Relations Between Permeability and Electrical Resistivity in Granular Aquifers by David Huntley* ABSTRACT Increased demand for quantitative answers to ground water problems, particularly associated with the use of ‘numerical models, has increased the need to accurately determine the distribution of hydraulic parameters. Researchers have attempted to find correlations bewween eleerrical resistivity and the permeability of fresh-water aguifers since 1951, Several recent studies report either direct oF inverse relations between apparent formation factor and aquifer permeability, The basis for these relations isa diceet or inverse relation between porosity and perme- ability and, as mattix conduction effects are nor taken into account, constant fluid conductivity is either implicitly or explicitly assumed Laboratory experiments conducted on granular materials suggest that matrix conduction (surface conduc tion) effects are cither as important as, or dominant over, porosity-permeability relations, Our experiments on granular materials show only weak relations between true formation factor and permeability, Relations between apparent forma- tion factor and permeability ate good only for constant fluid conductiviey, Most importantly, the strongest relation. ship found was that between permeability and matrix conductivity. ‘These data suggest either that (1) relations beeween permeability and apparent formation factor must be applied in very restricted geologic environments and only ‘where fluid conductivity remains relatively constant, oF (2) more fundamental relations between matrix conductivity and aquifer permeability should be applied “Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diogo, California 92182. Received June 1985, revised October 1985, accepted Devember 1985, Discussion open until January 1, 1987 466 INTRODUCTION Increased demand for quantitative solutions to ground-water flow and solute transport problems is placing increased pressure on the field hydro- geologist to not only accurately assess hydraulic parameters at specific sites, but to accurately assess the distribution of hydraulic parameters. Prior to the widespread application of numerical modeling for problem solution, qualitative answers directing clients toward areas of least or greatest perme- ability, for example, were sufficient. Currently, however, digital models with numerical, truncation, and rounding errors of less than 1%, are being used extensively to predict water-level and water-quality changes in response to hydrologic stresses. The accuracy of these models does not, therefore, depend upon the numerical scheme chosen, but upon the accuracy of the hydraulic parameters used in those models Hydrogeologists have used electrical resistivity ‘measurements to qualitatively assess permeability of deposits for decades. Zohdy (1965), Page (1969), Meidav (1960), and many others have all used resistivity profiling and sounding to qualita. tively delineate regions of higher and lower perme- ability in alluvial and glacial sediments, typically by observing resistivity contrasts between clay-rich, low-permeability deposits and clay-poor, high- permeability deposits. ‘The appeal of trying to quantify the relation- ship between aquifer permeability and resistivity is undeniable. It has been our experience that, under typical conditions, 10 electrical resistivity soundings can be taken during the time it takes to conduct a Vol. 24, No, 4-GROUND WATER July-August 1986single aquifer test at a depth of 100 ft. In addition, a resistivity sounding measures the resistivity of a volume of sediment comparable to that affected by an aquifer test. A correlation between electrical resistivity and permeability would therefore allow one to accurately interpolate permeability or trans missivity between pump-test sites, substantially increasing the confidence with which numerical models can be applied. Researchers have attempted to quantify correlations between electrical resistivity and permeability of fresh-water aquifers since 1951 (Jones and Buford, 1951). Several recent studies (Kelly, 1977; Kosinski and Kelly, 1981; Heigold and others, 1979; Biella and others, 1983; Mazac and Landa, 1979; Mazac and others, 1985) report both direct and inverse relations between electrical resistivity and permeability. ‘The purpose of this paper is to present the results of some laboratory experiments conducted using glacial and alluvial deposits which point out the importance of matrix conduction (Worthington, 1977) upon electrical properties of unconsolidated and consolidated materials, We therefore will note how matrix conduction effects influence the con clusions of previous studies, THEORY AND BACKGROUND ‘The electrical resistivity of a saturated rock or sediment is « function of the porosity, the electrical resistivity of the saturating fluid, the resistivity of the solid rock or soil, the surface conductance of the rock or soil, and the tortuosity of the fluid and electrical path (Urish, 1981). For fluids of high salinity (low electrical resistivity) saturating clay free sediment, itis typically assumed that all of the electricity is conducted by the fluid through the pore space. In this case, the ratio py/pw (where x = measured total resistivity, and pw = fluid resistivity) remains constant with varying fluid resistivity and is called the intrinsic formation factor. It can be shown both theoretically (Urish, 1981) and empirically (Archie, 1942) that the intrinsic formation factor in clay-free sediments is dependent only upon the formation porosity and tortuosity. Any relation between intrinsic formation factor and permeability must depend upon a rela~ tion between permeability and porosity; perme- ability and formation factor will be inversely related if the porosity/permeability relation is direct. This direct relationship between porosity and perme- ability exists where pore size is constant or where pore size varies directly with porosity. Heigold and others (1979) report just such a resulting inverse 10° 95% Confidence ‘Band Zio g 2 10 ho 2 34 6 80 Apparent Formation Factor dota from Heigold and others (1979) Fig. 1. Apparent formation factor/hydraulie conductivity relations for Illinois glacial outwash aquifer. relation (Figure 1) between formation factor and hydraulic conductivity, where hydraulic conduc tivity is simply the product of permeability and the ratio of the specific weight to the viscosity of water. It should be noted, though, that it is based on only a few data points, and the 95% confidence band is very broad; at the 95% confidence level, the relation could be either inverse or direct, Mazac and Landa (1979) similarly reported inverse relations between resistivity and hydraulic condue- tivity. Conversely, if porosity and permeability are inversely related, permeability and formation factor should be directly related. Again, Kelly (1977) and Kosinski and Kelly (1981) report such a direct relationship for glaciofluvial sands and explain the relation using the dependence of permeability upon porosity. ‘the relation determined by Kelly (1977), however, is based on only five data points, and the 95% confidence band is very broad (Figure 4672);at the 95% confidence level, the relation could again be direct or inverse, Later direct relations between resistivity and hydraulic conductivity (Kosinski and Kelly, 1981; Kelly and Reiter, 1984) include more data points, but are from the same geologic environment. As hydraulic conductivity is linearly related to porosity and to the square of the pore diameter (Freeze and Cherry, 1979), an empirical inverse relation between porosity and hydraulic conduc- tivity must rely upon a secondary inverse relation between porosity and pore size. Urish (1981), citing Kezdi (1974), concludes that fine-grained material (low hydraulic conductivity) is frequently ‘more uniform and exhibits a higher porosity than coarse-grained material. ‘The direct relations observed between resistivity and permeability do not, therefore, depend on any fundamental theoretical link between porosity and permeability, but on the observation of a generally inverse relation between porosity and grain size (pore size) 95% Confidence Band Hydraulic Conductivity (em/sec) tot 95% Confidence Band 1o?+ 10 2 3 4° 6 810 Apparent Formation Factor dota trom Kelly (1977) Fig. 2, Apparent formation factor/hydraulic conductivity relations for New England glaciofluvial deposits. 468 produced by depositional environment, and the dependence of permeability on the pore size squared It has been recognized for some time that, for low-salinity waters and/or shaley or clayey formations, the assumption that all electrical conductance is through fluid-filled pore space is, erroneous (Patnode and Wyllie, 1950), Most authors have used a parallel resistor model to evaluate the effects of electrical conductance through other than the fluid, Patnode and Wyllie (1950), Worthington (1977), and Urish (1991) show that tora RO Rw Ry Rm . where R, = bulk measured resistance of the sample, Ry = resistance of fluid in pores, Ry = resistance of grains or rock, and Ry = resistance along surface Of grains or rock due to surface conductance effects, referred to as matrix conduction ‘The magnitude of the electrical resistance of the rock or grains is significantly greater than that of the fluid and that due to surface conduction so, even for low-salinity fluids, equation (1) reduces to gd I 2 Ry Rm | Applying the relations between electrical resistance and resistivity results in tl re) or pw pm where pry is as defined above, F = intrinsic forma- tion factor (formation factor for high-salinity fluids), and pm = matrix resistivity (duc to surface conductance). ‘thus, if Fy where Fg = apparent (measured) formation factor, then below bw = a FF om s or Fy = Fom/om + Few) (5) It is important to note that the ratio between the measured bulk resistivity and the fluid resisti ity, the apparent formation factor, varies as a function of the fluid resistivity. ‘The apparent formation factor is not only a function of rock properties. As an example, the relation between the apparent formation factor and the fluid resis-ie eal Fig, 3. Variation of apparent formation factor with fluid specific conductance for well-sorted, clay-free, medium: rained sand, tivity (or specific conductance) was determined in the laboratory as part of this study (Figure 3). This sample was a medium-grained, clay-free sand. In this example, the apparent formation factor varies from 2.3 to 3.3 over the normal usable range of ground-water specific conductances of 100 to 1000 umhos/em (corresponding approximately to 70 to 700 mg/l TDS). The most rapid change in apparent formation factor occurs at specific con- ductances of less than 500 umhos/cm (approxi mately less than 350 mg/l TDS) and the apparent formation factor asymptotically approaches the true formation factor at increasing salinities. Decreasing matrix resistivity, which will occur with decreasing grain size or increasing clay content, will increase the dependence of apparent formation factor upon fluid salinity and increase the range of salinity over which apparent formation factor is strongly dependent upon salinity. ‘The impact on permeability formation factor correlations of this dependence of apparent forma- tion factor on fluid salinity is exemplified in Figure 4, which shows the previously established relation- ship between permeability and apparent formation factor of Kosinski and Kelly (1981) expanded to include the 95% confidence band and the potential variability of apparent formation factor. Horizontal lines drawn through individual data points on this graph represent the range of possible apparent formation factor for a constant true formation factor, constant matrix resistivity, and range of fluid resistivities that correspond to normal fresh- water salinities. Examination of this figure suggests that predicted hydraulic conductivities could be in error by nearly an order of magnitude because of variation of apparent formation factor with fluid salinity and scatter in the original apparent formation factor/hydraulic conductivity relation- ship. These samples were all reported to be relatively clay-free, Therefore, matrix resistivities used to calculate the range of apparent formation factors were high (on the order of 2000 £2-m). Samples with more clay would have a much wider range of apparent formation factor using the same range of fluid salinity LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS To further examine permeability resistivity relationships, laboratory experiments on glacio fluvial sands from Connecticut and fluvial sands from southern California were conducted. ‘The purpose of the laboratory experiments was to separate apparent formation factor, true formation factor, and matrix resistivity for clay-free samples and evaluate the relationship cach has with permeability 10? 95% Confidence Bond lo" Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec) loz t 2 3 456 810 20 Apparent Formation Factor dota from Kosinski ‘and Kelly (1981) Fig. 4. Apparent formation factor/hydraulic conductivity relations for New England glaciofluvial deposits. Circlos represent data points, horizontal lines through data points represent possible range of apparent formation factor for typical ground-water salinity range, 469oat ee 0.0018 (1/40-m)) n= 750 0-m formation factor for a well-sorted, clay-ree, medium: ‘rained sand, F = true formation factor; fy = matrix resistivity, Inspection of equation (4) shows that, if sample resistivity is measured with several different fluid salinities, a plot of the inverse of the catculated apparent formation factor versus fluid resistivity will produce a straight line with a slope equal to the inverse of the matrix resistivity and an intercept equal to the inverse of the true formation factor (Figure 5), An apparatus was designed to measure the resistivity of unconsolidated sands saturated with fluids of varying salinity. ‘The apparatus consists of a 1 m long, 8 cm diameter plexiglass tube packed with a sand sample. A perforated copper disk was located at the top and bottom of the sand column and was used to supply current to the column. A voltage drop was measured between two electrodes separated by 20 cm along the axis, of the tube, thereby allowing us to calculate the resistivity of the sample, Current was supplied with a square wave generator at frequencies of 2 t0 10 Hz, and the voltage drop was measured with either a digital voltmeter or oscilloscope. In some cases, a Bison 2390 resistivity unit was used to both supply current and measure voltage drops in order to check the results of the other instrumentation Manometers were located at the top and bottom of the sand column and, together with measured discharge through the column, were used to calculate hydraulic conductivity of the sand under constant-head conditions, Fluid electrical conductivity was varied from one measurement to the next by introducing the new fluid at the top of the column and waiting until the old fluid was thorougtily flushed from the column. This was 470 verified by measurements of the specific conduc tance of the fluid discharging from the bottom of the column. ‘Typical measurements