Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 269–279 | Cite as

Geo-electrical approach to determine the lithological contact and groundwater quality along the KT boundary of Tamilnadu, India

  • N. Devaraj
  • S. Chidambaram
  • Banajarani Panda
  • C. Thivya
  • R. Thilagavathi
  • N. Ganesh
Original Article


A geophysical survey involving electrical resistivity method has been carried out at Ariyalur region to delineate the geo-electric characteristics of the subsurface formation and evaluate the groundwater quality variation along the lithological contact. A total of 15 vertical electrical sounding (VES) stations were established along the various geological formation such as 3 in Archean, 7 in Cretaceous, 2 in Tertiary and 3 in Quaternary formation. The data acquisition was carried out by adopting Schlumberger configuration. The layer parameters like apparent resistivity (ρa) and thickness (h) of different layers were arrived. The results of interpretation revealed three distinct geoelectric layers, which is comprised of weathered, fractured and massive layer in hard-rock region and topsoil, sandy layer and clayey layer in sedimentary region. Sounding curves obtained in the area are mostly of A, H, K type. The 1st layer thickness shows a decreasing trend in the following order Tertiary > Alluvium > Achaean. However, for the 2nd layer, the trend is Achaean > Tertiary > Alluvium. The higher 1st layer thickness along the southeastern part of the study area is due to the overexploitation of the groundwater represented by alluvium. Resistivity values and their corresponding depth for some selected VES locations were used in producing three resistivity cross sections (A–A′, B–B′ and C–C′), which shows the geoelectric distribution of the subsurface. The observed high resistivity in a shallow depth in the western part is due to the variations in lithology. The relationship between the resistivity and conductivity are also taken into consideration to identify the shallow contaminated zones of the study area.


Resistivity Thickness Conductivity Groundwater 



Authors are thankful to the hydrogeochemistry lab of Department of Earth Sciences for providing necessary instruments to carry out the geophysical survey.


  1. Alile OM, Ujuambi O, Evbuomwan IA (2011) Geoelectric investigation of groundwater in Obaretin–Iyanornon Locality, Edo State, Nigeria. J Geol Min Res 3(1):13–20Google Scholar
  2. Ayolabi EA, Adeoti L, Oshinlaja NA, Adeosun IO, Idowu OI (2009) Seismic refraction and resistivity studies of part of Igbogbo Township, South-West Nigeria. J Sci Res Dev 11:42–61Google Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan S, Anandha RV, Bhalla MS (1979) Electrical resistivity investigations in Tatipatri shales for groundwater. Geophys Res Bull 17:85–90Google Scholar
  4. Balakrishnana S, Subramanyan K, Gogte BS, Sharma SVS, Venkatanarayana B (1984) Groundwater investigations in the Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Geophys Res Bull 21(4):346–359Google Scholar
  5. Balasubramanian A, Sharma KK, Sastri JCV (1985) Geoelectrical and hydro geochemical evaluation of Coastal aquifers of Tambraparni basin, Tamilnadu. Geophys Res Bull 23:203–209Google Scholar
  6. Ballukraya PN, Sakthivadivel R (1983) Breaks in resistivity sounding curves as indicators of hard rock aquifers. Nord Hydrol 14:33–40Google Scholar
  7. Basokur AT (1990) Microcomputer program for the direct interpretation of resistivity sounding data. Comput Geosci 16(4):587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhimasankaran VLS, Gaur VK (1977) Lectures on exploration physics for geologists and engineers. AEG Publication Osmania University, HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanford HF (1862) On the Cretaceous and other rocks of South Arcot and Trichinopoly Districts. Mem Geol Surv India 4:1–217Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright K, Sherman FB  (1972) Electrical earth resistivity surveying in landfill investigation. In: Engineering and soil engineering symposium, proceedings 10th annual meeting, Moscow, Idaho, pp 77–92Google Scholar
  11. Chidambaram S (2000) Hydrogeochemical studies of groundwater in Periyar district, Tamilnadu, India. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Department of Geology, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, TamilnaduGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewashish K, Rai SN, Thiagarajan S, Kumari YR (2014) Evaluation of heterogeneous aquifers in hard rocks from resistivity sounding data in parts of Kalmeshwar taluk of Nagpur district, India. Curr Sci 107(7):1137–1145Google Scholar
  13. Ezeh CC (2011) Geoelectrical studies for estimating aquifer hydraulic properties in Enugu state. Niger Int J Phys Sci 6(14):3319–3329Google Scholar
  14. Gautam PK, Biswas A (2016) 2D geo-electrical imaging for shallow depth investigation in Doon Valley Sub-Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 2(4):175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geoscan-M Ltd (2002) IPI2Win (v.2.0) user’s manual. Moscow State University, Geological Faculty, Department of GeophysicsGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussain Y, Ullah SF, Akhter G, Aslam AQ (2017) Groundwater quality evaluation by electrical resistivity method for optimized tube well site selection in an ago-stressed Thal Doab Aquifer in Pakistan. Model Earth Syst Environ 3(1):15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Israil M (2006) Application of a resistivity survey and geographical information system (GIS) analysis for hydrogeological zoning of a piedmont area, Himalayan foothill region, India. Hydrogeol J 14:753–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joshua Emmanuel O, Odeyemi Olayinka O, Fawehinmi Oladotun O (2011) Geoelectric investigation of the groundwater potential of Moniya area, Ibadan. J Geol Min Res 3(3):54–62Google Scholar
  19. Kukillaya JP (2007) Characteristic responses to pumping in hard rock fracture aquifers of Thrissur, Kerala and their hydrogeological significance. J Geol Soc India 69:1055–1066Google Scholar
  20. Kumar D, Ahmed S, Prakash BA, Krishnamurthy NS (2002) Combined use of geological logs and vertical electrical soundings (VES) for spatial prediction of weathered rock thickness and depth to bedrock in an aquifer. In: Proceedings of the international groundwater conference on sustainable development and management of groundwater resources in semi-arid region with special reference to hard rocks, Oxford and IBH Publishing, 2002, pp 383–390Google Scholar
  21. Lawrence IF, Balasubramanian A (1994) Groundwater condition and disposition of salt-fresh water interface in the Rameshwaram island, Tamilnadu. Regional workshop on environ aspects of groundwater dev. Oct 17–19 1994, Kuruhshetra, India, pp 11121–11125Google Scholar
  22. Mondal NC, Singh VS, Saxena VK, Prasad RK (2008) Improvement of groundwater quality due to freshwater ingress in Potharlanka Island, Krishna delta, India. Environ Geol 55(3):595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordiana J, Dhir B, Kumar R (2013) Adsorption of heavy metals by Salvinia biomass and agricultural residues. Int J Environ Res 4(3):427–432Google Scholar
  24. Oh H-J, Kim Y-S, Choi J-K, Park E, Lee S (2011) GIS mapping of regional probabilistic groundwater potential in the area of Pohang City, Korea. J Hydrol 399:158–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panda B, Chidambaram S, Ganesh N (2017) An attempt to understand the subsurface variation along the mountain front and riparian region through geophysics technique in South India. Model Earth Syst Environ. Google Scholar
  26. Peinado-Guevara H (2012) Relationship between chloride concentration and electrical conductivity in groundwater and its estimation from vertical electrical soundings (VESs) in Guasave, Sinaloa, Mexico. Ciencia E Investig Agrar 39(1):229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prasanna MV, Chidambaram S, Pethaperumal S, Srinivasamoorthy K, John Peter A, Anandhan P, Vasanthavigar M (2008) Integrated geophysical and chemical study in the lower subbasin of Gadila River, Tamilnadu, India. Environ Geosci 15(4):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prasanna MV, Chidambaram S, Shahul Hameed A, Srinivasamoorthy K (2009) Study of evaluation of groundwater in Gadilam basin using hydrogeochemical and isotope data. J Environ Monit Assess. Google Scholar
  29. Rangaraju MK, Agarwal A, Prabhakar KN (1993) Tectono stratigraphy, structural style, evolutionary model and hydrocarbon prospects of the Cauvery Palar basins of India Petrol, vol 1. Publishers, Dehradun, pp 371–398Google Scholar
  30. Roy KK, Elliot HM (1981) Some observations regarding depth of exploration in DC electrical methods. Geoexploration 19:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahebrao S, Satishkumar V, Amarender B, Sethurama S (2014) Combined ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity applications exploring groundwater potential zones in granite terrain. Arab J Geosci 7:3109–3117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sainato CM, Losinno BN (2006) Spatial distribution of groundwater salinity at Pergamino: arrecifes zone (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina). Revista Brasileira de Geofísica 24(3):307–318Google Scholar
  33. Sastry MVA, Mamgain VD, Rao BJ (1972) Ostracod fauna of the Ariyalur Group (Upper Cretaceous), Tiruchirapalli District, Tamil Nadu. Manager of Publications Civil LinesGoogle Scholar
  34. Semere S, Woldai G (2007) Hard-rock hydro-tectonics using geographic information systems in the central highlands of Eritrea: implications for groundwater exploration. J Hydrol 349:147–155Google Scholar
  35. Seyedmohammadi J, Esmaeelnejad L, Shabanpour M (2016) Spatial variation modeling of groundwater electrical conductivity using geo-statistics and GIS. Model Earth Syst Environ 2(4):169 (Chicago) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sonkamble S, Chandra S, Nagaiah E, Dar FA, Somvanshi VK, Ahmed S (2014) Geophysical signatures resolving hydrogeological complexities over hard rock terrain—a study from Southern India. Arab J Geosci 7(6):2249–2256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Srinivasa RY, Reddy TVK, Nayudu PT (2000) Ground Water targeting in a hard rock terrain using fracture pattern modelling, Niva River basin, Andhra Pradesh, India. Hydrogeol J 8:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Srinivasamoorthy K, Vasanthavigar M, Vijayaraghavan K, Sarathidasan J, Gopinath S (2013) Hydrochemistry of groundwater in a coastal region of Cuddalore district, Tamilnadu, India: implication for quality assessment. Arab J Geosci 6:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Srivastava PK, Bhattacharya AK (2006) Groundwater assessment through an integrated approach using remote sensing, GIS and resistivity techniques: a case study from a hard rock terrain. Int J Remote Sens 27(20):4599–4620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stephan C, Siemon B, Houben G, Günther T (2017) Geophysical investigation of a freshwater lens on the island of Langeoog, Germany–Insights from combined HEM, TEM and MRS data. J Appl Geophys 136:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tahmasbi NH, Zakeri HF, Mehdi M, Abdolreza K, Najib Morteza (2012) Delineation of the Aquifer in the Curin Basin, south of Zahedan city, Iran. Open Geol J 6:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Todd DK (1959) Groundwater hydrology. Wiley, New York, p 336Google Scholar
  43. Venkateswaran S, Vijay PM, Karuppannan S (2014) Delineation of groundwater potential zones using geophysical and GIS techniques in the Sarabanga Sub Basin, Cauvery River, Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Curr Res Acad Rev 2:58–75Google Scholar
  44. Verma RK, Rao MK, Rao CV (1980) Resistivity investigations for ground water in metamorphic areas near Dhanbad, India. Ground Water 18(1):46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zohdy AAR, Eaton GP, Mabey DR (1974) Applications of surface geophysics to groundwater investigations. Techniques of Water Resource Investigation of the US Geological Survey, Chapter D, Book 2, p 116Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Devaraj
    • 1
  • S. Chidambaram
    • 2
  • Banajarani Panda
    • 1
  • C. Thivya
    • 3
  • R. Thilagavathi
    • 1
  • N. Ganesh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesAnnamalai UniversityCuddaloreIndia
  2. 2.Water Research CentreKuwait Institute for Scientific ResearchSafatKuwait
  3. 3.School of Earth and Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations