NS43A-1954
Seasonal Variations in Subsurface Electrical Resistivity in a Floodplain Aquifer
Thursday, 17 December 2015
Poster Hall (Moscone South)
Adam Esker and Scott T Marshall, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, United States
Abstract:
In an attempt to create a three-dimensional model of a floodplain aquifer along the New River in western North Carolina, we have collected numerous DC electrical resistivity profiles over the course of six years. Unfortunately, the electrical resistivity of geologic materials can be partially controlled by temperature and water content which both vary temporally. To determine the extent to which resistivity data is affected by temporal variations at our site, we conducted multiple DC electrical resistivity surveys collected at the same location at various times of the year to quantify changes in the resistivity patterns. We use a Wenner array that offers a large signal to noise ratio, but relatively few data points, and a Dipole-Dipole array that produces more data, but is more sensitive to noise. For each data acquisition date, we measure the depth to water at seven boreholes parallel to the survey to determine if any of the collected resistivity surveys can be independently used to detect the water table and if any changes affect subsurface resistivities. We created a stacked model of all surveys of the same array type, and compare to each survey to qualitatively and quantitatively identify changes in the subsurface patterns. Results indicate there are few major changes in the qualitative subsurface patterns with time. RMS errors between the stacked model and different surveys range from 56 to 201 Ohm-m and percent differences range from 5.84% to 21.50%. The surveys with largest RMS errors correspond to days that had a significant change of water table level from the static level. Our preliminary results suggest that so long as surveys are collected during similar water table conditions, data from multiple years should yield similar results. Furthermore, the subsurface resistivity values and GPR surveys do not clearly delineate the water table levels, suggesting that near surface geophysical methods many not be able to detect the water table at our site.