Advertisement

Demarcation of Groundwater Possible Zones in a Hard Rock Terrain, Nagavathi Watershed of Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, India—Geophysical and Geoinformatics Approach

  • R. KannanEmail author
  • S. Venkateswaran
  • M. Vijay Prabhu
  • R. Suresh
  • A. Kalaiyarasi
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The electrical resistivity survey has been very successful for decades in delineating prospective groundwater zones around the world. In general, the method is used to decipher the horizontal and vertical electrical resistivity distribution of the subsurface earth’s layers. In the perspective of hydrogeology, understanding the subsurface conditions and lithological variations is quite necessary to target groundwater potential zones. One-dimensional (1D) geoelectrical resistivity survey, vertical electrical sounding (VES), was carried out in selected locations across the Nagavathi watershed, Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu in India. The Nagavathi watershed is positioned in an undulated terrain and is dominantly underlain by charnockite and gneissic rocks. Forty-six VES using Schlumberger’s electrode arrangement were conducted over the entire Nagavathi watershed, using an equal grid method. The field data were processed by IPI2 Windows software and different types of sounding curves were identified. The lineaments such as faults, joints, and fractures act as pathways to groundwater movement, major lineaments were identified from satellite data using ArcGIS 9.3. In the study area consisting of hard rocks, groundwater prospecting is a difficult task without proper understanding of subsurface lithology. From the VES results, geoelectric layers such as topsoil, weathered, fractured, and infinitely hard rock layers were identified and eight thematic maps involving spatial distribution of resistivities and thickness were prepared, in addition to geology, hydrogeomorphology, and lineament thematic layers. The combination of the eleven thematic layers in ArcGIS resulted in a groundwater potential map, providing the information about very good (75.799 km2), good (85.595 km2), medium (134.240 km2), poor (115.124 km2), and very poor (69.336 km2) groundwater possible zones.

Keywords

Groundwater possible zone GIS IPI2win software Vertical electrical sounding 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors of this paper will agree, accept, and comply with all the ethical standards set by the journal.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This paper does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Anomohanran O (2013) Geophysical investigation of groundwater potential in Ukelegbe, Nigeria. J Appl Sci 13:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basavarajappa HT, Manjunatha MC (2015) Groundwater quality analysis in Precambrian rocks of Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India using geo-informatics technique. International Conference on Water Resources, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, IJEE, Elsevier, SurathkalGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard J, Valla P (1991) Groundwater exploration in fissured media with electrical and VLF methods. Geoexploration 27:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bocco G, Mendoza M, Velàzquez A (2001) Remote sensing and GIS-based regional geomorphological mapping—tools for land use planning in developing countries. Geomorphology 39:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubenzer O, Bolten A (2008) The use of new elevation data (SRTM/ASTER) for the detection and morphometric quantification of Pleistocene megadunes (draa) in the eastern Sahara and the southern Namib. Geomorphology 102:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler D, Walsh S (1998) The application of remote sensing and geographic information systems in the study of geomorphology: an introduction. Geomorphology 21:179–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crósta A, De Souza Filho C (2003) Targeting key alteration minerals in epithermal deposits in Patagonia, Argentina, using ASTER imagery and principal component analysis. Int J Remote Sens 24(21):4233–4240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deepa S, Venkateswaran S, Ayyandurai R, Kannan R, Vijay Prabhu M (2016) Groundwater recharge potential zones mapping in upper Manimuktha Sub basin Vellar river Tamil Nadu India using GIS and remote sensing techniques. Mod Ear Sys Envi 2:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitterman DV, Stewart MT (1986) Transient electromagnetic sounding for groundwater. Geophysics 51:995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flathe H (1955) Possibilities and limitations in applying geoelectrical methods to hydrogeological problems in the coastal areas of North West Germany. Geophys Prospect 3:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garg V, Nikam BR, Thakur PK, Aggarwal SP (2013) Assessment of the effect of slope on runoff potential of a watershed using NRCS-CN method. Int J Hydrol Sci Technol 3(2):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hema CN, Padmalal D, Ammini J, Vinod PG (2017) Delineation of groundwater potential zones in river basins using geospatial tools—an example from southern Western Ghats, Kerala, India. J Geovis Spat Anal 1:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jagannathan K, Kumar NV, Jayaraman V, Manivel M (1996) An approach to demarcate groundwater potential zones through remote sensing and geographic information system. Int J Remote Sens 17:1867–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jasmin I, Mallikarjuna P (2015) Delineation of groundwater potential zones in Araniar River basin, Tamil Nadu, India: an integrated remote sensing and geographical information system approach. Environ Earth Sci 73:3833–3847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaikkonen P, Sharma SP (1997) Delineation of near-surface structures using VLF and VLF-R data-an insight from the joint inversion result. Lead Edge 16(11):1683–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karunanidhi D, Vennila G, Suresh M, Karthikeyan P (2014) Geoelectrical Schlumberger investigation for characterizing the hydrogeological conditions using GIS in Omalur taluk, Salem District, Tamil Nadu, India. Arab J Geosci 7:1791–1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishnamurthy NS, Kumar D, Rao Anand V, Jain SC, Ahmed S (2003) Comparison of surface and sub-surface geophysical investigations in delineating fracture zones. Curr Sci 84(9):1242–1246Google Scholar
  18. Minor T, Carter J, Charley M, Knowks B, Gustafson P (1994) The use of GIS and remote sensing in groundwater exploration for developing countries. Proceeding of the 10th ERIM thematic conference on geologic remote sensing held in San Antonio, USA, 168–179Google Scholar
  19. Porsani JL, Elis VR, Hiodo FY (2005) Geophysical investigations for the characterization of fractured rock aquifers in Itu, SE Brazil. J Appl Geophys 57:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramaiah SN, Gopalakrishna GS, Srinivasa Vittala S, K Najeeb K (2012) Geomorphological mapping for identification of groundwater potential zones in hard rock areas using geo-spatial information – a case study in Malur Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka, India. Nat Environ Pollut Technol 11(3):369–376Google Scholar
  21. Ramakrishnan D, Bandyopadhyay A, Kusuma KN (2009) SCS-CN and GIS-based approach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali watershed, Mahi River basin, India. J Earth Syst Sci 118(4):355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramasamy SM, Nagappan N, Selvakumar R (2005) Fracture pattern modeling and groundwater hydrology in hard rock aquifer system, Central Tamil Nadu, India. Ramasamy SM (ed) Remote Sensing in Water Resources. Rawat Publication, Jaipur, p 121–136Google Scholar
  23. Ravi Shankar MN, Mohan G (2005) Assessment of the groundwater potential and quality in Bhatsa and Kalu river basins of Thane district, western Deccan Volcanic Province of India. J Environ Geol 49:990–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Richards C, Roaza HP, Pratt TR (1996) Applying GIS to groundwater assessments. Proceedings of AWRA symposium on GIS and water resources held in Ft.Lauderdala, Florida USA, Florida Ft. LauderdaleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ronning JS, Lauritsen T, Mauring E (1995) Locating bedrock fractures beneath alluvium using various geophysical methods. J Appl Geophys 34:137–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sander P (1997) Water well siting in hard rock areas: identifying promising targets using a probabilstic approach. Hydrogeol J 5(3):32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scheidegger AE (1973) Hydrogeomorphology. J Hydrol Elsevier 20(3):193–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(73)90061-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sharma SP, Baranwal VC (2005) Delineation of groundwater bearing fracture zones in a hard rock area integrating very low frequency electromagnetic and resistivity data. J Appl Geophys 57(155):166Google Scholar
  29. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (1999) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 400 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Srinivasamoorthy K, Vasanthavigar M, Chidambaram S, Anandhan P, Sarma VS (2014) Geophysical investigations for groundwater in a hard rock terrain, Salem district, Tamil Nadu, India. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suresh M, Gurugnanam B, vasudevan S, Ramesh D, Lingeswara rao SV (2009) GIScience in exploring groundwater studies at Upper Thirumanimuthar Sub-Basin, Cauvery River, Tamilnadu, India. Ultra Sci 21(1):51–62Google Scholar
  32. Teevw RM (1999) Groundwater exploration using remote sensing and a low cost GIS. Hydrogeol J 3(3):21–30Google Scholar
  33. Venkateswaran S, Ayyandurai R (2015) Groundwater potential zoning in upper Gadilam River Basin, Tamil Nadu. Aquatic Procedia 4:1275–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venkateswaran S, Vijay Prabhu M, Karuppannan S (2014) Delineation of groundwater potential zones using geophysical and GIS techniques in the Sarabanga Sub Basin, Cauvery River, Tamil Nadu. Int J Curr Res Aca Rev 2:58–75Google Scholar
  35. Waikar ML, Nilawar AP (2014) Identification of groundwater potential zone using remote sensing and GIS technique. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 3(5):12163–12164Google Scholar
  36. Zohdy AAR (1969) The use of Schlumberger and equatorial soundings in groundwater investigations near El Paso, Texas. Geophysics 34:713–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zohdy AAR, Eaton GP, Mabey DR (1974) Applications of surface geophysics to groundwater investigations. In: USGS–TWRI book, vol 2, p 116Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Kannan
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Venkateswaran
    • 1
  • M. Vijay Prabhu
    • 1
  • R. Suresh
    • 1
  • A. Kalaiyarasi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeologyPeriyar UniversitySalemIndia
  2. 2.AVS College of Arts and ScienceSalemIndia

Personalised recommendations