Integration of geophysics and petrography for identifying the aquifer and the rock type: A case study from Giddalur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract

A comprehensive geophysical and petrological study was carried out at Giddalur area in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh, which is geologically a highly deformed area and is difficult to delineate the aquifer zone(s). The task was to find out the exact rock type in which aquifer is concealed as well as to delineate the aquifer zone, which can yield sufficient quantity of water. The resistivity models derived from geophysical dataset were interpreted in terms of hydrogeology and the results revealed substantial resistivity contrast of the geological formations within the study area. We have delineated two major groundwater potential zones based on this study. These zones were tapped at different depths in diverse rock types. Drilled hand specimens (rock cuttings) were not adequate, so these specimens were petrographically studied to reveal the exact contact zones of the rock type. On integration of the geophysical and the petrographic results, it was illustrated that two aquifer zones were struck at a depth of 92 and 122 m between shale-phyllite and phyllite-quartzite, respectively. These findings were correlated, which matched with the lithology of the drilled borehole. This integrated approach will be helpful in strategy for groundwater assessment as well as prospecting groundwater resources in different geological terrain.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

References

  1. Al’pin L M 1950 The theory of dipole sounding; Gostoptekhizdat, Moscow (Trans. In: Dipole methods for measuring earth conductivity, Plenum Press, New York, 1966).

  2. Bernard J and Valla P 1991 Groundwater exploration in fissured media with electrical and VLF methods; Geoexploration 27 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhaskara Rao G 2013 Groundwater Brochure, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh, CGWB report, 23p.

  4. Bhattacharya P K and Patra H P 1968 Direct current geoelectric sounding, principles and interpretation, methods in geochemistry and geophysics; series-9, Elsevier Publishing Company, 135p.

  5. Burman Dev G K and Das P K 1990 Groundwater exploration in hard rock terrain: An experience from eastern India; In: The Hydrological Basis for Water Resources Management (eds) Shamir U and Jiaqi C, Proceedings of the Beijing Symposium, IAHS Publ. 197 19–30.

  6. Census of India 2011 Andhra Pradesh district census handbook village and town directory directorate of census operations Andhra Pradesh.

  7. Chaudhuri A K, Saha D, Deb G K, Deb S P, Mukherjee M K and Ghosh G 2002 The Purana basins of southern cratonic province of India – a case for Mesoproterozoic fossil rifts; Gondwana. Res. 5(1) 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dahlin T 2001 The development of DC resistivity imaging techniques; Comput. Geosci. 27 1019–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodwin 1996 Principles of Precambrian Geology; London, Academic Press, 327p.

  10. Griffiths D H and Barker R D 1993 Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modelling in areas of complex geology; J. Appl. Geophys. 29(3–4) 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Herman R 2001 An introduction to electrical resistivity in geophysics; Am. J. Phys. 69(9) 943–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karous M and Mares S 1988 Geophysical methods in studying fracture aquifers; Charles University, Prague, 93p.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kearey P and Brooks M 1984 An introduction to geophysical exploration; Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, London, 296p.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keller G V and Frischknecht F C 1966 Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting; Pergamon Press, New York, 517p.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar D 2004 Conceptualization and optimal data requirement in simulating flow in weathered-fractured aquifers for groundwater management, Ph.D. Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 213p.

  16. Kumar D, Mondal S, Nandan M J, Harini P, Sekhar B S and Sen M K 2016 Two-dimensional electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and time-domain-induced polarization (TDIP) study in hard rock for groundwater investigation: A case study at Choutuppal Telangana, India; Arab. J. Geosci. 9(5) 355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kumar D, Rao V A and Sarma V S 2014 Hydrogeological and geophysical study for deeper groundwater resource in quartzitic hard rock ridge region from 2D resistivity data; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 123(3) 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar D 2012 Efficacy of electrical resistivity tomography technique in mapping shallow subsurface anomaly; J. Geol. Soc. India 80(3) 304–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar D, Ahmed S, Krishnamurthy N S and Dewandel B 2007 Reducing ambiguities in vertical electrical sounding interpretations: A geostatistical application; J. Appl. Geophys. 62(1) 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kunetz G 1966 Principles of direct current resistivity prospecting; Gebruder Borntraeger, Berlin, 250p.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Loke M H and Barker R D 1996 Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method; Geophys. Prospect. 44 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marescot 1995 Electrical Surveying; Part I: Resistivity method; Lecture A. WS0506.

  23. Meijerink A M J, Rao D P and Rupke J 1984 Stratigraphic and structural development of the Precambrian Cuddapah Basin; SE India; Precamb. Res. 26(1) 57–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mohamaden M I I, El-Sayed H M and Mansour S A 2017 Combined application of electrical resistivity and GIS for groundwater exploration and subsurface mapping at northeast Qattara Depression Western Desert, Egypt; Egyptian J. Basic Appl. Sci. 4(1) 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagaraja Rao B K and Ramalingaswamy G 1976 Some new thoughts on the stratigraphy of Cuddapah Supergroup. Seminar on Kaladgi–Badami, Bhima and Cuddapah Supergroup, Mysore, India, pp. 17–20.

  26. Nagaraja Rao B K, Rajurkar S T, Ramalingaswamy G and Ravindra Babu B 1987 Stratigraphy, structure and evolution of the Cuddapah basin; Geol. Soc. India, Memoir 6 33–86.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Owen R J, Gwavava O and Gwaze P 2005 Multi-electrode resistivity survey for groundwater exploration in the Harare greenstone belt, Zimbabwe; Hydrogeol. J. 14(1–2) 244–252.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Porsani J L, Elis V R and Hiodo F Y 2005 Geophysical investigations for the characterization of fractured rock aquifers in Itu, SE Brazil; J. Appl. Geophys. 57 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ramakrishnan M and Vaidyanadhan R 2008 Geology of India; Geol. Soc. India, Bangalore.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ramteke R S, Venugopal K, Ghish N, Krishnaiah C, Panvalkar G A and Vaidya S D 2001 Remote sensing and surface geophysical techniques in the exploration of groundwater at Usha Ispat Ltd., Sindhudurg Dist., Maharastra, India; IGU 5(1) 41–49.

  31. Sasaki Y 1992 Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation; Geophys. Prospect. 40(4) 453–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schlumberger C 1920 Etude sur la prospection electrique du soussol; Gauthier-Villars, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sharma S P and Baranwal V C 2005 Delineation of groundwater bearing fracture zones in a hard rock area integrating very low frequency electromagnetic and resistivity data; J. Appl. Geophys. 57 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Telford W M, Geldart L P, Sheriff R E and Keys D A 1976 Applied Geophysics; Oxford & IBH Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd., 860p.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tizro T A, Voudouris K S and Kamali M 2014 Comparative study of step drawdown and constant discharge tests to determine the aquifer transmissivity: The Kangavar aquifer case study, Iran; J. Water Res. Hydraul. Eng. 3 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Todd D K 2004 Groundwater Hydrology; 2nd edn, John Wiley, NewYork.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wenner F 1915 A method of measuring earth resistivity; U.S. Bur. Standards, Sci. Paper 258 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yadav G S 1988 Pole–dipole resistivity sounding techniques for shallow investigation in hard rock areas; Pure. Appl. Geophys. 127(1) 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Dr V M Tiwari, Director CSIR–National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, India for his encouragement, support for the CSIR-800 activity and kind permission for carrying out this important research work for the societal benefit. We are grateful to Mr Arun Kumar and C Vinod for their help in geophysical field work as well as technician Mohan Reddy and Khwaja Moinuddin for their unconditional help and support during the fieldwork. Authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewer for his constructive and valuable comments, which improve the quality of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dewashish Kumar.

Additional information

Communicated by Munukutla Radhakrishna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Warsi, T., Kumar, V.S., Kumar, D. et al. Integration of geophysics and petrography for identifying the aquifer and the rock type: A case study from Giddalur, Andhra Pradesh, India. J Earth Syst Sci 129, 44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-019-1321-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geophysical methods
  • drilling
  • petrography
  • groundwater exploration
  • India