Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j a p p g e o

A VLF survey using current gathering phenomena for tracing buried faults of
Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone, Turkey
A. Gürer a,⁎, M. Bayrak a, Ö.F. Gürer b
a
Istanbul University, Engineering Faculty, Department of Geophysical Engineering, Avcılar Campus, 34320 Istanbul, Turkey
b
Kocaeli University, Engineering Faculty, Department of Geological Engineering, Vinsan Campus, 41300 Kocaeli, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone (FBFZ) produces moderate to large earthquakes which can severely affect the
Received 30 April 2008 surrounding cities spreading towards the basins of the region. In this study, with the aim of feature city
Accepted 27 March 2009 planning, very low frequency electromagnetic (VLF) survey was carried out across (FBFZ) to locate
subsurface faults covered by basin fills. VLF parameters such as the apparent resistivity, phase (VLF-R
Keywords: response) real and imaginary parts of tipper (VLF-EM response) were obtained using GBZ, a well known
VLF response
radio station in England at Oxford, which give a strong signal in our survey area with a suitable frequency
Galvanic currents
Eddy currents
(19.6 kHz) for our purposes. VLF method is called as VLF-EM, when it is only relying on the measurement of
H-polarization horizontal and vertical magnetic fields. However, when it includes measurement of horizontal electric field,
E-polarization providing resistivity values, it is referred as VLF-R method. In this study, the direction of horizontal electric
Fault zone field is perpendicular to fault strike describing the H-polarization mode. Although this mode produces strong
VLF-R (resistivity) response, we also obtained quite clear and characteristic VLF-EM anomalies along some of
the survey profiles. Both VLF-R and VLF-EM responses with the contribution of the vortex and gathered
(direct) currents, in E and H-polarization modes, are reviewed and VLF anomalies observed over FBFZ are
discussed. In FBFZ, current gathering anomalies become stronger in the presence of high conductivity
contrast and in the presence of parallel fault branches separating the medium into resistors in series. In these
conditions, changing electrical charge at the contacts of faults cause successive variations in E-field. As a
result VLF-R response is strengthened and also secondary magnetic field which causes VLF-EM anomalies
may be enhanced, in H-polarization mode. Interpretation of resistivity, phase and tipper data with current
density pseudosections, over our survey lines, showed the location of buried faults of FBFZ beneath the
sedimentary covers of the basins.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction where primary E field of a VLF transmitter is perpendicular or parallel

VLF radio transmitters operating in 15–30 kHz frequency band-
width provide an electromagnetic source for geophysical investiga-
tions. VLF method has been used successfully to investigate faults all
over the world; examples includes the narrow mineralized fault zones
(Phillips and Richards, 1975), Nojima Fault and Ogura Fault (Yama-
guchi et al., 2001), non-mineralized shallow fault zones (Jeng et al.,
2004), groundwater-bearing zones (Sharma and Baranwal, 2005). The
application of VLF-EM survey in Turkey, for several purposes (Bayrak
and İlkışık, 1995; Bayrak, 2002) including the fault-zone-induced
weathering (Gürer et al., 2008), has also been in use for over 10 years.
For tracing of 2-D structures, it is possible to make VLF
measurements in the E-polarization or in the H-polarization modes
⁎ Corresponding author. Istanbul University, Engineering Faculty, Department of
Geophysical Engineering, 34850, Avcilar Campus, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel.: +90 212
4737196; fax: +90 212 4737180.
E-mail address: agurer@istanbul.edu.tr (A. Gürer).
to the geological strike, respectively with standard equipments.
Oskooi and Pedersen (2005) suggested developing new tensor VLF
measurement systems in order to obtain transmitter direction
independent responses. However, widely used modern VLF equip-
ments are in scalar mode and we reviewed H-polarization and E-
polarization modes which are described considering the transmitter
direction dependent measurements.
It is reported that VLF responses are mainly constituted by
gathered currents for both of the H and E-polarization modes. The
response is entirely formed by gathered currents in H-polarization,
whereas it is formed mainly by gathered currents with a minor
contribution of vortex currents, in E-polarization mode (McNeill and
Labson, 1991). In H-polarization mode, magnetic field on the surface
shows no variation as we traverse over the contact (McNeill and
Labson, 1991) and (HSz /HPT
y ) anomalies can not be observed. However,
varying E field across the vertical contacts forms strong resistivity
anomalies (VLF-R response) in H-polarization. Contrarily, strong
magnetic field variations around 2-D conductors are obtained in E-

0926-9851/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2009.03.011
438 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447
polarization. The variations in the ratio of the vertical secondary (S)
magnetic field to the primary field dominating total (PT) horizontal
magnetic field are strong in E-polarization mode. The function of HSz /
HPT
y , also known as tipper, forms VLF-EM response. Besides strong VLF-
EM anomalies, weaker VLF-R (resistivity and phase) responses can
also be observed in E-polarization mode.
This paper presents the results obtained during the VLF surveys
across fault rupture of Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone (FBFZ), Turkey at four
profiles, to characterize features of shallow faults and explore the
possible location of the subsurface faulting where the surface rupture is
covered with the basins of sediments. FBFZ produces earthquakes which
can severely affect the cities, located in the basins bounded by active
faults, such as Burdur, (1914, M. 7.0), Fethiye (1957, M. 7.1), Dinar (1925,
M. 6.0), and Akşehir (2000, M. 5.9). Developing over time, these cities
spread across basins. Basin edge effects (Kanlı et al., 2006) and buildings
located directly above the buried faults are known to increase
earthquake hazards, by creating severe lateral and vertical offsets on
the foundations of the buildings in the region. This motivated us to map
hidden faults of FBFZ in the basins around Fethiye and Burdur cities.
In our survey we used the VLF GBR antenna, Oxford, because its
signals were strong and the frequency (19.6 Hz) low enough to
penetrate to buried faults. The survey was done in the H-polarization
mode since in the survey area the wave transmitted by the above
antenna propagated in the direction perpendicular to the strike of the
fault zones.
Although H-polarization mode was expected to give the negligible
EM induction response, we obtained quite good VLF-EM responses
together with the strong VLF-R anomalies along some profiles, in
certain field conditions. We discussed these results in our paper.
2. Geology of the study area
The study area is located at the junction of the major active tectonic
zones of the eastern Mediterranean and southwest Anatolia. The main
tectonic elements of the eastern Mediterranean region are the Aegean
and Cyprus arcs, which form a convergent plate boundary (Fig. 1a).
The southwest Anatolian extensional province is bounded by the
Eskişehir fault zone in the north, and FBFZ in the south. It consists of a
series of E–W and N–S-trending horsts and grabens (Fig. 1b) filled
with deformed Miocene–Pliocene terrestrial sequences and unde-
formed Quaternary sequences separated by intervening angular
unconformities (Yılmaz et al., 2000; Koçyiğit, 2005). Most of the
margin-bounding faults of the grabens are active and a number of
devastating earthquakes have occurred in historical times and in the
relatively recent geological past (Westaway, 1993; Taymaz and Price,
1992; Yılmaztürk and Burton, 1999).
The FBFZ was interpreted as a wide left-lateral oblique fault zone,
with a large component of extension (Taymaz and Price, 1992) and
well-defined seismicity (Yüksel,1986; Pınar,1998; Utkucu et al., 2002).
Although, FBFZ has a linear arrangement between Fethiye and Afyon it
is not continuous in character and covered by several basins such as the
Cameli, Burdur, Acıgöl, Sandıklı, Çivril and Esen Çay basins and their
bounding faults. To the north the FBFZ merges with a series of WNW–
ESE grabens, including the Dinar, Beyşehir, Akşehir-Afyon and
Dombayova grabens and their bounding faults (Alçiçek et al., 2006).
The study area, the southwestern Taurides, is situated at the
junction between the rapidly extending West Anatolian crust and
relatively stable central Anatolia (Barka and Reilinger, 1997). Around
Fethiye and Burdur cities which our VLF survey was carried out, there
are two important tectono-stratigraphic units of the region: the Lycian
nappes and the Beydağı autochthon (Fig. 1b). The Lycian nappes
consist of slices of the western Taurides metamorphic basement, and
the overlying Mesozoic platform carbonates, together with the
dismembered ophiolite and volcanic-sedimentary units that form
the uppermost nappe (Yılmaz et al., 2000). The Beydağı unit, which
covers a large part of SW Anatolia, is thought to be an autochthon and
is composed mainly of platform-type limestones. The deep relation of
these units and FBFZ has been investigated by Gürer et al. (2004a,b)
using magnetotelluric method and the deep resistivity structure has
been imaged and related to the mentioned surface geological entities.
Fig. 1b illustrates our VLF survey area on a generalized tectonic map of
the region. Local geological maps where our VLF profile carried out are
also shown in Figs. 3–6 with the VLF data.
3. VLF survey
The data was collected using the Scintrex EDA-OMNI equipment. The
instrument is controlled by a microprocessor and facilitates automatic
tuning; digital data capture and signal stacking. The magnetic field is
recorded by three orthogonal coils mounted in a cylindrical housing
with a preamplifier and the electric field perpendicular to the magnetic
field is measured with two probes in contact with the ground which are
placed 10 m apart. The measurements of both electric and magnetic field
components can be made rapidly.
We performed VLF measurements on four profiles using GBZ
(19.6 kHz) radio transmitter in England. This station is quite stable and
data were provided for electrical fields in the direction changing from
N 55° E to N 95° E, for different profiles, so the observed responses are
close to the H polarization mode of electromagnetic induction.
3.1. Current gathering and VLF anomalies over vertical conductors
Jones (1983) gives a detailed review of current gathering phenom-
ena and describes this phenomenon as the re-arrangement of field lines
of current density as current flows from a region of one value of electrical
conductivity into a region of a differing conductivity such as the regions
separated by vertical structural contacts. In H-polarization mode, the
current gathering phenomenon forms the VLF-R (resistivity and phase)
response in conductors parallel to the primary wave fronts. By Ohm's
Law this radial field drives radial galvanic currents that are stronger in
regions of high conductivity and weaker elsewhere. The situation, for
VLF-R response of successive vertical conductors in H-polarization, is
analogous to a set of resistors in series which is strengthening the
galvanic currents. In this case, if one thinks the propagating wave acts as
a constant current source of strength I, the losses in the ground behave
as variable resistor R, with a voltage drop IR. Whether R is large or small
has no effect on the magnitude of I. So, the magnitude of voltage, Ey field,
should arrange itself in each earth segment having different resistivities
to meet the requirement of local power flow to the earth (McNeill and
Labson, 1991). When the wave propagating over ground, the magnitude
of total electric field component of Ey field increases in resistors while
decreases in conductors (Fig. 2a). Thus, re-adjustment of field lines of
current density and current flow gives rise to the generation of charges
on the surface of vertical discontinuity separating the two regions
(Fig. 2a). This surface charge, leads to a disparity in the normal
component of the displacement field and is related to electrostatic field
between neighboring regions (regions 1, 2 and 3 with conductivities of
σ1, σ2, σ3). Hence, for an applied electric field E0, the electric field in the
y-direction is reduced by E1y, and is increased by E2y in the regions
having conductivity σ1 and σ2 respectively (Price, 1973; Jones, 1983).
The changing electrostatic fields in two medium, which are oppositely
directed creates secondary electromagnetic fields.
In the early days of VLF applications, for simplifying interpretation of
VLF-EM responses, the target is assumed to be located in free space and
subjected to a uniform horizontal magnetic field. In this case, eddy
currents were accepted to be the main reason of the VLF-EM anomalies
and response was assumed to be controlled by induction number (McNeill
and Labson,1991). However, because of the finite conductivity of the earth,
the primary electrical field has also a small radial component. It is reported
that in the presence of a surrounding host rock with finite conductivity,
eddy currents play a minor role in the VLF-EM response from virtually all
targets observed in VLF surveys (McNeill and Labson, 1991). In this case,
 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447 439

Fig. 1. (a) Main tectonic elements of Anatolia and the Mediterranean region. Arrows show directions of plate motion relative to Eurasia, (b) Tectonic map of the region (modified after
Koçyiğit, 2005) and VLF survey area is shown in a rectangle. FBFZ: Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone.

primary electrical field cause current flow in the homogenous half space
and this current flow become gathered in the vicinity of the conductive
target. The response of these gathered currents, flowing through the
conductive target together with vortex currents flowing through in closed
loop pats, creates a significant difference in the secondary magnetic field
(Fig. 2b). Except the most resistive environment, vortex current flow can
be ignored and we can assume all the measured VLF-EM response
(secondary magnetic fields) arises from the galvanic current component
in E-polarization mode.
Magnetic field variations in E-Polarization mode form VLF-EM
anomalies and electric field variations in H-polarization form VLF-R
anomalies. Both of the magnetic and electric field variations over a 2-D
thin vertical conductor are mainly depends on current gathering
mechanism.
440 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447

Fig. 2. (a) Minimum induction response and stronger current gathering response for a VLF antenna position respect to the geological strike. Radial VLF electric field variations and
surface charge distribution near vertical discontinuities (based on Price, 1973; McNeill and Labson, 1991) (b) Maximum induction response for a VLF antenna (transmitter) position
respect to the geological strike of a vertical conductor.

Fischer et al. (1983) reported that, apparent resistivity value is
much larger in E-polarization than it is in H-polarization mode
(ρaE NN ρaH) and phase is smaller in E-polarization mode (ϕE b ϕH) just
over a conductive dyke. The amplitude of resistivity anomaly
considerably drops over the dyke in H-polarization whereas it slightly
drops in E-polarization mode. Phase response increases for H-
polarization and decreases for E-polarization approximately the
similar order of magnitude over the dyke. So we expect stronger
VLF-R anomalies (especially resistivity anomalies) in H-polarization
mode.
3.2. VLF parameters
The relation between the measured vertical and horizontal
magnetic fields in VLF-EM method gives an important diagnostic
parameter indicating the vertical conductors in VLF method. Tipper
(or geomagnetic transfer function) is the linear relation between the
measured vertical and horizontal magnetic field components. At
sufficiently large distances from VLF transmitters where the primary
field can be considered as a plane wave, the vertical and horizontal
magnetic field components (Hz, Hx, Hy) exhibit linear relationship as
Hz = Tx Hx + Ty Hy ð1Þ
where the elements T are complex since they may include phase shift.
In practice commercial VLF instruments measure only the vertical and
one horizontal components of the magnetic field. For a 2-D structure,
the x-direction can be considered as the direction of the geological
strike and preferably the direction to the VLF transmitter to obtain
strong induction anomalies. The y-axis is the profile direction. For
 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447
each site the transfer function, the so-called scalar tipper TYsca, or, is
estimated as
HzS
TYsca =
HyPT
using Hx or Hy components. For the case of induction by horizontal
primary magnetic field (y direction), the vertical magnetic (Hz) field is
entirely of secondary origin, whereas the horizontal magnetic field (Hy)
is a mixture of primary and secondary fields (Pedersen, 2002), in other
words Hy is the total magnetic field whose secondary magnetic field
component is relatively small and primary field dominating. In this case,
tipper, for 2-D earth, is entirely depends on subsurface structure. For this
reason we showed these fields as HzS and HyPT we will drop letters S and
PT just for simplicity in the fallowing equations. For a 2-D earth, striking
x direction, the tipper varies along the profile showing the strongest
variations right above conductors and exists as a diagnostic indicator.
The point where the real and imaginary component of the tipper
anomaly crosses over from being positive to negative polarity is usually
interpreted as being the top of the steeply dipping conductor.
In the presence of a conductor in the underground, secondary
fields are superimposed on the primary field with phase lag, and the
total VLF field is elliptically polarized. Tilt angle α of the major axis of
polarization ellipse from horizontal in percent and the ratio of the
minor axis to the major axis as percentage e (ellipticity) are used in
classical VLF literature to express VLF response. Expression for tilt
angle and ellipticity relating the horizontal and vertical magnetic
fields can be found in Smith and Ward (1974) in detail.
Real and imaginary components of tipper, expressing the VLF
response in modern VLF literature, are related to the tilt angle and
ellipticity when the secondary magnetic field components are
relatively small compare to the primary magnetic field. The real
(Hzr) and quadrature (Hzi) responses are related to the tilt angle (a)
and ellipticity (ε) of the polarization ellipse. The tangent of the tilt
angle is good approximation to the ratio of the real component of the
vertical secondary magnetic field to the primary field dominating
horizontal magnetic field,


Re Hz = Hy = tan α × 100ðpercentÞ
The ellipticity is good approximation to the ratio of the quadrature
component of the vertical secondary magnetic field to the primary field
dominating horizontal magnetic field (Paterson and Ronka, 1971),


Qu Hz = Hy = e × 100ðpercentÞ
The real and imaginary components are expressed as a percentage
of the total VLF transmitter's primary field. These two parameters are
called real and imaginary parts of tipper.
By measuring the horizontal electrical fields perpendicular to the
horizontal magnetic fields resistivity and phase, VLF-R parameters,
can be obtained in both E and H polarization modes. The apparent
resistivity ρa and the phase angle ϕ between horizontal electric field
and magnetic field of the subsurface may be defined as a function of
frequency as
j j in ohm m; (Cagniard, 1953)
2
1 E x ;y
ρa =
ωμ 0 Hy;x
and
2
3
−1
Im Ex;y = Hy;x
/ = tan 4
 5in degree
Re Ex;y = Hy;x
441
where ω is the angular frequency and µ0 is the magnetic permeability of
free space. In homogeneous isotropic ground, ρa is the true resistivity and
the phase angle is 45°. The skin depth describes penetration depth for VLF
plane waves propagation in a conducting medium and is expressed as
ð2Þ
 1 = 2  1 = 2
2ρ ρ
d= ≈503 in meter ð7Þ
ωμ 0 f
where ρ is the resistivity of the medium and f is the exploration frequency
in Hertz.
3.3. Filtering and interpretation of VLF data
The interpretation of VLF surveys in terms of buried conductors can
be assisted by the application of the Karous and Hjelt ((K&H), 1983)
linear filter to the observed in-phase component of the vertical magnetic
field. Karous and Hjelt filter technique is based on discrete linear filtering
of VLF data. Starting with the Biot–Savart law to describe the magnetic
field arising from a subsurface 2-D current distribution, these authors
use linear filter theory to solve the integral equation for the current
distribution, assumed to be located in a thin horizontal sheet of varying
current density, situated everywhere at a depth equal to the distance
between the measurement stations. By calculating the inverse filter at
various depths (e.g., Δx, 2Δx, 3Δx), one can study the variation of current
densities with depth. This filter is expressed as;
Δz
I ðΔx = 2Þ = 0:102H − 3 − 0:059H − 2 + 0:561H − 1 − 0:561H1 ð8Þ
2π a
+ 0:059H2 − 0:102H3
where Δz is the assumed thickness of the current sheet, Δx is the
distance between the data points and also the depth to the current
sheet, location of the calculated current density is beneath the center
point of the six data points. The values of H are the normalized vertical
magnetic field anomaly at each of six data points. Details of the filter
derivation can be found in Karous & Hjelt (1983).
Filtered VLF data help to locate vertical discontinuities such as
hidden faults. K&H filter technique also provides a useful comple-
ð3Þ mentary tool for the semi-quantitative analysis and target visualiza-
tion from surface to a few ten meters. The current density maxima,
seem always to occur within or around the conductors. As a result of
this feature, current density pseudo sections can give diagnostic
information for the target (Ogilvy and Lee, 1991).
Although, some modeling and inversion, techniques for interpreta-
ð4Þ tion of VLF data tried by several authors (Beamish, 1998, 2000, 2002;
Pedersen and Oskooi, 2004; Oskooi and Pedersen, 2005, 2006), they
pointed out that single frequency VLF measurements have restrictions to
resolve vertical structures and the lateral positions of the deep
conductors unless the aid of wide band frequency RMT method.
4. Results
As mentioned above, the FBFZ has been interpreted as a wide oblique
left-lateral normal fault zone, with a large component of extension and
well-defined seismicity. Gürer et al. (2004a,b) imaged the deep
continuation of FBFZ with MT method in the study area. The one reason
of debates on strain and slip components of faults that take place in the
FBFZ is that these faults don't show continuous character from Fethiye to
ð5Þ
Burdur. The fault branches can be observed in the hard rocks such as
limestone, tufa and travertine, but they can not be followed in the
Neogene and quaternary aged soft rocks. In this study, we investigated
continuation of the branches of FBFZ fault zone under the unconsoli-
dated sediments using VLF method. For this purpose, we did VLF
measurements on the four characteristic sites. Results obtained from
ð6Þ these regions are good references for detecting subsurface faulting
covered by basin. In our survey area for our purpose, convenient VLF
442 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447

transmitters exist only in the H-polarization mode. In this study we
choose VLF profiles which are perpendicular to the geological strike
which are nearly perpendicular to the position of selected VLF
transmitter GBR, with 55–95°. Although we were in H-polarization
mode, we obtained quite strong and characteristic VLF-EM fault
responses which are compatible with the VLF-R responses, in some
certain conditions.
If we compare results from four profiles in the survey area,
considering the relations between VLF-R (resistivity and phase) and
VLF-EM (real and imaginary components of % HzS/HyPT) data, we can
mention mainly two groups of anomalies. The first group of data is
collected in the regions where fault rapture is separated into parallel
branches around Yassıgüme and Senir villages. Along YSG, SNR profiles,
another common feature is a high conductivity contrast consistent with

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic drawings of YSG line location on geological map. (b) observed VLF-R apparent resistivity (c) phase (d) real and imaginary components of the induced vertical
secondary magnetic field as a percentage of the VLF transmitter's primary field dominating total horizontal magnetic field (HSz /HPTy (%)). (e) pseoudosection of current density using
real component. Circled crosses show the zero-crossing point of (HSz /HPT
y (%)).
 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447 443

theoretical expectations between two sides of fault zone. In this group,
all of the VLF-EM and VLF-R anomalies are strong enough to indicate the
buried fault zones. In the second group, there is only one fault branch
separating two mediums having low conductivity contrast. This shows
us, the resistivity contrast between two regions is low and current
gathering can not produce responses strong enough to form harmonious
anomalies in all VLF components. We will present and discuss the results
from the first group where current gathering effect is relatively stronger
YSG, SNR lines, and the second group, SLD and MLK lines, respectively.
The angles between the transmitted horizontal electrical field of VLF
antenna and geological strike of the faults across the profiles named YSG,
SNR, SLD and MLK are 95°, 60°, 70° and 55° respectively.
4.1. YSG profile
Two surface fault branches of FBFZ, disappear within a basin around
Yassıgüme (Fig. 3a) village. The VLF profile is 280 m length and is
approximately perpendicular to the fault branches (Fig. 3a) and
measurements are in H-polarization mode with the angle of 95°
between the fault strike and transmitted electrical field ray path. The
VLF-EM data were collected with station spacing of 10 m using a dipole
10 m in length for the electric field measurements. At around 140 m
distance of the profile, while phase increases abruptly apparent
resistivity decreases also abruptly from 30 to 3 Ω m forming a
characteristic VLF-R response in H-polarization mode. The conductivity

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic drawings of SNR line location. (b), (c), (d), (e) and explanation are similar to Fig. 3.
444 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447

contrast between the fault zone conductor and surrounding medium is
quite high with the value of σ2 /σ1 = 10. Real and imaginary compo-
nents of VLF-EM data, along YSG profile, also form a clear zero-crossing
point shaping a characteristic fault anomaly around the point of 140 m at
profile (Fig. 3b,c,d). The K&H current density pseoudosection which is
shown in Fig. 3e also shows a border at about 140 m indicating a fault
anomaly. In VLF applications, the zero-crossing points in the real and
imaginary VLF-EM (tipper) responses determine the location of
subsurface bodies in E-polarization mode. However, in H-polarization
mode, a significant variation in VLF-EM response is not expected
theoretically. These field results show that current channeling mechan-
ism, in H-polarization, produce unexpectedly good VLF-EM response
together with the strong VLF-R response, along this line.
4.2. SNR profile
Linear hill morphology is bounded by two branches of FBFZ in
Senir, (Fig. 4a). These faults disappear under Neogene aged sediments
of the basin. The profile length is 170 m. The VLF-data were collected
with station spacing of 10 m using a dipole 10 m in length for the

Fig. 5. (a) Schematic drawings of SLD line location. (b), (c), (d), (e) and explanation are similar to Fig. 3.
 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447 445

electric field measurements (Fig. 4a). The apparent resistivity values
increase abruptly at 105 m distance and phase decrease forming a
characteristic VLF-R response in H-pole mode (Fig. 4b,c). Although
measurements were done mainly in H-polarization mode, with the
angle of 60° between the strike and primary electrical VLF field ray
path, real component of VLF-EM (tipper) data also makes zero-
crossing point at this location (Fig. 4d) indicating the fault. Along this
profile, 30° deviation from H-polarization situation may cause
contribution of E-polarization response. The K&H current density
pseoudosection, in Fig. 4e, also indicates a current density border. All
of these anomalies show the continuation of Senir fault under the
basin at around 105 m location of SNR profile.
4.3. SLD profile
Suludere fault, which is observed at the surface as a short rupture,
disappears within basin (Fig. 5a). The profile is 260 m length and is
approximately perpendicular to the fault (Fig. 5a). The VLF data were
collected with station spacing of 5 m using a dipole 5 m in length for the
electric field measurements. We are mainly in H-polarization mode with
a 70° angle of VLF ray incidence to the strike. The apparent resistivity and
phase slightly change along this line with the low conductivity contrast
(σ2 /σ1) of 2–5. The most important variations in VLF-R anomalies are
observed at 40 m distance along the profile. However, resistivity and
phase anomalies decreasing together do not form a characteristic H-
polarization fault response. Real and imaginary components of the
rather noisy VLF-EM data show a zero crossover and resistivity decreases
and phase increases very slightly at the distance of 80 m, indicating a
characteristic fault response (Fig. 5d). The K&H current density
pseoudosection, in Fig. 5e, also shows a vertical current density border
at this location. At 80 m distance of the profile phase and resistivity
curves very slightly changes with a decrease in resistivity and an
increase in phase. In this profile nearly constant resistivity values, at
around 10 Ω m and low conductivity contrast are thought to be

Fig. 6. (a) Schematic drawings of MKY line location. (b), (c), (d), (e) and explanation are similar to Fig. 3.
446 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447
responsible of weak VLF-R response. Due to the inconvenient position
between geological strike and VLF transmitter and low conductivity
contrast along the line, VLF-EM anomalies are weak and noisy. Although
it is difficult to interpret these anomalies along SLD profile on their own
they are well correlated with a step like morphology having 2 m vertical
displacement at the 80 m distance of the profile. Considering the field
morphology and all VLF anomalies at about 80 m we can concluded that
the fault is at the 80 m distance in our profile in the basin.
4.4. MKY profile
The surface fault observed in Malkayası disappears under neigh-
boring Neogene aged basin (Fig. 6a). The MKY profile is 290 m length
and is approximately perpendicular to the fault strike (Fig. 6a). The
VLF-EM data were collected with station spacing of 10 m using a
dipole 10 m in length for the electric field measurements (Fig. 6a).
Apparent resistivity decreases abruptly while phase increases,
indicating a fault response in H-polarization, at about 50 m distance
(Fig. 6b,c). VLF-EM data (Fig. 6d) does not show a considerable
variation as expected for H-polarization at this distance of the profile.
In Malkayası region observed apparent resistivities are rather high,
mostly changes in between 100 and 500 Ω m, whereas conductivity
contrast is rather low with a value of 5.
At around 140 m distance, phase anomaly very slightly increases
and imaginary VLF-EM anomaly makes a zero crossing point whereas
there is no considerable change in apparent resistivity data. At the
distance of 230 m on the profile, apparent resistivity and phase
slightly increase where decreasing real component of VLF-EM field
gains a higher gradient. For these two last locations, at 140 and 230 m
distances, some perturbations in subsurface structures striking in E-
polarization position to GBR transmitter may cause anomalies. Current
density pseoudosection also shows borders at 140 and 230 m
distances. The K&H current density pseoudosection, in Fig. 6e, also
indicates an anomalous highest density of equivalent current.
The VLF-R and VLF-EM responses at 55 m distance give harmo-
nious and theoretically expected responses for H-polarization excita-
tion and can be interpreted that FBFZ fault continue under basin at
around this location at the profile.
We observed a clearer VLF-EM response in H polarization mode
along profiles YSG, SNR. In SNR profile, 30° deviation from the exact H-
polarization mode, a weak E-polarization component excitation may
be thought to help formation of VLF-EM response at the first sight.
However in YSG profile measurements is exactly in H-polarization
made with 95° angles between the strike and primary horizontal E
field. As a result, instead of concentrating to the contribution of E-
polarization excitation on formation of VLF-EM response, geological
and physical conditions in the survey area should be taken into
consideration. The main differences of the profiles where we observe a
clearer VLF-EM response are the presence of parallel fault branches
and the high conductivity contrast between the fault and surrounding
medium. Negligible magnetic field variations in H-polarization mode
can be enhanced by presence of sequential parallel faults separating
the mediums having high conductivity contrast.
5. Conclusion
This paper presents results of a VLF survey across fault ruptures of
Fethiye–Burdur Fault Zone (FBFZ), Turkey at five profiles, to characterize
features of shallow faults and explore the possible location of the
subsurface faulting where the surface rupture is obscure in south-
western Turkey. We briefly reviewed the contribution of gathered
currents and vortex (eddy) currents to formation of VLF-R and VLF-EM
anomalies in H and E polarization modes.
Structural and physical properties along these profiles show some
common features that strengthen the magnetic field variations which
are normally negligible in H-polarization mode. These are: 1) a high
conductivity contrast between two sides of the fault zone and 2)
presence of parallel fault branches behaving as parallel conductors
with parallel resistors in between. Especially, in Yassıgüme survey area
(YSG line), VLF-EM real and imaginary components show a perfect
characteristic fault response around the fault (Fig. 3d). Similar results
are obtained from Senir (SNR) profile. In these survey areas, fault zone
splits into two or more fault branches and separates two mediums
having high conductivity contrast. Along SLD and MKY profiles where
a single fault fragment take place and a low conductivity contrast is
observed, VLF-EM anomalies related to the fault zone are negligible or
very noisy. Our field results shows that negligible variations in
magnetic fields can be straighten by the high conductivity contrast at
the fault zone. Parallel fault branches with the high conductivity
contrast may provide consecutive enhancement effect on magnetic
field variations and result considerable VLF tipper responses.
With easy survey procedure and fast interpretation, the VLF
method can be used to locate subsurface faults. Even, in the case of
stations whose wave fronts perpendicular to the geological strike, we
can obtain a good VLF-EM anomaly over good conductors having a
strong conductivity contrast with its environ. In this case, joint effect
of current gathering and induction processes, which is strengthened
by successive magnetic field variations caused by parallel faults having
high conductivity contrast with the surrounding medium, can also
produce some indicative VLF-EM response in H-polarization mode.
Our results, obtained over some parts of FBFZ, show good examples for
detecting subsurface faulting covered by a basin by VLF method using
current gathering mechanism. The hidden fault branches of FBFZ were
quite successfully imaged by VLF method.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by TÜBİTAK (grant 102Y054) and the
Research Fund of Istanbul University (grant 1781/21122001), BEKA-
DEP-159/250599 and we thank Muzaffer Özburan and Mert Özkan for
their efforts to make field observations and to obtain VLF-R data set.
References
Alçiçek, M.C., Ten Veen, J.H., Özkul, M., 2006. Neotectonic development of the Çameli
Basin, southwestern Anatolia, Turkey. In: Robertson, A.H.F., Mountrakis, D. (Eds.),
Tectonic Development of the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Special Publication —
Geological Society of London, vol. 260, pp. 591–611.
Barka, A., Reilinger, R., 1997. Active tectonics of the eastern Mediterranean region:
deduced from GPS, neotectonic and seismicity data. Annali di Geofisica 40,
587–610.
Bayrak, M., 2002. Exploration of chrome ore in Southwestern Turkey by VLF-EM. Journal
of the Balkan Geophysical Society 5, 35–46.
Bayrak, M., İlkışık, O.M., 1995. Use of electromagnetic-VLF method in shallow
explorations in Turkey. Jeofizik 9–10, 143–148.
Beamish, D., 1998. Three-dimensional modeling of VLF data. Journal of Applied
Geophysics 39, 63–76.
Beamish, D., 2000. Quantitative 2D VLF data interpretation. Journal of Applied
Geophysics 45, 33–47.
Beamish, D., 2002. An assessment of inversion methods for AEM data applied to
environmental studies. Journal of Applied Geophysics 51, 75–96.
Cagniard, L., 1953. Basic theory of the magneto-telluric method of geophysical
prospecting. Geophysics 18, 605–635.
Fischer, G., Le Quang, B.V., Müller, I., 1983. VLF ground surveys, a powerful tool for the
study of shallow two-dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting 31, 977–991.
Gürer, A., Bayrak, M., Gürer, Ö.F., 2004a. Magnetotelluric images of the crust and mantle
in the southwestern Taurides, Turkey. Tectonophysics 391, 109–120.
Gürer, A., Bayrak, M., Gürer, Ö.F., İlkışık, O.M., 2004b. The deep resistivity structure of
southwestern Turkey: tectonic implications. International Geology Review 7,
655–670.
Gürer, A., Bayrak, M., Gürer, Ö.F., Yılmaz Şahin, S., 2008. Delineation of weathering in
Çatalca granite quarry with Very Low Frequency (VLF) electromagnetic method.
Pure and Applied Geophysics 165, 429–443.
Jeng, Y., Lin, M.J., Chen, C.S., 2004. A very low frequency-electro-magnetic study of
the geo-environmental hazardous areas in Taiwan. Environmental Geology 46,
784–795.
Jones, A.G., 1983. The problem of current channeling: a critical review. Geophysical
Surveys 6, 079–122.
Kanlı, A.İ., Tildy, P., Pronay, Z., Pınar, A., Hermann, L., 2006. V30S mapping and soil
classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey.
Geophysical Journal International 165, 223–235.
 A. Gürer et al. / Journal of Applied Geophysics 68 (2009) 437–447
Karous, M., Hjelt, S.E., 1983. Linear filtering of VLF dip angle measurements. Geophysical
Prospecting 31, 782–794.
Koçyiğit, A., 2005. The Denizli graben–horst system and the eastern limit of western
Anatolian continental extension: basin fill, structure, deformational mode, throw
amount and episodic evolutionary history, SW Turkey. Geodinamica Acta 18/3–4,
167–208.
McNeill, J.D., Labson, V.F., 1991. Geological mapping using VLF radio fields. In:
Nabighian, M.N. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, V2,
Application, Part B. SEG, Tulsa, pp. 521–640.
Ogilvy, R.D., Lee, A.C., 1991. Interpretation of VLF-EM in-phase data using current
density pseudosections. Geophysical Prospecting 39, 567–580.
Oskooi, B., Pedersen, L.B., 2005. Comparison between VLF and RMT methods. A
combined tool for mapping conductivity changes in the sedimentary cover. Journal
of Applied Geophysics 57, 227–241.
Oskooi, B., Pedersen, L.B., 2006. Resolution of airborne VLF data. Journal of Applied
Geophysics 58, 158–175.
Paterson, N.R., Ronka, V., 1971. Five years of surveying with very low frequency
electromagnetic method. Geoexploration 9, 7–26.
Pedersen, L.B., 2002. Measurements with the VLF instrument. Technical Short Note.
Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University.
Pedersen, L.B., Oskooi, B., 2004. Airborne VLF measurements and variations of ground
conductivity: a tutorial. Surveys in Geophysics 25, 151–181.
Phillips, W.J., Richards, W.E., 1975. A study of effectiveness of the VLF method for the
location of narrow-mineralized fault zones. Geoexploration 13, 215–226.
Pınar, A., 1998. Source inversion of the October 1, 1995, Dinar earthquake Ms = 6.1: a
rupture model with implications for seismotectonics in SW Turkey. Tectonophysics
292, 255–266.
447
Price, A.T., 1973. The theory of geomagnetic induction. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors 7, 227–233.
Sharma, S.P., Baranwal, V.C., 2005. Delineation of groundwater-bearing fracture zones in
a hard rock area integrating very low frequency electromagnetic and resistivity
data. Journal of Applied Geophysics 57, 155–166.
Smith, B.D., Ward, S.H., 1974. On the computation of polarization ellipse parameters.
Geophysics 39, 867–869.
Taymaz, T., Price, S., 1992. The 1971 May 12 Burdur earthquake sequence, SW Turkey: a
synthesis of seismological and geological observations. Geophysical Journal
International 108, 589–603.
Utkucu, M., Pınar, A., Alptekin, Ö., 2002. A detailed slip model for the 1995, October 1,
Dinar, Turkey, earthquake (Ms = 6.1) determined from inversion of teleseismic P
and SH waveforms. Geophysical Journal International 151, 184–195.
Westaway, R., 1993. Neogene evolution of the Denizli region of western Turkey. Journal
of Structural Geology 15, 37–53.
Yamaguchi, S., Murakami, T., Inokuchi, H., 2001. Resistivity mapping using the VLF-MT
method around surface fault ruptures of the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake,
Japan. The Island Arc 10, 296–305.
Yılmaz, Y., Genç, Ş.C., Gürer, Ö.F., Bozcu, M., Yılmaz, K., Karacık, Z., Elmas, A., 2000. When
did the western Anatolian grabens begin to develop? In: Bozkurt, E., Winchester, J.A.,
Piper, J.D.A. (Eds.), Tectonics and Magmatism in Turkey and the Surrounding Area.
Special Publication — Geological Society of London, vol. 173, pp. 353–384.
Yılmaztürk, A., Burton, P.W., 1999. Earthquake source parameters as inferred from the
body waveform modeling, southern Turkey. Journal of Geodynamics 27, 469–499.
Yüksel, F.A., 1986. Güneybatı Türkiye'nin Deprem Etkinliği ve Deprem Riski Analizi (in
Turkish). İ. Ü. Mühendislik Fakültesi, Yerbilimleri Dergisi vol. 1–2, 169–184.