GIS Analysis
Well yield data were collected from reports prepared by various companies and entered into a common database. Pumping test data were only available at three locations (see numbered wells in Fig. 2). All other yield estimates are based on observations made from wells equipped with motorized or hand pumps as well as bucket-drawn water. It is important to note that reported yield values are limited by the capacity of pumps and thus may underestimate the true capacity of wells. In addition to the type of pump the estimated yield depends further on the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer such as the transmissivity and storativity and also well design parameters such as well penetration, and well bore storage which is related to the well diameter. Therefore many factors can affect the estimated yield values and their accuracy. To get a broader statistical base, well data outside of the study area were included in the analysis.
Table 1 summarizes hydrogeological and lithological data in the GIS. The log mean well yield within the different rock types is highest in basalts with 105 L/min followed by foliated metamorphic rocks with 81.5, alluvium 75, granitoids 70 and lowest in nonfoliated metamorphic rocks with 32 L/min. The high yield in the basalts is due to primary porosity in the form of columnar and sheet jointing as well as vesicles. Comparison of the metamorphic rocks shows that the foliated varieties are more permeable than the nonfoliated ones due to foliation planes, which enhance permeability. In spite of high porosity and permeability in the alluvium the calculated average yield is low. This is due to the fact that some wells, which tap alluvium, also tap crystalline rock aquifers with low yields, thus decreasing the mean values. The variations of yield values within one rock type, for instance in basalts from 6 L/min to as high as 1,200 L/min, and among different rock types is due to heterogeneity of the hard rock aquifers. The heterogeneities are possibly attributed to both lateral and vertical variations in permeability of the weathered hard rock material owing to relict mineralogical (residual quartz veins) or structural features (residual fractures).
Table 1 Well yields by rock type (L/min) based on hydrogeological and lithological data in the GIS
Due to heterogeneities and the difficulty in delineating them due to the scale effects in hard rock areas, correlation of yield and landform is problematical especially at the regional scale. However, in areas with limited previous investigations and few boreholes, groundwater studies could rely on other data sources such as DEM. DEM data proved to be useful for geomorphologic mapping and correlation of landforms with well yields. The measured average yield in each landform is given in Table 2. The channels show very good groundwater potential with high measured average yield and valley fill deposits of unconsolidated materials providing groundwater storage. Where the drainage channels in the basement are structurally controlled they can together with the valley fill deposits form an integrated aquifer system. The plains and terraces have good to very good groundwater potential with good measured average well yields. In the basaltic rocks, the plains represent different lava flow layers with gentle to flat slopes with individual flow layers forming terraces. In the crystalline rock areas the plains represent either peneplains or alluvial plains. The hydrogeology of the peneplains is discussed in detail in relation to field investigations in a following section. Pediments in basalt show measured average well yield values about 100 L/min (Table 2) and can be classified as having moderate to good groundwater potential. Scarps and ridges have very low measured average well yields and thus have poor to very poor groundwater potential. Peaks have no groundwater potential.
Table 2 Output of geomorphology vs. yield from GIS analysis
Lineament interpretations of the study area were correlated with existing boreholes in a GIS. Results show a good correlation between well yield and proximity to satellite imaged lineaments (Solomon and Quiel 2003), supporting the fact that groundwater flow is predominantly in the fracture systems. It demonstrates also the significance of the mapped lineaments as well as the quality of the image data and the role of remote sensing techniques. Furthermore, groundwater “outcrops” in the form of springs and riverbed groundwater discharge areas as well as wells often lie on major lineaments of different orientations (Fig. 3a). For instance, the spring at Debarwa (star S in Fig. 3a) is flowing along a NW-SE oriented lineament intersected by a NNE-SSW trending dyke. A high yielding borehole (480 L/min, borehole 1 in Table 3) is within 100 m of the same dyke. The high yield could be due to increased permeability owing to parallel joints in or adjacent to the dyke. All these observations emphasize the hydrogeological significance of lineaments. It is important to note, however, that proximity to lineaments does not necessarily imply that the borehole yield is high. Low yielding boreholes sited on satellite-imaged lineaments could occasionally be connected to poorly transmissive dykes or clay gouge in fracture zones (Sander 1996). Moreover fractures and their delineation are subjected to scale assessment problems and thus high yielding wells could be located far from major lineaments owing to local fractures that are associated with lineaments but may not be distinguished at the mapping scale.
Table 3 Borehole information used to construct the cross-section in Fig. 6
Field investigations
Figure 6 shows a cross-section along A-A′ constructed from the logs of three boreholes as a conceptual model. The stratigraphy established from the lithological logs shows different basaltic flow layers. Boundaries between successive layers are marked by highly weathered and lateritized basalts and/or basement rocks. The top layer consists of cotton soil derived from in situ weathering of the parent material with a depth of 3–10 m, with an average of 5 m. The thickness of the weathered basalt varies from sequence to sequence and from site to site and ranges from 7 to 30 m with an average of 20 m. The thickness of the fresh basalt layers varies from 5 to 25 m with an average of 15 m. The thickness of the lateritized basement varies from 25 to 40 m.
Table 3 shows borehole information used to construct the cross-section in the basaltic rocks (Fig. 6). In basaltic aquifers, the water strike depths mostly correspond to weathered zones at varying depths. In certain cases the water strikes occur at greater depth in other lithologic horizons such as the lateritized and fresh crystalline basement rocks (borehole 1) and also at the boundary between weathered and fresh basalts of vesicular nature (borehole 3). Increased yield was observed in borehole 1 at the third water strike depth near to the contact of deeply weathered schists (laterite) and fresh schists with a yield of 480 L/min. At the base of the weathered zone, rounded sand to gravel sized particles of lateritic origin were observed during drilling. In weathered crystalline mantles, aquifers tend to occur at the base of the mantle where less aggressive weathering is associated with saturated conditions and where coarse, partly weathered sand-sized clasts predominate (e.g. McFarlane 1992; Taylor and Howard 2000). The high yield is attributed to the increased permeability.
The static water level in the basaltic aquifers occurs at shallower depth (about 5 m) than the depth at which water was first encountered during drilling. Enhanced weathering in the unsaturated zones as well as saturated zones produces a clay-rich material of lower permeability and is responsible for apparent semi-confined to confined conditions in weathered aquifers both of basalt and other crystalline-rock origin. The permeability contrast among the various layers (Fig. 6) determines whether the aquifer systems will react as a confined or unconfined condition. However, pumping test results suggest that the weathered basalt aquifer is more transmissive than the weathered crystalline rock aquifers implying unconfined conditions. Furthermore the water strikes at different depths (Table 3) hints that groundwater occurrence is partly controlled by local fractures or fracture zones. Therefore a common water table is considered realistic assuming that all the aquifer systems are hydraulically connected through relict or fresh fracture zones.
Pumping tests are commonly used to better understand the aquifer system, to quantify hydraulic characteristics and to assess yield. However, to determine the hydraulic characteristics as well as the relationship between yield (pumping rate) and drawdown, data over longer time periods are required. Drawdown behavior in pumped hard rock aquifers is usually affected by its heterogeneity and the scale of heterogeneity may be large relative to the scale of the test. This makes it very difficult to get reliable values for hydraulic parameters, but despite their short duration the pumping tests provide some knowledge about the hard rock aquifers. A log-log plot of drawdown vs. time for two pumping tests is given in Fig. 7. In the basaltic aquifers the drawdown plot for borehole 1 at Debarwa (Fig. 7) shows a straight line suggesting linear flow. Although water strikes are recorded at three lithological units (Table 3), the pumping test indicates flow from fractures or fracture zones associated with dykes. The overlying weathered horizon provides storage for the fractured bedrock aquifer, and thus the two units form an integrated aquifer system. For borehole 3 (Tera Emini) the curve can be fitted to a Theis type curve suggesting a radial flow pattern, indicating homogeneous conditions in the basalt aquifer generally hydraulically similar to those of a porous medium and good storage characteristics in the deeply weathered zone. In spite of similar pumping rates in the two wells, at 0.5 min after pumping started (Fig. 7), the drawdown in borehole 3 was about 2.2 m but 3.2 m in borehole 1. This difference indicates that the transmissivity is higher in borehole 3 than in borehole 1 since boreholes tapping less transmissive bedrock experience greater drawdown in the fractured bedrock aquifer and induce increased drawdown in the weathered mantle (Taylor and Howard 2000). In the basaltic aquifers the occurrence of groundwater is thus controlled both by lithologic and structural factors.
GIS Modeling
In models derived through integration of various thematic maps using a GIS approach, several parameters are commonly involved to assess groundwater potential in hard rock areas. Precipitation and runoff are vital to estimate different recharge conditions and assess the groundwater yield. Unfortunately the few available precipitation and stream flow data do not allow one to model the spatial variation of rainfall within the small project area. Data indicate that local and regional showers are typical. Recharge is considered indirectly in the model since areas with high well yields are often also areas with comparatively high recharge. Complex local aquifer systems are quite common with e.g., alluvial fill hydraulically connected to fracture systems in granites. It was not attempted to model this situation in detail, but to consider this in providing suitable categories for e.g., lithology and geomorphology. Thus the existence of different rates and flow patterns (in different interacting aquifers) was not considered in the current study due to the heterogeneity in hard rock areas as well as their scale effects, which were discussed earlier.
The modeling involves delineation of zones of varying groundwater potential based on integration of four thematic maps in a raster based GIS. The four parameters considered are:
-
(i)
Lithology
-
(ii)
Lineaments
-
(iii)
Geomorphology
-
(iv)
Slope.
Every class in the thematic layers was placed into one of the following categories viz. (i) Very Good (ii) Good (iii) Moderate (iv) Low and (v) Poor, depending on their level of groundwater potential. Considering their behavior with respect to groundwater control, the different classes were given suitable values, according to their importance relative to other classes in the same thematic layer. The values assigned to different classes in all thematic layers are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Values assigned for different groundwater control parameters (modified after Krishnamurthy et al. 1996)
The values assigned to the lithology layer take into account the hydrogeological significance of the rock types. The characteristics considered for lithology are: rock type, type and thickness of weathering, fracture density, occurrence of dykes etc. For instance, a maximum value of 80 was given for alluvium and basalt due to their favorable properties for storing and transmitting groundwater owing to their primary porosities and permeabilities. The granitoid and schistose metamorphic rocks were assumed to have better aquifer properties than the remaining rock types due to primary structures owing to joints and secondary structures owing to foliations, respectively. Furthermore, overall lineament density was also considered in assigning values for the lithology. For example, visual inspection of the lineament map showed high lineament density in the granitoid rocks compared to other rock types.
In general, lineaments act as conduits for groundwater flow, and hence are hydrogeologically significant. The values given for lineaments were based primarily on the relation of well yields to proximity of lineaments. Accordingly five classes were defined based on distance from lineaments (Table 4) with decreasing values as the distance from lineaments increase. It is assumed that the intensity of fracturing decreases with increasing distance away from the lineaments. This implies that the best chances for groundwater targeting are close to lineaments.
The landforms of the study area were classified into seven classes and values were assigned according to the landform type. For instance, channels and plains were considered the best targets for locating groundwater and thus were assigned values of 80 and 70, respectively. In contrast, scarps, ridges and peaks are given the value of 10 as poor candidates for obtaining groundwater. The digital elevation model was also used to produce a slope map. Five slope classes were defined (Table 4), with a decreasing value as the slope increases. This implies that the flatter the topography the better are the chances for obtaining groundwater.
After assigning values for each class in each layer, these four layers were added and the sums were grouped into groundwater potential zones (Table 5). The highest value that the sum can attain is 320 (80 + 80 + 80 + 80) and the lowest value is 40 (10 + 10 + 10 + 10), see Table 4. The minimum of 40 was set as the class interval and all areas with a sum not larger than 50 % of the maximum, that is a value of 160, were considered to be zones of poor groundwater potential. Based on this model a map of the distribution of zones of varying groundwater potential was prepared (Fig. 8a). The validity of the model was tested against the borehole yield data, which reflect the actual groundwater potential. Although very low yielding wells exist in all the zones due to heterogeneity, the highest yields occur in the very good and good zones for groundwater prospecting (Fig. 8b). The very good zones delineated through this model have average yields of 201 L/min. Good zones for groundwater prospecting have average well yields of 102 L/min. The moderate, low and poor zones have average yields of 85, 56 and 25 L/min, respectively. All well yields in each category represent average logarithmic values because the yield data show a lognormal distribution. It should be pointed out that though the GIS approach is very efficient in data integration and analyses, data from discrete points, such as boreholes, are often extrapolated over large areas. This is especially problematical in hard rock areas, as the hydrogeological characteristics can vary by several orders of magnitude over short distances. Nevertheless such models can serve as a good starting point to design a suitable groundwater exploration plan.
Table 5 Groundwater potential zones
The spatial distribution of the various zones of groundwater potential obtained from the model generally shows regional patterns related to lithology, drainage, landform and lineaments. The very good and good zonal categories are along major lineaments and drainage channels with and without structural control, highlighting the importance of lineaments and geomorphological units for groundwater investigations. Areas with moderate groundwater potential are attributed to combinations of lithology, slope and landform. The low to poor categories of groundwater potential are distributed mainly along ridges and pediments and to some extent along lineaments in the low to poor slope classes. The basalts in the west (Fig. 8a) are classified as having moderate to very good groundwater potential. Densely fractured basaltic rocks show good to very good groundwater potential.