electrical resistivity surveys for … · resistivity (schlumberger) surveys in the upper...

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 3, April 2014

130 www.jiarm.com

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYS FOR DELINEATION OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL ZONES IN AND AROUND KADIRI, ANANTAPUR

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA

G. SUDARSANA RAJU*

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Geology, Yogivemana University, Kadapa, A.P, India

ABSTRACT The occurrence, movement and control of groundwater, particularly in hard rock

areas, are governed by different factors such as topography, lithology, structures (fractures,

faults & joints) and nature of weathering. Integrated geological, hydrological and geophysical

(electrical resistivity) surveys have been utilized to delineate groundwater potential zones in

and around Kadiri schist belt, Anantapur district, southern part of India. The main lithological

units comprises mainly acid volcanic (rhyolites, rhyodacite and quartz-sericite schist) and

some minor amounts of basic volcanic (amphibolites) and is enveloped on all sides by

granitoids of Peninsular gneissic complex. Sixty four vertical electrical soundings were

carried out by using Schlumberger configuration covering an area of about 332 Km2 and the

field data was interpreted with the help of three layer master curves and auxiliary point

charts. Vertical electrical sounding curves suggest a few three layer geoelectrical sections A,

H and K type and a number of four layer sections of HK, HA and KH types. Iso-resistivity

contour maps were prepared and interpreted in terms of resistivity and thickness of various

subsurface layers using software SURFER programme and also isocontour diagrams

depicting the depth to bedrock were prepared. The interpreted VES results are also correlated

with the drilled borewell lithologs, showing good agreement with them. In general, the

weathered rock with 12 m thickness and resistivity values between 20 to 80 ohm-m are

considered to be good groundwater potential zones. Out of three layers identified, weathered

zone(second layer)holds good groundwater potentialities with yields ranging from 10,000 to

20,000 lph. Finally, based on depth to bedrock and thickness of saturated layer, groundwater

potential zones were delineated. The study indicates that the groundwater resources are

mainly confined to the weathered and fractured zones in granitoids.

KEYWORDS: Electrical Resistivity, Groundwater Resources, Kadiri Schist Belt, Geological

Cross Sections, Vertical Electrical Soundings, Groundwater Potential Zones


131 www.jiarm.com

INTRODUCTION

There are several difficulties for development of groundwater resources in hard rock areas as

wide and erratic variation of vital parameters (i.e. fractures, joints, porosity etc). In hard

rocks, groundwater occurs in secondary porosity developed due to weathering, fracturing,

faulting etc., which is highly variable and varies sharply within very short distances,

contributing to near surface inhomogeneity (Raju and Reddy, 1998). In such situations

topographic, hydrogeological and geomorphological feature provide useful clues for the

selection of suitable sites for groundwater exploration. Spatial variation of fractures and

joints is attributed, among other causes, to tectonic set-up and degree of weathering of near

surface rocks (Barker et al 2001). Different geological formations are characterized by

individual resistivities which in turn depend on many factors such as mineral composition,

structure, texture, degree of saturation, water quality and temperature (Todd 1980).

Groundwater potential also varies significantly from place to place sometimes within few

meters and even within the same geological formations. Although the geophysical methods

are being routinely used for exploration of groundwater, at times it becomes a challenge

because of various factors such as geometry and depth of the aquifer and the yield of

groundwater. Further, in the absence of surface manifestations of structures favourable for

groundwater occurrence, geophysical strategy plays an indispensable role not only in

mapping and understanding the nature of aquifers but also ensures a better success rate of

groundwater exploration. Geophysics, predominantly geoelectrical resistivity techniques, has

been extensively used for a wide variety of geotechnical and groundwater exploration

problems in different terrains in order to understand the subsurface hydrological conditions

such as the variation in resistivity with depth, subsurface geology, thickness of weathered and

fractured zones and the position of bedrock (Zohdy, 1975; Barker, 1980; Ballukraya et al.,

1981; Verma 1983; Kshirasagar and Nagamalleswara Rao, 1989; Zhody 1989; Yadav and

Lal, 1989; Bernard and Valla, 1991; Raju et al., 1996; Murali and Patangay, 1998; Raju and

Reddy, 1998; Mack et al., 1998; Nowroozi et al., 1999; Mousa, 2003, Krishnamurthy et al.,

2003; Ibrahim, et al., 2004; Youssef et al., 2004; Al-Abaseiry et al., 2005; Hosny et al., 2005;

Alotaibi and Al-Amri, 2007; Das et al., 2007; Nigm, et al., 2008; Mohamaden et al., 2009;

Ariyo and Adeyemi, 2009; Oseji, 2010). This is due to the fact that, the electrical resistivity

survey is one of the simplest and less costly geophysical surveys employed in groundwater

exploration. Moreover, it can be used either in the form of vertical electrical soundings

(VES's) or horizontal profiling to search for groundwater in both porous and fissured media


132 www.jiarm.com

(Van Overmeeren, 1989; Raju and Reddy, 1998; Abd El-Rahman, A. and Khaled, M.A.,

2005; and Abd Alla et al., 2005). Electrical resistivity methods give indirect evidence to the

presence of water, indicating different probable productive zones at different depths

(Schwartz and McClymant, 1977). The electrical resistivity technique has particular

advantages in hydrogeology because it responds to variations in conductivity of the

groundwater. Raju et al. (1996) have delineated groundwater potential zones using electrical

resistivity (schlumberger) surveys in the upper Gunjanaeru catchment, Cuddapah district in

southern part of India and found that groundwater resources are mainly confined to the

boulder, weathered and fractured zones. In groundwater exploration the resistivity method

alone is not the sole deciding factor as incompetent formations give erroneous result but plays

a major role in the integrated approach (Raju and Reddy 1998).

Study area and geological setting

The study area, is a part of Kadiri schist belt, having a total catchment area of 332 Km2 and

lies between north latitude 14º00’-14º10’ and east longitudes 78º05’-78º15’ (Fig. 1) in the

survey of India toposheet no. 57 J/4. The area situated in subtropical zone and experiences

extreme climatic conditions with maximum and minimum temperatures are 45ºC during

summer and 14ºC during winter season, respectively. Lying off the coast, the area does not

get the full benefits either from southwest monsoon or northeast monsoon. Thus the area is

deprived of both the monsoons and subjected to recurrent droughts. The annual rainfall of the

area is 666 mm. On an average Kadiri region has 40 rainy days (days having more than 2.5

mm of rainfall) in a year.

The study area is comprised of Kadiri schist belt which consists of mainly acid

volcanics with minor amount of basic volcanics. Kadiri schist belt is a linear green stone belt

situated in the eastern part of the Dharwar craton and south western part of the Cuddapah

basin. Acid volcanics represents rhyolite, rhyodacite, quartz porphyry, quartz feldspar

porphyry, muscovite sericite schist and quartz sericite schist. The basic volcanics consists of

meta-basalt and amphibolites. The schist belt is having on either side by sin to post tectonic

granitoids which constitute mostly granodiorite-tonalite suite in the east and granite suite in

the west. At places, pink granite in the granodiorite-tonalite suite on the eastern margin shows

a clear cut intrusive contact with the schist belt units. The central portion of the area

constitutes the schist belt, which runs roughly in the NNW-SSE direction (Fig. 2).


133 www.jiarm.com

Geophysical Data Acquisition Geoelectric resistivity field survey was carried out by applying the vertical electrical

sounding (VES) technique which measures the electrical resistivity variation of formations

with depth. The electric resistivity of a rock formation varies according to the rock nature of

material (density, porosity, pore size and shape), water content and its quality and

temperature. Hence, there are no sharp limits for electric resistivity of porous formations. The

resistivity is more controlled by the water content and its quality within the matrix of the

formation than by the solid granular resistivity value itself. Therefore, the geological unit

may be subdivided into different geoelectrical units according to different percentage of

humidity within it (Parasnis, 1997).

The geoelectrical resistivity measurements were performed applying resistivity meter of the

type DDR1 (IGIS, Hyderabad) allowing to filter the potential of the earth and measure the

potential difference (ΔV) due to the fed current (I) and the current itself simultaneously.

About 20% of the total measurements were recorded twice by changing the supply voltage.

Sixty four vertical electrical soundings were taken at different locations spreading entire area,

excluding the hilly area (Fig.1). In present work, Schlumberger configuration is applied with

half current electrode spacing (AB/2) starting from 1 m to a maximum of 100 m from place

to place depending upon the accessibility to determine the lithology, weathered, fractured

pattern, depth to basement and resistivity variations. This spacing is sufficient to reach

adequate depths covering the weathered and fractured aquifer. In this schlumberger method,

the two outer current electrodes and the two inner potential electrodes are aligned in a single

line. The distance between these potential and current electrodes is kept always equal or less

than one fifth of that of the current electrodes at any stage during the probe. The apparent

resistivity is measured at the centre of the electrode array. The apparent resistivity values

were plotted against half the current electrode spacing on a log-log graph. The curves of best

fit were then traced and the data obtained from the smooth curve (Smoothed values) were

noted. Qualitative and quantitative interpretations of the field curves were carried out to

obtain the type of curves and by partial curve matching, respectively. The resistivity and

thickness obtained from the partial curve matching. All field curves were interpreted with the

help of auxiliary point charts (Bhattacharya and Patra, 1968) and three layer master curves

(Orellana and Mooney, 1966). Interpretation of data were done quantitatively and

qualitatively and bringing in to bare the knowledge of the local geology of the area. The

result of the geoelectric survey was processed and quantitatively interpreted using available

geological information and presented as geoelectrical sections along the various profiles


134 www.jiarm.com

which run from east to west (A-A’ and M-M’) and SW to NE (X-X’) direction. Type of

curves, resistivity of the sediments and lithologic logs from nearby boreholes were used in

conjunction with the knowledge of the local geology as guides in the interpretation and

analysis of the geologic section in terms of probable and sustainable water supply.