on a single sand sample consisted of a measure of hydraulic conductivity at the beginning and end of a group ‘of measurements, and measurement of sample resistivity with four to five fluid resistivities, ranging from 10 2-m (1000 wmhos/em) to 100 $2-m (100 wmhos/em), ‘This procedure was applied to 10 samples of clay-free, well-sorted sand ranging from fine sand to coarse sand in size (Table 1), The sand samples for this experiment consisted of artificial sand produced by sieving samples of clean fluvial and beach sand to obtain uniform-sized samples. All samples consisted only of quartz and feldspar. The fine- and medium-grained samples tended to be moderately well-rounded, whereas the coarse samples were more angular. strong linear rela~ tionship, like that shown for the 0.059 mm sand (Figure 5) was observed between fluid resistivity and the inverse of the apparent formation factor in all cases, As in the data of Kosinski and Kelly (1981), fair to good direct relationships between hydraulic conductivity and apparent formation factor were observed (typical cortelation coefficients were about 0.82), but only if fluid conductivity remained relatively constant (Figure 6). If fluid conduetiviey is allowed to vary (horizontal lines through data points in Figure 6), any usable relationship disappears. Unlike previous work, however, we also have determined the intrinsic formation factor (Figure 7) and matrix resistivity (Figure 8). Intrinsic formation factor appears to be directly related to hydraulic conductivity, but the slope of the line is Table 1. Hydraulic and Electrical Data for Uniform-Sized, Quartz/Feldspar Sands “Mean Hydraulic navn Marri ‘grain sive conductivity formation resistivity fa) (omssee) factor (Qe) os oot 3.0 41 21 027 313 820 027 0.087 3.16 991 032 0.0885, 337 953. 039 0.093 337 856 0.086, 0.096 38 950 0.059 0.178 Ba 750 0.84 047 43 2,640 1s 0.720 3.88 1,346 23 5.09 388 136610° conductivity, and the slope is such that the relationship is usable. Similar procedures were applied to 17 samples of glaciofluvial sands from Connecticut. These samples were unsieved and therefore represent a range in grain sizes, though most are moderately 1000 pmo 7em lo! 95% Confidence Band Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec) 3 ° ' 2 34 6 810 Apparent Formation Factor ined, well-orted, clay free sands. Gircles represent data points for fluid conductivity of 250 mhos/em, horizontal lines represent range of measured apparent formation factor for specific conductance range of 100 jumhos/em to 1000 umhos/em. Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec) 3 so steep that small errors in formation factor produce large errors in predicted values of hydraulic conductivity. The equation of the resulting linear log-log relationship is K=ak™, where K = hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec), constant [4.3(10) cm/sec] , F = intrinsic formation factor, and m = constant which could be 10-72 between 6.5 and 21 at the 95% confidence level. 1 10 the relationship between matrix resistivity and hydraulic conductivity (Figure 8) is potentially True Formation Factor more useful, although significant data scatter does Fig. 7. True formation factor/hydraulie conductivity rela exist, Matrix resistivity increases in a linear fashion tions for artificial fine- to coarse-grained, well-sorted, (on log-log scales) with increasing hydraulic lay-free sands. NATIONAL WeTER WELL ASSN, i 471well to well-sorted. All samples were effectively clay-free, and were taken from the same environ: ment used for the field measurements of Kelly (1977) and Kosinski and Kelly (1981). Porosities varied from 0.20 to 0.44, but there was no statistically significant relationship observed between porosity and hydraulic conductivity. ‘The relation observed between matrix resistiv- ity and hydraulic conductivity for the glaciofluvial sand (igure 9) was similar to that observed for the artificial sands described above. The slopes of the lines relating matrix resistivity and hydraulic conductivity are not significantly different for the ‘two data sets at the 95% confidence level DISCUSSION Ground-water hydrologists have for some time attempted to relate electrical resistivity to permeability of sediments. This attempt has typically been based upon the inverse relation between porosity and the formation factor of a sediment, and direct or inverse relations between the porosity and permeability of the sediment. Development of Darcy’s equation from fundamen tal considerations of fluid mechanics (Pouiselle’s equation for laminar flow in pipes, for example) shows that permeability should be directly propor tional to porosity and to the square of the pore diameter, If porosity and pore diameter vary inde: pendently, then, porosity and permeability should be directly related; therefore, permeability and formation factor should be inversely related. ‘This has been described in the literature. Biella and others (1983) present the results of experiments that show an inverse relation between permeability and formation factor, for constant grain-size samples. That is, as long as the sediment grain size, or more importantly the sediment pore size, remains constant, a direct relation between porosity and permeability exists, and an inverse relation between permeability and formation factor can be demonstrated. Typically, however, because of the control depositional environment plays in both porosity and grain size, variation of the two parameters is not independent. Urish (1981), for example, refers to empirical inverse relations between porosity and grain size cited by Kezdi (1974). Because perme- ability is controlied by the square of the pore siz variation of grain size affects the resulting perme- ability in a more significant fashion than porosity. Where porosity and grain size are inversely related, permeability increases with increasing grain size, and the decrease in porosity is a secondary effect, 472 10! 10° sg ° § es Zio" 2 5 8 3 8 3B = los 95% Confidence Band los loz tos 10% Matrix Resistivity (Q-m) Fig. 8. Matrix resistivity/hydraulie conductivity relations {or artifical fine- to coarse-grained, wellsorted, clay free fluvial sands. lo" 95% Confidence Band Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec) 3 102 108 10% Matrix Resistivity (=m) Fig. 9. Matrix resistivity/hydraulie conductivity relations for Connecticut glaciofluvial sands,related to the depositional environment. the direet relation between permeability and formation factor found by a number of workers is therefore a second-order relation, strongly dependent upon the particular depositional environment for which the relation is determined. The weakness of this approach, therefore, is that the relation between formation factor and permeability will vary signifi- cantly from one depositional environment to the next, and may even vary within a single environ- ‘ment (from the head to the toe of an alluvial fan, for example). This suggests that a large number of aquifer tests should be conducted in each area to determine a statistically significant relation between formation factor and permeability for that basin. ‘The obvious drawback, however, is that the uscful- ness of resistivity as a way of estimating perme- ability is minimized if we already have acquired a large amount of hydraulic data through aquifer tests, A second factor that complicates the use of correlations between formation factor and perme- ability is the influence of variable water salinity on the calculated formation factor. As shown in Figure 3 of this paper, there is significant variation between the intrinsic formation factor and the ‘measured or apparent formation factor, even for clean sands. his is particularly true in the range of salinities up to 400 mg/l, As clay content increases, this variation between intrinsic and apparent formation factor will become greater. Correlations between formation factor and permeability, in addition to being dependent upon the depositional environment, also assume that the water salinity remains relatively constant through the basin. Our work suggests that an alternative approach to the problem is one that utilizes more fundamen- tal relations between permeability and matrix resistivity. Variations in matrix resistivity depend upon variations in the surface conductance effect. Surface conductance is greater for clays than for sands, so increasing clay content will result in decreasing matrix resistivity. Additionally, our work shows that variations of surface conductance are significant even in clean sands. As the grain size decreases, the specific surface area increases and the surface conductance therefore incteases. Two factors, increasing clay content and decreasing grain size, both act to decrease matrix resistivity and permeability. ‘The direct relation shown between matrix resistivity and permeability in this paper is therefore not surprising. It is important to note that this relation does not appear to be dependent upon the depositional environment. Artificial sands from California were found to have the same relation as glaciofluvial sands from Connecticut ‘The drawback to this alternative approach is in the application to the field. We do not havea way to directly measure matrix resistivity in the field. One approach, which we have not attempted as yet, is to conduct both a resistivity and a seismic refraction survey of the same site. The seismic velocity can be used to estimate the sediment porosity, and therefore the intrinsic formation factor. This, together with the measured apparent, formation factor, can be used to calculate the matrix resistivity with equation (4), ‘The obvious risk with this procedure is that errors accumulate in the final term, potentially producing large errors in the estimated permeability. ‘A more significant result of our work is the recognition that surface conductance varies signifi- cantly with geain size in clean sands, ‘This suggests that a similar property, the chargeability of sediments, determined in induced polarization surveys, may be a better indicator of formation permeability than resistivity techniques. CONCLUSIONS 1. The ratio between the measured bulk resistivity and the measured fluid resistivity, the apparent formation factor, varies significantly with varying fluid resistivity for the range of normal ground-water salinities, ‘The variance will increase with decreasing matrix resistivity (decreasing grain size or increasing clay content) 2. Any relation developed between perme- ability and apparent formation factor should be used warily, if at all, because: (a) It is valid only for the limited geologic environment for which it was derived. Kelly (1977) and Kosinski and Kelly (1981) report direct rela- tionships. Heigold and others (1979) report an inverse relationship for sediments. A slight change in the geologic environment could produce a change in slope of the relation producing erroneous values of predicted hydraulic conductivity. (b) It is valid only for nearly constant fluid salinity, even for clay-free materials. If any clays are present, variations of apparent formation factor with fluid salinity are likely to produce large errors in estimated hydraulic conductivity, 3. More fundamental parameters than apparent formation factor appear to be related to hydraulic conductivity. If, as Heigold and others (1979) and Kosinski and Kelly (1981) suggest, the observed permeability /apparent formation factor relations 473depend upon porosity /permeability relations, then cither true formation factor or formation density should be better indicators of permeability than apparent formation factor. 4. There is a relation between matrix resistiv- ity and permeability which is independent of fluid salinity and appears not to vary significantly with geologic environment. Measurement of matrix resistivity has not been attempted to date in the field. REFERENCES CITED Archie, G. E, 1942, The electrical resistivity log as an aid in clecermining some reservoir characteristics. Am, Inst Min, Metall, Pet, Eng. Tech, Rept, 1422. Biella, G., A. Loze), and 1. Tabacco, 1983. Experimental ‘study of some hydrogeophysical properties of uncon- solidated porous media, Ground Water, v. 21, n0. 6, pp. 741-751 Dey, A. 1976. Resistivicy modeling for arbitrarily shaped ‘wo-dimensional structures, Parc Hl: Users guide to the FORTRAN algorighm RESIS2D. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-5283, Univ. of California, Berkeley. 56 pp. breeze, R.A. and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Pub, New Jersey. 604 pp. Heigold, P. C., R.H. Gilkeson, K. Cartwright, and P.C, Reed, 1979. Aquifer teansmissvity from surficial electrical methods. Ground Water, v.17, no. 4, pp. 338-348. Jones, P. I and T. B. Buford. 1951. Electric logging applied to ground-water exploration. Geophysics. v. 16, no. 1, pp, 11-139. Keller, G. V. and F. C, Frisehknecht. 1966, Eleetrical ‘Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. Pergamon Press, New York. 519 pp. Kelly, W. K, 1977, Geoelectric sounding for estimating ‘aquifer hydraulic conductivity, Ground Water. v.15, 10, 6, pp. 420-425. Kelly, W. E, and P. E, Reiter. 1984, Influence of anisotropy ‘on relations between aguifer hydraulic and electrical properties, J of Hydrology. v. 74, pp. 311-321. 474 Kosinski, W. K. and W. b Kelly, 1981, Geoelecteic soundings for predicting aquitce properties. Ground Water. v.19, 90. 2, pp. 163-171 i, A. 1974. Handbook of Soil Mechanics. Elsevier, New York. v1 Muzac, ., W. £. Kelly, and I, Landa, 1985, A hydrogeo- ‘physical model for relations becween electrical and hydraulic properties of aquifers. J. of Hydrology. v.79, pp. 149, Mazac, O. and I. Landa, 1979, On determination of hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of granular aquifers by vertical electric sounding. J. Geol. Sei. v.16, pp. 123-129, Meiday, Ys. 1960, An electrical resstviey survey for _ground water. Geophysics. v.25, no. 5, pp. 1077-1093, ‘M. 1969. The use of the geoelectric method for investigating geologic and hydrologic conditions in Santa Clara County, California, J. of Hydrology v.7, no, 2, pp. 167-197 Patnode, Hl. W. and M.RJ, Wyllie. 1950. The presence of conductive solids in reservoir rocks asa factor in electri log interpretation. J. Pet. Technology. v. 189, pp. 47-52, Urish, D. W. 1981. Hlectricalresistvity-hydraulic conduc tivity relationships in glacial outwash aquifers. Water Resources Research, v. 17, no. 5, pp. 1401-1408, Worthington, B, F, 1977, influence of mateix conduction upon hydrogeophysical relationships in arenaceous aquifers, Water Resources Research. v. 13, n0. 1, pp. 87-92, Zohdy, A.A.R. 1968, Geoeleetrical and seismic refraction investigations near San Jose, California. Ground Water, v, 3, no. 3, pp. 41-48. Kea Page, David Huntley is an Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at San Diego State University. He received bis B.A, degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1972, and bis Pb. in Geological Engineering from Colorado Sebool of Mines in 1976, His research interests include ‘ground-water flow in fractured crystalline rock, numerical ‘modeling of mass and energy transport, and remote sensing and geophysical applications to bydvogeology.