Surveys in Geophysics

, 30:601 | Cite as

Influence of Degree of Saturation in the Electric Resistivity–Hydraulic Conductivity Relationship

  • Mohamed Ahmed Khalil
  • Fernando A. Monterio Santos


The relationship between aquifer hydraulic conductivity and aquifer resistivity, either measured on the ground surface by vertical electrical sounding (VES) or from resistivity logs, or measured in core samples have been published for different types of aquifers in different locations. Generally, these relationships are empirical and semi-empirical, and confined in few locations. This relation has a positive correlation in some studies and negative in others. So far, there is no potentially physical law controlling this relation, which is not completely understood. Electric current follows the path of least resistance, as does water. Within and around pores, the model of conduction of electricity is ionic and thus the resistivity of the medium is controlled more by porosity and water conductivity than by the resistivity of the rock matrix. Thus, at the pore level, the electrical path is similar to the hydraulic path and the resistivity should reflect hydraulic conductivity. We tried in this paper to study the effect of degree of groundwater saturation in the relation between hydraulic conductivity and bulk resistivity via a simple numerical analysis of Archie’s second law and a simplified Kozeny-Carmen equation. The study reached three characteristic non-linear relations between hydraulic conductivity and resistivity depending on the degree of saturation. These relations are: (1) An inverse power relation in fully saturated aquifers and when porosity equals water saturation, (2) An inverse polynomial relation in unsaturated aquifers, when water saturation is higher than 50%, higher than porosity, and (3) A direct polynomial relation in poorly saturated aquifers, when water saturation is lower than 50%, lower than porosity. These results are supported by some field scale relationships.


Hydrogeophysics Water saturation Resistivity Hydraulic conductivity 



The corresponding author is indebted to the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal) for his support through the post-doctoral fellowship (SFRH\BPD\29971/2006). This work was partly developed in the scope of the scientific cooperation agreement between the CGUL and the NRIAG.


  1. Alger RP (1966) Interpretation of electric logs in fresh water wells in unconsolidated formations, Soc of Prof Well Log Analyst Trans, Art CC, 1–25 Google Scholar
  2. Allessandrello E, Le Moine Y (1983) Determination de la permeabilite des alluvions a partir de la prospection electrique. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 26–27, 357–360Google Scholar
  3. Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics, American institute of mineral and metal engineering. Technical publication, 1442, Petroleum Technology, pp. 8–13Google Scholar
  4. Börner FD, Schön JH (1991) A relation between the quadrature component of electrical conductivity and the specific surface area of sedimentary rocks. Log Anal 32:612–613Google Scholar
  5. Börner FD, Schopper JR, Weller A (1996) Evaluation of transport and storage properties in the soil and groundwater zone from induced polarization measurements. Geophys Prospect 44:583–601. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00167.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brovelli A, Cassiani G, Dalla E, Bergamini F, Pitea D, Binley AM (2005) Electrical properties of partially saturated sandstones: novel computational approach with hydrogeophysical applications. Water Resour Res 41:W08411. doi: 10.1029/2004WR003628
  7. Brown SR (1989) Transport of fluid and electric current through a single fracture. J Geophys Res 94(37):9429–9438. doi: 10.1029/JB094iB07p09429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler JJ (2005) Hydrogeological methods for estimation of spatial variations in hydraulic conductivity. In: Rubin Y, Hubbard S (eds) Hydrogeophysics, water science and technology library, chapter 2, vol 50:523. Springer, pp. 23–58Google Scholar
  9. Carothers JE (1968) A statistical study of the formation factor relation. Log Anal 9(5):13–20Google Scholar
  10. 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 (Amst) 357:218–227. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croft MG (1971) A method of calculating permeability from electric logs. In: Geological research , US Geol Surv, Prof Pap 750-B, PP B265–B269Google Scholar
  12. Deppermann K (1954) Die Abhangikeit des scheinbaren Widerstandes vom Sonden abstand bei der vierpunkt-Methode. Geophys Prospect II:262–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1954.tb01291.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekwe AC, Onu NN, Onuoha KM (2006) Estimation of aquifer hydraulic characteristics from electrical sounding data: the case of middle Imo River basin aquifers, south-eastern Nigeria. J Spatial Hydrol 6(2):121–132Google Scholar
  14. El-Sayed M, Abdel-Azim M, Mostafa M (1995) Evaluation of groundwater resources in Wadi El-Assuity area, east of Assuit city, eastern desert, Egypt. Water resources risk conf. American Inst. of hydrology, pp. 42–56Google Scholar
  15. Frohlich RK (1994) The electric–hydraulic relationship. A geophysical model. Trends in hydrogeology 1:347–358Google Scholar
  16. Frohlich RK, Kelly WE (1985) The relation between hydraulic transmissivity and transverse resistance in a complicated aquifer of glacial outwash deposits. J Hydrol (Amst) 79(3–4):215–229. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(85)90056-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frohlich RK, Fisher JJ, Summerly E (1996) Electric-hydraulic conductivity correlation in fractured crystalline bedrock: central Landfill, Rhode Island, USA. J Appl Geophys 35:249–259. doi: 10.1016/0926-9851(96)00028-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gomez-Rivero O (1977) some considerations about the possible use of the parameters a and m as a formation evaluation tool through well logs. Trans SPWLA 18th Ann Logging Symp: J 1–24Google Scholar
  19. Heigold PC, Gilkeson RH, Cartwright K, Reed PC (1979) Aquifer transmissivity from surficial electrical methods. Ground Water 17(4):338–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1979.tb03326.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill HJ, Milburn JD (1956) Effect of clay and water salinity on electrochemical behaviour of reservoir rocks. Trans AIME 207:65–72Google Scholar
  21. Hubbert MK (1940) The theory of groundwater motion. J Geol 48(8):785–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huntley D (1987) Relations between permeability and electrical resistivity in granular aquifers. Ground Water 24(4):466–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1986.tb01025.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelly WE (1977) Geoelectric sounding for estimating aquifer hydraulic conductivity. Ground Water 15(6):420–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1977.tb03189.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly WE, Reiter P (1984) Influence of anisotropy on relations between electrical and hydraulic properties of aquifers. J Hydrol (Amst) 74:311–321. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(84)90021-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khalil MA, Abd-Alla MA (2005) An approach to estimate hydraulic parameters and water quality from surface resistivity measurements at wadi El-Assuity area, Egypt. NRIAG J Geophys, Special issue: 267–281Google Scholar
  26. Kosiniski WK, Kelly EW (1981) Geoelectrical sounding for predicting aquifer properties. Ground Water 19:163–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1981.tb03455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lesmes D, Friedman SP (2005) Relationships between the electrical and hydrogeological properties of rocks and soils. In: Rubin Y, Hubbard S (eds) Hydrogeophysics, water science and technology library, chapter 4, vol 50:523. Springer pp. 87–128Google Scholar
  28. Martys NS (1999) Diffusion in partially-saturated porous materials. Mater Struct (Materiaux et Constructions) 32:555–562Google Scholar
  29. Mazac O, Landa I (1979) On determination of hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of granular aquifers by vertical electric sounding. J Geol Sci 16:123–135 (in Czech)Google Scholar
  30. Mazac O, Landa I, Skuthan B (1978) Information capacity of some geoelectrical methods applied to hydrogeological survey. Proceedings of the 23rd geophysical symposium, Verna, Bulgaria, pp. 460–472Google Scholar
  31. Mazac O, Kelly W, Landa I (1985) A hydrogeophysical model for relations between electrical and hydraulic properties of aquifers. J Hydrogeology 79:1–19. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(85)90178-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazac O, Cislerova M, Kelly WE, Landa I, Venhodova D (1990) Determination of hydraulic conductivities by surface geoelectrical methods. In: S. Ward (ed) Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, vol II. Soc Explor Geophys, pp. 125–131Google Scholar
  33. Mbonu PC, Ebeniro JO, Ofoegbu CO, Ekine AS (1991) Geoelectric sounding for the determination of aquifer characteristics in parts of the Umuahia area of Nigeria. Geophys 56(2):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Niwas S, Singhal DC (1981) Estimation of aquifer transmissivity from Dar Zarrouk parameters in porous media. J Hydrol (Amst) 50:393–399. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(81)90082-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Niwas S, Singhal DC (1985) Aquifer transmissivity of porous media from resistivity data. J Hydrol (Amst) 82:143–153. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(85)90050-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pflannkuch HO (1969) On the correlation of electrical conductivity properties of porous system with viscous flow transport coefficients. Proceedings of the IAHR First International symposium on fundamentals of transport phenomena in porous media, Haifa, pp. 42–54Google Scholar
  37. Plotnikov NI (1972) Geophysical methods in hydrology and engineering geology. Nedra, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter CR and Carothers JE (1970) Formation factor-porosity relation derived from well log data. Trans SPWLA 11th Ann Logging Symp, pp. 1–19Google Scholar
  39. Rubin Y, Hubbard S (2005) Hydrogeophysics, water science and technology library, vol 50. Springer, Berlin, p 523Google Scholar
  40. Schon J (1983) Petrophysik. Akademie-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Shockley WG, Garber PK (1953) Correlation of some physical properties of sand. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Zurich 1:203–209Google Scholar
  42. Singh KP (2003) Geo-electrical exploration for groundwater in a Hard Rock Region of Hyderabad, India. First Break 21:29–34Google Scholar
  43. Singh KP (2005) Nonlinear estimation of aquifer parameters from surfficial resistivity measurements. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:917–938Google Scholar
  44. Soupios P, Kouli M, Vallianatos F, Vafidis A, Stavroulakis G (2007) Estimation of aquifer hydraulic parameters from surficial geophysical methods: a case study of Keritis basin in Chania (Crete-Greece). J Hydrol (Amst) 338:122–131. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sudo H, Tanaka T, Kobayashi T, Kondo T, Takahashi T, Miyamoto M, Amagai M (2004) Permeability imaging in granitic rocks based on surface resistivity profiling. Explor Geophys 35:56–61. doi: 10.1071/EG04056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Telfold WM, Geldert LP, Sheriff RE (1991) Applied geophysics. Cambridge Univ, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Timur A, Hemkins WB, Worthington AE (1972) Porosity and pressure dependence of formation resistivity factor for sandstones. Trans CWLS 4th Formation Evaluation Symp, p. 30Google Scholar
  48. Urish DW (1981) Electrical resistivity–hydraulic conductivity relationships in glacial outwash aquifers. Water Resour Res 17(5):1401–1408. doi: 10.1029/WR017i005p01401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vinegar HJ, Waxman MH (1984) Induced polarization of shaly sands. Geophysics 49(8):1267–1287. doi: 10.1190/1.1441755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waxman MH, Smits LJM (1968) Electrical conductivities in oil bearing sands. Journal of the society of Petroleum Engineerins 8:107–122Google Scholar
  51. Worthington PF (1975) Quantitative geophysical investigations of granular aquifers. Surv Geophys 2(3):313–366. doi: 10.1007/BF01447858 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Worthington PF (1976) Hydrogeophysical equivalence of water salinity, porosity and matrix conduction in arenaceous aquifers. Ground Water 14(4):224–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1976.tb03107.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Worthington PF (1993) The uses and abuses of the Archie equations: 1 the formation factor–porosity relationship. J Appl Geophys 30:215–228. doi: 10.1016/0926-9851(93)90028-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yadav GS (1995) Relating hydraulic and geoelectric parameters of the Jayant aquifer, India. J Hydrol (Amst) 167:23–38. doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)02637-Q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yadav GS, Abolfazli (1998) Geoelectrical sounding and their relationship to hydraulic parameters in semi-arid regions of Jalore, north-western India. J Appl Geophys 39:35–51. doi: 10.1016/S0926-9851(98)00003-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yadav GS, Kumar R, Singh PN, Singh SC (1993) Geoelectrical soundings for aquifer characterization around Jayant colony-singrauli, Sidhi District, MP. J Assoc Expl Geophysists XIV(3):123–131Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Ahmed Khalil
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fernando A. Monterio Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Geofísica da Universidade de Lisboa-IDLUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.National Research Institute of Astronomy and GeophysicsCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations