1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 8, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The subsurface structure of a riverbed can play an important role in groundwater‐surface water interactions. Knowledge of this structure provides a basis for characterizing the physical and geochemical processes in this region, for example, how hydrostratigraphy relates to groundwater seeps or controls the transport of nutrients across this critical interface. However, characterization of riverbed sediments using conventional hydrological techniques is difficult and particularly challenging for assessing contiguous units of variable geometry. Also, the destructive nature of conventional drilling in a riverbed is often problematic in some systems because of the disturbance to the ecosystem it supports. Geophysical techniques may provide significant advantages over conventional characterization techniques, provided i) there exists a distinct contrast in the geophysical properties of hydrological units and ii) sufficient resolution and sensitivity to these contrasts can be achieved. We show, through modelling and field application, how electrical resistivity tomography can be used to provide useful knowledge about shallow hydrostratigraphy of riverbed environments. Through synthetic modelling, we show that the main factor affecting sensitivity below the surface water/subsurface interface is the ratio of electrical conductivities of surface water and sub‐strata. The modelling reveals that as this ratio increases, the sensitivity shifts upward across the interface, reducing the information yielded from below the riverbed. We also show that this, coupled with the variability in the riverbed topography and composition, has the effect of rendering conventional data coverage from short arrays unusable. With suitable selection of electrode configuration and measurement scheme, informative results are, however, achievable. We report on a field trial applied to the River Leith, a small groundwater‐fed stream in the Eden Valley of Cumbria, UK. The effect of the depth of the water column is shown and although the depth of investigation is relatively shallow, enough structure is revealed to show the boundary between the sandstone aquifer and overlying alluvial sediments. Our findings from model and field studies suggest that electrical geophysical methods could have a valuable role complementing conventional measurements in shallow hydrogeological characterization studies.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2010 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010035
2010-07-01
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010035
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlumbaughD.L. and NewmanG.A.2000. Image appraisal for 2‐D and 3‐D electromagnetic inversion.Geophysics65, 1455–1467.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AsterR.C., BorchersB. and ThurberC.H.2005. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems.Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BinleyA. and KemnaA.2005. DC resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Hydrogeophysics (eds Y.Rubin and S.S.Hubbard ), pp.129–156. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BinleyA., RamirezA. and DailyW.1995. Regularised image reconstruction of noisy electrical resistance tomography data. In: Process Tomography – Principles, Techniques and Applications (eds M.S.Beck and W.Williams ), pp. 401–410. Butterworth‐Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.L. and ConstableC.G.1987. Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data.Geophysics52, 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CrookN., BinleyA., KnightR., RobinsonD.A., ZarnetskeJ. and HaggertyR.2008. Electrical resistivity imaging of the architecture of substream sediments.Water Resources Research44, W00D13. doi:10.1029/2008WR006968
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with ten electrode arrays.Geophysical Prospecting,52, 379–398. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2004.00423.x
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2006. Multiple‐gradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging.Near Surface Geophysics4, 113–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. EdwardsL.1977. A modified pseudosection for resistivity and IP.Geophysics42, 1020–1036. doi:10.1190/1.1440762
     [Google Scholar]
  10. JonesJ.B. and MulhollandP.J.2000. Streams and Ground Waters.Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. KeareyP., BrooksM. and HillI.2002. An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration.Wiley‐Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. KwonH., KimJ., AhnH., YoonJ., KimK., JungC., LeeS. and UchidaT.2005. Delineation of a fault zone beneath a riverbed by an electrical resistivity survey using a floating streamer cable.Exploration Geophysics36, 50–58. doi:10.1071/EG05050
     [Google Scholar]
  13. LokeM. and BarkerR.1995. Least‐squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections.Geophysics60, 1682–1690.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. MenkeW.1989. Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory.Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. NyquistJ.E., FreyerP.A. and ToranL.2008. Stream bottom resistivity tomography to map ground water discharge.Ground Water46, 561–569. doi:10.1111/j.1745‐6584.2008.00432.x
     [Google Scholar]
  16. OldenborgerG.A. and RouthP.S.2009. The point‐spread function measure of resolution for the 3‐D electrical resistivity experiment.Geophysical Journal International176, 405–414.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. OldenburgD. and LiY.1999. Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys.Geophysics64, 403–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. ParkS.K. and VanG.P.1991. Inversion of pole‐pole data for 3‐D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes.Geophysics56, 951–960.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. RiddP.V.1994. Electric potential due to a ring electrode.IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering19, 464–467.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. RoyA. and ApparaoA.1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods.Geophysics36, 943–959.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. SelkerJ.S., ThévenazL., HuwaldH., MalletA., LuxemburgW., Van De GiesenN., StejskalM., ZemanJ., WesthoffM. and ParlangeM.B.2006. Distributed fiber‐optic temperature sensing for hydrologic systems.Water Resources Research42, W12202. doi:10.1029/2006WR005326
     [Google Scholar]
  22. SpitzerK.1998. The three‐dimensional DC sensitivity for surface and subsurface sources.Geophysical Journal International134, 736–746. doi:10.1046/j.1365‐246x.1998.00592.x
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SzalaiS. and SzarkaL.2008. On the classification of surface geoelectric arrays.Geophysical Prospecting56, 159–175. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2007.00673.x
     [Google Scholar]
  24. WonI.J.1987. The geometrical factor of a marine resistivity probe with four ring electrodes.IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering12, 301–303.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010035
Loading
Geophysical characterization of riverbed hydrostratigraphy using electrical resistance tomography
Near Surface Geophysics 8, 493 (2010); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2010035
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010035
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010035
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error