Results and Discussion

Sixty four vertical electrical soundings (Fig.1) are carried out and the resistivity data obtained

is analysed qualitatively and quantitatively to delineate high and low resistivity zones and

results are presented in Table 1.

Qualitative interpretation

The aerial variations in apparent resistivity often can be related qualitatively to the geological

formations (Schwartz and McClymant, 1977). The iso-resistivity contour maps help to

delineate high and low resistivity zones to know the aerial extent of low resistivity zones and

nature of the basement rock. Horizontal geoelectrical cross sections are prepared to

understand areal distribution of different zones that may help to infer the possible locations of

exploitable groundwater (Raju et al., 1996).

Horizontal apparent resistivity cross sections

The iso-resistivity contour maps at 1.5 m, 10 m, 50 m and 100 m depth and their respective

three-dimensional maps are prepared using SURFER software to understand the horizontal

geoelectrical cross sections and the hydrogeological characteristics. Horizontal cross section

and three dimensional view at 1.5 m depth reveals the changes in the resistivity

characteristics at the near surface zone (Fig. 3). The apparent resistivity values range from 13

ohm-m to 310 ohm-m with contour interval of 10 ohm-m. The contours are dense at the

northern and southern portions of the study area. The apparent resistivity values decrease

from this dense central portion to all directions of the map. The highest resistivity values of

310 ohm-m, 260 and 200 ohm-m are found at Muritipalle in the north and at Cheritivaripalle

and Bommireddipalle in the south, respectively which corroborate with the three dimensional

view of the apparent resistivity values shown for 1.5 m iso-resistivity contour map. The high

resistivity values correspond to the relatively high resistivity formations such as

pegmatite/quartz veins (Karanth et al., 1992). The horizontal cross section prepared based on

the resistivity values at 10 m spacing and the three dimensional view is shown in the Fig. 3.


135 www.jiarm.com

The apparent resistivity varies from 10 ohm-m to 300 ohm-m with a contour interval of 10

ohm-m. The higher resistivity values are recorded in gneissic terrain and the highest values is

recorded at Cheritivaripalle and Kottapalle having a value of 300 ohm-m and 250 ohm-m,

respectively. The apparent resistivity values at 50 m depth (Fig. 4) range from 45 ohm-m to

900 ohm-m with a contour interval of 50 ohm-m. There are four cluster portions in the two

dimensional as well as in three dimensional maps are observed with highest values of 900

ohm-m recorded in the Muritipalle which is situated in the border zone between schist and

gneissic formations. Other peaks observed in the three dimensional map is Rangannagaripalle

(800 ohm-m) and Kutagulla (490 ohm-m) which are situated in gneissic terrain whereas

Kottapalle (740 ohm-m) is present in granite formations. The two and three dimensional

views of the horizontal cross sections are prepared for apparent resistivity at 100 m depth

(Fig. 4). The apparent resistivity values vary from 150 ohm-m to 1600 ohm-m with a contour

interval of 100 ohm-m. The highest resistivity values are recorded at Barigareddipalle (1600

ohm-m) in schistose formation. Next higher values are observed at Muritipalle (1500 ohm-m)

and Rangannagaripalle (1450 ohm-m) in gneissic formations, whereas Chigurumani Tanda

(1000 ohm-m) situated in the granite formations.

Depth to basement

Using the interpreted results of the electrical soundings, two and three dimensional

maps have been prepared showing the depth to basement (Fig. 5). The depth to basement is

not uniform in the study area and it is very shallow at Muddimadugu at about 8 m, while it is

the deepest at Goddivelagala at about 33 m depth. On the basis of sounding data alone it has

been found that the depth to bedrock is found to be greater along south-eastern region and

also at a few locations along central and western directions. Hence, these areas are more

suitable for groundwater development.

Quantitative interpretation

Field curves have been quantitatively interpreted with the help of master curves (Orellana and

Mooney 1966). The sounding curves suggest a few three layer geoelectrical sections H

(ρ1>ρ2<ρ3), A (ρ1<ρ2<ρ3) and K (ρ1<ρ2>ρ3) type and a number of four layer sections of

HA, HK and KH, types. Results of resistivity data reveal that out of 64 soundings, 44 are

three layer types and the rest are four layer type curves. The characteristic resistivity layers

obtained for various formations are presented in the Table 2.


136 www.jiarm.com

Three layer data reveals that out of 44 soundings, 36, 6 and 2 are of A-type, H-type and K-

type, respectively. From the field curves and field studies, it is identified that the initially K

and A curves (ρ increasing with depth) indicate the presence of low resistivity soil cover that

overlies the weathered zone and hard basement rock at shallow depths. The areas covered by

these soundings may not be suitable for large scale groundwater development but limited

development with low yield perhaps may be possible. The areas covered by H-type curves

contain as a highly resistive dry soil cover when compared to low resistive weathered and

fractured rock layers at deeper depths and holds promise for good groundwater development.

The thickness of the top soil cover varies from 1 to 5 m with a resistivity variation from 13 to

150 ohm-m. The thickness of the second layer (weathered rock) is in between 2.5 to 18 m

with resistivity values varying from 17 to 100 ohm.m (Table2). The semi-weathered/

fractured layer having a thickness of 5 to 22 m with a resistivity values varies from 80 to 320

ohm-m, followed by hard basement rock with high resistivity values more than 320 ohm-m.

Out of these three layers, second layer (i.e weathered zone) holds good groundwater

potentialities with yields ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 lph. The third layer (semi-

weathered/fractured rock) show moderate chances for groundwater development with yields

ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 lph. Based on these studies it is observed that the weathered

rock is proved to be a good aquifer under water table and semi-artesian conditions in the

study area. In general, the weathered rock with 12 m thickness and resistivity values between

20 to 80 ohm-m are considered to be good groundwater potential zones.

Correlation of sounding results with geological sections

In order to know the accuracy of interpretations of vertical electrical soundings, resistivity

values are compared with the geological formations of the existing wells. The results of six

resistivity soundings taken close to dug wells have been correlated with the geological

sections obtained from well sections (Fig. 6), by and large they match with each other. The

thickness of the soil layer (having a range of 1 to 5 m) obtained from the interpretation of

sounding curves is in good agreement with the geological sections. The second layer

weathered rock whose resistivity varies from 17 to 100 ohm-m also agrees with the

geological sections. In the case of S-15, the boundary between the second layer (weathered

rock) and the third layer (hard rock) of the geological section is not so well brought out by the

resistivity soundings. Although the geological sections indicate the presence of various layers

such as the soil, the weathered, the semi-weathered/fractured and the hard rock, the


137 www.jiarm.com

interpretation of the soundings in many cases showed only three layers. This indicates that

the weathered layer thickness as interpreted from soundings partly corresponds to the semi-

weathered/fractured layer as well. Therefore, the four layers are electrically equivalent to

three layers, which may not have sufficient resistivity contrast to bring out the difference

between them. The depth to basement data derived from sounding interpretations are in good

agreement with the actual depth data collected during the field work from the dugwells, dug-

cum-borewells. This shows that electrical resistivity data, if properly obtained, would help in

a big way to understand the subsurface layering, degree of saturation and basement

configuration.

Geological cross sections

Hydrogeological cross sections, A-A’, M-M’ and X-X’ (Fig. 7) are distributed across the

maximum study area, in which A-A’ and M-M’ runs from east-west direction and X-X’ runs

from northeast-southwest direction. The results obtained from various soundings have

combined along each profile to produce geoelectric sections to understand the variations in

thickness of different layers i.e soil, weathered and semi-weathered/fractured rock in

subsurface.

Ekkulacheruvu to Middeverepalle cross section (A-A’) is based on the resistivity results

of four soundings (S3, S23, S32 and S59) taken along a profile in east-west direction (Fig. 7).

This section presents quite a simple picture of the subsurface geology. In this section, the

resistivities of soil cover vary from 13 to 90 ohm-m having slight variation in thicknesses.

The thickness of weathered rock zone varies from place to place and maximum thickness of 7

m is observed at S-59 with a resistivity ranges from 45 to 80 ohm-m. The minimum

weathered rock thickness observed in the central part (S-32) and its thickness increases in

east and west direction. Maximum thickness (9 m) of semi-weathered/fractured rock is found

in the central part of the section (S-32) and thickness is decreased in other two directions.

Along this section, deep dugwells or dug-cum-borewells are recommended as the resistivity

values indicated the presence of saturated weathered/fractured zone (Reddy and Saleem

1986). Diguvapalle to Pulikuntapalle cross section (M-M’) is based on the resistivity results

of four soundings (S11, S14, S49 and S50) taken along a profile in east-west direction (Fig.

7). In this section, the thickness of soil cover increases from west to east direction and

maximum thickness (4 m) of soil cover is observed at S-49 and S-11 having a resistivity

variation of 20 to 120 ohm-m. The thickness of weathered zone is increasing from east to


138 www.jiarm.com

west direction and maximum thickness (15 m) is observed at S50 location. Maximum

thickness of semi-weathered/fractured rock is found at S49 (16 m) and S11 (12 m) having a

resistivity values ranging from 148 ohm-m to 320 ohm-m. Along this profile dugwell is

recommended at S11 and S50, where the weathered zone thickness is around 10 m and 15 m,

respectively. A bore well may be recommended at S49 location as the thickness of the semi-

weathered/fractured rock zone is around 16 m having a resistivity values of 148 ohm-m.

Cherlopalle to Godduvelagalla cross section (X-X’) is based on the resistivity results of six

soundings (S10, S8, S18, S56, S60 and S62) taken along a profile in NE-SW direction (Fig.

7). The increase trend of soil thickness is observed from the NE to SE direction i.e S10 to

S62, except at S18 where thickness is negligible. Large variation in the weathered rock

thickness has been observed throughout the cross section having a resistivity values vary

from 25 to 100 ohm-m. The maximum weathered zone thickness is around 17 m at S56 and

minimum is around 3 m at S18. The fractured layer thickness varies from 9 to 22 m with

resistivity values of 110 t0 240 ohm-m. Maximum thickness of fractured zone is found across

this section with an exception of S56 and S60. Since weathered and fractured zones extended

up to the depth of 30 m, these areas may be suitable for good chances of groundwater

development with yields ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 lph.

Groundwater potential zones

Assuming that wide variations are not present within a few kilometres, groundwater

potential zones have been delineated based on the subsurface lithology, simple yield test

(container method) in dug wells, data related to thickness of the aquifer and depth to

basement obtained from quantitative interpretations. From quantitative interpretation,

groundwater potential zones are identified by considering the 25 m depth and resistivity

values of less than 80 ohm-m and more than 8 m weathered zone thickness (Fig. 8). The

groundwater potential zones deciphered by qualitative interpretation (<200 ohm-m) are in

good agreement with those found by quantitative interpretation. The qualitative and

quantitative interpretations complement each other in giving locations for dug wells or

borewells for drinking and irrigation purposes.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In general, the hard rock formations do not have good groundwater potential, still

integrated studies would help to ascertain presence of hidden water bearing formations.


139 www.jiarm.com

Resistivity sounding proves to be an effective tool to locate the productive zones, when

interpreted in conjunction with hydrogeological data. The results of the resistivity data

indicate that out of 64 soundings 44 are three layered (majority are of A-type) and remaining

are four layer type curves. The groundwater development of the study area is at a depth

between 20 to 32 m within the second and third layers. These layers consists of highly

weathered and fractured rocks which are reasonably good formations to obtain an appreciable

quantity of water in hard rock for sustainable groundwater development. The research did

pave way for a clear picture of the subsurface hydro geological knowledge of Kadiri region in

order to create awareness on the productive and prolific aquifer for sustainable groundwater

supply. The present results of research act as guides to both the Government and individuals

especially those involved in groundwater development on formation type of the aquifer and

the depths of boreholes could be drilled for sustainable groundwater supply in the drought

prone Kadiri environs.

Table: 1 Apparent resistivity at different depths

s.no Location 1.5m 10m 50m 100m Longitudinal Conductance

1 Chigurumani Tanda 35 83 432 1002 0.12

2 Gollavari palle 75 114 332 521 0.104 3 Ekkalacheruvu palle 25 47 183 452 0.239 4 Mutyalacheruvu 57 16 282 505 0.138 5 Battalapalle 65 54 146 286 0.338 6 Bhagiratipalle 15 43 134 278 0.352 7 Eguvapalle 45 32 134 280 0.359 8 Brahamanapalle 53 103 304 514 0.143 9 Kareddypalle 34 80 252 502 0.194 10 Cherlopalle 74 165 390 685 0.116 11 Diguvapalle 21 29 46 102 1.069 12 Maddimadugu 63 76 146 221 0.298 13 Maddimadugu lands 131 101 336 562 0.107 14 Tirumaladevarapalle 103 92 192 344 0.185 15 Sivarampalle 112 83 535 284 0.197

16 Pantulacheruvu 122 92 322 541 0.098

17 Indukurupalle 64 83 244 441 0.815 18 Kavulepalle lands 160 223 340 485 0.08 19 Kattela Tanda 123 130 174 210 0.179 20 Battalapalle Tanda 86 84 190 365 0.224 21 Murutipalle lands 194 140 785 1650 0.066 22 Murutipalle 310 226 900 1557 0.041 23 Barigireddypalle 25 64 150 305 0.313 24 Gollavaripalle lands 53 65 134 210 0.327 25 Kutagulla lands 25 70 230 460 0.207


140 www.jiarm.com

26 Erradoddi palle lands 64 64 202 375 0.245 27 Erradoddi Tanda 45 83 303 480 0.128 28 Jukala lands 122 134 172 210 0.179 29 Jukala lands 95 72 230 470 0.165 30 Kutagulla lands 116 138 492 800 0.087 31 Kutagulla 138 142 180 224 0.128 32 Saidapuram 136 202 450 680 0.085 33 Kadiri 145 72 220 401 0.156 34 Baripalle 135 178 464 720 0.074 35 Kavulepalle 116 138 492 800 0.087 36 Metukupalle 133 115 351 620 0.062 37 Allugundla 132 100 190 270 0.109 38 Jaggannapeta 140 205 324 480 0.135 39 Bommireddi palle 202 162 190 320 0.168 40 Ranalapalle 174 110 243 500 0.193 41 Cheritivaripalle 260 312 395 602 0.138

table1 contd…

S.NO. Location 1.5m 10m 50m 100m Longitudinalconductance

42 Kuntlapalle 146 160 323 490 0.073 43 Rangannagari palle 211 155 802 1455 0.062 44 Devrintipalle 182 120 365 560 0.104 45 Enumala 26 66 223 430 0.217 46 Pattaravandla palle 34 56 146 300 0.288 47 Balepalle Tanda 44 46 134 360 0.186 48 Polivandla palle 38 96 260 540 0.178 49 Kottapalle 124 254 740 1420 0.065 50 Pulikunta palle 28 69 225 440 0.213 51 Nalasanipalle 24 49 140 295 0.307 52 Rajamvandla palle 70 122 310 530 0.128 53 Arakacheruvupalle 66 56 152 300 0.327 54 Kottapalle 25 44 88 150 0.514 55 Gangannagari palle 25 66 220 430 0.216 56 Muthannagari palle 82 110 310 560 0.173 57 Maddivarigundu 15 49 128 273 0.379 58 Gollapalle 22 44 200 440 0.239 59 Middivaripalle 15 30 120 250 0.324 60 Mustipalle 45 66 185 315 0.216 61 Mustipalle lands 41 93 240 460 0.16 62 Godduvelagala 63 95 220 400 0.247 63 Virannagattupalle 65 57 152 300 0.327 64 Jukala 31 48 205 430 0.237


141 www.jiarm.com

Table:2 Results of Vertical Electrical Soundings S.NO e1Ohm-

m e2 Ohm-m

e3 Ohm-m

e4 Ohm-m

h1 Mts

h2 Mts h3 Mts Depth to basement

Type of curve

1 37 55 235 1.9 9.1 6.4 17.4 A 2 62 54 143 435 1.4 7.8 18.7 27.9 HA 3 31 67 251 1.5 11.5 13 26 A 4 63 22 120 626 2.9 10.7 5.7 19.3 HA 5 44 90 72 2.8 14 16.8 K 6 15 35 115 476 2.2 9 16.4 27.6 A 7 45 100 140 3 6 15 24 A 8 57 40 240 2 2 8 12 H 9 33.2 51.6 360 160 1.8 9 18 28.8 A 10 97 65.2 108.6 1.1 5.5 16.4 16.4 A 11 21 100 380 3.7 11 10 24.7 HA 12 62 140 430 1.2 12.8 8.6 22.6 A 13 187 78 689 0.53 8.13 8.66 A 14 35.8 17 383 627 1.38 7.28 4.42 13.08 H 15 42 68 314 1.93 11.9 13.92 HA 16 112 50.4 80.5 818 1.2 6.8 9.42 17.42 A 17 68.5 34.8 106 228 1.02 2.23 13.4 16.65 HA 18 132 203 422 2.96 17.66 20.62 H 19 118 111.2 140.6 357 1.11 2.1 18.64 21.63 A 20 85.7 47.2 129 485 2.25 3.08 16.39 21.72 HA 21 241.7 56.4 116.4 435 0.94 3.05 12.23 16.22 HA 22 22.7 46.6 201.8 1.43 8.26 9.69 HA 23 22 45 133 1.05 2.4 28.06 31.52 A 24 53 48 103.6 526 4.03 3.62 20.47 28.12 A 25 24.6 99.2 115 469 1.7 13.64 6.42 21.76 HA 26 64.6 34.6 183.1 447 1.65 2.25 23.75 27.66 AA 27 46.7 88.6 106.3 2.61 6.2 18.32 27.13 HA 28 57.2 97.4 290 1.2 12 6.2 19.4 A 29 58 85.5 285 1.2 12.6 7.1 20.9 A 30 57.6 32.8 120 1.4 14 6.8 22.2 A 31 57 84.4 360 1.5 12.5 2.8 16.8 H 32 92 100.2 120.6 465 2.6 13 9.4 25 A 33 95 110.6 140.2 2.8 8.4 11 20.1 A 34 61 140 430 1.2 12.8 8.6 22.6 A 35 16 25.5 110.2 1.5 15 6.6 23.2 A 36 101 65.6 202.4 1.1 5.5 16.4 23 H 37 19 27 98.6 2 20 3.2 25.2 A 38 44 110 164 381 3 8 16.2 27.2 AA 39 45 170 95.6 1.3 6.8 18.6 26.7 K 40 100 150 380 1.3 13 4.2 17.5 A 41 12.7 68.5 382.6 2.6 18 5.5 26.1 A

Table2 contd…S.NO e1Ohm-

m e2 Ohm-m

e3 Ohm-m

e4 Ohm-m

h1 Mts

h2 Mts h3 Mts Depth to basement

Type of curve


142 www.jiarm.com

42 123 162 302 2.4 14.6 3.2 20.2 A 43 142 74.8 250.6 605 5 10 16.2 31.2 HA 44 152 80.2 420 4.5 9 12 25.5 H 45 22.65 78.7 326.9 1.4 12.5 7.6 21.5 A 46 32 49.5 165 1.4 14 13.4 28.5 A 47 49.7 77.3 240 1.3 12.8 6.2 20.3 A48 35.3 113.5 361.4 1.2 15.9 3.2 20.3 A 49 122 68.2 148.2 565 3.7 8.6 18.5 30.8 HA 50 23.4 79.6 321.6 1.2 13.9 6.2 21.3 A 51 24.4 62.8 195 2.2 14.6 8.2 24.9 A 52 39 56.2 120.4 421 1.8 9.6 18.3 29.7 AA 53 75 34.6 156.7 562.8 1 12.5 9.2 22.8 HA 54 25 39 240 1.5 12.5 6.2 21.2 A 55 24 60 120.6 2.3 16.5 7.6 26.4 A 56 14 25 110 2.2 17.4 6.6 26.2 A 57 17 80 170 5 16 9.6 30.6 A 58 17.6 60.2 242.6 380 1.31 12.6 18.8 32.5 AA 59 13.7 68 110.3 520 1.5 12.6 18 31.1 AA 60 39.6 119.4 730 1.5 15.5 4.2 21.2 A 61 32 58.6 225 400 1.8 12 18 31.8 A 62 62.8 59.3 221.5 1.7 2.8 28.9 33.4 HA 63 75 44 156 1 11.5 6.8 18.8 HA 64 24.6 66 320 1.4 8.2 6.6 16.2 A Table.3 Analysis of vertical electrical soundings

A-Type

1,3,6,7,9,10, 12 , 13, 16, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64

H-Type 8, 14, 18, 31, 36, 44. K-Type 5, 39. HA-Type 2, 4, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 43, 49, 53, 62, 63. AA-Type 26, 38, 52, 58, 59.


143 www.jiarm.com


144 www.jiarm.com


145 www.jiarm.com


146 www.jiarm.com

References

1. Abd Alla MA, El-Qady G, Fathy R (2005) Groundwater exploration using geophysics at wadi EL-Assuity, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Journal of Geophysics 4(1):23-34.

2. Abd El-Rahman A, Khaled MA (2005) Geophysical Exploration for Groundwater Possibilities in Wadi El-Rahba, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Geophysical Society Journal 3(1):99-108.

3. Al-Abaseiry A, Abdel Rahman, Ezz El-Deen MM (2005) Geophysical Exploration for Groundwater Potientialities in Wadi El-Rahba, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Geophysical Society Journal 3(1):119-1128.

4. Alotaibi AM, AlAmri AM (2007) Ground Water Potentialities of Wadi Malakan-Southern Makkah AlMokadash City, Saudi Arabia. Geophysical Society Journal 5(1):101-116.

5. Ariyo SO, Adeyemi GO (2009) Role of electrical resistivity method for groundwater exploration in hard rock areas: A case study from Fidiwo/Ajebo areas of southwestern Nigeria. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 10(1):483-486.

6. Barker RD (1980) Application of geophysics in groundwater investigations, Water Surv. 84:489-492. 7. Barker R, Rao TV, Thangarajan M (2001) Delineation of contaminant zone through electrical imaging

technique. Current Science 81(3):277-283. 8. Bernard J, Valla P (1991) Groundwater exploration in fissured media with electric and VLF methods.

Geoexploration. 27:81-91. 9. Bhattacharya PK, Patra HP (1968) Direct current geoelectric sounding. Elsevier, Amsterdam., 25-30 10. Ballukraya PN, Santhivadivel R, Baratan R (1981) Inadequancies in the Techniques of Resistivity

Method for location of water well sites in Hard Rock Areas, Jour. Nordic Hydrology, Vol. 12, No.3, p.185-192.

11. Das SN, Mondal NC, Singh VS (2007) Groundwater exploration in hard rock areas of Vizianagaram district, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Ind. Geophys. Union 11(2):79-90.

12. Hosny, M.M., EZZ El-Deen, Abdallah, A.A., Abdel Rahman and Barseim, M.S.M. (2005) Geoelectrical Study on the Groundwater Occurrence in the Area Southwest of Sidi Barrani, Northwestern Coast, Egypt, Geophysical Society Journal, 3(1): 109-118.

13. Ibrahim, E.H., Shereef, M.R., El Galladi, A.A. and Pederson, L.B. (2004) Geoelectric Study on Quaternary Groundwater Aquifers in Northwest Sainai, Egypt, Geophysical SocietyJournal, 2(1): 69-74.

14. Karanth KR, Jeganathan V, Prakash VS, Saivasa V (1992) Pegmatites- A potential source for setting high yielding wells. J.Geol. Soci.India, 39(1):pp.77-81.

15. Kshirasagar TVSR, Nagamalleswara Rao (1989) Electrical resistivity survey for groundwater in Varaha river basin, AP, India. International workshop on appropriate methodologies for development and management of groundwater resources in developing countries. NGRI, Hyderabad 1:329-332.

16. KrishnamurthyMS et al (2003) Comparison of surface and sub-surface geophysical investigations in delineated fractured zones. Cur.Sci., 84(9):1242-1245


147 www.jiarm.com

17. Mohamaden IIM, Shagan SA, Allah GA (2009) Geoelectrical survey for groundwater exploration at the Asyuit Governorate, Nile Valley, Egypt. Mar. Sci. 20:91-108.

18. Mack JJ, Johnson CD, Lane JW (1998) Geophysical characterization of a high yield fracture bedrock well, Senrock, New Hamphire .U.S.Geol.Survey. Open file report, 98-176, 22 p.

19. Mousa, D.A. (2003) The role of 1-D sounding and 2-D resistivity inversions in delineating the near-surface lithologic variations in Tushka area, south of Egypt, Geophysical Society Journal, 1: 57-64.

20. Murali S, Patangay NS (1998) Principles and applications of groundwater Geophy. Asso. of Explo.Geophy. p 419.

21. Nigm AA, Elterb RA, Nasr FE, Thobaity HM (2008) Contribution of Ground Magnetic and Resistivity Methods in Groundwater Assessment in Wadi Bany Omair. Holy Makkah Area, Saudi Arabia, Egyptian. Geophysical Society Journal 6(1):67-79.

22. Nowroozi A, Horrocks B, Henderson P (1999) Saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifer in the eastern shore of Virginia: a reconnaissance electrical resistivity survey. J. Applied Geophysics 42:1-22.

23. Oseji JO (2010) Geoelectric investigation of groundwater resources and aquifer characteristics in Utagba-Ogbe Kingdom Ndokwa land area of Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Env. Chemistry and Ecotoxicology 2(3):38-46.

24. Orellana E, Mooney HM (1966) Master tables and curves for vertical electrical sounding over layered structures. Madrid Intercieneia, pp. 150-166.

25. Palanivel S, Ganesh A and Vasantha Kumaran T (1996). Geohydrological evaluation of Upper Agniar and Vellar Basins, Tamil Nadu: An integrated approach using Remote Sensing, Geophysical well inventory data. J.Indian Soc. Remote Sensing,24(3): pp.153-168.

26. Parasnis D (1997) Principle of Applied Geophysics, London: Chapman & Hall. 275 p. 27. Reddy PR, Saleem MA (1986) Hydrogeological and Geoelectrical investigations in Anatapur and

Karimnagar district, A.P. Geo.Phy.Res. Bull, Vol.24, PP 140-146 28. Raju NJ, Reddy TVK, Nayudu PT (1996). Electrical resistivity surveys for groundwater in the upper

Gunjanaeru Catchment, Cuddapah district, Andhra Pradesh. Journal Geological Society of India 47:705-716

29. Raju NJ, Reddy TVK (1998). Fracture pattern and electrical resistivity studies for groundwater exploration. Environmental Geology 34(2/3):175-182.

30. Schwartz FW, McClymont GL (1977). Application of surface resistivity methods. Groundwater 18:197-202.

31. Todd DK (1980) Groundwater hydrology, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley. 32. Van Overmeeren R (1989) Aquifer boundaries explored by geoelectrical measurements in the coastal

plain of Yemen, A Case of Equivalence. Geophysics 54:38-48. 33. Verma RK (1983) Geoelectrical soundings over lower Gondwana formations of Damodar valley. Geo

.Phy. Res. Bull 21(1):101-102 34. Yadav GS and Lal T (1989) Investigation of groundwater resources at selected levels in drought prone

area of Pahari block, District Mirzapur, UP, India. International workshop on appropriate methodologies for development and management of groundwater resources in developing countries. NGRI, Hyderabad 1:209-219.

35. Youssef, A.M.A., Abdellatief, T.A., El Mousa, S.E.D. and Tamamy, M.M.A. (2004) Geoelectrical Survey to Delineate the Extension of the Water Bearing Formations in Wadi Gharandal, Southwest Sainai, Egypt, Geophysical Society Journal, 2(1): 75-84.

36. Zohdy AAR (1975) Automatic interpretation of Schlumberger sounding curves using modified Dar Zarrouk functions, U.S. Geological Survey Bull., 13 B-E.

37. Zohdy AAR (1989) A new method for the automatic interpretation of Schlumberger and Wenner sounding curve, Geophysics, 54(2): 245-253.

electrical resistivity surveys for … · resistivity (schlumberger) surveys in the upper...

Documents