Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Gnd water

357 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Gnd water

  1. 1. RS and GIS Applications In Ground Water Prospectus Mappingng BY: MANUMOHAN V.H SECOND SEM GEOINFORATICS KSRSAC
  2. 2. CONTENTS: • Objective. • Major factors controling ground water regime. • Methodology • Case study. • Conclusion.
  3. 3. Ground Water
  4. 4. OBJECTIVE •Preparing ground water prospectus mapping of study area •Demarcation of zones having different groundwater potentiality is an important task in overall water resources development, planning and management. • The groundwater exploration approach using i remote sensing, geological and GIS techniques.
  5. 5. MAJOR FACTORS CONTROLING GROUND WATER REGIME • Geology / Lithology • Geological structures • Geomorphology / Landform • Weather conditions • Recharge Conditions
  6. 6. METHODOLOGY
  7. 7. The study area is situated in Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh.
  8. 8. DATA USED The followings data were used for the study : •Remotely sensed data, viz. IRS 1B LISS II, of scale 1:50,000
  9. 9. CASE STUDY: SATELLITE IMAGE OF STUDY AREA IRS LISS III IMAGE SCALE 1:50,000
  10. 10. TABLE – 1 GEOELECTRICAL PARAMETERS AND THEIR HYDROGEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Resistivity Stratification Inferred Lithology Hydrogeological Significance Resistivity (Ωm) Thickness (m) 4 – 29 2 – 43 Predominantly Clay/Clay with Kankar Generally lies in unsaturated zone; very poor aquifer at depth. 30 – 200 6 – 57 Sandstone, weathered and / or hard Non-water bearing, poorly fractured, very poor aquifer. 40 – 300 0 – 47 Sandstone, hard and fractured Main aquifer saturated with potable water. > 300 Indeterminate (Bottom layer) Sandstone, hard & compact, occ. Fractured Bedrock, poorly fractured; very poor aquifer.
  11. 11. TABLE – 2 WEIGHTAGE OF DIFFERENT PARAMETER FOR GROUNDWATER PROSPECTS Sl.No. Criteria Classes Weight 1. Hydrogeomorphology VF 5 BPP-M 3 BPP-S 2 DPT, P(PT) & RA 1 0 – 0.5 5 0.6 – 2.0 4 2.1 – 5.0 3 5.1 – 10.0 2 > 10.0 1 Present 2 Absent 1 Vth order ( around 500 m) 3 IVth order (around 400 m) & IIIrd order (around 300 m ) 2 IInd order (around 200 m) & Ist order (around 100m ) 1 > 25 m 3 6.0 – 25.0 m 2 < 6.0 m 1 > 35 m 5 26.0 - 35.0 m 4 16.0 – 25.0 m 3 6.0 – 15.0 m 2 < 6.0 m 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Slope (degree) Lineament (around 200 m ) Drainage Overburden thickness Aquifer thickness
  12. 12. TABLE – 3 INTEGRATED GROUNDWATER CATEGORIES FOR GROUNDWATER PROSPECTS WITH LOWER AND UPPER WEIGHT VALUE (Integration of hydrogeomorphology, lineament, slope, drainage and overburden thickness) Sl. No. Groundwater Category Lower & Upper weight Value Area (Sq.km) 1. Very Good 18 - 20 0.20 2. Good to very good 15 – 17 10.8 3. Good 13 – 14 24.1 4. Moderate to good 11 – 12 67.9 5. Moderate 9 -10 49.3 7. Poor to moderate 7–8 50.5 8. Poor >7 45.2
  13. 13. TABLE - 4 INTEGRATED GROUNDWATER CATEGORIES FOR GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL WITH LOWER AND UPPER WEIGHT VALUE (Integration of aquifer thickness with other parameters incorporated in Table 3 Sl. No. Groundwater Category Lower & Upper weight Value Area (Sq.km) 1. Very Good 20 – 22 3.2 2. Good to very good 17 – 19 32.3 3. Good 15 – 16 38.0 4. Moderate to good 13 – 14 26.1 5. Moderate 11 – 12 34.1 6. Poor to moderate 9 – 10 43.1 7. Poor >9 71.2
  14. 14. TABLE - 5 Model Evaluation and Results The validity of the m odel developed was checked against the bore well y ield data which reflects the actual groundwater potential. Groundwater potential zones prepared through this m odel are in good agreem with y ent ield data. Y ield of drilled sites covered in this m odel have ranges from 793 to 1160 lpm in good to very good zone, 300 to 1160 lpm in good zone, 100 to 300 lpm in m oderate to good zone, 50 to 100 lpmin m oderate zone, 25 to 50 lpm in poor to m oderate zone and less than 25 lpm in poor zone. VALIDATION OF MODEL WITH ACTUAL BOREWELL YIELD DATA Sl. No. Category of Groundwater prospect Category of Groundwater potential Site location No. Village Actual yield (in lpm) 1. Moderate to Good Good to V. Good 5 Amoi 793 2. Good Good to V. Good 17 Sirsigaharwar 1160 3. Moderate to Good Good to V. Good 21 Vindhyachal 1160 4. Moderate to Good Good to V. Good 22 Ghamahapur 1160 5. Moderate to Good Good to V. Good 23 Ghamahapur 1160 6. Good Good to V. Good 25 Amoi 1160 7. Moderate Good 8 Bhawanaipur 1008 8. Poor to Moderate Good 11 Vindhyachal 1160 9. Poor to Moderate Good 20 Tulsitalia 793 10. Poor to Moderate Good 24 Tulsitalia 793 11. Good Good 27 Sirsigaharwar 315 12. Moderate Good 46 Bhawanipur 1160 13. Moderate to Good Good 58 Sirsigaharwar 505 14. Moderate to Good Moderate to Good 38 Hinauti 100 15. Moderate to Good Moderate to Good 40 Hinauti Sarupur 130 16. Poor to Moderate Moderate 34 Sirsigaharwar 80 17. Moderate Poor to Moderate 28 Sirsigaharwar 25 18. Poor Poor 47 Amrawati 24
  15. 15. CONCLUSION In order to delineate the groundwater potential zones, in general, different thematic layers viz: hydrogeomorphology, lineaments, slope, drainage . The groundwater potential zone map generated through this model was verified with the yield data to ascertain the validity of the model developed and found that it is in agreement with the bore wells yield data. The present study has demonstrated the capabilities of using remote sensing, geophysical data and Geographical Information System for demarcation of different ground water potential zones.

×