Advertisement

Groundwater prospecting by the inversion of cumulative data of Wenner–Schlumberger and dipole–dipole arrays: A case study at Turamdih, Jharkhand, India

  • Abhay Kumar Bharti
  • S K PalEmail author
  • Saurabh
  • K K K Singh
  • P K Singh
  • Amar Prakash
  • R K Tiwary
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

The present study deals with groundwater prospecting in hardrock terrain. Initially, the Wenner–Schlumberger array and the dipole–dipole array data have been acquired using Syscal Junior Switch-48. Furthermore, data acquired using both arrays have been merged using Prosys-II data handling software for the inversion of the cumulative data for possible mapping of water-bearing fracture rock masses with different structural distribution in a complex geological environment. The data have been analysed using RES2DINV software, based on the smoothness constrained least-square technique. Two numbers of 2D electrical resistivity tomography profiles (AA\('\) and BB\('\)) have been selected over an official colony of the Turamdih uranium mine for groundwater prospecting, which is located at about 24 km west of Jaduguda, Jharkhand, India. High-resistivity features associated with a dyke-like structure have been delineated in both the profiles. Three low-resistivity features have been delineated as water saturated alluvium/aquifers in profile AA\('\). A low-resistivity feature associated with the water-saturated fracture zone has been identified in profile BB\('\), which is well correlated with the surficial location of an ephemeral channel at the bottom of the hill across the slope. It is observed that geoelectric sections generated by the inversion of cumulative data of both arrays provide superior results compared with the Wenner–Schlumberger and dipole–dipole arrays, separately.

Keywords

ERT Wenner–Schlumberger dipole–dipole inversion of cumulative data groundwater prospecting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to SERB, DST, Government of India for funding the project (PDF/2016/004034). The authors wish to thank the director, IIT (ISM) Dhanbad and the director, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, for their support to this study. The authors are also thankful to Prof M Radhakrishna, Associate Editor and to an anonymous reviewer for their valuable suggestions.

References

  1. Athanasiou E 2004 Combined inversion of geoelectrical data by the use of contact electrodes; MSc Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
  2. Athanasiou E N, Tsourlos P I, Papazachos C B and Tsokas G N 2007 Combined weighted inversion of electrical resistivity data arising from different array types; J. Appl. Geophys. 62 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee K S, Sharma S P, Sarangi A K and Sengupta D 2011 Delineation of subsurface structures using resistivity, VLF and radiometric measurement around a Utailings pond and its hydrogeological implication; Phys. Chem. Earth 36 1345–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bharti A K, PalS K, Priyam P, Narayan S, Pathak V K and Sahoo S D 2015 Detection of illegal mining over Raniganj coalfield using electrical resistivity tomography; Engineering geology in new millennium, New Delhi, 27 to 29 October.Google Scholar
  5. Bharti A K, Pal S K, Priam P, Kumar S, Shalivahan S and Yadav P K 2016a Subsurface cavity detection over Patherdih colliery, Jharia coalfield, India using electrical resistivity tomography; Environ. Earth Sci. 755 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Bharti A K, Pal S K, Priam P, Pathak V K, Kumar R and Ranjan S K 2016b Detection of illegal mine voids using electrical resistivity tomography: The casestudy of Raniganj coalfield India; Eng. Geol. 213 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bharti A K, Pal S K, Ranjan S K, Priyam P and Pathak V K 2016c Coal mine cavity detection using electrical resistivity tomography: A joint inversion of multi array data; In: 22nd European meeting of environmental and engineering geophysics; EAGE, Barcelona, Spain,  https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201602084.
  8. Bhattacharya P K and Patra H P 1968 Direct current geoelectric sounding: Principles and interpretation; In: Methods in Geochemistry,Geophysics Series, vol. 9, Elsevier Publishing Company, pp 135.Google Scholar
  9. Bhattacharya B B and Shalivahan S 2016 Geoelectric methods: Theory and application; McGraw Hill Education, 735p.Google Scholar
  10. Biswas A, Jana A and Sharma S P 2012 Delineation of groundwater potential zones using satellite remote sensing and geographic information system techniques: A case study from Ganjam district, Orissa; Res. J. Recent Sci. 1 9, 59–66.Google Scholar
  11. Biswas A, Jana A and Mondal A 2013 Application of remote sensing, GIS and MIF technique for elucidation of groundwater potential zones from a part of Orissa coastal tract, Eastern India; Res. J. Recent Sci. 211, 42–49.Google Scholar
  12. Cardarelli E, Cercato M, Cerreto A and Di Filippo G 2010 Electrical resistivity and seismic refraction tomography to detect buried cavities; Geophys. Prospect. 58 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chandra S, Ahmed S, Ram A and Dewandel B 2008 Estimation of hard rock aquifers hydraulic conductivity from geoelectrical measurements: A theoretical development with field application; J. Hydrol. 357 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlin T and Zhou B 2004 A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrode arrays. Geophys Prospect 52:379–398.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00423.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahlin T and Zhou B 2006 Multiplegradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging; Near Surf. Geophys. 4 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Das P and Mohanty P R 2016 Resistivity imaging technique to delineate shallow subsurface cavities associated with old coal working: A numerical study; Environ. Earth Sci. 75 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Das P, Pal S K, Mohanty P R, Priyam P, Bharti A K and Kumar R 2017 Abandoned mine galleries detection using electrical resistivity tomography method over Jharia coal field, India; J. Geol. Soc. India 902 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De la Vega M, Osella A and Lascano E 2003 Joint inversion of Wenner and dipole-dipole data to study a gasolinecontaminated soil; J. Appl. Geophys. 54 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dutta S, Krishnamurthy N S, Rao T A V A, Ahmed S and Baltassat J M 2006 Localization of water bearing fractured zones in a hard rock area using integrated geophysical techniques in Andhra Pradesh, India; Hydrologeol. J. 14 760–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giao P H, Chung S G, Kim D Y and Tanaka H 2003 Electric imaging and laboratory resistivity testing for geotechnical investigation of Pusan clay deposits; J Appl. Geophys. 52 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jha R 2014 Analysis of groundwater potential zones using electrical resistivity, RS & GIS techniques in a typical mine area of Odisha; A Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Master of technology in Civil Engineering with specialisation in water resources engineering.Google Scholar
  22. Karous M and Mares S 1988 Geophysical methods in studying fracture aquifers; Charles University, Prague, p. 93.Google Scholar
  23. Krishnamurthy N S, Kumar D, Rao A V, Jain S C and Ahmed S 2003 Comparison of surface and subsurface geophysical investigations in delineating fracture zones; Curr. Sci. 849 1242–1246.Google Scholar
  24. Kumar D 2012 Efficacy of electrical resistivity tomography technique in mapping shallow subsurface anomaly; J. Geol. Soc. India 80 304–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar D, Ahmed S, Krishnamurthy N S and Dewandel B 2007 Reducing ambiguities in vertical electrical sounding interpretations: A geostatistical application; J. Appl. Geophys. 62 1, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar D, Rao V A and Sarma V S 2014 Hydrogeological and geophysical study for deeper groundwater resource in quartzitic hard rock ridge region from 2D resistivity data; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 123 3, 531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar D, Mondal S, Nandan M J, Harini P, Sekhar S B M V, Sen M K, Keller G V and Frischknecht F C 2016 Two-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and time-domain-induced polarization (TDIP) study in hard rock for groundwater investigation: A case study at Choutuppal Telangana, India, India; Arab. J. Geosci. 9 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leucci G 2006 Contribution of ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography to identify the cavity and fractures under the main church in Botrugno Lecce, Italy; J. Archaeol. Sci 33 1194–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loke M H 1999 Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies a practical guide to 2-D and 3-D surveys, pp67.Google Scholar
  30. Loke M H 2004 Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Electrical Imaging Surveys. p. 128.Google Scholar
  31. Loke M H and Barker R D 1996 Rapid leastsquares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method; Geophys. Prospect. 44 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez-Moreno F J, Galindo-Zaldívar J, Pedrera A, Teixido T, Ruano P, Peña J A, González-Castillo L, Ruiz-Constán A, López-Chicano M and Martín-Rosales W 2014 Integrated geophysical methods for studying the karst system of Gruta de las Maravillas Aracena, Southwest Spain; J. Appl. Geophys. 107 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra S and Johnson P T 2005 Geochronological constraints on evolution of the singhbhum Mobile belt and associated basic volcanics of Eastern Indian Shield; Gondwana Res. 8 129–142.Google Scholar
  34. Mohammed S F 2011 Geophysical characteristics of Wadi Hanifah water system, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Arab. J. Geosci. 4 1051–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mondal N C, Singh V and Ahmed S 2013 Delineating shallow saline groundwater zones from Southern India using geophysical indicators; Environ. Monit. Assess. 1856 4869–4886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parasnis DS 1986 Principles of applied geophysics (4th edn); Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 402p.Google Scholar
  37. Rai S N, Thiagarajan S, Shankar G B K, Kumar M S, Venkatesa V, Mahesh G and Rangarajan R 2015 Groundwater prospecting in Deccan traps covered Tawarja basin using electrical resistivity tomography; J. Indian Geophys. Union 193 256–269.Google Scholar
  38. Saraf A K and Chowdhury P R 1998 Integrated remote sensing and GIS for groundwater exploration and identification of artificial recharge sites; Int. J. Remote Sens. 19 10, 1825–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarma V S 2014 Electrical resistivity ER, selfpotential SP, induced polarisation IP, spectral induced polarisation (SIP) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) prospection in NGRI for the past 50 years: A brief review; J. Ind. Geophys. Union 182 245–272.Google Scholar
  40. Saxena V K, Mondal N C, Singh V S and Kumar D 2005 Identification of waterbearing fractures in hard rock terrain by electrical conductivity logs, India; Environ. Geol. 48 1084–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharma S P and Baranwal V C 2005 Delineation of groundwater-bearing fracture zone in a hardrock area integrating very Low frequency electromagnetic and resistivity data; J. Appl. Geophys. 57 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shishaye H A and Abdi S 2016 Groundwater exploration for water well site locations using geophysical survey methods; Hydrol. Curr. Res. 71, 7–226.Google Scholar
  43. Singh K K K 2013b Delineation of waterlogged area in inaccessible underground workings at hingir rampur colliery using 2D resistivity imaging: A case study; Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 721, 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh K K K, Singh K B, Lokhande R D and Prakash A 2004 Multielectrode resistivity imaging technique for the study of coal seam; J. Sci. Ind. Res. 63 927–930.Google Scholar
  45. Srivastava V K, Giri D N and Bharadwaj P 2012 Study and mapping of ground water prospect using remote sensing, GIS and geoelectrical resistivity techniques –A case study of Dhanbad district, Jharkhand, India; J. Ind. Geophys. Union 162, 55–63.Google Scholar
  46. Stummer P, Maurer H and Green A 2004 Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information; Geophysics 69 120–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Surinaidu L, Gurunadha R V V S, Tamma R G, Mahesh J, Padalu G, SarmaV S, Rajendra P P, Mallikarjuna R S and Manga R R B 2012 An integrated approach to investigate saline water intrusion and to identify the salinity sources in the Central Godavari delta, Andhra Pradesh, India; Arab. J. Geosci.,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-0634-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Telford W M, Geldart L P, Sheriff R E and Keys D A 1976 Applied geophysics; Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Yadav G S and Singh S K 2007 Integrated resistivity surveys for delineation of fractures for groundwater exploration in hard rock areas; J. Appl. Geophys. 62 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhou B and Greenhalgh S A 2000 Crosshole resistivity tomography using different electrode configurations; Geophys. Prospect. 48 887–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zohdy A A R, Eaton G P and Mabey D R 1974 Application of surface geophysics to groundwater investigation, techniques of water resources investigations, US Geol. Surv., 116p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhay Kumar Bharti
    • 1
  • S K Pal
    • 2
    Email author
  • Saurabh
    • 2
  • K K K Singh
    • 1
  • P K Singh
    • 1
  • Amar Prakash
    • 1
  • R K Tiwary
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Assessment and RemediationCSIR-CIMFRDhanbadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Applied GeophysicsIndian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)DhanbadIndia

Personalised recommendations