Groundwater exploration in limestone–shale–quartzite terrain through 2D electrical resistivity tomography in Tadipatri, Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh

Abstract

Two-Dimensional (2D) Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) survey was carried out at 11 sites within an area of 10 km2 to delineate deeper potential groundwater zones in a complex geological terrain underlain by quartzite, shale and limestone formations with varied resistivity characteristics. The area is in medium rainfall zone in Tadipatri mandal of Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh state, India. The investigation was carried out to meet the growing demands of water supply. Interpretation of the high-density 2D resistivity dataset results revealed potential zones at only three sites in Tummalapenta, Ayyavaripalle and Guruvanipalle villages within the depth zone of 24–124 m. A major fault zone oriented in EW direction is mapped at Tummalapenta site. Based on high resolution geophysical data interpretation and significant anomalies, four boreholes were drilled in complex, viz., limestone, shale and quartzite formations up to a maximum depth of 192 m in the area with the yield ranging from 300 to ~5000 liter per hour (lph). These four anomalous drilled borehole sites corroborates with the aquifer zone delineated through ERT technique. The aquifer parameters estimated from pumping tests show that the transmissivity varies between ~0.3 and 179.5 m2/day while the storage coefficient ranges from 0.137 to 0.5 indicating large variation in aquifer characteristics of the system in a smaller area. Suitable water conservation measures were suggested for improving the groundwater condition and yield of the pumping wells.

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

References

  1. Abdulaziz A M, Hurtado J M and Faid A 2012 Hydrogeological characterization of Gold Valley: An investigation of precipitation recharge in an intermountain basin in the Death Valley region, California, USA; Hydrogeol. J. 20(4) 701–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ABEM 2012 ABEM Instruction Manual – Terrameter LS, 2012, 110p.

  3. Adepelumi A A, Yi M J, Kim J H, Ako B D and Son J S 2006 Integration of surface geophysical methods for fracture detection in crystalline bedrocks of southwestern Nigeria; Hydrogeol. J. 14 1284–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aizebeokhai A P and Oyeyemi K D 2014 The use of the multiple-gradient array for geoelectrical resistivity and induced polarization imaging; J. Appl. Geophys. 111 364–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrade R 2011 Intervention of Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT) in resolving hydrological problems of a semi-arid granite terrain of southern India; J. Geol. Soc. India 78(4) 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balkaya C, Kalyoncuoğlu U Y, Özhanlı M, Merter G, Cakmak O and Güven I T 2018 Ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography studies in the biblical Pisidian Antioch city, southwest Anatolia; Archaeol. Prospect. 25 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barker R D 1992 A simple algorithm for electrical imaging of the subsurface; First Break 10 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernard J 2003 Short note on the depth of investigation of electrical methods, Iris instruments, 8p.

  9. Dahlin T 1996 2D Resistivity Surveying for Environmental and Engineering Applications; First Break 14 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahlin T and Loke M H 1998 Resolution of 2D Wenner Resistivity Imaging as assessed by numerical modelling; J. Appl. Geophys. 38 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dahlin T and Zhou B 2006 Multiple-gradient array measurements for multichannel 2D resistivity imaging; Near Surf. Geophys. 4(2) 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Daily W, Ramirez A, Binley A and Labrecque D 2004 Electrical Resistance Tomography; Leading Edge 438–442.

  14. Demanet D, Pirard E, Renardy F and Jongmans D 2001 Application and processing of geophysical images for mapping faults; Comput. Geosci. 27 1031– 1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Evjen H M 1938 Depth factors and resolving power of electrical measurements; Geophysics 3 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gokturkler G, Balkaya C, Erhan Z and Yurdakul A 2008 Investigation of a shallow alluvial aquifer using geoelectrical methods: A case from Turkey; Environ. Geol. 54 1283–1290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Griffiths D H and Barker R D 1993 Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modeling in areas of complex geology; J. Appl. Geophys. 29 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Griffiths D H and Turnbull J 1985 A Multi-Electrode Array for Resistivity Surveying; First Break 3 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Griffiths D H, Turnbull J and Olayinka A I 1990 Two-Dimensional Resistivity Mapping with a computer controlled array; First Break 8 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta G, Patil J D, Maiti S, Erram V C, Pawar N J, Mahajan S H and Suryawanshi R A 2015 Electrical resistivity imaging for aquifer mapping over Chikotra basin, Kolhapur district, Maharashtra; Environ. Earth Sci. 73 8125–8143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hossain D 2000 2D Electrical Imaging survey in hydrogeology, The Bangladesh; J. Sediment. Res. 18(1) 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  22. King W 1872 The Cuddapah and Kurnool formations in the Madras Presidency; Mem. Geol. Survey India 1872(i) 1–346.

  23. 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 

  24. Kumar D, Mondal S, Nandan M J, Harini P, Soma Sekhar B M V and Sen M K 2016a 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) 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kumar D, Shankar G B K, Mondal S, Venkatesam V, Sridhar K, Rao P N, Madhnure P and Rangarajan R 2016b Mapping lithology and assessing recharge characteristics in a granitic hard rock aquifer: Inference from 2D resistivity, induced polarization, tracer and moisture measurements; J. Geol. Soc. India 88(1) 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar D, Mondal S, Rajesh K and Rangarajan R 2015 Mapping subsurface hard and soft rock with complex geological terrain for groundwater prospecting in Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, Technical Report No. NGRI-2015-GW-879 (unpublished).

  27. Loke M H and Barker R D 1996 Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method; Geophys. Prospect. 44(1) 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Loke M H and Dahlin T 2002 A comparison of the Gauss–Newton and quasi-Newton methods in resistivity imaging inversion; J. Appl. Geophys. 49 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Loke M H 2012a 2D and 3D Resistivity/IP inversion and forward modeling, Geotomo Software Penang, Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Loke M H 2012b Tutorial: 2D and 3D electrical imaging surveys, 172p.

  31. Oldenburg Douglas W and Li Yaoguo 1999 Estimating depth of investigation in dc resistivity and IP surveys; Geophysics 64(2) 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pucci S, Civico R, Villani F, Ricci T, Delcher E, Finizola A, Sapia V, De Martini P M, Pantosti D, Barde-Cabusson S, Brothelande E, Gusset R, Mezon C, Orefice S, Peltier A, Poret M, Torres L and Suski B 2016 Deep electrical resistivity tomography along the tectonically active Middle Aterno Valley (2009 L’Aquila earthquake area, central Italy); Geophys. J. Int. 207 967–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ritz M, Parisot J C, Diouf S, Beauvais A, Diome F and Niang M 1999 Electrical imaging of lateritic weathering mantles over granitic and metamorphic basement of eastern Senegal, West Africa; J. Appl. Geophys. 41 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Robert T, Dassargues A, Brouyère S, Kaufmann O, Hallet V and Nguyen F 2011 Assessing the contribution of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and self-potential (SP) methods for a water well drilling program in fractured/karstified limestones; J. Appl. Geophys. 75 42–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Roy A and Apparao A 1971 Depth of investigation in direct current methods; Geophysics 36(5) 943–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Singh V S 2000 Well storage effect during pumping test in an aquifer of low permeability; Hydrol. Sci. J. 45(4) 589–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Singh S C and Paramasivam K 2016 Regional Lithological Characterization through Resistivity Imaging in parts of Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh, India, published by Aqua Foundation in proceedings of 10th World Aqua Congress – International Conference held during 24–25th November, 2016 at New Delhi, pp. 125–139.

  38. Suzuki K, Toda S, Kusunoky K, Fujimitsu Y, Mogi T and Jomori A 2000 Case studies of electrical and electromagnetic methods applied to mapping active faults beneath the tick Quaternary; Eng. Geol. 56 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Swileam G S, Shahin R R, Nasr H M and Essa K S 2019a Spatial variability assessment of Nile alluvial soils using electrical resistivity technique; Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 8(2) 110–117.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Swileam G S, Shahin R R, Nasr H M and Essa K S 2019b Assessment of soil variability using electrical resistivity technique for normal alluvial soils, Egypt; Plant Arch. 19(1) 905–912.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thiagarajan S, Rai S N, Kumar D and Manglik A 2018 Delineation of Groundwater Resources using Electrical Resistivity Tomography; Arab. J. Geosci. 11(9) 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ward S H 1990 Resistivity and induced polarization methods; In: Geotech. and Environ. Geophys., Vol. 1, Review and Tutorial, pp. 147–189.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to Dr V M Tiwari, Director, CSIR–National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, India, for his kind permission and encouragement for carrying out the scientific work for research and development as well as of societal importance and bringing out this research paper. We are thankful to Mr G M Krishna, Unit Head and Mr T V Sreenivasan, Senior Vice President (Mines) of M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited–APCW, Tadipatri, Andhra Pradesh, India for financially supporting the project study, their cordial help and necessary logistics during the investigations and geophysical survey. We acknowledge the help rendered by Shri M Srinivasulu and Mr K Srinivasa Rao, Geologists for their valuable interactions and discussion on the existing dataset and details about the area during the investigations. First author thanks, Dr S Thiagarajan for drawing and preparing the lithology of the drilled boreholes. The CSIR–NGRI reference number of the manuscript is NGRI/Lib/2018/Pub-31. We are highly benefitted with the comments and suggestions by the anonymous reviewers, which helped immensely to improve the quality of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dewashish Kumar.

Additional information

Communicated by Arkoprovo Biswas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, D., Rajesh, K., Mondal, S. et al. Groundwater exploration in limestone–shale–quartzite terrain through 2D electrical resistivity tomography in Tadipatri, Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh. J Earth Syst Sci 129, 71 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-1341-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Electrical Resistivity Tomography
  • quartzite
  • shale–limestone formations
  • water scarcity areas