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: sahebrao.ngri@gmail.com

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