-
ORIGINAL PAPER
Combined ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and
electricalresistivity applications exploring groundwater potential
zonesin granitic terrain
Sahebrao Sonkamble & V. Satishkumar & B. Amarender
&S. Sethurama
Received: 20 March 2013 /Accepted: 10 June 2013 /Published
online: 25 June 2013# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2013
Abstract Frequent failures of monsoons have forced to optthe
groundwater as the only source of irrigation in non-command areas.
Groundwater exploration in granitic terrainof dry land agriculture
has been a major concern for farmersand water resource authorities.
The hydrogeological com-plexities and lack of understanding of the
aquifer systemshave resulted in the failure of a majority of the
boreholedrillings in India. Hence, a combination of geophysical
toolscomprising ground-penetrating radar (GPR),
multielectroderesistivity imaging (MERI), and vertical electrical
sounding(VES) has been employed for pinpointing the
groundwaterpotential zones in dry land agricultural of granitic
terrain inIndia. Results obtained and verified with each other led
to thedetection of a saturated fracture within the environs. In
GPRscanning, a 40-MHz antenna is used with specifications of
5dielectric constant, 600 scans/nS, and 40 m depth. Theanomalies
acquired on GPR scans at various depths areconfirmed with
low-resistivity ranges of 2750 m at 23and 27 m depths obtained from
the MERI. Further, drillingwith a down-the-hole hammer was carried
out at two recom-mended sites down to 5070 m depth, which were
compli-mentary of VES results. The integrated geophysical
anoma-lies have good agreement with the drilling lithologs
validat-ing the MERI and GPR data. The yields of these bore
wellsvaried from 83 to 130 l/min. This approach is possible andcan
be replicated by water resource authorities in thrust areasof dry
land environs of hard rock terrain around the world.
Keywords GPR .MERI . Granitic terrain . Saturatedfracture .
Drilling . India
Introduction
Agricultural dependence on water has made the study
andexploitation of water-saturated zones inevitable. When
oc-curring in the shallow domain in particular, an aquifersgreater
likelihood of being replenished by meteoric watersand increased
recoverability of the trapped water add to theirglobal importance
(Gleick et al. 2008). Fractured zones ingranitic terrain constitute
some of the dominant water-saturated zones in semi-arid
environments. The scarcity ofwater, particularly in dry land
environments, often reachessuch severity that interest in
prospective sources of water isprofound.
In hard rock (granitic terrain), the hydrogeological setupof
rock and its characteristics have been described by
variousresearchers such as Davis and Turk (1964), Tardy
(1971),Eswaran and Bin (1978), Acworth (1987), Wright (1992),Sharma
and Rajamani (2000), Kuusela-Lahtinen et al.(2003), Dewandel et al.
(2006), and Sonkamble et al.(2013a). In general, in this hard rock,
aquifers that developeddue to weathering and fracturing of basement
rock occupythe few tens of meters below the ground surface.
Thehydrogeological characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivityand
storage) of the covering weathered mantle (saprolite oralterite)
and the underlying bedrock are derived primarilyfrom the geomorphic
deep weathering processes (Taylor andHoward 2000). A research work
on the hard rock lithologicalsetup (Wyns et al. 1999) depicts a
weathering profile com-prised of multilayers (i.e., sandy regolith,
laminated, fissuredand fresh granite layers) having specific
hydrodynamic prop-erties individually. The multilayers all together
(where andwhen saturated with groundwater) constitute a
compositeaquifer. The weathering of the mother rock results in
theformation of a fissured layer, generally characterized bytwo
sets of subhorizontal and subvertical fissures, wheredensity
decreases with depth (Howard et al. 1992).
S. Sonkamble (*) :V. Satishkumar :B. Amarender :S.
SethuramaCSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute,Hyderabad 500
007, Indiae-mail: [email protected]
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117DOI 10.1007/s12517-013-0998-y
-
For mapping of these structures, ground-penetrating radar(GPR)
provides significant resolution and excellent sensitivityto
variations in pore fluid content and lithology, which
oftenaccompany structures. GPR applications have included map-ping
bedrock beneath an alluvial cover (Cagnoli and Ulrych2001; Dentith
et al. 2010), karst evaluation (Beres and Haeni1991; Holub and
Dumitrescu 1994; Snchal et al. 2000;McMechan et al. 2002; Hughes
2009), mapping faults andfractures (Grasmueck 1996; Demanet et al.
2001; Rashed et al.2003; Jeannin et al. 2006; Theune et al. 2006;
McClymontet al. 2008; Kovin 2011; Sonkamble et al. 2013b), LNAPLand
DNAPL contaminant studies (Brewster and Annan 1994;Kim et al. 2000;
Lopes de Castro and Castelo Branco 2003;Jordan et al. 2004; Hwang
et al. 2008), identifying pegmatitesheets (Jeffrey et al. 2002),
and estimating water content insoils (Greaves et al. 1996; Van
Overmeeren et al. 1997;Huisman et al. 2001). However, GPRs two main
weaknessessuch as (1) somewhat slow logistics and (2) significant
signalattenuation usually limit its use to smaller study areas
charac-terized by low electrical conductivities. But it offers a
signif-icant, nondestructive solution to mapping the subsurface
ofthe earth and provides considerable resolution profiles ofdepths
up to 50 m (Holser et al. 1972; Benson et al. 1982;Davis and Annan
1989; Osama and Giamou 1998; Rosemary2001; Annan 2006). Its images
provide a continuous pictureof shallow subsurface stratigraphy.
Nowadays, there are several geophysical methods for themapping
of fractured rocks (Orellana 1972; Frohlich andKelly 1985; Daniels
1996; Busby and Merritt 1999; Laneet al. 2001). The GPR and the
electric resistivity methods arethe most commonly used in the
world. These methods allowthe locating of fractures filled with
water, but they do notbring any information about the subsurface
circulation itself,since the fracture can be filled with clay and
have low freewater content. It is foremost important to understand
in detailthe geology in dry land agriculture environs to give a
mean-ingful interpretation of the geophysical data for
groundwaterexploration. Thus, the objective of this paper is (1) to
addressthe groundwater potential zones at pinpoint
locationsemploying integrated geophysical methods, (2) to
comparethe fracture anomalies obtained on the GPR scans with
theMERI and VES results, and (3) further, to confirm with
thedrilling lithologs.
Brief about the study area
Indian agriculture is predominantly a rain-fed agriculture
underwhich both dry farming and dry land agriculture are
included.Out of 143million ha of total cultivated area in India, an
area of101 million ha (i.e., nearly 70 %) is rain fed. In dry land
areas,variations in amount and distribution of rainfall
influencethe crop production as well as socioeconomic conditions
of
farmers. The dry land areas of this country contribute about42%
of the total food grain production (Patnaik 2010). Most ofthe
coarse grains like sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet, andother
millets are grown in dry lands only. Attention has beenpaid in the
country towards the development of dry landfarming. Efforts were
made to improve crop yields in severalresearch projects. The
Central Research Institute for Dry LandAgriculture (CRIDA),
established in 1970, has great contribu-tion in research for
developing the rain-fed crops in dry landenvirons. The institute
has a well laid-out research farm atHayatnagar, located at
Hayatnagar village, Ranga Reddy dis-trict, Andhra Pradesh (India),
along the Hyderabad-VijayawadaNational Highway-9 (see Fig. 1) about
15 km from HyderabadCity, the capital of Andhra Pradesh State in
India. The farm isbasically used for research in dry land farming.
The total farmarea is about 280 ha, and the investigations were
carried out ina micro-watershed within the farm area which is a dry
landenviron of hard rock terrain (Southern India). The farm
suffi-ciently represents the predominant soils of the rain-fed
regionsof this country. The study area falls under semi-arid
climateand receives an average annual rainfall of 746.87 mm
mea-sured since 1971. The minimum (376.5 mm) and maximum(1,184.6mm)
rainfall from the year 19712009were observedin 1980 and 1975,
respectively. Most of the rainfall occurs dueto the southwest
monsoon during June to October.
Geological and hydrogeological characteristics
The chief rock type of the study area is gray to dark gray,
pink,medium-grained granite of Archean age with structural
fea-tures like lineaments, quartz, pegmatite veins, saprolite,
anddolerite dykes (see Figs. 2ad), which traverse the
granite,playing a significant role in the storage and movement
ofgroundwater. Joints and fractures are often filled by
secondarycalcareous material. Due to weathering and fracturing,
thesecrystalline rocks develop secondary porosity aiding
ground-water movement and storage (Sonkamble et al. 2012).
Whenfractures are well connected and the intensity of fracturing
ismore, these zones turn out to be potential aquifers. The
con-ceptual model of weathered and hard rock aquifer systems isdone
by Wyns et al. (2004) and Sankaran et al. (2010). Theexisting
lithologs indicate that soil cover (
-
18 m. The highly weathered granite is underlain by
semi-weathered pink granite and fractured granite. The depth of
semi-weathered and fractured granite varies from 32 to 44 mbelow
ground level (bgl).
Fig. 1 Location map andgeophysical investigations atthe study
area, Hyderabad,Southern India
Fig. 2 Photograph showing aweathered quartz pegmatitevein, b
dyke extension, c quartzvein intrusion, and d outcrops ofgranite in
Hayatnagar watershed
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117 3111
-
Groundwater occurs both under unconfined and semi-confined
conditions. In general, the depth-to-top aquifer variesfrom 19 to
31 m (bgl). The thickness of semi-weathered andfractured granite
which forms the aquifer varies from less thana meter to about 23
m.
Materials and replicability of the approach
The geophysical investigations are performed at places re-quired
by the agriculture scientist within the farm area(280 ha)
invariably considering geomorphological or geo-logical features. A
total of 22 GPR traces were conductedwith spreading of 2050 m. In
order to examine potentialborehole sites on these GPR scans, two
MERI using theWennerSchlumberger configurations and three VES
withSchlumberger configuration were carried out at the
plausiblefractured zones. The site-specific inferences afterward
weredrawn for two recommended locations of bore wells. Thebore
wells were drilled with a down-the-hole hammer.
GPR method
A GPR instrument (Geophysical Survey System Inc., USAmake) was
used to carry out the present study. The GPRmethod works based on
the dielectric constant of the medi-um. Every medium has its own
dielectric constant, thuschanging the reflection coefficient. The
GPR method is arapid and firsthand informative geophysical method
used toproceed further in the process to resolve heterogeneity.
Adetailed investigation using MERI has been carried out.
Theoperating frequency of a GPR system is usually given
byindicating the center frequency of its operating band.
Theassociated factor is the bandwidth or the frequency rangeover
which the radar has available power for use in soundingthe ground.
The bandwidth and center frequency of a radarsystem are determined
by several components in the system,the primary ones being the
antennas. Any antenna (ranges,11,000 MHz), supported by this
instrument, could be at-tached and used to collect data.
Selection of the optimal operating frequency for a radarsurvey
is much important. There is a trade off between spatialresolution,
depth of penetration, and system portability. As arule, it is
better to trade off resolution for penetration.There isno use in
having great resolution if the target cannot bedetected. There are
three main issues which control frequen-cy selection (Annan and
Cosway 1994; Annan and Davis1997); those are (1) spatial resolution
desired, (2) clutterlimitations, and (3) exploration depth. It has
been used suc-cessfully to study near-surface faulting in a wide
variety ofsettings around theworld (Wyatt andTemples 1996;Cai et
al.1996; Camelbeeck and Meghraoui 1998; Yetton and Nobes1998; Dehls
et al. 2000). Thus, the antennas of 40 and
200 MHz frequencies were used in this study with
variousobjectives. A 40-MHz antenna was used for deeper
applica-tions to a depth of about 40m and is used to locate
subsurfacegeological features, whereas a 200-MHz antenna was
suitedfor fairly shallowapplications to adepthof about 7mandwasused
to locate shallow subsurface features.
In this present study, GPR surveys were conducted bymoving the
40-MHz antenna in the air over the ground witha height 10 cm and
pulling the 200-MHz antenna across theground surface at a normal
walking pace. The recorder storesthe data as well as presents a
picture of the recorded data on ascreen. A total of 22 GPR profiles
were carried out of whichfour profiles were using the 40-MHz
antenna, with specifica-tions 5 DIEL, 600 scans/nS (time mode), and
40 m depth,whereas 18 profiles were using the 200-MHz antenna
withspecifications 5 DIEL, 50 scans/m (distance mode), and depthof
7 m. The purposes of applying low-frequency (40 MHz)and
high-frequency (200 MHz) antennae are different. The200-MHz antenna
is used to scan a shallow subsurface withhigh resolution, and the
40-MHz antenna is applied for deeperdepth, whereas a shallow depth
cannot be visualized clearlywith the 40-MHz antenna. Therefore, the
obtained GPR im-ages by the 40- and 200-MHz antennae appear to
behave indifferent ways. To obtain clear anomaly and to avoid
targetposition errors, the collected data were processed usingRADAN
software by adjusting distance normalization andhorizontal and
vertical scaling, along with high-pass filters,low-pass filters,
scans/unit, GAIN points, etc., are applied.
Electrical resistivity methods
Geophysical investigations such as MERI and VES surveyswere also
used for deciphering subsurface geology and de-lineate structural
features (Koefoed 1979; Griffiths et al.1990; Griffiths and Barker
1993; Sankaran et al. 2012). Adetailed picture of the subsurface
can be obtained by com-bining the sounding and profiling data to
give 2D crosssections (Owen et al. 2005). A resistivity meter
SYSCALPro Switch-48 (IRIS make, France) had been used in thepresent
case with 48 electrodes of 5-m spacing connected tothe meter
through a multicore cable. A total of two MERIwith
WennerSchlumberger array was carried out using0.4 m length of
stainless steel electrodes, which were plantedto a depth of 0.3 m.
Each electrode was watered to ensuregood contact with the ground.
This was done most effective-ly by withdrawing the electrode from
the ground, filling thehole with water, and replanting the
electrode. The surveylines varied in length from 120 to 240 m
depending on theavailability of linear space.
The resistivity sounding technique (Compagnie
GeneralediGeophysique 1963; Orellana andMooney 1966;
Bhattacharyaand Patra 1968; Rijkswaterstaat 1969) was employed to
con-firm the fracture zones, using the Schlumberger
configuration
3112 Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117
-
with the aid of the indigenous NGRI make resistivity
meter,Hyderabad. In this configuration, for every set of
readings,current electrodes (A and B) moved farther and farther
away
from the center point (C). The potential electrodes (M and
N)remained at the same place. They were moved away from thecenter
point only when the potential measurement fell below a
Fig. 4 Comparison of geophysical investigations carried out at
D1 a GPR 22 profile with 40 MHz antenna, 600 scans/m. b MERI 7
image. c VEScurve and geoelectrical section. d Drilling lithologs
of D1 well
Fig. 3 Comparison ofgeophysical investigations forGPR scanning a
with 40 MHzantenna and 600 scans/nS and bwith 200 MHz antenna and50
scans/m, at existing bore wellin dry land environ
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117 3113
-
certain measurable value within the required accuracy.
However,the distance of MN/2 should never be more than one fifth of
thedistance of AB/2. Generally, the recommended AB/2 spacingsare
1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0, 12.0, 15.0, 20.0,
25.030.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 80.0, 100.0, and 120.0 m. For
these(AB/2) spacings, possible and convenient (MN/2) spacings
usedwere 0.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 m. Resistivity sounding was
carriedout at three locations (see Fig. 1) in the study area with
currentelectrode separation varied from 50 to 100 m. The
observedfield curves were matched with theoretical master curves
toget initial parameters, and finally, these were used as
initialinputs in the interpretation of resistivity data through
softwarenamely RESIST (Vender Velpen 1988). To illustrate the
corre-lation among three geophysical investigations (GPR, MERI,and
VES) and its match with borewell lithologs, all the sound-ing data
are interpreted, but one VES is presented in this paperfor
comparative study.
Results and discussion
The GPR 19 and 18 profiles were carried out over the same
linekeeping the starting point common for both at the old
existing
bore well (see Fig. 1) with 40- and 200-MHz antennas,
respec-tively, for verification of fractures and lineaments. In GPR
19profile, a large fracture anomaly was encountered between 15and
25 m depth close to the existing bore well (shown inFig. 3a). As
the GPR pulse could not propagate below thisfractured zone of 25 m
depth, the fractured anomaly seems tobe continued in the section
(GPR 19), but it is just a refractionof the signal when it
obstructed the fractured zone. Hence, itlooks as if the same
anomaly continued underneath. While theGPR 18 profile was carried
out for shallow subsurface appli-cations where the anomaly clearly
indicated lineament between2 and 24 m distances at 15 m depth (see
Fig. 3b).
The GPR scan of 22 and 21 with 40-m profiles (see Fig. 1)was
carried out at D1 and D2 sites, respectively. On the GPR22 profile
image, anomalies were detected at 16-, 22-, 29-, 34-,and 38-m
distance at the depth between 15 and 25 m (seeFig. 4a) reflecting
fractures with pegmatite veins. This anom-aly closely correlated
with the MERI 7 image, carried out atD1, where low-resistivity
patches ranging from 24 to 48 mwere found up to 24m depth (see Fig.
4b). The standard valuesof resistivity range in granitic terrain
(hard rock) for highlyweathered, semi-weathered, fractured, and
massive granite are2050, 50120, 120200, and >300 m,
respectively
Fig. 5 Comparison of geophysical investigations carried out at
D2 site a GPR 21 profile with 40 MHz antenna, 600 scans/nS. b MERI
8 image. cDrilling lithologs section of D2 well
3114 Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117
-
(Chandra et al. 2010; Sonkamble et al. 2013a). The
modelparameters obtained from VES 2 are well within the range
ofstandard values. The variations in the resolution of both
theimages (see Fig. 4a, b) occur in targeting the particular zone
ofinterest or geological feature with respect to depth. But,
boththe methods depict a common trend in images/sections. A
borewell was drilled at the D1 site up to 87 m depth, which
turnedto be a potential aquifer with water striking at 27 m depth.
Thedrilling lithologs were collected at every 3-m section
andprepared actual geological cross section (see Fig. 4d)
whichreflects the fracture zone (in gray granite) at 23m satisfying
onthe GPR 22 scan and MERI 7 electrical section. The
drilledlithologs were well correlated with VES 2 model
parameters(see Fig. 4c). Geoelectric layers of VES 2 show the top
soil(01 m) with resistivity of 86 m followed by highly weath-ered
pink granite (112 m) with resistivity of 30m followedby
semi-weathered gray granite and quartz (1231 m) withresistivity of
169 m. Fractures zone with gray granite wereencountered at a depth
of 3160 m with resistivity value of43 m below which a massive
granite was struck. Thecumulative groundwater yield was measured as
83 lpm. Thegroundwater yield was measured using a 90 V notchduring
drilling.
Similarly, a MERI 8 image was carried out at the D2 siteagainst
the GPR 21 scan. The GPR 21 profile showed anom-alies at a depth of
about 20 m along the profile of 14 and32 m distance (see Fig. 5a).
Low-resistivity patches rangingfrom 30 to 60 m were obtained up to
24 m depth (seeFig. 5b) on the MERI 8 image, which may indicate a
largefracture zone in the study area. To confirm these GPR andMERI
anomalies, another bore well was also drilled up to55 m depth.
First, water was struck at 23 m depth with a yieldof 47 lpm, and
the cumulative yields were observed at about82 and 130 lpm at
depths of 32 and 42 m, respectively. Thefracture anomalies in GPR
21 profile were confirmed bydrilling lithologs (see Fig. 5c) where
pink fractured granitewas found at 23 m depth.
Conclusions
The present study is an integrated approach applied to gra-nitic
aquifer to identify fractures/water-bearing zones fromgeophysical
data. This study combined three different geo-physical methods, in
particular GPR, MERI, and VES, todemarcate fractured zones in a dry
land agricultural environ.GPR was employed initially to demarcate
the fractures withthe specifications of 5 dielectric constant, 600
scans/nS, and40 m depth, and MERI and VES were carried out at
themarked GPR profiles to identify pin point for drilling.
Theidentified fractures with low-resistivity ranges of 2750 mat 23
and 27 m depths, respectively, were determined, andgroundwater
yield varied from 83 to 130 lpm in the drilled
bore wells. The successful bore wells at D1 and D2 cansupply
adequate water needed for crop in off season.
From a geophysical point of view, this result gives a fairlygood
idea for exploring groundwater potential zones in dryland
agricultural environs of hard rock terrain. Thus,extracting useful
information from the GPR scans has helpedin the detection of
fractures which turned out to be potentialaquifers in dry land
environs.
Acknowledgments The officials of the Central Research Institute
forDryland Agriculture (ICAR Lab) are greatly acknowledged for
theirconstant support during field investigations and for providing
rainfalldata. The director of NGRI, Hyderabad, cooperated and
encouragedthroughout the study. The authors are thankful to them.
The authorswould like to acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers
for theirconstructive comments to improve the quality of the
paper.
References
Acworth RI (1987) The development of crystalline basement
aquifers ina tropical environment. Q J Eng Geol 20:265272
Annan A (2006) GPR methods for hydrogeological studies.
Hydrogeophysics 50:185213
Annan AP, Cosway SW (1994) GPR frequency selection. 5th Int.
Conf.on Ground Penetrating Radar, Waterloo, Ontario, 747760
Annan AP, Davis JL (1997) Ground penetrating radarcoming of
ageat last!! In Proceedings of Exploration 97: Fourth
DecennialInternational Conference on Mineral Exploration, edited by
A.G.Gubins. pp. 515522
Benson RC, Glaccum RA, Noel MR (1982) Geophysical techniques
forsensing buried wastes and waste migration. Environmental
MonitoringSystems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada
Beres M, Haeni FP (1991) Application of ground penetrating
radarmethods in hydrogeologic studies. Ground Water 29:375386
Bhattacharya PK, Patra HP (1968) Direct current electrical
sounding.Elsevier, Amsterdam
Brewster ML, Annan AP (1994) Ground-penetrating radar
monitoringof a controlled DNAPL release: 200 MHz radar.
Geophysics59:12111221
Busby JP, Merritt JW (1999) Quaternary deformation mapping
withground penetrating radar. J Appl Geophys 41:7591
Cagnoli B, Ulrych TJ (2001) Singular value decomposition and
wavyreflections in ground-penetrating radar images of base surge
de-posits. J Appl Geophys 48:175182
Cai J, McMechan G, Fisher M (1996) Application of
groundpenetratingradar to investigation of near-surface fault
properties in the SanFrancisco Bay region. Bull Seismol Soc Am
86:14591470
Camelbeeck T, Meghraoui M (1998) Geological and geophysical
evi-dence for large paleoearthquakes with surface faulting in the
RoerGraben (northwest Europe). Geophys J Int 132:347362
Chandra S, Dewandel B, Dutta S, Ahmed S (2010) Geophysical
modelof geological discontinuities in a granitic aquifer: analyzing
smallscale variability of electrical resistivity for groundwater
occur-rences. J Appl Geophys 71:137148
Compagnie Generaledi Geophysique (1963) Master curves for
electri-cal sounding, 2nd edn. EAEG, The Hague
Daniels JJ (1996) Surface penetrating radar. The Institution of
ElectricalEngineers, London
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117 3115
-
Davis JL, Annan AP (1989) Ground penetrating radar for high
resolu-tion mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophys
Prospect37:531551
Davis SN, Turk LJ (1964) Optimum depth of wells in crystalline
rocks.Ground Water 2(2):611
Dehls JF, Olesen O, Olsen L, Blikra L (2000) Neotectonic
faulting innorthern Norway; the Stuoragurra and
Nordmannvikdalenpostglacial faults. Quat Sci Rev 19:14471460
Demanet D, Evers LG, Teerlynck H, Dost B, Jongmans D
(2001)Geophysical investigation across the Peel boundary fault
(theNetherlands) for a paleoseismological study. Geol Mijnb
80:119127
Dentith M, ONeill A, Clark D (2010) Ground penetrating radar as
ameans of studying palaeofault scarps in a deeply weathered
terrain,southwestern Western Australia. J Appl Geophys 72:92101
Dewandel B, Lachassagne P, Wyns R, Marechal JC, Krishnamurthy
NS(2006) A generalized 3-D geological and hydrogeological
concep-tual model of granite aquifers controlled by single or
multiphaseweathering. J Hydrol 330:260284
Eswaran H, Bin WC (1978) A study of deep weathering profile
ongranite in peninsular Malaysia: I Physico-chemical and
micromor-phological properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:144149
Frohlich RK, Kelly WE (1985) The relation between hydraulic
trans-missivity and transverse resistance in a complicated aquifer
ofglacial outwash deposits. J Hydrol 79:215229
Gleick PH, CohenMJ, MorikawaM,Morrison J, PalaniappanM (2008)The
worlds water 20082009: the biennial report on freshwaterresources.
Island Press, Washington DC
Grasmueck M (1996) 3-D ground-penetrating radar applied to
fractureimaging in gneiss. Geophysics 61:10501064
Greaves JG, Lesmes DP, Lee ML, Toksz MN (1996) Velocity
varia-tions and water content estimated from multi-offset,
ground-penetrating radar. Geophysics 61:683695
Griffiths DH, Barker RD (1993) Two dimensional imaging modeling
inareas of complex geology. J Appl Geophys 20:211226
Griffiths DH, Turnbull J, Olayinka AI (1990) Two dimensional
resistivitymapping with a computer controlled array. First Break
8:121129
Holser WT, Brown RJS, Roberts FA, Fredrikkson OA, Unterberger
RR(1972) Radar logging of a salt dome. Geophysics 37(5):889906
Holub P, Dumitrescu T (1994) Detection des cavites a` laide
demesures electriques et du georadar dans une galerie dameneedeau.
J Appl Geophys 31:185195
Howard KWF, Hughes M, Charlesworth DL, Ngobi G
(1992)Hydrogeologic evaluation of fracture permeability in
crystallinebasement aquifers of Uganda. Appl Hydrogeol 1:5565
Hughes LJ (2009) Mapping contaminant-transport structures in
karstbedrock with ground-penetrating radar. Geophysics
74(6):B197B208
Huisman JA, Sperl C, Bouten W, Verstraten JM (2001) Soil
watercontent measurements at different scales: accuracy of time
domainreflectometry and ground-penetrating radar. J Hydrol
245:4858
Hwang YK, Anthony LE, Scott DP, Beth LP (2008) Long-term
groundpenetrating radar monitoring of a small volume DNAPL release
ina natural groundwater flow field. J Contam Hydrol 97:112
Jeannin MS, Garambois C, Grgoire D, Jongmans (2006)
Multiconfiguration. Alps Geophysics 71(3):B85B92
Jeffrey E, Patterson, Frederick A, Cook (2002) Successful
applicationof ground penetrating radar in the exploration of gem
tourmalinepegmatites of Southern California. Geophys Prospect
50(2):107117. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00312.x
Jordan TE, Baker GS, Henn K, Messier JP (2004) Using
amplitudevariation with offset and normalized residual polarization
analysisof ground penetrating radar data to differentiate an NAPL
releasefrom stratigraphic changes. J Appl Geophys 56:4158
Kim C, Daniels JJ, Guy ED, Radzevicius SJ, Holt J (2000)
Residualhydrocarbons in a water saturated medium: a detection
strategyusing ground penetrating radar. Environ Geosci 7:169176
Koefoed O (1979) Geosounding principles: resistivity sounding
mea-surements, vol 1. Elsevier, New York
Kovin O (2011) Mapping of evaporite deformation in a potash
mineusing ground penetrating radar: Upper Kama deposit, Russia.
JAppl Geophys 74:131141
Kuusela-Lahtinen A, Niemi A, Luukkonen A (2003) Flow dimensionas
an indicator of hydraulic behaviour in site characterization
offractured rock. Ground Water 41(3):33341
Lane JW, Williams JH, Johnson CD, Savino SDM, Haeni FP
(2001)Application of a geophysical btool-boxQ approach to
characteri-zation of fractured-rock aquifers: a case study from
Norwalk,Connecticut. Proceedings of the Symposium on the
Applicationof Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental
Problems(SAGEEP 2001), Denver, Colorado, USA, CD-ROM
Lopes de Castro D, Castelo Branco RMG (2003) 4-D ground
penetrat-ing radar monitoring of a hydrocarbon leakage site in
Fortaleza(Brazil) during its remediation process: a case history. J
ApplGeophys 54:127144
McClymont AF, Green AG, Streich R, Horstmeyer H, Tronicke J,
NobesDC, Pettinga J, Campbell J, Langridge R (2008) Visualization
ofactive faults using geometric attributes of 3D GPR data: an
examplefrom the Alpine Fault Zone. New Zeal Geophys
73(2):B11B23
McMechan GA, Loucks RG, Mescher P, Zeng X (2002)Characterization
of a coalesced, collapsed paleocave reservoiranalog using GPR and
well-core data. Geophysics 67:11481158
Orellana E (1972) Prospeccion geolectrica en corriente continua.
Ed.Paraninfo, Madrid
Orellana E, Mooney HM (1966) Master tables and curves for
verticalelectrical sounding over layered structures. Interientia,
Madrid
Osama H, Giamou P (1998) Ground penetrating radar for detection
ofleaks in buried plastic water distribution pipes. In: Papers for
7thInt Conf Ground-Penetrating Radar. Lawrence, Kansas, 783786
Owen RJ, Gwavava O, Gwaze P (2005) Multi-electrode
resistivitysurvey for groundwater exploration in the Harare
greenstone belt,Zimbabwe. Hydrogeol J 14:244252.
doi:10.1007/s10040- 004-0420-7
Patnaik I (2010) Distress situation in dryland areas impacts on
liveli-hood pattern and the coping strategies: a review. Research
Unit forLivelihood and Natural Resources, working paper no. 96
Rashed M, Kawamura D, Nemoto H, Miyata T, Nakagawa K
(2003)Ground penetrating radar investigations across the Uemachi
fault,Osaka, Japan. J Appl Geophy 53:6375
Rijkswaterstaat (1969) Standard graphs for resistivity
prospecting. TheNetherlands
Rosemary K (2001) Ground penetrating radar for environmental
appli-cations. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 29:229255
Sankaran S, Rangarajan R, Krishnakumar K, Saheb Rao S, Smitha
V(2010) Geophysical and tracer studies to detect subsurface
chro-mium contamination and suitable site for waste disposal
inRanipet, Vellore district, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Earth
Sci60:757764. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0213-3
Sankaran S, Sonkamble S, Krishnakumar K, Mondal NC
(2012)Integrated approach for demarcating subsurface pollution
andsaline water intrusion zones in SIPCOT area: a case study
fromCuddalore in Southern India. Environ Monit Assess 184:51215138.
doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2327-9
Snchal P, Perroud H, Snchal G (2000) Interpretation of
reflectionattributes in a 3-D GPR survey at Vallee dOssau,
westernPyrenees, France. Geophysics 65(5):14351445
Sharma A, Rajamani V (2000) Weathering of gneissic rocks in
theupper reaches of Cauvery river, south India: implications
toneotectonics of the region. Chem Geol 166:203233
Sonkamble S, Sahya A, Mondal NC, Harikumar P (2012) Appraisal
andevolution of hydrochemical processes from proximity basalt
andgranite areas of Deccan Volcanic Province (DVP) in India.
JHydrol 438439:181193. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.022
3116 Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00312.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-%20004-0420-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-%20004-0420-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0213-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2327-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.022
-
Sonkamble S, Chandra S, Nagaiah E, Dar FA, Somvanshi VK, AhmedS
(2013a) Geophysical signatures resolving hydrogeological
com-plexities over hard rock terraina study from Southern
India.Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-013-0931-4
Sonkamble S, Sethurama S, Krishnakumar K, Dhunde P, Amarender
B,Satish Kumar V (2013b) Role of geophysical and
hydrogeologicaltechniques in EIA studies to identify TSDF site for
industrial wastemanagement. J Geol Soc India 81:472480
Tardy Y (1971) Characterization of the principal weathering
types bythe geochemistry of waters from some European and
Africancrystalline massifs. Chem Geol 7:253271
Taylor R, Howard K (2000) A tectono-geomorphic model of the
hy-drogeology of deeply weathered crystalline rock: evidence
fromUganda. Hydrogeol J 8(3):279294
Theune U, Rokosh D, Sacchi M, Schmitt D (2006) Mapping
fractureswith GPR: a case study from Turtle Mountain.
Geophysics71(5):B139B150
Van Overmeeren RA, Sariowan SV, Gehrels JC (1997)
Groundpenetrating radar for determining volumetric soil water
content;result of comparative measurements at two sites. J
Hydrol197:316338
Vender Velpen BPA (1988) A computer processing package for
D.C.Resistivity interpretation for an IBM compatibles. ITC Jour.,
Vol. 4,The Netherlands
Wright EP (1992) The hydrogeology of crystalline basement
aquifers inAfrica. In: EP Wright, W Burgess (Eds.), The
hydrogeology of crys-talline basement aquifers in Africa vol. 66
(Geological Society SpecialPublication). Amer Assn of Petroleum
Geologists, Tulsa. pp. 127
Wyatt DE, Temples TJ (1996) Ground-penetrating radar detection
ofsmall-scale channels, joints and faults in the unconsolidated
sed-iments of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Environ Geol
27:219225
Wyns R, Gourry JC, Baltassat JM, Lebert F (1999)
Caracterisationmultiparame`tres des horizons de subsurface (0100 m)
encontexte de socle altere. In: I. BRGM, IRD, UPMC (Eds.),2e`me
Colloque GEOFCAN, Orleans, France, pp. 105110.
Wyns R, Baltassat JM, Lachassagne P, Legchenko A, Vairon J,
MathieuF (2004) Application of SNMR sounding for groundwater
re-sources mapping in weathered basement rocks. Bull Soc Geol
Fr175(1):2134
Yetton MD, Nobes DC (1998) Recent vertical offset and
nearsurfacestructure of the Alpine Fault in Westland, New Zealand,
fromground penetrating radar profiling. NZ J Geol Geophys
41:485492
Arab J Geosci (2014) 7:31093117 3117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-0931-4
Combined...AbstractIntroductionBrief about the study
areaGeological and hydrogeological characteristicsMaterials and
replicability of the approachGPR methodElectrical resistivity
methods
Results and discussionConclusionsReferences