See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250377594

A Comparison of Electrical Resistivity, Ground Penetrating Radar and Seismic

Refraction Results at a River Terrace Site

Article  in  Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics · December 2008

DOI: 10.2113/JEEG13.4.325

CITATIONS READS

22 1,296

3 authors, including:

Laurence Bentley Peter Dietrich

The University of Calgary University of Tuebingen
137 PUBLICATIONS   1,368 CITATIONS    364 PUBLICATIONS   3,585 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AquiferAnalogue View project

Water and Earth System Science Competence Cluster (WESS) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laurence Bentley on 09 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 325

A Comparison of Electrical Resistivity, Ground Penetrating Radar and Seismic Refraction Results at
a River Terrace Site

Markus Hirsch1,*, Laurence R. Bentley2 and Peter Dietrich3,*

1
UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department Groundwater Remediation,
Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany, Tel: ++49 (0) 341- 235-1506, Fax: ++49 (0) 341-235-1837,
Email: markus.hirsch@ufz.de
2
Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Calgary, 2500 University Drive, NW, Alberta, T2N 1N4 Canada,
Tel: (403) 220-4512, Fax: (403) 284-0074, Email: lbentley@ucalgary.ca
3
UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department Monitoring and Exploration Technologies,
Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany, Tel: ++49 (0) 341- 235-1253, Fax: ++49 (0) 341-235-1837,
Email: peter.dietrich@ufz.de
*
Formerly Center for Applied Geoscience, Applied Geology, University of Tübingen, Sigwartstrasse 10, 72076
Tübingen, Germany

ABSTRACT

Electrical resistivity imaging (ERI), ground penetrating radar (GPR) and seismic
refraction (SRF) profiles were repeated over three lines on a terrace of the Bow River. The
site had a resistive gravel layer overlying mudstone bedrock with horizontal transitions to
lacustrine and overbank deposits. Electrical resistivity results were best for determining changes
in sediment types and detecting boundaries, but the ERI smoothness constraint blurred the
location of the boundaries. The GPR gave the most resolution and showed internal structures
that the other methods did not image. The GPR signal was severely attenuated in several areas
where the surficial sediments became too conductive because of a fine grained component. The
seismic refraction inversion provided good reproduction of the bedrock interface, but it did not
detect changes in the composition of the surficial sediments. It also required the introduction of
a low velocity surficial layer not indicated by the other methods that may be related to the
increase in effective stress with depth. Jointly interpreting the three data sets gives a more
reliable and less ambiguous interpretation than any single method. The data may be useful to
test joint inversion algorithms and are available for download.

Introduction Electrical resistivity imaging (ERI), seismic refrac-

The Pine Creek field site is located on the southern
limits of the city of Calgary in southwest Alberta,
Canada (Fig. 1). The site is the location of a future
waste water treatment facility and potentially a major
research facility that requires a large and reliable flow of
water. Several disadvantages to direct withdrawal of
water from the nearby Bow River existed, so a study of
groundwater extraction potential was conducted. A
geophysical study was performed in the summer of
2004 in support of the hydrogeologic study of the site.
The hydrogeologic study showed that only minimal
groundwater extraction potential existed because of the
elevation of the bedrock and a lack of connectivity of
water bearing gravel to the adjacent Bow River.
Nevertheless, results of the geophysical study provide
a unique data set that illustrates the strengths and
weaknesses of the geophysical methods and the advan-
tages of an integrated interpretation.
tion (SRF) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiles
were each collected over three lines (Fig. 1). Several old
boreholes with geological logs existed along the lines,
allowing for reasonably good verification of the
geophysical interpretations. This control and the repeat-
ed surveys with different methods allowed us to evaluate
the resolution of the methods and the ability to identify
changes in lithology. We only present results from Lines
1 and 2 because Line 3 was only partially covered by
GPR and these two lines are adequate to demonstrate
the main points of the paper. All three lines are
described by Hirsch (2004).
In the following, we will present the geologic
setting of the site, briefly discuss the methods used, and
outline field acquisition parameters and the processing
procedures. We will then compare the results of the
different surveys and discuss the strengths and weak-
nesses. Finally, we will show an integrated interpretation
using all three methods.

JEEG, December 2008, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp. 325–333

326
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics

Figure 1. Location of Pine Creek field site and layout of survey lines.

Field Site deposits. In the west, the terrace is bounded by the

The Pine Creek field site is located on a terrace valley slope. The valley slope is made up of fine-grained
within the Bow River valley. The terrace is mainly lacustrine deposits. In the east, the site is bounded by the
underlain by sand and gravel from channel deposits, present Bow River channel. The terrace ends at a fairly
although some areas contain finer grained overbank steep slope with about five meters drop down to the

Hirsch et al.: A Comparison of Geophysical Methods at a River Terrace Site
Figure 2. Conceptual geological model of a west-east profile.
current river channel, which is at or below the bedrock
level underlying the site. The surficial deposits are
underlain by the weathered surface of the Paskapoo Fm.
bedrock. The Paskapoo Fm. was formed from fluvial
deposits and contains significant mudstone. The bed-
rock surface has been exposed and eroded and is an
uneven and sometimes weathered surface. The average
depth to bedrock is about 5.5 m, and ranges between
2.5 m and 8.5 m. Figure 2 shows the geological concep-
tual model of the field site that we developed from
borehole logs (Thurber Engineering Ltd, 2004) and the
surficial geology setting of Calgary (Moran, 1986).
The field site has 39 boreholes and PVC cased
piezometers with legacy borehole logs (Thurber Engi-
neering Ltd, 2004). The borehole logs provided us with
information about the elevation of geological boundar-
ies. The profile lines for the geophysical measurements
were designed in a way to cross as many borehole
locations as possible.
The campaign consisted of three lines. Two
parallel profile lines (531.5 and 642.0-m length) start
at the western valley slopes and run east towards the
Bow River. The third profile starts in the southern
section of the site and follows the Bow River bank to
the northern site boundary. This profile intersects with
the profiles 1 and 2 and has a total length of 1,257 m.
Only a small portion of the third line was covered by
GPR. The lateral offset from the river bank is about
60 m. The profile lines were collected during the
months of May, June and July 2004. Periodic
monitoring of groundwater levels showed only minor
variations throughout this time. The typical ground-
water level was around six meters below ground
surface and site conditions were generally dry and well
drained.
327
Methods
Lines were laid out using a survey chain. Positions
and elevations were surveyed in with a total station and
a global positioning system (GPS) receiver.
Electrical Resistivity
The ERI data were collected with a StingH system
and the SwiftH switching box manufactured by Ad-
vanced Geosciences, Inc. The system had 56 electrodes
in four sets of electrode cables each containing 14
electrodes. Data were collected using a Wenner array
(range: min n 5 1, max n 5 17) with multiple roll
alongs. Roll alongs were conducted by moving one cable
at a time from the rear of the line to the front of the line
to obtain continuous coverage. In order to obtain both
shallow resolution and sufficient depth penetration,
lines were run with a 2-m unit electrode spacing and
repeated with a 4-m unit electrode spacing. The 2-m and
4-m data sets were combined and then inverted with the
processing software RES2DINV (Loke and Barker,
1996). Usually it took about five iterations to obtain an
RMS error below 3%. A smoothness-constraint least-
squares inversion method was applied.
Ground Penetrating Radar
The GPR survey was conducted with a pulse
EKKO 100H radar unit manufactured by Sensors &
Software Inc. Data were collected with 100-MHz
antennas. Antennas were oriented perpendicular to the
line and separated by 1 m. Measurement points were
separated by 0.5 m. Data processing was done with the
software REFLEXW (Sandmeier, 2004). An average
radar velocity of 0.11 m/ns was estimated from several
common mid point experiments (CMPs) in combination
328
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics
Figure 3. Travel time picks for a) profile 1 and b) profile 2 (for reasons of clarity only a subset of the data is shown).
Examples of layer assignments are shown as open squares (layer 1), grey diamonds (layer 2) and black squares (layer 3)
for two shot gathers.
with well log information. This velocity was used for
time to depth conversion. Data processing steps
included bad trace deletion, alignment of first arrivals
to compensate for shifts between sections of lines run at
different times, dewow, a 20/50 to 120/200 MHz
bandpass filter, manual gain, background removal,
average X-Y smoothing filter and topographic correc-
tion. For background removal, an average trace is built
from a chosen trace range. It is subtracted from the
section to eliminate consistent noise. X-Y smoothing is
accomplished by averaging amplitude values within a
time-space window in order to suppress noise.
Seismic Refraction
Data were recorded with a 60 channel StrataviewH
seismograph manufactured by Geometrics. Multiple
blows from a 16-pound sledgehammer on a metal plate
provided the energy source. Sixty geophones (Oyo-
Geospace GS-20H, 28 Hz) were spaced at two meters.
The geophone spread was moved forward in a
‘‘leapfrog’’ manner. Half of the spread was moved
forward along the profile and the other half that was at
the end of the last spread was kept in place to work as
the beginning of the new geophone spread. Each spread
(0 to 118 m) used five shots while all geophones were
recording. Shots were initiated at 21, 29, 59, 89, 119 m
for each 118-m spread. Noise was produced by activity
in a gravel pit north of the site as well as from wind. In
order to reduce wind noise, most of the geophones were
buried in shallow holes. Due to signal attenuation and
ambient noise, only data for 60 m on either side of the
shotpoints have been used for the refraction inversion.
A selection of arrival times for profiles 1 and 2 are
shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. For clarity,
only a subset of the data is plotted.
Data were processed with the software GLI3D
(Hampson and Russell, 1984). GLI3D requires the
specification of the number of layers and the velocity of
the first layer. The velocity and the thickness of each
layer are adjusted by an inversion algorithm until the
model travel time is consistent with travel time picks.
The velocity and thickness in each layer can vary
laterally, but the velocity within a layer cannot vary
vertically. The algorithm is best suited to regions where
the geology is well modeled by a layered system and is
varying slowly enough that ray-tracing is appropriate.
Initial velocities were determined from first arrival travel
times. As will be discussed in further detail, the data
required a three-layer model. Well logs were used to
produce an initial estimate of depth of geological units.
Based on arrival times and the velocity model, GLI3D
then uses a generalized linear inversion algorithm to

Hirsch et al.: A Comparison of Geophysical Methods at a River Terrace Site
iteratively update the depth of the layer boundaries,
which are not fixed and free to move.
Petrophysics
Before analysing the results, it is useful to review
the expected response of the geophysical methods. We
expect that unsaturated gravel will have resistivity in the
range of thousands of V-m, whereas silts and clays have
lower resistivity due to surface conductance and
normally higher moisture content. Past experience
indicates that the Paskapoo Fm. has variable resistivity
depending on the shale content. However, our experi-
ence in the region is that the Paskapoo Fm. tends to be
shaly and the resistivity is often less than 50 V-m.
GPR reflections are caused by contrasts in the
dielectric permittivity. Reflections are often associated
with changes in soil texture partially due to the variations
in moisture content with texture. We also expect a major
change in dielectric permittivity at the sediment-bedrock
boundary. In addition, GPR signals are attenuated more
rapidly as the electrical resistivity decreases.
Near-surface unconsolidated sediments are expect-
ed to have low seismic velocity, often less than the speed
of sound in air. Velocity will generally increase with
depth as increasing effective stress causes an increase in
the bulk and shear moduli. Previous experience indicates
that the Paskapoo Fm. velocity is generally greater than
2,000 m/s.
Results
Line 1
Figure 4 shows the results of Line 1. Piezometer
locations are shown on the profiles. The bottom of the
piezometers indicates the location of the bedrock
interface and the level of the water table is indicated
by blue filling. Lack of blue filling means that the
piezometer is dry.
The ERI inversions clearly show the high resistiv-
ity gravels overlying the lower resistivity bedrock
(Fig. 4(a)). The resistivity indicates that the soil cover
is extremely thin and, during electrode placement, it was
seen that the soil layer was often only a few centimeters
thick. The thin layer led to some difficulties with
electrode contact resistance. To the southwest, the
gravel thins and a surface layer of more conductive soil
is observed between 0 and 100 m. We interpret this less
resistive sediment as silt that has been deposited from
the adjacent upland. The resistivity contour of approx-
imately 2,000 V-m is correlated with the gravel-bedrock
interface. As the line starts up the slope, there are
indications of an increase in the elevation of the bedrock
beneath the valley wall. The transition zone from 2,000
329
V-m to the underlying lower resistivity of around 50 V-
m is most likely not a geologic transition, but due to the
smoothing constraint of the inversion algorithm.
The GPR profile shows a strong reflector at the
gravel-bedrock interface (Fig. 4(b)). The top of bedrock
elevation is quite variable, consistent with an erosional
surface and the resistivity data. Notably, the depth is
consistent with the borehole logs. The interpretation of
the strong reflector between TH 03–05 and TH 03–06A
is unclear given that it seems to be coming from above
the bedrock, as indicated by the borehole logs. Although
not compelling, there is some indication of a reflection
near the water table at piezometers TH 03–10 and TH
03–6(A). The signal is attenuated below the bedrock
surface, consistent with the low resistivity of the fine
grained Paskapoo bedrock. The gravel layer appears to
pinch out towards the upland starting at around 150 m.
Although the general trend is consistent with the ERI
data, the details appear different. The GPR signal is
attenuated by the lower resistivity silts and there is no
useful signal between 0 and 80 m. Within the gravel, the
GPR profile contains many internal reflectors.
The three-layer refraction inversion model is
shown in Fig. 4(c) and the inversion velocity model is
shown in Fig. 4(d). The top layer, layer 1, has a velocity
that varies between 260 and 330 m/s. Layer 2 is within
the gravel layer and its velocity is approximately 600 m/s.
Layer 3 is the bedrock and its velocity varies between
3,800 and 4,100 m/s. The gravel-bedrock interface is
consistent with the piezometer data. However, the surface
is smoother than either the ERI or GPR images. The thin,
low velocity layer 1 is required to get reasonable
convergence of the inversion. The ERI image does not
show any surficial layer and the GPR has only
intermittent shallow reflections. Our current hypothesis
is that this layer is due to increasing effective stress with
depth; as the overburden stress increases with depth, the
velocity will increase. The increase is most rapid in the
‘‘near surface’’ where the effective stress is low. We
interpret the layer 1-layer 2 interface to be the location
where velocity increase with depth is no longer rapid.
The combined image is shown in Fig. 4(e). For
most of the line, the three methods and the borehole
data are in reasonable agreement. Between 30 and
130 m the refraction image shows inconsistencies with
the GPR and ERI images, especially in the transition
zone between the thick gravel package and the silty
upland region from 32 to 50 m. It may be that the
velocity difference between the gravel and the uncon-
solidated silt is not large, making SRF insensitive to the
sediment change. It also may be that the geology is
changing too rapidly for the GLI3D algorithm, which is
best suited for slowly changing subsurface conditions.
At less than 32 m, in the upland area, the refraction and
330
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics

Figure 4. Results of geophysical measurements on profile 1 : a) ERI, b) GPR, c) seismic refraction layer boundaries, d)
seismic refraction velocity as a function of down line distance for each layer, e) combined image (X = location where
correlation is vague).

ERI images both show two layers and shallow bedrock
beneath the slope. We interpret this as the gravel having
pinched out and a relatively thin section of silt overlying
the bedrock.
Line 2
Line 2 was run parallel to Line 1, 450 m to the
south (Fig. 1). The ERI profile shows the high resistivity
gravels overlying the low resistivity bedrock (Fig. 5(a)).
Similar to Line 1, gravel pinches out to the southwest
where it is overlain by lower resistivity silt from the
upland. In this case, there are two distinct high
resistivity zones interpreted as gravel channels (paleo-
channels) that are separated by a lower resistivity area
centered at approximately 250 m. In the northeast, the
gravel is abruptly truncated at around 500 m. From
500 m on, the near-surface resistivity is lower and we
interpret these sediments as overbank deposits with
perhaps a higher resistivity sand or sandstone lens at
approximately 5 m depth.
 331
Hirsch et al.: A Comparison of Geophysical Methods at a River Terrace Site

Figure 5. Results of geophysical measurements on profile 2: a) ERI, b) GPR, c) seismic refraction layer boundaries, d)
seismic refraction velocity as a function of down line distance for each layer, e) combined image (Y = location where
correlation is vague).

The GPR profile does not have the strong bedrock
interface reflector seen in Line 1 (Fig. 5(b)). The
bedrock location is correlated with a loss of energy.
From 0 to 120 m the GPR has no signal, presumably
due to low resistivity silt deposits originating from the
upland region attenuating the signal. Similarly, there is
little to no penetration from 500 m to the end of the line
due to the change from gravel to overbank deposits.
Careful inspection of the GPR profile in the vicinity of
480 m shows a shallow diffraction pattern originating at
the gravel-overbank deposit boundary, indicating that
the boundary is quite distinct.
332
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics
Figure 6. Geological interpretation for profile 2.
The refraction model shows good agreement with
the depth to bedrock of the piezometer data except at the
location of TH 04–14 (Fig. 5(c)). The velocity of layer 1 is
approximately 200 m/s, layer 2 is 540 to 770 m/s and
layer 3 is 2,500 to almost 4,000 m/s (Fig. 5(d)). Although
the depth to bedrock is well represented, there is no
indication of the transition from gravel to overbank at
480 m. There may be a small velocity contrast between
the overbank and the gravel deposits, or conditions are
changing too rapidly for the GLI3D algorithm, which is
best suited for slightly varying geology.
Up until the transition at 500 m, all the methods
show good agreement with the piezometer data
(Fig. 5(e)), although GPR reflections are not always
present throughout the line. There are some variations
in the results of the individual geophysical approaches in
the transition zone around 500 m, but both the ERI and
refraction results show the bedrock interface to be
deeper than indicated at TH 04–14. TH 04–14 is offset
from the line by 10 m and the mismatch may be due to
the offset. Another possibility is that the velocity is
incorrectly modeled due to the presence of a low velocity
horizon or too much lateral smoothing of layer 2.
Certainly, there is a large variation in the inverted model
velocity of layer 3. Finally, we must always be concerned
about the possibility of out of plane features distorting
the ERI results (Bentley and Gharibi, 2004).
Discussion
The three geophysical methods respond to differ-
ent petrophysical properties, with each method contrib-
uting different information to the interpretation. The
ERI provides good stratigraphic information and is
particularly useful in discriminating between sand and
gravel and overbank deposits. It gives the least
ambiguous picture of the transition between the gravel
and the silt of the upland area. However, the bottom
boundary of the gravel deposits is not precisely located
because of the blurring of the transition caused by the
smoothing constraint. Although this could be improved
by adjusting inversion parameters, it is typical of the
method.
GPR gives extremely good location of the
boundary between the gravel and the bedrock when
there is sufficient penetration. In addition, the GPR
provides some indication of the internal structure of the
gravel and has the best resolution of the three methods.
However, the signal is lost when the surface resistivity
decreases. The method cannot resolve the transition
from gravel to lacustrine sediments, nor the transition to
overbank deposits on the northeast end of Line 2.
The refraction method provides excellent resolution
of the bedrock boundary in most locations. However, it
does not resolve the lithologic transition at 500 m on Line
2. Furthermore, the SRF method cannot provide a
satisfactory resolution of the transition from gravel to
upland on Line 1. Most likely this is due to similarity of
velocity between silt and gravel and the transition from a
three-layer velocity structure to a two-layer velocity
structure. In addition, some question remains as to the
interpretation of Layer 1 that is required for stable
inversions. It may be that a refraction tomography
algorithm would better resolve the lateral changes in
velocity than the layered model used in this study.
Putting all the methods together, along with the
borehole information, gives a high resolution interpre-
tation of the subsurface (e.g., Fig. 6). Having results
from more than one survey reduces the non-uniqueness
of the interpretation. Additionally, in the future multiple
data sets may be simultaneously inverted to improve the
final images and interpretations.
Conclusions
Electrical resistivity, ground penetrating radar and
seismic refraction profiles were repeated over three lines
on a Bow River terrace. Electrical resistivity results were
best for determining changes in sediment types and
detecting boundaries. However, the ERI smoothness
constraint blurred the location of the boundaries. The
GPR gave the most resolution and showed internal
structures that the other methods could not image. On
the other hand, the GPR signal was severely attenuated
in several areas where the surficial sediments became too
conductive due to a fine grained component. The seismic

Hirsch et al.: A Comparison of Geophysical Methods at a River Terrace Site
refraction inversion provided good reproduction of the
bedrock interface, but it did not detect changes in the
composition of the surficial sediments. It also required
the introduction of a low velocity surficial layer that
does not appear to represent a change in sediment type.
Jointly interpreting the three methods gives a more
reliable and less ambiguous interpretation than any
single method.
Presently, methods are being developed for the
joint inversion of different types of geophysical data.
The data used in this study were high quality and
demonstrated the complimentary nature of the different
surveys. Consequently, these profiles are potentially
good data sets for testing joint inversion algorithms. To
that end, the data are available for download at: https://
dspace.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/44835
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the City of Calgary for
funding support and access to the site. The work was also
supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council (NSERC) of Canada.
333
References
Bentley, L.R., and Gharibi, M., 2004, Two and three-
dimensional electrical resistivity imaging at a heteroge-
neous remediation site: Geophysics, 69, 674–680.
Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1984, First-break interpretation
using generalized linear inversion: Journal of the
Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 20,
40–54.
Hirsch, M., 2004, Geophysical survey on Pine Creek field site,
Calgary, AB, Canada: M.Sc. thesis, University of
Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Loke, M.H., and Barker, R.D., 1996, Rapid least-squares
inversion of apparent resistivity pseudo-sections using
quasi-Newton method: Geophysical Prospecting, 44,
131–152.
Moran, S.R., 1986, Surficial geology of the Calgary urban
area: Bulletin No. 53, Alberta Research Council, Ed-
monton, Canada.
Sandmeier, K.J., 2004. REFLEXW Vers. 3.5, manual,
Karlsruhe, Germany.
Thurber Engineering Ltd., 2004, Geotechnical Investigation
Pine Creek wastewater treatment plant – stage 1,
Report, Calgary, Canada.