This article was published in Journal of Applied Geophysics, Vol. 57, Page Nos.

155-166, Copyright (2005), and is posted with permission from Elsevier.

Delineation of groundwater-bearing fracture zones in a hard rock area integrating Very Low Frequency Electromagnetic and Resistivity data

S.P. Sharma and V. C. Baranwal Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, 721302, India

Address for Correspondence: Dr S.P. Sharma Associate Professor Dept. of Geology and Geophysics IIT, Kharagpur, 721302, India Tel: +91-3222-283386 Fax: +91-3222-282268 E-mail: spsharma@gg.iitkgp.ernet.in

Abstract
Integrated electrical and electromagnetic surveys were carried out in hard rock areas of Purulia district (West Bengal), India, for delineation of groundwater-bearing zones that would be suitable for construction of deep tube-wells for large amounts of water. Groundwater movement that occurs through fractures in hard rocks is suitable to be delineated by very low frequency (VLF) electromagnetic surveys. A detailed survey of the area was done using a VLF-WADI instrument and appropriate locations were selected for further study using Schlumberger resistivity sounding. Hence, the entire area was surveyed in a relatively short time by the combined use of resistivity and electromagnetic surveys. Areas showing VLF anomalies may or may not be appropriate for drilling tubewells. In the northern part of the area, fracture zones are shallow, as exhibited by the small magnitude of VLF anomalies and by shallow conducting structures interpreted from the resistivity data. A VLF survey and subsequent resistivity sounding at suitable locations suggest the existence of deep groundwater sources in the southern part of the area. VLF anomalies have shown larger magnitudes in the southern part of the area than those in the northern part of the area. Self-potential and resistivity profiling data also showed correlation with results obtained using VLF and resistivity sounding. A typical variation in self potential (SP) anomaly, i.e., positive SP anomaly for low resistivity, was observed near the locations found suitable and could be interpreted as the result of potential developed due to streaming of fluid within the fractured rocks.

Keywords: Groundwater exploration, Hard rock areas, Integrated interpretation, VLF electromagnetic method, Resistivity method, Self potential

1. Introduction
Electrical and electromagnetic geophysical methods have been widely used in groundwater investigations because of good correlation between electrical properties (electrical resistivity, etc), geology and fluid content (Flathe, 1955; Zohdy, 1969; Fitterman and Stewart, 1986; McNeill, 1990). Electrical profiling, i.e. multi-electrode Wenner profiling, which is used for mapping lateral resistivity variations can be replaced by EM techniques as the electrical technique is slow and thus is not cost effective relative to the electromagnetic technique. From various electrical methods, the direct-current (DC) resistivity method for conducting a vertical electrical sounding (i.e. Schlumberger sounding) is effectively used for groundwater studies due to the simplicity of the technique, easy interpretation and rugged nature of the associated instrumentation. The technique is widely used in soft and hard rock areas (e.g. Van Overmeeren, 1989; Urish and Frohlich, 1990; Ebraheem et al., 1997). However, groundwater investigations in hard rock areas are often more difficult, as tube-wells must be located exactly to be successful. Tube-wells drilled without proper geophysical and hydrogeological study often fail to produce groundwater.

In hard rock areas, groundwater is found in the cracks and fractures of the local rock. Groundwater yield depends on the size of fractures and their interconnectivity. Use of Schlumberger sounding is well known for determining the resistivity variation with depth. However, it is very difficult to perform resistivity soundings everywhere without a priori information. The VLF method has been applied successfully to map the resistivity contrast at boundaries of fractured zones having a high degree of connectivity (Parasnis, 1973). Further, the VLF method yields a higher depth of penetration in hard rock areas because of their high resistivity (McNeill et al., 1991). Therefore, a combined study of VLF and DC resistivity has potential to be successful (Benson et al., 1997, Bernard and Valla, 1991). VLF data are also useful in determining the appropriate strike direction to perform resistivity soundings (i.e. parallel to strike), again improving the likelihood of success.

Integrated geophysical studies were performed on the campus of Sainik School, Purulia, West Bengal, India. Tube-wells have been drilled in the area in the past time, have failed. Therefore Sainik School is dependent on a direct supply of water from the riverbed. Thus, due to the failure of the tube-wells, an integrated study was needed. This study was accomplished by a VLF survey followed by resistivity sounding, an SP survey and a Wenner profiling to find suitable locations on the school campus.

2. Geology of the area

The area is characterized by gently-dipping metamorphic rocks striking approximately N200W to S200E with low land areas on the east as well as on the west side of the area under study. The topography of the area is such that it forms a ridge type structure with its axis approximately perpendicular to the strike of the formations. The rock type is granite gneiss, amphibolite, mica schist, quartzite, quartz vein, calc-silicate rocks with interbanded crystalline limestone. The upper surface of the study area is composed of thin soil cover followed by crystalline massive metamorphic rocks of very high resistivity. Metamorphic rocks are also exposed on the surface at several locations. The surface exposure shows the strike of the formation to be approximately in the E-W direction and it is gently dipping. The most common rocks in the Purulia district are granites and granite gneiss in which metabasics occur as intrusives.

Previous studies carried out in another part of the district by the Central Ground Water Board, India (CGWB) show the occurrence of ground water is mainly in (1) fractured zones of hard rock (2) the narrow zones of unconsolidated sediments along major river valleys and (3) the weathered zone. The interbanded rocks are supposed to be fractured at depth and groundwater movement occurs through these fractures. The potential aquifer essentially contains two units: (1) weathered residuum, 8-10 m thick with porous and uncompacted rocks containing water in the interstices and (2) underlying fractured hard rocks, which store water within the secondary porosity.

3. Geophysical Surveys
a) VLF electromagnetic survey

The radio signals transmitted from worldwide transmitters, used for navigation purposes in the frequency range of 5-30 kHz are used as a source for the primary field in a VLF survey. Such type of transmitting source makes VLF instrument very light and portable, and can be useful to survey a large area quite quickly. VLF magnetic field measurement makes use of E-polarization in which a transmitter is selected in the direction of strike and measuring profiles are taken perpendicular to the strike direction. Generally, the horizontal and vertical components of magnetic fields are measured, and real and imaginary anomalies are computed using the expression given by Smith and Ward (1974) 2( H z / H x ) cos 1 ( Hz / Hx )2

tan 2 = and e=

(1)

H z H x sin , H12

(2)

where is dip angle, e is ellipticity, H z and H x are the amplitudes, the phase difference
= z x , in which z is the phase of H z and x is the phase of H x and

H1 = H z e i sin + H x cos . The tangent of the tilt angle is a good approximation of

the ratio of the real component of the vertical secondary magnetic field to the horizontal primary magnetic field. The ellipticity is a good approximation of the ratio of the quadrature component of the vertical secondary magnetic field to the horizontal primary field (Paterson and Ronka, 1971). These quantities are called the real (= tan 100 %) and imaginary (= e 100 %) anomalies, respectively and they are normally expressed as percentage.

VLF data were collected using an ABEM-WADI instrument. Since the strike of the formation was approximately in the E-W direction, a transmitter in this direction with a frequency of 19.8 kHz was used. This transmitter was appropriate for E-polarization VLF surveys. Next, we covered much of the area by making suitable traverses along hydrogeologically suitable locations. Traverses 0100E, 0090E, 0200E, 0210E, 0300E, 0400E, and 0410E were on the east side of the Campus, while 0500E and 0510E were on the west side of the campus as shown in Fig. 1. b) Electrical surveys Schlumberger resistivity soundings were performed at ten locations using a DC resistivity meter. Sounding locations were selected by detailed study of the area with a VLF survey as well as by their hydrogeological suitability. The locations where resistivity soundings were performed are shown in Fig. 1. Current electrode spacings were gradually increased up to 800 m for delineation of deeper structures. Electrodes were spread in the east-west direction, i.e. parallel to strike direction (as determined by the VLF study).

Over layered earth structures (1-D situation) variation in apparent resistivity with current electrode separations is quite smooth (Koefoed, 1979). Further, this variation is also smooth when the direction of spread is parallel to the strike and erratic when the direction of spread is perpendicular to the strike for 2-D situation (Keller and Frischknecht, 1966). In the present study, a rather smooth variation in apparent resistivity is observed up to large electrode separations in the strike (east-west) direction. Therefore, we assume that in such situation 1-D interpretation will yield significant subsurface features for the recommendation of appropriate drilling locations.

Resistivity data are interpreted using a Very Fast Simulated Annealing (VFSA) 1-D global inversion scheme (Sharma and Kaikkonen, 1999). Several solutions are derived for a particular sounding, and the mean model is computed. Here, it is important to mention that the original algorithm was modified from Sharma and Kaikkonen (1999), so that the mean model as well as its fitting with the observed data is improved.

