Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria

Fidelis Ankwo Abija

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria

Fidelis Ankwo Abija

Published in American Journal of Water Science and Engineering (Volume 5, Issue 4)

Received: 9 December 2019 Accepted: 8 January 2020 Published: 11 February 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Predicting subsurface rocks’ storage properties is a fundamental problem of groundwater prospecting and potential evaluation for planning of long term abstraction wells. Water in aquifers is stored and or released from elastic storage and gravity drainage. Aquifer storage parameters are traditionally determined from pumping tests data which are seldom available until wells have been drilled. Confined aquifer storativity (S) is estimated as a function of rock lithology and thickness of the aquifer using the rule of thumb equation S = 3.0 × 10^-6b, but S = Ssb neglecting the effect of porosity and compressibility. The storativity equation assumes that all aquiferous rocks have a constant specific storage even though specific storage is directly dependent on rock porosity and most importantly rock grain compressibility which differs with lithology. In this study, apparent resistivity data derived from field resistance measurements in 31 locations were interpreted to infer geolectric layers lithologies and thicknesses. To determine the rock grain compressibility for computation of the specific storage, vertical stress at the aquifer depth was estimated using average densities of the interpreted subcrustal rocks. Results show that rock mineral grain compressibility varies from 7.915 × 10^-7 to 9.235 × 10^-5/Pa, porosity from 0.08 to 1.64 with the weathered overburden and sandstones having the higher porosities; specific storage vary from 8.32 × 10^-6 to 1.80 × 10^-3 and storativity ranges from 3.161 × 10^-6 to 1.96 × 10^-3. Clearly, results indicates that the specific storage differ predictably with rock type and consequently the storativity of the different aquifers.

Published in	American Journal of Water Science and Engineering (Volume 5, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
Page(s)	174-183
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Aquifer, Geoelectric Layers, Geomechanics, Specific Storage, Storativity

References

[1]	Green, D. H. and Wandg, H. F. (1990). Specific storage as poroelastic coefficient. Water Resources research, 26 (7). Pp. 1631 – 1637. Doi: 10.1029/WR026i007p01631.
[2]	Fetter, C. W. (1990). Applied Hydrogeology, 2nd Edn. New Delhi: CBS Publishers and Distributors. 991pages.
[3]	Younger, P. L. (1993). Simple generalized methods for estimating aquifer storage parameters. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 26. Pp. 127–135.
[4]	Shendi, E. H. (2008). Electrical Prospecting Methods. Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University Monograph 126 pp.
[5]	Wright, E. P. (1990). Basement aquifers in Africa. Commonwealth Science Council Tech. Paper. 273 (2) pp. 349–363.
[6]	Abija, F. A., Essien, N. U., Abam, T. K. S and Ifedotun, A. I. (2019). Assessment of aquifer hydraulic properties, groundwater potential; and vulnerability integrating geoelectric methods with SRTM-DEM and LANDSAT-7 ETM lineament analysis in parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. London Journal of Research in Science: Natural and Formal. Vol. 19, Issue 4, Compilation 1.
[7]	Orajaka, S. O., 1964. Geology of the Obudu area, Ogoja Province, Eastern Nigeria. Le Naturalist Canadien, XC1 (3): 73-78.
[8]	Umeje, A. C., 1988. The Precambrian of part of southeastern Nigeria: a magmatic and tectonic study. In: P. O. Oluyide (co-ordinator), Precambrian Geology of Nigeria. Geol. Surv. Nigeria. Publ., 69-75.
[9]	Fitton J. G. (1980). The Benue trough and Cameroon line: A Migrating rift System in West Africa. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 51 (1980) 132-138.
[10]	Ekwueme, B. N., 1990. Petrology of Southern Obudu Plateau, Bamenda Massif, Southeastern Nigeria. In: G. Rocc; and M. Deschamps (Coordinators) Recent Data in African Sciences, CIFEG Occas. Publi. 22: 155-158.
[11]	Ukwang, E. E., 1998. Petrology and Geochemistry of Uwortung-Utugwang area, Obudu Plateau, southeastern Nigeria. Unpubl. M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. Calabar, Nigeria, 87 pp.
[12]	Ukaegbu, V. O., 2003. The Petrology and Geochemistry of parts of Obudu Plateau Bamenda massif, southeastern Nigeria. Unpubl. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Port Harcourt Nigeria. 321 pp.
[13]	Ekwueme, B. N., Nyong, E. E. and Petters, S. W., 1995. Geological Excursion Guide Book to Oban massif, Calabar Flank and Mamfe Embayment, Southeastern Nigeria. Dec-Ford Publi., Calabar, Nigeria, 36.
[14]	Reyment, R. A., (1965). Aspects of Geology of Nigeria. Ibadan Univ. Press, Ibadan.
[15]	Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, J. A. (1979). Groundwater. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[16]	Lohman, S. W. (1972). Groundwater hydraulics. USGS professional paper, Vol. 7, pp. 708.
[17]	Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater Hydrology, 2^nd edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 552pages.
[18]	Donaldson, E. C. (1995). Simulation of compaction due to fluid withdrawal. In: Chilingorian, G. H., E. C.
[19]	Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. (1980). Underground excavation in rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London. 527 pp.
[20]	www.geopixel.co.uk.
[21]	Terzaghi, K. V. 1924. Die Theorie der hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen und ihr erdbautechnisches Anwendungsgebiet. Proc., First International Congress for Applied Mechanics, Delft, The Netherlands, Pp 22–26 April, 288–294.
[22]	Biot, M. A. 1941. General theory of three - dimensional consolidation. J. Appl. Phys. 12 (2): Pp 155–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1712886.
[23]	Biot, M. A. 1956. General solutions of the equations of elasticity and consolidation for a porous material. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 23 Pp 91–96.
[24]	Geertsma, J. (1957) The effect of ﬂuid pressure decline on volumetric changes of porous rocks. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-728-G.
[25]	Skempton, A. W. (1961) Effective Stress in Soils, Concrete and Rocks, in Selected Papers on Soil Mechanics, pp. 106–118.
[26]	Krief, M., Garat, J., Stellingwerff, J., and Ventre, J. (1990). A petrophysical interpretation using the velocity of P and S waves (Full waveform sonic log). The Log Analysis, 355, November - December.
[27]	Archie, G. E., (1942). The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining some Reservoir Characteristics. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Eng. Vol. 146, pp. 54-62.
[28]	Bernard, J. (2003), “Short notes on the principles of geophysical methods for groundwater investigations”, Unpublished notes, Terraplus, 8 pp.
[29]	Schlumberger. 1985. Well evaluation conference, Schlumberger Technical Services INC Vol. 2, Pp 11–124.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Fidelis Ankwo Abija. (2020). Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. American Journal of Water Science and Engineering, 5(4), 174-183. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Fidelis Ankwo Abija. Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. Am. J. Water Sci. Eng. 2020, 5(4), 174-183. doi: 10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Fidelis Ankwo Abija. Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. Am J Water Sci Eng. 2020;5(4):174-183. doi: 10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15,
  author = {Fidelis Ankwo Abija},
  title = {Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria},
  journal = {American Journal of Water Science and Engineering},
  volume = {5},
  number = {4},
  pages = {174-183},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajwse.20190504.15},
  abstract = {Predicting subsurface rocks’ storage properties is a fundamental problem of groundwater prospecting and potential evaluation for planning of long term abstraction wells. Water in aquifers is stored and or released from elastic storage and gravity drainage. Aquifer storage parameters are traditionally determined from pumping tests data which are seldom available until wells have been drilled. Confined aquifer storativity (S) is estimated as a function of rock lithology and thickness of the aquifer using the rule of thumb equation S = 3.0 × 10-6b, but S = Ssb neglecting the effect of porosity and compressibility. The storativity equation assumes that all aquiferous rocks have a constant specific storage even though specific storage is directly dependent on rock porosity and most importantly rock grain compressibility which differs with lithology. In this study, apparent resistivity data derived from field resistance measurements in 31 locations were interpreted to infer geolectric layers lithologies and thicknesses. To determine the rock grain compressibility for computation of the specific storage, vertical stress at the aquifer depth was estimated using average densities of the interpreted subcrustal rocks. Results show that rock mineral grain compressibility varies from 7.915 × 10-7 to 9.235 × 10-5/Pa, porosity from 0.08 to 1.64 with the weathered overburden and sandstones having the higher porosities; specific storage vary from 8.32 × 10-6 to 1.80 × 10-3 and storativity ranges from 3.161 × 10-6 to 1.96 × 10-3. Clearly, results indicates that the specific storage differ predictably with rock type and consequently the storativity of the different aquifers.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria
AU  - Fidelis Ankwo Abija
Y1  - 2020/02/11
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
T2  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
SP  - 174
EP  - 183
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1875
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
AB  - Predicting subsurface rocks’ storage properties is a fundamental problem of groundwater prospecting and potential evaluation for planning of long term abstraction wells. Water in aquifers is stored and or released from elastic storage and gravity drainage. Aquifer storage parameters are traditionally determined from pumping tests data which are seldom available until wells have been drilled. Confined aquifer storativity (S) is estimated as a function of rock lithology and thickness of the aquifer using the rule of thumb equation S = 3.0 × 10-6b, but S = Ssb neglecting the effect of porosity and compressibility. The storativity equation assumes that all aquiferous rocks have a constant specific storage even though specific storage is directly dependent on rock porosity and most importantly rock grain compressibility which differs with lithology. In this study, apparent resistivity data derived from field resistance measurements in 31 locations were interpreted to infer geolectric layers lithologies and thicknesses. To determine the rock grain compressibility for computation of the specific storage, vertical stress at the aquifer depth was estimated using average densities of the interpreted subcrustal rocks. Results show that rock mineral grain compressibility varies from 7.915 × 10-7 to 9.235 × 10-5/Pa, porosity from 0.08 to 1.64 with the weathered overburden and sandstones having the higher porosities; specific storage vary from 8.32 × 10-6 to 1.80 × 10-3 and storativity ranges from 3.161 × 10-6 to 1.96 × 10-3. Clearly, results indicates that the specific storage differ predictably with rock type and consequently the storativity of the different aquifers.
VL  - 5
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Fidelis Ankwo Abija

Centre for Geomechanics, Energy and Environmental Sustainability, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Fidelis Ankwo Abija. (2020). Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. American Journal of Water Science and Engineering, 5(4), 174-183. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Fidelis Ankwo Abija. Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. Am. J. Water Sci. Eng. 2020, 5(4), 174-183. doi: 10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Fidelis Ankwo Abija. Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria. Am J Water Sci Eng. 2020;5(4):174-183. doi: 10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15,
  author = {Fidelis Ankwo Abija},
  title = {Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria},
  journal = {American Journal of Water Science and Engineering},
  volume = {5},
  number = {4},
  pages = {174-183},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajwse.20190504.15},
  abstract = {Predicting subsurface rocks’ storage properties is a fundamental problem of groundwater prospecting and potential evaluation for planning of long term abstraction wells. Water in aquifers is stored and or released from elastic storage and gravity drainage. Aquifer storage parameters are traditionally determined from pumping tests data which are seldom available until wells have been drilled. Confined aquifer storativity (S) is estimated as a function of rock lithology and thickness of the aquifer using the rule of thumb equation S = 3.0 × 10-6b, but S = Ssb neglecting the effect of porosity and compressibility. The storativity equation assumes that all aquiferous rocks have a constant specific storage even though specific storage is directly dependent on rock porosity and most importantly rock grain compressibility which differs with lithology. In this study, apparent resistivity data derived from field resistance measurements in 31 locations were interpreted to infer geolectric layers lithologies and thicknesses. To determine the rock grain compressibility for computation of the specific storage, vertical stress at the aquifer depth was estimated using average densities of the interpreted subcrustal rocks. Results show that rock mineral grain compressibility varies from 7.915 × 10-7 to 9.235 × 10-5/Pa, porosity from 0.08 to 1.64 with the weathered overburden and sandstones having the higher porosities; specific storage vary from 8.32 × 10-6 to 1.80 × 10-3 and storativity ranges from 3.161 × 10-6 to 1.96 × 10-3. Clearly, results indicates that the specific storage differ predictably with rock type and consequently the storativity of the different aquifers.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Predicting Aquifer Storage Properties Integrating Geoeletric Methods with Dynamically Derived Geomechanical Parameters in Parts of Cross River State, Nigeria
AU  - Fidelis Ankwo Abija
Y1  - 2020/02/11
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
T2  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Water Science and Engineering
SP  - 174
EP  - 183
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1875
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajwse.20190504.15
AB  - Predicting subsurface rocks’ storage properties is a fundamental problem of groundwater prospecting and potential evaluation for planning of long term abstraction wells. Water in aquifers is stored and or released from elastic storage and gravity drainage. Aquifer storage parameters are traditionally determined from pumping tests data which are seldom available until wells have been drilled. Confined aquifer storativity (S) is estimated as a function of rock lithology and thickness of the aquifer using the rule of thumb equation S = 3.0 × 10-6b, but S = Ssb neglecting the effect of porosity and compressibility. The storativity equation assumes that all aquiferous rocks have a constant specific storage even though specific storage is directly dependent on rock porosity and most importantly rock grain compressibility which differs with lithology. In this study, apparent resistivity data derived from field resistance measurements in 31 locations were interpreted to infer geolectric layers lithologies and thicknesses. To determine the rock grain compressibility for computation of the specific storage, vertical stress at the aquifer depth was estimated using average densities of the interpreted subcrustal rocks. Results show that rock mineral grain compressibility varies from 7.915 × 10-7 to 9.235 × 10-5/Pa, porosity from 0.08 to 1.64 with the weathered overburden and sandstones having the higher porosities; specific storage vary from 8.32 × 10-6 to 1.80 × 10-3 and storativity ranges from 3.161 × 10-6 to 1.96 × 10-3. Clearly, results indicates that the specific storage differ predictably with rock type and consequently the storativity of the different aquifers.
VL  - 5
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download