This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.


There is a need to better characterize discrete fractures in contaminated hard rock aquifers to determine the fate of remediation injections away from boreholes and also to evaluate hydraulic fracturing performance. A synthetic cross-borehole electrical resistivity study was conducted assuming a discrete fracture model of an existing contaminated site with known fracture locations. Four boreholes and two discrete fracture zones, assumed to be the dominant electrical and hydraulically conductive pathways, were explicitly modeled within an unstructured tetrahedral mesh. We first evaluated different regularization constraints starting with an uninformed smoothness-constrained inversion, to which a priori information was incrementally added. We found major improvements when (1) smoothness regularization constraints were relaxed (or disconnected) along boreholes and fractures, (2) a homogeneous conductivity was assumed along boreholes, and (3) borehole conductivity constraints that could be determined from a specific conductance log were applied. We also evaluated the effect of including borehole packers on fracture zone model recovery. We found that the fracture zone conductivities with the inclusion of packers were comparable to similar trials excluding the use of packers regardless of electrical potential changes. The misplacement of fracture regularization disconnects (FRDs) can easily be misinterpreted as actual fracture locations. Conductivities within these misplaced disconnects were near the starting model value, and removing smoothing between boreholes and assumed fracture locations helped in identifying incorrectly located FRDs. We found that structural constraints used after careful evaluation of a priori information are critical to improve imaging of fracture electrical conductivities, locations, and orientations.


  • Binley, A., and A. Kemna, 2005, DC resistivity and induced polarization methods, in Rubin, Y.S. Hubbard, eds., Hydrogeophysics: Springer, 129–156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brown, D., and L. Slater, 1999, Focused packer testing using geophysical tomography and CCTV in a fissured aquifer: Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 32, 173–183, doi: 10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1999.032.P2.07.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Constable, S. C., R. L. Parker, and C. G. Constable, 1987, Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data: Geophysics, 52, 289–300, doi: 10.1190/1.1442303.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Coscia, I., S. Greenhalgh, N. Linde, J. Doetsch, L. Marescot, T. Günther, T. Vogt, and A. Green, 2011, 3D crosshole ERT for aquifer characterization and monitoring of infiltrating river water: Geophysics, 76, no. 2, G49–G59, doi: 10.1190/1.3553003.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Daily, W., A. Ramirez, A. Binley, and D. LaBrecque, 2005, Electrical resistance tomography — Theory and practice, in Butler, D. K., ed., Near-surface geophysics: SEG Investigations in Geophysics 13, 525–550.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • deGroot-Hedlin, C., and S. Constable, 1990, Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data: Geophysics, 55, 1613–1624, doi: 10.1190/1.1442813.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Doetsch, J. A., I. Coscia, S. Greenhalgh, N. Linde, A. Green, and T. Günther, 2010, The borehole-fluid effect in electrical resistivity imaging: Geophysics, 75, no. 4, F107–F114, doi: 10.1190/1.3467824.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Farquharson, C. G., 2008, Constructing piecewise-constant models in multidimensional minimum-structure inversions: Geophysics, 73, no. 1, K1–K9, doi: 10.1190/1.2816650.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Haimson, B. C., and F. H. Cornet, 2003, ISRM suggested methods for rock stress estimation — Part 3: Hydraulic fracturing (HF) and/or hydraulic testing of pre-existing fractures (HTPF): International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40, 1011–1020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.08.002.IRMGBG0148-9062CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Johnson, T. C., R. J. Versteeg, A. Ward, F. Day-Lewis, and A. Revil, 2010, Improved hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring through parallel modeling and inversion time-domain resistivity and induced-polarization data: Geophysics, 75, no. 4, WA27–WA41, doi: 10.1190/1.3475513.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Kemna, A., J. Vanderborght, B. Kulessa, and H. Vereecken, 2002, Imaging and characterization of subsurface solute transport using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and equivalent transport models: Journal of Hydrology, 267, 125–146, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00145-2.JHYDA70022-1694CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Lacombe, P. J., and W. C. Burton, 2010, Hydrogeologic framework of fractured sedimentary rock, Newark Basin, New Jersey: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 30, 35–45, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2010.01275.x.GWMREV1069-3629CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Lowry, T., M. B. Allen, and P. N. Shive, 1989, Singularity removal: A refinement of resistivity modeling techniques: Geophysics, 54, 766–774, doi: 10.1190/1.1442704.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Michot, D., Y. Benderitter, A. Dorigny, B. Nicoullaud, D. King, and A. Tabbagh, 2003, Spatial and temporal monitoring of soil water content with an irrigated corn crop cover using surface electrical resistivity tomography: Water Resources Research, 39, 1138–1158, doi: 10.1029/2002WR001581.WRERAQ0043-1397CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Nimmer, R., J. Osiensky, A. Binley, K. Sprenke, and B. Williams, 2007, Electrical resistivity imaging of conductive plume dilution in fractured rock: Hydrogeology Journal, 15, 877–890, doi: 10.1007/s10040-007-0159-z.HJYOAW1431-2174CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Nimmer, R. E., J. Osiensky, A. Binley, and B. Williams, 2008, Three-dimensional effects causing artifacts in two-dimensional, cross-borehole, electrical imaging: Journal of Hydrology, 359, 59–70, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.022.JHYDA70022-1694CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Robert, T., D. Caterina, J. Deceuster, O. Kaufmann, and F. Nguyen, 2012, Case history: A salt tracer test monitored with surface ERT to detect preferential flow and transport paths in fractured/karstified limestones: Geophysics, 77, no. 2, B55–B67, doi: 10.1190/geo2011-0313.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Rücker, C., T. Günther, and K. Spitzer, 2006, Three-dimensional modeling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography — I. Modeling: Geophysical Journal International, 166, 495–505, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03010.x.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Slater, L., and A. Binley, 2006a, Engineered barriers for pollutant containment and remediation, in Vereeken, H.A. BinleyG. CassianiA. RevilK. Titov, eds., Applied hydrogeophysics: NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Springer, 293–317.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Slater, L., and A. Binley, 2006b, Synthetic and field-based electrical imaging of a zerovalent iron barrier: Implications for monitoring long-term barrier performance: Geophysics, 71, no. 5, B129–B137, doi: 10.1190/1.2235931.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Slater, L., A. Binley, and D. Brown, 1997, Electrical imaging of fractures using ground-water salinity change: Ground Water, 35, 436–442, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1997.tb00103.x.GRWAAP0017-467XCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Stummer, P., M. Hansruedi, and A. Green, 2004, Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information: Geophysics, 69, 120–139, doi: 10.1190/1.1649381.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Sugimoto, Y., 1999, Shallow high-resolution 2-D and 3-D electrical crosshole imaging: The Leading Edge, 18, 1425–1428, doi: 10.1190/1.1438244.1070-485XAbstractGoogle Scholar