Advertisement

Geological and Hydrogeological Characterization of Subsurface

  • Daniel HunkelerEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

Investigations on the origin and fate of hydrocarbons in the subsurface heavily rely on information on the geological and hydrogeological characteristics of the subsurface. This chapter presents different methods to characterize the geological structure of the subsurface, to quantify its hydraulic conductivity, to determine groundwater flow velocity and to characterize the contaminant distribution. The methods range from simple field tests that can be rapidly implemented to advanced methods that provide detailed information on subsurface properties and contaminant distribution at a high spatial resolution.

Keywords:

Drilling methods Geophysics Hydraulic testing Sampling 

References

  1. 1.
    Weight WD (2008) Hydrogeology field manual. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hadley PW, Newell C (2014) The new potential for understanding groundwater contaminant transport. Ground Water 52:174–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Binley A, Hubbard SS, Huisman JA, Revil A, Robinson DA, Singha K, Slater LD (2015) The emergence of hydrogeophysics for improved understanding of subsurface processes over multiple scales. Water Resour Res 51:3837–3866CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keys WS (1990) Borehole geophysics applied to ground-water investigations, Techniques of water-resources investigations of the United States Geological Survey. USGS, Washington, p. Chapter E2Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wonik T, Hinsby K (2006) Borehole logging in hydrogeology. In: Kirsch R, Rumpel H-M, Scheer W, Wiederhold H (eds) Groundwater resources in buried valleys – a challenge for geosciences. Leibnitz Institute for Applied Geosciences, Hannover, pp 107–122Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loke MH, Chambers JE, Rucker DF, Kuras O, Wilkinson PB (2013) Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. J Appl Geophys 95:135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atekwana EA, Atekwana EA (2010) Geophysical signatures of microbial activity at hydrocarbon contaminated sites: a review. Surv Geophys 31:247–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrington GA, Hendry MJ (2006) Using direct-push EC logging to delineate heterogeneity in a clay-rich aquitard. Ground Water Monit Rem 26:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulmeister MK, Butler JJ, Healey JM, Zheng L, Wysocki DA, McCall GW (2003) Direct-push electrical conductivity logging for high-resolution hydrostratigraphic characterization. Ground Water Monit Rem 23:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sellwood SM, Healey JM, Birk S, Butler JJ (2005) Direct-push hydrostratigraphic profiling: coupling electrical logging and slug tests. Ground Water 43:19–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butler JJ, Dietrich P, Wittig V, Christy T (2007) Characterizing hydraulic conductivity with the direct-push permeameter. Ground Water 45:409–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butler JJ, Healey JM, McCall GW, Garnett EJ, Loheide SP (2002) Hydraulic tests with direct-push equipment. Ground Water 40:25–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dietrich P, Butler JJ, Faiss K (2008) A rapid method for hydraulic profiling in unconsolidated formations. Ground Water 46:323–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zschornack L, Bohling GC, Butler JJ Jr, Dietrich P (2013) Hydraulic profiling with the direct-push permeameter: assessment of probe configuration and analysis methodology. J Hydrol 496:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adamson D, Chapman S, Mahler N, Newell C, Parker B, Pitkin S, Rossi M, Singletary M (2014) Membrane interface probe protocol for contaminants in low-permeability zones. Groundwater 52:550–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bumberger J, Radny D, Berndsen A, Goblirsch T, Flachowsky J, Dietrich P (2012) Carry-over effects of the membrane interface probe. Ground Water 50:578–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geoprobe (2015) Geoprobe membrane interface (MIP). Standard operating procedure. Technical Bulletin No. MK3010, Geoprobe Systems, Salina, p 39Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Köber R, Hornbruch G, Leven C, Tischer L, Grossmann J, Dietrich P, Weiss H, Dahmke A (2009) Evaluation of combined direct-push methods used for aquifer model generation. Ground Water 47:536–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruseman GP, de Ridder NA (2000) Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gottlieb J, Dietrich P (1995) Identification of permeability distribution in soil by hydraulic tomography. Inverse Probe 11:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yeh TCJ, Liu SY (2000) Hydraulic tomography: development of a new aquifer test method. Water Resour Res 36:2095–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bohling GC, Butler JJ Jr (2010) Inherent limitations of hydraulic tomography. Ground Water 48:809–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Labaky W, Devlin JF, Gillham RW (2009) Field comparison of the point velocity probe with other groundwater velocity measurement methods. Water Resour Res 45, W00D30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drost W, Klotz D, Koch A, Moser H, Neumaier F, Rauert W (1968) Point dilution methods of investigating ground water flow by means of radioisotopes. Water Resour Res 4:125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flynn RM, Schnegg PA, Costa R, Mallen G, Zwahlen F (2005) Identification of zones of preferential groundwater tracer transport using a mobile downhole fluorometer. Hydrogeol J 13:366–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hatfield K, Annable M, Cho JH, Rao PSC, Klammler H (2004) A direct passive method for measuring water and contaminant fluxes in porous media. J Contam Hydrol 75:155–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klammler H, Hatfield K, Annable MD (2007) Concepts for measuring horizontal groundwater flow directions using the passive flux meter. Adv Water Resour 30:984–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kearl PM (1997) Observations of particle movement in a monitoring well using the colloidal borescope. J Hydrol 200:323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Labaky W, Devlin JF, Gillham RW (2007) Probe for measuring groundwater velocity at the centimeter scale. Environ Sci Technol 41:8453–8458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cherry JA, Gilham RW, Anderson EG, Johnson PE (1983) Hydrogeological studies of a sand aquifer at an abondoned landfill: 2. Groundwater monitoring devices. J Hydrol 63:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ducommun P, Boutsiadou X, Hunkeler D (2013) Direct-push multilevel sampling for unconsolidated aquifers. Hydrogeol J 21:1901–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Hydrogeology and Geothermics (CHYN)University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations