INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMATICS AND GEOSCIENCES

Volume 3, No 1, 2012
© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research article ISSN 0976 – 4380

Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A

case study from Medak district, Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam.S©, Sivasubramanian. P
Department of Geology, V.O.Chidambaram College, Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu, India
geoselvam10@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

A Geoelectrical resistivity survey using Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) was carried out
in Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India, in order to assess the subsurface geology and
groundwater potential zones. Twenty six vertical electrical soundings were recorded with
Schlumberger electrode configuration with current electrode spacing (AB/2) half ranging
from 1 to 150m. The field data has been primarily interpreted using curve matching and
electrical imaging computer software IPI2WIN. The curves are prominently of A and H type
indicating the presence of three layers followed by combination of curves AK, HA, KH, HK,
AH indicating the four layer followed by combination of curves HAA, HAK, AKH, QHA,
AAA indicating the presence of five layer sub-surface layers. Interpretations revels the
number of subsurface layers, their thickness and their water bearing capacity within the study
area. The best layer which acts as the good aquifer of Medak districts is the second layer
which consist the fracture/weathered rock formations at the depth between 5 to 15 m.

Keywords: VES, Schlumberger electrode, curve matching, subsurface layer, aquifer

1. Introduction

The rapid urban development in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh, India and the associated
increases in population demands excesses utilization of groundwater. Because of the over
exploitation of groundwater, the groundwater level has been declined in recent times warrants
groundwater assessment for sustainable utilization within the study area. Geophysical
techniques are the highly useful one for the identification groundwater potential zones and
groundwater contamination studies. Among various geophysical studies, we have selected
Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) to carryout groundwater potential zone identification in
the present study area. Vertical Electrical Sounding method was chosen because, the
instrumentation is simple, field logistics are easy and straight forward while the analysis of
data is less tedious and economical (Zhody et al 1974, Ekine and Osobonye 1996, and Ako
and Olorunfemi 1989). Using this method, depth and thickness of various subsurface layers
and their water yielding capabilities can be inferred. The main objective of the present study
is to apply electrical resistivity method (VES) to identify the groundwater condition and the
nature of subsurface layers within the study area.

2. Study area

Medak district is located 20 km north of Hyderabad (Figure 1). In 2006, the Indian
government named Medak one of the country’s 250 most backward districts. Medak district
occupies an area of approximately, 9519 Square Kilometers. It forms a part of Deccan
Plateau under Godavari basin and lies between North Latitudes 170 27’ and 180 18’ and East
longitudes 770 28’ and 790 10’ falling in topographical sheet nos. 56 F, G, J and K of Survey
of India. Manjira, a perennial tributary of River Godavari with its tributaries of Haldi

Submitted on May 2012 published on July 2012 55

 Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

(Pasupuyeru) and Kundlair drains through district. Though the Perennial River Manjira is
flowing through the district, there are no major irrigation projects worth mentioning in the
districts. So the agriculture of the district mainly depends up on groundwater sources. The
district receives an average rainfall of 873 mm, which increases from South to North. The
mean maximum and minimum temperature varies from 400C to 260C. The Pre-monsoon
groundwater level depth varies from a minimum of 4m to a maximum of 20m below ground
level. Most of the area has water levels below 5m. In the Eastern part of the district,
groundwater level ranges from 5 to10m. In the Post-monsoon, depth of water level ranges
from a minimum of 1.8 to maximum of 14.5 m. Groundwater levels with less than 2m were
reported at Northern and North western part of Sangareddy town. The areas having water
levels of less than 5m during pre-monsoon have come up to 2-5 meters in post-monsoon.

Figure 1: Location map of the study

2.1 Geology of the study area

The study area is an elongated plateau trending NNE-SSW and sloping west and east. The
important rock types are Peninsular Gneissic complex, Dharwar supergroup associated with
younger intrusive of Archaean age separated by unconformable with overlying Basaltic flows
of late Cretaceous to early Eocene age with sub-Recent to Recent alluvium along with stream
courses. Geologically Deccan basalt whose age is about 65m.y occupies most part of the
study area. The isolated hill in the northern region is also capped by basalt. The bedrock is
granite and a thin layer of silicified and fossiliferoused sediment (Lameta Formation). The
geological succession is as follow,

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 56

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012
 Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

Black Soil
Decan Basalt
Lameta Formation
Granite and Granitic Gneiss

3. Materials and method

Electrical prospecting makes use of a variety of principles, each based on some electrical
properties or characteristics of the materials within the earth (Olorunfemi et.al 1995 and
Singh et.al 2002). In this study, Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) method has been applied.
VES survey was carried out in 26 locations (Figure 1) using schlumberger electrode
configuration. The Schlumberger method was adopted for this study because of the fieldwork
is faster, easier and economically save the money and software’s are readily available for its
interpretation (Todd 1980, Fetter 1994, Patra and Nath 1999, Selvam et al 2010). The
resistivity values of the layers were measured using the ABEM SAS 300B Terrameter. The
Schlumberger soundings were carried out with current electrode spacing (AB) ranging from 2
to 300m (AB/2=1m to 150m).The distance used for potential electrode spacing (MN) ranged
from 0.3m to 10m (MN/2=0.15m to 5m). At each VES station electrodes were placed in a
straight line and the inter-electrode spreads were gradually increased about a fixed center.
The current was sent into the ground and the potential difference (V) due to this current was
measured and recorded against the electrode spacing. With these values of currents (I) and
potential (V) of the electrode configuration adopted one can get the apparent resistivities (ρa).
The apparent resistivity values were plotted against AB/2 on double – log graph sheets. The
manner in which apparent resistivity values increase or decrease with electrode separation
forms the basis for choosing the shape of the field curve that can perform quantitative
interpretation of the sub surface resistivity distribution (Guana Sundar and Elango 1999,
Singh et al, 2002 and Muthuraj et.al, 2010). The field data are interpreted by a 1D inversion
technique followed by forward modeling by IPI2WIN software was used.

4. Result and discussion

The field data were interpreted and processed qualitatively and quantitatively by using partial
curve matching techniques and computer to obtain the resistivity values of different
subsurface layers and their corresponding thickness (Table 1). From the interpretation of VES
curves, 3 to 5 subsurface layer where identified within the study area. The curves are
prominently of A and H type indicating the presence of three layers followed by
combination of curves AK, HA, KH, HK,AH indicating the four layers followed by a
combination of curves HAA, HAK, AKH, QHA, AAA indicating the presence of five layer
sub-surface layers (Figure 2). These curves were interpreted using the partial curve matching
technique using two and three layer master curves (Rijkwaterstata 1966, Orellana, and
Mooney 1966) and corresponding auxiliary curves to obtain the resistivity and thickness of
each of the layers delineated.

Locations S7, S10, S14, S15, S22 and S25 can be explained by a three layer model (ρ1>ρ2<
ρ3 and ρ1<ρ2< ρ3 ) with the presence of H and A type curves (Figure 2a). The first layer is
the top soil with resistivity ranging from 14-30 ohm-m and a thickness range from 0.5m - 6.2
m. Their Second layer is a fracture zone with resistivity ranging from 3.8-38 ohm-m and

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 57

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012
 Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

thickness ranges from 0.33m to 6.7m. The basement resistivity is 300-1191 ohm-m
respectively. The basement resistivity data indicates the rock type is hard and massive.

Table 1: Summary of VES data interpretations with positions

2nd Layer Resistivity

Depth to basement in
3rd Layer Resistivity

4th Layer Resistivity

5th Layer Resistivity

1st Layer Resistivity

ρ3 (Ohm meter)

ρ4 (Ohm meter)

ρ5 (Ohm meter)
ρ1 (Ohm meter)

ρ2 (Ohm meter)

(meter)

(meter)

(meter)
h3 (meter)
VES No

meters
h1

h2

h4
1 21.4 8.49 4.09 32.8 6168 0.48 3.87 4.18 28.9 37.4
2 18.1 41.1 8.37 7691 0.91 0.72 19.7 21.4
3 50.5 4.49 18 99.6 5576 0.52 0.55 4.46 66 71.5
4 36.7 8.48 141.8 3783 0.53 3.81 60.97 65.32
5 8.9 2.9 3.8 678 0.78 2.5 4.2 7.5
6 14 1.7 4.7 15 1430 0.46 0.55 2.3 8.1 11
7 26 4.3 301 0.57 6.5 7.1
8 14 5.8 18 285 0.89 2.7 1.9 5.5
9 31.9 14.8 107 1216 6.6 1.07 1.22 18.8 17.3 38.5
10 17 14 291 6.2 0.33 6.5
11 22 8.5 900 54 0.83 4.6 3.3 8.7
12 65 18 22 187 0.97 4.9 0.98 6.9
13 5.8 6.4 288 0.002 3 2.2 552 557
14 14 38 50 1.1 6.6 7.7
15 34 3.8 1191 0.51 6.7 7.2
16 20.3 7.25 3.32 31.2 5645 0.45 2.86 4.11 29.35 36.77
17 17.2 42.2 3.39 8526 0.99 0.65 18.6 20.24
18 52.3 4.4 15 100.1 5555 0.62 0.96 6.03 75 82.61
19 33.3 7.62 163.2 3666 0.52 2.99 55.66 59.17
20 6.2 2.3 3.2 556 0.66 2.3 3.2 6.16
21 1.3 1.6 4.4 10 1111 0.41 0.65 2.1 8.0 11.16
22 27.8 5.5 362 0.51 6.5 7.01
23 13 5.6 15 14.5 0.88 2.1 1.8 4.78
24 30.2 16.3 102 1211 3.6 1.02 1.01 17.8 14.6 34.43
25 16 14 261 5.6 0.32 5.92
26 23 27 533 52 0.76 3.2 3.2 7.16

Locations S2, S4, S5, S8, S11, S12, S13, S17, S19, S20, S23 and S26 can be explained by a
four layer model (ρ1< ρ2< ρ3> ρ4) (ρ1> ρ2< ρ3< ρ4) (ρ1> ρ2< ρ3> ρ4) (ρ1<ρ2> ρ3< ρ4))
with AK, HA, KH, and HK type curves. The resistivity of the first layer (top soil) ranges
from 5.8 to 65 ohm-m and a thickness is between 0.5m - 3 m. In the second layer, hard and
compact sand was inferred with the high resistivity values ranging from 23-27 ohm-m and
1.6m - 9.6m. The Third layer has resistivity ranging from 4.1-18 ohm-m and a thickness 8.4
m. This layer acts as the shallow aquifer in these places because this layer consists of fracture
or weathered zone which constitutes an aquifer of very good quality of groundwater. The
fourth layer is the hard rock without many fractures (Figure 3).

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 58

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012
Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

Figure: 2 Interpretations of Vertical Electrical Sounding Field Curves

Figure: 2a Interpretations of Vertical Electrical Sounding Field Curves

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 59

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012
 Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

Locations S1, S3, S6, S9, S10, S18 and S21 can be explained by a five layer model (Table 2)
((ρ1> ρ2> ρ3< ρ4< ρ5) (ρ1> ρ2< ρ3< ρ4< ρ5) (ρ1> ρ2< ρ3< ρ4> ρ5) (ρ1< ρ2< ρ3< ρ4< ρ5))
with QHA, HAA, HAK and AAA type curves (Figure 4). Here, we have two aquifers. The
shallow aquifer is within the second layer at a depth of about 27m with resistivity value of
1.3-8.1 ohm-m. The second aquifer in the fourth layer at a depth of 66m and resistivity value
of 15-100 ohm-m is not a confined layer. Basement and hard rock resistivity value is 173-
1430 ohm-m.

Figure 3: Resistivity pseudo section and 2D inverse model

(VES S4, S2, S3, S18 and S17)

Figure 4: Map showing resistivity curve type distribution within the study area.

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 60

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012
 Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

Table 2: Qualitative analysis of curve types where ρ represents resistivity of the layer
VES Curve type Curve Characteristics No. of Geo-electric
layer
S1, S16 QHA ρ1> ρ2> ρ3< ρ4< ρ5 5
S2, S17 KH ρ1<ρ2> ρ3< ρ4 4
S3, S6, S18 HAA ρ1> ρ2< ρ3< ρ4< ρ5 5
S4, S5, S8, S12, HA ρ1> ρ2< ρ3< ρ4 4
S19, S20
S7, S10, S15, H ρ1>ρ2< ρ3 3
S22, S25
S9, S24 HAK ρ1> ρ2< ρ3< ρ4> ρ5 5
S11, S23 HK ρ1> ρ2< ρ3> ρ4 4
S13, S26 AK ρ1< ρ2< ρ3> ρ4 4
S14 A ρ1< ρ2< ρ3 3
S21 AAA ρ1< ρ2< ρ3< ρ4< ρ5 5

5. Conclusion

Present work has shown that in a hard rock environment, Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)
has proved to be very reliable for underground water studies and therefore the method can
excellently be used for shallow and deep underground water geophysical Resistivity
investigation. The most part of the study area consists of good quality of groundwater
because the study area is dominated by the H type curve. The top layer is the black cotton soil
and it is followed by a weathered zone which is underlain by basement rock. The best layer
which acts as the good aquifer of Medak districts is the second layer which consists of the
fracture/weathered rock formations at the depth between 5 to 15m. Figure 4 revels the
distribution of resistivity curve types within the study area. Using this Figure 3 can easily
understand the water bearing capacity of a particular location within the study area.

Acknowledgement

The first author is thankful for Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, Indian National
Science Academy, New Delhi and The National Academy of Science, Allahabad for
providing financial assistance through summer research fellowship to carryout this work. The
first author is also thankful to Dr.T.Seshunarayana, Head, Eng. Geophysical Division, NGRI,
Hyderabad for his valuable guidance during my Summer Research Fellowship Camp at
NGRI.

6. References

1. Ako, A O., M O Olorunfemi., (1989), Geoelectric survey for groundwater in the

Newer Basalts of Vom Plateau State. Nigeria journal of mining and geology, 25, pp
247-450.

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 61

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012
Groundwater potential zone identification using geoelectrical survey: A case study from Medak district,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Selvam. S, Sivasubramanian. P

2. Ekine, A S., Osobonye., (1996), Surface geo-electric sounding for the determination
of Aquifer characteristics in parts of Bonny local government area of river state.
Nigeria journal of physics, 85, pp 93-97.

3. Fetter, C.W., (1994), Applied hydrogeology, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp 543-
591.

4. Gnanasundar D. Elango L., (1999), Groundwater assessment of a coastal aquifer

using Geoelectrical techniques, Journal of environmental hydrology, 7, Paper 2.

5. Muthuraj D., Srinivas Y.and Chandrasekar N., (2010), Delineation of groundwater

potential areas - a Case study from Tirunelveli District, TamilNadu, India,
International journal of applied environmental sciences, 5, pp 49-56.

6. Olorunfemi,M.O.,M.A.Dan-Hassan and J.S.Ojo., (1995), Scope and limitations of

the electromagnetic method in groundwater prospecting in a precambrian basement
terrain J.Afr.Earth Sci., 20, pp 151-160

7. Orellana, E. and Mooney, H.M., (1966), Water table and curves for vertical
electrical sounding over layered structures, Interetencia Madrid, Spain

8. Patra, H.P., Nath, S.K., (1999), Schlumberger geoelectric sounding in ground water:
Principles, Interpretation and applications. Oxford & IBH Publishing Company Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, p 153.

9. Rijkwaterstata., (1966), Standard graphs of resistivity prospecting published by

European association of exploration geophysicists. The Netherlands, pp 125-140.

10. Singh, S.B., Stephen, J., Srinivas, Y., Singh U.K. and singh, K.P., (2002), An
integrated geophysical approach for ground water prospecting: A case study from
Tamilnadu, Journal of geological society of India, 59, pp 147-158.

11. Selvam,S., T.Seshunarayan., G.Manimaran., P.Sivasubramanian., D.Manimaran.,

(2010), Groundwater investigation using geoelectrical survey: A case study from
Kanukunta village, Andhra Pradesh, India Journal of outreach, 4, pp 59-61.

12. Todd, D.K., (1980), Groundwater hydrology. John Willey Sons. Inc. New York, pp
535.

13. Zhody, A R., G. I. Eaton and Masay, D R., (1974), Application of subsurface
geophysics to groundwater investigation. Technical water resources investigation,
Washington geological survey, pp 2401-2543.

International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences 62

Volume 3 Issue 1, 2012