Hydraulic Parameters Estimation Using 2D Resistivity Technique: A Case Study in Kapas Island, Malaysia

  • Nura Umar KuraEmail author
  • Mohammad Firuz RamliEmail author
  • Ahmad Zaharin Aris
  • Wan Nor Azmin Sulaiman
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)


This work is aimed at generating 2D aquifer porosity and hydraulic conductivity using 2D resistivity techniques. Two resistivity profile lines were measured in an island that is characterized by complex geology. Then, rock and soil samples were collected along the resistivity lines, together with water samples for laboratory analysis which includes determination of the electrical properties of the samples using an inductance-capacitance-resistance (LCR) meter to calibrate the results. Subsequently Bussian equation was employed to determine the aquifer porosity, and then, the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer via the Kozeny-Carman-Bear equation. Next 2D cross-sections of both porosity and hydraulic conductivity were plotted using surfer software. The result was compared with the pumping test and the results were found to be very close to one another (40 and 38 md−1), respectively. These findings would enhance researchers’ understanding of patterns of groundwater flow in an aquifer system.


2D Resistivity Hydraulic properties Hydraulic conductivity Porosity Aquifer Small island 



The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of Late Dr. Shaharin Ibrahim who played a major role in this research. May he rest in peace.


  1. 1.
    Soupios, P.M., Kouli, M., Vallianatos, F., Vafidis, A., Stavroulakis, G.: Estimation of aquifer hydraulic parameters from surficial geophysical methods: a case study of Keritis Basin in Chania (Crete—Greece). J. Hydrol. 338, 122–131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandra, S., Ahmed, S., Ram, A., Dewandel, B.: Estimation of hard rock aquifers hydraulic conductivity from geoelectrical measurements: a theoretical development with field application. J. Hydrol. 357, 218–227 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Lima, O., Niwas, S.: Estimation of hydraulic parameters of shaly sandstone aquifers from geoelectrical measurements. J. Hydrol. 235(1–2), 12–26 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Archie, G.: The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Am. Instit. Min. Metal. Eng. Tech. Publ. Pet. Technol. 1422, 8–13 (1942)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tizro, T., Voudouris, K., Basami, Y.: Estimation of porosity and specific yield by application of geoelectrical method—a case study in western Iran. J. Hydrol. 454–455, 160–172 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khalil, M.A., Santos, F.A.M.: Hydraulic conductivity estimation from resistivity logs: a case study in Nubian sandstone aquifer. Arab. J. Geosci. 6(1), 205–212 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Worthington, P.F.: The uses and abuses of the Archie equations, 1: the formation factor-porosity relationship. J. Appl. Geophys. 30, 215–228 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loke, M., Chambers, J., Rucker, D., Kuras, O., Wilkinson, P.: Recent developments in the direct-current geoelectrical imaging method. J. Appl. Geophys. 95, 135–156 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samouëlian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., Richard, G.: Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 173–193 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khalil, M.A., Santos, F.A.M.: 2D resistivity inversion of 1D electrical-sounding measurements in deltaic complex geology: application to the delta Wadi El-Arish, Northern Sinai, Egypt. J. Geophys. Eng. 8, 422–433 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niwas, S., Gupta, P.K., de Lima, O.A.L.: Nonlinear electrical conductivity response of shaly-sand reservoir. Curr. Sci. 92(5), 612–617 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niwas, S., Celik, M.: Equation estimation of porosity and hydraulic conductivity of Ruhrtal aquifer in Germany using near surface geophysics. J. Appl. Geophys. 84, 77–85 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hubbert, M.: The theory of groundwater motions. J. Geol. 48(8), 785–944 (1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Domenico, P.A., Schwartz, F.W.: Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lide, D.R.: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 74th edn. Boca Raton, FL. Internet Version 2005. CRC Press (2005)
  16. 16.
    Loke, M.: Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies A practical guide to 2-D and 3-D surveys. 10 2000 [Online]. Available: Accessed 12 11 2012
  17. 17.
    Juanah, M.S.E., Ibrahim, S., Sulaiman, W.N.A., Latif, P.A.: Groundwater resources assessment using integrated geophysical techniques in the southwestern region of Peninsular Malaysia. Arab. J. Geosci. 6, 4129–4144 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hördt, A., Blaschek, R., Kemna, A., Zisser, N.: Hydraulic conductivity estimation from induced polarisation data at the field scale—the Krauthausen case history. J. Appl. Geophys. 62, 33–46 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of ScienceFederal University DutseDutseNigeria
  2. 2.Faculty of Environmental StudiesUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdang, SelangorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations