Advertisement

Geoelectrical parameters for the estimation of hydrogeological properties

  • M. T. NoorellimiaEmail author
  • W. Aimrun
  • M. M. Z. Azwan
  • A. F. Abdullah
Original Paper
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Excessive groundwater extraction could cause environmental degradation such as surface water depletion, saltwater intrusion, and many more. Therefore, groundwater should be extracted in sustainable way to avert the harmful consequences. An accurate amount of sustainable groundwater yield can be obtained through the groundwater flow model that has low uncertainty. It is important to incorporate the actual hydrogeological properties into groundwater flow modeling to reduce the uncertainty. The purpose of this study is to estimate hydrogeological properties, namely, hydraulic conductivity (K) and transmissivity (T), by combining the electrical resistivity (ER) and induced polarization (IP) methods into an analytical equation. This study used an analytical equation that relates the geoelectrical parameters to the hydrogeological properties. The ER and IP methods were applied to improve the accuracy of geoelectrical parameters using the ABEM Lund Imaging system. The developed analytical equation was compared with other studies for verification. The results showed that the analytical equation model developed in this study had the lowest error compared to that of other published analytical equation models. Therefore, the combination of the ER and IP methods with a new proposed constant value for the analytical equation increased the accuracy of hydrogeological properties.

Keywords

Hydraulic conductivity Transmissivity Analytical equation Geoelectrical imaging survey Induced polarization Electrical resistivity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. Hafis Ramli, Nur Hidayu Abu Hassan, Nur Zahanim Muhummad Zahir, and colleagues, including staff at KBP Department who assisted with the data acquisition in the field. The authors thank the anonymous reviewer for their critical review that improved the quality of the paper.

Funding

This research is funded through the research grant from Universiti Putra Malaysia, IPS Grant no. 9475500.

References

  1. Aizebeokhai AP (2014) Assessment of soil salinity using electrical resistivity imaging and induced polarization methods. Afr J Agric Res 9(45):3369–3378.  https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.8008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristodemou E, Thomas-Betts A (2000) DC resistivity and induced polarisation investigations at a waste disposal site and its environments. J Appl Geophys 44(2–3):275–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00022-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batayneh AT (2009) A Hydrogeophysical model of the relationship between Geoelectric and hydraulic parameters , Central Jordan. J Water Resour Prot 2009(December):400–407.  https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2009.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batte AG, Barifaijo E, Kiberu JM, Kawule W, Muwanga A, Owor M, Kisekulo J (2010) Correlation of Geoelectric data with aquifer parameters to delineate the groundwater potential of hard rock terrain in Central Uganda. Pure Appl Geophys 167(12):1549–1559.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0109-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra S, Ahmed S, Ram A, Dewandel B (2008) Estimation of hard rock aquifers hydraulic conductivity from geoelectrical measurements: a theoretical development with field application. J Hydrol 357:218–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comte JC, Cassidy R, Nitsche J, Ofterdinger U, Pilatova K, Flynn R (2012) The typology of Irish hard-rock aquifers based on integrated hydrogeological and geophysical approach. Hydrogeol J 20:1569–1588.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-012-0884-9
  7. Dahlin T, Leroux V, Nissen J (2002) Measuring techniques in induced polarisation imaging. J Appl Geophys 50(3):279–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(02)00148-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farid A, Jadoon K, Akhter G, Iqbal MA (2013) Hydrostratigraphy and hydrogeology of the western part of Maira area, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan: a case study by using electrical resistivity. Environ Monit Assess 185(3):2407–2422.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2720-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Juanah MSE, Ibrahim S, Sulaiman WNA, Latif PA (2012) Groundwater resources assessment using integrated geophysical techniques in the southwestern region of Peninsular Malaysia. Arab J Geosci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-012-0700-9
  10. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC (1966) Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting. Pergamon Press. 523 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Khalil MA, Monterio Santos FA (2009) Influence of degree of saturation in the electric resistivity–hydraulic conductivity relationship. Surv Geophys 30(6):601–615.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-009-9072-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mastrocicco M, Vignoli G, Colombani N, Zeid NA (2009) Surface electrical resistivity tomography and hydrogeological characterization to constrain groundwater flow modeling in an agricultural field site near Ferrara (Italy). Environ Earth Sci 61(2):311–322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0344-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Niwas S, Celik M (2012) Equation estimation of porosity and hydraulic conductivity of Ruhrtal aquifer in Germany using near surface geophysics. J Appl Geophys 84:77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Niwas S, Singhal DC (1985) Aquifer transmissivity of porous media from resistivity data. J Hydrol 82(82):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perdomo S, Ainchil JE, Kruse E (2014) Hydraulic parameters estimation from well logging resistivity and geoelectrical measurements. J Appl Geophys 105:50–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Fractures and discontinuities. In: Applied Hydrogeology of Fractured Rocks. Springer, Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8799-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sinha R, Israil M, Singhal DC (2009) A hydrogeophysical model of the relationship between geoelectric and hydraulic parameters of anisotropic aquifers. Hydrogeol J 17(3):495–503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0424-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slater L (2007) Near surface electrical characterization of hydraulic conductivity: from Petrophysical properties to aquifer geometries—a review. Surv Geophys 28:169–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-007-9022-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Soupios P, Kouli M, Vallianatos F (2007) Estimation of aquifer hydraulic parameters from surficial geophysical methods: a case study of Keritis Basin in Chania (Crete–Greece). J Hydrol 338:122–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taheri TA, Voudouris KS, Eini M (2007) Groundwater balance, safe yield and recharge feasibility in a semi-arid environment: a case study from western part of Iran. J Appl Sci 7:2967–2976.  https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2007.2967.2976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sherrif RE (1990) Applied geophysics (Second). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Utom AU, Odoh BI, Egboka BCE, Egboka NE, Okeke HC (2013) Estimation of subsurface hydrological parameters around Akwuke, Enugu, Nigeria using surface resistivity measurements. J Geophys Eng 10(2):25016.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/10/2/025016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yin EH (1976) Geological map of Kuala Lumpur, Selangor. Geological Survey Malaysia, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia. Sheet No. 94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. T. Noorellimia
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. Aimrun
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. M. Z. Azwan
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. F. Abdullah
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)SerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.SMART Farming Technology Research Centre, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)SerdangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations