Application of different aquifer parameters for groundwater potential evaluation—implications for resources development

Abstract

Groundwater potential (GWP) of an aquifer refers to availability of extractable groundwater resources. GWP of aquifers is commonly estimated in terms of aquifer yield (Y), normalised yield (YN), specific capacity (Sp-C) and productivity (PA). These aquifer parameters have certain advantages and limitations in assessing GWP. Significance of using these parameters as estimators is lying with their ability to change the rank and status of GWP of different aquifers when compared. Therefore, use of different estimators may lead to contradictory status of GWP. To examine this, in this study, GWP of aquifers has been evaluated using the aforesaid aquifer parameters, and compared. Applicability and suitability of these parameters have been examined and discussed in this article with the help of hypothetical examples and through a case study from the composite crystalline aquifers of the Aravalli Terrain, India. Through logical deduction, the study infers that productivity is a superior measure for GWP as it provides a comparison of groundwater resources among aquifers not only on the basis of rate of water discharge but also in terms of sustainability of groundwater resource.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Abbreviations

d :

depth of well

d S :

saturated well section

P A :

aquifer productivity

P W :

well productivity

S :

storativity

Sp-C:

specific capacity

s w :

drawdown after pumping

T :

transmissivity

T S :

saturated thickness

Y :

yield

Y N :

normalised yield

References

  1. Banks D, Morland G, Frengstad B (2005) Use of non-parametric statistics as a tool for the hydraulic and hydrogeochemical characterization of hard rock aquifers. SCOTTISH J GEOL 41(1):69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhuiyan C (2010) Hydrogeological factors: their association and relationship with seasonal water-table fluctuation in the composite hardrock Aravalli terrain, India. ENVIRON EARTH SC 60:733–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhuiyan C, Singh RP, Kogan FN (2006) Monitoring drought dynamics in the Aravalli terrain (India) using different indices based on ground and remote sensing data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 8:289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2006.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhuiyan C, Flügel WA, Singh RP (2009a). Erratic monsoon, growing water demand, and declining water table. J SPATIAL HYDROL 9(1), Spring 2009

  5. Bhuiyan C, Singh RP, Fügel WA (2009b) Modelling of ground water recharge-potential in the hard-rock Aravalli terrain. India: a GIS approach ENVIRON EARTH SC 59:929–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0087-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlsson L, Carlstedt A (1977) Estimation of transmissivity and permeability in Swedish bedrock. Nord Hydrol 8:103–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark L (1977) The analysis and planning of step drawdown tests. GEOL SOC EN 10:125–143

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen AJB, Karasaki K, Benson S, Bodvarsson G, Freifeld B, Benito P, Cook P, Clyde J, Grossenbacher K, Peterson J, Solbau R, Thapa B, Vasco D, Zawislanski P (1996) Hydrogeologic characterization of fractured rock formations: a guide for groundwater remediations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management, Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, Research and Development EPA/600/S-96/001

  9. Daniel CC (1989) Statistical analysis relating well yield to construction practices and siting of wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of North Carolina. USGS WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2341-A

  10. Davis SN, Turk LJ (1964) Optimum depth of wells in crystalline rocks. Ground Water 2(2):6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Department of Science, Technology (DST) (1994) Resource atlas of Rajasthan. Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

    Google Scholar 

  12. El-kadi AI, Oloufa AA, Eltahan AA, Malik HU (1994) Use of a geographic information system in site-specific ground water modelling. Ground Water 32:617–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall Inc. New Jersey, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fshae OA, Tijani MN, Talabi AO, Adedeji OI (2014) Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the crystalline basement terrain of SW-Nigeria: an integrated GIS and remote sensing approach. Appl Water Sci 4:19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Graham MT, Ball DF, Dochartaigh O, MacDonald AM (2009) Using transmissivity, specific capacity and borehole yield data to assess the productivity of Scottish aquifers. Quarterly Journal of Engineering GEOL AND HYDROGEOL 42:227–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Groundwater Department (GWD) (2000). Annual report. Government of Rajasthan, India

  17. Henriksen H (1995) Relation between topography and well yield in boreholes in crystalline rocks, Sogn og Fjordane, Norway. Ground Water 33(4):635–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henriksen H (2003) The role of some regional factors in the assessment of well yields from hard-rock aquifers of Fennoscandia. Hydrogeol J 11(6):628–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jetel J (1968) A new comparative regional parameter of permeability for hydrogeologic maps. In: Mémoires of the 8th Congress of International Association of Hydrogeologists, Istanbul 1967, VIII, 101-107

  20. Kim JC, Jung HS, Lee S (2019) Spatial mapping of the groundwater potential of the Geum River Basin using ensemble models based on remote sensing images. Remote Sens 2019(11):2285. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11192285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Knopman DS, Hollyday EF (1993) Variation in specific capacity in fractured rocks, Pennsylvania. Ground Water 31(1):135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Krishnamurthy J, Venkatesa Kumar N, Jayaraman V, Manivel M (1996) An approach to demarcate ground water potential zones through remote sensing and a geographic information system. Int J Remote Sens 17:1867–1884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lattman LH, Parizek RR (1964) Relationship between fracture traces and the occurrence of ground water in carbonate rocks. J Hydrol 2:73–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Loiselle M, Evans D (1999) Fracture permeability and density distributions in coastal Maine. In: The Proceedings of the Focus Conference on Eastern Regional Groundwater Issues, J Lehr (ed.), 255–271, Dublin, Ohio: National Ground Water Association

  25. Mace RE (1997) Determination of transmissivity from specific capacity tests in a karst aquifer. Ground Water 35(5):738–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mace, R.E., 2000. Estimating transmissivity using specific-capacity data. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/Gam/GAM_documents/sc_report.pdf

  27. Mace RE (2001) Estimating transmissivity using specific-capacity data. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas. GEOLOGICAL CIRCULAR 01–2

  28. Moore RB, Schwarz GE, Clark SE Jr, Walsh GJ, Degnan JR (2002) Factors related to well yield in the fractured-bedrock aquifer of New Hampshire. U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1660

  29. Morland, G. (1997) Petrology, lithology, bedrock structures, glaciation and sea level. Important factors for groundwater yield and composition of bedrock boreholes? NGU rapport 1997.122 vol 2, pp 401

  30. Naik PK, Awasthi AK, Anand AVSS, Mohan PC (2001) Hydrogeologic framework of the Deccan terrain of the Koyna River basin, India. Hydrogeol J 9(3):243–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Olofsson B (1994) Flow of groundwater from soil to crystalline rock. APPL HYDRGEOL 2(3):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pinto D, Shrestha S, Babel MS, Ninsawat S (2017) Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the Comoro watershed, Timor Leste using GIS, remote sensing and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique. Appl Water Sci 7:503–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0270-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Prasad RK, Mondal NC, Banerjee P, Nandakumar MV, Singh VS (2008) Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS. Environ Geol 55:467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Randolph RB, Krause RE, Maslia ML (1985) Comparison of aquifer characteristics derived from local and regional aquifer tests. Ground Water 23(3):309–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rayne TW, Bradbury KR, Muldoon MA (2001) Delineation of capture zones for municipal wells in fractured dolomite, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, USA. Hydrogeol J 9(5):432–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sander P, Chesley MM, Minor TB (1996) Groundwater assessment using remote sensing and GIS in a rural groundwater project in Ghana: lessons learned. Hydrogeol J 4:40–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saraf AK, Choudhury PR (1998) Integrated remote sensing and GIS for ground water exploration and identification of artificial recharge sites. Int J Remote Sens 19:1825–1841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shahid S, Nath SK, Roy J (2000) Ground water potential modelling in a soft rock area using a GIS. Int J Remote Sens 21:1919–1924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Siddiqui SH, Parizek RR (1971) Hydrogeological factors influencing well yields in folded and faulted carbonate rocks in central Pennsylvania. Water Resour Res 7(5):1295–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  41. Summers WK (1972) Specific capacities of wells in crystalline rocks. Ground Water 10(6):37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Theis CV, Brown RH, Meyer RR (1983) Estimating the transmissibility of aquifers from the specific capacity of wells. In Bentall R (comp.) Methods of determining permeability, transmissibility, and drawdown. USGS Water-Suppl Pap 1536-1, 331–341

  43. Uma KO, Kehinde MO (1994) Potentials of regolith aquifers in relation to water supplies to rural communities: a case study from parts of Northern Nigeria. J Min Geol 30(1):97–109

    Google Scholar 

  44. Viswanathiah MN, Sastri JVC (1978) Specific capacity of wells in some hard rocks of Karnataka. J Geol Soc India 19(9):426–430

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wladis D, Gustafson G (1999) Regional characterization of hydraulic properties of rock using air-lift data. Hydrogeol J 7(2):168–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yin ZY, Brook GA (1992) The topographic approach to locating high-yield wells in crystal-line rocks: does it work? Ground Water 30(1):96–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zabihi M, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS, Behzadfar M (2016) GIS based multivariate adaptive regression spline and random forest models for groundwater potential mapping in Iran. Environ Earth Sci 75:665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5424-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is expressing his sincere thanks to Dr. S.M. Pandey (ex-chief geophysicist) and Dr. U.K. Singh (ex-geophysicist) of Ground Water Department, Jodhpur, and to Mr. Anurag Khanna (ex-geologist) Central Ground Water Board, Jaipur for extending help in the procurement of geological and hydrological data of the study area.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandrashekhar Bhuiyan.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhuiyan, C. Application of different aquifer parameters for groundwater potential evaluation—implications for resources development. Arab J Geosci 13, 752 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05678-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Groundwater potential
  • Normalised yield
  • Specific capacity
  • Aquifers