a 64.50a 2.65 1.43–1.84 0.31–0.46 0.03–20.04 0.00–0.33 0.00–0.96 Thermal needle probe
50 Tien et al. (2005) Kinmen-betonite mix 1 27 25.00a 12.50 0.00 87.50 64.50a 2.65 1.43–1.84 0.31–0.46 0.03–20.04 0.00–0.33 0.00–0.96 Thermal needle probe
51 Tien et al. (2005) Kinmen-betonite mix 2 27 25.00a 25.00 0.00 75.00 64.50a 2.66 1.43–1.84 0.31–0.46 0.03–20.04 0.00–0.33 0.00–0.84 Thermal needle probe
52 Tien et al. (2005) Kinmen-betonite mix 3 24 25.00a 37.50 0.00 62.50 64.50a 2.66 1.43–1.84 0.31–0.46 0.03–20.04 0.00–0.31 0.00–0.81 Thermal needle probe
53 Tien et al. (2005) Kinmen-betonite mix 4 23 25.00a 50.00 0.00 50.00 64.50a 2.66 1.43–1.84 0.31–0.46 0.03–20.04 0.00–0.31 0.00–0.85 Thermal needle probe
(continued on next page)
 L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

λeff = 0.62 + 3.976Sr + 2.687Sr ln(Sr ) − 3.313Sr2 (31)

Hot-wire method (Kemtherm

QTM-D3 conductivity meter)
λeff = 0.25 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1
was assumed when Sr < 0.1 to avoid un­
Hot-wire method (KD2)
reasonable values of estimated λeff.

2.3.10. Singh and Devid, 2000 (SD2000) model

KD2 Pro SH-1
KD2 Pro SH-1
KD2 Pro SH-1
KD2 Pro SH-1

KD2 Pro SH-1

KD2 Pro SH-1
KD2 Pro SH-1
Thermo-TDR
Based on the work of Gangadhara Rao and Singh (1999), Singh and
Devid (2000) proposed a series of empirical models to predict λeff as
KD2 Pro

ISOMET
Method

⎧
⎨ a100.6243ρb − 3 θg < 2% (a)
λeff = (b100.6243ρb − 3 ) 2% ≤ θg ≤ 5% (b) (32)
0.29–0.86
0.00–0.01

0.31–0.97
0.04–0.84
0.10–0.78
0.03–0.99
0.02–1.00
0.04–1.00
0.00–0.83
0.01–0.91
0.02–0.97
0.00–1.00
⎩
1.07logθg + c 100.6243ρb − 3 θg > 5% (c)
Sr

where parameters a, b, and c are soil texture and water content depen­
dent. For clays: a = 0.219 for θg < 2%, b = 0.243 for 2% ≤ θg < 4% and b
0.13–0.30
0.00–0.56

0.12–0.35
0.02–0.50
0.10–0.47
0.01–0.37
0.01–0.41
0.02–0.42
0.00–0.26
0.01–0.38
0.01–0.40
0.00–0.75

= 0.276 for 4% < θg ≤ 5%, and c = − 0.73 for θg > 5% (Singh and Devid,
2000).
θv
Water content

2.3.11. Newson et al., 2002 (NT2002) model

0.00–115.20
9.00–17.92
0.10–27.40

7.20–21.20
2.17–45.69
5.18–42.44

0.40–25.40
1.00–26.20
0.00–14.50
0.40–23.90
0.40–24.70

Newson et al. (2002) proposed a regression model to estimate λeff of

0.80–0.26

consolidating offshore clayey backfill

θg

( )− 0.316
λeff = 3.674 θg (33)
Symbols: ρs – Particle density; ρb–Bulk density; P—porosity; θg –gravimetric water content; θv—volumetric water content; Sr—degree of saturation.
0.35–0.47
0.35–0.45

0.31–0.38

0.35–0.64
0.33–0.63
0.28–0.64
0.28–0.49
0.35–0.57
0.33–0.56
0.72–0.75

Eq. (33) gives unreasonable high value close to zero water content
0.60
0.60

and θg = 0.03% was used as arbitrary bound to calculate λdry and to avoid
P

numeric error.
1.45–1.83
1.53–1.76

1.65–1.83

1.00–1.80
1.00–1.80
1.00–1.80
1.00–1.80
1.20–1.80
1.20–1.80
0.65–0.71

2.3.12. Tang and Cui, 2006 (TC2006) model

1.10
1.10
ρb

Tang and Cui (2006) estimated λeff of clay from air filled porosity
2.65a

(34)
2.76
2.70

2.74
2.73
2.76
2.70
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.70
2.58

λeff = α(θair /P) + λsat

ρs

where α ≈ − λsat is the slope of λeff vs θair/P. α = − 2.22 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1

and
12.45
44.00
10.00

15.00
15.00
10.00
0.00a
fquartz

3.00
2.00

7.00

7.00
0.00

λsat = 1.15 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 were suggested by Tang and Cui (2006).

100.00

2.3.13. Caridad et al., 2014 (CV2014) model

67.00

82.58
53.50
47.59
43.60
81.90
40.10
80.20
43.60
81.90
100a
fclay

Caridad et al. (2014) proposed an empirical model to estimate λeff of

Values estimated based on the literature description or the soil information from other literature.

seven clays from Spain

22.00

32.20
40.70
56.40
18.10
59.90
19.80
56.40
18.10
0.00a

0.00

0.00
fsilt
Soil texture

λeff = 0.5873ρb − 0.0036 (35)

11.00

17.42
14.30
11.71
0.00a

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
fsand

2.3.14. Yoon et al., 2018 (YS2018) model

Yoon et al. (2018) proposed a regression model to estimate λeff of KJ-I
and KJ-II Ca-Bentonite from Korea with R2 = 0.74
25.00a

25.00a
25.00a
25.00a
25.00a

25.00a
20.00

21.00
Temp

5.00
5.00

5.00
5.00

λeff = 0.641ρb + 0.624Sr − 0.510 (36)

No. Meas.

3. Data compilation and analysis

24
59

37
20
18
17
16
16
12
32
33
15

3.1. Published datasets

Liuzhou lateritic clay
Guilin lateritic clay

To evaluate the various models to estimate λeff of clay, experimental

MX-80 bentonite
FEBEX bentonite

Genhe silty clay

data were collated by following several important criteria: (1) reliable

Kaolin clay
Soil Name

and reproducible experimental techniques/setup. λeff were measured on

GMZ07

GMZ01

GMZ07

soil samples with transient method (e.g., heat pulse method, hot-wire
MX80

MX80

MX80

method and thermal probe) at room temperature under atmosphere

pressure condition and thereby temperature effects on the λeff will not be
data were from Tang et al. (2008).

considered in this study; (2) measurements were taken on pure clays or

clay content is greater than 50%; and (3) detailed description of the
specimens preparation and sufficient soil physic properties including
grain/particle size distribution (fclay, fsilt, and fsand), P, ρb, ρs and mineral
Villar Galicia (2002)
Tong et al. (2009) b

Zhang et al. (2016)

Xu et al. (2019d)
Xu et al. (2019d)
Xu et al. (2019d)
Xu et al. (2019d)
Xu et al. (2019d)
Xu et al. (2019d)

composition are available. The screen procedure ended up with a total of

Xu et al. (2019a)
Literature source

Xu et al. (2019c)
Xu et al. (2019c)
Table 1 (continued )

1250 measurements made on 65 soils from 21 studies performed around

the world, including Australia (Barry-Macaulay et al., 2013), France
(Beziat et al., 1988; Brigaud and Vasseur, 1989; Tong et al., 2009), Spain
(Caridad et al., 2014; de Zárate et al., 2010; Villar Galicia, 2002),
Sweden (Börgesson et al., 1994; Knutsson, 1983), Swiss (Kahr and
No.

54
55

56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

Müller-Vonmoos, 1982), USA (Reno and Winterkorn, 1967; Zhang et al.,

b
a

6
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

Fig. 1. Performance of two theoretical/semi-theoretical models: (a) DV1963 (de Vries, 1963)_ENREF_27_ENREF_27; (b) DV1963II (Tian et al., 2016); (c) SK1998
(Sakashita and Kumada, 1998); (d) JR2010 (Jougnot and Revil, 2010) and four mixing models: (e) DF1979 (Donazzi et al., 1979); (f) KB1995 (Kiyohashi and Banno,
1995); (g) GA2009 (Gens et al., 2009); and (h) CW2011 (Cho et al., 2011) for predicting thermal conductivity of clays. Data greater than 3 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1
were truncated.

2016), Japan (JNC, 2000; Kasubuchi et al., 2007; Ould-Lahoucine et al., compared with measured and predicted λeff values using a 1:1 plot
2002), Korea (Cho et al., 2011), China (Chu, 2009; Tien et al., 2005; Xu (Piñeiro et al., 2008); ±10% and ± 50% lines off the 1:1 line and three
et al., 2019a; Xu et al., 2019c, 2019d), and India (Singh and Devid, additional statistical indices are also used:
2000). Selected soil properties for the compiled dataset were tabulated
(Table 1). (1) root mean square error (RMSE)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑
3.2. Values for unavailable physical properties √n (
√ X − Xm
)2
√i=1 p
RMSE = (40)
For dataset without particle density, ρs = 2.65 g cm− 3 was assumed. n
Values of λw = 0.6 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1and λair = 0.025 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1were used for
thermal conductivity of soil water and air, respectively. For model that
requires input of thermal conductivity of solid (λs) but did not provide a
way to calculate it, the method of Johansen (1975) was used (2) the average deviations (AD)

f 1− f
(37) 1∑ n
( )
(41)
quartz
λs = λquartz λotherquartz AD = Xm − Xp
n i=1
where fquartz, λquartz λother are mass fraction of quartz, thermal conduc­
tivity of quartz and other minerals, respectively. Average value of fquartz
= 7.7 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 at 20 ◦ C and λother = 2.0 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 (λother = 3 for
fquartz ≤ 20% at 20 ◦ C) (Johansen, 1975, 1977). If quartz content was not (3) the Nash-Sutcliff Efficiency (NSE)
provided in the dataset, fquartz = 0 is assumed because clays tend to n (
∑ )2
consists of less quartz compared to sands and silts. Xp − Xm
For the RS2016 model (RÓżański and Stefaniuk, 2016) that requires NSE = 1-∑ i− 1
n ( )2 (42)
the input of specific surface area (SSA, m2 g− 1), which is calculated by
Xp − Xmean− m
i− 1
(Sepaskhah et al., 2010)
where, Xp values are predicted by different thermal conductivity models,
SA = 3.89dg− 0.905 (38)
Xm are measured values, Xmean-m are mean-measured values, n is the
( ) number of measured values and Pn is the number of parameters in the
dg = exp -0.069078fsand − 0.036497fsilt − 0.0247fclay (39) model.
RMSE describes the deviation between the predicted values and the
where fsand, fsilt, and fclay are mass fraction (%) of sand, silt and clay, measured values. AD represents the deviation from the predicted value
respectively. and the measured value. NSE determines the relative magnitude of the
residual variance between measured and predicted values (Nash and
3.3. Model performance metrics Sutcliffe, 1970). A smaller difference between the predicted and
measured values is expected when NSE approaches 1.
The performance of different thermal conductivity models was

7
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

Table 2 is concave, which is opposite to the convex or sigmoidal shape of λeff(Sr)

Performance measures of the 28 thermal conductivity models for clays. or λeff(θv) relationships commonly appeared in literature (He et al.,
No. Models Abbrev. Perfromance Meas. 2020e; Wang et al., 2020b; Yan et al., 2019).
RMSE AD NSE
4.2. Normalized thermal conductivity models
1 ◦ − 1
W m− C

Theoretical/semi-theoretical models The overall performance of LJ2016 model (Fig. 2d) is the best and
1 de Vries (1963) DV1963 4.21 − 0.66 − 64.94 the KS1983 model is the worst among the six normalized thermal con­
2 Tian et al. (2016) DV1963II 1.90 − 0.53 − 12.48
ductivity models (Fig. 2b and Table 2). Although the KS1983 model
3 Sakashita and Kumada SK1998 0.51 0.07 0.03
(1998) worked best for most of the soils investigated as will discussed in section
4 Jougnot and Revil (2010) JR2010 0.62 − 0.03 − 0.41 4.4, unreasonable performance on soils from Brigaud and Vasseur
Mixing models
(1989) significantly lowered its overall performance.
5 Donazzi et al. (1979)a DF1979 0.35 ¡0.04 0.54 The commonly used JO1975 model (Fig. 2a) generally over­
6 Kiyohashi and Banno KB1995 0.50 0.12 0.07 estimated λeff, which echoes the findings of He et al. (2020e) who
(1995) demonstrated that the JO1975 model could give satisfactory estimates
7 Gens et al. (2009) GA2009 0.63 0.06 − 0.50
for coarse- and medium-textured soils but not on fine-textured soils as
8 Cho et al. (2011) CW2011 1.23 0.94 − 4.63
clays. Similar overestimation can also be found for the rest normalized
Normalized models thermal conductivity models (Fig. 2c, e and f and Table 2). This agrees
9 Johansen (1975) JO1975 0.55 0.22 − 0.14
10 Knutsson (1983) KS1983 54.79 3.27 − 11,152.25
well with the study of He et al. (2017) who found many of the
11 Côté and Konrad (2005) CK2005 0.59 0.17 − 0.29 normalized model failed to model λeff of coarse- or fine-textured soils.
12 Lee et al. (2016) LJ2016 0.49 − 0.01 0.11
13 RÓżański and Stefaniuk RS2016 0.87 0.47 − 1.81 4.3. Linea/non-linear thermal conductivity models
(2016)
14 Zhang et al. (2016) ZN2016 0.53 0.29 − 0.05
For the 14 linear/non-linear thermal conductivity models, the best
Linear/non-linear models performing model is CV2014 (Fig. 4g) with RMSE = 0.42 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1,
15 Kersten (1949) KM1949 0.43 0.21 − 0.51
16 Makowski and Mochlinski MM1956 0.57 0.16 − 0.22
AD = 0.03 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and NSE = 0.35, followed by YS2018 (Fig. 4h)
(1956) and KV982 (Fig. 3e). However, the CV2014 model only considered the
17 van Rooyen and VW1959 8.05 − 0.03 − 239.64 effects of bulk density and it generally gave overestimates of λeff for λeff
Winterkorn (1959) < 1 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1. The YS2018 model accounts for effects of bulk density
18 Oriol et al. (1978) OF1978 0.81 − 0.62 − 1.43
and water content, is simple and easy to be applied. The KV1982 model
19 Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos KV1982 0.49 − 0.28 0.11
(1982) was only applicable to clays with gravimetric water contents ranging
20 Campbell (1985) CG1985 0.62 − 0.33 − 0.41 from 0 to 12% and bulk density ranging from 1.4 to 2.3 g cm− 3 (Ould-
21 Chung and Horton (1987) CH1987 0.56 − 0.13 − 0.17 Lahoucine et al., 2002).
22 Becker et al. (1992) BB1992 0.51 0.08 0.03 The VW1959 model (Fig. 3c) performed the worst with RMSE =
23 Thomas et al. (1994) TH1994 0.53 − 0.17 − 0.03
8.05 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1, AD = − 0.03 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and NSE = − 239.64, fol­
24 Singh and Devid (2000) SD2000 0.41 − 0.33 − 0.43
25 Newson et al. (2002) NT2002 2.77 1.46 − 27.49 lowed by the NT2002 model (Table 2). This agrees with previous studies
26 Tang and Cui (2006) TC2006 0.56 − 0.12 − 0.18 that the VW1959 model was complicated and the choice of parameters is
27 Caridad et al. (2014) CV2014 0.42 0.03 0.35 uncertain (Farouki, 1981). Its applications is limited to unfrozen gravels
28 Yoon et al. (2018) YS2018 0.44 − 0.05 0.29
and sands with 0.015 < Sr < 0.1 (Becker et al., 1992; Farouki, 1986;
a
the best performing model for the compiled dataset. Fricke et al., 2002; Nikolaev et al., 2013). The values of λeff estimated
with NT2002 model decreases with increase of water content (Newson
4. Results and discussion et al., 2002), which is opposite to the widely accepted fact that λeff in­
creases with water content and bulk density. The OF1968 (Fig. 3d) gave
4.1. Theoretical/semi-theoretical and mixing models nearly constant λeff values, because it assumed that λdry = 0.23 W m− 1 ◦ C
-1
and λsat = 0.32 W m− 1 ◦ C -1 (Oriol et al., 1978). Therefore, the resulted
For the four theoretical/semi-theoretical models, the SK1998 model values of λeff ranged between 0.23 and 0.32 W m− 1 ◦ C -1 and significantly
performed better than the JR2010 model (Fig. 1c and b, Table 2). underestimated the measured λeff at high water content range.
Although the de Vries (1963) model has been widely applied, it cannot The models of BB1992 (Fig. 4b), CH1987 (Fig. 4a), CG1985 (Fig. 3f)
be used to well predict thermal conductivity of clay (Fig. 1a, Table 2). and KM1949 (Fig. 3a) have been widely used or incorporated into
The performance of its simplified from proposed by Tian et al. (2016) is various land surface models (Haverd and Cuntz, 2010; He et al., 2020c;
slightly better but still not satisfactory (Fig. 1b, Table 2). Theoretical Simunek et al., 1997; Yang, 2015), but they could not well predict λeff.
models attract attention modeling soil physical properties including The KM1949 model generally overestimated λeff, while the models of
thermal conductivity (de Vries, 1963) and dielectric permittivity (He CG1985 and CH1987 generally underestimated λeff. This differs from the
and Dyck, 2013; He et al., 2016). However, their applications were studies of Tien et al. (2005) and Abu-Hamdeh (2000) who reported the
restricted by the fact that the models are complicated and the parame­ CG1985 model could be used to well predict λeff.
ters are difficult to be determined (Dyck et al., 2019; Tian et al., 2016).
The DF1979 model performed the best among the four mixing 4.4. Limitations and perspectives
models with RMSE = 0.35 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1, AD = − 0.04 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and
NSE = 0.54 (Fig. 1c~f, Table 2). While the CW2011 model performed The DF1979 is the best performing models among the 28 thermal
the worst with RMSE = 1.23 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1, AD = 0.94 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 and conductivity models investigated although its performance is not satis­
NSE = − 4.63. The CW2011 model generally overestimated the factory on the whole dataset. This is reasonable because currently there
measured λeff of clays and most of the estimated λeff are above the +50% is no universal thermal conductivity model has been reported (Cheng
line, which indicates they are greater than 1.5 times of measured λeff. and Hsu, 1999; Gangadhara Rao and Singh, 1999; He et al., 2021; Lu and
However, the DF1979 model was found to perform less satisfactorily in Dong, 2015). He et al. (2020b) included 24 soil thermal conductivity
sandy soils (Haigh, 2012), because the curvature of λeff as a function of Sr models widely used by land-surface, hydrological and soil-vegetation-
atmosphere transfer models into the Community Land Model

8
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

Fig. 2. Performance of six normalized models for predicting thermal conductivity of clays: (a) JO1975 (Johansen, 1975); (b) KS1983 (Knutsson, 1983); (c) CK2005
(Côté and Konrad, 2005); (d) LJ2016 (Lee et al., 2016); (e) RS2016 (RÓżański and Stefaniuk, 2016); and (f) ZN2016 (Zhang et al., 2016). Data greater than 3 W
m− 1 ◦ C− 1 were truncated.

9
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

Fig. 3. Performance of six linear/non-linear models for predicting thermal conductivity of clays: (a) KM1949 (Kersten, 1949); (b) MM1956 (Makowski and
Mochlinski, 1956); (c) VW1959 (van Rooyen and Winterkorn, 1959); (d) OF1978 (Oriol et al., 1978); (e) KV1982 (Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos, 1982); and (f) CG1985
(Campbell, 1985). Data greater than 3 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 were truncated.

10
L. Liu et al.
Fig. 4. Performance of eight linear/non-linear models for predicting thermal conductivity of clays: (a) CH1987 (Chung and Horton, 1987); (b) BB1992 (Becker et al.,
1992); (c) TH1994 (Thomas et al., 1994); (d) SD2000 (Singh and Devid, 2000); (e) NT2002 (Newson et al., 2002); (6) TC2006 (Tang and Cui, 2006); (f) CV2014
(Caridad et al., 2014); and (g) YS2018 (Yoon et al., 2018). Data greater than 3 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 were truncated.
(CLM4.5) and compared the simulated land surface temperature (LST)
and LST from the moderate resolution imaging spectrometer (MODIS).
Their results demonstrated that all 24 models performed similarly un­
satisfactorily in clay and overestimated MODIS LST, while under­
estimated MODIS LST in loam and sand. However, it should be noted
that many of the models performed quite well on certain dataset. Good
performing models with NSE ≥ 0.8 are highlighted in Table 3 with bold
font and shadow. Generally, the model performed best on the dataset
used to develop the model, for example, little difference was found be­
tween the measured λeff of Kahr and Müller-Vonmoos (1982) and the
predicted λeff with KV1982 model, with NSE = 0.98 (Table 3), the similar
was found for the TC2006 model on dataset of Tong et al. (2009).
Meanwhile, some models including SK1998, DF1979, KB1995, JO1975,
KS1983, CK2005, LJ2016, RS2016, ZN2016, KV1982, CG1985,
CH1987, TH1994, TC2006, CV2014 and YS2018 have good perfor­
mance on other datasets, which strengthen that the predictive capability
of the model is dataset dependent. Only models of DF1979, CK2005,
TH1994 and TC2006 have good performance (with NSE ≥ 0.8) on three
or more datasets. The feature of soil or dataset specific thermal con­
ductivity model for clays is also apparent in the development of the
model. For example, Yoon et al. (2018) defined the upper limit of λsat =
1.2410 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 for model YS2018, while Tang and Cui (2006)
assumed λsat = 1.15 W m− 1 ◦ C− 1 for the TC2006 model. A model may
work well on one dataset but badly on another dataset, thereby, care
should be taken by the researcher or practitioner when select the most
appropriate model for predicting λeff of the clays they investigate. Model
that was developed by previous researchers on the same soils, if any,
from the investigated region is recommended if there is no access to take
measurement of λeff.
It is well known that empirical model cannot be extended to soils
beyond those used to develop the model (He et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2014;
Yan et al., 2019). Therefore, many of the empirical thermal conductivity
11
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
models cannot predict λeff of clay at full range of water content or bulk
density. In Addition, numeric errors may arise due to the selections of
basic model functions (e.g., logarithm or exponential functions). For
instance, the models of JO1975, KS1983, MM1956 and TH1994 cannot
be used for zero water content, because zero is an invalid input for the
logarithm function. The other models may give negative values (e.g.,
KM1949 and CH1987) or unreasonable high or low values (e.g.,
NT2002) at low water content. This phenomena was found to be com­
mon in thermal conductivity modeling (He et al., 2020b) and future
effort developing closed-form equation with wide applications is highly
recommended (He et al., 2020a).
Moreover, hysteresis of water retention characteristics is more sig­
nificant for clays than sands (Pham et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2020b).
Researches have shown the effects of hysteresis on the estimated λeff
(Feng and Fredlund, 2003; Tang et al., 2008; Yoon et al., 2018). How­
ever, no study has attempted to include the effects of hysteresis on
thermal conductivity models for clays (He et al., 2020a). The swell and
shrinkage of some clays may make things more complicated, because
cracks develop when soil swells/shrinks (Christopher and Nwonu, 2019)
and significantly reduce the connectivity of heat transfer path, which in
turn influence the measured soil thermal conductivity. Therefore, none
of these models would adequately describe thermal conductivity of clay
unless the fitting model accounts for changes in pore geometry as a
function of soil moisture. Similarly, the effects of temperature (Kurz,
2014; Smits et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2019a; Xu et al., 2019c, 2019d; Zhang
et al., 2018a), aging time (Villar et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2019b), additive
(Beziat et al., 1992; Kaya and Durukan, 2004; Liu et al., 2019), pressure
(Beziat et al., 1988; Wiebe et al., 1998) on λeff of clay and other soils
were reported but less studied nor modelled. Future studies on these
topics should be of interest.
Furthermore, previous studies have shown that the value of solid
thermal conductivity (λs) largely affects the performance of a thermal
L. Liu et al. Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107

Table 3
Dataset dependent performance measure of the 28 thermal conductivity models for clays.

12
L. Liu et al.
conductivity model (He et al., 2020e; Tarnawski et al., 2009; Wang
et al., 2020b; Yan et al., 2019). λs is largely determined by soil miner­
alogical information (especially quartz content) that requires special
instruments including X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and X-ray diffraction
(XRD), but these measurements are not commonly made (Tarnawski
et al., 2009; Whittig, 1965). The occurrence of quartz content depends
mainly on the parent material, which make it highly unpredictable and
there is no effective way to model it as of date (Tarnawski et al., 2012;
Tarnawski et al., 2011). Therefore, instead of using the Johansen (1975)
method, simplified approaches were taken by not accounting for λs,
assuming constant values of λs or estimating from other physic proper­
ties (e.g., bulk density, texture or specific surface area). For example,
none of the 14 linear/non-linear model considered effects of λs, but it
should pointed out that the empirical model of TC2006 related λeff to air
filled porosity is promising approach to get around the inclusion of λs
(Ochsner et al., 2001; Xie et al., 2020). Knutsson (1983) used λs = 2 W
m− 1 ◦ C− 1 for KS1983 model and Donazzi et al. (1979) used λs = 2.3 W
m− 1 ◦ C -1 for DF1979 model, while Cho et al. (2011), Kiyohashi and
Banno (1995), and RÓżański and Stefaniuk (2016) defined different
equations to calculate λs. However, none of these approaches were
approved to be effective for wide applications and more studies are
13
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
required. The possible solutions may include: (1) the development of a
global soil mineralogy database (e.g.,) from scattered data in literature
in order to calculate λs from soil mineralogy using geometric mean
model (Schönenberger et al., 2012; Tarnawski et al., 2012), because
there is already dataset on soil mineralogy of fine soil (Journet et al.,
2014) that can be expanded to meet the requirement of calculating λs;
(2) the development of a global database of λs that was calculated from
the measured saturated soil thermal conductivity using inversed geo­
metric mean model or the three-point method proposed by He et al.
(2020d) from unsaturated soil thermal conductivity; (3) the use of ma­
chine learning or artificial intelligence (Rizvi et al., 2020; Rizvi et al.,
2019; Wen et al., 2020; Zhang and Shi, 2020) to establish soil thermal
conductivity models from known soil information in the similar ap­
proaches used by soil hydraulic properties (Zhang and Schaap, 2019;
Zhang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2018b): and (4) the development of soil
thermal conductivity products (Dai et al., 2019) for direct use in land-
surface modeling, similar to the driven data of air temperature, pre­
cipitation, solar radiation and wind etc. (Lembrechts et al., 2020; Peng
et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019).
L. Liu et al.
RMSE–root mean square error (W m− 1 ◦ C− 1); AD–average deviations (W m−
Bold and shadowed values of NSE were greater than or equal to 0.8.
5. Conclusion
In this study, 28 thermal conductivity models for clays were
reviewed and evaluated with a large compiled dataset from 21 studies.
The resulted showed that the DF1979 model had the best performance
on the whole compiled dataset but still not satisfactory. Performance of
the thermal conductivity models may be dataset or soil dependent and
cares should be taken when choosing the most appropriate model for
prediction purpose in practice. Future efforts focusing on the develop­
ment of more accurate thermal conductivity models for wider applica­
tions are recommended.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
Datasets used in this study were digitalized from the published
literature.
Funding for this research was provided in part by the National Nat­
ural Science Foundation of China [Grant No. 41877015, 42077135],
Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province [2020JM-169], Young
science and technology star of Shaanxi Province, China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation [Grant No. 2018M641024], the Training Program
Foundation for the Young Talents of Northwest A&F University, and the
111 project [Grant No. B12007].
References
Abuel-Naga, H.M., Bergado, D.T., Bouazza, A., Pender, M.J., 2009. Thermal conductivity
of soft Bangkok clay from laboratory and field measurements. Eng. Geol. 105,
211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.02.008.
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
1 ◦ − 1
C ); NSE–Nash-Sutcliff Efficiency.
Abu-Hamdeh, N.H., 2000. Effect of tillage treatments on soil thermal conductivity for
some Jordanian clay loam and loam soils. Soil Tillage Res. 56, 145–151. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00129-X.
Akinyemi, O.D., Sauer, T.J., Onifade, Y.S., 2011. Revisiting the block method for
evaluating thermal conductivities of clay and granite. Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 38, 1014–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2011.05.016.
Barry-Macaulay, D., Bouazza, A., Singh, R.M., 2011. Study of thermal properties of a
basaltic clay. Geo-Frontiers 2011.
Barry-Macaulay, D., Bouazza, A., Singh, R.M., Wang, B., Ranjith, P.G., 2013. Thermal
conductivity of soils and rocks from the Melbourne (Australia) region. Eng. Geol.
164, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.06.014.
Becker, B.R., Misra, A., Fricke, B.A., 1992. Development of correlations for soil thermal
conductivity. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 19, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0735-1933(92)90064-O.
Beziat, A., Dardaine, M., Gabis, V., 1988. Effect of compaction pressure and water
content on the thermal conductivity of some natural clays. Clay Clay Miner. 36,
462–466. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1988.0360512.
Beziat, A., Dardaine, M., Mouche, E., 1992. Measurements of the thermal conductivity of
clay-sand and clay-graphite mixtures used as engineered barriers for high-level
radioactive waste disposal. Appl. Clay Sci. 6, 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0169-1317(09)90001-1.
Börgesson, L., Fredrikson, A., Johannesson, L.-E., 1994. Heat Conductivity of Buffer
Materials. Svensk kärnbränslehantering AB.
Brigaud, F., Vasseur, G., 1989. Mineralogy, porosity and fluid control on thermal
conductivity of sedimentary rocks. Geophys. J. Int. 98, 525–542. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-246X.1989.tb02287.x.
Bristow, K.L., Horton, R., Kluitenberg, G.J., 1994. Measurement of soil thermal
properties with a dual-probe heat-pulse technique. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58,
1288–1294. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800050002x.
Cai, G., Zhang, T., Puppala, A.J., Liu, S., 2015. Thermal characterization and prediction
model of typical soils in Nanjing area of China. Eng. Geol. 191, 23–30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.03.005.
Campbell, G.S., 1985. Soil Physics with BASIC: Transport Models for Soil-Plant Systems,
3rd ed. Elsevier, New York.
Campbell, G.S., Calissendorff, C., Williams, J.H., 1991. Probe for measuring soil specific
heat using a heat-pulse method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55, 291–293. https://doi.org/
10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500010052x.
Caridad, V., Ortiz de Zárate, J.M., Khayet, M., Legido, J.L., 2014. Thermal conductivity
and density of clay pastes at various water contents for pelotherapy use. Appl. Clay
Sci. 93–94, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.02.013.
14
L. Liu et al.
Chang, M.-Y., Juang, R.-S., 2004. Adsorption of tannic acid, humic acid, and dyes from
water using the composite of chitosan and activated clay. J. Colloid Interface Sci.
278, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.05.029.
Cheng, P., Hsu, C., 1999. The effective stagnant thermal conductivity of porous media
with periodic structures. J. Porous Media 2, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1615/
JPorMedia.v2.i1.20.
Cho, W.-J., Lee, J.-O., Kwon, S., 2011. An empirical model for the thermal conductivity
of compacted bentonite and a bentonite–sand mixture. Heat Mass Transf. 47,
1385–1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-011-0800-1.
Christopher, I., Nwonu, D., 2019. Emerging trends in expansive soil stabilisation: A
review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrmge.2018.08.013.
Chu, C.-A., 2009. Measurement and Modeling for Thermal Conductivity of Geomaterials.
National Central University.
Chung, S., Horton, R., 1987. Soil heat and water flow with a partial surface mulch. Water
Resour. Res. 23, 2175–2186. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023i012p02175.
Côté, J., Konrad, J.-M., 2005. A generalized thermal conductivity model for soils and
construction materials. Can. Geotech. J. 42, 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1139/t04-
106.
Dai, Y.J., Xin, Q.C., Wei, N., Zhang, Y.G., Wei, S.G., Yuan, H., Zhang, S.P., Liu, S.F., Lu, X.
J., 2019. A global high-resolution data set of soil hydraulic and thermal properties
for land surface modeling. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 2996–3023. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019ms001784.
Dao, L., Delage, P., Tang, A.-M., Cui, Y.-J., Pereira, J.-M., Li, X., Sillen, X., 2014.
Anisotropic thermal conductivity of natural Boom Clay. Appl. Clay Sci. 101,
282–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.09.003.
de Vries, D.A., 1952a. A nonstationary method for determining thermal conductivity of
soil in situ. Soil Sci. 73, 83–90.
de Vries, D.A., 1952b. The Thermal Conductivity of Soil.
de Vries, D.A., 1963. Thermal properties of soil. In: van Dijk, W.R. (Ed.), Physics of Plant
Environment. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 210–235.
de Zárate, J.M.O., Hita, J.L., Khayet, M., Legido, J.L., 2010. Measurement of the thermal
conductivity of clays used in pelotherapy by the multi-current hot-wire technique.
Appl. Clay Sci. 50, 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2010.08.012.
Dissanayaka, S.H., Hamamoto, S., Kawamoto, K., Komatsu, T., Moldrup, P., 2012.
Thermal properties of peaty soils: Effects of liquid-phase impedance factor and
shrinkage. Vadose Zone J. 11 https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2011.0092.
Donazzi, F., Occhini, E., Seppi, A., 1979. Soil thermal and hydrological characteristics in
designing underground cables. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical
Engineers. IET, pp. 506–516.
Dyck, M., Miyamoto, T., Iwata, Y., Kameyama, K., 2019. Bound Water, phase
configuration, and dielectric damping effects on TDR-measured apparent
permittivity. Vadose Zone J. 18, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2019.03.0027.
Eucken, A., 1932. Thermal conductivity of ceramics refractory materials. Forsch. Geb.
Ing., B-3, Forschungsheft 53, 6–21.
Farouki, O.T., 1981. Thermal properties of soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold
Regions Researchand Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H, p. 1981.
Farouki, O.T., 1982. Evaluation of methods for calculating soil thermal conductivity. In:
DTIC Document Report CRREL Report, pp. 82–88.
Farouki, O.T., 1986. Thermal Properties of Soils. Trans Tech Publ, Zurich, Switzerland.
Farrar, D.M., Coleman, J.D., 1967. The correlation of surface area with other properties
of nineteen british clay soils. J. Soil Sci. 18, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2389.1967.tb01493.x.
Feng, M., Fredlund, D.G., 2003. Calibration of thermal conductivity sensors with
consideration of hysteresis. Can. Geotech. J. 40, 1048–1055. https://doi.org/
10.1139/T03-046.
Fricke, B.A., Misra, A., R., B.B. & Stewart, J.W.E., 2002. Soil Thermal Conductivity:
Effects of Saturation and Dry Density. University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Gangadhara Rao, M., Singh, D.N., 1999. A generalized relationship to estimate thermal
resistivity of soils. Can. Geotech. J. 36, 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-037.
Garnier, J.P., Gallier, J., Mercx, B., Dudoignon, P., Milcent, D., 2010. Thermal
conductivity measurement in clay dominant consolidated material by Transient Hot-
Wire method. EPJ Web Conf. 6, 38001. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/
20100638001.
Gens, A., Guimaraes, L.D.N., Garcia-Molina, A., Alonso, E.E., 2002. Factors controlling
rock–clay buffer interaction in a radioactive waste repository. Eng. Geol. 64,
297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0013-7952(02)00026-1.
Gens, A., Sánchez, M., Guimarães, L.D.N., Alonso, E.E., Lloret, A., Olivella, S., Villar, M.
V., Huertas, F., 2009. A full-scale in situ heating test for high-level nuclear waste
disposal: observations, analysis and interpretation. Géotechnique 59, 377–399.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2009.59.4.377.
Ghorbel-Abid, I., Trabelsi-Ayadi, M., 2015. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals on
local landfill clay. Arab. J. Chem. 8, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
arabjc.2011.02.030.
Haigh, S.K., 2012. Thermal conductivity of sands. Géotechnique 62, 617–625. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.043.
Haverd, V., Cuntz, M., 2010. Soil–Litter–Iso: A one-dimensional model for coupled
transport of heat, water and stable isotopes in soil with a litter layer and root
extraction. J. Hydrol. 388, 438–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2010.05.029.
He, H., Dyck, M., 2013. Application of multiphase dielectric mixing models for
understanding the effective dielectric permittivity of frozen soils. Vadose Zone J. 12
https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2012.0060.
He, H., Dyck, M., Wang, J., Lv, J., 2015. Evaluation of TDR for quantifying heat-pulse-
method-induced ice melting in frozen soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 79, 1275–1288.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2014.12.0499.
15
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
He, H., Dyck, M., Zhao, Y., Si, B., Jin, H., Zhang, T., Lv, J., Wang, J., 2016. Evaluation of
five composite dielectric mixing models for understanding relationships between
effective permittivity and unfrozen water content. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 130,
33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2016.07.006.
He, H., Zhao, Y., Dyck, M., Si, B., Jin, H., Lv, J., Wang, J., 2017. A modified normalized
model for predicting effective soil thermal conductivity. Acta Geotech. 12,
1281–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-017-0563-z.
He, H., Dyck, M., Horton, R., Li, M., Jin, H., Si, B., 2018a. Distributed temperature
sensing for soil physical measurements and its similarity to heat pulse method. In:
Sparks, D.L. (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, Cambridge,
pp. 173–230.
He, H., Dyck, M.F., Horton, R., Ren, T., Bristow, K.L., Lv, J., Si, B., 2018b. Development
and application of the heat pulse method for soil physical measurements. Rev.
Geophys. 56, 567–620. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017rg000584.
He, H., Dyck, M., Lv, J., 2020a. A new model for predicting soil thermal conductivity
from matric potential. J. Hydrol. 589, 125167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2020.125167.
He, H., He, D., Jin, J., Smits, K.M., Dyck, M., Wu, Q., Si, B., Lv, J., 2020b. Room for
improvement: A review and evaluation of 24 soil thermal conductivity
parameterization schemes commonly used in land-surface, hydrological, and soil-
vegetation-atmosphere transfer models. Earth Sci. Rev. 211, 103419. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103419.
He, H., He, D., Smits, K., Dyck, M., Si, B., Lv, J., 2020c. A Review and Evaluation of Soil
Thermal Conductivity Models for Land Suface Modelling [Submitted].
He, H., Li, M., Dyck, M., Si, B., Wang, J., Lv, J., 2020d. Modelling of soil solid thermal
conductivity. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 116, 104602. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2020.104602.
He, H., Noborio, K., Johansen, Ø., Dyck, M., Lv, J., 2020e. Normalized concept for
effective soil thermal conductivity modelling from dryness to saturation. Eur. J. Soil
Sci. 71, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12820.
He, H., Flerchinger, G., Kojima, Y., Dyck, M., Lv, J., 2021. A review and evaluation of 39
thermal conductivity models for frozen soils. Geoderma 382, 114694. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114694.
Hepper, E.N., Buschiazzo, D.E., Hevia, G.G., Urioste, A., Antón, L., 2006. Clay
mineralogy, cation exchange capacity and specific surface area of loess soils with
different volcanic ash contents. Geoderma 135, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2005.12.005.
JNC, 2000. Safety assessment of the geological disposal system. In: Supporting Report,
p. 3.
Johansen, O., 1975. Varmeledningsevne Av Jordarter (Thermal Conductivity of Soils).
PhD, University of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway.
Johansen, O., 1977. Thermal conductivity of soils. In: Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory Report Report, 637.
Jougnot, D., Revil, A., 2010. Thermal conductivity of unsaturated clay-rocks. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-91-2010.
Journet, E., Balkanski, Y., Harrison, S.P., 2014. A new data set of soil mineralogy for
dust-cycle modeling. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 3801–3816. https://doi.org/10.5194/
acp-14-3801-2014.
Kahr, G., Müller-Vonmoos, M., 1982. Wärmeleitfähigkeit von Bentonit MX 80 und von
Montigel nach der Heizdrahtmethode. NAGRA Technisher Bericht document ID:
82–06.
Kang, X., Ge, L., Kang, G.-C., Mathews, C., 2015. Laboratory investigation of the strength,
stiffness, and thermal conductivity of fly ash and lime kiln dust stabilised clay
subgrade materials. Road Mater. Pavement Design 16, 928–945. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14680629.2015.1028970.
Kasubuchi, T., Momose, T., Tsuchiya, F., Tarnawski, V., 2007. Normalized thermal
conductivity model for three Japanese soils. Transactions of the Japanese Society of
Irrigation. Drain. Rural Eng. (Japan) 251, 529–533.
Kaya, A., Durukan, S., 2004. Utilization of bentonite-embedded zeolite as clay liner.
Appl. Clay Sci. 25, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2003.07.002.
Kersten, M.S., 1949. Thermal Properties of Soils. Minnesota University Institute of
Technology.
Kiyohashi, H., Banno, K., 1995. Effective thermal conductivity of compact bentonite as a
buffer material for high level radioactive waste. High Temp. High Pressures 27 (28),
653–663.
Knutsson, S., 1983. On the thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of highly
compacted bentonite. In: SKB Report, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Co. SKB, 83-72.
Kurz, D., 2014. Understanding the effects of temperature on the behaviour of clay.
J. Clin. Investig. 122, 3051–3053.
Lee, J.O., Choi, H., Lee, J.Y., 2016. Thermal conductivity of compacted bentonite as a
buffer material for a high-level radioactive waste repository. Ann. Nucl. Energy 94,
848–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.04.053.
Lembrechts, J.J., Aalto, J., Ashcroft, M.B., De Frenne, P., Kopecky, M., et al., 2020.
SoilTemp: a global database of near-surface temperature. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26,
6616–6629. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15123.
Liu, X., Cai, G., Liu, L., Liu, S., Puppala, A., 2019. Thermo-hydro-mechanical properties
of bentonite-sand-graphite-polypropylene fiber mixtures as buffer materials for a
high-level radioactive waste repository. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 141, 981–994.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.07.015.
Lu, N., Dong, Y., 2015. Closed-form equation for thermal conductivity of unsaturated
soils at room temperature. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 141, 04015016 https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001295.
Lu, Y., Lu, S., Horton, R., Ren, T., 2014. An empirical model for estimating soil thermal
conductivity from texture, water content, and bulk density. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 78,
1859–1868. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2014.05.0218.
L. Liu et al.
Luo, J., Zhang, Y., Rohn, J., 2019. Analysis of thermal performance and drilling costs of
borehole heat exchanger (BHE) in a river deposited area. Renew. Energy 151,
392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.019.
Maček, M., Mauko, A., Mladenovič, A., Majes, B., Petkovšek, A., 2013. A comparison of
methods used to characterize the soil specific surface area of clays. Appl. Clay Sci.
83-84, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2013.08.026.
Madsen, F.T., 1998. Clay mineralogical investigations related to nuclear waste disposal.
Clay Miner. 33, 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1180/000985598545318.
Makowski, M.W., Mochlinski, K., 1956. An evaluation of two rapid methods of assessing
the thermal resistivity of soil. In: Proceedings of the IEE - Part A: Power Engineering,
103, pp. 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1049/pi-a.1956.0123.
María, V., Villar, M., 2004. Thermo-hydro-mechanical characteristics and processes in
the clay barrier of a high level radioactive waste repository. State of the art report.
Maxwell, J.C., 1881. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 1. Clarendon press.
McInnes, K.J., 1981. Thermal Conductivities of Soils from Dryland Wheat Regions of
Eastern Washington. M.Sc. Washington State University.
Mozumder, R.A., Laskar, A.I., 2015. Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of
geopolymer stabilized clayey soil using Artificial Neural Network. Comput. Geotech.
69, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.05.021.
Mügler, C., Filippi, M., Montarnal, P., Martinez, J.M., Wileveau, Y., 2006. Determination
of the thermal conductivity of opalinus clay via simulations of experiments
performed at the Mont Terri underground laboratory. J. Appl. Geophys. 58,
112–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2005.05.002.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I -
A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1694(70)90255-6.
Newson, T., Brunning, P., Stewart, G., 2002. Thermal conductivity of consolidating
offshore clayey backfill. In: ASME 2002 21st International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
pp. 17–24.
Nikolaev, I., Leong, W., Rosen, M., 2013. Experimental investigation of soil thermal
conductivity over a wide temperature range. Int. J. Thermophys. 34, 1110–1129.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-013-1456-5.
Ochsner, T.E., Horton, R., Ren, T., 2001. A new perspective on soil thermal properties.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65, 1641–1647. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2001.1641.
Oriol, F., De Boodt, M., Verdonck, O., Cappaert, I., 1978. Thermal properties of two
organic (peat, pine bark) and two inorganic (perlite, clay) horticultural substrates.
Catena 5, 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0341-8162(78)90021-8.
Ould-Lahoucine, C., Sakashita, H., Kumada, T., 2002. Measurement of thermal
conductivity of buffer materials and evaluation of existing correlations predicting it.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 216, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(02)00033-X.
Paterson, E., 2018. Specific surface area and pore structure of allophanic soil clays. Clay
Miner. 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1180/claymin.1977.012.1.01.
Peng, S.Z., Ding, Y.X., Liu, W.Z., Li, Z., 2019. 1 km monthly temperature and
precipitation dataset for China from 1901 to 2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11,
1931–1946. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1931-2019.
Pham, H.Q., Fredlund, D.G., Barbour, S.L., 2005. A study of hysteresis models for soil-
water characteristic curves. Can. Geotech. J. 42, 1548–1568. https://doi.org/
10.1139/t05-071.
Piñeiro, G., Perelman, S., Guerschman, J.P., Paruelo, J.M., 2008. How to evaluate
models: Observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed? Ecol. Model. 216,
316–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.05.006.
Ren, T., Ochsner, T.E., Horton, R., 2003. Development of thermo-time domain
reflectometry for vadose zone measurements. Vadose Zone J. 2, 544–551. https://
doi.org/10.2136/vzj2003.5440.
Reno, W.H., Winterkorn, H.F., 1967. The Thermal Conductivity of Kaolinite Clay as a
Function of Type of Exchange Ion, Density and Moisture Content.
Revil, A., 2000. Thermal conductivity of unconsolidated sediments with geophysical
applications. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 105, 16749–16768. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2000JB900043.
Rizvi, Z., Zaidi, H., Akhtar, S., Shoarian Sattari, A., Wuttke, F., 2019. Soft and hard
computation methods for estimation of the effective thermal conductivity of sands.
Heat Mass Transf. 56, 1947–1959.
Rizvi, Z., Akhtar, S., Sabeeh, W., Wuttke, F., 2020. Effective Thermal Conductivity of
Unsaturated Soils Based on Deep Learning Algorithm.
Ross, P.J., 2014. Estimation of soil thermal properties in two and three dimensions.
Vadose Zone J. 13 https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2013.07.0143.
RÓżański, A., Stefaniuk, D., 2016. On the prediction of the thermal conductivity of
saturated clayey soils: Effect of the specific surface area. Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 13,
184. https://doi.org/10.13168/AGG.2016.0016.
Sakashita, H., Kumada, T., 1998. Heat transfer model for predicting thermal conductivity
of highly compacted bentonite. J. Atomic Energy Soc. Japan 40, 235–240.
Schönenberger, J., Momose, T., Wagner, B., Leong, W.H., Tarnawski, V.R., 2012.
Canadian field soils I. Mineral composition by XRD/XRF measurements. Int. J.
Thermophys. 33, 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-011-1142-4.
Sen, P.N., Scala, C., Cohen, M.H., 1981. A self-similar model for sedimentary rocks with
application to the dielectric constant of fused glass beads. Geophysics 46, 769–783.
Sepaskhah, A.R., Tabarzad, A., Fooladmand, H.R., 2010. Physical and empirical models
for estimation of specific surface area of soils. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 56, 325–335.
Sihvola, A.H., Kong, J.A., 1988. Effective permittivity of dielectric mixtures. Geosci.
Remote Sens. IEEE Trans. on 26, 420–429.
Simunek, J., Huang, K., Van Genuchten, M.T., 1997. The HYDRUS-ET software package
for simulating the one-dimentional movement of water, heat and multiple solutes in
variably-saturated media, Version 1.1. Bratislava: Inst. Hydrology Slovak Acad. Sci.
16
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
Singh, D.N., Devid, K., 2000. Generalized relationships for estimating soil thermal
resistivity. Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 22, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-
1777(00)00020-0.
Smits, K.M., Sakaki, T., Howington, S.E., Peters, J.F., Illangasekare, T.H., 2013.
Temperature Dependence of Thermal Properties of Sands across a Wide Range of
Temperatures (30–70◦ C).
Steele-Dunne, S.C., Rutten, M.M., Krzeminska, D.M., Hausner, M., Tyler, S.W., Selker, J.,
Bogaard, T.A., de Giesen, N.C.v., 2010. Feasibility of soil moisture estimation using
passive distributed temperature sensing. Water Resour. Res. 46, W03534 https://doi.
org/10.1029/2009wr008272.
Sun, Q., Lyu, C., Zhang, W., 2020. The relationship between thermal conductivity and
electrical resistivity of silty clay soil in the temperature range − 20 C to 10 C. Heat
Mass Transf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-020-02813-0.
Tang, A., Cui, Y., 2006. Determining the thermal conductivity of compacted MX80 clay.
In: Unsaturated Soils 2006. ASCE, pp. 1695–1706.
Tang, A.M., Cui, Y.J., 2007. Experimental evidences on thermo-hydro-mechanical
coupling in engineered clay barrier for deep nuclear waste disposal. In: Geo-Denver
2007. Denver, Colorado, United States, pp. 1–10.
Tang, A.-M., Cui, Y.-J., Le, T.-T., 2008. A study on the thermal conductivity of compacted
bentonites. Appl. Clay Sci. 41, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2007.11.001.
Tang, C.-S., Shi, B., Liu, C., Suo, W.-B., Gao, L., 2011. Experimental characterization of
shrinkage and desiccation cracking in thin clay layer. Appl. Clay Sci. 52, 69–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2011.01.032.
Tarnawski, V.R., Leong, W., 2012. A series-parallel model for estimating the thermal
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Int. J. Thermophys. 33, 1191–1218. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10765-012-1282-1.
Tarnawski, V.R., Momose, T., Leong, W.H., 2009. Assessing the impact of quartz content
on the prediction of soil thermal conductivity. Géotechnique 59, 331–338. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.2009.59.4.331.
Tarnawski, V.R., Momose, T., Leong, W., Piper, D.W., Gliński, J., 2011. Estimation of
quartz content in mineral soils. In: Horabik, J., Lipiec, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Agrophysics. Springer Netherlands, pp. 275–280.
Tarnawski, V.R., McCombie, M.L., Leong, W.H., Wagner, B., Momose, T.,
Schönenberger, J., 2012. Canadian field soils II. Modeling of quartz occurrence. Int.
J. Thermophys. 33, 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-012-1184-2.
Thomas, H.R., He, Y., Ramesh, A., Zhou, Z., Villar, M.V., Cuevas, J., 1994. Heating
unsaturated clay-an experimental and numerical investigation. In: Smith, I.M. (Ed.),
Proc. 3rd European Conference on Numercal Methods in Geotechnical Engineering.
ECONMIG 94, Manchester, UK, pp. 181–186.
Tian, Z., Lu, Y., Horton, R., Ren, T., 2016. A simplified de Vries-based model to estimate
thermal conductivity of unfrozen and frozen soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 67, 564–572.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12366.
Tien, Y.M., Chu, C.A., Chuang, W.S., 2005. The Prediction Model of Thermal
Conductivity of Sand-Bentonite Based Buffer Material.
Tong, F., Jing, L., Zimmerman, R.W., 2009. An effective thermal conductivity model of
geological porous media for coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical systems with
multiphase flow. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46, 1358–1369. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.04.010.
van Rooyen, M., Winterkorn, H.F., 1959. Structural and Textural Influences on Thermal
Conductivity of Soils.
Villar Galicia, M.V., 2002. Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical Characterisation of a Bentonite
from Cabo de Gata A Study Applied to the Use of Bentonite as Sealing Material in
High Level Radioactive Waste Repositories. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Ph.
D.
Villar, M.V., García-Siñeriz, J.L., Bárcena, I., Lloret, A., 2005. State of the bentonite
barrier after five years operation of an in situ test simulating a high level radioactive
waste repository. Eng. Geol. 80, 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2005.05.001.
Wang, Y., Cui, Y.-J., Tang, A.M., Tang, C.-S., Benahmed, N., 2016. Changes in thermal
conductivity, suction and microstructure of a compacted lime-treated silty soil
during curing. Eng. Geol. 202, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2016.01.008.
Wang, J., He, D., Dyck, M., He, H., 2020a. Theory and solutions of heat pulse method for
determining soil thermal properties. IOP Conf. Series Earth Environ. Sci. 440 https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/440/5/052039.
Wang, J., He, H., Dyck, M., Lv, J., 2020b. A review and evaluation of predictive models
for thermal conductivity of sands at full water content range. Energies 13, 1083.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051083.
Wen, H., Bi, J., Guo, D., 2020. Calculation of the thermal conductivities of fine-textured
soils based on multiple linear regression (MLR) and artificial neural networks (ANN).
Eur. J. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12934. n/a.
Whittig, L.D., 1965. X-Ray diffraction techniques for mineral identification and
mineralogical composition. Methods Soil Anal. 671–698.
Wiebe, B., Graham, J., Tang, G.X., Dixon, D., 1998. Influence of pressure, saturation, and
temperature on the behaviour of unsaturated sand-bentonite. Can. Geotech. J. 35,
194–205. https://doi.org/10.1139/t97-093.
Woodside, W., Messmer, J.H., 1961. Thermal conductivity of porous media. I.
Unconsolidated sands. J. Appl. Phys. 32, 1688–1699.
Xie, X., Lu, Y., Ren, T., Horton, R., 2020. Thermal conductivity of mineral soils relates
linearly to air-filled porosity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. https://doi.org/10.1002/
saj2.20016.
Xu, X., Zhang, W., Fan, C., Li, G., 2019a. Effects of temperature, dry density and water
content on the thermal conductivity of Genhe silty clay. Res. Phys. 16, 102830.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102830.
L. Liu et al.
Xu, Y., Sun, D.A., Zeng, Z., Lv, H., 2019b. Effect of aging on thermal conductivity of
compacted bentonites. Eng. Geol. 253, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2019.03.010.
Xu, Y., Sun, D.A., Zeng, Z., Lv, H., 2019c. Effect of temperature on thermal conductivity
of lateritic clays over a wide temperature range. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 138,
562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.04.077.
Xu, Y., Sun, D.A., Zeng, Z., Lv, H., 2019d. Temperature dependence of apparent thermal
conductivity of compacted bentonites as buffer material for high-level radioactive
waste repository. Appl. Clay Sci. 174, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2019.03.017.
Yan, H., He, H., Dyck, M., Jin, H., Li, M., Si, B., 2019. A generalized model for estimating
effective soil thermal conductivity based on the Kasubuchi algorithm. Geoderma
353, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.031.
Yang, Y., 2015. Evapotranspiration over Heterogeneous Vegetated Surfaces: Models and
Applications. Springer.
Ye, W., Chen, Y., Chen, B., Wang, Q., Wang, J., 2010. Advances on the knowledge of the
buffer/backfill properties of heavily-compacted GMZ bentonite. Eng. Geol. 116,
12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.06.002.
Yi, S., Li, N., Xiang, B., Wang, X., Ye, B., McGuire, A.D., 2013. Representing the effects of
alpine grassland vegetation cover on the simulation of soil thermal dynamics by
ecosystem models applied to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. J. Geophys. Res.
Biogeosci. 118, 1186–1199. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrg.20093.
Yoon, S., Cho, W., Lee, C., Kim, G.-Y., 2018. Thermal Conductivity of Korean Compacted
Bentonite Buffer Materials for a Nuclear Waste Repository, 11, p. 2269.
Yu, K.L., Singh, R.M., Bouazza, A., Bui, H.H., 2015. Determining soil thermal
conductivity through numerical simulation of a heating test on a heat exchanger
pile. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 33, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9870-z.
17
Engineering Geology 288 (2021) 106107
Zhang, Y., Schaap, M.G., 2019. Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity with
pedotransfer functions: A review. J. Hydrol. 575, 1011–1030. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.058.
Zhang, M., Shi, W., 2020. Systematic Comparison of Five Machine-Learning Methods in
Classification and Interpolation of Soil Particle Size Fractions Using Different
Transformed Data.
Zhang, N., Yu, X., Pradhan, A., Puppala, A.J., 2016. A new generalized soil thermal
conductivity model for sand–kaolin clay mixtures using thermo-time domain
reflectometry probe test. Acta Geotech. 12, 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-016-0506-0.
Zhang, M., Zhang, X., Xu, X., Lu, J., Pei, W., Xiao, Z., 2017a. Water–heat migration and
frost-heave behavior of a saturated silty clay with a water supply. Exp. Heat Transf.
30, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08916152.2017.1312639.
Zhang, N., Yu, X., Pradhan, A., 2017b. Application of a thermo-time domain
reflectometry probe in sand-kaolin clay mixtures. Eng. Geol. 216, 98–107. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.11.016.
Zhang, M., Lu, J., Lai, Y., Zhang, X., 2018a. Variation of the thermal conductivity of a
silty clay during a freezing-thawing process. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 124,
1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.02.118.
Zhang, Y., Schaap, M.G., Zha, Y., 2018b. A high-resolution global map of soil hydraulic
properties produced by a hierarchical parameterization of a physically-based water
retention model. Water Resour. Res. 54, 9774–9790. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018wr023539.
Zhang, Y., Schaap, M.G., Wei, Z., 2020. Development of hierarchical ensemble model and
estimates of soil water retention with global coverage. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47,
e2020GL088819 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl088819.
Zhao, B., Mao, K., Cai, Y., Shi, J., Li, Z., Qin, Z., Meng, X., 2019. A combined Terra and
Aqua MODIS land surface temperature and meteorological station data product for
China from 2003–2017.