1994
DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90218-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hydrogeological implications of the resistivity distribution inferred from electrical prospecting data from the Apulian carbonate platform

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
5
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
3
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The time required for the installation was about two hours and the water volume used for each infiltration test was about 0.5 m 3 for the limestone, and about 0.3 m 3 for calcarenite, depending on the local rock permeability. On the whole, the field-hydraulic conductivity data obtained from the infiltrometer tests (0.67 m d -1 and 0.054 m d -1 , for tests #1 and #2 on limestone, respectively, and 0.77 m d -1 for calcarenite) are consistent with the nature of the rocks tested and are corroborated by laboratory measurements carried out by other authors (Quarto & Schiavone, 1994;Borgia et al, 2002). The difference between the field-saturated hydraulic conductivity values obtained by the infiltration tests, highlights the difference of the outcrops studied, owing to the different geological formations characterized from variable heterogeneity degree (number and size of fractures).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The time required for the installation was about two hours and the water volume used for each infiltration test was about 0.5 m 3 for the limestone, and about 0.3 m 3 for calcarenite, depending on the local rock permeability. On the whole, the field-hydraulic conductivity data obtained from the infiltrometer tests (0.67 m d -1 and 0.054 m d -1 , for tests #1 and #2 on limestone, respectively, and 0.77 m d -1 for calcarenite) are consistent with the nature of the rocks tested and are corroborated by laboratory measurements carried out by other authors (Quarto & Schiavone, 1994;Borgia et al, 2002). The difference between the field-saturated hydraulic conductivity values obtained by the infiltration tests, highlights the difference of the outcrops studied, owing to the different geological formations characterized from variable heterogeneity degree (number and size of fractures).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The low resistivity zones can be related qualitatively to fractured rock with high water content and moderate salinity. This assumption is consistent with the classification of different resistivity zones made by Quarto and Schiavone (1994) using similar electrical resistivity measurements recorded for the same geological formation. For both tests the electrical resistivity measurements Fig.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 52%
“…In fact, even though the two test sites were only 300 m apart, and the experiments were performed on the same geological formations, the infiltration rates observed in the areas tested were very different. Quarto and Schiavone (1994), with laboratory measurements on saturated fractured limestone cores derived from the Murge carbonate platform, showed the applicability of Archie's first law (using F = 2.06 9 U -1.77 , where F(-) is the formation factor and U is the porosity), which provides a rock porosity \2%, by including matrix and fracture porosities. For the Altamura fractured limestone, the modified Kozeny-Carman equation (Pape et al 1999) leads to outcrop saturated conductivity values ranging from 0.6 to 12 m day -1 , considering a rock outcrop porosity from 1-2%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Although various geophysical techniques are currently being used to explore and assess water resources (e.g. the gravity method (ALI and WHITE- LEY, 1981), the seismic method (GEISSLER, 1989), the electromagnetic ground conductivity method (PALACKY et al, 1981;VAN LISSA et al, 1987), the geoelectrical section method (STEWART et al, 1983), resistivity imaging methods (IOANNIS et al, 2002), conventional VLF and VLF resistivity methods (PODDAR and RATHOR, 1983); electrical and magnetotelluric surveys (QUARTO and SCHIAVONE, 1994), and electrical resistivity tomography (RITZ et al, 1999)), the electrical resistivity method still proves the most powerful. We selected this method for our research because the instrumentation is portable, inexpensive in terms of logistics, straightforward, analysis of the data is less tedious and is economical (ZOHDY et al, 1974;EKINE and OSOBONYE, 1996;AKO and OLORUNFEMI, 1989;BATTE et al, 2008).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%