Uncertainties in the mean model parameters are also computed from covariance matrices obtained from various solutions.

Finally, Wenner profiling and SP survey were carried out on a traverse covering the most important area (VES-3 to VES-7) and the anomalies were studied for correlation with VLF and resistivity interpretations.

4. Results
a) VLF data interpretation

The VLF WADI instrument displays the filtered real anomaly on the screen, and this anomaly can be roughly interpreted on site. This feature of the instrument is used to select sounding locations for resistivity surveys. For further detailed information of the subsurface, the measured real and imaginary anomalies were re-discretized at 1 m interval and filtered using the approach of Karous and Hjelt (1983). This process yields pseudo-section of relative current density variation with depth. A higher value of relative current density corresponds to conductive subsurface structures. It is observed that apparent current density cross-sections using real and imaginary anomalies show almost similar features. Therefore, for simplicity only the real component results are presented in Figs. 2 to 8. Apparent current density cross-section also gives a rough idea about the dip direction; however, exact dip angle can not be estimated due to the vertical axis variable being a pseudo depth only. Site VES-1 was selected for resistivity sounding at the beginning of VLF profile 0100E due to suitable hydrogeology of the location. Current density cross-sections obtained using real anomalies along profile 0100E (Fig. 2) show accumulation of current between stations 200 and 250 m. On profile 0090E (Fig. 3), which is 100 m east and parallel to profile 0100E, little accumulation of current density is observed. So we performed a resistivity sounding VES-2 between these two profiles, 200 m from the starting point of the profile. Asymmetry in the observed real and imaginary anomalies suggests the

dipping nature of a subsurface conductive body (Ogilvy and Lee, 1991; Kaikkonen and Sharma, 1998). The apparent current density cross-section along VLF profile 0200E (Fig. 4) shows shallow conductive features near stations 50, 180, 275 and 360 m. Profile 0210E (Fig. 5), which is 50 m east of profile 0200E and parallel to it, reveals a highly conductive subsurface near station 100 m. This anomaly is not clearly seen in profile 0200E; however, there is an indication of the presence of a conducting feature near station 50 m on profile 0200E. This feature is in accordance with the strike direction of the formations in the area. There is a good correlation between these two cross-sections (Figs. 4 and 5). Resistivity soundings VES-3 and VES-4 were performed at stations 50 and 360 m on the profile 0200E.

The pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0300E (Fig. 6) shows conducting features near stations 50 and 300 m. This profile has the most significant anomalies in this study. Hence soundings VES-5 and VES-6 are positioned at stations 50 and 300 m, respectively. A sudden change in magnitude of the real anomaly of VLF data is observed near 300 m location (Fig. 6). Further along this profile, an asymmetric anomaly near the station 100 m reveals a dipping structure. Observed data between stations 100 to150 m reveal that the profile direction is down dip of the structure, and this dip direction is also reflected in the pseudo current density section (Fig. 6). A high in the pseudo current density section is observed at station 300 m. There is neither low-lying land near 50 and 300 m locations, nor any source of moisture in the ground. The top surface is totally dry and compacted at these locations. Hence this high current density suggests the likelihood of conductive material at depth, and can be interpreted as an indication of the presence of fractures containing groundwater. Profile 0400E is 500 m long and is a continuation of 0300E in the same direction. The magnitude of the anomaly is not large and it is also scattered. The pseudo current density cross-section along this profile shows conductive features between stations 250 to 350 m. This feature may be due to a low land area and excess moisture in the ground. The anomaly also occurs near a pond, so we did not select a location for a resistivity sounding

on this profile. On profile 0410E (Fig. 7) approximately 150 m east of profile 0400E, a conductive feature is seen near 40 m. This feature may be a continuation of the fractures seen in profile 0300E. The location of the feature was selected for sounding VES-7.

Profiles 0500E and 0510E (Fig. 1) are on the west side of the campus. This area is composed of rocks of very high resistivity (outcropping at several places) covered with saturated clay. Due to this clay at the surface, the VLF signal could not penetrate deeper conducting objects. Both profiles show conducting features with less than 20% current gathering. Two resistivity soundings VES-8 and VES-9 were performed in this area. VES-8 was selected according to the hydrogeology of the location and VES-9 was selected on the basis of profile 0510E, which shows a conducting feature at station 250 m (Fig. 8). Since the west side of the area does not seem suitable, therefore, current density cross-section for profile 0510E is presented only. b) Resistivity data interpretation: Interpretations of all the resistivity soundings are presented in Fig. 9. The resistivities of various layers of interpreted models are shown numerically on the figure and thicknesses are marked on the abscissa. Solid symbols represent the observed data while solid lines represent the corresponding model data. The maximum half-current electrode separation (AB/2) is limited to only 100 m for VES-1 and VES-2 due to space limitation; however, it increases up to 400 m for VES-5, VES-6 and VES-7. Fitting between the observed and model data is very good for all the soundings except soundings VES-8 and VES-9.

Figure 9a shows the interpretation of VES-1 and VES-2. VES-1 was selected on the basis of hydrogeological suitability of the location, and shows only a two-layer structure. The observations do not show any signature of the fractured formation at greater depth. The current flow in the subsurface is very small, indicating that the formation is compact at depth. A small borehole drilled previously near this location failed to yield water, in agreement with the interpreted results. The interpreted results for VES-2, which was selected on the basis of the VLF pseudo current density cross sections (Figs. 2 and 3), show a six-layered structure. Though the sounding curve looks like a 2-layer curve, it was

not possible to interpret the data using 2 and 3-layer models. The current flow in the subsurface has initially an increasing and then a decreasing trend with increase of electrode separation. This trend shows the presence of a multiple conducting and resistive structures at depth. The third and fifth layers show the fractured formations; however, they are very shallow and their thicknesses are too small to justify the construction of a tube-well. Therefore, the location, which shows a VLF anomaly, is found unsuitable after interpretation of the resistivity sounding.

Figure 9b shows the interpretation of soundings VES-3, VES-4 and VES-10. Interpretation of resistivity sounding VES-3 shows a five layer model of alternatively high and low resistivities. Alternate variation of resistivity is also indicated by variation of current flow in the formation. The second and fourth layers exhibit low resistivities, suggesting fractured formations, but due to their small thicknesses, this site can not be recommended for tube-wells. Generally, this type of location is suitable for large diameter dug wells. However, there is already a dug well exactly west of this sounding location which yields a good amount of water. This dug well dries out in the summer season, because of the shallow source of groundwater. Interpretation of sounding data VES-3 clearly demonstrates this feature. The finding of the geophysical surveys is also supported by three deep tube-wells drilled previously about 50 to 100 m north-west of this location. These tube-wells failed to yield any groundwater. Sounding VES-4 is located about 300 m south of VES-3. Both soundings look similar, but their interpretations are different. For VES-4, the bottom layer is interpreted as a conducting layer. This interpretation is supported by the increase in current flow at larger electrode separations.

Soundings VES-5, VES-6 and VES-7 are similar to sounding VES-4. For each sounding, the bottom layer has been interpreted as a conductive layer. A sudden increase in current flow for the same applied voltage is observed from 200 to 400m AB/2 values at these sounding locations therefore, assumption for the bottom layer to be conductive is reasonable. Figure 9c shows the same apparent resistivity curves at larger current electrode separations for these three soundings. The interpreted resistivity of the bottom

10

layer for soundings VES-6 and VES-7 is unrealistically small; however, it should not be so small. This is a problem caused by optimization algorithm, which has included a very small resistivity value to reduce the misfit error.

The location of VES-6 was selected at station 300 m correspond to the position of a very strong VLF anomaly (about 34%) on profile 0300E (Fig. 6). The location of VES7 is adjacent to VES-6 and was selected from profile 0410E (Fig. 7). The apparent current density at the location is 35%, which is an indication of good fracture zones. The similar VES-6 and VES-7 results indicate that the two locations may be interconnected by the presence of fractured zones. Therefore, all these pieces of evidence strongly recommend the suitability of the position of VES-6 and VES-7 as locating a large storage of ground water and hence for the construction of tube-wells.

Soundings VES-8 and VES-9 were performed at the west side of the campus. Their observed data are best fitted using two-layered and five-layered models respectively (Fig. 9d). Interpretation of VES-8 shows the top layer to have low resistivity and small thickness, and to overlie a highly resistive basement. VES-9 results are interpreted to show that the top two layers are saturated clay and dry clay layer, respectively. The fourth layer underlies a highly resistive third layer and has a thickness of 6.8 m with large uncertainty in interpretation. This layer may contain groundwater but it is not favorable for deep tube-wells as this layer is quite shallow. Further, the fit between the observed and model data for these two sounding is not good. The slope of the sounding curve is more than 450, which is not possible for layered earth structures. This is a typical behavior of dipping structure in hard rock areas (Bhattacharya and Patra, 1968).

The location for the last sounding, VES-10, was selected on the basis of a VLF anomaly and results of resistivity soundings VES-3 and VES-4. The location was selected after consideration of hydrogeological and geophysical suitability, and is nearest to the residential areas. If this location were found to be suitable then it would reduce the cost of installing a long transportation line. This location is between location VES-3 and VES4 and shows six layers alternating with relatively high and low resistivities. Resistivities

11

of the second and fourth layers are promising for ground water availability with layer thicknesses of approximately 3 and 4 m, respectively. The last layer is conductive compared to the fifth layer but its resistivity is high, showing that the formation at depth is not fractured much. Hence, the second and fourth layers are too shallow to be suitable for a deep tube-well, and the last layer is not likely to yield groundwater. This location is therefore also not very promising for a deep tube-well.

c) Resistivity profiling and SP Survey After measuring the VLF responses on various profile lines and performing resistivity soundings, we conducted resistivity profiling using a Wenner configuration with a 150 m current electrode separation (i.e. a=50 m) to map the variation of resistivity approximately at 50 m depth. The traverse was made approximately perpendicular to the strike at intervals of 10 m. The variation of apparent resistivity with distance is shown in Fig. 10b.

The SP response was also measured along the same profile line with a 10 m potential electrode separation. If the conductive zones were due to presence of mineralization, then there should be high negative SP anomalies corresponding to these bodies, such anomalies are not observed. The observed positive SP anomaly is interpreted to be caused by a streaming potential developed due to groundwater flow in the fractured formation (Pozdnyakova et al., 2001). There is some correlation of low resistivity with a positive SP response and high resistivity with a negative SP response. The approximate positions of various soundings are marked on the SP anomaly curve (Fig. 10a).

5. Discussion and conclusions

Fractures are the primary source to store and allow movement of groundwater in hard rock areas. The size and location of the fractures, interconnection of the fractures, amount of the material that may be clogging the fractures and recharging sources determine how much water one can get out of the hard rock. The volume of water stored in fractured

12

hard rocks is less compared to the conventional aquifer. When fractures become narrower at depth, this amount further decreases. The total amount of water storage in the fractures of hard rock area is small; hence, groundwater levels and the well's yield can decline dramatically during the summers. Therefore, the location of potential fracture zones in hard rock area is extremely important to yield large amounts of groundwater and this can not be done using just one approach. Thus groundwater potential of any location in hard rock areas must be assessed by several approaches (geophysical as well as hydrogeological). A location found suitable on the basis of several approaches is less likely to fail in yielding groundwater.

The efficacy of the combination of VLF electromagnetic, DC resistivity soundings, SP measurement and Wenner Profiling is presented here to map the fractures in a hard rock area. The anomaly obtained in VLF measurements is an indication of the presence of conductive zone, which may or may not be suitable as VLF can not discriminate between deep and shallow sources. Therefore it is necessary to follow the location of these VLF anomalies with a technique that investigate the depth of these conductive sources. Resistivity profiling and SP measurement also add valuable information about the presence of a conducting fracture and groundwater movement. A positive SP anomaly is observed over those fractures which contain flowing fluid.

The integrated interpretation undertaken in the hard rock area reveals that the fractures in the northern part of the area are shallower than those in the southern part. The magnitudes of VLF anomalies are the largest in southern part of the area (profile 0300E and 0410E). As the fractures are shallow and show smaller magnitude of VLF anomalies in northern part, it is likely that fractures will become dry in summer season. However, fractures showing a large anomaly due to a deeper conductive zone in the southern part of the area will be more suitable for groundwater exploitation for longer duration and it is unlikely that they will dry in summer season.

The most important phenomenon observed during the resistivity sounding in southern part of the area is that the current flow in subsurface regions increases dramatically for

13

larger current electrode separations, showing the presence of a conducting formation at depth. A sudden increase in current flow for the same applied voltage is observed from 200 to 400 m AB/2 values at VES-6 and VES-7 locations. Such increase in current flow over a large range of AB/2 values may be due to presence of a thick fractured saturated formation. Isolated 3-D conductive objects may not show such behavior. Hence the sounding locations VES-6 and VES-7 are the most suitable locations for drilling a deep tube-well. The sounding locations VES-4 and VES-5 are also suitable; however, the best locations are VES-6 and VES-7 and most probably these two locations are interconnected with a common subsurface fracture.

The presence of a recharging source is very important to obtain a continuous supply in a hard rock area. A recharging source is present near the area which is nearest to the VES-6 and VES-7 locations. If the recharging sources were exhausted in an extreme season, then the tube-well may go dry. However, recharge exhaustion is unlikely near the locations VES-6 and VES-7. Drilling of a 100 to 120 m deep tube-well is recommended at these locations. It is important to note that, if these locations (VES-6 or VES-7) fail to yield the appropriate amount of groundwater, drilling at other locations would be meaningless. Further, the VLF survey reveals that there are several shallow and deep fracture zones in the area. It is unlikely to obtain a large amount of groundwater supply from a single source in hard rock areas. Therefore, groundwater should be collected from several sources, such as dug-wells. As the movement of groundwater takes place, the subsurface will become more and more productive due to an increase in secondary porosity. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Editor Dr A. Hordt; Reviewer Dr M. Hatch and other anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions to improve the quality of manuscript. The study is a part of the project ESS/23/VES/099/2000, DST, Govt. of India.

14

References:
Benson, A. K., Payne, K. L. and Stubben, M. A., 1997. Mapping groundwater contamination using DC resistivity and VLF geophysical methods - A case study: Geophysics, 62, 80-86. Bernard, J. and Valla, P., 1991. Groundwater exploration in fissured media with electrical and VLF methods, Geoexploration, 27, 81-91. Bhattacharya, P.K. and Patra, H.P., 1968. Direct Current Geoelectric Sounding, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Ebraheem, A.M., Sensosy, M.M., Dahab, K.A., 1997. Geoelectrical and Hydrogeochemical studies for delineating ground-water contamination due to salt-water intrusion in the northern part of the Nile delta, Egypt. Ground Water, 35, 216222. Fitterman, D. V. and Stewart, M. T., 1986. Transient Electromagnetic Sounding for Groundwater. Geophysics, 51, 995-1005. Flathe, H., 1955. Possibilities and Limitations in Applying Geoelectrical Methods to Hydrogeological Problems in the Coastal Areas of North West Germany. Geophysical Prospecting, 3, 95-110. Kaikkonen, P. and Sharma, S.P., 1998. 2-D nonlinear joint inversion of VLF and VLF-R data using simulated annealing, J. of Applied Geophysics, 39, 155-176. Karous, M., and Hjelt, S.E., 1983. Linear-filtering of VLF dip-angle measurements: Geophys. Prosp., 31, 782894. Keller, G.V. and Frischknecht, F.C., 1966. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting, Pergamon, New York. Koefoed, O., 1979, Geosounding Principle-1, 276 pages, Elsevier, Amsterdam. McNeill, J. D., 1990. Use of Electromagnetic Methods for Groundwater Studies. In: Ward, S. H. (Ed.). Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, vol 1: Review and Tutorial, Society of Exploration Geophysicists Investigations No.5, 107-112. McNeill, J. D. and Labson, V. F., 1991. Geological Mapping using VLF Radiofields. In Nabighian, M. C. (Ed), Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, vol. 1, Review and Tutorial. Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 191-218. Ogilvy, R. D. and Lee, A.C., 1991. Interpretation of VLF-EM in-phase data using current density pseudo-sections, Geophys. Prosp., 39, 567-580.

15

Paterson, N. R. and Ronka, V., 1971. Five years of surveying with the very low frequency electromagnetic method, Geo-exploration, 9, 7-26. Parasnis, D. S., 1973. Mining Geophysics: Methods in Geochemistry and Geophysics. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Pozdnyakova, L., Pozdnyakov, A. and Zhang, R., 2001. Application of geophysical methods to evaluate hydrology and soil properties in urban areas, Urban Water, 3, 205-216. Sharma, S.P. and Kaikkonen, P., 1999. Appraisal of equivalence and suppression problems in 1D EM and DC measurements using global optimization and joint inversion. Geophys. Prosp., 47, 219-249. Smith, B.D., and Ward, S.H., 1974. On the computation of polarization ellipse parameters: Geophysics, 39, 867-869. Urish, D.W., Frohlich, R.K., 1990. Surface electrical resistivity in coastal groundwater exploration. Geoexploration, 26, 267289. Van Overmeeren, R.A., 1989. Aquifer boundaries explored by geoelectrical measurements in the coastal plain of Yemen: a case of equivalence. Geophysics 54, 3848. Zohdy, A. A. R. 1969. The Use of Schlumberger and Eqatorial Soundings in Groundwater Investigations near El Paso. Texas. Geophysics, 34, 713-728.

16

Figure 1: Location map of the area

17

[%]
0

Depth (m)

20 12 4

-20 -40 -60 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

-4 -12 -20

Distance (m)
Figure 2: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0100E using Real anomaly of VLF data

[%]
18 8

Depth (m)

-20 -40 -60 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

-2

-12

-22

Distance (m)
Figure 3: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0090E using Real anomaly of VLF data

[%]
Depth (m)
-10 -30 -50
-6 10

-70 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

-14

Distance (m)
Figure 4: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0200E using Real anomaly of VLF data

18

[%]
Depth (m)
-10 -30 -50 -70 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
23 11

-1

-13

-25

Distance (m)
Figure 5: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0210E using Real anomaly of VLF data

40

Real anomaly (%)

20 0 -20 -40

Depth (m)

0 -20 -40 -60

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

[%]
28 16 4 -8 -20

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Distance (m)
Figure 6: Observed Real anomaly and Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0300E using Real anomaly of VLF data.

19

[%]
Depth (m)
-10 -30 -50 -70 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
23 11 -1 -13 -25

Distance (m)
Figure 7: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0410E using Real anomaly of VLF data

[%]
Depth (m)
-10 -30 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
10 0 -10 -20 -30

Distance (m)
Figure 8: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0510E using Real anomaly of VLF data

20

1000

10000

(a)

(b)

VES-2

VES-10 VES-4

VES-1
100

App. Res. (Ohm.m)

App. Res. (Ohm.m)

1000

VES-3

100

1132
10 1

18 28

348

92

159 6210 Ohm.m 3113 Ohm.m

10

VES-2 VES-1
100

10 0.1

297 479 199

42 56 45
1.0

276

91 & 28894 380 & 108 1884 & 80 2877 Ohm.m VES-10 0.5 Ohm.m VES-4 41914 9995 Ohm.m VES-3
10.0 100.0 1000.0

AB/2 (m)

AB/2 (m)

10000

10000

(c)

(d)

App. Res. (Ohm.m)

VES-6

App. Res. (Ohm.m)

1000

1000

VES-9
100

100

VES-7 VES-5 1801 149 245918 209 92 36

0.1

VES-8

55 10
1.0

10

86 27 73

3350

1 Ohm.m VES-7 466 27663 2 VES-6 99983 103 VES-5

100.0 1000.0

22547 15
10 0.1

33 12
1.0 10.0

108 298579 Ohm.m 50000 Ohm.m

100.0

VES-9 VES-8
1000.0

10.0

AB/2 (m)

AB/2 (m)

Figure 9: Fittings between the observed and computed data for VES-1 to VES-10. Solid symbols (, , +) show observed data and corresponding solid line ( ) shows model data for a particular sounding. Interpreted resistivities are shown numerically and thicknesses of various layers are shown on AB/2 axis for each sounding.

21

40

(a)
VES-5 VES-3 VES-10 VES-4 VES-7

SP anomaly (mV)

20 0 -20 -40 0 100

200

300

400

500

Distance (m)
600

(b)

App. Res (Ohm.m)

400

200 0 100 200 300 400 500

Distance (m)

Figure 10: Self-potential anomaly and resistivity profiling from VES-3 to VES-7.

22

Figure captions Figure 1: Location map of the area Figure 2: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0100E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 3: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0090E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 4: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0200E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 5: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0210E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 6: Observed Real anomaly and Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0300E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 7: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0410E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 8: Pseudo current density cross-section along profile 0510E using Real anomaly of VLF data. Figure 9: Fittings between the observed and computed data for VES-1 to VES-10. Solid symbols (, , +) show observed data and corresponding solid line ( ) shows model data for a particular sounding. Interpreted resistivities are shown numerically and thicknesses of various layers are shown on AB/2 axis for each sounding. Figure 10: Self-potential anomaly and resistivity profiling from VES-3 to VES-7.

23