Bakuru Anandagajapathi Raju; Palavai Venkateswara Rao; Mangalampalli Subrahmanyam

doi:10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280011

doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280011

^1, ,,
¹,
¹

计量
- 文章访问数: 373
- HTML全文浏览量: 188
- PDF下载量: 66
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-10-20
- 录用日期: 2023-03-30
- 网络出版日期: 2023-06-15
- 刊出日期: 2023-06-30

Estimating aquifer transmissivity using Dar-Zarrouk parameters to delineate groundwater potential zones in Alluri Seetharama Raju District, Andhra Pradesh, India

1.
Department of Geophysics, Colleges of Science & Technology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530003, Andhra Pradesh, India

More Information

Corresponding author: anand.bakuru@gmail.com

摘要

- /
- /
- /
- /
Abstract: This study aimed to explore groundwater potential zones in the EGMB of Alluri Seetharama Raju district, Andhra Pradesh, India, for drinking and agriculture purposes. To achieve this goal, 72 Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) were conducted using the Schlumberger electrode configuration. The resistivity sounding data were analyzed to determine the aquifer thickness, basement depth, Dar-Zarrouk parameters, and aquifer transmissivity. Spatial distribution maps were generated for these parameters to understand the subsurface formation. The analysis revealed a linear groundwater potential zone (8.46 km²) in the eastern part of the study area, extending in the NNE-SSW direction for 9.6 km. Six VES locations (P24, P27, P29, P30, P33, and P38) in this zone exhibit good potential (>30 m aquifer thickness), while the three VES locations (OP19, P5, and P46) in the central region are recommended for drilling bore wells. Additionally, moderate aquifer thickness (20–30 m) are identified in other VES locations (OP14, OP20, P4, P10, P12, P13, P15, P17, P18, P31, P46, and P50) along streams in the western and central part of the area, which can yield reasonable quantities of water. This information is useful for groundwater exploration and watershed management to meet the demands of tribal population in the study area.
- Vertical electrical sounding /
- Longitudinal conductance /
- Transverse resistance /
- Coefficient of anisotropy /
- Potential groundwater locations

HTML全文

Figure 1. Geology map of the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. Geomorphology and lineaments map of the study area with VES locations

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. Vertical electrical resistivity sounding curves obtained from the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. Spatial distribution maps of (a) Aquifer thickness, and (b) Basement depth in the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. Spatial distribution maps of (a) Total longitudinal conductance (b) Total transverse resistance (c) Longitudinal resistivity (d) Transverse resistivity (e) Coefficient of anisotropy of the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 6. Spatial distribution map of aquifer transmissivity (T_r) of the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 7. Map of potential groundwater locations based on aquifer transmissivity values

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. Stratigraphic succession of geological formations in the study area

Geological formation	Characteristics
Migmatites	Hard, Foliated rocks
Charnockites (Basic, Acid, and intermediate)	Hard, Massive rocks
Khondalites	Hard, Foliated rocks

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. Classification of lineaments (Sitharam et al. 2006; Venkateswara et al. 2021)

No.	Type of the lineament	Length of the lineament	No. Lineaments identified in the area
1	Medium	10–100 km	-
2	Minor	2–10 km	16
3	Micro	<2 km	06

下载: 导出CSV

Table 3. Rating of the protective capacity of aquifers (After Oladapo and Akintorinwa, 2007)

Total longitudinal conductance (Siemens)	Protective capacity rating
> 10	Excellent
5–10	Very good
0.7–4.9	Good
0.2–0.69	Moderate
0.1–0.19	Weak
<0.1	Poor

下载: 导出CSV

Table 4. Interpreted layer parameters from VES data in the study area

VES code	Latitude degrees	Longitude degrees	True resistivity					Thickness				Total thickness /m	RMS error /%
VES code	Latitude degrees	Longitude degrees	ρ 1 /Ω·m	ρ 2 /Ω·m	ρ 3 /Ω·m	ρ 4 /Ω·m	ρ 5 /Ω·m	h 1 /m	h 2 /m	h 3 /m	h 4 /m	Total thickness /m	RMS error /%
OP1	18.08010	82.66956	34.0	22.9	194			2.60	21.30			23.90	0.539
OP4	18.03600	82.70123	81.8	350.0	495			1.06	6.39			7.45	0.485
OP5	18.06773	82.66445	18.8	39.3	308			3.18	25.30			28.48	0.789
OP7	18.09249	82.67175	11.8	38.1	307			1.59	6.16			7.75	0.951
OP8	18.09381	82.67082	178.0	134.0	636			0.75	5.41			6.16	0.432
OP9	18.18840	82.69879	176.0	402.0	1 075			1.19	5.87			7.06	0.759
OP10	18.08856	82.67734	10.3	67.8				6.90				6.90	0.436
OP13	18.06907	82.69553	19.0	44.0				2.34				2.34	0.831
OP14	18.04630	82.69276	148.0	25.5	125			1.40	23.10			24.50	0.921
OP16	18.09164	82.67108	49.9	9.83	1 818			5.57	3.52			9.09	1.060
OP17	18.09029	82.67393	109.0	425.0				18.50				18.50	0.971
OP18	18.12948	82.63722	229.0	361.0	148			0.89	7.03			7.92	0.535
OP19	18.12851	82.62985	365.0	121.0	89.2	188		0.75	4.69	31.00		36.44	0.719
OP20	18.09574	82.67031	154.0	42.8	392			0.75	30.70			31.45	1.180
OP21	18.09642	82.67066	82.1	47.7	183			0.90	17.00			17.9	0.938
OP22	18.08095	82.66179	15.3	40.0	1 423			1.36	6.66			8.02	1.540
OP23	18.07507	82.65756	18.7	41.3	180			1.35	6.98			8.33	0.909
OP24	18.12571	82.64424	74.2	30.6	64.4			2.38	10.20			12.58	0.581
OP25	18.12466	82.64470	70.1	35.9	150			4.81	16.00			20.81	0.741
OP26	18.07412	82.65808	20.6	133.0				2.43				2.43	1.020
OP27	18.10106	82.67337	357.0	55.9	478			1.28	15.70			16.98	1.990
OP28	18.10011	82.67347	329.0	55.9	473			1.24	18.80			20.04	0.728
P1	18.08917	82.58722	165.0	63.79	934			5.41	13.50			18.91	1.460
P2	18.09028	82.65444	177.0	25.6	14 755			3.59	8.12			11.71	4.340
P3	18.09056	82.63889	70.4	145.3	209			3.16	23.10			26.26	0.522
P4	18.09110	82.64111	122.0	39.5	313			10.80	28.90			39.70	1.220
P5	18.09110	82.63944	91.7	49.6	4051			10.90	25.10			36.00	0.635
P6	18.09389	82.67363	102.0	38.0	1 558			11.40	16.50			27.90	0.711
P7	18.09911	82.64000	89.2	45.3	214			1.97	5.08			7.05	0.752
P8	18.09389	82.65410	36.3	199.0				6.37				6.37	1.870
P9	18.09667	82.60694	9.76	3000				27.40				27.40	1.220
P10	18.09667	82.59083	30.0	8.20	276			1.30	19.00			20.30	2.050
P11	18.09306	82.59472	143.0	9.00	450			1.40	10.00			11.40	1.590
P12	18.09389	82.59444	14.2	41.0	9.11	2 000		1.50	2.58	11.10		15.18	0.869
P13	18.06806	82.59970	12.7	6.55	17.7	3 201		1.54	3.87	19.50		24.91	1.600
P14	18.08417	82.59917	13.4	30.8	101			10.80	7.78			18.58	0.894
P15	18.08000	82.60722	94.7	21.3	132			1.75	18.00			19.75	1.780
P16	18.08028	82.60639	6.23	16.3	1591			9.52	4.25			13.77	1.910
P17	18.07833	82.60389	14.5	39.4	109			9.91	21.10			31.01	0.631
P18	18.07972	82.60361	11.8	8787				16.10				16.10	1.040
P19	18.06806	82.59972	123.0	24.5	3 000			1.20	16.20			17.40	2.240
P20	18.06917	82.60694	17.7	31.4	432			3.21	22.20			25.41	1.030
P21	18.06806	82.59972	5.63	3000				11.50				11.50	1.900
P22	18.09639	82.59667	5.59	20.6	3 480			7.36	7.55			14.91	3.630
P23	18.07056	82.67139	19.2	8.33	581			1.69	23.50			25.19	1.440
P24	18.07111	82.67194	18.8	8.25	2390			1.81	30.90			32.71	1.450
P25	18.09361	82.68692	68.7	14.2	761			1.50	10.50			12.00	1.430
P26	18.09333	82.68889	82.0	15.4	17.2	19.2	885	1.56	1.79	3.06	10.80	17.21	0.616
P27	18.09667	82.68611	5.58	13.0	593			3.61	40.00			43.61	0.545
P28	18.09778	82.68556	6.87	14.7	6.8	1 284		3.28	2.01	21.20		26.49	1.460
P29	18.09806	82.68583	6.74	13.0	1 284			5.93	29.80			35.73	1.000
P30	18.09778	82.68639	6.36	10.3	3 232			6.97	30.70			37.67	1.070
P31	18.10056	82.69083	5.19	37.2	131			5.18	29.10			34.28	0.532
P32	18.09972	82.69111	5.02	84.8				5.60				5.60	2.220
P33	18.07612	82.67821	9.31	12.0	652			1.78	59.40			61.18	2.160
P34	18.08182	82.68410	6.26	27.2	7.09	3161		2.80	4.27	17.20		24.27	2.020
P35	18.07611	82.67806	6.18	62.9				17.50				17.50	1.560
P36	18.07861	82.67694	5.89	60.0				12.50				12.50	1.450
P37	18.07722	82.67861	5.36	18.3	890			15.20	2.66			17.86	2.620
P38	18.07722	82.67822	5.34	25.6	890			14.70	59.20			73.90	2.440
P39	18.09056	82.66750	178.0	43.3	13 105			2.14	22.00			24.14	3.000
P40	18.09028	82.66670	44.9	21.9	161			1.50	8.55			10.05	1.870
P41	18.10944	82.68010	7.14	124.0				11.80				11.80	1.440
P42	18.11083	82.68018	6.91	129.0				10.70				10.70	2.200
P43	18.10472	82.64667	190.0	19.5	6 000			1.20	18.00			19.20	2.190
P44	18.10500	82.64778	93.6	34.3	203			1.50	5.39			6.89	2.230
P45	18.10472	82.61220	152.0	13.8	1 278			1.00	6.70			7.70	2.120
P46	18.10500	82.65222	54.4	82.8	9 659			4.13	32.90			37.03	0.721
P47	18.14111	82.69000	59.4	103.0	714			3.10	26.20			29.30	0.617
P48	18.14440	82.69000	87.5	31.0	97.3			1.50	8.57			10.07	0.350
P49	18.14111	82.69000	107.0	46.6	96.5	665		1.50	2.55	22.20		26.25	1.110
P50	18.09528	82.67220	94.7	50.0	3 144			1.92	29.10			31.02	1.360

下载: 导出CSV

Table 5. Resistivity range of subsurface layers (After Venkateswara et al. 2019b)

No	Resistivity (Ω·m)	Formation
1	<10	Clayey sand/highly weathered/highly saturated formation
2	10–60	Weathered formations
3	61–150	Semi-weathered/fractured formation
4	> 150	Hard rock

下载: 导出CSV

Table 6. Secondary geoelectrical parameters and transmissivity values

VES code	Latitude degrees	Longitude degrees	Longitudinal conductance (S)/siemens	Transverse resistance (T)/Ωm²	Anisotropy (λ)	Longitudinal resistivity (ρ_l)/Ω·m	Transverse resistivity (ρ_t)/Ω·m	Aquifer transmissivity (T_r)/m²/d
OP1	18.08010	82.66956	1.01	576.17	1.01	23.74	24.11	523.91
OP4	18.03600	82.70123	0.03	2323.21	1.14	238.66	311.84	180.34
OP5	18.06773	82.66445	0.81	1054.07	1.03	35.03	37.01	337.46
OP7	18.09249	82.67175	0.30	253.46	1.12	26.14	32.70	86.16
OP8	18.09381	82.67082	0.04	858.44	1.00	138.16	139.36	35.50
OP9	18.18840	82.69879	0.02	2569.18	1.05	330.47	363.91	45.36
OP10	18.08856	82.67734	0.67	71.07	1.00	10.30	10.30	302.75
OP13	18.06907	82.69553	0.12	44.46	1.00	19.00	19.00	58.00
OP14	18.04630	82.69276	0.92	796.25	1.10	26.77	32.50	588.14
OP16	18.09164	82.67108	0.47	312.54	1.33	19.35	34.38	63.07
OP17	18.09029	82.67393	0.17	2016.50	1.00	109.00	109.00	89.87
OP18	18.12948	82.63722	0.02	2741.64	1.01	339.04	346.17	67.66
OP19	18.12851	82.62985	0.39	3606.44	1.03	93.83	98.97	236.81
OP20	18.09574	82.67031	0.72	1429.46	1.02	43.55	45.45	388.07
OP21	18.09642	82.67066	0.37	884.79	1.01	48.73	49.43	194.80
OP22	18.08095	82.66179	0.26	287.21	1.07	31.40	35.81	88.86
OP23	18.07507	82.65756	0.24	313.52	1.04	34.54	37.64	91.19
OP24	18.12571	82.64424	0.37	488.72	1.06	34.43	38.85	253.77
OP25	18.12466	82.64470	0.51	911.58	1.04	40.46	43.80	347.62
OP26	18.07412	82.65808	0.12	50.06	1.00	20.60	20.60	55.85
OP27	18.10106	82.67337	0.28	1334.59	1.15	59.70	78.60	216.24
OP28	18.10011	82.67347	0.34	1458.88	1.11	58.93	72.80	236.38
P1	18.08917	82.58722	0.24	1753.82	1.09	77.37	92.75	220.16
P2	18.09028	82.65444	0.34	843.30	1.44	34.70	72.02	618.20
P3	18.09056	82.63889	0.20	3578.89	1.03	128.81	136.29	91.52
P4	18.09110	82.64111	0.82	2459.15	1.13	48.40	61.94	779.60
P5	18.09110	82.63944	0.62	2244.49	1.04	57.61	62.35	458.22
P6	18.09389	82.67363	0.55	1789.80	1.12	51.10	64.15	611.49
P7	18.09911	82.64000	0.13	405.85	1.05	52.52	57.57	98.73
P8	18.09389	82.65410	0.18	231.23	1.00	36.30	36.30	86.31
P9	18.09667	82.60694	2.81	267.42	1.00	9.76	9.76	1264.15
P10	18.09667	82.59083	2.36	194.80	1.06	8.60	9.60	1289.37
P11	18.09306	82.59472	1.12	290.20	1.58	10.17	25.46	1604.52
P12	18.09389	82.59444	1.39	228.20	1.17	10.94	15.03	1232.45
P13	18.06806	82.59970	1.81	390.06	1.07	13.73	15.66	583.50
P14	18.08417	82.59917	1.06	384.34	1.09	17.55	20.69	197.08
P15	18.08000	82.60722	0.86	549.13	1.10	22.87	27.80	574.35
P16	18.08028	82.60639	1.79	128.58	1.10	7.70	9.34	225.57
P17	18.07833	82.60389	1.22	975.04	1.11	25.44	31.44	310.62
P18	18.07972	82.60361	1.36	189.98	1.00	11.80	11.80	622.27
P19	18.06806	82.59972	0.67	544.50	1.10	25.93	31.29	434.52
P20	18.06917	82.60694	0.89	753.90	1.02	28.60	29.67	372.42
P21	18.06806	82.59972	2.04	64.75	1.00	5.63	5.63	886.42
P22	18.09639	82.59667	1.68	196.67	1.22	8.86	13.19	219.43
P23	18.07056	82.67139	2.91	228.20	1.02	8.66	9.06	1465.24
P24	18.07111	82.67194	3.84	288.95	1.02	8.51	8.83	1890.23
P25	18.09361	82.68692	0.76	252.15	1.15	15.76	21.01	577.46
P26	18.09333	82.68889	0.73	674.97	1.29	23.65	39.22	862.81
P27	18.09667	82.68611	3.72	540.14	1.03	11.71	12.39	1467.18
P28	18.09778	82.68556	3.73	196.24	1.02	7.10	7.41	1865.21
P29	18.09806	82.68583	3.17	427.37	1.03	11.26	11.96	1160.85
P30	18.09778	82.68639	4.08	360.54	1.02	9.24	9.57	1535.85
P31	18.10056	82.69083	1.78	1109.40	1.30	19.25	32.36	394.94
P32	18.09972	82.69111	1.12	28.11	1.00	5.02	5.02	480.38
P33	18.07612	82.67821	5.14	729.37	1.00	11.90	11.92	2312.66
P34	18.08182	82.68410	3.03	255.62	1.15	8.01	10.53	2241.18
P35	18.07611	82.67806	2.83	108.15	1.00	6.18	6.18	1236.57
P36	18.07861	82.67694	2.12	73.63	1.00	5.89	5.89	923.76
P37	18.07722	82.67861	2.98	130.15	1.10	5.99	7.29	1959.43
P38	18.07722	82.67822	5.07	1594.02	1.22	14.59	21.57	1168.54
P39	18.09056	82.66750	0.52	1333.52	1.09	46.41	55.24	353.98
P40	18.09028	82.66670	0.42	254.60	1.03	23.71	25.33	252.37
P41	18.10944	82.68010	1.65	84.25	1.00	7.14	7.14	728.73
P42	18.11083	82.68018	1.55	73.94	1.00	6.91	6.91	681.29
P43	18.10472	82.64667	0.93	579.00	1.21	20.66	30.16	718.29
P44	18.10500	82.64778	0.17	325.28	1.09	39.79	47.21	135.47
P45	18.10472	82.61220	0.49	244.46	1.42	15.65	31.75	591.63
P46	18.10500	82.65222	0.47	2948.79	1.01	78.24	79.63	223.59
P47	18.14111	82.69000	0.31	2882.74	1.01	95.58	98.39	143.34
P48	18.14440	82.69000	0.29	396.92	1.07	34.30	39.42	201.00
P49	18.14111	82.69000	0.30	2421.63	1.02	87.85	92.25	136.58
P50	18.09528	82.67220	0.60	1636.82	1.01	51.50	52.77	329.02

下载: 导出CSV

Table 7. Aquifer classification based on the transmissivity values (Offodile, 1983; Venkateswara et al. 2022)

Transmissivity (T_r) /m²/d	Classification of aquifers	No of sounding points based on T_r value
>500	Good potential	31
50–500	Moderate potential	39
5–50	Low potential	02
0.5–5	Very low potential	-
<0.5	Negligible potential	-

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(52)

Ammar AI, Kruse SE. 2016. Resistivity soundings and VLF profiles for siting groundwater wells in a fractured basement aquifer in the Arabian shield, Saudi Arabia. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 116: 5667. DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2015.12.020.

Anandagajapathi RB, Venkateswara RP, Subrahmanyam M. 2020. Integration of GIS and remote sensing in groundwater investigations: A case study from Visakhapatnam District, India. Journal of India Geophysics Union, 24(5): 50−63.

Ankidawa B, Ishaku J, Hassan A. 2019. Estimation of aquifer transmissivity using Dar-Zarrouk parameters derived from resistivity soundings on the floodplain of river Dadin kowa, Gombe state, Northeastern Nigeria. Computer Engineering Physics Model, 1(4): 36−52. DOI: 10.22115/cepm.2018.129584.1024.

Anudu GK, Onuba LN, Ufondu LS. 2011. Geo-electric sounding for groundwater exploration in the crystalline basement terrain around onipe and adjoining areas, Southwestern Nigeria. Journal of Applied Technology in Environmental Sanitation, 1: 343−354.

Atakpo EA. 2013. Aquifer vulnerability investigation using geo-electric method in parts of sapele local government area of delta state, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Basic Application Science, 21(1): 11−19. DOI: 10.4314/njbas.v21i1.2.

Awni T, Batayneh. 2013. The estimation and significance of Dar-Zarrouk parameters in the exploration of quality affecting the Gulf of Aqaba coastal aquifer systems. Journal of Coast Conservation, 17: 623−635. DOI: 10.1007/S11852-013-02614.

Ayolabi EA, Folorunso AF, Oloruntola MO. 2010. Constraining causes of structural failure using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT): A case study of Lagos, Southwestern, Nigeria. Mineral Wealth, 156(4): 7−18. DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.175.SAGEEP109.

Bobachev A. 2003. Resistivity sounding interpretation IPI2WIN: Version 3.0. 1, A7. 01. 03. Moscow State University.

CGWB. 2019. Groundwater brochure Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh, central ground water board, Ministry of water resources, government of India.

Danso SY, Ma Y. 2023. Geospatial techniques for groundwater potential zones delineation in a coastal municipality, Ghana. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 26(1): 75−84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2022.12.004.

Deng QJ, Wei LI, Zhu QJ, et al. 2020. An analysis of the characteristics of water storage structure and the practice of groundwater exploration in the basalt area of Zhangbei County, Bashang, Hebei Province. Geological Bulletin of China, 39(12): 1899−1907.

Dor N, Syafalni S, Abustan I, et al. 2011. Verification of surface-groundwater connectivity in an irrigation canal using geophysical, water balance and stable isotope approaches. Water Resource Manage, 25: 2837–2853.

Elango L. 2014. Hydraulic conductivity issues, determinations and application. Croatia Environmental Processes, 1: 613−616. DOI: 10.1007/s40710-000337.

Fashae OA, Tijani MN, Talabi AO, et al. 2014. Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the crystalline basement terrain of SW-Nigeria: An integrated GIS and remote sensing approach. Journal of Applied Water Science, 4: 19–38.

GSI. 2001. District resource map, geological survey of India. Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Gumilar UN, Andi AN, Pulung AP, et al. 2023. Analysis of groundwater potential zones using Dar-Zarrouk parameters in Pangkalpinang city, Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25: 1876−1898. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-02103-7.

Gupta G, Patil SN, Padmane ST, et al. 2015. Geoelectric investigation to delineate groundwater potential and recharge zones in Suki river basin, north Maharashtra. Journal of Earth System Science, 124(7): 1487−1501. DOI: 10.1007/s12040-015-0615-4.

Gupta G, Vinit CE, Saumen M. 2012. Geo-electrical investigation for potential groundwater zones in parts of Ratnagiri and Kolhapur districts, Maharashtra. Journal of India Geophysics Union, 9(1): 27−38.

Hamzah U, Samudin AR, Malim EP. 2007. Groundwater investigation in Kuala Selang or using vertical electric sounding (VES) surveys. Environmental Geology, 51: 1349–1359.

Heigold PC, Gilkeson RH, Cartwright K, et al. 1979. Aquifer transmissivity from surficial electrical methods. Ground Water, 17(4): 338−345. DOI: 10.1111/J.1745-6584.1979.Tb03326.X.

Kang X, Shi X, Deng Y, et al. 2018. Coupled hydro-geophysical inversion of DNAPL source zone architecture and permeability field in a 3D heterogeneous sandbox by assimilation time-lapse cross-borehole electrical resistivity data via ensemble kalman filtering. Journal of Hydrology, 567: 149−164. DOI: 10.1016/J.JhydrOl.2018.10.019.

Kumar TJR, Balasubramanian A, Kumar RS, et al. 2016. Assessment of groundwater potential based on aquifer properties of hard rock terrain in the Chittar–Uppodai watershed, Tamil Nadu, India. Applied Water Science, 6: 179−186. DOI: 10.1007/s13201-014-0216-4.

Loke MH, Chambers JE, Rucker DF, et al. 2013. Recent developments in the direct-current geo-electrical imaging method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 95: 135−156. DOI: 10.1016/J.Japp.geo.2013.02.017.

Maillet R. 1947. The fundamental equations of electrical prospecting. Geophysics, 12(4): 529−556. DOI: 10.1190/1.1437342.

Maja B, Andrej S, Ivan KC, et al. 2020. Characterization of aquifers in metamorphic rocks by combined use of electrical resistivity tomography and monitoring of spring hydrodynamics. Geosciences, 10: 137. DOI: 10.3390/Geosciences10040137.

Obiora DN, Ibuot JC, George JN. 2016. Evaluation of aquifer potential, geo-electric and hydraulic parameters in Ezza north, southeastern Nigeria, using geo-electric sounding. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13: 435−444. DOI: 10.1007/S13762-015-0886-Y.

Offodile MI. 1983. The occurrence and exploitation of groundwater in Nigeria basement complex. Journal of Mining Geology, 20(3): 131−146.

Oladapo MI, Akintorinwa OJ. 2007. Hydrogeophysical study of Ogbese southwestern Nigeria. Global Journal of Pure Applied Science, 13(1): 55–61.

Olasehinde, PI, Bayewu OO. 2011. Evaluation of electrical resistivity anisotropy in Geological mapping: A case study of Odo area, west central Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(7): 553−566. DOI: 10.4314/ajest.v5i7.72045.

Orellana E, Mooney HM. 1966. Master curves for Schlumberger arrangement. Madrid, P. 34.

Oteri AU. 1981. Geo-electric investigation of saline contamination of chalk aquifer by mine drainage water at Tilmanstone, England. Geoexploration, 19(3): 179–192.

Rustadi, Darmawan IGB, Haerudin N, et al. 2022. Groundwater exploration using integrated geophysics method in hard rock terrains in Mount Betung Western Bandar Lampung, Indonesia. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10(1): 10−18. DOI: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.01.002.

Sathiyamoorthy M, Madhavi G. 2018. Delineation of groundwater potential and recharge zone using electrical resistivity method around Veeranam Tank, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Series A 99.4 (2018): 637-645.

Seker UE, Efe S. 2023. Comparative economic analysis of air conditioning system with groundwater source heat pump in general-purpose buildings: A case study for kayseri. Renewable Energy, 204: 372−381.

Shailaja G, Gupta G, Suneetha N, et al. 2019. Assessment of aquifer zones and its protection via second-order geo-electric indices in parts of drought-prone region of deccan volcanic province, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Earth System Science, 128: 78.

Singh S, Gautam PK, Kumar P, et al. 2021. Delineating the characteristics of saline water intrusion in the coastal aquifers of Tamil Nadu, India by analyzing the Dar-Zarrouk parameters. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy, 51(2): 141-163.

Singh CL, Singh SN. 1970. Some geo-electrical investigations for potential groundwater in part of Azamgrah area of UP. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 82: 270–85.

Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P, Ganesha Raj K. 2006. Use of remote sensing and seismotectonic parameters for seismic hazard analysis of Bangalore. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 6: 927–939.

Sitharam TG, Anbazhagan P. 2007. Seismic hazard analysis for the Bangalore region. Natural Hazards, 40: 261−278.

Sri N, Singhal DC. 1981. Estimation of aquifer transmissivity from Dar-Zarrouk parameters in porous media. Journal of Hydrology, 50: 393−399. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(81)90082-2.

Subramanian TS, Marykutty A. 2019. Computation of aquifer parameters using geo-electrical techniques for the north Chennai coastal aquifer. Indian Journal of Geo Marine Sciences, 48: 1298-1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02103-7

Subrahmanyam M, Venkateswara Rao P. 2017a. A note on the advantages of converting schlumberger VES data into radial dipole VES data. Journal of Geophysics, 28(4): 248−257.

Subrahmanyam M, Venkateswara RP. 2017b. Delineation of groundwater potential zones using geo-electrical surveys in SSW part of Yeleru river basin, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Indian Geophysics Union, 21(6): 465−473.

Suneetha NG, Gupta G, Shailaja G, et al. 2021. Spatial behavior of the Dar-Zarrouk parameters for exploration and differentiation of water bodies aquifers in parts of konkan coast of Maharashtra, India. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 25: 11. DOI: 10.1007/S11852-021-00807-6.

Todd KD. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology, Third Ed. New York, John Wiley and Sons: 636.

Venkateswara RP, Subrahmanyam M, Ratnakar D. 2019a. Performance evaluation of different interpretation techniques of vertical electrical sounding data. Journal of Indian Geophysics Union, 23(1): 55−68.

Venkateswara RP, Subrahmanyam M, Ramdas P. 2019b. Delineation of groundwater potential zones in hard rock basement terrains of EastGodavari District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Indian Geophysics Union, 23(5): 408−419.

Venkateswara RP, Mangalampalli S, Bakuru AR. 2021. Groundwater exploration in hard rock terrains of East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, India using AHP and WIO analyses together with geoelectrical surveys. AIMS Geosciences, 7(2): 243−266. DOI: 10.3934/geosci.2021015.

Venkateswara RP, Mangalampalli S, Bakuru AR. 2022. Investigation of groundwater potential zones in hard rock terrains along EGMB, India, using remote sensing, geoelectrical and hydrological parameters. Acta Geophysica,

Zohdy AAR. 1965. The auxiliary point method of electrical sounding interpretation and its relationship to the Dar-Zarrouk parameters. Geophysics, 30: 644−660. DOI: 10.1190/1.1439636.

Zohdy AAR, Eaton GP, Mabey DR. 1974. Application of surface geophysics to groundwater investigations, US Geology Survey. Technology Water Resource Investigation: 116.

Zohdy AAR. 1989. A new method for the automatic interpretation of Schlumberger and Wenner sounding curves. Geophysics, 54: 245−253. DOI: 10.1190/1.1442648.

[1]	Nyasha Ashleigh Siziba, Pepukai Chifamba2023: Using geospatial technologies to delineate Ground Water Potential Zones (GWPZ) in Mberengwa and Zvishavane District, Zimbabwe, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 317-332. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280026
[2]	Temesgen Mekuriaw Manderso, Yitbarek Andualem Mekonnen, Tadege Aragaw Worku2023: Application of GIS based analytical hierarchy process and multicriteria decision analysis methods to identify groundwater potential zones in Jedeb Watershed, Ethiopia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 221-236. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280019
[3]	Edmealem Temesgen, Demelash Wendmagegnehu Goshime, Destaw Akili2023: Determination of groundwater potential distribution in Kulfo-Hare watershed through integration of GIS, remote sensing, and AHP in Southern Ethiopia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 249-262. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280021
[4]	Daniel Nnaemeka Obiora, Johnson Cletus Ibuot2023: Electrical geophysical evaluation of susceptibility to flooding in University of Nigeria, Nsukka main campus and its environs, Southeastern Nigeria, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 422-434. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280033
[5]	Niway Wondesen Fikade, Molla Dagnachew Daniel, Lohani Tarun Kumar2022: Holistic approach of GIS based Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and WetSpass models to evaluate groundwater potential in Gelana watershed of Ethiopia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 138-152. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.02.004
[6]	Abebe Wondmagegn Taye2022: Evaluation of groundwater resource potential by using water balance model: A case of Upper Gilgel Gibe Watershed, Ethiopia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 209-222. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.03.001
[7]	Dr Muthamilselvan A, Anamika Sekar, Emmanuel Ignatius2022: Identification of groundwater potential in hard rock aquifer systems using Remote Sensing, GIS and Magnetic Survey in Veppanthattai, Perambalur, Tamilnadu, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 367-380. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.04.005
[8]	Ma Xin, Wen Dong-guang, Yang Guo-dong, Li Xu-feng, Diao Yu-jie, Dong Hai-hai, Cao Wei, Yin Shu-guo, Zhang Yan-mei2021: Potential assessment of CO₂ geological storage based on injection scenario simulation: A case study in eastern Junggar Basin, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 279-291. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.002
[9]	Cherif Kessar, Yamina Benkesmia, Bilal Blissag, Lahsen Wahib Kébir2021: Delineation of groundwater potential zones in Wadi Saida Watershed of NW-Algeria using remote sensing, geographic information system-based AHP techniques and geostatistical analysis, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 45-64. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.01.005
[10]	Juandi Muhammad, Nur Islami2021: Prediction criteria for groundwater potential zones in Kemuning District, Indonesia using the integration of geoelectrical and physical parameters, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 12-19. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.01.002
[11]	SONG Hong-wei, XIA Fan, MU Hai-dong, WANG Wei-qiang, SHANG Ming-sen2020: Study on detecting spatial distribution availability in mine goafs by ultra-high density electrical method, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 281-286. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.03.008
[12]	Dinagarapandi Pandi, Saravanan Kothandaraman, Mohan Kuppusamy2020: Delineation of potential groundwater zones based on multicriteria decision making technique, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 180-194. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.02.009
[13]	Fatima Zahra FAQIHI, Anasse BENSLIMANE, Abderrahim LAHRACH, Mohamed CHIBOUT, Mohamed EL MOKHTAR2020: Recognition of the hydrogeological potential using electrical sounding in the KhemissetTiflet region, Morocco, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 172-179. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.02.008
[14]	Qaisar Mehmood, Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Rizwan, Shanawar Hamid, Waqas Mehmood, Muhammad Ansir Muneer, Muhammad Irfan, Lubna Anjum2020: Integration of geoelectric and hydrochemical approaches for delineation of groundwater potential zones in alluvial aquifer, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 366-380. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.04.007
[15]	SOSI Benjamin, BARONGO Justus, GETABU Albert, MAOBE Samson2019: Electrical-hydraulic conductivity model for a weathered-fractured aquifer system of Olbanita, Lower Baringo Basin, Kenya Rift, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 360-372. doi: DOI: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.04.007
[16]	SADIKI Moulay Lhassan, EL MANSOURI Bouabid, BENSEDDIK Badr, CHAO Jamal, KILI Malika, EL MEZOUARY Lhoussaine2019: Improvement of groundwater resources potential by artificial recharge technique: A case study of Charf El Akab aquifer in the Tangier region, Morocco, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 224-236. doi: DOI: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.03.003
[17]	Nouayti Abderrahime, Khattach Driss, Hilali Mohamed, Nouayti Nordine2019: Mapping potential areas for groundwater storage in the High Guir Basin (Morocco):Contribution of remote sensing and geographic information system, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 309-322. doi: DOI: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.04.002
[18]	LIU Yu, CHENG Yan-pei, GE Li-qiang2018: Analysis on exploitation status, potential and strategy of groundwater resources in the five countries of Central Asia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6, 49-57. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2018.01.006
[19]	WU Ting-wen, WANG Li-huan, YANG Xiang-kui2017: Evaluation of groundwater potential and eco-geological environment quality in Sanjiang Plain of Heilongjiang Province, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 193-201.
[20]	LIU Min, NIE Zhen-long, WANG Jin-zhe, WANG Li-fang, TIAN Yan-liang2016: An assessment of the carrying capacity of groundwater resources in North China Plain region–Analysis of potential for development, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 174-187.