AN INTEGRETED APPROACH OF REMOTE SENSING,

GEOPHYSICS AND GIS TO EVALUATE GROUNDWATER

POTENTIALITY OF OJHALA SUBWATERSHED
MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, U.P.,

Amaresh Kr. Singh & S. Ravi Prakash

REMOTE SENSING APPLICATIONS CENTRE, UTTAR PRADESH

OBJECTIVE
The study area covered by hard rock formations, faces
acute water scarcity problem both for irrigation as well
as drinking purposes. Though such formations hold and
yield water but there are spatial variation in the
occurrence of groundwater. Thus the demarcation of
zones having different groundwater potentiality is an
important task in overall water resources development,
planning and management. The groundwater prospect
maps prepared without incorporating aquifer layer
thickness gives a broad idea about the ground water
potentiality.
Keeping this in view, the present study
attempts to
demarcate more realistic groundwater
exploration approach using integrated remote sensing,
geophysics and GIS techniques.

The study area, is

situated in Mirzapur
district
of
Uttar
Pradesh, India and is
bounded by longitudes
82025 50 E and 82036
35E and latitudes
24056 24 N and 25010
00 N, and covered in
Survey
of
India
toposheet no. 63K/12,
K/8, L/5 & L/9.

DATA USED
The followings data were used for the
study :
*
Remotely sensed data, viz. IRS 1B
LISS II, geocoded of scale 1:50,000.
*
The survey of India toposheet
63K/12, K/8, L/5 & L/9 of scale
1:50,000.
*
Field
data,
viz.
geo-electrical
sounding data and drilling data.

METHODOLOGY
Remote Sensing data IRS 1B
LISS II Geocoded Photographic
Product

Toposheet on 1:50,000 scale

Field Data

Geoelectrical
sounding data

Preparation of Hydro
geomorphology
&
lineaments maps

Preparation of
Drainage map

Conservation to
Digital formal

Preparation of
contour and
spat elevation
map
DEM

GIS Data base

Categorization of each thematic maps into different category

like (i) VG (ii) G to VG (iii) G (iv) M (v) P in terms of their
importance with respect to groundwater occurrence and
suitable weight have been assigned

Integration into GIS with weightage factor

Preparation of
geoelectrical
sounding
location map
Slope Map

Drilling Data

Interpretation of
Geoelectrical
sounding

Geoelectrical
parameter
Correlation of
geoelectrical parameter of
drilled sites with lithology

Based on this correlation, lithology was inferred at

other sounding locations
Inferred lithology and thickness from geoelectrical
parameters at respective locations

Modeling for identification of zones

Groundwater potential zone map
Comparison of zones with yield data

Preparation of overburden thickness and aquifer layer

thickness maps prepared through GIS.

TABLE 1
GEOELECTRICAL PARAMETERS AND THEIR HYDROGEOLOGICAL
SIGNIFICANCE
Resistivity Stratification

Inferred Lithology

Hydrogeological Significance

Resistivity (Wm)

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.

TABLE 2
WEIGHTAGE OF DIFFERENT PARAMETER FOR GROUNDWATER PROSPECTS
Sl.No.

Criteria

Classes

Weight

1.

Hydrogeomorphology

VF

BPP-M

BPP-S

DPT, P(PT) & RA

0 0.5

0.6 2.0

2.1 5.0

5.1 10.0

> 10.0

Present

Absent

Vth order ( around 500 m)

IVth order (around 400 m) &

IIIrd order (around 300 m )

IInd order (around 200 m) &

Ist order (around 100m )

> 25 m

6.0 25.0 m

< 6.0 m

> 35 m

26.0 - 35.0 m

16.0 25.0 m

6.0 15.0 m

< 6.0 m

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Slope (degree)

Lineament (around 200 m )

Drainage

Overburden thickness

Aquifer thickness

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

78

50.5

8.

Poor

>7

45.2

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

TABLE - 5
Model Evaluation and
Results

The validity of the model

developed was checked against
the bore well yield data which
reflects the actual groundwater
potential.
Groundwater
potential
zones
prepared
through this model are in good
agreement with yield data. Yield
of drilled sites covered in this
model 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
moderate to good zone, 50 to
100 lpm in moderate zone, 25 to
50 lpm in poor to moderate
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

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

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

CONCLUSION
In order to delineate the groundwater potential zones, in general, different
thematic layers viz: hydrogeomorphology, lineaments, slope, drainage and
overburden thickness are integrated without considering aquifer thickness. This
provides a broad idea about the groundwater prospect of the area. Presently
groundwater potential zones have been demarcated by integration of aquifer
thickness derived from surface electrical resistivity survey and drilling data with
above thematic layers, using a model developed through GIS technique.
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. This illustrates that
the approach outlined has merits and can be successfully used elsewhere with
appropriate modifications. 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, especially in diverse
geological setup. This gives more realistic groundwater potential map of an area
which may be used for any groundwater development and management
programme.