2018
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggy018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Subsurface imaging of water electrical conductivity, hydraulic permeability and lithology at contaminated sites by induced polarization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
69
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
1
69
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As an alternative to equations and and the inversion in terms of the BIC parameters of equation , it is possible to derive the permeability from equations and and the inversion in terms of the MIC parameters of equation , i.e., it is possible to use σ0 instead of σbulk. In this study, we prefer to follow the first approach for two reasons: (i) the effect of surface conductivity in the estimation of the formation factor is taken into account (i.e., an estimate of the true formation factor F is used instead of an estimate of the apparent formation factor F); (ii) the use of the BIC model instead of the MIC model is better suited for permeability estimation from surface IP data, as shown recently by Maurya et al (). In fact, the use of the BIC model in 2‐D/3‐D imaging practically imposes a geometrical constraint between the spatial distribution of the inverted imaginary conductivity σ and the spatial distribution of the total DC conductivity σ0 section, so that a chargeable area in the inversion model is also conductive.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As an alternative to equations and and the inversion in terms of the BIC parameters of equation , it is possible to derive the permeability from equations and and the inversion in terms of the MIC parameters of equation , i.e., it is possible to use σ0 instead of σbulk. In this study, we prefer to follow the first approach for two reasons: (i) the effect of surface conductivity in the estimation of the formation factor is taken into account (i.e., an estimate of the true formation factor F is used instead of an estimate of the apparent formation factor F); (ii) the use of the BIC model instead of the MIC model is better suited for permeability estimation from surface IP data, as shown recently by Maurya et al (). In fact, the use of the BIC model in 2‐D/3‐D imaging practically imposes a geometrical constraint between the spatial distribution of the inverted imaginary conductivity σ and the spatial distribution of the total DC conductivity σ0 section, so that a chargeable area in the inversion model is also conductive.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the contrary, when σsurf gives a negligible contribution to σ0, no geometrical constraint is enforced between the σ and σ0 spatial distributions and the BIC and MIC models give equivalent results. This feature reduces the equivalences in the σ0 imaging and helps in retrieving inversion models more representative of the site geology, and henceforth better permeability estimations (Maurya et al, ). However, in this study, the high vertical resolution of the El‐log technique avoids equivalence problems in the σ0 estimation, and the permeability estimates retrieved by the MIC and BIC inversions are of comparable quality (results not shown for brevity).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The approach has proven particularly effective in unconsolidated sediments, where formation factors are low and limited to a narrow range (Slater and Lesmes ; Maurya et al . ). When the role of F on σ becomes significant, IP measurements become ambiguous as they then depend both on the pore radius, along with the tortuosity and porosity of the porous network.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Postglacial freshwater sand and peat deposits overlie the meltwater sand deposits close to the stream. Below this, there is a Miocene Odderup sand layer (Heron et al ; Balbarini et al ; Maurya et al ). The top of the Miocene sand deposits can be found between 30‐ and 25‐m asl.…”
Section: Study Sitementioning
confidence: 99%