DOE OSTI2023
Geologic stratigraphy on the Hanford Site influences groundwater and contaminant migration through the aquifer system and the vadose zone. The current geologic framework model (GFM) relies heavily on a sparse distribution of borehole data in some locations to map geologic contacts and hydrologic properties in the subsurface. Non-invasive geophysical methods such as electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), transient electromagnetic surveying, and seismic imaging are being used at Hanford to map subsurface structure in areas with limited well observations. This is to develop and mature the capability of geophysical methods to aid in GFM refinement, to identify regions of subsurface complexity, and for optimal well siting. A joint inversion of co-located seismic refraction and ERT data was carried out for data collected on a ~2.3-km profile between the 200 Areas on the Hanford Site. While ERT and seismic refraction images have sensitivity to overlapping physical properties (porosity, moisture content, lithology), the resolution and physics used to acquire each of these datasets are different and therefore information can be different or mutually complementary. Performing a joint inversion provides a reasonable option for a coherent, coupled interpretation for mutually complementary datasets. Between the 200 Areas, there are few boreholes to interpret the geologic framework model, and these data sets were obtained to provide a first line of evidence toward identifying stratigraphic structure. The seismic refraction and ERT data were independently inverted during fiscal year 2022 and broadly showed a two-layer structure with a trough-like feature that is ~1 km wide and upwards of 150 m deep. The depth of the trough feature was greater in the ERT image compared to the seismic image, which indicated a maximum depth of approximately 110 m. The objective of the joint inversion described in this report was to invert the seismic refraction and ERT data together while constraining the ERT image to be structurally similar to the seismic refraction image. The approach was applied using the geophysical inverse modeling program E4D, which has the capability to invert first-arrival times from seismic refraction data and ERT resistances using a “cross-gradient” constraint. The application of cross-gradient constraints with different weights produces ERT models that show a high degree of similarity within the upper 100 m (above ~120 m elevation). None of the ERT models show an improved structural similarity to the seismic result; therefore, it is recommended that further attempts to jointly interpret these models focus on petrophysics and image resolution. Petrophysical measurements of core samples would improve knowledge of what drives the ERT response in this region and, along with downhole geophysical measurements, could be used to “ground truth” the surface-based geophysical results. Image resolution studies would provide insight into which regions of the inverted images are reliable and which regions are poorly constrained.