Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

DOI 10.1007/s10712-009-9072-4

Influence of Degree of Saturation in the Electric

Resistivity–Hydraulic Conductivity Relationship

Mohamed Ahmed Khalil Æ Fernando A. Monterio Santos

Received: 11 March 2009 / Accepted: 24 April 2009 / Published online: 19 May 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract The relationship between aquifer hydraulic conductivity and aquifer resistivity,
either measured on the ground surface by vertical electrical sounding (VES) or from
resistivity logs, or measured in core samples have been published for different types of
aquifers in different locations. Generally, these relationships are empirical and semi-
empirical, and confined in few locations. This relation has a positive correlation in some
studies and negative in others. So far, there is no potentially physical law controlling this
relation, which is not completely understood. Electric current follows the path of least
resistance, as does water. Within and around pores, the model of conduction of electricity
is ionic and thus the resistivity of the medium is controlled more by porosity and water
conductivity than by the resistivity of the rock matrix. Thus, at the pore level, the electrical
path is similar to the hydraulic path and the resistivity should reflect hydraulic conduc-
tivity. We tried in this paper to study the effect of degree of groundwater saturation in the
relation between hydraulic conductivity and bulk resistivity via a simple numerical anal-
ysis of Archie’s second law and a simplified Kozeny-Carmen equation. The study reached
three characteristic non-linear relations between hydraulic conductivity and resistivity
depending on the degree of saturation. These relations are: (1) An inverse power relation in
fully saturated aquifers and when porosity equals water saturation, (2) An inverse poly-
nomial relation in unsaturated aquifers, when water saturation is higher than 50%, higher
than porosity, and (3) A direct polynomial relation in poorly saturated aquifers, when water
saturation is lower than 50%, lower than porosity. These results are supported by some
field scale relationships.

Keywords Hydrogeophysics
Water saturation
Resistivity
Hydraulic conductivity

M. A. Khalil (&)
F. A. Monterio Santos

Centro de Geofı́sica da Universidade de Lisboa-IDL, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, Ed. C8,
1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]

M. A. Khalil
National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, Cairo, Egypt

123
602 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

1 Introduction

Virtually every hydrogeologic investigation requires an estimate of hydraulic conductivity

(K), the parameter used to characterize the ease with which water flows in the subsurface.
(Butler 2005). Hydraulic conductivity differs significantly from permeability, where
hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer depends on the permeability of the hosting rock and
viscosity and specific weight of the fluid (Hubbert 1940), whereas permeability is a
function of pore space only.
Hydraulic conductivity has been measured by traditional hydrogeologic approaches.
Such approaches are: pumping test, slug test, laboratory analysis of core samples, and
geophysical well logging.
Pumping tests do produce reliable (K) estimates, but the estimates are large volumetric
averages. Laboratory analysis can provide information at a very fine scale, but there are
many questions about the reliability of the (K) estimates obtained with those analyses.
Although the slug test has the most potential of the traditional approaches for detailed
characterization of (K) variations, most sites do not have the extensive well network
required for effective application of this approach. (Butler 2005). However, these
traditional methods are time-consuming and invasive.
Another group of hydrogeological methods is used to measure vertical hydraulic
conductivity such as: dipole-flow test (DFT), multilevel slug test (MLST), and borehole
flow meter test (BFT). These techniques can only be used in wells, which often must be
screened across a relatively large portion of the aquifer and provide information about
conditions in the immediate vicinity of the well in which they are used.
The ability to reliably predict the hydraulic properties of subsurface formations is one of
the most important and challenging goals in hydrogeophysics, since, in water-saturated
environments, estimation of subsurface porosity and hydraulic conductivity is often the
primary objective. (Lesmes and Friedman 2005).
Many hydrogeophysical approaches have been used to study the relationship between
hydraulic conductivity from surface resistivity measurements; these approaches are clas-
sified as follows:

1.1 Combined Interpretation of Hydrogeologic and Geophysical Data

This type of approach is carried out by Niwas and Singhal (1981). These authors used
vertical electrical sounding (VES) and pumping tests to provide analytical relationship to
estimate the aquifer transmissivity from transverse resistance in an area of the same
geological situation, if hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer at any point therein is known,
considering that (K
r) is a constant factor. This method was applied at different areas such
as Umuahia area of Nigeria (Mbonu et al. 1991), Wadi El-Assuity, Egypt (Khalil and Abd-
Alla 2005) and in the middle Imo river basin aquifers, south-eastern Nigeria (Ekwe et al.
2006). This method resulted in a fairly good correlation with the measured data.
Niwas and Singhal (1985) introduced normalized aquifer resistivity instead of aquifer
resistivity. An analytical relationship between normalized transverse resistance and aquifer
transmissivity has been developed for estimating transmissivity from resistivity sounding
data taking into consideration the variation in groundwater quality. This method is applied
by Yadav et al. (1993) and Yadav (1995) for Jayant project, Singrauli coalfields, India.
Yadav (1995) found that normalized aquifer resistivity is a very good predictor for
transmissivity in this aquifer.

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 603

Chandra et al. (2008) developed a similar approach to estimate hydraulic conductivity

of Maheshwaram watershed aquifer in hard rock terrain in Hyderabad, India.
Another combined approach was proposed by Soupios et al. (2007); they used
groundwater resistivity (Rw) measured from boreholes samples and apparent formation
factor (Fa), estimated using formation resistivity from VES to estimate intrinsic formation
factor. Intrinsic formation factor is used to estimate porosity. Estimated porosity is then
used in Kozny-Carmen equation to estimate hydraulic conductivity of Keritis basin in
Chania (Crete-Greece).

1.2 Empirical and Semi-Empirical Hydrogeological and Geophysical Relationship

Depending on Petrophysical Relation

This category is the largest group of approaches in both field and laboratory scale. (A)
Field scale: Worthington (1976), correlated between the values of groundwater resistivity
(Rw) determined from the chemical analysis of borehole water samples, with the formation
resistivity (Ro) as deduced from the interpretation of geoelectric soundings measured
nearby boreholes. He concluded that geoelectric determination of groundwater salinity
would be most exact at lower salinities and where porosity is relatively high. Kelly (1977)
carried out a correlation between resistivity values of six Schlumberger VES and pumping
test data of the wells. He got a good direct relation between aquifer resistivity and mea-
sured hydraulic conductivity, good direct relation between aquifer resistivity and specific
capacity, and good direct relation between formation factor and measured hydraulic
conductivity. Heigold et al. (1979) used Wenner sounding resistivity and hydraulic con-
ductivity data from pumping test to show an inverse relation between hydraulic conduc-
tivity and resistivity; due to that poorly sorted sediments are responsible for reduced
porosity and thus less hydraulic conductivity. Kosiniski and Kelly (1981) presented data
showing a direct relation between permeability and apparent formation factor and another
direct relation between transmissivity and normalized aquifer resistance. Frohlich and
Kelly (1985) showed a direct empirical relation between hydraulic conductivity and
transverse resistivity, and empirical relation between hydraulic conductivity and transverse
resistivity. Mazac et al. (1985) studied the factors influencing relations between electrical
and hydraulic prosperities of aquifers and aquifer materials. A general hydrogeophysical
model was used to demonstrate that at the aquifer scale a variety of relations might be
expected. Frohlich et al. (1996) studied the relationship between hydraulic conductivity
and aquifer resistivity in fractured crystalline bedrock, Rhode Island. Reverse relation
between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer resistivity has been found. This result agree
with theoretical calculations by Brown (1989), laboratory sample measurements by Mazac
et al. (1990), and field data relationship by Heigold et al. (1979).
(B) Laboratory scale: Huntley (1987) performed laboratory experiments to show the
importance of matrix conduction. He showed that the ratio between the measured bulk
resistivity and the measured fluid resistivity, the apparent formation factor varies signifi-
cantly with varying fluid resistivity for the range of normal ground water salinities.

1.3 Theoretically Petrophysical Based Models

The accuracy of determining the porosity, the filtration coefficient and transmissivity of an
aquiferous reservoir rock, the mineralization and actual flow velocity of underground water
in a percolation medium by means of surface geoelectric methods is discussed via synthetic
data (Mazac et al. 1978). The results of theoretical analysis enable the accuracy in

123
604 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

determining the fundamental hydrogeological parameters by the VES method. In Frohlich

(1994), the relationship between resistivity and hydraulic conductivity is discussed on the
Kozeny-Carmen equation. The uses and abuses of the Archie equations are modeled by
Worthington (1993) using Waxman and Smits equation (1968).
Generally, geophysics assisted groundwater exploration is based on empirical rela-
tionships between electric and hydraulic units. Empirical laws are unsatisfactory, as they
do not provide an understanding of any potential physical law. However, similar rela-
tionships must be established in new areas. The dependence between (K) and (R) remains
nonunique; a simple predictable K–R relationship can not be expected.
Some previous studies combine two or more regimes such that, Urish (1981), where,
theoretically three-phase parallel resistor model, supported by data from laboratory tests
assumed inverse correlation between porosity and hydraulic conductivity. From empirical
and theoretical model a positive correlation between apparent formation factor and
hydraulic conductivity is shown. The model demonstrates that intergranular surface con-
ductance is an important factor at small grain size and high pore water resistivities,
operating to lower the apparent formation factor. In Kelly and Reiter (1984), where the
influence of aquifer anisotropy caused by layering on the relation between resistivity and
hydraulic conductivity was studied with idealized analytic and numerical models.
It is worth mentioning that all these relations are site restricted and have no potentially
physical law; in addition, the physical relation between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer
resistivity is not completely understood. It has a direct correlation in some studies and
inverse in others. The main target of this paper is to study the effect of water saturation in
such relation.

2 Theoretical Background

Since the electrical resistivity of most minerals is high (exception: saturated clay, metal
ores, and graphite), the electrical current flows mainly through the pore water. According
to the famous Archie law (Archie 1942), the resistivity of water saturated clay-free
material can be described as
Ro ¼ Rw
Fi ð1Þ
where Ro = specific resistivity of water saturated sand, Rw = specific resistivity of pore
water, Fi = intrinsic formation factor.
The intrinsic formation factor (Fi) combines all properties of the material influencing
electrical current flow like porosity u, pore shape, and digenetic cementation.
Fi ¼ a
um ð2Þ
Different definitions for the material constant (m) are used like porosity exponent, shape
factor, and cementation degree. Factors influencing (m) are, e.g., the geometry of pores, the
compaction, the mineral composition, and the insolating properties of cementation. The
constant (a) is associated with the medium and its value in many cases departs from the
commonly assumed value of one. The quantities (a) and (m) have been reported to vary
widely for different formations. The reported ranges are exemplified in Table 1, which is
based upon separate compilations of different investigators.
Equation 2 is called Archie’s first law, where it is valid only in fully saturated clean
formations (the grains are perfect insulators).

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 605

Table 1 Reported ranges of the Archie constants (a) and (m)

Lithology a m Author (s)

Sandstone 0.47–1.8 1.64–2.23 Hill and Milburn (1956)

0.62–1.65 1.3–2.15 Carothers (1968)
1.0–4.0 0.57–1.85 Porter and Carothers (1970)
0.48–4.31 1.2–2.21 Timur et al. (1972)
0.004–17.7 0.02–5.67 Gomez-Rivero (1977)
Carbonates 0.73–2.3 1.64–2.1 Hill and Milburn (1956)
0.45–1.25 1.78–2.38 Carothers (1968)
0.33–78.0 0.39–2.63 Gomez-Rivero (1977)
0.35–0.8 1.7–2.3 Schon (1983)

When the medium is not fully saturated, water saturation plays an important role, where
the changing in degree of saturation changes the effective porosity (accessible pore space).
It became Archie’s second law.
Ro
Fi ¼ ¼ a/m Sn
w ð3Þ
Rw
where Ro is the formation resistivity, Rw is the pore water resistivity, / is the porosity, Sw is
the water saturation, a and m are constants related to the rock type, and n is the saturation
index (usually equals 2).
Many studies concluded that Archie’s law breaks down in three cases: (1) clay con-
taminated aquifer (Worthington 1993; Vinegar and Waxman 1984; Pflannkuch 1969), (2)
partially saturated aquifer (Börner et al. 1996; Martys 1999), and (3) fresh water aquifer
(Alger 1966; Huntley 1987).
Archie’s first and second laws show the relation between bulk resistivity and formation
factor. Formation factor could be linked to hydraulic conductivity by Kozeny-Carmen
equation. One of the most recent modifications of this equation is made by Börner and
Schön (1991). They obtained the following expression for the estimation of hydraulic
conductivity of unconsolidated sediments (sand, gravel, silt) (Lesmes and Friedman 2005):
a a
Ks ¼ ¼
ð4Þ
F SCp½el F 105 r001Hz C

where Ks is the hydraulic conductivity in m/s, F is the apparent formation factor, Sp[el] is
the electrically estimated specific surface area per unit volume (lm-1), r00 is the imaginary
conductivity component measured at 1 Hz (S/m), a is a constant equals 10-5, C is a
constant ranges between 2.8 and 4.6 depending on the material type and the method used to
measure Ks.
Accordingly, the modified Kozeny-Carmen equation (Eq. 4) and Archie’s first and
second laws (Eqs. 2 and 3) should control the relationship between hydraulic conductivity
(K) and formation resistivity (Ro) in both saturated and non-saturated sediments.

3 Analytical Approach

Two important relations have been numerically analyzed: Archie’s second (which control
the relation between porosity, water saturation, and formation factor) and Kozeny-Carmen

123
606 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

model (which control the relation between formation factor and hydraulic conductivity).
Beginning with the generalized Archie’s second law (Eq. 3), using a = 1, m = n = 2, and
proposed values of porosity and water saturation ranging from 0.2 to 1 with an increment
of 0.2, we calculated the net product of porosity (u) and water saturation (Sw), which is the
volumetric water content (h).
h ¼ /
Sw ð5Þ
Figure 1a shows the relation between intrinsic formation factor and porosity when water
saturation equals one. Figure 1b shows the same relation when porosity equals water
saturation. The two cases (Fig. 1a, b) resulted in an inverse power relationship with a
correlation coefficient equals one.
In the case where water saturation and porosity changes inversely to each other, we get
the following relation (Fig. 2).
Archie’s law in this case has deviated from its traditional power law to a polynomial
correlation of sixth order. In the right half of the curve, where porosity is lower than water
saturation, and lower than 50%, a considerable inverse polynomial relation is achieved. In
the left half of the curve, where porosity is higher than water saturation, and higher than
50% (poorly saturated sediments) a direct polynomial relation exists. In this part of the
curve Archie’s second law does not deviated from its power law to a polynomial corre-
lation only but it breaks down also, where formation factor has a direct correlation with
porosity and water saturation. However, for practical purposes, a direct correlation between
(F) and (u) is in common usage (Börner et al. 1996). Martys (1999) used Lattice Boltz-
mann method to numerically simulate the diffusive transport of ions in two classes of
partially-saturated porous media as a function of saturation and wetting properties. At high
saturations, good agreement is found between his estimates of diffusivity and that predicted
by the semi-empirical Archie’s second law. At lower saturations, it is found that Archie’s
second law breaks down as percolation effects become important.
  His study resulted in an
rbi
empirical polynomial function between relative diffusivity rb and water saturation (Sw),
where rbi is the electrical conductivity of fluid and rb the electrical conductivity of wetted
(partially saturated) porous material.

(A) (B) 1
0.01

Y = pow(X,-2) * 1 Y = pow(X,-4) * 0.0001

0.008 0.8
Formation Factor

Formation Factor

0.006 0.6 R-square=1

0.004 0.4

0.002 0.2

0 0 Porosity
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Porosity Water saturation
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water content
0 20 40 60 80 100

Fig. 1 Analytical relation between formation factor, porosity, water saturation, and water content when a
water saturation = 1, and b porosity = water saturation

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 607

Y = 0.03399530738-0.3914164668*X+1.962333783*pow(X,2)
- 5.171532552 * pow(X,3) + 7.465747329 * pow(X,4)
0.01 - 5.580055325 * pow(X,5) + 1.690925856 * pow(X,6)

0.008
Formation Factor

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
Porosity
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

10 18 24 28 30 30 28 24 18 10 Water content

Fig. 2 Analytical relationship between Formation factor, porosity, water saturation and water content when
porosity = water saturation

(A)0.01 Water Saturation > 50% > Porosity

(B) Water Saturation < 50% < Porosity
Y = 0.4871959247 - 2.678229193 * X + 5.502163906 * pow(X,2)
0.01 - 5.001154783 * pow(X,3) + 1.700024145 * pow(X,4)
Y = 0.03123047367 - 0.3232680881 * X + 1.340528418 * pow(X,2)
- 2.478951457 * pow(X,3) + 1.700024145 * pow(X,4)

0.008
Formation Factor

Formation Factor

0.008 R-squared = 1
R-squared = 1
0.006
0.006

0.004
0.004
R-squared = 0.981753 R-squared = 0.819114
0.002
0.002

0 Porosity
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 Porosity
Water Saturation
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation
12 16 20 24 28 Water Content
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
water content
30 28 24 18 10

Fig. 3 Analytical relationship between Formation factor, porosity, water saturation and water content in the
two different cases

Since, Fig. 2 describes two different hydrogeological media, they are separated and
presented in Fig. 3a and b.
Figure 3 describes the relation when water saturation [ 50% [ porosity (Fig. 3a) and
when water saturation \ 50% \ porosity (Fig. 3b). The best fit to the analytical data

123
608 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

(correlation coefficient = 1) is the polynomial regression fourth order (blue line), where
power correlation shows a lower fitting (red line) in the two cases. Figure 3a still reflect the
inverse relation between intrinsic formation factor and both porosity and water saturation.
However, Fig. 3b reflects a direct correlation between intrinsic formation factor and
both porosity and water saturation, which is in agreement with Martys (1999) and (Börner
et al. 1996).
Applying these direct and inverse relations in the modified Kozeny-Carmen model
(Eq. 4), we can get an inverse correlation between hydraulic conductivity and formation
factor in the first case (Fig. 3a) and a direct correlation in the second case (Fig 3b).
Comparing these results with some published empirical relations concluded between
aquifer hydraulic conductivity from pumping test and formation factor, shows an
agreement.
Figure 4 shows some inverse relations between aquifer hydraulic conductivity and
formation factor, reported after Heigold et al. (1979) using data from Illinois, Plotnikov
et al. (1972) using data from Kirgiza in the Soviet Union, Mazac and Landa (1979)
analyzing data from Czechoslovakia, and Worthington (1975).
Another group of case studies reported the opposite behavior i.e., the direct relation
between aquifer hydraulic conductivity and formation factor (Allessandrello and Le Moine
1983; Kosiniski and Kelly 1981; Shockley and Garber 1953; Croft 1971).
In the view of present analysis (Figs. 1, 2, and 3), we can expect a group of relations
between hydraulic conductivity (K) and formation resistivity (Ro), differ in mathematical
expressions and hence in curve form. These relations could be classified into 3 charac-
teristic cases:
1. An inverse power relation in fully saturated aquifers and when porosity equals water
saturation.
2. An inverse polynomial relation in unsaturated aquifers, when water saturation higher
than 50%, higher than porosity.
3. A direct polynomial relation in poorly saturated aquifers, when water saturation lower
than 50%, lower than porosity.
In the next section, we will try to compare the present results with some previously
published empirical relations between aquifer resistivity and hydraulic conductivity in
different geographic locations and hydrogeologic conditions with a comparison between
expected porosity and saturation from our models with that measured, as possible as the
data is available.

3.1 First Category: (Fully Saturated Aquifer or Water Saturation Equals Porosity)

Two case studies (Fig. 5a, b) are collected: (a) fractured crystalline bedrock, central
landfill, Rhode Island, USA (Frohlich et al. 1996), (b) Granitic host rock, (OUC),
Hyderabad, AP, India (Singh 2005).
A considerable inverse power correlation between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer
resistivity exist in the two case studies. The correlation coefficient of the power relation is
higher than that of polynomial in the two cases. Geologically, all cases are from fractured
hard rock aquifers. The fractured crystalline bedrock, central landfill, Rhode Island, USA
(Fig. 5a) is characterized by high fractured granite, high hydraulic conductivity, no pri-
mary permeability and hydraulic flow is restricted to fractures, and no clay, where
weathering product of granite decomposition, have been washed out by glacial melt waters
(Frohlich et al. 1996). Water resistivity ranges from 41 to 125 Ohm.m (Frohlich et al.

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 609

Fig. 4 Reported relation between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer formation factor (after Mazac et al.
1985)

(A) (B) 0.1

80
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec)

Fractured crystalline bed rock, central landfill, OUC, Hyderabad, A.P. (India)
Hydraulic conductivity (m/day)

Rhode Island, USA (Frohlich et. al., 1996) 0.08

Y = pow(X,-2.303265105) * 13861.51887
60
Y = pow(X,-0.5386471734) * 218.0841209
0.06

40
0.04
R2 = 0.323359

20 R2 = 0.339475 0.02 R2 = 0.326165

R2 = 0.596491
0 0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 2000 4000 6000

Aquiferresistivity (ohm.m) Aquifer resistivity (ohm.m)

Fig. 5 Empirical relationship between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer resistivity in different locations.
(Red sold line is the power relation; blue dashed line is the polynomial relation)

123
610 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

1996). Estimated porosity from the published data of formation resistivity (Ro), water
resistivity (Rw), and formation factor (F) ranges from 19 to 82%, assuming that a = 1 and
m = 2, in Archie’s first law.
Data published by Singh (2005) were measured in Osmania University Campus (OUC),
Hyderabad AP (India) for the fractured Granitic aquifer of Archaean age.
The available information of the two fractured hard rock aquifers and the empirical
inverse power correlation indicate that they are in a good agreement with our first ana-
lytical model (Fig. 1).

3.2 Second Category (Water Saturation C 50% C Porosity)

Three case studies have non-linear inverse correlation between hydraulic conductivity and
formation resistivity: Glacial outwash aquifer in central Illinois, USA, (Heigold et al.
1979), Banda area UP, India, (Niwas and Singhal 1985), and Mount Tsukuba, Central
Japan, intact rock aquifer (Sudo et al. 2004).
From Fig. 6, the data are correlated as inverse polynomial with more correlation
coefficient than that of power correlation, which in agreement with Fig. 3a.
As for Glacial outwash aquifer in central Illinois, USA, (Heigold et al. 1979), the
explanation of this inverse relation was problematic. Because Kelly (1977) found a direct
linear relationship between hydraulic conductivity and resistivity of the water bearing
deposits in two New England aquifers composed of the same glacial deposits of sand and
gravel and one case study of direct relation in glacial deposits is discovered later by
Frohlich and Kelly (1985). The inverse correlation was reasoned due to more poorly sorted
sediments near the head of the Niantic-Illiopolis aquifer, which are responsible not only for
reduced porosity and thus less hydraulic conductivity, but also for an increase in the
volume of low conductivity solids which increase the resistivity of the aquifer (Heigold
et al. 1979). Kelly and Reiter (1984) explained the inverse relation due to the presence of
clay, although the clay fraction of the aquifer was quite small (\4%) (Heigold et al. 1979).
Frohlich (1994) explained this inverse relation due to only three data points.
Heigold et al. (1979) measured the porosity of these three samples; they are 26, 32, and
39%. Sieve analysis made on each sample indicates that the clay fraction of the aquifer was
quite small (\4%). Water resistivity is 1,818 ohm.cm, and total dissolved solids are
490 ppm. All mentioned parameters of this aquifer are in agreement with our approach in
particular the porosity values. The Mount Tsukuba, Central Japan, intact rock aquifer is
covered by homogeneous and fine-grained granite of late Cretaceous to early Palaeogene
age. The relation between resistivity and hydraulic conductivity is based on electrical
logging and in situ permeability data from boreholes (Sudo et al. 2004).
Concerning Banda area UP, India, the presence of hard rock lithologies in the area may
be the cause the negative correlation of the variation in permeability with resistivity (Singh
2005). This type of inverse correlation typically is found in saturated fractured hard rock
aquifer, as previously discussed, but the polynomial correlation is attributed to dissimi-
larity between porosity and water saturation.

3.3 Third Category (Water Saturation B 50% B Porosity)

This category contains one case study for weathered hard rock aquifer is in Mt.Tsukuba,
Central Japan, (Sudo et al. 2004).
Hydraulic conductivity of this aquifer has an ideal fourth order polynomial direct
correlation with the aquifer resistivity. The correlation coefficient of polynomial relation

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 611

(A) 0.012

Mt. Tsukuba, Central Japan

intact rock aquifer
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec)

Y = -0.2426537137 + 0.0003910376597 * X - 2.100023401E-007 * pow(X,2)

0.008 + 4.645091186E-011 * pow(X,3) - 3.649678679E-015 * pow(X,4)

0.004

R2 = 1

R 2 = 0.960592
0

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Aquifer resistivity (ohm.m)

Glacial outwach aquifer, central Illinois

(B) (Heigold et. al., 1980) (C) Banda Area, U.P., India
Y = 0.05876529403 + 1.853397429E-005 * X Y = 0.1718651907 - 0.009364524709 * X
0.11 - 1.716175479E-009 * pow(X,2) + 7.74953444E-005 * pow(X,2)
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec)

0.05
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/s)

0. 1
0.04
R2 = 0.997935
0.09 2
R = 0.899551
R2 = 1 0.03
0.08
R2 = 0.9562288
0.02
0.07

0.06 0.01

6000 8000 10000 15 16 17 18 19 20

Aquifer resistivity (ohm.m) Aquifer resistivity (ohm.m)

Fig. 6 Empirical relationship between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer resistivity in different locations.
(Red dashed line is the power relation; blue solid line is the polynomial relation)

(in blue) is higher than power relation (in red). The mathematical characteristics of this
sample classify it in the third category of our analytical models (Fig. 3b), where porosity is
higher than 50%, higher than water saturation. The category highlights the effect of low
saturation on the relation between hydraulic conductivity and resistivity of porous media,
where in low saturation conductivity of the electrical double layer increases, and surface
conductance becomes the main transport mechanism (Pflannkuch 1969; Urish 1981;
Brovelli et al. 2005; Fig. 7).
Data of Mt. Tsukuba, central Japan weathered rock aquifer are sampled from fine-
grained Granitic rocks with cracks. The cracks have approximately 2-mm-thick fillings
(Sudo et al. 2004). It is worth mentioning that the resistivity and hydraulic conductivity
data of Mount Tsukuba, Central Japan, in both intact and weathered rock aquifer reflect
perfectly the analytical relation in the form of polynomial forth orders. This is may rea-
soned to the nature of the data, where resistivity data are extracted from resistivity log, and
permeability data are from in situ permeability measurements (Sudo et al. 2004). It is
important to mention that such direct relation between hydraulic conductivity and aquifer

123
612 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

Fig. 7 Empirical relationship Mt. Tsukuba, central Japan

between hydraulic conductivity Weathered rock aquifer
and aquifer resistivity in Mt. 0.005
Tsukuba, central japan (Red Y = 0.0123478368 - 3.72916785E-005 * X

Hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec)

+ 4.134900156E-008 * pow(X,2)
dashed line is the power relation; 0.004 - 1.990370255E-011 * pow(X,3)
blue solid line is the polynomial + 3.509319736E-015 * pow(X,4)
relation)
0.003 R2 = 1

0.002

0.001
R2 = 0.9653

0
800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
Aquifer resistivity (ohm.m)

resistivity could be resulted also in case of high clay content and/or high groundwater
resistivity aquifers, where surface conductance effect resulted on the surface of clay
mineral or sand imbedded in fresh water became the main transport mechanism, and
Archie’s low in these cases breaks down (Huntley 1987; Alger 1966; Worthington 1993;
Vinegar and Waxman 1984; Pflannkuch 1969).

4 Conclusion

The present study resembles analytically the relationship between hydraulic conductivity
and formation resistivity in different saturation conditions. The controlling laws of this
relation are Archie’s second law, which relates formation resistivity to formation factor,
and Kozeny-Carmen relation, that relates formation factor to hydraulic conductivity.
According to the present study, the relation between hydraulic conductivity and formation
resistivity is generally non-linear relation and could be summarized in three characteristic
types according to saturation condition:
1. An inverse power relation in fully saturated aquifers and when porosity equals water
saturation.
2. An inverse polynomial relation in unsaturated aquifers, when water saturation higher
than 50%, higher than porosity.
3. A direct polynomial relation in poorly saturated aquifers, when water saturation lower
than 50%, lower than porosity.
Some case studies are collected from different geographic location, geologic conditions,
and saturation levels. Matching between case studies and analytical models shows good
results, depending on the quality of data and techniques of measurements. The available
petrophysical parameters of some cases are compared with the analytical models, indi-
cating a complete matching. The present classification could be used also to predict a
general idea about the petrophysical parameters of the aquifer from the type of correlation
between aquifer hydraulic conductivity and formation resistivity.

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 613

Acknowledgments The corresponding author is indebted to the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
(Portugal) for his support through the post-doctoral fellowship (SFRH\BPD\29971/2006). This work was
partly developed in the scope of the scientific cooperation agreement between the CGUL and the NRIAG.

