3.8 Article

Delineating alluvial aquifer heterogeneity using resistivity and GPR data

Journal

GROUND WATER
Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 890-903

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.00103.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conceptual geological models based on geophysical data can elucidate aquifer architecture and heterogeneity at meter and smaller scales, which can lead to better predictions of preferential flow pathways. The macrodispersion experiment (MADE) site, with >2000 measurements of hydraulic conductivity obtained and three tracer tests conducted, serves as an ideal natural laboratory for examining relationships between subsurface flow characteristics and geophysical attributes in fluvial aquifers. The spatial variation of hydraulic conductivity measurements indicates a large degree of site heterogeneity. To evaluate the usefulness of geophysical methods for better delineating fluvial aquifer heterogeneities and distribution of preferential flow paths, a surface grid of two-dimensional ground penetrating radar (GPR) and direct current (DC) resistivity data were collected. A geological model was developed from these data that delineate four stratigraphic units with distinct electrical and radar properties including (from top to bottom) (1) a meandering fluvial system (MFS); (2) a braided fluvial system (BFS); (3) fine-grained sands; and (4) a clay-rich interval. A paleochannel, inferred by other authors to affect flow, was mapped in the MFS with both DC resistivity and GPR data. The channel is 2 to 4 m deep and, based on resistivity values, is predominantly filled with clay and silt. Comparing previously collected hydraulic conductivity measurements and tracer-plume migration patterns to the geological model indicates that flow primarily occurs in the BFS and that the channel mapped in the MFS has no influence on plume migration patterns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available