1887

Abstract

Summary

Aquifer characterization such as hydraulic conductivity (K) is necessary due to groundwater sustainability for agriculture industry. The current method for calculating K is to conduct a pumping test or a permeability test. This study is trying to find an alternative method to obtain a K value by determining the correlation between water and aquifer resistivity which is conducted in the laboratory and field scale. The aquifer resistivity is gathered from Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and the water resistivity from direct measurement. The correlation can perform the Kozeny–Carman equation, which is modified from Archie and Waxman–Smits formulas, to estimate the hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity estimation is compared with the hydraulic conductivity value from the permeability and pumping test solutions. The measurement result showed 12.63 m/day, which was similar to the permeability test with 10.3 m/day. However, the field result revealed 14.07 m/day, while the pumping test indicated 24.5 m/day. An analysis has been conducted with the fact that geological condition, grain size, and water resistivity have a significant contribution to the result. Nevertheless, the outcome of the ERT profile can be an alternative method to get an estimation of K that is more efficient, yet not offensive.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800374
2018-04-09
2020-04-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ARCHIEG. E
    [1941] The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics. Petroleum Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ARROW ENERGY PTY LTD
    [2015] Unpublished Report.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ATTWAM., BASOKURA. T. & AKCAI
    [2014] Hydraulic conductivity estimation using direct current (DC) sounding data: a case study in East Nile Delta, Egypt, Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1163–1178.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BARLOWJ
    [2015] Condamine Interconnectivity Research Project Daandine Test Site.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BEARJ
    [1972] Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BUTLERD. B. & KNIGHTR. J
    [1998] Electrical conductivity of steam-flooded, clay-bearing geologic materials. Geophysics, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1137–1149.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CHAPUISR. P. A. M.
    [2003] Predicting the coefficient of permeability of soils using the Kozeny–Carman equation. EPM-RT2003-03., Department CGM, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FETTERC. W
    [2001] Applied Hydrogeology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GOOGLE EARTH
    [2016] HTTPS://WWW.GOOGLE.COM/EARTH/.
  10. HILLIERJ. R
    [2010] Groundwater connections between the Walloon Coal Measures and the Alluvium of the Condamine River. A Report for the Central Downs Irrigators Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KHALILM. A
    [2010] Real surface conductivity component as indicator for the hydraulic conductivity, Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 4, no. 1–2, pp. 269–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. KHALILM. A. & SANTOSF. A. M
    [2011] Hydraulic conductivity estimation from resistivity logs: a case study in Nubian sandstone aquifer. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 205–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LOKEM. H
    [2000] Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. [2001] Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. [2010] Rapid 2-D Resistivity & IP inversion using the least-squares method. Geotomo Software, Penang.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MAHMOUDIA. S. E., AL-BARRAKK. M. & MASSOUDM. A
    [2011] 2-D Electrical Tomography for Mapping of Aquifers at the New Campus of King Faisl University, Al Hassa, KSA. International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments, vol. 1, no. 16, pp. 397–410.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NIWASS
    [2003] Aquifer parameter estimation from surface resistivity data, Ground Water, no. ProQuest Research Library, p. 94.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SAMOUËLIANA, CousinI, COUSINI, TABBAGHA, BRUANDA, & RICHARDG
    [2005 Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review, Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 173–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SOUPIOSP. M., KouliM, VallianatosF, VafidisA, & StavroulakisG
    [2007] Estimation of aquifer hydraulic parameters from surficial geophysical methods: A case study of Keritis Basin in Chania (Crete – Greece). Journal of Hydrology, vol. 338, no. 1–2, pp. 122–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WAXMANM. H. & SMITSL. J. M
    [1968] Electrical Conductivities in Oil-Bearing Shaly Sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 107–&.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WORLEYPARSONS
    [2013] Groundwater risks associated with coal seam gas development in the Surat and southern Bowen basins.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. WORTHINGTONP. F
    [1993] The Uses and Abuses of the Archie Equations.1. The Formation Factor Porosity Relationship. Journal of Applied Geophysics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 215–228.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800374
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800374
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error