Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
140
editor@iaeme.com
1. INTRODUCTION
In the present era, new approaches for the management of land and water resources
are increasing to control the land degradation, long-term sustainable utilization of
water resources. The exploration of groundwater is very much necessary for better
development of groundwater resources and improvement of techniques for its
investigation (Dinakar., 2005). Assessing the Remote Sensing (RS) satellite image
with its spatial, spectral and temporal resolution data covering large and inaccessible
areas within short period of time has become a very handy in analyzing, monitoring
and conserving the water resources (Basavarajappa and Dinakar., 2005). To handle
this information, GIS emerged as a powerful tool in analyzing spatial and non-spatial
data. The paleo-channels of the study area are also mapped using satellite data which
gives additional information regarding water bearing zones like old river course,
fractures and valley fills (Basavarajappa et al., 2014a). Hydrogeomorphic maps are
prepared and used as a tool for groundwater investigation, exploration and
exploitation (Basavarajappa et al., 2013). Attribute data can be clipped into the points/
lines/ polygons or regions with the help of GIS softwares, so that spatial and nonspatial attribute data can be viewed at a time for better alternative scenarios in
decision making (Dinakar., 2005). The largest available source of the fresh water is
groundwater, but its targeting in hard rock terrain is very difficult due to poly phase
metamorphism, multi & repetitive deformational episodes and related variance in the
fracture pattern & their chronologies (Ramasamy, et al., 2001; Basavarajappa and
Srikantappa., 1999; 2000; Basavarajappa., 2016). Geoinformatics encompasses
Survey of India (SoI) topomaps, Remote Sensing (RS) Satellite images, Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) softwares, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Ground
Truth Check (GTC) in validating various land and water resources exploration and
management studies (Basavarajappa et al., 2014b; 2015c). It helps in integrating
Remotely Sensed derived data with ancillary data providing the precise information
by involving various factors in groundwater resources management. In view of this,
groundwater occurrence parameters such as lithology, geomorphology, soil, land use
land pattern, lineament, slope and rainfall maps derived through remotely sensed
data/conventional methods have been analyzed using Geoinformatics to compare the
accuracy of high-tech tools capability in groundwater potential zones of the study
area.
2. STUDY AREA
The study area lies between 1145 to 1215N latitude and 7645 to 7715E
longitude with total areal extent of 3,011 Km 2 (Fig.1) (Basavarajappa et al., 2015b).
The study area includes parts of 9 taluks of Karnataka state namely Yelandur,
Kollegal, Chamarajanagara, Malavalli, Mysuru, Gundlupet, T. Narsipura, Nanjungudu
and small patches of Tamil Nadu region (Sathyamangalam) in the southern and
southeastern parts. Cauvery and Kabini are the two major rivers flowing in the study
area in which Kabini is one of the tributary of River Cauvery.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
141
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
142
editor@iaeme.com
143
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
144
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
145
editor@iaeme.com
spatial variation of weathered layer. The thickness of the weathered zone varies from
1 to 28m. The maximum thickness of the weathered zone is observed in central part
that runs along Kollegal Shear Zone (KSZ) and all along the river courses
(Basavarajappa et al., 2015b). While the minimum weathered thickness are observed
in the southeastern parts. Gneiss and migmatite rocks are deeply weathered as
compared to the charnockites, which occurs as hill ranges. Ranks have been assigned
based on the thickness of weathering and are as follows: 1 to 10m denotes Rank-1,
10-16m denote Rank-2, 16-22m denote Rank-3 and 22-28m denote Rank-4 with a
weightage of 25 (Table.1g; Fig.7) (Dinakar., 2005).
Table.1 (a-g) Assigned Ranks, Weightages and Scores for attributes of various themes
Table. a Lithology
Lithology (Weightage - 40)
Rank
Migmatite
3
Dyke
1
Magnetite Quartzite
2
Pyroxene Granulite
2
Hornblende Schist
3
Meta ultramafite
1
Charnockite
1
Amphibolite
1
Gneiss
3
Table. b Geomorphology
Geomorphology (Weightage-60)
Rank
Alluvial Plain
4
Channel Island
4
1
Denudational Hill
Pediment
1
Pediment shallow
2
Pediment moderate
3
Residual hill
1
Point bar-I
4
Point bar-II
2
1
Point bar-III
Table. c Soil
Soil (Weightage - 20)
Clayey
Clayey mixed
Clayey-skeletal
Loamy soil
Score
120
40
80
80
120
40
40
40
120
Score
240
240
60
60
120
180
60
240
120
60
Rank
4
3
1
2
Score
80
60
20
40
Table. d Lineament
Lineament (Weightage - 50)
Rank
Lineament (Buffer zone-100m)
4
Score
200
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
146
editor@iaeme.com
Table. f Slope
Slope (Weightage - 30)
Gentle Slope - 3-5 %
Moderate Slope - 5-10 %
Moderate Steep - 15-35 %
Nearly Level - 0-1 %
Strong Slope - 10-15 %
Very Gentle - 1-3 %
Very Steep - >35 %
Score
25
25
50
50
50
25
25
50
100
25
100
50
100
75
75
25
100
100
100
50
100
100
100
100
100
Rank
3
2
1
4
1
3
1
Score
90
60
30
120
30
90
30
Table. g Weathering
Weathering (Weightage - 25) Rank
1-10
1
10-16
2
16-22
3
22-28
4
Score
25
50
75
100
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
147
editor@iaeme.com
Table. h Rainfall
Rainfall (Weightage - 35)
Rank Score
560-675
1
35
675-750
1
35
750-825
2
70
825-900
2
70
900-975
2
70
975-1050
2
70
1050-1125
2
70
1125-1200
3
105
1200-1275
3
105
1275-1350
4
140
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
148
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
149
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
150
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
151
editor@iaeme.com
5.1. Overlay
All the themes are overlaid two at a time using UNION in ARC/INFO to generate a
final composite map helps in finding the specific union polygons (Basavarajappa et
al., 2013). By this method a new map showing the integrated feature of two thematic
maps is obtained. Over this, composite map is overlaid by a third map and so on. Each
polygon in the final composite map is associated with a particular set of information
of all thematic layers (Basavarajappa et al., 2014b). The evaluation of groundwater
prospect of each polygon in the output is based on the added values of scores of
various themes. Theoretically, the minimum total weighs of 235 and maximum
weight of 1400 should have been obtained. But practically a minimum of 270 and
maximum of 1030 have been obtained in the study area. This shows that the nonoverlap of some of higher weights polygons with one other in the integrated layer
(Dinakar., 2005).
5.2. Dissolve
The total scores obtained by integration have been classified into four categories to
facilitate the delineation of very good, good, moderate and poor GWPZ
(Basavarajappa et al., 2013). Accordingly, the poor zone ranges from 270 to 460
score, moderate zone ranges 460 to 650, good zone ranges 650 to 840 and very good
zone ranges 840 to 1030 score. All the polygons having the range of scores mentioned
earlier are merged using DISSOLVE operation (Dinakar., 2005).
6. INTEGRATION
Integration of data obtained from remote sensing and conventional methods help to
demark the groundwater potential zones effectively in the study area. GIS enables
user specific management and integration of multi-thematic data. In recent years,
extensive use of integrated approach for extracting groundwater prospect zones in
hard rock terrain using remote sensing and GIS techniques are many in recent
literature (Chi and Lee., 1994; Singh et al., 1993; Pal et al., 1997; Venkatachalam et
al., 1991: Krishnamurthy et al., 1996; Haridass et al., 1994). Groundwater potential
model has been developed based on Index overlay method using hierarchical
weightage (Jothiprakesh et al., 2003; Sarkar et al., 2001). Depending upon the
perceived importance; weightage has been assigned for individual themes by
knowledge-based hierarchy of ranking from 1 to 4 on the basis of their significance
with reference to their groundwater potential. In this ranking, 1 denotes poor, 2
moderate, 3 good and 4 denotes very good groundwater potential zones.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
152
editor@iaeme.com
Longitude
76 49' 37.11''
76 53' 21.26''
76 54' 26.09''
76 53' 39.59''
76 54' 06.42''
76 53' 21.17''
76 51' 16.69''
76 51' 16.69''
76 50' 57.70''
76 53' 24.32''
76 53' 38.01''
76 48' 30.38''
76 49' 30.40''
76 50' 6.48''
76 50' 49.34''
76 51' 45.98''
76 54' 8.65''
76 54' 41.33''
76 54' 49.49''
76 56' 55.74''
76 56' 41.81''
75 56' 39.92''
76 55' 55.07''
76 55' 27.48''
76 56' 37.88''
76 56' 05.29''
76 57' 53.28''
76 58' 01.92''
76 58' 31.22''
76 59' 43.43''
76 45' 3.88''
76 45' 43.35''
76 47' 09.17''
76 48' 22.97''
76 49' 39.62''
76 52' 24.72''
76 51' 35.65''
76 51' 24.82''
76 53' 04.72''
76 51' 07.80''
76 52' 44.47''
76 48' 12.64''
76 47' 12.34''
76 47' 10.34''
76 47' 03.01''
76 46' 44.73''
Latitude
1214' 01.01''
1214' 37.37''
1212' 34.59''
1213' 41.87''
1213' 17.90''
1212' 03.00''
1210' 25.85''
12 8' 22.46''
12 7' 42.50''
12 6' 53.62''
12 6' 24.85''
12 5' 36.35''
12 4' 28.63''
12 4' 30.27''
12 3' 41.17''
12 3' 14.02''
12 4' 01.10''
12 4' 21.32''
12 4' 33.14''
12 7' 35.47''
12 6' 07.59''
12 4' 44.75''
12 3' 16.93''
12 2' 24.58''
12 2' 10.92''
12 1' 38.74''
12 0' 49.61''
12 1' 14.95''
12 2' 02.23''
12 2' 30.81''
12 1' 38.28''
12 1' 07.99''
12 0' 30.48''
11 59' 56.55''
11 59' 13.41''
11 59' 46.09''
11 59' 24.98''
11 58' 47.92''
11 57' 41.43''
11 56' 24.37''
11 56' 06.25''
11 56' 21.08''
11 55' 25.48''
11 53' 20.50''
11 53' 03.57''
11 52' 40.24''
Yield (gph)
3100
2200
2050
3400
3400
1700
2100
700
1700
900
700
850
1100
1200
1800
1200
1200
400
1200
3500
3100
3200
3600
1200
700
700
900
2200
600
1100
2200
2200
3200
3200
2100
1110
700
800
1200
700
2200
3603
3300
3200
2500
2300
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
Class Yield
Very Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Good
Poor
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Poor
Moderate
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Moderate
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Poor
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Good
153
Model yield
Very Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Good
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Good
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Poor
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Scores
1005
805
775
1005
1005
580
550
485
575
515
775
770
625
485
745
545
460
460
460
945
885
945
885
545
460
460
460
750
635
580
860
860
935
945
835
685
485
535
550
520
810
885
860
885
860
860
Remarks
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Excess
Less
Agree
Less
Less
Less
Agree
Agree
Less
Agree
Excess
Agree
Excess
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Agree
Less
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Less
Less
Agree
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Agree
editor@iaeme.com
Well No
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Longitude
76 46' 28.03''
76 46' 49.87''
76 47' 19.06''
76 48' 11.91''
76 51' 08.78''
76 51' 28.72''
76 51' 57.78''
76 52' 12.28''
76 53' 45.03''
76 54' 25.62''
76 54' 47.28''
76 55' 01.74''
76 56' 45.11''
76 58' 05.26''
76 59' 34.54''
76 58' 44.01''
76 57' 35.26''
76 57' 19.92''
76 57' 07.43''
76 56' 53.45''
76 52' 19.11''
76 52' 54.35''
76 53' 02.88''
76 53' 33.89''
76 54' 26.45''
76 56' 26.00''
76 54' 52.58''
76 56' 03.61''
76 56' 34.18''
76 58' 07.51''
76 59' 44.38''
77 00' 29.92''
77 00' 21.45''
77 6' 44.54''
77 6' 36.05''
77 6' 30.92''
77 1' 06.49''
77 3' 22.48''
77 2' 32.70''
77 3' 05.51''
77 3' 57.38''
77 1' 07.07''
77 2' 21.16''
77 3' 16.36''
77 1' 03.83''
77 0' 05.38''
77 0' 17.60''
Latitude
11 49' 24.44''
11 48' 53.87''
11 49' 01.01''
11 48' 37.58''
11 48' 17.54''
11 47' 09.24''
11 46' 00.92''
11 45' 14.19''
11 46' 12.81''
11 47' 20.06''
11 47' 59.00''
11 48' 33.53''
11 48' 06.75''
11 48' 57.97''
11 50' 07.27''
11 50' 37.83''
11 51' 30.57''
11 52' 30.13''
11 53' 43.52''
11 54' 20.92''
11 52' 21.01''
11 53' 17.70''
11 54' 04.75''
11 54' 53.15''
11 54' 44.85''
11 55' 30.10''
11 56' 33.53''
11 56' 44.49''
11 57' 53.23''
11 56' 08.73''
11 55' 45.22''
11 48' 47.68''
11 49' 43.62''
11 45' 53.91''
11 46' 36.30''
11 47' 06.82''
11 51' 55.71''
11 52' 08.95''
11 53' 01.61''
11 53' 48.98''
11 55' 22.07''
11 55' 59.76''
11 56' 31.79''
11 57' 19.11''
11 57' 26.20''
11 58' 01.92''
11 59' 14.77''
Yield (gph)
2300
2500
1800
2700
2300
3100
3600
3200
1200
2200
2200
2500
200
600
1100
2200
Dry
7200
2300
2000
500
700
700
1200
900
850
500
3200
700
2300
3100
2300
2400
2100
2100
2200
2300
600
700
800
500
1300
3200
1700
1100
3200
3100
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
Class Yield
Good
Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Good
Poor
Very Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Poor
Very Good
Poor
Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Very Good
Moderate
Moderate
Very Good
Very Good
154
Model yield
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Good
Good
Moderate
Good
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Very Good
Moderate
Moderate
Very Good
Very Good
Scores
710
710
680
805
660
860
920
860
520
720
690
690
460
460
605
770
660
735
685
715
430
460
410
545
580
525
695
670
545
745
970
720
520
755
670
790
720
330
410
615
555
610
920
585
635
980
920
Remarks
Agree
Agree
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Excess
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Less
Less
Excess
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Excess
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Excess
Less
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
editor@iaeme.com
Longitude
77 1' 44.17''
77 2' 31.91''
77 0' 32.37''
77 0' 34.25''
77 0' 50.17''
77 1' 57.05''
77 1' 51.86''
77 4' 10.62''
77 5' 31.48''
77 4' 45.91''
77 4' 19.61''
77 0' 04.63''
77 14' 53.87''
77 11' 53.14''
77 12' 10.62''
77 11' 59.15''
77 14' 27.46''
77 13' 51.11''
77 13' 7.14''
77 11' 48.50''
77 12' 03.84''
77 12' 12.39''
77 11' 37.73''
77 10' 54.75''
77 1' 43.74''
77 1' 58.47''
77 2' 12.02''
77 4' 38.34''
77 6' 33.37''
77 7' 45.52''
77 8' 44.17''
77 6' 23.17''
77 6' 20.06''
77 5' 43.46''
77 5' 16.42''
77 2' 38.93''
77 1' 10.83''
77 0' 50.48''
77 1' 08.19''
77 0' 39.38''
77 0' 10.51''
77 0' 50.97''
77 1' 58.69''
77 3' 20.71''
77 2' 40.89''
77 2' 14.64''
77 1' 54.02''
Latitude
11 58' 09.95''
11 59' 58.88''
12 0' 13.01''
12 1' 04.93''
12 1' 46.44''
12 2' 07.05''
12 2' 43.42''
12 1' 32.11''
12 1' 18.06''
12 2' 17.03''
12 2' 48.25''
12 3' 04.43''
12 1' 13.69''
12 5' 34.25''
12 6' 23.44''
12 6' 49.99''
12 8' 11.06''
12 8' 13.66''
12 8' 12.97''
11 8' 10.71''
12 8' 48.92''
12 9' 19.67''
12 9' 20.61''
12 10' 08.15''
12 6' 33.33''
12 8' 55.54''
19 9' 05.49''
12 9' 21.76''
12 9' 34.77''
12 11' 13.56''
12 12' 59.04''
12 14' 22.60''
12 14' 38.46''
12 14' 41.84''
12 14' 50.23''
12 13' 45.74''
12 12' 49.39''
12 12' 24.48''
12 12' 05.31''
12 11' 41.25''
12 10' 51.41''
12 9' 58.08''
12 10' 27.04''
12 10' 26.84''
12 9' 54.50''
12 9' 41.25''
12 7' 27.38''
Yield (gph)
3500
2100
3100
2300
3300
2100
2200
1000
700
1200
1100
720
720
3200
2600
1300
1800
800
2100
3100
2200
2300
2100
Dry
2100
2100
4300
2300
2400
2800
1400
3100
1900
3400
3600
1800
2200
2300
3200
3200
3400
2800
3600
3400
3500
2800
2600
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
Class Yield
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Moderate
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
Poor
Poor
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Poor
Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Moderate
Very Good
Moderate
Very Good
Very Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Good
155
Model yield
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Good
Moderate
Poor
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Moderate
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Moderate
Very Good
Moderate
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Scores
945
695
945
745
920
720
695
670
615
635
660
580
455
945
770
920
545
715
745
920
660
630
695
660
745
720
805
755
700
660
640
985
585
925
925
800
680
830
1030
1030
1005
805
1030
1030
1030
830
745
Remarks
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Less
Agree
Less
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Agree
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Excess
Agree
Less
Agree
Agree
Excess
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Less
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
editor@iaeme.com
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
156
editor@iaeme.com
3 wells (well no. 64, 74, 120) show excess yielding. 12 wells shows less yield, this
may be due to non tapping of deeper aquifers present in deeper level (Fig.13;
Table.3).
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
157
editor@iaeme.com
Very good
Good
Moderate
Poor
37
55
34
14
33
-
40
3
18
2
11
-
12
14
8. CONCLUSIONS
Each thematic map has been assigned grades ranking from 1 to 4, with 1 representing
the poor and 4 representing the very good groundwater prospects in validation
analysis with actual yield bore well data. The final composite map highlights very
good prospect zones falls in lineament zone; good prospect zones are noticed adjacent
to the rivers and along KSZ; moderate prospect zones occupies the pediplains;
whereas poor prospect zones occupies the Biligirirangan hills. Out of 140 bore wells,
yield validations of 102 are well with agreement, 38 well are not agreeing due to
varying in different seasonal conditions. On the whole, bore wells are well correlating
with derived potential zones using advent high-tech tools. Since the present approach
was build with logical conditions and reasoning, this approach can be successfully
used elsewhere with appropriate empirical modeling techniques. Geoinformatics tool
can be used effectively in demarcation of precise groundwater potential zones based
on the present study. By union and dissolving the final integrated map, four prospect
zones such as very good, good, moderate and poor prospect zones were delineated.
Finally, the above study has clearly demonstrated the capabilities of Geoinformatics
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
158
editor@iaeme.com
technique in demarcation of the precise groundwater potential zones and its validation
using actual yields from bore well data. All along the KSZ neotectonic activity affects
seepage of springs water and minor tremors of lower magnitude less than 3-3.5 are
noticed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are indepthly acknowledged Prof. G.S. Gopalakrishna, Chairman,
Department of Studies in Earth Science, CAS in Precambrian Geology,
Manasagangothri, University of Mysore, Mysore; Dr. M.V Satish, Rolta India Ltd,
Mumbai, Mr. Nagesh, MGD, Govt. of Karnataka for their support in GIS work and
UGC, New Delhi for financial support; CGWB., Bengaluru.
REFERENCE
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
159
editor@iaeme.com
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
160
editor@iaeme.com
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
161
editor@iaeme.com