Water Resources Management

, Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 3845–3860 | Cite as

Assessing Groundwater Geospatial Variation Using Microgravity Investigation in the Arid Riyadh Metropolitan Area, Saudi Arabia: a Case Study

  • Mohamed El Alfy
  • Ibrahim ElSebaie
  • Ayman Aguib
  • Ahmed Mohamed
  • Qassem Tarawneh
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 236 Downloads

Abstract

A combination of relative microgravity measurements at ground surface, and depth to water and water table measurements from adjacent wells were used to estimate geospatial variation of groundwater. A highly accurate portable Grav-Map gravimeter was used for gravimetric measurements at locations nearby a 42 well water table monitoring program. To efficiently correlate the two data sets, wells were clustered into five groups by geological unit and water saturation. Microgravity data was processed, interpreted, and correlated with both the depths to groundwater and the water table levels. Regression analyses revealed a strong negative correlation for microgravity and depth to groundwater in all five clusters; correlation coefficients varied between 0.70 and 0.97, and measured 0.78 over the entire study area. Microgravity values increased as groundwater depth decreased, likely because rising groundwater fills voids and fractures within soil and rocks, increasing rock density and therefore relative gravity. To validate the correlation, we superimposed a map of depths to water on the first derivative of microgravity measurements. The shallowest groundwater depths were positively related to the zero first derivatives, having intersection areas within a 75 % significance interval. Negative first derivatives covered the rest of the study area, with relative gravity decreasing with increasing groundwater depth. This technique can precisely and efficiently determine changes in subsurface geology and geospatial changes in depths to the groundwater table. Distances between microgravity stations should be small, to better detect small changes in gravity values, reflecting density contrasts underground.

Keywords

Geospatial groundwater variation Relative microgravity Waterlogging Grav-map 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to editor, associate editor, reviewers and Dr. David Jalajel for their valuable comments and manuscript revision. This project was funded by the National Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (MAARIFAH), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Award Number (SPA 1505).

References

  1. ADA (2013) Enhancing the Management of Rising Groundwater in Arriyadh, volume 1 a: geological and hydrological investigations. Arriyadh Development Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, p. 343Google Scholar
  2. Atsushi M (1997) Effect of groundwater on gravity observation at Kyoto. International Association of Geodesy Symposia 117: 123–130Google Scholar
  3. Bonneville A, Heggy E, Strickland C, Normand J, Dermond J, Fang Y, Sullivan C (2015) Geophysical monitoring of ground surface deformation associated with a confined aquifer storage and recovery operation. Water Resour Manag 29:4667–4682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman D, Sahm E, Gettings P (2008) Monitoring aquifer recharge using repeated high-precision gravity measurements: a pilot study in South Weber, Utah. Geophysics 73:WA83–WA93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiansen L, Binning P, Rosbjerg D, Andersen O, Bauer G (2011) Using time-lapse gravity for groundwater model calibration: an application to alluvial aquifer storage. Water Resour Res 47(6):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christie F (1978) Analysis of gravity data from the Picacho basin. Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, Pinal County, Arizona, 105 pGoogle Scholar
  7. Creutzfeldt B, Gu¨ntner A, Vorogushyn S, Merz B (2010) The benefits of gravimeter observations for modeling water storage changes at the field scale. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14:1715–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csapó G, Szabó Z, Völgyesi L (2003) Changes of gravity influenced by water-level fluctuations based on measurements and model computation. Reports on Geodesy, Warsaw University Technology 64(1): 143–153Google Scholar
  9. Culek T, Palmer D (1987) Gravity modeling of the Brimfield township buried valley and associated aquifer, Portage County, Ohio, Jourl. Ground Water 25(2):167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El Alfy M (2013) Hydrochemical modeling and assessment of groundwater contamination in Northwest Sinai, Egypt. Water Environ Res 85(3):211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El Alfy M (2016) Assessing the impact of arid area urbanization on flash floods using GIS, remote sensing, and HEC-HMS rainfall–runoff modeling. Hydrol Res. doi:10.2166/nh.2016.133 Google Scholar
  12. El Alfy M, Merkel B (2006) Hydrochemical relationships and geochemical modeling of ground water in AlArish area, North Sinai, Egypt. American Institute of Hydrology (AIH). Hydrological Sci Technol J 22(1–4):47–62Google Scholar
  13. El Alfy M, Lashin A, Al-Arifi N, Al-Bassam A (2015) Groundwater characteristics and pollution assessment using integrated Hydrochemical investigations GIS and multivariate geostatistical techniques in arid areas. Water Resour Manag 29:5593–5612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukuda Y (2011) Groundwater and subsurface environments: human impacts in asian coastal cities, M. Taniguchi (ed.) Springer Science and Business Media. 85–112Google Scholar
  15. Gehman C (2009) Estimating specific yield and storage change in an unconfined aquifer using temporal gravity surveys. Water Resour Res 45(4):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haldar S (2012) Mineral exploration “Pricipals and application”. Elsevier inc, Netherlands, 315 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Hannah J (2001) Airborne gravimetry: a status report, prepared for the surveyor general land information New Zealand. 11pGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare J (2008) The 4D microgravity method for water flood surveillance: part IV modeling and interpretation of early epoch 4D gravity surveys at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Geophysics 73(6):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasan S, Peter A, Boll J, Kroner C (2006) Modeling the hydrological effect on local gravity at Moxa, Germany. J Hydrometeorol 7(3):346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ibrahim E, Kassem O, Al-Bassam A (2012) Aeromagnetic data interpretation to locate buried faults in Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia. Sci Res Essays 7(22):2022–2030Google Scholar
  21. Jacob T, Bayer R, Chery J, Jourde H, Moigne N, Boy J, Hinderer J, Luck B, Brunet P (2008) Absolute gravity monitoring of water storage variation in a karst aquifer on the Larzac plateau (southern France). J Hydrol 359:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacob T, Bayer R, Chery J, Le Moigne N (2010) Time-lapse microgravity surveys reveal water storage heterogeneity of a karst aquifer. J Geophys Res-Sol Ea 115(6):18 pGoogle Scholar
  23. Manivit J, Pellaton C, Vaslet D, Le Nindre Y-M, Brosse J, Fourniquet J (1985) Geological map of the Wadi al Mulayh quadrangle sheet 22H. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian Deputy Ministry Mineral ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurer D (1985) Gravity survey and depth to bedrock in Carson valley, Nevada-California, USGS water- resources investigations report 84-4202, OFSS, USGS ox 25425, Lakewood, CO 80225Google Scholar
  25. Metwaly M, Elawadi E, Moustafa S, Al-Arifi N, El Alfy M, Al-Zaharani E (2014) Groundwater contamination assessment in the Al-Quwy'yia area of Central Saudi Arabia using transient electromagnetic and 2D electrical resistivity tomography. Environ Earth Sci 71(2):827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nishijima J, Saibi H, Sofyan Y, Shimose S, Fujimitsu Y, Ehara S, Fukuda Y, Hasegawa T, Taniguchi M (2010) Reservoir monitoring using hybrid micro-gravity measurements in the takigami geothermal field, central kyushu, japan. proceedings world geothermal congress 2010 Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 April 2010, 1–6Google Scholar
  27. Niu G (2007) Development of a simple groundwater model for use in climate models and evaluation with gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) data. J Geophys Res-Atmos 112:D07103Google Scholar
  28. Pool D, Anderson M (2008) Groundwater storage change and land subsidence in Tucson basin and Avra valley, South-Eastern Arizona 1998–2002, USDOI and USGS report 2007–5275Google Scholar
  29. Pool D, Eychaner J (1995) Measurements of aquifer-storage change and specific yield using gravity surveys. Ground Water 33(3):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powers R (1968) Saudi Arabia. Lexique stratigraphique international, 3, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris 171 pGoogle Scholar
  31. Powers R, Ramirez L, Rednrond C, Elberg E (1966) Geology of the arabian Peninsula, sedimentary geology of Saudi Arabia. Geological survey professional paper 560-D, United States government printing office, 147 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Seo K (2006) Terrestrial water mass load changes from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE). Water Resor Res 42(5):1–3Google Scholar
  33. Steineke M, Bramkamp R, Sanders N (1958) Stratigraphic relations of Arabian Jurassic oil. In: Weeks LG (ed) Habitat of oil, the American Association of Petroleum Geologist. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, pp. 1294–1329Google Scholar
  34. Swenson S, Yeh P, Wahr J, Famiglietti J (2006) A comparison of terrestrial water storage variations from GRACE with in situ measurements from Illinois. Geophys Res Lett 33(64–1):143–153Google Scholar
  35. USGS (2012) Microgravity methods for characterization of groundwater-storage changes and aquifer properties in the karstic Madison aquifer in the Black Hills of South Dakota, 2009–12. Sci Investig Rep 2012–5158, 22pGoogle Scholar
  36. Vaslet D, Al-Muallem M, Maddah S, Brose J, Fourniguet J, Breton J, Nindre Y. (1991) Ministry of petroleum and mineral resources, 24: 54pGoogle Scholar
  37. Virtanen H, Nordman M, Bilker K, Mäkinen J, Virtanen J (2007) Gravity variation due to hydrology at Metsahovi. American Geophysical Union, Finland, pp. H21D–0859Google Scholar
  38. Watson K (1987) Gravity drainage analysis for scale heterogeneous porous materials under falling water table conditions. Water Resour Res 23(5):818–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wziontek H, Wilmes H, Wolf P, Werth S, Guntner A (2009) Time series of superconducting gravimeters and water storage variations from the global hydrology model WGHM. J Geodyn 48:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed El Alfy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ibrahim ElSebaie
    • 3
  • Ayman Aguib
    • 3
  • Ahmed Mohamed
    • 4
  • Qassem Tarawneh
    • 1
  1. 1.PSIPW Chair, Prince Sultan Institute for Environmental, Water, and Desert ResearchKing Saud UniversityRiyadhKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Geology Department, Faculty of ScienceMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt
  3. 3.Civil Engineering Department, College of EngineeringKing Saud UniversityRiyadhKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  4. 4.Geomatics USA, LLCGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations