Introduction to Hydrogeophysics

  • Susan S. Hubbard
  • Yoram Rubin
Part of the Water Science and Technology Library book series (WSTL, volume 50)


In this chapter, we discuss the need for improved hydrogeological characterization and monitoring approaches, and how that need has provided an impetus for the development of an area of research called hydrogeophysics. We briefly describe how this research area has evolved in recent years in response to the need to better understand and manage hydrological systems, provide discussions and tables designed to facilitate navigation through this book, and discuss the current state of the emerging discipline of hydrogeophysics.


Electrical Resistivity Geophysical Data Ground Penetrate Radar Geophysical Method Shallow Subsurface 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Archie, G.E., The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics, Trans. Amer. Inst. Mining Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, 146, 54–62, 1942.Google Scholar
  2. Atekwana, E.A., D.D. Werkema, Jr., J.W. Duris, S. Rossbach, E.A. Atekwana, W.A. Sauck, D.P. Cassidy, J. Means, and F.D. Legall, In-situ apparent conductivity measurements and microbial population distribution at a hydrocarbon-contaminated site, Geophysics, 69(1), 56–63, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binley, A., P. Winship, L.J. West, M. Pokar and R. Middleton, Seasonal variation of moisture content in unsaturated sandstone inferred from borehole radar and resistivity profiles, J. Hydrology, 267(3–4), 160–172, 2002a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binley, A., G. Cassiani, R. Middleton, and P. Winship, Vadose zone model parameterisation using cross-borehole radar and resistivity imaging, J. Hydrology. 267(3–4), 147–159, 2002b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridge, H., and D. Hyndman (eds.), Aquifer Characterization, Society of Economic and Petroleum Geologists (in press), 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Bristow, C.S., and H.M. Jol, (editors), Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 211, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, J., S. Hubbard, M. Fienen, D. Watson, and T.L. Mehlhorn, Estimating hydrogeological zonation at a NABIR field research center study site using high-resolution geophysical data and Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods, Eos. Trans. AGU, 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H21F-04, 2003Google Scholar
  8. Chen, J., S. Hubbard, Y. Rubin, C. Murray, E. Roden, and E. Majer, Geochemical characterization using geophysical data: A case study at the South Oyster Bacterial Transport Site in Virginia, Water Resources Research, V40, WI2412, doi: 1029/2003WR002883, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Copty, N., Y. Rubin, and G. Mavko, Geophysical-hydrogeological identification of field permeabilities through Bayesian updating, Water Resour. Res., 29(8), 2813–2825, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dagan, G., Flow and Transport in Porous Formations, Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 1989.Google Scholar
  11. Day-Lewis, F.D. and J.W. Lane Jr., Assessing the resolution-dependent utility of tomograms for geostatistics, Geophysical Research Letters, 31(7), L07503, doi:10.1029/2004GL019617.Google Scholar
  12. Delleur, J.W., The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering, CRC Press, Washington D.C., 1998.Google Scholar
  13. De Marsily, G., Quantitative Hydrogeology, Academic Press, N.Y., 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. Greenhouse, J.P., Environmental geophysics: It’s about time, The Leading Edge of Exploration, 10(1), 32–34, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hubbard, S., J. Chen, J. Peterson, E. Majer, K. Williams, D. Swift, B. Mailliox, and Y. Rubin, Hydrogeological characterization of the D.O.E. Bacterial Transport Site in Oyster, Virginia, using geophysical data, Water Resour. Res., 37(10), 2431–2456, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hubbard, S. S., and Y. Rubin, Ground penetrating radar assisted saturation and permeability estimation in bimodal systems, Water Resour. Res., 33(5), 971–990, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jury, W.A., W.R. Gardner, and W.H. Gardner, Soil Physics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1991.Google Scholar
  19. Keys, W.S., Borehole Geophysics Applied to Ground-water Investigations, National Water Well Association, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. Kowalsky, M.B., Y. Rubin, J. Peterson, and S. Finsterle, Estimation of flow parameters using cross-hole GPR travel times and hydrological data collected during transient flow Experiments, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H21F-07, 2003.Google Scholar
  21. Linde, N., S. Finsterle, and S. Hubbard, Inversion of hydrological tracer data constrained by tomographic data, Eos Trans. AGU, 85(17), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract NS13A-04, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. Marion, D., A. Nur, H. Yin, and D. Han, Compressional velocity and porosity in sand-clay mixtures, Geophysics, 57, 554–563, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moysey, S., and R. Knight, Modeling the field-scale relationship between dielectric constant and water content in heterogeneous media, Water Resour. Res., 40, W03510, doi: 10.1029/2003WRR002589, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council, Seeing into the Earth, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 2000.Google Scholar
  25. Peterson, J.E., Jr., Pre-inversion corrections and analysis of radar tomographic data, Journal of Env. and Eng. Geophysics, 6, 1–8, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prasad, M., Velocity-permeability relations within hydraulic units, Geophysics, 68(1), 108–117, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rubin, Y., Applied Stochastic Hydrogeology, Oxford, N.Y., 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Scheibe, T., and Y. Chien, An evaluation of conditioning data for solute transport prediction Ground Water, 41(2), 128–141, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz, F.W., and H. Zhang, Fundamentals of Ground Water, Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. Topp, G.C., J.L. Davis, and A.P. Annan, Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines, Water Resour. Res., 16, 574–582, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Science Program, National Research Council, Research Needs in Subsurface Science, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 2000.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Global Change Research Program, USGCRP Water Cycle Study Group, A Plan for a New Science Initiative on the Global Water Cycle, 2001.Google Scholar
  33. Ward, S.H., Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, SEG Investigations in Geophysics No. 5, S.H. Ward, Editor, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, K.H., D. Ntarlagiannis, L.D. Slater, S. Hubbard, and J.F. Banfield, Monitoring microbe-induced sulfide precipitation under dynamic flow conditions using multiple geophysical techniques, in submission to Nature, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan S. Hubbard
    • 1
  • Yoram Rubin
    • 2
  1. 1.Earth Sciences DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations