New approach of gradient profiling for tracking of low resistivity shallow fracture in hard rock area for groundwater exploration

  • G. S. YadavEmail author
  • Birendra Pratap
Original Paper


The resistivity survey for the study of subsurface hydrogeology is a continuously evolving science, which either adopts different techniques or combination of techniques to standardize the approach. The gradient profiling is done in the presence of horizontal electric field which is one of the techniques to locate the low resistivity response within the hard rock formations. This low is obtained due to presence of inhomogeneity in the host rocks. The attempt has been made to develop the concept of parallel gradient sub-profile, formulation and computation of geometrical factor, and demonstration through an actual field example in the hard rock area. The present study clearly shows that the region of low resistivity zone can easily be delineated to select a point for conducting geoelectrical sounding for knowing the information about its depth, thickness, and resistivity which are necessary requirements for ground water exploration. It can be inferred from the above study that parallel gradient sub-profile with respect to main gradient profile is useful tool for delineating low resistivity zone due to presence of fractured sandstone rocks saturated with groundwater which can be exploited.


Parallel gradient sub-profiling Geoelectrical sounding Groundwater Hard rocks Low resistivity zone Fractured sandstone 



We are grateful to the Department of Geophysics, Banaras Hindu University and University Administration for providing the necessary facilities required for the geoelectrical survey to test the technique. We are grateful to Prof. K.M. Srivastava and Dr. Uma Shankar for critically going through the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Mr. K. Salui and Mr. A.K. Sharma, the students of M.Sc.(Tech) Geophysics, BHU.


  1. Al’pin LM (1950) The theory of dipole sounding; Gostoptekhizdat, Moscow (trans). In: Dipole methods for measuring earth conductivity. Plenum Press, New York, p 1966Google Scholar
  2. Bertin J, Loeb J (1976) Experimental and theoretical aspects of IP, presentation and application of the IP method-case histories, vol I. Gebruder Brontraeger, Berlin, p 250Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya PK, Patra HP (1968) Direct current geoelectric sounding. Elsevier, AmstardamGoogle Scholar
  4. Bose PK, Sarkar S, Chakrabarty S, Benerjee S (2001) Overview of Meso-to Neoproterozoic evaluation of the Vindhyan basin, Central India. J Sediment Geol 142:395–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ebert A (1943) Grundlagen Zur Auswerkung geoelektrischer Tiefenmr-ssulgon. Garlands Beitrage Zur Geopysik, BZ 10(1):1–17Google Scholar
  6. Kearey P, Brooks M (1984) An introduction to geophysical exploration. Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford, London, p 296Google Scholar
  7. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC (1966) Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting. Pergamon Press, New York, p 517Google Scholar
  8. Koefoed O (1979) Geosounding principles, 1, resistivity sounding measurements. Elsevier Scientific Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, p 276Google Scholar
  9. Krishnan MS (1982) Geology of India and Burma, 6th edn. CBS, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. Kunetz G (1966) Principles of direct current resistivity prospecting. Gebruder Brontraeger, Berlin, p 250Google Scholar
  11. Lazarus GN, Yadav GS (2012) Quantitative estimation of natural recharge due to monsoon rainfall using the principle of information theory in the area of Ghorawal block of Sonebhadra district, U.P. India. Int J Environ Sci 3:976–984Google Scholar
  12. Mishra M, Sen S (2010) Geochemical signature of Mesoproterozoic siliciclastic rocks of the Kaimur Group of the Vindhyan Supergroup, Central India. Chin J Geochem 29:021–032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MoEF & CC (2016) District survey report, morrum, Sonbhdhra, as per notification no. S.O. Ministry of Environmental, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, p 141 (B)Google Scholar
  14. Rijkswaterstaat (1969) Standard graphs for resistivity prospecting. EAEG, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. Schlumberger C (1920) Etude sur la prospecting electrique du sons-sol. Gaither-Villaras, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Summer JS (1976) Principles of IP for geophysical exploration. Elsevier, New York, p 278Google Scholar
  17. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Seriff RE (1990) Applied geophysics, II ed. Cambridge University Press, U.K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wenner F (1915) A method of measuring earth resistivity. US Bur Standard, Sci, Paper 258:469–478Google Scholar
  19. Yadav GS (1988) Pole-dipole resistivity sounding technique for shallow investigations in hard rock areas. PAGEOPH 127:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yadav GS (1995) A FORTRAN computer program for the automatic iteractive method of resistivity sounding interpretation. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 30(2–4):363–377Google Scholar
  21. Yadav GS, Singh PN, Srivastava KM (1997) Fast method of resistivity sounding for shallow groundwater investigations. J Appl Geophys 36:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yadav GS, Singh SK (2007) Integrated resistivity surveys for delineation of fractures for ground water exploration in hard rock areas. J Appl Geophys 62:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yadav GS, Singh SK (2008) Gradient profiling for the investigation of ground water saturated fractures in hard rocks of Uttar Pradesh, India. Hydrogeol J 16:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yadav GS (2015) Detection of ground water saturated fractures using geoelectrical techniques of gradient profiling in the RGSC of Banaras Hindu University, India. International Journal of General Engineering and Technology (IJGET) 4(3):23–34 (IASET)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysics, Institute of ScienceBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations