Question 1

A geophysical survey was carried out in a Town in Northern Uganda to investigate

whether there were any good groundwater potential points for drilling a potential
production well. Four potential sites were identified and investigated. First, geo-electric
line profiles were run at each of the identified sites by sending current to a depth of 120m
to identify points of fractures or/and thick water saturated weathered formations.
Anomalies were identified along these profiles and vertical electrical soundings taken at
the identified anomalies. The results of the geophysical survey are presented in the tables
in the Appendix below. Plot the resistivity plots for each site and interpret the survey
results as below:

Resistivity plots

Figure 1; Site 1 Resistivity plot

Figure 2: Site 2 resistivity plot

1|Page
Figure 3: Resistivity plot for site 3

Figure 4: Site 4 Resistivity plot

a) The depth range in which the water table is expected to be found (2 mark)

CRITERIA: The water table is generally characterized by low resistivity values, so we looked
out for areas on the plot where resistivity values decrease abruptly. The depth at which this
occurs is likely to be the depth of the water table. The exception in this case is site 1 where we
rather identified a region with a change in gradient of risinng curve.
Table 1: Expected water table depth range

SITE EXPECTED WATER TABLE DEPTH RANGE(m)

Site 1 19-32
Site 2 42-80
Site 3 19-27.5
Site 4 15-29

2|Page
b) The depth of the fresh bedrock (2 mark)
CRITERIA; To determine the depth of the fresh bedrock, we chose areas on the resistivity
plot where resistivity values increase abruptly. This indicates a change in lithology from a more
conductive layer to a less conductive layer, which is often associated with a change in rock
type.
Table 2: Depth to fresh bed rock

SITE DEPTH TO FRESH BED ROCK(m)

Site 1 40
Site 2 120
Site 3 58
Site 4 28

c) The expected hydrogeology formation (provide a sketch at each site by making use of
the IPI2WIN software to identify the layers/formations) (2 marks)

Table 3: Lithology logs for the sites

SITE 1 SITE 2

3|Page
 SITE 3 SITE 4

Table 4: Table showing layers from IPI2win software and i dentified formations

Resistivity(Ω-m) Height(m) Depth(m) Geological formation

Site 1 (Fitting error 1.9%)
664 0.6011 0.6011 Top-soil
36.8 1.771 2.372 Clayey top-soil
21.06 4.662 7.034 Clay
428.9 3.686 10.72 Lateritic layer
58.03 16.22 26.94 Fractured rock
5200 - >26.94 Fresh bed rock
Site 2 (Fitting error 4.64%)
204 0.45 0.45 Top soil
6.68 0.753 1.2 Clay
71.5 19.6 20.8 Weathered rock
12.8 21.1 41.9 Clay or strongly weathered rock
13932 - >41.9 Bed rock
Site 3 (Fitting error 16.5%)
1.90E+05 0.18 0.18 Top soil
20.7 2.68 2.86 Clayey top layer
156 1.36 4.22 Sandy layer
10.3 7.05 11.3 Clay
323 5.99 17.3 Weathered laterite

4|Page
 936 - >17.3 Laterite
Site 4( Fitting error 2.65%)
2046 0.555 0.555 Sandy-top soil
202 2.53 3.08 Sandy clay
41.5 1.57 4.65 Clay
531 2.01 6.66 Laterite
35.2 7.21 13.9 Weathered rock
421 69.1 83 Fractured rock
5547 - >83 Bed rock

d) Identify whether the water table is in the unconsolidated (overburden) or consolidated

zone (i.e. the fractured zone) (1 mark)
Table 5: Zones in which water table is expected

SITE ZONE OF WATER TABLE

Site 1 Fractured
Site 2 Fractured
Site 3 Fractured
Site 4 Fractured

e) Do you think the identified locations will have a good groundwater potential (2 mark)
Generally, all the sites may have a good potential because the region within which the water
table is expected are in the fractured zones(sometimes referred to as conduits) which are
associated with good storage and transmissivity. However, they need to be ranked on a case by
case basis with rank 1 being the best and 4 the worst.

Table 6: Potential of sites

SITE RANK REASON

Site 2 Resistivity plot range is above 30 Ω-m where we may expect
1 groundwater and the percentage error is 1.9%
Site 1 The depth range where water table is expected is the greatest having
2 a thickness of about 38m, most of the apparent resistivity values are
between the range(0.5-100 Ω-m) which shows high potential for
ground water.
Site 4 The percentage error for the resistivity plot is about 16% which is
3 the greatest error in all the sites. This implies that points of the
collected data are outliers hence the results and the site may be
abandoned. This may also indicate an error in electrodes during field
work
Site 3 Resistivity plot ranges above 100 Ω-m which is above the range we
4 expect ground water with a percentage error of about 2.65%

5|Page
f) Provide a simplified design of the borehole to be constructed using a sketch showing
the water level, the depth of the well, the length of the screen, the position and length
of the gravel pack and other features (2 marks)
The well design will be based on the site with the best potential which is site 2. According to
the Manual for Borehole Construction and Supervision ;and Borehole Technical Specification,
2019, from the Ministry of Water and Environment, there are two well design options available,
these include design B and design A. Well Design A is what we shall use because it is more
cost effective since the diameters drilled reduce with depth than using design B, , also known
as shallow well design, which drills a hole of a single diameter to the bottom of the well. The
other reason why design A is chosen is the fact that the depth range to which the water table is
expected is quite big and it occurs before it reaches the bedrock.

Figure 5: Borehole design

6|Page
Question 2
The following table gives the results of a sieve analysis of formation samples taken during the
drilling of one of the identified borehole for a production well.

Sieve size (mm) Mass retained (kg)

2 0

1 0.24

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.78

0.125 0.30

0.063 0.05

Mass passing through sieve 0.063 0

(a) Describe the main functions of an artificial gravel pack (2marks)

1. The gravel pack prevents fine particles from entering the well.
2. It reduces turbidity of the water entering the well by filtering out small dirty
particles.
3. Inclusion of a gravel pack enables the use of larger screen size openings
4. Prevention of fines in well
5. Increase effective hydraulic radius
6. Support formation and prevent collapse leading to damage
7. Laterally retrain and effectively strengthening casing.
8. The gravel pack prevents fine particles from entering the well

7|Page
(b) Construct a grain size distribution curve (2 marks)
Sieve size Mass Cumulative %age %age Artificial grain size
(mm) retained (kg) mass passing retained Passing (mm) = natural x 5
(Natural) (Kg)
2 0 1.87 0 100 10
1 0.24 1.63 13 87 5
0.5 0.50 1.13 40 60 2.5
0.25 0.78 0.35 81 19 1.25
0.125 0.30 0.05 97 3 0.625
0.063 0.05 0 100 0 0.315
Mass passing 0 0 0 0 These values are the
through 0.063 sizes for gravel pack
Sum = 1.87
kg

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

100
90
80
70
60
% passimg

50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle size

(c) Confirm that an artificial gravel pack is required (2 marks)

A gravel pack is required when the coefficient of uniformity Cu is less than 3
coefficient of uniformity for the soil;

8|Page
 𝐷60
𝐶𝑢 =
𝐷10
Where D60 is the diameter for which 60% of material is finer and D10 is the diameter for which
10% of material is finer and from the graph, 𝐷60 = 0.5 and 𝐷10 = 0.172

0.5
𝐶𝑢 = = 2.91 < 3
0.172
Therefore, since Cu=2.91 which is less than 3 a gravel pack is required.
Also, since D10 = 0.172mm which is less than 0.25mm, a gravel pack is required

(d) Construct the grading curve for the gravel pack using the same graph paper (2 marks)

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

100
90
80
70
60
% passimg

50 Artificial
Natural
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle size

(e) Suggest a suitable screen slot size (2 marks)

The suitable screen slot size corresponds to 85% retained implying that 15% is passing the
gravel pack.
Therefore, the suitable screen slot size is 1.3 mm

9|Page