References

Alger RP (1966) Interpretation of electric logs in fresh water wells in unconsolidated formations, Soc of Prof
Well Log Analyst Trans, Art CC, 1–25
Allessandrello E, Le Moine Y (1983) Determination de la permeabilite des alluvions a partir de la pro-
spection electrique. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 26–27, 357–360
Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics,
American institute of mineral and metal engineering. Technical publication, 1442, Petroleum Tech-
nology, pp. 8–13
Börner FD, Schön JH (1991) A relation between the quadrature component of electrical conductivity and the
specific surface area of sedimentary rocks. Log Anal 32:612–613
Börner FD, Schopper JR, Weller A (1996) Evaluation of transport and storage properties in the soil and
groundwater zone from induced polarization measurements. Geophys Prospect 44:583–601. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00167.x
Brovelli A, Cassiani G, Dalla E, Bergamini F, Pitea D, Binley AM (2005) Electrical properties of partially
saturated sandstones: novel computational approach with hydrogeophysical applications. Water Resour
Res 41:W08411. doi:10.1029/2004WR003628
Brown SR (1989) Transport of fluid and electric current through a single fracture. J Geophys Res
94(37):9429–9438. doi:10.1029/JB094iB07p09429
Butler JJ (2005) Hydrogeological methods for estimation of spatial variations in hydraulic conductivity. In:
Rubin Y, Hubbard S (eds) Hydrogeophysics, water science and technology library, chapter 2, vol
50:523. Springer, pp. 23–58
Carothers JE (1968) A statistical study of the formation factor relation. Log Anal 9(5):13–20
Chandra S, Ahmed S, Ram A, Dewandel B (2008) Estimation of hard rock aquifers hydraulic conductivity
from geoelectrical measurements: a theoretical development with field application. J Hydrol (Amst)
357:218–227. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.023
Croft MG (1971) A method of calculating permeability from electric logs. In: Geological research , US Geol
Surv, Prof Pap 750-B, PP B265–B269
Deppermann K (1954) Die Abhangikeit des scheinbaren Widerstandes vom Sonden abstand bei der vier-
punkt-Methode. Geophys Prospect II:262–273. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2478.1954.tb01291.x
Ekwe AC, Onu NN, Onuoha KM (2006) Estimation of aquifer hydraulic characteristics from electrical
sounding data: the case of middle Imo River basin aquifers, south-eastern Nigeria. J Spatial Hydrol
6(2):121–132
El-Sayed M, Abdel-Azim M, Mostafa M (1995) Evaluation of groundwater resources in Wadi El-Assuity
area, east of Assuit city, eastern desert, Egypt. Water resources risk conf. American Inst. of hydrology,
pp. 42–56
Frohlich RK (1994) The electric–hydraulic relationship. A geophysical model. Trends in hydrogeology
1:347–358
Frohlich RK, Kelly WE (1985) The relation between hydraulic transmissivity and transverse resistance in a
complicated aquifer of glacial outwash deposits. J Hydrol (Amst) 79(3–4):215–229. doi:10.1016/
0022-1694(85)90056-3
Frohlich RK, Fisher JJ, Summerly E (1996) Electric-hydraulic conductivity correlation in fractured crys-
talline bedrock: central Landfill, Rhode Island, USA. J Appl Geophys 35:249–259. doi:10.1016/
0926-9851(96)00028-6
Gomez-Rivero O (1977) some considerations about the possible use of the parameters a and m as a
formation evaluation tool through well logs. Trans SPWLA 18th Ann Logging Symp: J 1–24
Heigold PC, Gilkeson RH, Cartwright K, Reed PC (1979) Aquifer transmissivity from surficial electrical
methods. Ground Water 17(4):338–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1979.tb03326.x
Hill HJ, Milburn JD (1956) Effect of clay and water salinity on electrochemical behaviour of reservoir rocks.
Trans AIME 207:65–72
Hubbert MK (1940) The theory of groundwater motion. J Geol 48(8):785–944
Huntley D (1987) Relations between permeability and electrical resistivity in granular aquifers. Ground
Water 24(4):466–474. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1986.tb01025.x

123
614 Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615

Kelly WE (1977) Geoelectric sounding for estimating aquifer hydraulic conductivity. Ground Water
15(6):420–425. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1977.tb03189.x
Kelly WE, Reiter P (1984) Influence of anisotropy on relations between electrical and hydraulic properties
of aquifers. J Hydrol (Amst) 74:311–321. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(84)90021-0
Khalil MA, Abd-Alla MA (2005) An approach to estimate hydraulic parameters and water quality from
surface resistivity measurements at wadi El-Assuity area, Egypt. NRIAG J Geophys, Special issue:
267–281
Kosiniski WK, Kelly EW (1981) Geoelectrical sounding for predicting aquifer properties. Ground Water
19:163–171. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1981.tb03455.x
Lesmes D, Friedman SP (2005) Relationships between the electrical and hydrogeological properties of rocks
and soils. In: Rubin Y, Hubbard S (eds) Hydrogeophysics, water science and technology library,
chapter 4, vol 50:523. Springer pp. 87–128
Martys NS (1999) Diffusion in partially-saturated porous materials. Mater Struct (Materiaux et Construc-
tions) 32:555–562
Mazac O, Landa I (1979) On determination of hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of granular aquifers
by vertical electric sounding. J Geol Sci 16:123–135 (in Czech)
Mazac O, Landa I, Skuthan B (1978) Information capacity of some geoelectrical methods applied to
hydrogeological survey. Proceedings of the 23rd geophysical symposium, Verna, Bulgaria, pp. 460–
472
Mazac O, Kelly W, Landa I (1985) A hydrogeophysical model for relations between electrical and hydraulic
properties of aquifers. J Hydrogeology 79:1–19. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(85)90178-7
Mazac O, Cislerova M, Kelly WE, Landa I, Venhodova D (1990) Determination of hydraulic conductivities
by surface geoelectrical methods. In: S. Ward (ed) Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, vol II.
Soc Explor Geophys, pp. 125–131
Mbonu PC, Ebeniro JO, Ofoegbu CO, Ekine AS (1991) Geoelectric sounding for the determination of
aquifer characteristics in parts of the Umuahia area of Nigeria. Geophys 56(2):284–291
Niwas S, Singhal DC (1981) Estimation of aquifer transmissivity from Dar Zarrouk parameters in porous
media. J Hydrol (Amst) 50:393–399. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(81)90082-2
Niwas S, Singhal DC (1985) Aquifer transmissivity of porous media from resistivity data. J Hydrol (Amst)
82:143–153. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(85)90050-2
Pflannkuch HO (1969) On the correlation of electrical conductivity properties of porous system with viscous
flow transport coefficients. Proceedings of the IAHR First International symposium on fundamentals of
transport phenomena in porous media, Haifa, pp. 42–54
Plotnikov NI (1972) Geophysical methods in hydrology and engineering geology. Nedra, Moscow
Porter CR and Carothers JE (1970) Formation factor-porosity relation derived from well log data. Trans
SPWLA 11th Ann Logging Symp, pp. 1–19
Rubin Y, Hubbard S (2005) Hydrogeophysics, water science and technology library, vol 50. Springer,
Berlin, p 523
Schon J (1983) Petrophysik. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin
Shockley WG, Garber PK (1953) Correlation of some physical properties of sand. In: Proceedings of the
third international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Zurich 1:203–209
Singh KP (2003) Geo-electrical exploration for groundwater in a Hard Rock Region of Hyderabad, India.
First Break 21:29–34
Singh KP (2005) Nonlinear estimation of aquifer parameters from surfficial resistivity measurements.
Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:917–938
Soupios P, Kouli M, Vallianatos F, Vafidis A, Stavroulakis G (2007) Estimation of aquifer hydraulic
parameters from surficial geophysical methods: a case study of Keritis basin in Chania (Crete-Greece).
J Hydrol (Amst) 338:122–131. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.028
Sudo H, Tanaka T, Kobayashi T, Kondo T, Takahashi T, Miyamoto M, Amagai M (2004) Permeability
imaging in granitic rocks based on surface resistivity profiling. Explor Geophys 35:56–61. doi:
10.1071/EG04056
Telfold WM, Geldert LP, Sheriff RE (1991) Applied geophysics. Cambridge Univ, New York
Timur A, Hemkins WB, Worthington AE (1972) Porosity and pressure dependence of formation resistivity
factor for sandstones. Trans CWLS 4th Formation Evaluation Symp, p. 30
Urish DW (1981) Electrical resistivity–hydraulic conductivity relationships in glacial outwash aquifers.
Water Resour Res 17(5):1401–1408. doi:10.1029/WR017i005p01401
Vinegar HJ, Waxman MH (1984) Induced polarization of shaly sands. Geophysics 49(8):1267–1287. doi:10.1190/
1.1441755
Waxman MH, Smits LJM (1968) Electrical conductivities in oil bearing sands. Journal of the society of
Petroleum Engineerins 8:107–122

123
Surv Geophys (2009) 30:601–615 615

Worthington PF (1975) Quantitative geophysical investigations of granular aquifers. Surv Geophys

2(3):313–366. doi:10.1007/BF01447858
Worthington PF (1976) Hydrogeophysical equivalence of water salinity, porosity and matrix conduction in
arenaceous aquifers. Ground Water 14(4):224–232. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1976.tb03107.x
Worthington PF (1993) The uses and abuses of the Archie equations: 1 the formation factor–porosity
relationship. J Appl Geophys 30:215–228. doi:10.1016/0926-9851(93)90028-W
Yadav GS (1995) Relating hydraulic and geoelectric parameters of the Jayant aquifer, India. J Hydrol
(Amst) 167:23–38. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(94)02637-Q
Yadav GS, Abolfazli (1998) Geoelectrical sounding and their relationship to hydraulic parameters in semi-
arid regions of Jalore, north-western India. J Appl Geophys 39:35–51. doi:10.1016/S0926-
9851(98)00003-2
Yadav GS, Kumar R, Singh PN, Singh SC (1993) Geoelectrical soundings for aquifer characterization
around Jayant colony-singrauli, Sidhi District, MP. J Assoc Expl Geophysists XIV(3):123–131

123