1887
Volume 60, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A validation experiment, carried out in a scaled field setting, was attempted for the long electrode electrical resistivity tomography method in order to demonstrate the performance of the technique in imaging a simple buried target. The experiment was an approximately 1/17 scale mock‐up of a region encompassing a buried nuclear waste tank on the Hanford site. The target of focus was constructed by manually forming a simulated plume within the vadose zone using a tank waste simulant. The long electrode results were compared to results from conventional point electrodes on the surface and buried within the survey domain. Using a pole‐pole array, both point and long electrode imaging techniques identified the lateral extents of the pre‐formed plume with reasonable fidelity but the long electrode method was handicapped in reconstructing vertical boundaries. The pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays were also tested with the long electrode method and were shown to have the least favourable target properties, including the position of the reconstructed plume relative to the known plume and the intensity of false positive targets. The poor performance of the pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays was attributed to an inexhaustive and non‐optimal coverage of data at key electrodes, as well as an increased noise for electrode combinations with high geometric factors. However, when comparing the model resolution matrix among the different acquisition strategies, the pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays using long electrodes were shown to have significantly higher average and maximum values within the matrix than any pole‐pole array. The model resolution describes how well the inversion model resolves the subsurface. Given the model resolution performance of the pole‐dipole and dipole‐dipole arrays, it may be worth investing in tools to understand the optimum subset of randomly distributed electrode pairs to produce maximum performance from the inversion model.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01039.x
2012-01-17
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdepelumiA.A., SolankeA.A., SanusiO.B. and ShallangwaA.M.2006. Model tank electrical resistivity characterization of LNAPL migration in a clayey‐sand formation. Environmental Geology 50, 1221–1233.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlumbaughD.L. and NewmanG.A.2000. Image appraisal for 2‐D and 3‐D electromagnetic inversion. Geophysics 65, 1455–1467.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BakerV.R. and BunkerR.C.1985. Cataclysmic late pleistocene flooding from glacial Lake Missoula: A review. Quaternary Science Review 4, 1–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BergeronM.P., ConnellyM.P. and ReidelS.P.2010. Flow and Transport in the Natural System at Waste Management Area C, RPP‐RPT‐40688. Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC, Richland , WA .
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BinleyA., Henry‐PoulterS. and ShawB.1996. Examination of solute transport in an undisturbed soil column using electrical resistance tomography. Water Resource Research 32, 763–769.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BjornstadB.N., FechtK.R. and PluharC.J.2001. Long History of Pre‐Wisconsin, Ice Age Cataclysmic Floods: Evidence from Southeastern Washington State. The Journal of Geology 109, 695–713.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BjornstadB.N. and LaniganD.C.2007. Geologic Descriptions for the Solid‐Waste Low Level Burial Grounds, PNNL‐16887. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland , WA .
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CalendineS., RuckerD.F., FinkJ.B., LevittM.T. and SchofieldJ.2011. Automated Leak Detection of Buried Tanks using Geophysical Methods at the Hanford Nuclear Site. SAGEEP 2011, Annual meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Charleston , SC . April 10–14, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CassianiG., BrunoV., VillaA., FusiN. and BinleyA.M.2006. A saline trace test monitored via time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics 59, 244–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ChambersJ.E., LokeM.H., OgilvyR.D. and MeldrumP.I.2004. Noninvasive monitoring of DNAPL migration through a saturated porous medium using electrical impedance tomography. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 68, 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ChambersJ.E., WilkinsonP.B., WealthallG.P., LokeM.H., DeardenR., WilsonR. and OgilvyR.D.2010. Hydrogeophysical Imaging of Deposit Heterogeneity and Groundwater Chemistry Changes during DNAPL Source Zone Bioremediation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 118, 43–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ChenJ., HubbardS.S. and RubinY.2001. Estimating the hydraulic conductivity at the South Oyster Site from geophysical tomographic data using Bayesian techniques based on the normal linear regression model. Water Resources Research 37, 1603–1613.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DailyW., RamirezA., NewmarkR. and MasicaK.2004. Low‐cost reservoir tomographs of electrical resistivity. Leading Edge 23, 472–480.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DamascenoV.M., FrattaD. and BosscherP.J.2009. Development and validation of a low‐cost electrical resistivity tomographer for soil process monitoring. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46, 842–854.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Day‐LewisF.D., SinghaK. and BinleyA.M.2005. Applying petrophysical models to radar travel time and electrical resistivity tomograms: Resolution‐dependent limitations. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, B08206.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. DeianaR., CassianiG., KemnaA., VillaA., BrunoV. and BaglianiA.2007. An experiment of non‐invasive characterization of the vadose zone via water injection and cross‐hole time‐lapse geophysical monitoring. Near Surface Geophysics 5, 183–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DeyA. and MorrisonH.F.1979. Resistivity modeling for arbitrarily shaped three‐dimensional shaped structures. Geophysics 44, 753–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. EzzedineS., RubinY. and ChenJ.1999. Bayesian method for hydrogeological site characterization using borehole and geophysical survey data: Theory and application to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Superfund site. Water Resources Research 35, 2671–2683.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. GeeG.W., OostromM., FreshleyM.D., RockholdM.L. and ZacharaJ.M.2007. Hanford site vadose zone studies: An overview. Vadose Zone Journal 6, 899.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. GlaserD.R., FinkJ.B., LevittM.T. and RuckerD.F.2008. A Summary of Recent Geophysical Investigations at the Department of Energy Hanford Nuclear Facility, Abstract #B‐04. American Geophysical Union, Chapman Conference on Biogeophysics, Portland , ME , 12–16 Oct.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HayleyK., BentleyL.R. and GharibiM.2009. Time‐lapse electrical resistivity monitoring of salt‐affected soil and groundwater. Water Resources Research 45, W07425.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KemnaA., KulessaB. and VereeckenH.2002. Imaging and characterisation of subsurface solute transport using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and equivalent transport models. Journal of Hydrology 267, 125–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KneppA.J.2002. Field Investigation Report for Waste Management Area B‐BY‐BX, RPP‐10098. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., Richland , WA .
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KoestelJ., KasteelR., KemnaA., EsserO., JavauxM., BinleyA. and VereeckenH.2009. Imaging Brilliant Blue Stained Soil by Means of Electrical Resistivity Tomography. Vadose Zone Journal 8, 963–975.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LiY. and OldenburgD.1994. Inversion of 3‐D DC resistivity data using an approximate inverse mapping. Geophysical Journal International 116, 527–537.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. de LimaO.A.L., SatoH.K. and PorsaniM.J.1995. Imaging industrial contaminant plumes with resistivity techniques. Journal of Applied Geophysics 34, 93–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics 34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP.B. and ChambersJ.C.2010. Fast computation of optimized electrode arrays for 2D resistivity surveys. Computers & Geosciences 36, 1414–1426.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LoomsM.C., JensenK.H., BinleyA. and NielsenL.2008. Monitoring Unsaturated Flow and Transport Using Cross‐Borehole Geophysical Methods. Vadose Zone Journal 7, 227–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. MejuM.A. and MontagueM.1995. Basis for a flexible low‐cost automated resistivity data acquisition and analysis system. Computers & Geosciences 21, 993–999.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MonegoM., CassianiG., DeianaR., PuttiM., PassadoreG. and AltissimoL.2010. A tracer test in a shallow heterogeneous aquifer monitored via time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysics 75, WA61–WA73.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. OldenborgerG.A., KnollM.D., RouthP.S. and LaBrecqueD.J.2007. Time‐lapse ERT monitoring of an injection/withdrawal experiment in a shallow unconfined aquifer. Geophysics 72, F177–F187.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. ParkS.P. and VanG.P.1991. Inversion of pole–pole data for 3‐D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics 56, 951–960.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. RamirezA.L., NewmarkR.L. and DailyW.D.2003. Monitoring carbon dioxide floods using electrical resistance tomography (ERT): Sensitivity studies. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 8, 187–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. ReidelS.P., LindseyK.A. and FechtK.R.1992. Field Trip Guide to the Hanford Site, WHC‐MR‐0391. Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland , WA .
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RuckerD.F. and FinkJ.B.2007. Inorganic plume delineation using surface high resolution electrical resistivity at the BC cribs and trenches site, Hanford. Vadose Zone Journal 6(6), 946–958.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. RuckerD.F., FinkJ.B. and LokeM.H.2011a. Environmental monitoring of leaks using time lapsed long electrode electrical resistivity. Journal of Applied Geophysics 74(4), 242–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. RuckerD.F., LevittM.T., HendersonC. and WilliamsK.2006. Surface geophysical exploration of T tank farm: CH2M Hill Hanford Group Contractor's Report RPP‐RPT‐28955, CH2M, http://www5.hanford.gov/pdw/fsd/AR/FSD0001/FSD0054/1001051159/[1001051159].pdf, accessed 1 November 2011.
  39. RuckerD.F., LevittM.T. and GreenwoodW.J.2009. Three‐dimensional electrical resistivity model of a nuclear waste disposal site. Journal of Applied Geophysics 69, 150–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. RuckerD.F., LokeM.H., NoonanG.E. and LevittM.T.2010. Electrical resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes. Geophysics 75, WA95–WA104.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. RuckerD.F., MyersD.A., CubbageB.D., LevittM.T., NoonanG.E., McNeillM. et al . 2011b. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (in review).
  42. SasakiY.1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting 40, 453–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. SeidelK. and LangeG.2007. Direct current resistivity methods. Environmental Geology 4, 205–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. SerneR.J., BjornstadB.N., HortonD.G., LaniganD.C., SchaefH., LindenmeierC.W. et al . 2004. Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments below the T Tank Farm: Boreholes C4104, C4105,299‐W10–196, and RCRA Borehole 299‐W11–39. PNNL‐14849, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland , Washington .
  45. SinghaK. and GorelickS.M.2005. Saline tracer visualized with electrical resistivity tomography: Field scale spatial moment analysis. Water Resources Research 41, W05023.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. SlaterL., BinleyA.M., DailyW. and JohnsonR.2000. Cross‐hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection. Journal of Applied Geophysics 44, 85–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. SlaterL., BinleyA., VersteegR., CassianiG., BirkenR. and SandbergS.2002. A 3D ERT study of solute transport in a large experimental tank. Journal of Applied Geophysics 49, 211–229.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. SlaterL., ZaidmanM.D., BinleyA.M. and WestL.J.1997. Electrical Imaging of Saline Tracer Migration for the Investigation of Unsaturated Zone Transport Mechanisms. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1, 291–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.2004. Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics 69, 120–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. TelfordW., GeldartL. and SheriffR.1990. Applied Geophysics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge .
    [Google Scholar]
  51. UdphuayS., GuntherT., EverettM.E., WardenR.R. and BriaudJ.‐L.2011. Three‐dimensional resistivity tomography in extreme coastal terrain amidst dense cultural signals: Application to cliff stability assessment at the historic D‐Day site. Geophysical Journal International 185, 201–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. WhiteP.A.1988. Measurement of Ground‐Water Parameters Using Salt‐Water Injection and Surface Resistivity. Groundwater 26, 179–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.C., KurasO. and OgilvyR.D.2006. Improved strategies for the automatic selection of optimized sets of electrical resistivity tomography measurement configurations. Geophysical Journal International 167, 1119–1126.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. ZhuT. and FengR.2011. Resistivity tomography with a vertical line current source and its applications to the evaluation of residual oil saturation. Journal of Applied Geophysics 73, 155–163.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01039.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01039.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition; Data processing; Field Validation.; Resistivity; Tomography

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