International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 7, Issue 1, Jan-Feb 2016, pp. 141-161, Article ID: IJCIET_07_01_012

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=1
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 9.7820 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
IAEME Publication

VALIDATION OF DERIVED GROUNDWATER

POTENTIAL ZONES (GWPZ) USING GEOINFORMATICS AND ACTUAL YIELD FROM
WELL POINTS IN PARTS OF UPPER CAUVERY
BASIN OF MYSURU AND CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICTS, KARNTAKA, INDIA
Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C
Department of Studies in Earth Science,
Centre for Advanced Studies in Precambrian Geology, University of Mysore,
Manasagangothri, Mysuru -570 006
ABSTRACT
Groundwater is a most important natural resource of the earth and its
demand is rapidly increasing with growing population, agricultural expansion
and industrialization. The present study aims to integrate the thematic layers
viz., lithology, geomorphology, soil, lineament, land use/land cover, slope,
rainfall and other related features to explore the occurrence & movement of
groundwater using geo-informatics technique. Integration of various themes is
achieved through the development of a models/ assigned weightages which
relates and delineates GWPZ and finally to generate a composite map. About
140 bore wells yield data have been collected to quantify the yield from GWPZ
map derived from geo-informatics. The final output map is reclassified into
four groundwater prospect zones by merging the polygon of same classes
using dissolve operation such as Very Good, Good, Moderate and Poor. The
final results highlight the high-tech application of Geo-informatics in
validating the GWPZ with reference to actual bore well yield data in parts of
Upper Cauvery basin in Southern tip of Karnataka State, India.
Key words: Comparison, GWPZ, Bore well yield data, Geoinformatics and
parts of Upper Cauvery basin.
Cite this Article: Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C,
Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using GeoInformatics and Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery
Basin of Mysuru and Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(1), 2016, pp.
141-161.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=1

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

140

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

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

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

Figure 1 Location map of the study area

3. METHODS & MATERIALS

The thematic layers (TL) of lithology (TL-1), geomorphological landforms (TL-2),
lineaments (TL-3), soil (TL-4) land use/land cover (TL-5), slope (TL-6), weathered
layer (TL-7), rainfall (TL-8) have been generated on 1:50,000 scale using IRS-1D
(PAN+LISS-III) merged satellite data and other collateral information. Lithological
map is derived from published geological map (GSI, 1995) on 1:250,000 scale and
updated using satellite data (Dinakar., 2005). Landforms maps were interpreted from
satellite imagery and the lineament map was generated by image process techniques.
Slope map is prepared from SoI India topographical sheets on 1:50,000 scale.
Weathered layer map is prepared from the field data (bore well casing length). The
1:50,000 scale-soil map of the study area is derived from 1:2,50,000 scale soil map of
Karnataka prepared by NBSS & LUP (2013).
a. Topomaps: 57D/16, 57H/4, 58A/13 and 58E/1.
Source: (SoI, Dehradun).
b. Satellite Data: IRS-1D LISS-III of 23.5m Resolution (March & Nov-2001) and
PAN+LISS-III of 5.8m, Date of pass 10-March-2003.
Source: (National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Hyderabad.
c. Thematic layers: Lithology, Geomorphology, Soil, Lineaments, Land use/ land
cover patterns, Slope, Iso-hyetal map and GWPZ map.
d. GIS softwares: Mapinfo v7.5, Arc Info v3.2, Erdas Imagine v2011 and Arc GIS
v10.
e. GPS: Garmin 12 is used to record the exact locations of each bore well points
during Ground Truth Check (GTC).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

142

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

4. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Lithology (TL-1)
The study area is underlined by hard crystalline rocks mainly peninsular gneiss and
charnockites of the Precambrian age and these are intruded by dolerite, amphibolites
dyke of Proterozoic age (Basavarajappa, 1992). The hard/crystalline rocks have
limited primary porosity; whereas secondary porosity is observed due to weathering,
jointing, fracturing which shows groundwater recharge and movement. As the
peninsular gneiss and charnockites are hard rocks, they have no primary porosity and
are lack in potential for the storage & movement for groundwater (CGWB, 2008).
However, gneissic rocks may have secondary porosity such as fractures, joints, faults
and classified under good (Rank-3) category (Dinakar, 2005). Charnockites are
noticed as forming the hill ranges with less primary porosity as well as secondary
porosity. Thus, this unit is classified under the poor (Rank-1) category compared to
gneissic rocks. On the other hand, small patches of amphibolite, meta ultramafics,
basic dykes act as a barrier and classified these under poor category (Rank-1) while
banded magnetite quartzites, pyroxene granulites are classified as moderate (Rank-2).
Migmatites, kyanite-fuchsite schists, hornblende biotite schists, are classified as good
(Rank-3) groundwater potential areas. Lithology places a second highest weightage
with 40 using Geoinformatics technique in the study area (Table.1a; Fig.2) (Dinakar.,
2005).

4.2. Geomorphology (TL-2)

Geomorphology is the study of morphology, genesis, distribution and age of
landforms that help in recreating the geomorphic history of any evolved landscape
(Dinakar., 2005). Geomorphological mapping allows an improved understanding of
watershed management, groundwater exploration, land use planning, etc (Fairbridge,
1968). Hydro geomorphology based technique in groundwater exploration techniques
are widely used to decipher GWPZ (Seelan Santosh Kumar., 1982). Many of the
geomorphological features are well digitized on the high-resolution satellite data to
generate geomorphology map in conjunction with slope and drainage parameters. The
landforms that are delineated in the present study are denudational hills, residual hills,
linear ridge, pediments, inselbergs, pediplains gullied, pediplains, valley, alluvial
plains (Basavarajappa et al., 2015a). Denudational hills are formed due to differential
erosion and weathering as a more resistant formation or intrusion stand as
mountains/hills. These geomorphic units occur as continuous range of varying height
acts as runoff zones and poor in groundwater prospects. Pediments are rock floored
plains in the uplands and areas adjacent to hills into which the rain water from the
hills drains (Mukhapadhyay, 1994). A large area of pediment found in foot hill of
Biligiri-Rangan Hill ranges is covered by plantations and acting as a runoff zones as
well as recharge zone wherever the fracture & their intersections are observed and this
unit is categorized qualitatively under moderate zone. Inselbergs occurs in the form as
residual isolated barren or rocky smooth and rounded small hill (mostly conical)
standing above ground level surrounded by pediplains and mostly acts as run-off
zone. Residual hills have highly sloping topography. Vegetation is also very sparse
due to very less thickness of soil to sustain. This unit acts as surface runoff zone and
there is very less scope for infiltration except where the rocks are highly fractured,
jointed or faulted. Hydrogeomorphologically, this unit gets less importance due to its
poor water holding capacity and classified under poor category. Pediplains
moderately weathered (PPM) is the flat surface with good weathered profile covering
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

143

editor@iaeme.com

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

thick vegetation occupying the topographically low-lying areas associated with

lineaments. Groundwater zone in this unit are considered as good. On other hand,
shallow weathered pediplains (PPS) having less weathered profile with sparse
vegetation and groundwater availability is believed to be moderate in view of their
elevated ground compared to the PPM. Valley zones are the stream course with
accumulation of highly porous and permeable alluvial/ colluvial material, sand &
gravel provide more scope for infiltration and these are classified under very good
category. Alluvial plains are formed by the deposition of alluvium by major rivers
Cauvery and Kabini forming good to excellent shallow aquifers due to nature of
alluvial, its thickness and recharge condition. Overall, alluvial plain, channel island,
valley, river, streams, tanks and reservoirs are considered as good prospect zones and
are assigned as Rank-4. Pediplains moderately weathered zones are assigned as Rank3, Pediplains moderately shallow, pediplain gullied and linear ridge are assigned as
Rank-2, while the remaining denudational hill, residual hill, pediment, inselberg and
dyke ridge are assigned as Rank-1. Geomorphology places a highest weightage with
60 using Geoinformatics technique in the study area (Table.1b; Fig.3) (Dinakar.,
2005).

4.3. Soils (TL-3)

Hydraulic properties of soils play an important role in movement of soil moisture
from the ground surface to water table through the unsaturated zone affecting the
runoff and groundwater recharge processes (Basavarajappa et al., 2014b). Soil
properties such as depth, texture and permeability help to determine the rate of
groundwater recharge (CGWB., 2008). Land surface factors such as topography,
geology and vegetation along with soil properties determine the potential for
groundwater (Basavarajappa and Dinakar., 2005). Soil depth shows wide variation in
terms of image characteristics, nature and extent of different geomorphic unit (Reddy
et al., 2003). Based on their hydrogeological characteristics, different weightage and
ranks are assigned for clayey soils, clayey mixed, loamy skeletal and clayey skeletal
are assigned as Rank-4, Rank-3, Rank-2 and Rank-1, respectively with a weightage of
20 (Table.1c; Fig.4) (Dinakar., 2005).

4.4. Lineament (TL-4)

Lineaments are the most obvious structural feature that is important from the
groundwater point of view (Ramasamy et al., 2001). They occur as linear alignment
of structural, lithological, topographical, vegetational, drainage anomalies either as a
straight line or as curvilinear feature (Dinakar., 2005). Lineaments generally develop
due to tectonic stress, strain and provide important clue on surface feature which are
responsible for infiltration of surface runoff into subsurface and also in movement &
storage of groundwater. The observation bore wells noticed very close to lineaments
are good yielding and high prospective zones for groundwater explorations
(Basavarajappa et al., 2015b). In the present study, major rivers such as Cauvery,
Kabini and Suvarnavathi control the major lineaments which are trending towards EW, N100E acting as a good groundwater zones due to neo-tectonic responses
(Basavarajappa et al., 2015b; Waldia., 1999; Satish., 2002). Density of 100 m has
been constructed around each lineament and assigned as Rank-4 with the weightage
of 50 for this layer. The intersection of lineaments automatically gets more scores
during integration (Table.1d) (Dinakar., 2005).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

144

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

4.5. Land use/land cover (TL-5)

The information on land use/land cover is of utmost importance in hydrogeological
investigations as the groundwater regime is influenced by the type of land cover such
as forest cover, barren rocky cover, marsh, agriculture, urban settlements, etc
(Table.1e; Fig.5). The impact of land use in the prevailing surface and subsurface
hydrologic conditions is remarkably high (Basavarajappa et al., 2015b). The dynamics
of hydrologic processes are governed partially by the temporal and spatial
characteristics of inputs, outputs and the land use conditions (Shih, 1996). Infiltration,
runoff, erosion and evapo-transpiration are controlled by nature of surface material
and the land use pattern. Land use/land cover maps were prepared based on visual
interpretation of the multi-date satellite imagery coupled with GTC. Some of the
classes which reflect on groundwater such as, intensive agriculture are observed all
along the river bed mainly confined to low lands, alluvial plains and perennial flow of
river shows good groundwater potentials (Basavarajappa and Dinakar., 2005). Kharif
crops are scattered in almost all the part of the study area and mainly depends on
rainwater and are considered under moderate (Basavarajappa et al., 2014c). Most of
the wastelands characterized by the presence of thorny scrubs and herbs are noticed
along the ridges, steep slopes and dome-shaped hillocks. As a consequence severe
soil erosion frequently occurs during rainy season resulting in high runoff
(Basavarajappa and Dinakar., 2005). Most of the forest classes occupy the hilly
undulated terrain resulting in greater runoff and less infiltration. The maximum extent
of water bodies are observed in the central parts of the study area reflecting good
groundwater prospects (Dinakar., 2005).

4.6. Slope (TL-6)

Slope plays a significant role in infiltration versus runoff. Infiltration is inversely
related to slope, i.e. more gentle the slope, infiltration would be more and runoff
would be less and vice-versa (Dinakar., 2005). Slope is the loss or gain in altitude per
unit horizontal distance in a direction (Basavarajappa et al., 2015b). The maximum
development of slopes is noticed in the hilly terrains. Slope analysis is carried out by
employing Template method and categorized into very steep, moderate steep, strong
slope and assigned the Rank-1. Moderate slope class is assigned as Rank-2. Gentle
slope and very gentle slope class are assigned as Rank-3; while nearly level slope is
assigned as Rank-4 with a weightage of 30 (Table.1f; Fig.6) (Dinakar., 2005).

4.7. Weathered layer (TL-7)

Weathering refers to the natural process of disintegration and decomposition of the
rock depending upon topography, climate, structure, etc. The thickness of the
weathered zones varies from place to place due to variation in lithology, climate,
intensity of weathering agent, slope, etc (Dinakar., 2005). As the thickness of the
weathered layer increase, the amount of water holding capacity increases. The yield of
bore well depends on the thickness of weathered and fractured horizon (Karanth,
1987). Weathered zones mostly form shallow aquifers in the area and have been
observed generally along low-lying areas, alluvial plains and natural tanks. To
generate the weathered layer map of the study area, 60 location of bore well casing
depth information has been collected which are inserted on the hard rock or noncollapsible rock formations. This technique indirectly provides the length of the
casing information with the thickness of weathered layer (Dinakar., 2005). The
obtained casing lengths are plotted on a base map and contours are generated showing

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

145

editor@iaeme.com

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

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

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India
Table. e Land use/land cover
Land use/land cover
Rank
(Weightage - 25)
Town/Cities
1
Deciduous Forest
1
Scrub Forest
2
Forest Plantation
2
Salt Affected Land
2
Villages
1
Land with Scrub
1
Land without Scrub
2
Sandy Area
4
Stony waste
1
Water bodies
4
Kharif
2
Double Crop
4
Fallow Land
3
Plantation
3
Evergreen Forest
1
Cauvery
4
Chikkahole River
4
Chikkahole reservoir
4
Gullied land
2
Gundal reservoir
4
Kabini
4
Streams
4
Suvarnavathi River
4
Suvarnavathi reservoir
4

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

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

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

Figure 2 Assigned score of lithology (TL-1)

Figure 3 Assigned score of geomorphology (TL-2)

Figure 4 Assigned score of Soil types (TL-3)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

148

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

Figure 5 Assigned score of LU/ LC (TL-5)

Figure 6 Assigned score of Slope (TL-6)

Figure 7 Assigned score of Weathered layer (TL-7)

Figure 8 Assigned score of Rainfall in mm (TL-8)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

149

editor@iaeme.com

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

4.8. Rainfall (TL-8)

In the study area, the main source of groundwater recharge is through precipitation
and its occurrence, movement is fully controlled by hydrological, hydro-geological
and climatological factors (Dinakar., 2005). Rainfall is also considered as one of the
parameter in the present hydro-geological study. Thirty one years (1970 to 2001) of
monthly rainfall data from 19 rain gauge stations in and around the study area have
been collected; analyzed and annual normal isohyetal rainfall map has been digitized
(Basavarajappa et al., 2015a).
Fig.9. GIS Integration of all thematic layers
The normal rainfall varies from 560 to 1455 mm in the study area and a weightage
of 35 has been assigned. Rank assigned from 1 to 4 for the ranges of 560-750 mm,
750-1125 mm, 1125-1275 mm and 1275-1455 mm of rainfall respectively (Table.1h;
Fig.9). Though the maximum rainfall is received in B.R hill station, the groundwater
prospect is poor since the topography and land pattern does not favor for infiltration
(Basavarajappa and Dinakar., 2005).

5. INTEGRATION OF THEMATIC LAYERS AND MODELING

THROUGH GIS
The occurrence and movement of groundwater in the study area is controlled by
various factors and each factor is assigned a weightage depending on their influence
on the movement and storage of groundwater (Dinakar., 2005). In the present study,
higher weightage is given to topography than the lithology due to the lithological
control is comparatively less than topographical control on GWPZ (Basavarajappa et
al., 2015b).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

150

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

Figure 10 Union of all thematic layers

(Dissolved polygons with respect to derived potential zones shown in background)
Since lineaments have greater role than lithology, this theme is also assigned
higher weightage. As a consequence, the influence of land use/land cover, slope, and
soil are comparatively less, hence lower weightages are given (Basavarajappa et al.,
2015b). The different units in each theme are assigned 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 denotes moderate; 3 denotes
good and 4 denotes very good GWPZ (Basavarajappa et al., 2013). The ranking is
done mainly based on the common logic aided by the data from inventory carried out
in bore well and open wells. The final score or each unit of a theme is equal to the
product of the rank and weightage (Fig.9 & 10) (Dinakar., 2005).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

151

editor@iaeme.com

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

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

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India
Table.2 Comparison analysis of derived GWPZ map and actual bore well yield data
Well No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

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

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

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

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India
Well No
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

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

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

Figure 11 Observation well points of actual groundwater yield

7. VALIDATION OF THE DERIVED MODEL/ GROUNDWATER

POTENTIAL MAP WITH ACTUAL YIELD FROM BORE WELL
The final composite map aims at providing a clear picture regarding the groundwater
condition of the study area. For such maps, the well inventory forms the main phase
of data acquisition (Basavarajappa et al., 2013). Thus information regarding the depth
of well, lithological section exposed, soil thickness, depths to bed rock and water level
data are collected during the well inventory study (Dinakar., 2005). The validity of the
model developed is checked against the bore well data which reflect the actual
groundwater yield. 140 bore wells yield data have been superimposed to validate the
model (Fig.11; Table.2). Yields of bore wells are varied from 200 gph (gallons per
hour) to 7200 gph in the study area. The same has been regrouped as very good
(>3000 gph), good (2000-3000 gph), moderate (1000-2000 gph) and poor (<1000
gph). Most part of very good potential zones falls exactly on rivers Cauvery and
Kabini (Basavarajappa et al., 2014a). Of the 37 wells in the very good prospect zone,
33 wells are in agreement, 4 wells (well no. 31, 32, 45, 109) show less yield with the
derived potential zone. Most of the very good bore well yields falling on the major
lineaments; while less yielding bore wells are away from lineaments. In the good
prospect zones, out of 55 wells; 40 wells are in agreement with derived potential zone,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

156

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

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).

Figure 12 Derived Groundwater Prospect map of the study area

In the moderate prospect zone, out of 34 bore wells; 18 wells are in agreement
with derived potential zone, 2 wells show excess yields, 14 wells shows less yields
with the derived potential zones due to deeper aquifer availability. Hence the poor
yield wells in moderate potential zone need deeper resistively investigation. Deep
sounding apparent resistivity data can be used as a one of the layers for
Geoinformatics to find out deeper aquifers. Though the presences of poor prospect
zones are very large in aerial extent, only 14 bore wells are traced in the field due to
thick forest cover and less number of population. Out of 14 wells, 11 wells are agreed,
3 bore well (well no 17, 19 and 85) show good yield due to shallow aquifer being
tapped in this region and bore wells are close to the Suvarnavathi reservoir where
recharge is a continuous process (Fig.12).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

157

editor@iaeme.com

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

Table.3 Validation of derived GWPZ with actual yield (Fig.6)

Sl. No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Groundwater Prospect zones / Actual yield

Number of bore wells modeled under
different GWPZ using Geoinformatics
Number of bore wells under agreement
Number of bore wells show excess yield
Number of bore wells show good to shallow
yield
Number of bore wells show less yield

Very good

Good

Moderate

Poor

37

55

34

14

33
-

40
3

18
2

11
-

12

14

Figure 13 Comparison of Derived GWPZ with Actual bore well yield

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

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

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]

Basavarajappa H.T (1992). Petrology, geochemistry and fluid inclusion studies of

Charnockites and associated rocks around Biligiri-Rangan hills, Karnataka, India,
Unpub PhD thesis, Univ. of Mysore, Pp: 1-96.
Basavarajappa H.T and Srikantappa C., (1999). Retrograde Charnockite-Gneiss
relations in the Kollegal Shear Zone (KSZ), Karnataka India, The Indian
Mineralogist, Vol.33, No.2, Pp: 70-80.
Basavarajappa H.T and Srikantappa C., (2000). Geology, structure,
Metamorphism and tectonic setup of 3.4 b.y. old Biligirirangan Granulites, South
India. In International geological congress, Brazil, e-journal.
Basavarajappa H.T and Dinakar S (2005). Land use/land cover studies around
Kollegal, Chamarajanagar district using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques,
Journal of The Indian Mineralogist, Special Vol.1, Pp: 89 94.
Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S, Satish M.V, Nagesh V, Balasubramanian A and
Manjunatha M.C (2013). Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones in Hard
rock terrain of Kollegal Shear Zone (KSZ), South India using Remote Sensing
and GIS, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering (IJEE), Vol.6,
No.5 (1), Pp: 1185-1194.
Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S, Satish M.V, Nagesh D and Manjunatha M.C
(2014a). Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS in Morphometric Analysis on
Precambrian Rocks, Kollegal Shear Zone, Chamarajanagar District, South India
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering (IJEE), Vol.7, No.1, Pp:
230-241.
Basavarajappa H.T, Manjunatha M.C and Jeevan L (2014b). Application of
Geoinformatics on Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones of Chitradurga
district, Karnataka, India, International Journal of Computer Engineering and
Technology (IJCET), Vol.5, Issue.5, Pp: 94-108.
Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C (2014c). Analysis on land
use/ land cover classification around Mysuru and Chamarajanagara district,
Karnataka, India, using IRS-1D, PAN+LISS III Satellite data, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Vol.5, Issue.11, Pp: 7996.
Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S, Satish M.V, Nagesh D and Manjunatha M.C
(2015a). Geoinformatics technique in mapping of lithology and
geomorphological landforms in Precambrian rocks of Kollegal Shear Zone
(KSZ), Southern Karnataka, India, Journal of Geomatics, ISG, Vol.9, No.1, Pp:
129-140.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

159

editor@iaeme.com

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S and Manjunatha M.C

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]

[18]

[19]
[20]

[21]
[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S, Satish M.V and Manjunatha M.C (2015b).

Lineament extraction analysis for geotectonic implications around BiligiriRangan hill ranges in Southern Karnataka, India using IRS-1D, LISS-III image,
Journal of Geomatics, ISG, Vol.9, No.2, Pp: 223-231.
Basavarajappa H.T, Pushpavathi K.N and Manjunatha M.C (2015c). Applications
of Remote Sensing and GIS on Geology and Geomorphological landforms on
Precambrian rocks of Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district, Karnataka, South
India, Journal of Environmental Geochemistry, Vol.18, No.1 & 2, Pp: 33-42.
Basavarajappa H.T (2016). Demarcation of Kollegal Shear Zone (KSZ) and Neometamorphism in Precambrian terrain of Biligiri-Rangan hill ranges, Southern
Granulites, Karnataka, India, Proceedings of 103rd ISC, ESS section, Vol.1, Pp:
101-104.
CGWB (2008). Central Groundwater Board booklet, Chamarajanagar district,
South Western region, Bangalore, Pp: 1-21.
Chi. K. and Lee, B (1994). Extraction potential ground water areas using
remotely sensed data and GIS techniques. In proceedings of the Regional
Seminar on Integrated Application Systems for Land and water resources
Management, Bangalore, India, Pp: 64-69.
Dinakar S., (2005). Geological, geomorphology and land use/land cover studies
using Remote Sensing and GIS around Kollegal Shear Zone, South India, Unpub
thesis, University of Mysore, Pp: 1-191.
Fairbridge Rhodes W (1968). The encyclopedia of Geomorphology, Pp: 388-403.
Haridass V.K., Chandrasekaran V.A., Kumaraswamy K., Rajendran S and Unni,
K (1994). Geomorphological and lineament studies of Kanjamalai using IRS-1
data with special reference to groundwater potential. Trans. Instt, Indian
Geographers, Vol.16, No.1, Pp: 35-41.
Jothiprakash V, Marimuthu G, Muralidharan R and Senthilkumar N. (2003).
Delineation of Potential Zones for Artificial Recharge Using GIS, Jour of Indian
Society of Remote sensing, Vol.31, No.1, Pp: 37-47.
Karanth K. R., (1987). Groundwater assessment, development and management,
Tata McGraw Hill (Publishing) Ltd., New Delhi.
Krishnamurthy J., Venkatesha KumarN., Jayaraman V and Manival, M. (1996).
An approach to demarcate ground water potential zones through remote sensing
and GIS. Int. J. Remote sensing, Vol.17, No.10, Pp: 1867-1884.
Mukhapadhyay (1994). Basinal characteristics of the middle Torsa basin, Indian
J. Landscape system and Ecol. Studies, Vol.2, No.2, Pp: 105-120.
Pal D.K., Khare, M.K. Rao, G.S. Jugran, D.K and Roy, A.K. (1997) demarcation
of groundwater potential zones using remote sensing and GIS techniques; A case
study of Bala valley in parts of Yamunanagar for natural Resources, Ed, K.V.
Ravindran et al., ISRS-NNRMS publication, Pp: 395-402.
Basavarajappa H.T, Manjunatha M.C and Basavaraj Hutti, Spatial Data
Integration and Mapping of Groundwater Potential Zones on Precambrian Terrain
of Hassan District, Karnataka, India Using Geomatics Application, International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(5), 2015, pp. 123-134.
Manjunatha M.C, Basavarajappa H.T and Jeevan L, Climate Change and Its
Impact on Groundwater Table Fluctuation In Precambrian Terrain of Chitradurga
District, Karnataka, India Using Geomatics Application, International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(3), 2015, pp. 83-96.
Ramsamy S.M, Kumanan C.J and Palanivel K (2001). Remote Sensing and GIS
application in rapid groundwater aquifer system of Tamil Nadu, India, In:
Muralikrishna I.V. (Ed.). ICORG Spatial Information Technology: Remote

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

160

editor@iaeme.com

Validation of Derived Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZ) Using Geo-Informatics and

Actual Yield From Well Points In Parts of Upper Cauvery Basin of Mysuru and
Chamarajanagara Districts, Karntaka, India

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

Sensing and Geographical Systems, BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, Pp: 170177.

Basavarajappa H.T, Manjunatha M.C and Jeevan L, Application of
Geoinformatics on Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones of Chitradurga
District, Karnataka, India, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 5(5), 2014, pp. 94-108.
Reddy B.M and Giakwad R.L (1985). Use of Remote Sensing Techniques for
targeting groundwater in fractured crystalline rocks two case studies from
Karnataka, Proc. 6th Asian Conf. on Remote Sensing, Hyderabad, India, Pp: 322325.
Sarkar B.C, Deota B.S, Raju P.L.N and Jugran D.K (2001). A geographical
Information System Approach to Evaluation of Groundwater Potentiality of
Shamri Micro-watershed in the Shimla Taluk, Himachal Pradesh. Jour of Indian
Society of Remote Sensing, Vol.29, No.3, Pp: 151-164.
Satish (2002). Geomorphological impacts of tectonic movements in and around
Biligirirangan hill ranges, Karnataka, India, Unpub PhD thesis, Univ. of Mysore,
Pp: 1-83.
Kamal Das. K and Muralidhar. M, Quality Characterization of Groundwater In
Mathadivagu Basin of Adilabad District, Telangana State, India, India,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(7), 2015, pp. 0412.
Seelan Santosh Kumar (1982). Landsat image derived geomorphic indicator of
groundwater in parts of Central India, J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, Vol.10,
No.2, Pp: 33-37.
Shih S.F., (1996). Integration of remote sensing and GIS for hydrologic studies,
geographical information system in hydrology, Kluwar Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, Pp: 15-42.
Singh L.M., Roy. P.K., Roy A.K., and Anand R (1993). Application of remote
sensing and GIS in Hydrogeological investigation of Impal Vally Manipur. Proc.
Nati. Symp. on Remote Sensing Application for resources management with
Special Emphasis on NE region, Guwahati, Pp: 143-147.
Venkatachalam P., Murthy C.V.S.S.B.R., Chowdhury S, and Sharma L.N.
(1991). Groundwater potential zones mapping using a GIS approach. AsiaPacific Remote Sensing J.Vol.4, No.1, Pp: 75-78.
Wadia D.N (1999). Geology of India, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited, New Delhi.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

161

editor@iaeme.com