Arabian Journal of Geosciences

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 3685–3696 | Cite as

Quantitative characterization to construct hard rock lithological model using dual resistivity borehole logging

Original Paper

Abstract

Borehole logging is a very robust tool to accurately locate transitions between weathered layers and fractures in hard rock settings; therefore, it can help substantially in the construction of regional and local hydrogeological models. A simple and low-cost resistivity probe, named dual resistivity logger (DRL), was experimented to map the formation resistivity at two investigation distances by means of three active electrodes. Forward response of DRL was analysed on the synthetic data generated for a conceptual hard rock hydrogeological model as well as tested at two field sites in hard rock aquifers of southern India. The DRL was proven efficient in demarcating the aquifer into successive hydrogeological zones, i.e. the laminated-fissured (L-F), the fissured-semi-fissured (F-SF), and semi-fissured-basement (SF-B) layers. The results were verified by comparison with well lithologs based on rock cuttings and temperature logging. The DRL has proven its ability to locate the hydraulically active fractures as well as contacts between weathered layers. It offers a simple but efficient way to acquire underground data for building hydrogeological models.

Keywords

Borehole geophysics Dual resistivity logger Hard rock aquifer Weathered Fractures Hydrogeological model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been carried out at the Indo-French Centre for Groundwater Research (IFCGR), a joint centre of NGRI, India and BRGM, France. The authors wish to thank the Ministry of External Affairs of both countries for their kind support and cooperation. We are thankful to the Director, NGRI, Hyderabad for his support, encouragement and according permission to publish this paper. We acknowledge SOERE H+ network for its help on the EHP Choutuppal site development. Special thanks to Sri RSK Srinivasulu, Engineer and Mr. Anil Kumar for fabricating the DRL probe at NGRI. The valuable discussions and support extended by Dr. Jerome Perrin, Dr. D.V Reddy, Dr. Surendra Atal, Dr. E. Nagaiah, W. Mohamed, Mohd Ahmeduddin, P. Raghvendra, and V. Zaphu are sincerely acknowledged. Finally, we would like to express thanks to the anonymous reviewer and editor for their critical reviews and valuable suggestions, which improved the paper.

References

  1. Anderson MP (2005) Heat as a groundwater tracer. Ground Water 43(6):951–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chandra S (2006) Contribution of geophysical properties in estimating hydrogeological parameters of an aquifer. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. BHU, Varanasi, pp. 176Google Scholar
  3. Chandra S, Ananda Rao V, Singh VS (2004) A combined approach of Schlumberger and axial pole-dipole configurations for groundwater exploration in hard rock areas. Curr Sci 86(10):1437–1443Google Scholar
  4. Chandra S, Rao VA, Krishnamurthy NS, Dutta S, Shakeel A (2006) Integrated studies for characterization of lineaments to locate groundwater potential zones in hard rock region of Karnataka, India. Hydrogeol J 14:767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra S, Ahmed S, Ram A, Dewandel B (2008) Estimation of hard rock aquifers hydraulic conductivity from geoelectrical measurements: a theoretical development with field application. J Hydrol 35:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandra S, Atal S, Nagaiah E, Mallesh D, Krishnamraju P, Ahmeduddin M, Zaphu V, Seshamma NV, Rao VA, Ahmed S (2009) Electrical resistivity tomography survey to test the performance multi-electrode resistivity systems (Syscals). NGRI-2009-GW-690. p 26 Google Scholar
  7. Chandra S, Dewandel B, Dutta S, Ahmed S (2010) Geophysical model of geological discontinuities in a granitic aquifer: analyzing small scale variability of electrical resistivity for groundwater occurrences. J Appl Geophys 71:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandra S, Ahmed S, Nagaiah E, Singh SK, Chandra PC (2011) Geophysical exploration for lithological control of arsenic contamination in groundwater in Middle Ganga Plains, India. Phys Chem Earth, Elsevier publication (on line published): doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2011.05.009
  9. Chatelier M, Ruelleu S, Bour O, Porel Gl, Delay F (2011) Combined fluid temperature and flow logging for the characterization of hydraulic structure in a fractured karst aquifer 400(3–4):377–386Google Scholar
  10. Christensen NB (2009) Sensitivity function of EM method: a lecture note. Aarhus University, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dakhnov VN (1959) Geophysical well logging. Q Colo Sch Mines 57(2), 445 pGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng R, Guo H, Xiao C (2013) Apply array induction logging to study the low-resistivity belt zone identification method. Arab J Geosci. doi: 10.1007/s12517-013-1049-4 Google Scholar
  13. Dewandel B, Lachassagne P, Wyns R, Maréchal JC, Krishnamurthy NS (2006) A generalized 3-D geological and hydrogeological conceptual model of granite aquifers controlled by single or multiphase weathering. J Hydrol 330:260–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewandel B, Gandolfi J-M, Zaidi FK, Ahmed S, Subrahmanyam K (2007) A decision support tool with variable agroclimatic scenarios for sustainable groundwater management in semi-arid hard rock areas. Curr Sci 92(8):1093–1102Google Scholar
  15. Dewandel B, Perrin J, Ahmed S, Aulong S, Hrkal Z, Lachassagne P, Samad M, Massuel S (2010) Development of a tool for managing groundwater resources in semi-arid hard rock regions. Application to a rural watershed in south India. Hydrol Process 24:2784–2797. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7696 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewandel B, Maréchal JC, Ladouche B, Bour O, Ahmed S, Chandra S, Pauwels H (2011) A Conceptual hydrodynamic model of a geological discontinuity in hard rock aquifers: example of a quartz reef in granitic terrain in South India. J Hydrol 405:475–487Google Scholar
  17. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC (1966) Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting First Edition. Pergamon Press, London, 519 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Klepikova M, Le Borgne T, Bour O, Davy P (2011) A methodology for using borehole temperature-depth profiles under ambient, single and cross-borehole pumping conditions to estimate fracture hydraulic properties. J Hydrol 407:145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.018 Google Scholar
  19. Krishnamurthy NS, Chandra S, Kumar D (2007) Characterization of hard rock aquifer. A chapter in book “Groundwater dynamics in hard rock aquifers”. Capital Publishing Company, pp 64-86Google Scholar
  20. Loke MH (2000) Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies: a practical guide to 2-D and 3-D surveys, p 67Google Scholar
  21. Loke MH, Barker RD (1996) Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudo sections using a quasi-Newton method. Geophys Prospect 44:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch EJ (1962) Formation evaluation. Harper’s Gosciences Services, Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
  23. Maréchal JC, Dewandel B, Subrahmanyam K (2004) Use of Hydraulic test at different scales to characterize fracture network properties in the weathered-fractured layer of hard rock aquifer. Water Resour Res 40(W11508):1–17Google Scholar
  24. Molz FJ, Morin RH, Hess AE, Melville JG, Guven O (1989) The impeller meter for measuring aquifer permeability variations: evaluation and comparison with other tests. Water Resour Res 25(7):1677–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neuman SP (2005) Trends, prospects and challenges in quantifying flow and transport through fractured rocks. Hydrogeol J 13:124–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paillet FL (1998) Flow modeling and permeability estimation using borehole flow logs in heterogeneous fractured formations. Water Resour Res 34(5):997–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pehme PE, Parker BL, Cherry JA, Greenhouse JP (2009) Improved resolution of ambient flow through fractured rock with temperature logs. Ground Water 48(2):191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perrin J, Mohamed W (2008) Borewell drilling report of Hydrogeological Park, Choutuppal. IFCGR-2008, p 20Google Scholar
  29. Perrin J, Mascré C, Pauwels H, Ahmed S (2011) Solute recycling: an emerging threat to groundwater resources in southern India? J Hydrol. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.024 Google Scholar
  30. Roy A, Apparao A (1971) Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics 36:943–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sonkamble S, Chandra S, Nagaiah E, Dar FA, Somvanshi VK, Ahmed S (2013) Geophysical signatures resolving hydrogeological complexities over hard rock terrain—a study from Southern India. Arab J Geosci. doi: 10.1007/s12517-013-0931-4 Google Scholar
  32. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE, Keys DA (1976) Applied geophysics. Cambridge University Press, New York, 860 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subash Chandra
    • 1
  • Alexandre Boisson
    • 2
  • Shakeel Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIR-National Geophysical Research InstituteIndo-French Centre for Groundwater ResearchHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.BRGM, D3E/NREIndo-French Centre for Groundwater ResearchHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations