1. RS and GIS Applications In Ground Water
Prospectus Mappingng
BY:
MANUMOHAN V.H
SECOND SEM
GEOINFORATICS
KSRSAC

2. CONTENTS:
• Objective.
• Major factors controling ground water regime.
• Methodology
• Case study.
• Conclusion.

3. Ground Water

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. MAJOR FACTORS CONTROLING
GROUND WATER REGIME
• Geology / Lithology
• Geological structures
• Geomorphology / Landform
• Weather conditions
• Recharge Conditions

6. METHODOLOGY

7. The study area is
situated in Mirzapur
district
of
Uttar
Pradesh.

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. CASE STUDY:
SATELLITE IMAGE OF STUDY AREA
IRS LISS III IMAGE
SCALE 1:50,000

17. 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.

21. 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

23. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.