Hydro Geology

IMPERIALCOLLEGELONDON
FacultyofEngineering
DepartmentofCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering
StructuralControlsonthe
HydrogeologyofMalta
ChristianSchembri
September2014
SubmittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsfortheMScandtheDiplomaofImperialCollegeLondon
DECLARATIONOFOWNWORK
Declaration:
Thissubmissionismyownwork.Anyquotationfrom,ordescriptionof,the
workofothersisacknowledgedhereinbyreferencetothesources,whether
publishedorunpublished.
Signature:___________________________________
Page|ii
TomybelovedwifeRosanne
Page|iii
TheresearchworkdisclosedinthispublicationispartiallyfundedbytheMasterit!
Scholarship Scheme (Malta). This Scholarship is partfinanced by the European
UnionEuropeanSocialFund(ESF)underOperationalProgrammeIICohesion
Policy20072013,EmpoweringPeopleforMoreJobsandaBetterQualityOfLife.
OperationalProgrammeII CohesionPolicy20072013
EmpoweringPeopleforMoreJobsandaBetterQualityof
Life
ScholarshippartfinancedbytheEuropeanUnion
EuropeanSocialFund(ESF)
Cofinancingrate:85%EUFunds;15%NationalFunds
Investinginyourfuture
Page|iv
Acknowledgements
FirstandforemostIwouldliketothankmywifeRosanneforheremotionalsupport
over the last year. The past year has been a challenge for both of us and thus I
wouldalsoliketothankourextendedfamilymembersandfriendsfortheirsupport.
Special thanks go to Dr Clark Fenton of the Imperial College London for his help,
inspiration and guidance over the last year and to the staff at the Geotechnics
Department.
IwouldalsoliketothankDrMartynPedleyandDrAdrianButlerfortheirrepliesfor
myqueries.IwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetoAdrianMifsudforhisassistance
duringmyfieldtripandinterest.ThanksgoalsotoSolidbaseLaboratoriesLtdand
JoeBugejaforallowingmeaccesstocertaindocuments.
ThanksgotoRoderickVellafromtheTransportandInfrastructureMinistryofMalta
forprovidingmewithusefulcontactsduringdatacollectionandManuelSapianofor
providingmewithaccesstopastreportsandforhispromptrepliestomyqueries.
Mygratitudegoesalsotomyfellowstudentswhohavebeenidealcolleaguesand
friendsthroughouttheyear.
Page|v
ExecutiveSummary
Themainaimofthisstudyistoidentifyandunderstandstructuralcontrolsonthe
hydrogeologyofMalta.
AnintroductionchapterprovidesageneralgeologiccontextofMalta,followedbya
detailed aim and an overall view of the study. This is followed by an extensive
literaturereviewprovidingasoundgeologicandhydrogeologicbackground.
TheMalteseIslandsarelocatedintheforelandoftheApennineMaghrebianthrust
andfoldbeltandareaffectedbyanextensionaltectonicenvironment.Anonshore
expressedofthisarethehorstandgrabenstructureswidelyobservableintherange
betweentheSouthofGozofault(orIlQalafault)andtheVictoriafault.Tectonics
controlled the sedimentation processes. Similar processes but more pronounced
were taking place at the offshore regional grabens of the Pantelleria rift and the
NorthGozograben.Higherextensionalstrainsarereportedinthelatterbasinsthan
what is reported for onshore Malta. The uplift of the Maltese Islands occurred
duringsomeperiodstretchingbetweenthelateMessiniantothemidPliocene.The
geologicformationsofMaltaconsistinsedimentarymarinecarbonatesdepositedat
shallow sea depths with the highest sea depths estimated not to be greater than
250 metres. These include from top, the Upper Coralline Limestone (UCL),
Greensand, Blue Clay (BC), Globigerina Limestone (GL) and Lower Coralline
Limestone(LCL).
Malta has two main types of aquifers being the perched aquifer on top of the BC
and the mean sea level aquifer which is predominantly hosted by the LCL. The
aquifersaredualporosityasflowmaytakeplacethroughtherockmatrixandthe
fracturenetwork.Faultsmayhavetwocontrastingeffects.Theymayprovideaseal
orincreasethedensityofthefracturenetwork.
The main data collection process included a oneweek field trip during which a
geomorphologicsitereconnaissanceexercisewascarriedoutanddiscontinuityscan
linedatawascollected.Previousdatawasalsoacquiredandisreinterpretedand
Page|vi
used. This data set includes investigation borehole logs, well pumping tests
determining aquifer transmissivity and potentiometric data. Previous data is
generallylimitedtoaregionalcontext,incompleteanddoesnotsatisfydirectlythe
scopeofthisstudy.Predictivedatafrompreviousfieldstudiesisusedtoaugment
our understanding of the effects of faults on the hydraulic conductivity of rock
masses. A detailed observations and analysis chapter is presented. The main
findingsaresummarisedasfollows:
The hypothesis that joints are closely linked to the latest rift tectonics of
Malta is presented. Evidence includes similar strikes and dip angles of the
most occurring joints that closely resemble the ENEWSW and NWSE
trendingfaultsandthewideraperturesofthesejoints.
Exceptions to the above rule may be present as is observed at the site of

BirkirkarawherethemaintrendingjointsetJ8showsstrikesimilaritytothe
ENEWSWtrendingfaultsbutoccursatamuchshallowerdip.Thisprobably
is related to another structure which in literature is described as the up
archingoftheLGLpriortotheriftingprocess.
From observations it is noted that karst development differs between

formationsorfaciesthatexhibitvariabilityinhydraulicpermeabilitydueto
grainsizedistributionandfracturing.Inadditionobservationshighlightthat
fluidconductingboundariescanresultbetweenlayersofdifferentgrainsize
distributions.
A plot of spatial transmissivity in relation to distance from faults, although

from low resolution and an incomplete data set, provides encouraging
indications for future research as a certain degree of correlation between
thetwoseemsplausible.
Page|vii
TableofContents
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................v
ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................vi
TableofContents.......................................................................................................viii
Tables..........................................................................................................................xi
Figures.........................................................................................................................xii
1
Introduction..........................................................................................................1
1.1
ScopeofWork...............................................................................................3
1.2
OverviewofWork..........................................................................................4
GeologicandHydrogeologicBackgroundofMalta..............................................6
2.1
2.1.1.
TectonicSetting......................................................................................6
2.1.2.
TectonicHistoryDebates.....................................................................10
2.1.3.
OnshoreStructuralGeologyofMalta..................................................11
2.1.4.
MainStratigraphicalUnits...................................................................12
2.2
GeologicBackground.....................................................................................6
HydrogeologicBackground.........................................................................16
2.2.1.
BasicHydroclimatologicaldata............................................................16
2.2.2.
WaterBalance......................................................................................17
2.2.3.
HydrogeologicalSetting.......................................................................17
2.2.4.
Effectsoffaultsonfluidflow...............................................................19
2.2.5.
Aquiferhydraulicproperties................................................................21
2.2.6.
GeochemicalStudies............................................................................22
Methods..............................................................................................................23
3.1
GeomorphologicSiteReconnaissance........................................................24
3.2
Dip(angles)anddipdirectionsofdiscontinuities.......................................25
3.3
Otherdiscontinuitiescharacteristics...........................................................28
3.3.1.
Relativehydraulicconductivity............................................................28
3.4
Transmissivity..............................................................................................29
3.5
Potentiometry.............................................................................................30
3.6
Controloffaultparametersonhydraulicproperties..................................31
3.6.1.
Displacementsalongfaultlengths.......................................................31
3.6.2.
Lengthandterminationpointsoffaults..............................................33
Page|viii
3.6.3.
Faultarchitectureatacrosssection....................................................34
3.6.4.
Stratathicknessandproperties...........................................................35
ObservationsandAnalysis..................................................................................36
4.1
4.1.1.
Qammiegh............................................................................................36
4.1.2.
LImgiebahBay.....................................................................................38
4.1.3.
FommirRihBay...................................................................................41
4.1.4.
WiedilGhasel......................................................................................43
4.1.5.
Gharghur..............................................................................................43
4.1.6.
St.GeorgesBay...................................................................................45
4.1.7.
Msida....................................................................................................46
4.1.8.
Xghajra.................................................................................................48
4.1.9.
Munxar.................................................................................................49
4.2
InferringContactsfromBoreholes..............................................................50
4.2.1.
4.3
Dip(angles)anddipdirectionsofdiscontinuities.......................................50
4.3.1.
FommirRihBay...................................................................................51
4.3.2.
St.GeorgesBay...................................................................................51
4.3.3.
Msida....................................................................................................52
4.3.4.
Xghajra.................................................................................................53
4.3.5.
Birkirkara..............................................................................................53
4.4
UCL/BC.................................................................................................50
Otherdiscontinuitiescharacteristics...........................................................54
4.4.1.
Aperture...............................................................................................54
4.4.2.
Persistence...........................................................................................55
4.4.3.
Relativehydraulicconductivity(K).......................................................57
4.5
Transmissivity..............................................................................................57
4.6
Potentiometry.............................................................................................61
Discussion...........................................................................................................62
5.1
5.1.1.
StratalDipofBC...................................................................................62
5.1.2.
Flowindicationsfromkarsterosion.....................................................63
5.1.3.
Sedimentationprocesses.....................................................................64
5.1.4.
CalciteDeposition................................................................................64
Page|ix
5.1.5.
5.2
Styleoffaulting....................................................................................65
Discontinuitydata........................................................................................65
5.2.1.
JointinglinkwiththeriftingtectonicsofMalta...................................65
5.2.2.
Limiteddatafrompersistence.............................................................66
5.2.3.
ThecaseoftheBirkirkarasite..............................................................66
5.2.4.
Extentoftectonicaffect.......................................................................67
5.2.5.
Controlonhydraulicconductivitiesfromgeologiccontacts...............67
5.2.6.
Jointinglinkwithnearestfaultstructure.............................................68
5.2.7.
Furtherdatalimitations.......................................................................68
5.3
Transmissivity..............................................................................................69
5.4
Potentiometry.............................................................................................69
5.5
MainDataLimitations.................................................................................70
5.6
ConceptualGroundModel..........................................................................71
SummaryandConclusions..................................................................................74
6.1
MainConclusions........................................................................................74
6.2
FurtherStudies............................................................................................75
6.2.1.
Faultparametersandcontrol..............................................................75
6.2.2.
Controlsonjointing..............................................................................76
6.2.3.
Permeabilityvariabilityofdifferentformationsandfacies.................76
6.2.4.
Geochemistry.......................................................................................76
References..................................................................................................................77
AppendixATheGeologicalMapofMalta(1993)...................................................83
AppendixBMainwaterbodiesasindicatedbytheMaltaResourcesAuthority
(MRA).........................................................................................................................84
AppendixCMdinainvestigationboreholesfromGianfrancoetal.(2003)............86
AppendixDStereonetplots....................................................................................87
AppendixEFullscanlinessheets............................................................................97
AppendixFTablesandgraphicsofdiscontinuitiesaperturedata........................116
AppendixGTablesandgraphsofdiscontinuitiespersistencedata.....................133
AppendixHRelativehydraulicconductivities.......................................................143
AppendixIHydrodynamicdata.............................................................................145
AppendixJFaultdataandstructuralcontoursofLCL..........................................150
Page|x
Tables
Table1SummaryofthestratigraphicalunitsofMalta(adoptedfromPedleyetal.,
1976;theGeologicalMapofMalta,1993)................................................................15
Table2Climateparametersmonthlymeans(source:Sapianoetal.,2006)..........16
Table 3 Water balances for individual ground water bodies for the year 2003
(source: Sapiano et al., 2003). The groundwater body codes refer to groundwater
bodiesasidentifiedbytheMaltaResourcesAuthority,mapsofwhicharepresented
inAppendixB.............................................................................................................17
Table4Averageaquiferhydraulicpropertiescompiledfromliterature................21
Table5Tableshowingsitenamesofsitesincludedinstudy.................................24
Table 6 Summary of discontinuity data collected. Site reference numbers are
crossreferencedtoFigure11andTable5.InitialsCSrefertoChristianSchembriand
AMrefertoGeotechnicalEngineerAdrianMifsud...................................................25
Table7Summaryofthemainidentifiablejointsetsfrompoleconcentrationsfor
each site and scan line. Site reference numbers are crossreferenced to Figure 11
andTable5.................................................................................................................26
Table8Summaryofthemainjointsetsvariabilityofaverages.............................27
Table 9 Aperture ranges for each aperture width class. These aperture width
classes areused in thepresentation of Appendices F andG graphs. These are the
basisfortheanalysispresentedinChapter4............................................................28
Table10Persistencerangesforeachpersistenceclass.Thesepersistenceclasses
areusedinthepresentationofAppendicesFandGgraphs.Thesearethebasisfor
theanalysispresentedinChapter4..........................................................................28
Table11DandLcoordinatesusedtodeterminearelationshipintheformD=cL2
....................................................................................................................................32
Table 12 Expected maximum widths for a 36m displacement using predictive
equationsfromMichieetal.(2014)..........................................................................35
Page|xi
Figures
Figure1LocationoftheMalteseIslandsisshownbytheredcircle(source:Google
Earth,2014)..................................................................................................................1
Figure2PartoftheNorthWestcoastofMaltaasseenfromFommirRihBay...2
Figure 3 Tectonic sketch of the Central Mediterranean. Approximate position of
Malta shown by the red circle. (source: Anzidei et al., 2001). Key details:
(1)Continental (a) and oceanic (b) parts of the Africa/Adriatic and Eurasian
forelands; (2) Tethyan belt comprised of oceanic remnants and intermediate
massifs(Pelagonian,AnatolianandCycladesarcs);(3)deformationbeltsdeveloped
ontheAfricanandEurasianmargins;(4)crustalthinning;(5)activethrustfronts;(6)
subduction zones; (7) inactive thrust fronts; (8,9,10) compressional, tensional and
transcurrent feautrues; (11) main trends of compressional deformation in the
MediterraneanRidgeandCalabrianArc.(Anzideietal.,2001).................................6
Figure4IsopachmapoftheLGL(source:Pedleyetal.,1976).................................7
Figure5Focalmechanismswithprincipalstressdirectionsforvariousmajorfault
zoneoutcrops(source:Dartetal.,1993)....................................................................7
Figure 6 Diagram showing the NorthSouth transfer fault zone between the
Pantelleria Trough to its west and the Malta Trough (also known as the Malta
Graben) and Linosa Trough to its east. These three structures form part of the
PantelleriaRift(source:Argnani,1990).......................................................................8
Figure7DiagramshowingthetectonickinematicsfortheHybleanMaltaPlateand
theIonianPlateasproposedbyJongsmaetal.(1987)(source:Jongsmaetal.,1987)
......................................................................................................................................9
Figure8SimplifiedstructuralgeologicmapoftheMalteseIslands(source:Dartet
al.,1993).....................................................................................................................12
Figure9TotalannualrainfallforLuqameteorologicalstation(source:Sapianoet
al.,2006).....................................................................................................................16
Figure 10 Conceptual model of a solution subsidence structure (Pedley,
1975b:p.542)..............................................................................................................18
Figure 11 Sites visited indicated on the Geological Map of Malta (1993). Sites
marked in red include only a site reconnaissance exercise while magenta sites
include also the collection of discontinuity data. Discontinuity data for site 8 was
acquiredandnotcarriedoutbymyself.Nositevisitwaspaidtosite8.Sitenumbers
arecrossreferencedtoTable5.................................................................................23
Figure 12 Stereographic projection showing the entire joint set brackets
consideredforgroupingofallthediscontinuitydataoverlaidoverascatterplotof
all the pole data. The inner circle represents a dip angle of 35o; poles within it
representdiscontinuitieswithdipangleslessthan35o.J9&J10areintroducedto
includeallofthedata................................................................................................27
Page|xii
Figure 13 Points of which the details are presented in Table 11. The red line
indicates the direction along which the length of the fault is considered (adapted
fromTheGeologicalMapofMalta,1993).................................................................32
Figure 14 Graph showing growth path of a segmented isolated fault and the
complexitytodeterminethisrelationshipduetofielddatascatter.Forinterlinked
overlapping faults the difference between the green point and the blue point
dependsonwhatfaultlengthisconsidered.(adaptedfromCartwrightetal.,1995)
....................................................................................................................................33
Figure 15 Cumulative heave plot for a cliff scale section named Malta D with
locationshownonmap.Redlinesonplotindicatesinglefaultshavingmajorheave
spacedatapproximately600metres.(adaptedfromPutzPerrier&Sanderson,2010)
....................................................................................................................................35
Figure16AerialphotoofQammieghSite(adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014).The
redpolylinesencircleslopeinstabilityareaswhichmainlyinvolverocktoppling.The
blue polyline encircle a wetland and saltmarsh. Black lines show the locations of
faults and where they are dashed it means that they are inferred (The Geological
Map of Malta, 1993). Numbers are crossreferenced with photo numbers of this
sectionandthearrowsshowtheorientationofview...............................................36
Figure17Photo1.Arrowsindicateextentofmainkarstfeaturesanddashedlines
showenlargedjointsobservedfromdistance...........................................................37
Figure18Photo2showingextensivecavedevelopmentatFaultZone.Dashedline
indicatesinferredfault(TheGeologicalMapofMalta,1993)...................................37
Figure19Photo3showingUCLhangingwall.........................................................38
Figure 20 Photo 4 showing varying slope angles along a slope section. Red lines
indicategeneralslopeanglesofeveryformation.....................................................38
Figure21AerialphotoofLImgiebahBay(adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014).The
red polylines encircle slope instability area. The green polylines encircle denser
vegetatedareas.Numbersarecrossreferencedwithphotonumbersofthissection
andthearrowsshowtheorientationofview...........................................................39
Figure22Photo1showingcliffedgewiththeBCoverlyingtheUGL.Dashedlines
indicate joints into the plane of the paper (approx. ENEWSW), dotted polylines
indicatejointsparalleltotheplaneofthepaper(approx.NWSE)...........................40
Figure23Photo2showingdesiccatedclaysurface...............................................40
Figure 24 Photo 3 showing oxidised UGL joint as interpreted by Missenard et al.
(2014).........................................................................................................................40
Figure 25 Photo 4 showing UCL cliff edge exhibiting at least two dominant
discontinuitysets.ForexplanationofannotationsusedrefertoFigure22.............41
Figure 26 Aerial photo of Fomm irRih Bay (adapted from Google Earth, 2014).
Numbersarecrossreferencedwithphotonumbersofthissectionandthearrows
showtheorientationofview.....................................................................................41
Page|xiii
Figure27Photo1showingVictoriafaultatwestcoastoutcrop.Annotationsused
areexplainedbynotesonphoto...............................................................................41
Figure 28 Photo 2 showing detail of antithetic fault shown in Figure 27..............42
Figure 29 Photo 3 showing LGL outcrop at location of Scan line A (scale shown
by geologic hammer)..................................................................................................42
Figure 30 Photo 4 shows MGL at location of scan line B. Dashed lines show
examplesofsubhorizontaldesiccationjoints(scaleshownbyfieldnotebook)......42
Figure 31 Photo 5 showing the Lower Main Phosphorite Conglomerate (scale
shownbyfieldnotebookscaleline)..........................................................................42
Figure32KarstcavesintheAttardmemberoftheLCLatWiedilGhaselwhereit
crosscutstheVictoriafault,therockfacestrikeisapproximatelyNNE...................43
Figure 33 Aerial photo of site visited at Gharghur (adapted from Google Earth,
2014). The green line shows a stretch of denser vegetation. Numbers are cross
referencedwithphotonumbersofthissectionandthearrowsshowtheorientation
ofview........................................................................................................................44
Figure34Photo1showingformednotchesatXlendimemberoftheLCL.Dashed
polylineindicatesawideraperturejoint...................................................................44
Figure35Photo2showingdetailofcalcitedeposition..........................................45
Figure36Photo3showingkarstifiedcavepillar....................................................45
Figure37Infilledjointhavingwideaperture..........................................................45
Figure38FaultBreccia............................................................................................45
Figure39Wideopenapertureatfaultzone...........................................................45
Figure 40 Schematic plan layout of Excavation site visited at Msida with an
indicationoftheexcavationfacesreferences..........................................................47
Figure41MinorKarstfeaturenotedatwallA.......................................................47
Figure42ExcavationfaceAwithdottedlinesindicatingdiscontinuityzones(scale
isshownbyexcavator)...............................................................................................47
Figure43ExcavationfaceBwithdottedlinesindicatingdiscontinuityzones(scale
isshownbyexcavator)...............................................................................................47
Figure44ExcavationfaceDontheleftside,faceBontherightsideandfaceCin
between. Discontinuity zones are indicated by dotted lines (scale is shown by
excavator)...................................................................................................................47
Figure45AerialphotoofsitevisitedatXghajra(adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014).
DashedlinesshowexamplesofNEdiscontinuitieswhichcanbeobservedevenfrom
thisaerialphoto.........................................................................................................48
Figure46Photo1showingNEtrendingdiscontinuitiesontheLGLwallandonthe
LCL ground (scale shown by field notebook. Dashed lines show discontinuity dip
angles.ThepolylineshowsakarstifiedstretchontheLCLground...........................49
Page|xiv
Figure 47 Photo 2 showing contact between LGL and LCL and Scutella echinoids
marker(scaleshownbyfieldnotebook)...................................................................49
Figure48AerialphotoofMunxarSite(adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014)..........49
Figure49Photo2.Dashedlinesshowexamplesoftightdiscontinuitieswhichmay
be interpreted as sedimentation desiccation discontinuities. (scale shown by field
notebookscaleline)...................................................................................................49
Figure50Photo1showingalowMGLcliffface.....................................................50
Figure51Investigationboreholeslocationencircledinred(source:GoogleEarth,
2014)..........................................................................................................................50
Figure52MGLoutcropatFommirRihBayscanlineB.Dashedlinesshowmain
joints...........................................................................................................................51
Figure53CavelikestructureadjacenttothepositionofthestartofscanlineA.53
Figure54PhotoofBirkirkarasiteshowingundulatingdiscontinuity(scaleshown
bymobilecrane)........................................................................................................54
Figure55VariabilityoftransmissivitywithboreholedepthbelowtopofLCL(line
shownisthetrendline).............................................................................................58
Figure 56 Variability of transmissivity with borehole depth with respect to the
meansealevel(lineshownisthetrendline)............................................................59
Figure 57 Variability of transmissivity in relation to distance away from fault
consideredatsurface.Blacklineshowsapossibletrendlineifdatapointsabovethe
redarrowandinthecircleareignored.....................................................................60
Figure 58 Variability of transmissivity in relation to distance away from fault
consideredatdepthofboreholeend.Blacklineshowsapossibletrendlineifdata
pointsabovetheredarrowandinthecircleareignored.........................................60
Figure591990potentiometricmapsuperimposedontheGeologicalMapofMalta
(1993).Dashedlinesshowmainfaultsaveragealignments,dotswithnumbershow
locationsofgaugedboreholeswithwaterpiezometriclevel.(adaptedfromBRGM,
1991c&theGeologicalMapofMalta,1993)............................................................61
Figure 60 The Victoria fault within the regional geology (adapted from the
GeologicalMapofMalta,1993).................................................................................68
Figure61Redbordershowstheareaoftheconceptualgroundmodelpresented
inthissection(adaptedfromtheGeologicalMapofMalta,1993)..........................71
Figure 62 Conceptual Ground Model highlighting regional hydrogeology of Malta.
Annotations cross-referenced to numbers are included on the next page.................72
Page|xv
Introduction
The Maltese Islands are located in the Mediterranean Sea, about 90km south of Sicily and about 300km east of
Tunisia. The location of the Maltese archipelago is shown (
(picture removed due to data limits)
Figure1).
Figure 1 Location of the Maltese Islands is shown by the red circle (source: Google Earth, 2014)
The geologic strata consist in marine sedimentary and are predominantly made up of carbonates. Five main
stratigraphic units are identified with the oldest being the Lower Coralline Limestone (LCL) of Chattian age from
the Oligocene and the youngest the Upper Coralline Limestone (UCL) from the early Messinian period of the
Miocene. The Coralline Limestones usually form bare karstic plateaux in the landscape while the Globigerina
Limestone (GL) produces gentler landscape (Pedley et al., 1976). In exposed Blue Clay (BC) slopes, drainage
gullies and rock toppling of the overlying UCL can be observed especially along the North West coast of Malta
(Devoto et al., 2012;
Page|1
Figure2).TheBCisthemostfertileunit(Pedleyetal.,1976)owinginparttoitslow
permeability characteristics. The soil produced from the water solution of the
UpperCorallineLimestonestendstobefertiletoo(BRGM,1991)andthatexplains
the fact that a good number of solution subsidence structures are occupied by
agriculturalfields.
Figure 2 Part of the North West coast of Malta as seen from Fomm ir-Rih Bay
NorthoftheVictoriaFault,Maltaisdominatedbyhorstandgrabenstructures.Two
main fault sets outcrop on Malta with one trending approximately ENEWSW and
theotherNWSE.
Page|2
Malta has two main aquifer types. The upper perched aquifer overlying the BC
formationwhichactsasanaquitardandthelowerbeingthemeansealevelaquifer
of the GhybenHerzberg Lens type (Alexander, 1988; ATIGA, 1972; BRGM, 1991c;
Sapianoetal.,2006;Stuartetal.,2010).TheBCformationcanbesubjecttosome
seepage losses which provide for some degree of connectivity between the two
aquifers. The upper perched aquifer is discontinuous and is made from several
blocks(AppendixB).
Inseveralpartsoftheliteratureitishighlightedthattheaquifersaredualporosity
withtheprimaryporosityreferringtothematrixpermeabilitywhilethesecondary
refers to the permeability due to the fractures which may be altered by karstic
carbonate dissolution (Newbery, 1968; BRGM, 1991; Sapiano et al., 2006;
Bakalowicz&Mangion,2003;Stuartetal.,2010).
This dissertation has the aim of developing a good understanding of structural
controlsonthehydrogeologyofMaltaasthemainislandoftheMalteseIslands.
1.1
ScopeofWork
The importance of water to support life is undebatable. During the last decades
Maltahaswitnessedincreasingdemandforwaterresourceswhilewaterrecharge
remained low. The unbalance between water demand and supply has sometimes
resulted in diminishing water quality. It is therefore to no ones surprise that
hydrogeologic studies of Malta generally deal with the hydrologic balance, water
qualityandwatermanagementstrategies(ATIGA,1972;BRGM,1991;Sapianoetal.,
2006;Stuartetal.,2010).Thestudyofstructuralcontrolsonthehydrogeologyof
Malta has therefore been a neglected subject. However a new interest from the
petroleum industry to characterise the hydraulic properties of Maltas geology
seems to be on the rise. Missenard et al. (2014) describe Malta as an open
laboratory of the Mediterranean which can possibly provide hints for offshore
explorationsintheMediterraneanregion.
Page|3
Detailed studies from the petroleum industry even though their interest is not
geared towards understanding the hydrogeology may provide good data that can
beusedtobetterunderstandthehydrogeology.Inordertobetterunderstandthe
structuralcontrolsonthehydrogeologyofMaltaanextensiveliteraturereviewand
desk study coupled by a limited amount of field work are carried out. This scope
includes:
theidentificationofmaincontrolsfromgeomorphologicsitereconnaissance,
a study of scan line discontinuity data carried out at random sites with an
analysisofthemainparameters,howtheserelatetotheregionalgeologic
environment is speculated and an indication of the variation of relative
hydraulicconductivityisgiven,
reinterpretation of some spatial hydrodynamic and potentiometric data,

and
aninterpretationofthemainfaultcontrolsonthehydrogeologyofMaltaby
combining field data with previous studies presented in a regional
conceptualgroundmodel.
1.2
OverviewofWork
ThefirstchapterofthisworkgivesageneralbackgroundtothegeologyofMalta,
outlinesthemainaimandgivesanoveralloverviewofthework.
The second chapter presents a literature review giving a sound geologic and
hydrogeologic background of Malta. The geologic background includes tectonic
setting,tectonichistory,structuralgeology,sedimentationenvironmentandabrief
description of the main geologic strata. The hydrogeologic background includes
some basic hydroclimatological and water balance data, hydrogeologic setting
including the main aquifer types and some geomorphologic features realted to
hydrogeology,basichydrogeologiccharacteristicsofthedifferentgeologicmaterials,
Page|4
basic hydraulic aquifer data, some observations from fault effect and from
geochemicalstudies.
The third chapter explains the main techniques used for data collection and its
analysis. It highlights how the methods are applied, developed and what their
limitationsmaybe.Thischapteralsoincludesexplanationofhowdataisgoingtobe
presented in chapter 4. The development of a method to create a framework to
predict fracture layouts along the Victoria fault is attempted. This part of the
process serves to highlight the complexity involved and to highlight data gaps,
rather than serving the purpose of successfully providing a detailed method that
canbeappliedtopredictfracturelayouts.Thispartisstilldeemedtobeveryuseful
in understanding the realm of structural control on the hydrogeology of Malta
especiallyinthepiecingtogetherofaregionalconceptualgroundmodel.
The fourth chapter presents observations and the analysis carried out. The topics
includegeomorphologicsitereconnaissance,analysisofspatialdiscontinuitydata,a
spatial analysis of transmissivity and a small note on the potentiometric data
available.Duringthecourseofthischapterobservationsfromonesitemaycross
referenceobservationsfromanothersiteorfromliterature.Insodoingthepaceis
setforthefifthchapter.
The fifth chapter provides the main discussion with all the observations brought
together providing a more holistic understanding of the hydrogeology of Malta. A
regionalconceptualgroundmodelispresentedwiththisscope.Theuncertainties,
datalimitations,furtherimplicationsandsomesuggestionsforfurther studiesare
includedalongthediscussion.
The final chapter presents a summary of the main conclusions and
recommendationsforfurtherstudy.
Page|5
2
2.1
GeologicandHydrogeologicBackgroundofMalta
GeologicBackground
2.1.1.
TectonicSetting
Figure 3 Tectonic sketch of the Central Mediterranean. Approximate position of Malta shown by the red circle.
(source: Anzidei et al., 2001). Key details: (1)Continental (a) and oceanic (b) parts of the Africa/Adriatic and
Eurasian forelands; (2) Tethyan belt comprised of oceanic remnants and intermediate massifs (Pelagonian,
Anatolian and Cyclades arcs); (3) deformation belts developed on the African and Eurasian margins; (4) crustal
thinning; (5) active thrust fronts; (6) subduction zones; (7) inactive thrust fronts; (8,9,10) compressional,
tensional and transcurrent feautrues; (11) main trends of compressional deformation in the Mediterranean Ridge
and Calabrian Arc. (Anzidei et al., 2001)
The Maltese Islands form part of the African continental plate where Miocene-Quaternary extensional
basins system formed to accommodate extension in the foreland of the Apennine-Maghrebian thrust
and fold belt (Dart et al., 1993; Argnani, 1990). The latter marks the collision zone between the African
and Eurasian plates to the north of the Maltese Islands. A tectonic sketch of the central Mediterranean
region is presented (
Figure 3 sourced from Anzidei et al., 2001). This diagram gives a general idea of the main geological
structures of the region however the individual details are the subject of various debates. At a micro
plate scale the Maltese archipelago forms part of the Hyblean-Malta Plateau (marked IB on
Page|6

Figure3;Pedleyetal.,1976).
An isopach map of the Lower Globigerina Limestone (LGL) is shown in Figure 4
(Pedleyetal.,1976).ThismapshowsthickersectionsoftheLGLmember,whichis
Aquitanianinage,closetothecentreofMalta.Thisoccurrencecanbeattributedto
uparching of this member (Pedley, 1987) due to a compression action preceding
theriftingwiththelattereventestimatedtostartatapproximately21millionyears
ago(Dartetal.,1993).Althoughthisstatementisplausibleonewoulddesiremore
evidencetosupportit,howeveritisfeltthatthisisoutsidethescopeofthepresent
study.
Figure 4 Isopach map of the LGL (source: Pedley et al., 1976)
Adetailedstudyincludingbothonshoreandoffshoredataproposesatectonic
hypothesisinvolvinganorthsouthriftdirectionasresponsibleforthetwomain
faultsetsfoundontheMalteseIslands(Dartetal.,1993).Eachfaultsetismadeup
oftwofaultsubsets,eachwiththesameapproximatestrikebutwithoppositedip
directionformingboundingedgesofbasins.Theyarguethattherearetwopossible
scenarioswhereasingledirectionofstresscanberesponsibleforthisoccurrence.It
canbeeitherthereactivationofpreexistingdiscontinuitiesorastateoftriaxial
strainwiththeminorstrainnotequaltozero.Insupportofthishypothesisthey
collectdiscontinuityscanlinedataincludingalsoslipcharacteristicsatmajorfault
zones.TheyfollowedthekinematicalmethodsproposedbyMarrett&Allmendinger
(1990)andobtainedfocalmechanismswiththeextensionalstressdirectionbeing
approximatelyNorthSouthforallfaultexposures(
Page|7
Figure5sourcedfromDartetal.,1993).
Figure 5 Focal mechanisms with principal stress directions for various major fault zone outcrops (source: Dart
et al., 1993)
This interpretation conforms to the hypothesis of Argnani (1990), who suggests a North-South transfer fault zone
located within the Pantelleria Rift (
Figure6sourcedfromArgnani,1990).Thistransferzoneaccommodatesdifferential
NorthSouth extension and its interpretation is supported by the occurrence of
strikeslip indications along it, such as volcanic centres and a positive flower
Page|8
structureatthenorthlimbofthePantelleriaRift.Howevertheirinterpretationmay
contrastwithinterpretationsbyotherauthorsforotherstructuresintheregion.
Figure 6 Diagram showing the North-South transfer fault zone between the Pantelleria Trough to its west and
the Malta Trough (also known as the Malta Graben) and Linosa Trough to its east. These three structures form
part of the Pantelleria Rift (source: Argnani, 1990)
Another interpretation for the kinematics of the area is given by Jongsma et al. (1987). The authors attribute the
opening of the Pantelleria Rift (also known as the Medina Wrench zone) as a pull-apart basin due to dextral
strike-slip movements. This structure accommodates the faster movement of the Hyblean-Malta Plate and the
Ionian Plate towards the east when compared to the African and Eurasian Plates. A component of anti-clockwise
rotation about poles in the South of Italy is also reported (
Figure7sourcedfromJongsmaetal.,1987).
Grasso&Reuther(1988)ascitedbyDartetal.(1993)proposethatthePantelleria
RiftformedasapullapartbasintoaccommodatestrikeslipmotionalongtheNNE
SSWtrendingSciclifaulttotheNorthofMaltaandtowardstheSouthEastcornerof
Sicily.
Page|9
Figure 7 Diagram showing the tectonic kinematics for the Hyblean-Malta Plate and the Ionian Plate as
proposed by Jongsma et al. (1987) (source: Jongsma et al., 1987)
Thelattertwohypothesesarenotsupportedbymuchgeomorphologicexpression
neither in the Maltese Islands nor within the Pantelleria Rift (Dart et al., 1993;
Argnani, 1990). Minor exposures of strikeslip motion are witnessed in Gozo
includingsmallscalestrikeslipdamagezonesfromthenorthwestofGozo(Kimet
al.,2003)andstrikesliphorsetailfaultingnearQalawithdisplacementslessthan1
centimetre (Illies, 1981; Pedley et al., 1976). Some features such as solution
subsidence structures near Dwejra in Gozo were interpreted as strikeslip
manifestations (Illies, 1981). A contrasting interpretation is that these faults were
formedasacauseoftwosolutionsubsidencestructuresinthearea(Pedley,1975b).
From extensive field studies the faults trending approximately WNWESE are
deducedtobepredominantlynormaldipslipfaults(PutzPerrier,2008;PutzPerrier
&Sanderson,2010;Michieetal.,2014).
Gardineretal.(1995)reportsUpperPliocenerightlateraltranstensionattheNorth
of Gozo graben with rightstepping ridges. This activity probably reactivated the
older normal fault sets. The tectonic structural block model proposed for the
HybleanMalta plateau by Gardiner et al. (1995) could well combine both the
interpretationsofDartetal.(1993)andJongsmaetal.(1987)withpossiblyhavinga
rotationoftheextensionalaxisfromnorthsouthtowardsnortheastsouthwestin
thelast5millionyearswithminimalevidenceontheMalteseIslands.
The uplift of the Maltese Islands occurred from the late Messinian to the mid
Pliocene.ItisbelievedtobelinkedwiththereactivationoftheENEWSWfaultsby
rightlateral wrenching coupled with sea lowering during the Messinian (Pedley,
Page|10
1987;Pedley,2011).ThestratigraphicunitsofMaltahaveasubhorizontalbedding
diptowardsthenortheastinvariousareas(Pedleyetal.,1976;Pedley,1987;Dart
etal.,1993).ThiscanalsobeindicativeofarisingofthewestcoastofMaltaanda
drowningoftheeastcoast.Thisisstrengthenedbyanobservationofstalagmitesat
theseabottomnotedduringconstructionoftheVallettabreakwaterbyRizzo(1932)
ascitedbyTrechmann(1938).Stalagmitesdonotformunderwater.
2.1.2.
TectonicHistoryDebates
There are a number of historical interpretations of how the two fault families
outcropping in Malta. Just a small reminder, the two main fault families are the
ENEWSWandtheNWSEtrendingfaults.
Gardineretal.(1995)suggestthattheNWtrendingMaltaTroughformsfirstasa
reactiontorelievetensionalstressduringthecollisionoftheAfricanPlatewiththe
EurasianPlate.TheENEWSWtrendingfaultsoftheMalteseregionareattributed
to a midPliocene regional uplift from Gozo to SE Sicily. With their interpretation
theseauthorsbelievethattheNWSEfaultsformedfirstfollowedbytheENEWSW
faults.
Other parts of the literature suggest two rift systems with the first producing the
ENEWSW faults and the second forming the NWSE fault trends (Illies, 1981;
Reuther&Eisbacher,1985).
Dart et al. (1993), on the other hand, report that both fault sets formed
contemporaneously supporting their statement with field data. These authors
noted instances of both fault sets crosscutting each other, single striae lineation
per fault and similar depositional patterns in both the North Gozo Graben (ENE
WSWorientedbasin)andthePantelleriaRift(NWSEorientedbasin).
The extensional rifting is estimated to start at approximately 21 Million years ago
withthemajorextensionalriftingprobablytakingplacebetween5Millionyearsago
Page|11
and1.5Millionyearsago(Dartetal.,1993).Whenriftingceasedsomepartsofthe
literaturesuggestdextralstrikeslipreactivationoftheENEWSWfaultsduetothe
rotationoftheextensionalstressaxismoretowardsthenortheastduetofurther
continentalplatescollision(Illies,1981;Reuther&Eisbacher,1985;Gardineretal.,
1995).EventhoughthereisminimalevidenceofstrikeslipfaultingonshoreMalta,
thelatterstatementshouldnotbeignored.
2.1.3.
OnshoreStructuralGeologyofMalta
FromtheGeologicalMapofMalta(1993),whichisattachedinAppendixA,onecan
observethatthearchipelagohastwomainsetsoffaults.
OnesetstrikesapproximatelybetweenN050oandN090oandismostlyevidentover
a14kmstretchbetweentheVictoriafault(VLF)andtheSouthofGozoFault(SGFor
QalaFault).Thisareaisdominatedbysuccessivehorstandgrabenstructureswhich
togetherformtheNorthMaltaGraben.Thelargestthrowsofthissetarereported
attheVictoriafaultandareapproximately195to200metresatthewestcoastfault
zoneandattheeastcoastthetotaldisplacementsofthe faultzoneareabout90
metreswith60metresdisplacementsoccurringontheVictoriaFaultalone(Pedley
etal.,1976;Costain,19571958ascitedbyDartetal.,1993;Reuther&Eisbacher,
1985; Michie et al., 2014). It is also reported that faults are not identified by
offshoreseismicsectionstotheeastofMaltathereforeweexpectthrowstobeless
than 10 metres in this region however we do not know where these seismic
sectionswerecarriedout(Dartetal.,1993).
The other set strikes approximately between N120o and N140o with its outcrops being rare with one excpetionally
good outcrop at Il-Maghlaq Fault (IMF) to the south west of Malta (Michie et al., 2014; Reuther & Eisbacher,
1985). This set trends sub-parallel to the Pantelleria Rift. Il-Maghlaq Fault is reported to have the highest
vertical throws observable in the Maltese Islands with over 210m (Reuther & Eisbacher, 1985; Bonson et al.,
2007). A simplified structural geologic map is presented (
Page|12
Figure8sourcedfromDartetal.,1993).
Figure 8 Simplified structural geologic map of the Maltese Islands (source: Dart et al., 1993)
FromfieldobservationscarriedoutinMaltaitwasnotedthatfaultzonewidthsare
narrowinplanandthattheycontainbothsyntheticandantitheticfaults(Dartetal.,
1993).Predictiveequationsforfaultzonewidthsinrelationtofaultdisplacements
are proposed (Michieet al., 2014). Smearing of the BlueClay is reported in faults
with throws of approximately greater than fifty metres, while for intermediate
throws a wider zone of deformation within the Blue Claywith brittlestructures is
reported (Missenard et al., 2014). Some minor synclines are also noted close to
majorfaultsandtheiroccurrenceisattributedtofaultdrag(Pedleyetal.,1976).
From seismic sections it was deduced that maximum throws in the North Gozo
Graben and the Pantelleria Rift are estimated at 1600m and 2200m respectively
(Dartetal.,1993).Thisshowsushigheroffshoreactivityinthementionedregions
thanonshoreMalta.Thisisalsoshownfromthecalculatedregionalstrains.Average
regional extensional strains over the entire Maltese Islands are deemed to be
Page|13
approximately3%strain(PutzPerrier,2008;PutzPerrier&Sanderson,2010),while
extensionalstrainsofabout10%and17%werereportedfortheNorthGozoGraben
andthePantelleriaRiftrespectively(Dartetal.,1993).
2.1.4.
MainStratigraphicalUnits
ThegeologicformationsofMaltaconsistmostlyofsedimentarymarinecarbonates
deposited at shallow sea depths with the highest sea depths estimated not to be
greaterthan250metres(Pedleyetal.,1976;Bonsonetal.,2007).Asummaryofthe
stratigraphicalsuccessionofMaltaispresented(Table1sourcedfromPedleyetal.,
1976andtheGeologicMapofMalta,1993).Afewmineralogicaltestshaveshown
that even the Blue Clay Formation has about 1525% of calcium carbonates
(Missenardetal.,2014).Calciumcarbonatesifsubjectedtosolutionbywatercould
compromisethesealprovidedbyBC(BRGM,1991c).Maltesecarbonatesarevery
similar to carbonates found in Sicily and in the Sirte Basin of Libya (Pedley et al.,
1976). Information on the preMiocene strata is only limited to an exploration
boreholeatNaxxar(Pedleyetal.,1976;Dartetal.,1993).
PliocenestrataareextensivelythickinthePantelleriaRiftandNorthGozoGraben
while they are absent from Malta. This shows the large difference in elevation
between these areas during the uplift of Malta above sea level (Dart et al., 1993;
Trechmann,1938).
ThepostMiocenestrataofMaltaincludemammalremainswhicharecomparable
withdepositsinSESicilywhichhasundergonesimilarterrestrialprocesses(Pedley,
2011). These deposits are quite discontinuously distributed and were thus
subsequently neglected by many studies. A marker bedding was identified as the
San Leonardo Marine Abrasion Surface, which was deemed to provide a good
startingpointtosolvetherecentgeologicalhistoryofMalta.
Membersandfaciesaredistinguishedwithinthegeologicformations.Faciesoccur
due to varying sea depths of what has been idealised as a ramp profile with sub
Page|14
horizontal dip angles (Pedley, 1998). This author highlights that facies variability
such as grain size and types of marine deposits relate to depth of deposition and
directionofpredominantseacurrent.Largergrainsizesareexpectedatshallower
partsoftheramp,whilemarlsandfinergrainsareexpectedattheouterpartofthe
ramp.Marlswouldalsobeexpectedattheshallowestpartsoftherampiftheramp
isfacingseacurrents.
Effectsoftectonicsarealsonotedfrompalaeolandslideswhenthesedimentswere
still in a semilithified state (Pedley, 1998). From a study of facies in the UCL it is
believedthatthepalaeoenvironmentsaremostlycontrolledbyfaultingfollowedby
seacurrents(Bosence&Pedley,1982).
Within the GL two phosphorite conglomerates and hardgrounds are reported and
studied (Pedley & Bennett, 1985; Pratt, 1990). Both conglomerates include clasts
from hardground material with the source area identified to be to the west and
north of modern Malta (Pedley & Bennett, 1985). The bottom conglomerate lies
directly over a hardground (Pedley & Bennett, 1985). Hardgrounds occurrence is
attributedtoanincreaseinseaenergyduetoasealeveldropwhichdisturbedfine
materialwhilethiswascoupledbyalackofdeposition(Pratt,1990).
Page|15
Description
Hard,palegreycarbonateswithsparsefaunas.
75m)
(15
Palegreyandbrownishgreywackestonesand
packstones.Containscorallinealgal,mollusc,echinoid
bioclastsandrhodoliths.Upperbedsdominatedby
carbonatemudstones.
Mtarfa Massivetothicklybeddedcarbonatemudstonesand
(1216m)
wackestones.UnconformableuponGreensandin
westernoutcrops.Carbonatesbecomewhiteandchalky
intheuppertwothirdsofeasternoutcrops.Contains
rhodoliths.
GhajnMelel Massivebeddeddarktopalebrownforaminiferal
(013m)
packstones.ContainsglauconiteaboveabasalUCL
erosionsurfaceinWestMalta.Theglauconiterich
GreensandFormationisincludedinthismemberfor
convenienceasitrarelyexceeds1metrethickness.
Mediumgreypelagicmarls,typicallywithpalebandsrich
inplanktonicforaminiferabutlowerclaycontent.
(BC)
UpperCorallineLimestone(UCL)
Formation
&Member
Imbark
(425m)
TalPitkal
(3050m)
Aq
uit
Burdigalian
Langhian
ani
an
Blue
GlobigerinaLimestone
(GL)
Clay
Miocene
Tortonian
Early
Messinian
GeologicalAge
Upper(U) Afinegrainedplanktonicforaminiferallimestone
(826m)
sequencemadeupofacentralpalegreymarllayer,a
lowerandanuppercreamcolouredwackestone.A
phosphoriteconglomeratebedoccursatthebase.Lies
conformableineasternoutcropsbutliesabovea
hardgroundanderosionsurfaceinthewest.
Middle(M) Aplanktonicforaminiferarichsequenceofmassive,
(1538m)
white,softcarbonatemudstoneslocallypassinginto
palegreymarlymudstones.Baseisunconformableover
lowerGLmember.
Page|16
LowerCorallineLimestone(LCL)
Chattian
Oligocene
Lower(L) Palecreamtoyellowplanktonicforaminiferalpackstones
(080m)
becomingwackestonesabovethebasewhichis
phosphatisedinthewestandincludesaconglomerate
bed.Thetopofthememberismarkedbyahardground.
IlMara Tabularbedsofpalecreamtopalegreycarbonate
(020m)
mudstones,wackestonesandpackstones.Thetopofthe
memberistransitionalwiththeLGL.Bryozoan(moss
animals)fragmentsarecommon.
Xlendi
(022m)
Attard
(1015m)
Maghlaq
(>38m)
Planartocrossstratified,coarsegrainedpackstoneswith
abundantcorallinealgalfragments.
Greywackestonesandpackestones.Largecorallinealgal
rhodolithsarewidespread.AnextensiveNStrendingbelt
ofpatchreefsextendfromWiedMaghlaqtoNaxxar.
Massivebedded,paleyellowishgreycarbonate
mudstonesaredominantandforaminiferaarefrequent.
ItpassestransitionallyupintotheAttardMember.
Table 1 Summary of the stratigraphical units of Malta (adopted from Pedley et al., 1976; the Geological Map
of Malta, 1993)
Page|17
2.2
HydrogeologicBackground
2.2.1.
BasicHydroclimatologicaldata
The climate is semi-arid Mediterranean with summers hot and dry while winters mild and wet (Sapiano et al.,
2006). The annual rainfall totals for the Luqa meteorological station covering the period 1947-2004 (
Figure 9 sourced from Sapiano et al., 2006) and the average monthly rainfall for all of Malta (
Table2sourcedfromSapianoetal.,2006)areshown.
Figure 9 Total annual rainfall for Luqa meteorological station (source: Sapiano et al., 2006)
Table 2 Climate parameters monthly means (source: Sapiano et al., 2006)
Page|18
Eventhoughtheaverageannualrainfallisnothigh,floodingofagoodnumberof
mainstreetstotheeastofMalta,especiallyafterthepostsummerflashstorms,has
beenanissueforseveralyearstosuchanextentthataNationalFloodReliefProject
wasputforward(MinistryforEuropeanAffairs,2014).Oldersystemstotacklethis
problem included a number of small scale dams along the water courses to store
rainwater runoff while at the same time encouraging infiltration (Sapiano et al.,
2006).
2.2.2.
WaterBalance
Hydrologicalbalanceestimatesforeachindividualaquiferfortheyear2003show
an unsustainable state of the major aquifers that are the mean sea level aquifers
(Sapianoetal.,2003).
Table 3 Water balances for individual ground water bodies for the year 2003 (source: Sapiano et al., 2003).
The groundwater body codes refer to groundwater bodies as identified by the Malta Resources Authority, maps of
which are presented in Appendix B.
2.2.3.
HydrogeologicalSetting
AspreviouslyhighlightedMaltahastwomaintypesofaquifers.Theperchedaquifer
whichoverliestheBCformationisgenerallyverythinwithflowtowardsthedown
Page|19
dip of the same stratum (Newbery, 1968). Springs are noted at the UCL and BC
interface.VariablemechanicalandhydrogeologicalpropertiesofthebrittleUCLand
themoreplasticunderlyingBChasledtoslopeinstabilitiessuchasrocktopplingat
theUCLperipheries(Gianfrancoetal.,2003;Magrietal.,2008;Devotoetal.,2012).
The mean sea level aquifer consists of a lens of freshwater which floats over sea
saltwaterwiththemainhostrockbeingtheLCL.TheUCLmayalsobeahostrockof
thisaquiferwhenitliesatthesealevelinthehorstandgrabenstructureofnorth
Malta(Alexander,1988).Themaindifficultiesforthisaquifertomeetthedemands
ofthepotablewatersupplyincludetherelativelysmallrechargeareaandextentsof
theaquiferitself,thelargepopulationdensity,seawaterintrusionsduetooverand
uncontrolledpumpingandseveralnitratesourcesofpollution(Sapianoetal.,2006;
Stuartetal.,2010).
SurfacedrainagechannelsarenotedtofollowMaltasfaulttrendsandfracturingis
alsonotedtooccurapproximatelyparalleltothemainENEWSWfaults(Alexander,
1988;Gutierrez,1994ascitedbyBakalowicz&Mangion,2003).Ithasbeennoted
thatsurfacewaterdrainsrapidlymostlythroughkarstrockfeatures(Sapianoetal.,
2006; Stuart et al., 2010). Contrastingly it has been also noted that karst plays a
minimal role in the aquifer recharge (Bakalowicz & Mangion, 2003). These two
statements highlight the difficulty to generalize and quantify the effect karst
featuresmayhave.
Major surface karst features involve circular subsidence structures (Trechmann, 1938; Newbery, 1968; Newbery
1975; Pedley, 1975b; Alexander, 1988). Two formation methods of such structures are proposed. The first mode
involves a cavern roof collapse subsiding the overlying material. Caverns eventually enlarge the process of which
would be accelerated by faulting and subsequent subsiding would occur (Newbery, 1976; Pedley, 1975b). The
second mode may involve the softening of the BC at larger inflow zones from the overlying UCL (Newbery, 1976).
A conceptual model as proposed by Pedley (1975) is shown (
Page|20
Figure10).Itisnoteasytosaywhetherthesestructuresarefaultcontrolledfrom
surface geomorphologic observations; however this may be more obvious from
observationsinundergroundgalleries(Newbery,1976).
Figure 10 Conceptual model of a solution subsidence structure (Pedley, 1975b:p.542)
It has been noted that different stratigraphic units may have different karst
development potentials with the finegrained materials such as the GL having
localisedverticalenlargementoffracturesbutwithlimitedhorizontalextentwhile
widerzonesinalldirectionsmaydevelopwithintheCorallineLimestones(Newbery,
1968; Pedley, 1975b; Bakalowicz & Mangion, 2003; Stuart et al., 2010). Generally
speaking, in mean sea level aquifers one may also expect karst features at the
salinefreshwatercontactzone(Mylroie&Mylroie,2007).
2.2.4.
Effectsoffaultsonfluidflow
TheBCformationisconsideredtoformanimpermeablelayer(Stuartetal.,2010)
howeversomegroundwaterfromtheperchedaquifershasbeendeemedtoflowto
the mean sea level aquifers through fracture zones (Sapiano et al., 2006). Flow
through the BC formation can also occur as seepage facilitated by the formations
carbonatecontentandsolutionsubsidencestructures(BRGM,1991c;Stuartetal.,
2010).
Page|21
Missenard et al. (2014) studied palaeofluid circulations. The authors made

distinctionsbetweenfaultswiththrowslessthan5metres(lowthrow),faultswith
throws in the range of 5 to 50 metres (medium throw) and faults with throws
greater than 50 metres (large throw). No fluid flow is observed at the low throw
faults, which observation suggests the ability of the BC stratum to stop the faults
from propagating through its thickness in such a case andhenceretain its sealing
ability. Likewise no fluid flow is observed at the large throw faults which
observation suggests that palaeofluid flow started at around the Late Miocene
triggeredbytheupliftandsealeveldropoftheMessinianeventwhilethesefaults
were already sealed by the clay smears. However palaeofluid flow through the
medium throw faults was observed in the BC in the form of gypsum filled
discontinuities and oxidised bands of clay surrounding these zones. In this case a
breachofthesealingcapacitiesoftheBCissuggested.
AtSouthofGozofault(orQalafault),theBCsealwasobservedtobebreachedsuch
thattheUCLwasadjacenttotheLCL(Newbery,1968).Reportedaquiferthicknesses
in proximity to this fault were at a maximum of about 40 metres above the BC
(Newbery, 1968). This observation gives scope to carry out studies such as that
carriedout byMicarellietal.(2006)attheSouthEastof Sicilywhichinvestigated
permeabilityreductionatdifferentdistancesfromthefaultcorewithbothhanging
wall and footwall made up of carbonate limestones. The responsible mechanisms
for this occurrence as highlighted by Micarelli et al. (2006) could include pore
collapse,graincrushing,rotationenhancedabrasionandcalciteprecipitation.
Faultsmayhavedualfunctions,theymayactasasealinthefaultcoreformedor
theymayactasflowconduitsinthedamagedzones.Seebecketal.(2014)studied
the relationships between proximity to fault, fracture density and permeability in
sandstoneformations.Theconceptofacriticalfracturedensityatwhichspikesof
anincreasedpermeabilityoccurisdiscussed.
The topic of this section is extensively studied in the literature and this makes it
clear that the faults function with respect to fluid flow is not straight forward to
determine and requires good studies of the fault architectures followed by more
Page|22
specificfieldandlabtesting(Sapianoetal.,2006;Bonsonetal.,2007;Michieetal.,
2014).Bonsonetal.(2007)andMichieetal.(2014)havedoneextensivemappingof
the two main faults found in Malta, being IlMaghlaq fault and the Victoria fault
respectively.Theirdataandobservationswouldbeusedinordertoproposeafault
architecturemodelalongtheVictoriafault.
PreviousdocumentsonthehydrogeologyofMaltahavesaidthattheVictoriafault
doesnotformasealedboundaryexceptatsomelocationswhichareexpectedto
benearthewestcoastend.SimilarlyIlMaghlaqFaultformsanimpermeablesealat
onlysomelocations(BRGM,1991c;Sapianoetal.,2006).
2.2.5.
Aquiferhydraulicproperties
Water flow through the GL is mostly controlled by fractures and this formation
provides very scarce locations that are fractured enough for possible water
production (Sapiano et al., 2006; Stuart et al., 2010). This formation has high
porositybutlowpermeability.TheGLmayprovideadegreeofconfinementtothe
underlyingmeansealevelaquiferdependingonitsbottomlevelwithrelationtothe
sea level (Stuart et al., 2010). The MGL being a marly limestone probably has the
lowestpermeabilityoftheformation(Sapianoetal.,2006;Stuartetal.,2010).
Facies of the LCL having a higher concentration of coralreef formations are
generally more porous and permeable however when compared with the
characteristic coral reefs their permeability is lower (Sapiano et al., 2006;
Bakalowicz&Mangion,2003).Transmissivitycanreachvaluesof1000m2/dforthe
LCL where discontinuities may have been subject to dissolution (BRGM, 1991b;
Stuartetal.,2010).WelltestdatapresentedinBRGM(1991b)wasusedforpartof
the analysis of this study. Prior to this data only two well pumping tests were
carriedout(ATIGA,1972).Acompilationofaverageaquiferhydraulicpropertiesare
presented in Table 4 (BRGM, 1991b; Bakalowicz & Mangion, 2003; Stuart et al.,
2010). This shows the lack of detail available in this regard even more so when
Page|23
generally not much detail is given about what type of test is carried out and no
geologicdescription.
Parameter
PrimaryPorosity(%)
EffectivePorosity(%)
Intactrockpermeability(m/s)
Aquiferhydraulicpermeability(m/s)
Transmissivity(m2/s)
UCL
4145
5.9x107
GL
3240
1.5x107
LCL
720
1015
4.05x104
0.12x105
Table 4 Average aquifer hydraulic properties compiled from literature
Sincethegeologicstrataweredepositedatrelativelyshallowdepths,pressure
solutiondoesnotoccur(Bonsonetal.,2007).
2.2.6.
GeochemicalStudies
Stuart et al. (2010) carried the most recent geochemical study of Maltas
groundwater.Fromtestingforthewatersageitwasdiscoveredthattheperched
aquiferhasafasterresponsetorainfallwithameansaturatedageoffifteenyears.
Themeansealevelaquiferhasamixofolderandyoungerwaterswiththemeans
being fifteen and forty years. This is indicative of having two concurrent flow
mechanismsinthelatteraquifer,onebeingslowthroughtherockmatrixandthe
otherarapidflowthroughdiscontinuities.
Similar conclusions were reached by a previous study from chemical results at
FiddienboreholewhichislocatedattheRabatDingliplateauwhichresultedinthe
presenceofmoderndesalinatedseawateratbothaquifers(Bakalowicz&Mangion,
2003). Higher concentrations were noted at the mean sea level aquifer with a
reduction in the thickness of the unsaturated zone (Stuartetal., 2010). From this
data it is plausible to conclude that the groundwater flow cycle depends on the
stateandthicknessofimpermeablecover(Stuartetal.,2010).Thisobservationis
also consistent with data from Gozo which has wider BC and MGL cover and
consequentlyhighermeansaturatedagesbetweenthirtyandsixtyyears(Stuartet
Page|24
al.,2010).ForMalta,thegeographicalcentrewasnotedtohavetheoldestrelative
age(Stuartetal.,2010).
It is plausible to believe that fast rainfall response in the perched aquifer is
indicative of higher transmissivities even though no field testing has been carried
outinthisregard(Stuartetal.,2010).Thiscouldbeduetobetterdevelopedkarst
aswell.ItisbelievedbysomethattheUCLwhichisthehostrockoftheperched
aquiferismorekarsticthantheLCLhoweveroneshouldalsokeepinmindthatthe
UCL has no cover. Large karstic features in theLCL such asthe cave Ghar Dalam
showthatthisrockisalsosubjecttocarbonatedissolution(Stuartetal..,2010).
Page|25
Methods
Geologic control factors are important in the understanding of groundwater. The

understandingofthehydrogeologyofMaltarequiresahugeamountofinformation
especiallywhenconsideringitsregionalarea.Thisstudyisthereforesubdividedin
smallersectionswhichfacilitatetheabilitytogetaninsightfromseveralpointsof
view.
A one week field trip to Malta was carried out towards the end of June 2014. Collected field work data includes
geomorphologic site reconnaissance and discontinuity scan line data collection. A number of sites were visited (
Figure 11 adapted from the Geological Map of Malta, 1993). The site names and
locationsarecrossreferencedtothesitereferencenumbersindicatedonthemap
(Table5).
Page|26
Figure 11 Sites visited indicated on the Geological Map of Malta (1993). Sites marked in red include only a site
reconnaissance exercise while magenta sites include also the collection of discontinuity data. Discontinuity data
for site 8 was acquired and not carried out by myself. No site visit was paid to site 8. Site numbers are crossreferenced to Table 5.
SiteRef.
SiteName
City/Village
Qammiegh
Mellieha
LImgiebahBay
Mellieha
FommirRihBay
Bahrija
WiedlIsperanza
Mosta
WiedilGhasel
Mosta
Gharghur
Gharghur
St.GeorgesBay
St.Julians
BirkirkaraBypass
Birkirkara
TalQroqqArea
Msida
10
Xghajracoastline
Xghajra
11
MunxarArea
Marsascala
Table 5 Table showing site names of sites included in study
Previous data that was acquired during the course of this study is reinterpreted
andused.Thisdatasetincludesinvestigationboreholelogs(Gianfrancoetal.,2003),
Page|27
well pumping tests determining aquifer transmissivity and potentiometric data

(BRGM,1991b;BRGM,1991c).Italsoincludesfieldmappingoffaultsfoundinthe
literature defining fault architecture style and predictive equations for the
developmentoffracturesinfaultzones(Faerseth,2006;Bonsonetal.,2007;Michie
etal.,2014;Missenardetal.,2014).
Inthischapterallthemethodsusedareexplained.
3.1
GeomorphologicSiteReconnaissance
Anumberofsitestovisitwereidentifiedonthebasistoincludeawidevarietyof
possibleobservations.ThecriteriaincludeaccesstothemainformationsofMalta,
fault zones and not, inland and coastal areas. Each site is presented by using an
aerialphotoormaponwhichthesitephotosarecrossreferencedbynumbersand
points of view for orientation. Geomorphologic features observed are highlighted
by annotations both on the aerial photo/map and on the site photos and are
discussedinthetext.Somefeaturessuchasmappedfaultsmaybeextractedfrom
theGeologicalMapofMalta(1993)ifsiteobservationisunclear.
3.2
Dip(angles)anddipdirectionsofdiscontinuities
The aim is to identify possible trends and variations of discontinuity data. This data was collected from four sites
chosen at random and along horizontal orientations, with another sites data acquired from external sources (
Page|28
Figure11).Asummaryofthedatacollectedispresented(Table6).Someoftherock
facesstudiedarenotreferencedtoscanlinepositionsandarethereforeindicated
as random (Table 6), however for convenience this distinction is not made
throughout this study. The dip and dip direction of the discontinuities were
measuredbyageologicalcompassoftheBruntonGeoTransit5010type.
Site
3
7
Fommir
RihBay
St.
Georges
Bay
Msida
10
Xghajra
Birkirkara
(S)canLine
or
(R)andom
S
S
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
S
S
R
R
R
Ref.
A
B
A
B
C
A&E
B
C
D
A
B
A
B
E
No.of
readings,
n
15
7
95
73
55
18
15
2
11
19
22
29
13
4
Length
(m)
Normal
toface
7.5
6.6
33
20.6
14.7
42.1
23.3
6.3
36.2
18.2
11.3
N310o
N325o
N088o
N340o
N290o
N138o
N045o
N005o
N285o
N240o
N240o
Formation
Personnel
L.G.L.
M.G.L.
CS
L.C.L.
CS&AM
L.G.L.
CS&AM
L.G.L.
CS
L.G.L.
AM
Table 6 Summary of discontinuity data collected. Site reference numbers are cross-referenced to
Page|29
Figure 11 and Table 5. Initials CS refer to Christian Schembri and AM refer to Geotechnical Engineer Adrian
Mifsud.
Oneshould notethatforFommirRihBayand Xghajrathescanlinesorientations

are approximately the same therefore representing only one of the three
dimensionaldirectionspersite.ForSt.GeorgesBayandMsidatwofromthethree
dimensionsofspacearerepresented.ThescanlinesorientationsforBirkirkarasite
areunknown.BS5930:1999suggeststhatdiscontinuitiesdataistobecollectedat
threeorthogonalorientations.Thisisbelievedtorepresentthethreedimensionsof
spaceandthuslimitinganydatabiastoaminimum.Thisisnotachievedbythedata
set presented here. The data may also be biased by not capturing the bedding
whichfromtheregionalgeologyisknowntobegenerallysubhorizontal.
JointSet
Site/
Scan
Line
3/All
J1
J2
J3
J4
21
70/359
80/255
3/A
14
89/005
3/B
J5
J6
J8
J7
(bedding)
(bedding)
79/255
(bedding)
7/All
223 86/356
66/259
11/057
7/A
95
86/356
58/237
12/060
7/B
73
80/353 84/192 68/258
9/314
7/C
55
74/117
9/All
46
90/337 90/157
9/A&E
18
84/340
61/113
9/B
15
90/336 90/156
9/C
68/158 70/217 89/031 20/045
Page|30
9/D
11
10/All
41
10/A
19
10/B
22
8/All
46
8/A
29
8/B
8/E
5/056
87/144
13/090
83/324 83/152
5/045
25/174
22/180
13
35/165
85/325 85/149
Table 7 Summary of the main identifiable joint sets from pole concentrations for each site and scan line. Site
reference numbers are cross-referenced to
Figure 11 and Table 5.
Discontinuity data is plotted on an equal angle lower hemispherical stereonet

projection separately for each scan line and for combined data for each site
(AppendixD).ThesoftwareDipsv.5.1wasusedforthispurpose(Rocscience,2004).
Onthestereonetplotseachdiscontinuityisrepresentedbyapoleandanoverlaid
contour plot shows the pole concentrations from which the main joint sets are
Page|31
identified (Table 7). The main joint sets are shown both as numbered poles and
planes on the stereonet plots (Appendix D). The variation across the sites of the
mainjointsetsissummarised(Table8).Thesebracketsrepresentthevariabilityof
averagesandthereforetheydonotportrayallthevariability.Thejointsetbrackets
were widened to include all discontinuity data (Figure 12) so as to be able to
analyse and compare joint set characteristics. For this scope two other joint sets
beingJ9andJ10areadded.Thelatterjointsetsneverappearedasmainjoinsetsin
anyofthesites.
JointSet
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5(bedding)
J6(bedding)
J7
J8
from
70o
68o
58o
89o
5o
9o
61o
22o
Dip
to
90o
90o
80o
89o
20o
9o
74o
35o
Range
20o
22o
22o
15o
13o
13o
from
N324o
N144o
N217o
N031o
N045o
N314o
N113o
N165o
DipDirection
to
Range
o
N005
41o
N192o
48o
N259o
42o
N031o
o
N090
45o
N314o
N117o
4o
N180o
15o
Table 8 Summary of the main joint sets variability of averages
Figure 12 Stereographic projection showing the entire joint set brackets considered for grouping of all the
discontinuity data overlaid over a scatter plot of all the pole data. The inner circle represents a dip angle of 35o;
Page|32
poles within it represent discontinuities with dip angles less than 35o. J9 & J10 are introduced to include all of
the data.
3.3
Otherdiscontinuitiescharacteristics
Other discontinuity characteristics including persistence, termination, aperture,

infill, roughness, shape, wall strength and seepage were also collected for a good
number of discontinuities (Appendix E). This data set was collected by a visual
inspectionaidedbytheuseofageologichammerforwallstrength.
InChapter4,dataisanalysedonthebasisofaperturewidthclasses(Table9)and
persistenceclasses(Table10).TheseclassesarebasedonBS5930:1999.
Aperturewidthclass
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Aperturesize
Verytight
<0.1mm
Tight
0.10.25mm
Partlyopen
0.250.5mm
Open
0.52.5mm
Moderatelywide
2.510mm
Wide
12.5cm
Verywide
2.510cm
Extremelywide
0.11m
Table 9 Aperture ranges for each aperture width class. These aperture width classes are used in the
presentation of Appendices F and G graphs. These are the basis for the analysis presented in Chapter 4.
Persistence
class
Persistence
Verylow
(<1m)
Low
(13m)
Medium
(310m)
High
(1020m)
Veryhigh
(>20m)
Table 10 Persistence ranges for each persistence class. These persistence classes are used in the presentation
of Appendices F and G graphs. These are the basis for the analysis presented in Chapter 4.
3.3.1.
Relativehydraulicconductivity
Anequationtodescribethehydraulicconductivityasafunctionofaverageaperture
(e) and frequency () of joints for the ith joint set was developed in the literature
andisgivenbelow(Snow,1970).
Page|33

Ki=
ei3.i.g
12v
where subscriptireferstotheithjointset
Kisthehydraulicconductivity
eistheaverageapertureofjoints
isthefrequencyofjoints
gistheaccelerationduetogravity
visthefluidviscosity
The frequency of joints () is calculated by dividing the number of readings (n)
withineachjointsetpersitebythetotalscanlinesummeduplengthspersite.The
averageaperture(e)iscalculatedforthemedianvalueofeachjointsetpopulation
by taking the average aperture of the range within which the median value lies
(Table9,AppendicesF&H).Throughthismethodthemeasurementofapertureis
notaccuratehoweveritprovidesagoodqualitativeassessmentatthisstage.
AqualitativeassessmentoftherelativeKbycomparingei3.iofeachjointsetper
siteiscarriedout(AppendixH).ThereforeforthescopeofthisstudytherelativeK
isunderstoodasthetermei3.i.
3.4
Transmissivity
Anextensivesetoftransmissivitydatafromawellpumpingtestcampaigncarried
out between January and September 1990 is used for reinterpretation (BRGM,
1991b).Ananalysisoftransmissivityvariationagainstdepthofwellboreholesends
below the mean sea level, below the top of the LCL and proximity to the nearest
fault is carried out. The data used including data in graphical and summarised
tabularformispresented(AppendixI).
This study cannot confirm or otherwise the correctness of the transmissivity data
since the data available at hand is limited however it is still useful to provide a
backgroundtoreportbyBRGM(1991b).
Page|34
BRGM (1991b) uses the interpretation methods of Theis, Hantush and Gringarten
withthemostwidelyusedmethodbeingtheTheismethod.TheHantushmethod
was used for those wells partially penetrating the aquifer and the Gringarten
method was used to model vertical fractures. Specific data about any of the test
configurationsisnotavailable.TheTheismethodisnotusuallyusedforunconfined
aquifers.Giventhesmalldrawdowns,whichvarybetween0to15metresandare
only up to 10% of aquifer assumed thickness, the Theis method is deemed fit for
purpose.Changesinwaterlevelaredeemedtobeduetopressurechangeasthe
Theis method requires and not by gravity. In fact BRGM (1991b) confirm that the
fielddatafitswellwiththeTheismastercurve.
The geologic reasons behind the variability of transmissivity data may be various.
Thesemayincludevariationsinfracturepopulation,karstprocesses,permeabilities
oflithologiesandfaciesandpossiblesealsduetofaults.Withthedataavailableat
handitisnotpossible totryandtesttheeffectofeachofthesefactors.Detailed
borehole logs including both geological and geotechnical data would have been a
good starting point for this scope. However hints of causes of variability are
searchedforbytheanalysiscarriedout.
3.5
Potentiometry
BRGM(1991c)havedrawnpotentiometriccontouredmapsfortheyears1944,1969
and1990.Themostreliablesetofdataisthatcollectedbetween1988and1991.
Defects in the previous data sets include measurements not taken frequently,
surveying errors, wrong or missing calibration of equipment and unidentified
geologic occurrences such as sparse presence of clay lenses which produced local
potentiometrichighsandwerenotexcluded.
Thepotentiometricmapof1990isthuspresentedtogetherwithabriefdiscussion.
Page|35
3.6
Controloffaultparametersonhydraulicproperties
The aim is to develop an understanding of the control of faults on the hydraulic

properties of Maltas geologic environment. The complexity involved in devising a
methodologywiththisaimishighlighted.Asthisstudyincludesonlyaverylimited
data set acquired through firsthand field work, which is not always related
specifically to this part of the subject, existing data and relationships are used in
developingourunderstanding.Itshouldbeunderstoodthatsuchdatasetalthough
usefulisnotexhaustiveandhasvariouslimitations.
As the ENEWSW faults are the main fault outcrops of Malta the Victoria fault is
chosenasacasestudy.Asthemajorriftingoccurredattheendofdeposition,itcan
beassumedthatthewholestratigraphicsequencewasaffected.TheVictoriafault
zonearchitectureisbestpreservedatthecoasts.
It is widely known that hydraulic properties of rocks are governed both by their
matrix properties and the fracture distributions within them. In this section a
plausibledeskstudytypemethodologytocharacterisetheVictoriafaultzoneand
thus fracture distributions is presented. Fault parameters are presented in each
subsectionfollowedbyanexplanationhighlightingtheirimportanceforourscope,
themethods,difficultiesandassumptionstaken.
3.6.1.
Displacementsalongfaultlengths
Ifdisplacementsatparticularpointsofthefaultareknownpredictiveequationscan
be used to predict widths of fault zones, total damage zones, fault cores and
fracturepopulation(Michieetal.,2014).Displacementlengthrelationshipsprovide
atooltointerpolatefordisplacementsalongfaultswheredisplacementdataisnot
available.
Fault growth models describing segmented isolated faults have been proposed
following the relation D = cL2 (Watterson, 1986; Cartwright et al., 1995). Knowing
Page|36
thedisplacement(D)atthreepointsalongthelengthofthefault(L)wouldallowan
approximation of this form. A major uncertainty lies in the verification of the
constantcwhichrelatestoanumberoffaultandmaterialproperties(Watterson,
1986).
Assuming that the Victoria fault is a segmented isolated fault, the indicated co-ordinates of D and L are used to
obtain a formula in the form above (
Figure13;Table11;AppendixJ).
Figure 13 Points of which the details are presented in Table 11. The red line indicates the direction along
which the length of the fault is considered (adapted from The Geological Map of Malta, 1993)
PointRef.
1
2
3
D(m)
150.2
205.4
(assumedas
maxD)
60
L(m)
1700
0
10400
Reference
Figure11ofDartetal.(1993)
GeologicSectionAAintheGeological
MapofMalta(1993)
Michieetal.(2014)
Table 11 D and L co-ordinates used to determine a relationship in the form D=cL2
The resulting approximation is D = 1.3x10-6 L2 with c about two orders smaller than the values suggested by
the values suggested by Watterson (1986). With this equation the full length of the fault approximately equals 26
fault approximately equals 26 kilometres. If c being small is incorrect it might show that the assumption of the
Page|37
that the assumption of the Victoria fault being a segmented isolated fault is wrong. The assessment of inter-linked
overlapping faults is more complex since the lengths of each segment would need to be measured and interpreted
(
Figure 14 adapted from Cartwright et al., 1995). Given the current lack of
displacementlengthdataalongVictoriafaultzonethisformulacannotbeusedto
predictdisplacementsatpointsofthisfault.
Figure 14 Graph showing growth path of a segmented isolated fault and the complexity to determine this
relationship due to field data scatter. For inter-linked overlapping faults the difference between the green point
and the blue point depends on what fault length is considered. (adapted from Cartwright et al., 1995)
3.6.2.
Lengthandterminationpointsoffaults
The importance of faults length data in determining displacementlength

relationshipshasbeenhighlighted.
Severaldifficultiestodetermineendpointsoffaultsandthustheirlengthmaybe
encountered.MostofthemappedfaultsofMaltahaveatleastonepartreaching
eitherwestoreastcoastwiththeVictoriafaultreachingboth.Offshorefaultingto
theeastmayliebelowseismicresolutionmeaningthatfaultwiththrowslessthan
10 metres are difficult to map (Dart et al., 1993). A lack of good fault inland
outcropsduetobackscarperosionmayhaveerasedsomefaultterminationpoints.
Thissamereasonmakesitdifficulttouseaerialphotographyforthisscope.Onthe
Page|38
other hand, some quarries located along Victoria fault length may provide useful
information.
The Geological Map of Malta (1993) suggests enechelon left stepping fault
structuresattheeastonshorestretchoftheVictoriafault.Detailedfieldmappingof
thesemayprovidesomeusefulinformationonlengthanddisplacementsoffaults.
However given the complexity of this problem and the current lack of data the relationship in the previous section
is not developed further. If we consider using the fault data at point 2 (
Figure 13) from the Geological Map of Malta (1993) and assuming that the
geometry proposed by Michie et al. (2014) can be applied at the scale of the
Victoriafaultweexpectafaultsplayzonewidthofabout200metres(AppendixJ).
ThiscoincideswellwiththeUCLsynclineduetofaultdragobservedatFommirRih
Bay.Withthecurrentdisplacementlengthrelationshipthefaultzonewidthwould
beexpectedtogradualnarrowingtowardstheeastcoast.
3.6.3.
Faultarchitectureatacrosssection
ThepredictiveequationsproposedbyMichieetal.(2014)haveapotential.Ifthey
arecombinedwithknowledgeofstratigraphyanddisplacementstheymayprovide
useful predictions of the fracture populations to expect at a crosssection of the
ground. However these equations have their limitations too. Limited detailed
informationisavailablefordisplacementslargerthan25metresandthereforethe
applicationattheserangesneedsfurthertesting.
Page|39
Inproposingaconceptualgroundmodeltheaveragefaultdipanglesproposedby
Michieetal.(2014)areassumedtobeconstantforalldisplacements.
The following is an example of how from heave data, damage zones widths may be calculated. Cumulative heave
plots show that the maximum heave on a single fault is approximately 10 metres at a stretch south of the Victoria
fault (
Figure 15 adapted from PutzPerrier & Sanderson, 2010). An approximate

displacement of 36 metres can be calculated from simple geometry if an average
fault dip angle of 74o is considered (Michie et al., 2014). Using the predictive
equationsproposedbyMichieetal.(2014)givesusthemaximumdevelopedwidths
of fault splay zones, total damage zones and fault cores (Table 12; Appendix J).
However these depend on having an available thickness of the relevant geologic
strataabovethepointwherethisdisplacementhasoccurred.
Figure 15 Cumulative heave plot for a cliff scale section named Malta D with location shown on map. Red lines
on plot indicate single faults having major heave spaced at approximately 600 metres. (adapted from PutzPerrier & Sanderson, 2010)
Formation
FaultSplayZone
TotalDamageZone
AverageFaultCore
Page|40
GL
LCL
Width(m)
22.2
2.115.3
Width(m)
71.2
14.3
Width(m)
0.6
Table 12 Expected maximum widths for a 36m displacement using predictive equations from Michie et al. (2014)
3.6.4.
Stratathicknessandproperties
Variable behaviour is expected from different strata due to their different

mechanicalproperties.Sincestratabehavedifferently,theirthicknessisimportant
toknow.
The readily available LCL structural contour map, isopach maps and topographic
levelsareused(Pedley,1975;theGeologicalMapofMalta,1993).Aseriesofcross
sectionsaredrawnacrosstheVictoriafault,whichareusedintheconstructionof
theregionalconceptualmodel.
Page|41
ObservationsandAnalysis
The observations and the analysis from the methods and the data highlighted in
Chapter3aredetailedinthissection.
4.1
4.1.1.
Qammiegh
Figure 16 Aerial photo of Qammiegh Site (adapted from Google Earth, 2014). The red polylines encircle slope
instability areas which mainly involve rock toppling. The blue polyline encircle a wetland and saltmarsh. Black
lines show the locations of faults and where they are dashed it means that they are inferred (The Geological Map
of Malta, 1993). Numbers are cross-referenced with photo numbers of this section and the arrows show the
orientation of view.
FromtheaerialphotoofQammiegh(Figure16adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014)
onecannoticethatthewidthoftherocktopplingdepositareavariesalongthecliff
lengthofUCL.AttheareanorthwestofQammieghFault,onecannoticethatatthe
partclosesttothefault,thedepositzonedoesnotextenttothecoast.Northofthe
Qammieghfault,thegeneraldipoftheUCLandBCstrataistowardsthenortheast
(TheGeologicalMapofMalta,1993).Tothewestthedepositareawidensgradually
astheslopedirectionisapproachingthedipdirectionofthestrata.Furthertothe
northeastthedepositareanarrowsagainasthetopographylowersandthusrelief
issmaller.
AttherocktopplingareasouthoftheQammieghFault,rocktopplingcanonlybe
observedatthatstretchofcoastwheretheBCoutcropsabovesealevel.Whether
this phenomena of rock toppling continues below sea level or whether its
manifestationsoccurataslowerrateisunknown.Itmightbeplausibletothinkthat
Page|42
anyofthelatterstatementsholdsincerocktopplingisassociatedwiththedifferent
behaviouroftheBCthantheLCLunderwettinganddryingcycles.Incaseswhere
the BC is constantly saturated, the situation might be different from what is
observedatslopeswithoutcroppingBCabovesealevel.
Figure 17 Photo 1. Arrows indicate extent of main karst features and dashed lines show enlarged joints
observed from distance.
Extensively developed karst is observed in the UCL (Figure 17). Karst features are
observedtobedominanteitherintheverticalorthehorizontaldirectioncloserto
surfaceandtheirexistenceseemstoberelatedtowiderjoints.Somekarstfeatures
whichdonothaveeitherofthetwoaxesasdominantarealsoobservedbothclose
and away from surface. Karst at this level together with the different mechanical
and hydrogeologic properties of UCL and BC can be a trigger of cliff retreat. An
interpretationmightbethatitmayhavedevelopedextensivelyatthisleveldueto
differenteustaticlevelsoratsomeearlystagesduringtheupliftofMalta.
Figure 18 Photo 2 showing extensive cave development at Fault Zone. Dashed line indicates inferred fault (The
Geological Map of Malta, 1993).
Page|43
Figure 19 Photo 3 showing UCL hanging wall
Aninterestingoccurrenceisthatofextensivecavekarstdevelopmentatamapped
faultclosetosealevel(Figure18).Karstdevelopmentpredominantlyatthebedding
discontinuitiesisalsoobserved(Figure19).
Varyingslopeanglesalongaslopesectioncomprisingthemainfourformationsof
theMalteseIslandsareobserved(Figure20).Shallowerslopeanglesoccurforfiner
grainedstratawiththesteepestanglesoccurringforlargergraindominatedstrata.
Michei et al. (2014) observes that fault dip angles within finergrain dominated
geologicstrataareshallowerthanforcoarsegraindominatedstrata.Thisoccursat
Qammieghevenforslopeangles.
Figure 20 Photo 4 showing varying slope angles along a slope section. Red lines indicate general slope angles
of every formation.
4.1.2.
LImgiebahBay
ZonesalongtheUCLBCcontactareobservedtobevegetated(Figure21adapted
from Google Earth, 2014). These can be indications of presence of springs at this
contact. Variability in the vegetation density is noted, with the west part being
moredenselyvegetatedthantheeastpart.Alargerreliefatthewestpartisnoted
duetoanapproximatelydoublethickUCLstratumatthewestpartwhencompared
to the east as observed from the structural contours of The Geological Map of
Page|44
Malta (1993). The west part therefore also has a higher water storage capacity
whichtranslatesintomoreflowonthissideofthevalley.
Rocktopplingphenomenaaremoreevidenttowardsthecoastwhichcanbedueto
greater relief at these locations. Lack of vegetation is noted at these areas when
comparedtothemoreinlandareas.
Figure 21 Aerial photo of L-Imgiebah Bay (adapted from Google Earth, 2014). The red polylines encircle slope
instability area. The green polylines encircle denser vegetated areas. Numbers are cross-referenced with photo
numbers of this section and the arrows show the orientation of view.
The angles observed here are steeper (Figure 22) for both formations when
comparedtothoseatQammiegh(Figure20),howeverbeforehypothesisingofwhat
canbethecauseforthisdifferenceoneshouldalsokeepinmindthatthereisan
orderofmagnitudeofdifferenceinthescalesofobservation.Steeperanglesforthe
UGL occur with its face being subvertical. At least three families of joints are
observed(Figure22).TheseincludeapproximatelyorientedENEWSWjoints,NW
SEjointsandthesubhorizontalbedding.UGLblocksbetweentheformertwojoint
familiesarenotedtohavemadetheirwaydown.Aplausibleinterpretationisthat
water seeps down through desiccated clay surfaces (Figure 23) and follows paths
along UGL joints widening them and stressing the UGL until UGL blocks are
detachedcompletely.
Page|45
Figure 22 Photo 1 showing cliff edge with the BC overlying the UGL. Dashed lines indicate joints into the
plane of the paper (approx. ENE-WSW), dotted polylines indicate joints parallel to the plane of the paper
(approx. NW-SE).

Figure 23 Photo 2 showing desiccated clay surface

(scale shown by field notebook scale line)
Figure 24 Photo 3 showing oxidised UGL joint as

interpreted by Missenard et al. (2014)
AnoxidisedUGLjointlocatedatthebaseofthiscliffsectionisobserved(
Figure
24).
This can be interpreted as a palaeofluid flow path in the sense as
analysed by Missenard et al. (2014). In such a case this can provide supporting
evidenceinatemporalframeworktothehypothesishereproposed,inthatseeping
waterthroughdiscontinuitieshasbeenresponsibleforcliffretreatofthissection.
WalkingoverUGLsubhorizontalsurfacesitisobservedthatjointsaretighterand
have larger spacing away from the cliff face. Seeping water may be less at more
inland locations and if any, the side stresses imposed on rock blocks would be
supportedbyadjacentblocks.Rockblocksattheedgeoftheclifffacedonothave
adjacent rock blocks to provide this support and thus the discontinuities here are
susceptibletowidenatalargerrate.
SimilarobservationsofjointfamiliesthatwereobservedintheUGL(Figure22)are
alsoobservedintheUCL(Figure25).Fromwhatcanbeobservedfromadistanceit
seemsthatthejointshaveawiderapertureandaremorekarstifiedintheUCL.
Page|46
Figure 25 Photo 4 showing UCL cliff edge exhibiting at least two dominant discontinuity sets. For explanation
of annotations used refer to Figure 22.
4.1.3.
FommirRihBay
Figure 26 Aerial photo of Fomm ir-Rih Bay (adapted from Google Earth, 2014). Numbers are cross-referenced
with photo numbers of this section and the arrows show the orientation of view.
OnthewaytoFommirRihBay,similarkarstfeaturestoQammiegh(Figure17)are
observed at the UCL in the nearby ridges. The aerial photo of Fomm irRih Bay is
presented(Figure26adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014).
Figure 27 Photo 1 showing Victoria fault at west coast outcrop. Annotations used are explained by notes on
photo.
A photo of the Victoria fault is presented (Figure 27). The occurrence of smeared
clayisnotclearlyobservableatthislocationduetovegetalcover.Intheliteratureit
Page|47
is reported that this part of the fault has a good seal by clay smear due to large
throws(Sapianoetal.,2006;Missenardetal.,2014).Anantitheticfaulttothemain
fault is observed (Figure 27; Figure 28). Two zones of subvertical joints are
observed close to this fault which may form part of the Fault Splay Zone which
widensinfinegrainedmaterials(Michieetal.,2014).AnLGLoutcropisobservedto
have rounded joint profiles (Figure 29). Black staining from some of the joints is
interpretedasanindicationofrecentfluidflow.TheMGLmemberismoremarlyin
nature.AnMGLoutcropexhibitssubhorizontaldessicationpatternswhichmaybe
duetosedimentationprocesses(Figure30).Complexnetworksofsecondarycracks
betweenmainsubverticaldiscontinuitiesprobablyasaresultoftheshearzoneare
observed.
AnindicationofthestrengthbytheuseofageologichammershowsthattheMGL
isweakerthantheLGL(AppendixE).Amoredetailedassessmentrequiresatleast
theuseofaSchmidthammer.TheLowerMainPhosphoriteConglomerate(LMPC),
amarkerbetweentheLGLandMGL,isnoted(Figure31;Pedley&Bennett,1985).It
overliesahardground,whichissimilartoadesiccatedcrust.Probablytheerosion
resistanceofthelatterishigherthanthatoftheLMPCgiventhattheLMPCwasnot
notedclosetothecliffedgesbutmostlyinmoreprotectedzones.Hardgroundsare
thereforeexpectedtohavelowerpermeability.

Figure 28 Photo 2 showing detail of antithetic fault shown in

Figure 27.
Figure 30 Photo 4 shows MGL at location of scan line B.
Figure 29 Photo 3 showing LGL outcrop at

location of Scan line A (scale shown by geologic
hammer)
Figure 31 Photo 5 showing the Lower Main

Phosphorite Conglomerate (scale shown by field
Page|48
Dashed lines show examples of sub-horizontal desiccation

joints (scale shown by field notebook)
notebook scale line)
4.1.4.
WiedilGhasel
Figure 32 Karst caves in the Attard member of the LCL at Wied il-Ghasel where it cross-cuts the Victoria fault,
the rock face strike is approximately NNE
ExtensivekarstcavesdevelopmentcanalsobeobservedintheLCL(Figure32).
4.1.5.
Gharghur
AnaerialphotoofthesitevisitedatGharghurispresented(Figure33adaptedfrom
GoogleEarth,2014).Astripoflandindicatedbyagreenlinehasdenservegetation.
WhencomparedwiththeGeologicalMapofMalta(1993)thislineseemstofollow
aninferredcontactbetweentheXlendi(upper)andAttard(lower)membersofthe
LCL.ThisfitswellwiththeoccurrenceofkarsticcavessuchasGharHassanandGhar
Dalam at the south of Malta which are known to be developed between ilMara
member (over Xlendi member) and Attard member (BRGM, 1991b). The Attard
member is documented to have a northsouth finegrained facia close to this
location (the Geological Map of Malta, 1993). Due to larger flows in the coarse
grained strata it is expected to have higher erosion development in the Xlendi
member.
Page|49
Figure 33 Aerial photo of site visited at Gharghur (adapted from Google Earth, 2014). The green line shows a
stretch of denser vegetation. Numbers are cross-referenced with photo numbers of this section and the arrows
show the orientation of view.
Notches at the Xlendi member of the UCL are noticed (Figure 34). This coincides
with a wide aperture joint at which flow can be witnessed to be higher by the
observation of black staining. Tighter joints are observed above this level at the
sameclifffacebutarenotblackstained.
A detail of calcite deposition is presented (Figure 35). The rock face takes shape
similar to that of flowing water. This may be an indication that either flow paths
have been long enough for water to become saturated with calcium carbonate in
relation to the host rock, that water flow is slowing down and losing energy and
thusdepositingcalciteormorelikelyacombinationofboth.Blackstainingisalso
observed here which may indicate recent flow pathways. A slight different karst
featureisobservedatakarstifiedcavepillarwhichseemstohavemuchlesscalcite
deposition(Figure36).
Figure 34 Photo 1 showing formed notches at Xlendi member of the LCL. Dashed polyline indicates a wider
aperture joint.
Page|50

Figure 35 Photo 2 showing detail of calcite

deposition
Figure 36 Photo 3 showing karstified cave pillar
4.1.6.
St.GeorgesBay
(picture removed due to data

limits)
Figure 37 Infilled joint having

wide aperture
(scale shown by tape measure)
Figure 38 Fault Breccia

(scale shown by car key)
Figure 39 Wide open aperture at

fault zone
(scale shown by geologic hammer)
Someinterestingobservationsarehighlightedfromjointsandfaultzonesstudiedat
St. Georges Bay. The formation here is the LCL and more specifically the Xlendi
member.
Awidejoint,atplacesreachingaperturesintheregionoftwocentimetresinfilled
with terrarossa traces and zones of calcited walls is shown (Figure 37). This joint
shows at least past fluid flow however at such a state present fluid flow is more
difficult to occur. In such a state fluid flow, if any, would be encouraged to find
easierandwiderroutes.Suchasituationprobablyresultsindeviationoffluidflow
paths. Two scenarios are possible in this case either infilling of other joints or
karstification of others. It is believed that this is a function of joint characteristics
suchasorientation,aperture,persistenceandfrequency.
Azoneoffaultbrecciasisobserved(Figure38).Thecataclasiteisangularwithsome
roundedcornerswhichcouldhaveformedduringdeformationgiventhattherockis
Page|51
notveryhard.ThesoilmatrixislighterincolourthanthatobservedinFigure37and
also has a good proportion of coarsegrained particles when compared with the
latter.Theseoccurrencescanbeanindicationthatatleastsomeofthesoilmatrix
formedduringdeformation.Thepropertiesofthiscataclasiteareexpectedtoaffect
largely the permeability across and along this joint. Some important properties to
considerareparticlesizedistribution,voidsratioandparticleorientation.
Differentfaultzonearchitecturewitharockblockoccupyingitisobserved(Figure
39).Thisrockblockbecamedislodgedandbrokenwithnoevidenceoffaultbreccia.
It is plausible to believe that the fault displacement in the latter case is less than
that for the fault seen in Figure 38 where fault breccias did develop to
accommodatedeformation.Unfortunatelytheseinterpretationscannotbebacked
up by site observations since the height of the outcrop is very short due to past
excavation. In this zone fluid flow is expected to be encouraged through due to
wideraperture.
4.1.7.
Msida
The main observations at the Msida site visited are highlighted. A schematic plan
layoutofthesiteispresented(Figure40).Onlyminorkarstfeaturesareobservedin
theLGLmember(Figure41).IngeneralthekarstfeaturesobservedinanyoftheGL
members were not extensive as observed either in the UCL or LCL members. The
majorkarstfeatureobservedatthissiteinvolvesaverticalkarstifieddiscontinuity
ofabout1.5metresinheight(indicatedinFigure44).Thediscontinuitiesobserved
atthefacesofthissitearegenerallygroupedinzoneswhicharespacedatbetween
four and eight metres (Figure 42, Figure 43 and Figure 44). The apertures are
generallytight.
Page|52
Figure 40 Schematic plan layout of Excavation site

visited at Msida with an indication of the excavation
faces references
Figure 41 Minor Karst feature noted at wall A

(scale shown by pencil and Barton comb)
Figure 42 Excavation face A with dotted lines indicating discontinuity zones (scale is shown by excavator)
Figure 43 Excavation face B with dotted lines indicating discontinuity zones (scale is shown by excavator)
Figure 44 Excavation face D on the left side, face B on the right side and face C in between. Discontinuity
zones are indicated by dotted lines (scale is shown by excavator)
Page|53
4.1.8.
Xghajra
NE striking discontinuities can be widely observed along this part of the coast
(Figure45adaptedfromGoogleEarth,2014;Figure46).ThediscontinuityattheLGL
wallhasashallowerdipanglethanthatobservedintheLCLandthusobservations
by Michie et al. (2014) do also apply here. Stretches along the length of the
discontinuitiesattheLCLoutcropcanbeobservedtobewidenedbyfluidflowand
the surface of the same member is everywhere lightly karstified. This occurrence
was also observed at other UCL outcrops such as at lImgiebah. It is plausible to
believethatkarstdevelopsmostlyatlocationsofalargerfluidflow.
Figure 45 Aerial photo of site visited at Xghajra (adapted from Google Earth, 2014). Dashed lines show
examples of NE discontinuities which can be observed even from this aerial photo.
AninterestingobservationatXghajraistheextremelywideapertureatthecontact
betweentheLGLmemberandtheIlMaramemberoftheLCLformationwhichisin
theregionof200millimetres(Figure46;Figure47).Thisgivesusagoodreasonto
agreewiththeinterpretationbyBRGM(1991b)ifthiscontactislocatedbelowthe
watertableitactsasafluidconduit.
RemainsoftheScutellaechinoidbedontopoftheLCLformsthetransitionalbed
betweenIlMaramemberoftheLCLandtheLGL(Figure47;Pedley,1975).
LGL
Page|54
Figure 46 Photo 1 showing NE trending

discontinuities on the LGL wall and on the LCL ground
(scale shown by field notebook. Dashed lines show
discontinuity dip angles. The polyline shows a
karstified stretch on the LCL ground.
Figure 47 Photo 2 showing contact between LGL

and LCL and Scutella echinoids marker (scale shown
by field notebook)
4.1.9.
Munxar
TheoutcropatthesiteofMunxaristheMGL(Figure48).Amorphologicdifference
betweenthismemberandtheothertwomembersoftheGLcanbeobservedfrom
the style of surface subhorizontal discontinuities similar to those observed at
Fomm irRih Bay but better seen here (Figure 49). They seem to be desiccated
discontinuitiesrelatedwithsedimentationprocesses.
ThemarlyMGLclifffaceisveryfriable(Figure50).
Figure 48 Aerial photo of Munxar Site (adapted from Google Earth, 2014)
Figure 49 Photo 2. Dashed lines show examples of tight discontinuities which may be interpreted as
sedimentation desiccation discontinuities. (scale shown by field notebook scale line)
Page|55
Figure 50 Photo 1 showing a low MGL cliff face
4.2
InferringContactsfromBoreholes
4.2.1.
UCL/BC
Figure 51 Investigation boreholes location encircled in red (source: Google Earth, 2014)
ItwasdifficulttocloselyinspecttheUCL/BCgeologiccontactatthesitesvisiteddue
toseveraltoppledrockblocksanddebris.Forthisreasonasetofinvestigation
boreholelogsarestudiedtoobservethiscontact(AppendixC).Thesetofboreholes
includedasetof12fromalocationattheoldcitadelMdina(
Figure 51; Appendix C). The description included a sandy material at the UCL/BC
contact. This can be either transported material from the surface through the
fracturenetworkorthegreensandmaterialwhichisreportedtobeaverythinlayer
betweentheUCLandBCatcertainareas.
Page|56
4.3
Dip(angles)anddipdirectionsofdiscontinuities
ThestereonetplotsonwhichthissectionisbasedareattachedinAppendixD.
4.3.1.
FommirRihBay
Thejointsetsidentifiedatthissite,J1andJ3,closelyresemblethetwomainfault
families of Malta, the ENEWSW and the NWSE trending faults respectively.
InterestinglyJ1wasidentifiedatthissiteeventhoughtheoutcropsalmostlieatthe
footwall of the Victoria fault (ENEWSW trending). This unbias of the data is
probablytheresultoftheapproximateanglebetweentheorientationoftherock
faceofthescanlinesandthestrikeofthejointsetsbeingatleast45o.Theaverage
strikeofJ1atthissiteisEWwhichcloselyresemblestheorientationoftheVictoria
faultatthislocation.Atrendofthebeddingisnotidentified.
At scan line B only few readings were taken due to the short length of the outcrop at this point and due to the
omission of the secondary fractures in between the main discontinuities (
Figure52).Unarguablythesecondaryfractures,thatformpartofthefaultdamage
zone,increasethepermeabilityofthiszone.Howevertheywereomittedfromthe
data collection with the aim to try and identify main discontinuities trend
similaritiesbetweenthedifferentsites.ThereadingsthustakenatscanlineBare
onlysevenhoweverwhentheyarecombinedwiththereadingsforscanlineA,4of
thereadingsreinforcewhatisobservedinscanlineA.
Page|57
Figure 52 MGL outcrop at Fomm ir-Rih Bay scan line B. Dashed lines show main joints.
4.3.2.
St.GeorgesBay
Awidevariabilityofdiscontinuitydataisnotedatthissite.Thiscanbedueandthe
closeproximityofthesitetoamappedfault(theGeologicalMapofMalta,1993).
Due to previous excavation works, it is not always easy to identify between main
structural discontinuities and secondary discontinuities. This problem was tackled
by taking a large sample so as to be able to identify the main trends. After
combiningallofthedataforthissitethethreemaindiscontinuitiesareidentified.
The most predominant joint set is J5 (bedding) with the dip direction in close
agreement with the mapped direction (the Geological Map of Malta, 1993). The
secondmostpredominantjointsetisJ1withanaveragestrikebeingEWtrending.
ThisresemblesmorethestrikeoftheVictoriafaultatthewesthalfofMaltarather
than the closest exposure of the Victoria fault which trends approximately ENE
WSW. The mapped Victoria fault is shown to have a general kink west of Mosta
fromaclosetoanEWorientationtoanENEWSWdirection(theGeologicalMapof
Malta,1993).ThethirdmostpredominantisJ3whichstrikesapproximatelyNNW
SSEatthissite.Thereforethetwomainfaultfamiliesarealsowellrepresentedat
thissite.
Ifthescanlinesaretobeanalysedseparatelyitislessevidentwhichjointsetsare
themostpredominant,howeveronecannotethatthehighlightedjointsetsJ2and
J4couldbeantithetictoJ1andJ3respectively.Thisoccurrencecloselyreflectsthe
structuralgeologyofMaltawithitshorstandgrabenstructure.Twootherjointsets
J6andJ7arealsoobserved.J6probablyreferstobeddingwhichdipsapproximately
NW while J5 dips approximately NE. Being close to a fault zone this variability is
expected.
Page|58
4.3.3.
Msida
The main joint sets identified at Msida are J1 and J2. The average strike of these
sets is closer to the ENEWSW orientation which closely reflects the trend of a
mapped fault at approximately 1.5 km south of this site (the Geological Map of
Malta,1993).Thediscontinuitysamplewaslimitedduetotheverywidespacingof
discontinuityzonesandthusnomoreclearlydominantdiscontinuitysetscouldbe
identified. However there seems to be steeply dipping sparse discontinuities
trendingapproximatelyNNESSWfollowedbyNWSEtrendingjoints.Atrendofthe
beddingisnotidentified.
4.3.4.
Xghajra
The main discontinuity sets identified at this site are J5 (bedding) and J1 and J2
whichtrendapproximatelyNESW.Thelattertwojointsetshaveapproximatelythe
sameaveragestrikebuthaveoppositedipdirectionswithdipsthataresubvertical.
Theycloselyresembleamappedfaultsinthevicinity(theGeologicalMapofMalta,
1993). No dominant discontinuity set subparallel to the NWSE trending mapped
fault(theGeologicalMapofMalta,1993)canbeidentifiedwhichprobablyisdueto
thebiasimposedbythescanlineorientationbeingsubparalleltothisfault.
AwidedispersaldistributionofthepolesisobservedinscanlineAwhichstartsoff
veryclosetoacavelikestructure(
Page|59
Figure53)andundoubtedlyhasaneffectonthisdataset.Thiseffectisnotnoticed
atscanlineBwhichwascarriedoutapproximately75metresawayfromscanlineA
andthisstructure.
Figure 53 Cave-like structure adjacent to the position of the start of scan line A
4.3.5.
Birkirkara
From all five sites for which discontinuity data is available the data for this site is the most unclear from a
regional tectonic point of view. The main joint set J8 identified at this site was never identified in any of the other
sites. The average dip is shallow at 25o especially when considering that this joint set is not predominantly made
up of bedding discontinuities. In the other sites it was in general observed that bedding discontinuities had a very
shallow dip angle while the steeper discontinuities included other joints. From all the sites at which discontinuity
data is available, this site is the furthest away from highly stressed fault zones (Putz-Perrier, 2008; Putz-Perrier
& Sanderson, 2010) and mapped faults (the Geological Map of Malta, 1993). By looking at a photo of the site (
Figure54)aplausibleinterpretationmightbethatthesediscontinuitiesmaywellbe
relatedwiththeisopachthickeningoftheLGLwhichisreportedtobebyprevious
uparchingofthismember(Pedley,1975;Pedleyetal.,1976).
Page|60
Figure 54 Photo of Birkirkara site showing undulating discontinuity (scale shown by mobile crane)
4.4
Otherdiscontinuitiescharacteristics
4.4.1.
Aperture
Tablesshowingthepopulationofeachjointsetpersitewithineachapertureclass
arepresented(AppendixF).Plotsofaperturewidthclassagainstbothdipdirections
anddipanglesareplottedseparatelyforallthesites,groupedasjointsetsandfor
the GL formation (Appendix F). The aim is to identify possible trends of wider
apertures.Theresultsarenotveryclearhoweversomekindofrelationishintedto.
AslightconcentrationofwideraperturesfortheEWtrendingjointsetsarenoted
atFommirRihBay,StGeorgesBayandMsidaandfortheNStrendingjointsetsat
St.GeorgesBayandatMsida(indicatedbycirclesongraphsinAppendixF).Some
aperturesseemtoincreasewithincreasingdipangleatSt.GeorgesBayandMsida,
howeveratSt.GeorgesBaytherearesomeshallowerdipswithlargeaperturestoo.
Sincebeddingdataislimited,norealcomparisonofbeddingaperturemaybemade.
At Xghajra and Birkirkara there is no clear trend of wider discontinuities of a
particularjointset.ItcanbenotedthatatBirkirkaratheaperturesaregenerallyon
thewideendofthespectrum.
Byplottingthesamedataandgroupingitaccordingtojointsets(AppendixF),itis
noted that the major concentration of wider apertures lies at those joint sets
trendingapproximatelyEWnamelyJ1,J2andJ4.Thebeddingjointsets(J5,J6,J8
andJ10)donotclearlyshowatrendforaperture.Aperturesoftheapproximately
NNESSW trending joint sets J6, J9 and J7 tend to be on the smaller side of the
spectrum with only one joint exceeding aperture class 5. Combining the aperture
data together with the orientations of the latter joint sets may show that the
Page|61
tectonicoriginofthetwomainfaultfamiliesofMaltahastheleasteffectonthese
jointsets.
NoobvioustrendcouldbeidentifiedforaperturewidthintheGLformationmostly
duetothevariabilityacrosssites.Discontinuitieswithdipanglesrangingfrom25o
to50oaredominatedbywideraperturesfromBirkirkara.Atthelattersiteapertures
aregenerallyonthewiderthirdofthespectrum.
4.4.2.
Persistence
Giventhatthemajorityofthejointshavesteepdipanglesitisdifficulttoobtaina
qualitativeassessmentofpersistencefromrockoutcropwallswithalimitedheight
such as those studied at Fomm irRih Bay, St. Georges Bay and Xghajra. In such
cases judgement was carried out on what is possible to observe with the
consequence that persistence may be underestimated for some joints. It is
thereforenosurprisethatmostpersistencedatalieswithinclasses1to3.
Scatterplotsforpersistenceclassagainstdipdirectionanddipangle,foraperture
width class against persistence class and joint set populations within each
persistence class for each site are presented (Appendix G). The following
observationsaremade.
AtFommirRihBaythehigherpersistenceclassesoccurforjointsetsJ1&J3having
an ENEWSW and NWSE approximate strikes respectively. Some joints with the
higherpersistenceliewithinthejointsetJ4butareontheborderlineofJ1.Thisis
onlyamatterofgroupingandthereforethelatterjointsmaybeconsideredtobe
part of J1 too. The apertures of the highest persistent joints tend to be on the
widestendofthespectrumtoo.
AtMsidathehigherpersistenceclassesoccurforjointsetsJ1&J2whichhavean
ENEWSWstrike.Theyarethemostoccurringjointsetstooandreflectoneofthe
main fault families of Malta. Some of the higher persistence joints lie within joint
Page|62
setJ7butareaborderofjointsetJ2andthusmaybeconsideredaspartofJ2in
this case. The apertures of the most persistent joints vary from very tight to very
wide.
AtBirkirkaraonlythreedatapointshavepersistenceclassgreaterthan3(circledon
graphsinAppendixG).Thesejointshavesimilarorientationanddipangleswithan
approximatestrikeofanEWdirection.TheyliewithintwodifferentjointsetsJ2&
J8 but at their common border line. These joints have the aperture width class 7
whichisalmostthelargestapertureinthissite.
Given the large sample size of St. Georges Bay relatively very few joints have
persistence greater than 3. They are mostly part of the main bedding joint set J5
however they do not have the wider apertures of this site. If we expect to have
higher persistent joints to have the wider apertures the latter occurrence may
highlight clearly the difficulty of this outcrop to gather correct persistence
information.
NocleartrendcanbeidentifiedatXghajra.
4.4.3.
Relativehydraulicconductivity(K)
At Fomm irRih Bay the highest relative K occurs for joint set J4, which has an
average strike approximately ESEWNW at this site. The second highest relative K
occurs for J3 which strikes approximately NWSE but is considerably less than J4.
ThisshowsthattherelativeKsatthissitearetectonicallycontrolledandarehighest
for J4 since it has the closest similarity to the nearby Victoria fault. However it
should be reminded that this data set was simplified by not collecting what are
termedassecondaryfracturesatscanlineB(refertosection4.3.1).
AtSt.GeorgesBaythejointsetsJ1,J2,J3,J4andJ5allhavesimilarrelativeKinthe
rangefrom1.3to1.9mm3/m.Thesejointsetsincludethestrikesofthetwomain
faultfamiliesofMaltaandthebedding.
Page|63
At Msida all relative Ks for all joint sets are relatively very small due to low joint
frequenciesandlowaverageapertureshoweverJ1hasthehighestrelativeK.This
again indicates a plausible tectonic control even though the site lies about 1.5
kilometresawayfromthenearestmappedfault.
AtXghajrathebeddingjointsetJ10wasmeasuredonlyoncehoweverithadavery
high average aperture and thus has the highest relative K. One should remember
theapproximately200mmopenGLLCLcontact.J10mayhavewellbeenaffectedby
thiscontact.ThejointsetsJ7andJ3followbuthaveaconsiderablylowerrelativeK
thanJ10.TheystrikeapproximatelyNWSEandagainindicateaplausibletectonic
origin.
4.5
Transmissivity
Eventhoughthereisawidescatterofdata,transmissivityseemstodecreasewith
increasing depth below the top of the LCL (Figure 55). Reasons may include the
closureofcracksatdepthduetohigherverticalstresses,theinfillofdiscontinuities
with transported materials and less occurrence of karst at deeper levels. The
dispersalofdatamaybeexplainedbyknowingthattheLCLtopiswellabovemean
sealevelatthewestwhilenotsoattheeastcoast(refertostructuralmapofLCLin
AppendixJwhichissourcedfromPedley,1975).Fromwesttoeastmembersand
lithofaciesareprobablyencounteredbythedifferentwelltestssoonecannotreally
generalize for the LCL. For these reasons BRGM (1991b) regrouped this data by
regionsandmadesomeinterestingobservations.ThecontactGLLCLisinterpreted
asaconduitofwaterwhenlocatedbelowwaterandtherangebetweenIlMaraand
Attard members of the LCL is noted to have better productivity (BRGM, 1991b).
TheirobservationsfitinwellwiththegeomorphologicfeaturesobservedatXghajra
(Figure47)andGharghur(Figure33,Figure34,Figure35&Figure36)respectively.
Page|64
Figure 55 Variability of transmissivity with borehole depth below top of LCL (line shown is the trend line)
Ifweconsidertransmissivityvariabilitywithrespecttothemeansealevel(Figure56)
onecannotethatthedispersalofdataislesspronounced.Verysimplythistellsus
thattheboreholedepthswereingeneralaimedatclosetothesealevel,howeverit
may give another piece of information. Transmissivity decreases at a faster rate
withdepthbelowthemeansealevelthanitdoeswiththedepthbelowthetopof
theLCL.Thismaybeanindicationofpreferentialkarstfeaturesformingclosetothe
meansealevelgiventhatinmeanseaaquifersoneexpectstohavedevelopedkarst
nearthesalinefreshwatercontact(Mylroie&Mylroie,2007),howeverthebasisof
thishypothesiswouldbeveryweakifbasedonlyonthispieceofdata.
Page|65
Figure 56 Variability of transmissivity with borehole depth with respect to the mean sea level (line shown is the
trend line)
Transmissivityisalsoplottedinrelationtoproximitytothenearestmappedfaultin
theGeologicalMapofMalta(1993)consideredatsurface(Figure57)andatdepth
(Figure58).Agoodnumberofdatapointsthathaveanexceptionallywidescatter
are identified and ignored from the fitting of a possible trend line. It may be that
faults have less of an effect on transmissivity at distances further away than
approximately600metres(datapointsabovetheredarrowinFigure57&Figure
58). Some comparatively low transmissivity values occur relatively close to faults
too (shown circled in Figure 57 & Figure 58). If one ignores these values, there
seemstobeatendencyofdecreasingtransmissivitywithdistanceawayfromafault.
Page|66
Figure 57 Variability of transmissivity in relation to distance away from fault considered at surface. Black line
shows a possible trend line if data points above the red arrow and in the circle are ignored.
Figure 58 Variability of transmissivity in relation to distance away from fault considered at depth of borehole
end. Black line shows a possible trend line if data points above the red arrow and in the circle are ignored.
Page|67
Distances at depth between boreholes and faults are worked out by using simple
geometry.Thedataconsideredisthetopographicallevel,theboreholedepth,the
dipdirectionoftheparticularfaultbeingeitherinthedirectionorawayfromthe
boreholeandbyassuminganaveragefaultdipangleof65owhichisapproximately
equal to an average fault dip (Appendix I). An interesting observation is the less
scatterofthedatashownbythetrendlinefortheplotconsideringthedistanceto
thefaultsatdepth(Figure58).Eventhoughtheresolutionofthedataislow,this
resultisencouragingforfurtherinvestigationonthelevelofcontrolbyfaultsonthe
hydrogeology.
4.6
Potentiometry
Figure 59 1990 potentiometric map superimposed on the Geological Map of Malta (1993). Dashed lines show
main faults average alignments, dots with number show locations of gauged boreholes with water piezometric
level. (adapted from BRGM, 1991c & the Geological Map of Malta, 1993)
The readings of the period 1988 to 1991 are from 40 gauging boreholes which cover a wide area of Malta (
Figure59).Althoughthisnumberisnotsmallitissurelynotenoughtoassessany
fault control over water heads. Piezometers close to IlMaghlaq fault show the
highest levels for readings in proximity to the coast. This can be due to smeared
clayswhichisknowntooccuratilMaghlaqfault(Bonsonetal.,2007),howeverone
shouldalsobeawarethatthetransmissivityfortheLCLsatdepthsgreaterthan100
Page|68
metresbelowitstoparereportedtobelow(BRGM,1991b).Thismaybethecaseat
this location since the top of the LCL here is about 100 metres above sea level
(Pedley,1975).
Page|69
Discussion
Themainscopeofthischapteristoprovideadiscussioninawidercontextofthe
mainknowledgeacquiredfromthepreviouschaptersespeciallyfromchapter4.In
sodoingtheaimsreachedtogetherwiththelimitationsandfurtherimplicationsare
highlighted.Thesearethenusedtorecommendfuturestudies.
5.1
Thequantityofdatathatisacquiredthroughthissimpletechniqueisappreciated.
Eventhoughtheextentofthisdatamaynotbedetaileditprovidesagoodbasisasa
qualitativetoolwhichguidesfurtherdetailedfieldworkandinvasiveinvestigation
methods.
5.1.1.
StratalDipofBC
ItisunderstoodthatflowintheperchedwateraquiferoftheBCisgovernedbythe
downdips of the BC stratum. Given that the strata are generally subhorizontal
largethicknessesofthisaquiferarenotexpectedhoweverslightlythickerlocalised
perched aquifers may occur at the fault drags caused by the ENEWSW faulting.
Thesemaybespatiallylimited,notleastbyageneraldiptotheeast.
This knowledge may be applied to quantify the effects of flow on rock toppling
phenomena (Figure 16; Figure 25) and denser vegetation bands (Figure 21). It is
knownthatUCLrocktopplingfailureontopoftheBCistriggeredbythedifferent
mechanicalandhydrogeologicpropertiesofthesematerials(Gianfrancoetal.,2003;
Magrietal.,2008;Devotoetal.,2012).
Further implications to the latter statement include the characterisation of
geomorphologic variability and its correlation with other parameters so as to
Page|70
characterise these slope instabilities. Possible studies might include the temporal
development of instabilities due to wetting and drying cycles and the combined
effectofdiscontinuitypatterns.ThestudyofdesiccationcracksnotedatlImgiebah
may be included in this study. What happens if the BC is submerged under sea
water?WhatisthedifferencefromoutcroppingBCslopes?
5.1.2.
Flowindicationsfromkarsterosion
Ithasbeenobservedthatkarstmorphologyisafunctionofgrainsizeofthestrata
andtheirfracturing,withlargerdevelopmentsofkarstincoarsegrainedstrataand
highlyfracturedzones.Higherdevelopmentsofkarstincoarsegrainedstratamay
be due to inferior packing of particles and a better connectivity of voids. Other
variables such as flow quantities, the chemical composition such as the calcium
carbonatesaturationandthetemporalframeworkofthisprocessarenotstudied.
In general relatively larger developed karst features are observed in the UCL and
LCLwhicharecoarsergrained(Qammiegh,LImgiebahBay,FommirRihBay,Wied
ilGhasel,GharghurandSt.GeorgesBay).ThedevelopmentofkarstwithintheGL
whicharefinergrainedislimitedinwidthandgenerallyfollowsonlyonedirection
along the main wider discontinuities karst features are observed (Qammiegh, L
Imgiebah,FommirRihBay,Msida,Xghajra,MunxarandBirkirkara).
Karstified caves are noted at a fault zone near Qammiegh (
Figure18)whileatGharghurkarstifiednotchesintheclifffacearenotedtodevelop
fromawideraperture(Figure34).
Page|71
Severalobservationsshowthatfluidconductingboundariescanbefoundbetween
layersofdifferentgrainsizedistribution.Perhapstheclearestevidenceofthisisthe
karstifiederodedboundarybetweentheGLandLCLobservedatXghajra(Figure47).
In addition observations of karst features and a dense band of vegetation at
Gharghur close to contacts of members from the same formation indicate that
thesefluidconductingboundariesexistevenbetweenmembersorfacieswithinthe
sameformation(Figure33).Variationofgrainsizedistributionsthereforeprovidesa
barriertoflowintothefinergrainedmaterialsatcontactsbetweencoarsegrained
andfinegrainedmaterialsandencourageflowalongtheseboundaries.
A detailed geomorphologic exercise might identify more of these boundaries and
potentially aid in devising an investigation program to quantify this variability.
Ideally a test programme should aim at obtaining hydraulic data of the different
formationsandfacies.ForMaltathisdataiswidelymissing.Furtherimplicationsof
suchanexercisemaybethecharacterisationofgeotechnicalbehaviourofgeologic
materials in terms of their nature and state. These properties aid detailed
geotechnicaldesignasforexampleinquantifyingeffectivestresses.
5.1.3.
Sedimentationprocesses
Sedimentation processes are responsible for various material properties such as

mineralogy,grainsizedistributionanddiscontinuities.
In the MGL subhorizontal discontinuities are interpreted as desiccation
discontinuities along sedimentation boundaries (Figure 30; Figure 49). A study of
sedimentation environments and history may provide more information on more
possibleboundaries.
Page|72
5.1.4.
CalciteDeposition
Contrastingobservationsofkarstfeaturesandcalcitedepositionontorocksurfaces
(Figure 35) is evidence of two contrasting affects water can have on carbonates.
Thisdependsonthelevelofcarbonatesaturationofthewaterwithrespecttothe
carbonatecontentoftheparticularrock(Fetter,2001).
The implications are that water may either act to increase or decrease the
permeability by solution processes or calcite deposition respectively. The
characterisationoftheseprocessesrequirestheuseofgeochemistry.
5.1.5.
Styleoffaulting
St.GeorgesBayprovideshintsonpossiblejointandfaultstyles(Figure37;Figure
38; Figure 39). Hydraulic conductivity depends on the type of discontinuity
developed. Lower hydraulic conductivity is expected for infilled joints and higher
hydraulic conductivity expected for fault zone occupied by fault blocks and open
joints. Fault breccias may reduce the hydraulic conductivity of a fault. The
characterisationoffaultingstylesandparameterscontrollingtheirstylearedesired.
An antithetic fault is observed at Fomm irRih Bay (Figure 28). Trends of
discontinuitieswithsimilarstrikesbutoppositedipdirectionsareidentifiedinsome
ofthesites(AppendixE).Thismaybelinkedwitheitherfaultsboundingbasinsthat
arewidelyobservedinthehorstandgrabenofNorthMaltaormaybeamatterof
mechanicalvariabilitiesofstrataandthustheirdifferentmodeoffracturing(Michie
etal.,2014).
Page|73
5.2
Discontinuitydata
5.2.1.
JointinglinkwiththeriftingtectonicsofMalta
It is observed that strikes and dip angles of the most occurring joints closely
resembleMaltastwomainfaultfamiliesbeingtheENEWSWandNWSEtrending
faults. The most often identified joint sets are J1 and J2 (ENEWSW trending)
followedbyJ3(NWSEtrend).J1andJ2areidentifiedatfouroutoffivesiteswhile
J3isonlyclearlyidentifiedattwoofthesites.J3notbeingidentifiedatXghajrais
probablyduetothescanlineorientationbiasasitisorientedclosetotheNWSE
direction. At Msida the reason cannot be identified clearly as various orientations
were considered in taking discontinuity data and all visible discontinuities were
measured.
The probable joint origin being the rifting tectonics is also evident from aperture
data.ConcentrationofdatawithinthewideraperturesisobservedforjointsetsJ1,
J2 and J4 which closely resemble an EW orientation. Joint sets J6, J7 & J9 have
concentration of data within the smaller end of aperture width classes. Their
orientationisapproximatelyNNESSWwhichisfurthestawayfromtheorientation
ofthemainfaultfamiliesofMalta.Thissupportsahypothesisthatwiderapertures
arenotedforjointswithorientationssimilartotheorientationsofthemainfaults
ofMalta.
Antitheticjointsetsappearastrendsinvarioussites.Thismaybeanothercloselink
withthehorstandgrabenstructureofMalta.
5.2.2.
Limiteddatafrompersistence
Someobservationsfrompersistencearealsopossiblehoweveritisbetternottodo
generalizationsfromthisdatagiventheevidentdatabiasfromlowheightofrock
walloutcropsstudied.
Page|74
5.2.3.
ThecaseoftheBirkirkarasite
The case of the Birkirkara site is somewhat different from all the other sites. This
site lies at a distance of about 3 kilometres away from main mapped faults (the
GeologicalMapofMalta,1993)whilealltheothersitesliewithin1.5kilometresof
mainfaults.OnlyJ8wasidentifiedasamaintrendingjointsethere.J8hasastrike
similar to that of J1 and J2, however its average dip at this site is of 25o which is
shallowwhencomparedtoboththeaveragesofJ1andJ2(seeTable7andTable8).
J8reflectsapreviouseventwhichisreportedasuparchingofthismemberthatis
responsibleforthethickeningoftheLGL(Pedley,1975;Pedleyetal.,1976).
5.2.4.
Extentoftectonicaffect
For all the sites except for Birkirkara it is believed that the discontinuity patterns
identified are closely linked to the tectonic origin of the same main faults that
outcrop on Malta. This is believed to be true even at distances of about 1.5
kilometresfrommappedfaults.PutzPerrierandSanderson(2010)notedifferences
in the deformation characteristics between higher strain zones, i.e. where faults
develop, and low strain zones. Considering that high strain zones could be a few
kilometres wide may be a supporting argument for the hypothesis that most
jointinginthesitesstudiedhasatectonicorigin.
The degree of aperture, persistence and frequency depend on the distance away
fromfaults.ThisissupportedbyhigherrelativeKcalculatedforsitesnearertofault
zones such as Fomm irRih Bay, Xghajra and St. Georges Bay while considerably
lowerrelativeKatMsida.AtFommirRihBaythehighestrelativeKisforjointsetJ4
(ESEWNW orientation) followed by joint set J3 (NWSE orientation) representing
most strongly higher permeability in a direction subparallel to the orientation of
thenearestfault.AtSt.GeorgesBayrelativeKofjointsetsJ1,J2,J3,J4&J5liein
thesameregion.AtthelattersitethejointsetshaveahigherrelativeKresemble
closelythetwomainfaultfamiliesofMaltaandthebedding.
Page|75
Further testing of the hypotheses presented in this section is required through a

larger sample size so as to correctly capture and represent all the variability that
may be at play. In such a study the effect from local geologic factors should be
identified.
5.2.5.
Controlonhydraulicconductivitiesfromgeologiccontacts
ThehighestrelativeKatXghajrahappenstobeforjointsetJ10whichisabedding
set and probably indicates the large effect on the hydraulic conductivity from the
GLLCLcontact.
5.2.6.
Jointinglinkwithnearestfaultstructure
The ENE-WSW faults have varying strikes ranging from approximately E-W to NE-SW. If considered at a local
level, J1 and J2 closely follow the orientation of the nearest fault orientation. This occurrence was noted at sites
up to approximate distances of 1.5 kilometres away from a fault. However this is not the case for St. Georges
Bay at which site the orientation of J1 is closer to the orientation of the west Victoria fault portion (
Figure 60). A general fault strike kink in the Victoria fault is noted which also
coincides with an isopach thickening of the LGL south of the Victoria fault at this
location (Pedley, 1975). The average orientation of J1 at St. Georges Bay may
indicatethattheVictoriafaultmighthavehadaneffectonawiderzonethanthe
mapped fault as indicated by its hypothetical extension of the line but may have
been deviated due to some reason such as stress axis orientation or structural
thickening.
Page|76
Figure 60 The Victoria fault within the regional geology (adapted from the Geological Map of Malta, 1993)
5.2.7.
Furtherdatalimitations
For the GL the bedding trend was in general not identified except for the Xghajra
site.AreasonforthiscanbeduetotheGLbeingmassivelybedded(Pedleyetal.,
1976)andthusnotcapturingthebeddingtrendsbybiasedhorizontalscanlines.
A wide dispersal of data is noted when measurements are in close proximity to
faults or other geologic structures. In such a case, in order to be able to reach a
regionalcomparison,probablyabetterapproachwould betotryandidentifythe
maingeologicstructuresandhencethecausesofthevariabilitywithinthejointing.
When this cannot be achieved taking many readings as possible to try and obtain
themaintrendsisagoodtooltoeliminateasmuchaspossibleanydatabias.
More trends of spatial variability of jointing within the different geological
formations and facies and within the different geologic contexts should be
identified. These should be backed by statistically significant samples. Ideally this
data should be correlated with field mapping and specifically designed testing
programmes.
5.3
Transmissivity
It is not usual to correlate transmissivity data to distance from faults. This was
carriedoutattheabsenceofanymoredetaileddata.Eventhoughawidedispersal
ofdataisnoted,acertaindegreeoflinkbetweenthetwoseemsevident(Figure57,
Page|77
Figure 58). At this stage this is an encouraging result considering the wide spatial
arearepresentedbythesetestsandthusthevariabilitytheymayrepresent.Ideally
specificdatasuchasinvestigationboreholedataistobeavailablesoastobeable
toidentifypossiblecorrelationsofdata.Suchdataisprobablyavailableatthehands
oftheMalteseauthoritieshowevernosuchdataisavailabletothisauthoratthe
timeofwritingthisstudy.
ItshouldalsobenotedthatinferredfaultsmarkedasdashedlinesoftheGeological
MapofMalta(1993)arewithina50metreaccuracybracket(Pedley,2014).
5.4
Potentiometry
The potentiometric data available is widely spaced over most of Malta with no
concentrationofcloselyinstalledpiezometers.Thisdoesnotallowproperanalysis
offaultcontrolonthehydraulicpropertiesofthegeologyofMalta.Giventhatthe
highestreportedtotalheadsareintheregionbetween3to5metres(BRGM,1991c;
Sapianoetal.,2006)thefaultsealcontrolonthehydrogeologyisnotexpectedto
besignificanthoweverheadsdependalsoonthesaltwaterfreshwatercontact.
5.5
MainDataLimitations
Themethodsappliedandanalysescarriedoutwiththedataathandareinnoway
exhaustivetounderstandthefullextentofthehydrogeologyofMalta.Theygivea
good indication of what the main controls on hydrogeology are and thus guide
furtherwork.
A good number of sites were visited during the field trip gathering a good spatial
representativeness. Still, most probably they do not encompass the whole
variabilityofthehydrogeologyofMalta.Alotofobservationsaremade,howeverin
ordertosupporttheinterpretationsahighernumberofsimilarobservationsacross
Page|78
moresitesisdesired.Somelevelofquantificationortestingshouldbedone.Asa
start,discontinuitydatawascollectedfromacrossfivesites.
Confidence in the accuracy of dip angles and dip directions is high. Confidence is
slightly lower for the other discontinuity characteristics since they were visually
taken.Howeveritisstillbelievedthattheyhaveagoodlevelofaccuracy.Asregards
the scan line sample sizes and orientations it was shown that maybe longer scan
lines and more varied orientations are desirable. An improvement on the
discontinuitydatasetistoincludemoresites.IfafaultsuchasVictoriafaultneeds
tobestudiedinmoredetailperhapsscanlinesalongandacrossthefaultatchosen
sites fulfil this requirement. Techniques such as circular scan lines to measure
intensity,densityandaveragelengthofdiscontinuitiesmaycapturedatathatisnot
capturedbylinearscanlines.
Themajorlimitationwiththeanalysiscarriedoutwiththepreavailabledataisthat
ingeneralthedatausedmaylackspecificorcompletedetail.Intheearthsciences
andthegeotechnicalfieldalotofvariablesandunknownsareinvolved,sogenerally
several points of perspectives are desired so as to confirm or otherwise the data.
Possibilities of doing this with the available data are limited. In addition using the
Geological Map of Malta (1993) to measure distances to faults and topographical
levelsisexpectedtoresultinlowconfidenceoutputs.
5.6
ConceptualGroundModel
Theareashownistheareachosenfortheconceptualgroundmodelpresentedin
this section (Figure 61). The conceptual ground model (Figure 62) summarises a
goodnumberofobservationshighlightedinthisstudy.
Page|79
FommirRihBay
2km
Figure 61 Red border shows the area of the conceptual ground model presented in this section (adapted from
the Geological Map of Malta, 1993)
Page|80
Figure 62 Conceptual Ground Model highlighting regional hydrogeology of Malta. Annotations crossreferenced to numbers are included on the next page.
Page|81
Displacements of faults towards the east coast probably decrease; therefore

the relatedfault damage zones narrow down. The synclinal structure due to
thefaultdragalsonarrowsdown.Asdisplacementsdecreasetowardstheeast
awedgeshapedblockdippingtowardsthewestiscreated.
WiderfaultdamagezonestothewestoftheVictoriaFault.
Atlargerdisplacementsacertainwidthofdamagezonesareexpectedatthe
LCLtoobutstillconsiderablylowerthanthoseintheGL(refertoTable12).For
smallthrowsnodamagewidthisexpectedwithintheLCL.
WideningoffaultdamagezonesatGLprobablyincreasesslipsurfaces.
BCsmearprovidesalocalizedsealandcompartmentalizesflowparalleltoits
direction.
ConfinedAquiferZone?BCbottomdippingtoalevelbelowsealevel
FluidconduitGLLCLcontact.Isthisconduitbestdevelopedatthesalinefresh
water contact? If yes do we expect a less extensive development of this
contactbelowsealevel?
NosealinNWSEdirection.IlMaghlaqfaultisabsentfromthecoastclosestto
thissite.Thereforethepotentialofglobalaquiferblockstobesealedbyfaults
islow.Transmissivitymayvaryduetovariabilityinfaciespermeability.
Development of karst at GL along fault and subsequently along the sub

horizontalGLLCLcontact?
10 IsBCsealbreachedforthrowsbetween550metresasobservedbyMissenard
etal.(2014)?Karstificationoftheunderlyinglayersmaydependonthis.
11 Higherhydraulicconductivityatfaultzonesandthuslowertotalheads.
12 Gradual decrease of conductivity away from fault zone as joints apertures
close, frequency decreases and probably persistence decreases too. Higher
totalheads(watertable)areexpectedinthesezones.
13 Moredevelopedkarstmayformatintersectionsbetweenfaultsandsealevels
where highest levels of flow are expected. Vertical infiltration may be
inhibitedbytheclaycover.
14 The general dip of this wedge to the west is governed by the displacements
beinglargesttothewest.Greaterdownthrowsoccurtowardsthewest.
15 Valleysareformeddippingtotheeastinanapproximatewesteastdirection.
Their occurrence is governed by the general dip of strata to the east and
probablybytheENEWSWtrendingfaults.Solutionsubsidencestructuresmay
aidthedevelopmentofvalleys.
16 Springs
17 SandycontactbetweentheULCandBC.
Page|82
6
6.1
SummaryandConclusions
MainConclusions
The main findings of this research work on the structural controls on the
hydrogeologyofMaltaaresummarised.
The potentiometric data available is widely spaced over most of Malta with no
concentration of closely installed piezometers. This makes proper analysis of fault
seal control on the hydrogeology of Malta impossible. Evidenced in part by low
highestheadsofabout3to5metres,largeaquiferblockscontrolledbyfaultseals
areprobablyinexistent.Faultsealsmaybeexistentalongalimitedunidirectional
stretch.
Possibilities of fault parameters such as displacements to define the fault
architecturewerepreviouslyshown(Michieetal.,2014).Hydraulicconductivityis
expectedtovarydependingonthetypeofdiscontinuitydevelopedwhetherbeing
aninfilledjoint,madeupoffaultblocksandopenjointsorfaultbreccias.
In general the joints are shown to be closely linked to the latest rift tectonics of
Malta. This is evidenced from similar strikes and dip angles of the most occurring
joints that closely resemble the ENEWSW and NWSE trending faults, the wider
apertures of these joints and the relative K calculated. Even joints at distances of
about1.5kilometresawayfrommappedfaultsareshowntobelinkedwiththerift
tectonics as their orientations closely resemble the nearest fault structures. A
decrease in aperture width and spacing is observed at locations away from the
faults.Confirmationorotherwiseofthishypothesisshouldbetackledbycollecting
astatisticallysignificantsample.
The site of Birkirkara presents a somewhat different situation from all the other
sites. This site lies at a distance of about 3 kilometres away from the nearest
mapped faults (the Geological Map of Malta, 1993). The main trending joint set
identified,J8,showsstrikesimilaritytotheENEWSWtrendingfaultsbutoccursata
Page|83
muchshallowerdip.Thismayshowthatrifttectonicsdonothaveorhavelessofan
affectatthesedistancesawayand/orshowsevidenceofpreviouseventsthatmay
havebeenuparchingeffectsthatareresponsiblefortheisopachthickeningofthe
LGL(Pedley,1975;Pedleyetal.,1976).
Fromobservationsitisnotedthatkarstdevelopmentdiffersbetweenformationsor
faciesthatexhibitvariabilityingrainsizedistributionandfracturing.Perhapsmore
specificallycoarsegrainedstratamayhaveinferiorpackingofparticlesandabetter
connectivity of voids. Both of these two characteristics increase the hydraulic
conductivityofarockmass.Thereforelargerdevelopmentsofkarstareexpectedin
rock masses of higher hydraulic conductivities. In addition observations highlight
that fluid conducting boundaries can result between layers of different grain size
distributions.AnerosivecontactoftheGLLCLboundaryatXghajraisobserved.
Sedimentationprocessesmayberesponsibleforvariousmaterialpropertiessuchas
grainsizedistributionsanddiscontinuities.
It is not usual to correlate transmissivity data to distance from faults especially
whenthedataisoflowresolution.Howevereventhoughawidedispersalofdatais
noted,acertaindegreeofcorrelationbetweenthetwoseemsplausible.Thisresult
providesencouragementforfutureresearch.
6.2
FurtherStudies
6.2.1.
Faultparametersandcontrol
The further study of fault architecture is encouraged along and across faults by
carryingoutfieldmappings.Datagapsstillexistbymissinginlanddata.Correlations
from findings may shed light on hydraulic characterisation of faults. Techniques
suchaslinearandcircularscanlinesaredeemedtoaidtheinitialquantification.
Anextstepwouldbetodesignafieldandlaboratorytestingprogrammesoasto
correlate hydraulic properties to the geologic contexts identified. Methods to
Page|84
correlateinvestigationdataatdepthwithsurfacedataaretobefound.Insodoing
datamaybeextrapolatedtopredicthydraulicbehaviouratsiteswheredataisstill
limited.Thisdatawouldthenbesubjecttofurtherfuturetesting.
6.2.2.
Controlsonjointing
More trends of spatial variability of jointing within the different geological

formations and the different geologic contexts should be tested by statistically
significantsamples.Samplesitesshouldpreferablybechosenwiththehydrological
cycleinmind.
6.2.3.
Permeabilityvariabilityofdifferentformationsandfacies
Inthisstudycontrolsonfluidflowpathsduetoformationsorfacieshavingvarying
grain size distributions of the geological strata has been identified. The zoning of
such strata combined by intact rock and rock mass permeability testing would
provideusefulinformationforcharacterisingthehydrogeologyofMalta.ForMalta
thisdataiswidelymissing.
Ifthisdataiscombinedwithgeotechnicalpropertiesofgeologicmaterialsbothin
termsoftheirnatureandstateusefulinformationinquantifyingeffectivestresses
forengineeringpurposesmaybereached.
6.2.4.
Geochemistry
Bothobservationsofcarbonatesolutionandcalcitedepositionhavebeenobserved.
The geochemical processes at play have a governing effect on the hydraulic
properties of such zones. Analysis of flow paths from geomorphology in
combination with geochemical testing are deemed to provide a useful tool in
characterisingpossiblegeochemicalcontrolsonthehydrogeologyofMalta.
Page|85
References
Alexander,D.(1988)Areviewofthephysicalgeographyofmaltaanditssignificance
fortectonicgeomorphology.QuaternaryScienceReviews.7(1),4153.
Argnani,A.(1990)Thestraitofsicilyriftzone:Forelanddeformationrelatedtothe
evolutionofabackarcbasin.JournalofGeodynamics.12(24),311331.
Anzidei,M.,Baldi,P.,Casula,G.,Galvani,A.,Mantovani,E.,Pesci,A.,Riguzzi,F.&
Serpelloni, E. (2001) Insights into presentday crustal motion in the central
MediterraneanareafromGPSsurveys.Geophys.J.Int.146,98110.
ATIGA.(1972)WastesdisposalandwatersupplyprojectinMalta.Malta,UNDP.
Bakalowicz, M. & Mangion, J. (2003) The limestone aquifers of Malta: Their
recharge conditions from isotope and chemical surveys. IAHSAISH Publication.
(278),4954.
Bonson, C. G., Childs, C., Walsh, J. J., Schpfer, M. P. J. & Carboni, V. (2007)
Geometricandkinematiccontrolsontheinternalstructureofalargenormalfaultin
massivelimestones:TheMaghlaqFault,Malta.JournalofStructuralGeology.29(2),
336354.
Bosence, D. W. J. & Pedley, H. M. (1982) Sedimentology and palaeoecology of a
Miocene coralline algal biostrome from the Maltese Islands. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology.38(12),943.
Bureau de Recherche Gologique et Minire (BRGM). (1991) Study of the fresh
waterresourcesofMalta.ExecutiveSummary.Malta,GovernmentofMalta.
Bureau de Recherche Gologique et Minire (BRGM). (1991b) Study of the fresh
water resources of Malta. Appendix 2. Hydrodynamic characteristics. Malta,
GovernmentofMalta.
Page|86
Bureau de Recherche Gologique et Minire (BRGM). (1991c) Study of the fresh

waterresourcesofMalta.Appendix4.Potentiometryofthemeansealevelaquifer.
Malta,GovernmentofMalta.
British Standards Institution (1999) BS 5930:1999. Code of practice for site
investigations.London,BSI.
Cartwright,J.A.,Trudgill,B.D.&Mansfield,C.S.(1995)Faultgrowthbysegment
linkage:anexplanationforscatterinmaximumdisplacementandtracelengthdata
from the Canyonlands Grabens of SE Utah. Journal of Structural Geology. 17 (9),
13191326.
Debono,G.&Xerri,S.(1993)GeologicalMapoftheMalteseIslands.1:25000.Sheet
1Malta.Malta,OilExplorationDirectorate,OfficeofthePrimeMinister.
Dart,C.J.,Bosence,D.W.J.&McClay,K.R.(1993)Stratigraphyandstructureofthe
Maltesegrabensystem.JournaloftheGeologicalSociety.150,11531166.
Dawers,N.H.&Anders,M.H.(1995)Displacementlengthscalingandfaultlinkage.
JournalofStructuralGeology.17(5),607614.
Devoto, S., Biolchi, S., Bruschi, V., M., Furlani, S., Mantovani, M., Piacentini, D.,
Pasuto, A. & Soldati, M. (2012) Geomorphological map of the NW Coast of the
IslandofMalta(MediterraneanSea).JournalofMaps.8(1),3340.
Faerseth, R. B. (2006) Shale smear along large faults: continuity of smear and the
faultsealcapacity.JournaloftheGeologicalSociety,London.163,741751.
Fetter, C. W. (2001) Applied Hydrogeology. Fourth Edition. New Jersey, USA,
PrenticeHall,Inc.
Gardiner,W.,Grasso,M.&Sedgeley,D.(1995)Pliopleistocenefaultmovementas
evidence for megablock kinematics within the HybleanMalta Plateau, Central
Mediterranean.JournalofGeodynamics.19(1),3551.
Page|87
Gianfranco, M., Samori, L., Ragazzini, A., Cuppini, G. & Baratin, L. (2003)
Consolidamento del Palazzo Vilhena M'dina (Malta) Relazione geotecnica.
Bologna,Universita`diBologna.Reportnumber:6.
Gillespie, P. A., Walsh, J. J. & Watterson, J. (1992) Limitations of dimension and
displacement data from single faults and the consequences for data analysis and
interpretation.JournalofStructuralGeology.14(10),11571172.
GonzalezdeVallejo,L.I.&Ferrer,M.(2011)GeologicalEngineering.London,CRC
Press.
Google.(2014)GoogleEarth[computerprogramme]GoogleInc.
Illies, J. H. (1981) Graben Formation The Maltese Islands a case history.
Tectonophysics.73,151168.
Jongsma, D., Woodside, J. M., King, G. C. P. & van Hinte, J. E. (1987) The Medina
Wrench:akeytothekinematicsofthecentralandeasternMediterraneanoverthe
past5Ma.EarthandPlanetaryScienceLetters.82(12),87106.
Kim,Y.,Peacock,D.C.P.&Sanderson,D.J.(2003)Mesoscalestrikeslipfaultsand
damagezonesatMarsalforn,GozoIsland,Malta.JournalofStructuralGeology.25
(5),793812.
Magri, O., Mantovani, M., Pasuto, A. & Soldati, M. (2008) Geomorphological
investigation and monitoring of lateral spreading along the northwest coast of
Malta.Geogr.Fis.Dinam.Quat.31,171180.
Marrett, R. & Allmendinger, R. W. (1990) Kinematic analysis of faultslip data.
JournalofStructuralGeology.12(8),973986.
Ministry for European Affairs (2014) CF120: National Flood Relief Project (NFRP).
[Online] Available from: https://investinginyourfuture.gov.mt/project/waste
Page|88
managementandriskprevention/nationalfloodreliefprojectnfrp42041344
[Accessed11thAugust2014].
Mylroie, J. R. & Mylroie, J. E. (2007) Development of the carbonate island karst
model.JournalofCaveandKarstStudies.69(1),5975.
Micarelli, L., Benedicto, A. & Wibberley, C. A. J. (2006) Structural evolution and
permeability of normal fault zones in highly porous carbonate rocks. Journal of
StructuralGeology.28(7),12141227.
Michie,E.A.H.,Haines,T.J.,Healy,D.,Neilson,J.E.,Timms,N.E.&Wibberley,C.A.
J. (2014) Influence of carbonate facies on fault zone architecture. Journal of
StructuralGeology.65(0),8299.
Missenard, Y., Bertrand, A., Vergly, P., Benedicto, A., Cushing, M. & Rocher, M.
(2014) Fracturefluid relationships: implications for the sealing capacity of clay
layersInsightsfromfieldstudyoftheBlueClayformation,Malteseislands.Bulletin
DeLaSocieteGeologiqueDeFrance.185(1),5163.
Newbery, J. (1968) The perched water table in the upper limestone aquifer of
Malta.JournaloftheInstitutionofWater.22,551570.
Newbery, J. (1976) Miocene seafloor subsidence and later subaerial solution
subsidence structures in the Maltese Islands. Proceedings of the Geologists'
Association.87(1),111.
Pedley,H.M.(1975)TheOligoMiocenesedimentsoftheMalteseIslands.PhD.The
UniversityofHull.
Pedley, H. M. (1975b) Miocene Seafloor Subsidence and Later Subaerial Solution
SubsidenceStructuresintheMalteseIslands.Proc.Geol.Ass.85(4),533547.
Page|89
Pedley, H. M. (1987) Controls on Cenozoic carbonate deposition in the Maltese

Islands:reviewandreinterpretation.MemorieDellaSocietaGeologicaItaliana.38,
8194.
Pedley, H. M. (1990) Syndepositional tectonics affecting Cenozoic and Mesozoic
deposition in the Malta and SE Sicily areas (Central Mediterranean) and their
bearingonMesozoicreservoirdevelopmentintheNMaltaoffshoreregion.Marine
andPetroleumGeology.7(2),171180.
Pedley, M. (1998) A review of sediment distributions and processes in Oligo
Miocene ramps of southern Italy and Malta (Mediterranean divide). Geological
Society,London,SpecialPublications.149,163179.
Pedley, M. (2011) The Calabrian Stage, Pleistocene highstand in Malta: a new
marker for unravelling the Late Neogene and Quaternary history of the islands.
JournaloftheGeologicalSociety,London.168,913925.
Pedley,Martyn.Geologist.(Personalcommunication,6thAugust2014).
Pedley, H. M., House, M. R. & Waugh, B. (1976) The geology of Malta and Gozo.
ProceedingsoftheGeologists'Association.87(3),325341.
Pedley, H. M. & Bennett, S. M. (1985) Phosphorites, hardgrounds and
syndepositional solution subsidence: A palaeoenvironmental model from the
mioceneoftheMalteseIslands.SedimentaryGeology.45(12),134.
Pratt, S. K. (1990) Hardground genesis in pelagic carbonates from the Miocene of
MaltaandCretaceousofSouthernEngland.PhD.UniversityofLondon.
PutzPerrier, M. W. (2008) Distribution and Scaling of Extensional Strain in
SedimentaryRocks.PhD.ImperialCollegeofScience,TechnologyandMedicine,UK.
Page|90
PutzPerrier,M.W.&Sanderson,D.J.(2010)Distributionoffaultsandextensional
straininfracturedcarbonatesoftheNorthMaltaGraben.TheAmericanAssociation
ofPetroleumGeologists.94(4),435456.
Reuther, C. D. & Eisbacher, G. H. (1985) Pantelleria Rift crustal extension in a
convergentintraplatesetting.GeologischeRundschau.74(3),585597.
Rocscience Inc. (2004), Dips Version 5.1 Graphical and Statistical Analysis of
Orientation Data. www.rocscience.com, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [Computer
program].
Sapiano,M.,Mangion,J.andBatchelor,C.(2006)WaterResourcesReview.Rome,
FAO.Reportnumber:1.
Sapiano,Manuel.HeadofwaterpolicyunitwithinMRA.(Personalcommunication,
31stJuly2014).
Seebeck, H., Nicol, A., Walsh, J. J., Childs, C., Beetham R. D. & Pettinga, J. (2014)
Fluidflowinfaultzonesfromanactiverift.JournalofStructuralGeology.62,5264.
Snow,D.T.(1970)Thefrequencyandaperturesoffracturesinrock.J.RockMech.
Min.Sci.7,2340.
Stuart, M. E., Maurice, L., Heaton, T. H. E., Sapiano, M., Micallef Sultana, M.,
Gooddy,D.C.&Chilton,P.J.(2010)Groundwaterresidencetimeandmovementin
theMalteseislandsAgeochemicalapproach.AppliedGeochemistry.25(5),609
620.
Trechmann,C.T.(1938)QuaternaryConditionsinMalta.TheGeologicalMagazine.
75(1),126.
Watterson, J. (1986) Fault Dimensions, Displacements and Growth. Pageoph. 124,
365373.
Page|91
AppendixATheGeologicalMapofMalta(1993)
(removed contents due to data limits)
Page|92
AppendixBMainwaterbodiesasindicatedbytheMaltaResources
Authority(MRA)
(removed contents due to data limits)
Page|93
Page|94
AppendixCMdinainvestigationboreholesfromGianfrancoetal.
(2003)
Page|95
AppendixDStereonetplots
FommirRihBaystereonetplotBothScanLines
JointSet
1
3
Dip
Dipdirection
o
70
N359o
80o
N255o
FommirRihBaystereonetplotScanLineA
JointSet
1
3
Dip
89o
79o
Dipdirection
N005o
N255o
Page|96
FommirRihBaystereonetplotScanLineB
Page|97
St.GeorgesBaystereonetplotAllScanLines
JointSet
1
3
5(bedding)
Dip
Dipdirection
o
86
N356o
o
66
N259o
11o
N057o
St.GeorgesBaystereonetplotScanLineA
JointSet
1
3
5(bedding)
Dip
86o
58o
12o
Dipdirection
N356o
N237o
N060o
Page|98
St.GeorgesBaystereonetplotScanLineB
JointSet
1
2
3
6(bedding??)
Dip
Dipdirection
80o
N353o
84o
N192o
o
68
N258o
9o
N314o
St.GeorgesBaystereonetplotScanLineC
JointSet
2
3
4
5(bedding)
7
Dip
68o
70o
89o
20o
74o
Dipdirection
N158o
N217o
N031o
N045o
N117o
Page|99
MsidastereonetplotAllfaces
JointSet
Dip
Dipdirection
1&2
90o
N337o/N157o
MsidastereonetplotFacesA,EandFaceParalleltoA
JointSet
1
7
Dip
84o
61o
Dipdirection
N340o
N113o
Page|100
MsidastereonetplotFaceB
JointSet
1&2
Dip
90o
MsidastereonetplotFaceD
Dipdirection
N336o/N156o
Page|101
XghajrastereonetplotBothScanLines
JointSet
1
2
5(bedding)
JointSet
2
5(bedding??)
Dip
85o
85o
5o
XghajrastereonetplotScanLineA
Dip
87o
13o
Dipdirection
N325o
N149o
N056o
Dipdirection
N144o
N090o
Page|102
XghajrastereonetplotScanLineB
JointSet
1
2
5(bedding)
Dip
83o
83o
5o
Dipdirection
N324o
N152o
N045o
Page|103
BirkirkarastereonetplotAllScanLines
JointSet
8
JointSet
8
Dip
Dipdirection
o
25
N174o
BirkirkarastereonetplotScanLineA
Dip
22o
Dipdirection
N180o
Page|104
BirkirkarastereonetplotScanLineB
JointSet
8
Dip
35o
Dipdirection
N165o
Page|105
AppendixEFullscanlinessheets
Page|106
FommirRihDiscontinuityScanLines(letterinfirstcolumnreferstoscanlineandnumbertopositioninmetres)
Page|107
StGeorgesBayDiscontinuityScanLineA(letterinfirstcolumnreferstoscanlineandnumbertopositioninmetres)
Page|108
Page|109
Page|110
Page|111
StGeorgesBayDiscontinuityScanLineB(letterinfirstcolumnreferstoscanlineandnumbertopositioninmetres)
Page|112
Page|113

Page|114
StGeorgesBayDiscontinuityScanLineC(letterinfirstcolumnreferstoscanlineandnumbertopositioninmetres)
Page|115

Page|116
Page|117
MsidaDiscontinuityFacesA&E(letterinfirstcolumnreferstofaceandnumberreferstoreadingentry)
Page|118
MsidaDiscontinuityFacesB&C(letterinfirstcolumnreferstofaceandnumberreferstoreadingentry)
Page|119
MsidaDiscontinuityFaceD(letterinfirstcolumnreferstofaceandnumberreferstoreadingentry)
Page|120
XghajraDiscontinuityScanLineA(letterinfirstcolumnreferstoscanlineandnumbertopositioninmetres)
Page|121
XghajraDiscontinuityScanLineB(letterinfirstcolumnreferstoscanlineandnumbertopositioninmetres)
Page|122
BirkirkaraDiscontinuityFaceA(letterinfirstcolumnreferstofaceandnumberreferstoreadingentry)
Page|123
BirkirkaraDiscontinuityFaceB(letterinfirstcolumnreferstofaceandnumberreferstoreadingentry)
Page|124
AppendixFTablesandgraphsofdiscontinuitiesaperturedata
FommirRihBayApertureclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
FommirRihBayApertureclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
33.3
33.3
50
66.7
40
100
33.3 33.3
50
60
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
Page|125
Page|126
StGeorgeBayApertureclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
11
11
14
13
11
Totals
35
26
32
38
37
16
14
StGeorgeBayApertureclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
14.3
3.1
10.8
6.3
7.1
11.1
17.1
3.8
21.9
21.1
24.3
6.3
35.7
11.1 22.2
5.7
15.4
9.4
7.9
10.8
18.8
22.2 11.1 33.3
31.4 42.3 43.8
34.2
16.2
25.0
35.7
44.4 55.6 16.7
14.3 15.4 18.8
18.4
29.7
43.8
21.4
11.1 11.1 33.3
5.7
3.8
13.2
5.4
5.7
11.5
3.1
5.3
2.7
16.7
5.7
7.7
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|127
Page|128
MsidaApertureclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
14
15
MsidaApertureclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
28.6 53.3
50
66.7
40
50
28.6 26.7
50
16.7
60
50
21.4
6.7
7.1
6.7
16.7
14.3
6.7
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|129
Page|130
XghajraApertureclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
J8
J9
J10
50
33.3
XghajraApertureclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
1
2
3
50
25
50
25
33.3
100
100
100
33.3
33.3
50
33.3
33.3
50
100
100
100
7
8
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|131
Page|132
BirkirkaraApertureclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
10
J8
J9
J10
BirkirkaraApertureclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Aperture
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
1
2
25
10
28.6
25
57.1 100 28.6
25
14.3
25
42.9
14.3
8
Totals
12.5
20
50
100
40
100 37.5
25
50
30
25
14.3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|133
Page|134
Page|135

Page|136

Page|137

Page|138

Page|139

Page|140
Page|141
AppendixGTablesandgraphsofdiscontinuitiespersistencedata
FommirRihBayPersistenceclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
FommirRihBayPersistenceclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
100
40
66.7
50
66.7
33.3
25
60.0
25
33.3
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
Page|142
&J4
&J4
Page|143

St.GeorgesBayPersistenceclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
15
11
20
13
12
17
10
10
22
17
Totals
36
26
32
38
37
16
14
J9
J10
St.GeorgesBayPersistenceclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
41.7 42.3 62.5
34.2
32.4
12.5
35.7
44.4 66.7 33.3
47.2 38.5 31.3
57.9
45.9
43.8
64.3
44.4 33.3 50.0
11.1 19.2
6.3
5.3
13.5
43.8
11.1
16.7
2.6
5.4
2.7
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|144
Page|145
MsidaPersistenceclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
10
Totals
10
15
MsidaPersistenceclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
10
50
40
10
26.7
50
20
50
40
66.7
20
100
20
6.7
20
20
50
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|146
Page|147
XghajraPersistenceclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
XghajraPersistenceclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
50
33.3
33.3
50
100
100
50
100
33.3
66.7 100
50
100
33.3
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|148
Page|149
BirkirkaraPersistenceclassfrequenciesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
1
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
Totals
10
BirkirkaraPersistenceclasspercentagesforeachjointset
JointSet
/
Persistence
J1
J2
J3
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
J9
J10
50
62.5
100
100
25
25
37.5
12.5
50
20
50
75
50
50
25
50
60
25
12.5
20
Totals
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page|150
Page|151
AppendixHRelativehydraulicconductivities
FommirRihBayRelativeHydraulicConductivityforeachjointset
Average
Lengthof
Joint Numberof
Frequency,
Aperture,
scanline,
Set readings,n
i(m1)
ei(mm)
L(m)
ei3
(mm3)
Relative
Ki
(mm3/m)
J1
14.1
0.43
1.5
3.375
1.436
J2
14.1
0.28
0.375
0.053
0.015
J3
14.1
0.28
8.9375
713.918
202.530
J4
14.1
0.43
17.5
J5
J6
J7
J8
14.1
0.07
1.5
3.375
0.239
J9
J10
5359.375 2280.585
St.George'sBayRelativeHydraulicConductivityforeachjointset
Average
Lengthof
Joint Numberof
Frequency,
Aperture,
scanline,
Set readings,n
i(m1)
ei(mm)
L(m)
ei3
(mm3)
Relative
Ki
(mm3/m)
J1
36
68.3
0.53
1.5
3.375
1.779
J2
26
68.3
0.38
1.5
3.375
1.285
J3
32
68.3
0.47
1.5
3.375
1.581
J4
38
68.3
0.56
1.5
3.375
1.878
J5
37
68.3
0.54
1.5
3.375
1.828
J6
16
68.3
0.23
1.5
3.375
0.791
J7
14
68.3
0.20
1.5
3.375
0.692
J8
68.3
0.13
1.5
3.375
0.445
J9
68.3
0.13
1.5
3.375
0.445
J10
68.3
0.09
1.5
3.375
0.296
Page|152

MsidaRelativeHydraulicConductivityforeachjointset
Lengthof
Average
Joint Numberof
Frequency,
scanline,
Aperture,
Set readings,n
i(m1)
L(m)
ei(mm)
ei3
(mm3)
Relative
Ki
(mm3/m)
J1
15
107.9
0.14
0.175
0.005
0.00075
J2
16
107.9
0.15
0.05
0.000
0.00002
J3
107.9
0.02
0.1125
0.001
0.00003
J4
107.9
0.06
0.05
0.000
0.00001
J5
J6
J7
107.9
0.05
0.175
0.005
0.00025
J8
J9
107.9
0.02
0.1125
0.001
0.00003
J10
XghajraRelativeHydraulicConductivityforeachjointset
Lengthof
Average
Joint Numberof
Frequency,
scanline,
Aperture,
Set readings,n
i(m1)
L(m)
ei(mm)
ei3
(mm3)
Relative
Ki
(mm3/m)
J1
29.5
0.24
0.375
0.053
0.013
J2
13
29.5
0.44
1.5
3.375
1.487
J3
29.5
0.03
6.25
244.141
8.276
J4
29.5
0.07
1.5
3.375
0.229
J5
29.5
0.20
1.5
3.375
0.686
J6
29.5
0.03
J7
29.5
0.14
6.25
244.141
33.104
J8
29.5
0.10
0.175
0.005
0.001
J9
29.5
0.10
0.375
0.053
0.005
J10
29.5
0.03
17.5
5359.375
181.674
Page|153
AppendixIHydrodynamicdata
Page|154
CompiledtableusedforthereinterpretationofTransmissivity(BRGM,1991b;Sapiano,2014)
Page|155
Page|156
Page|157
(contentsremovedduetodatalimits)
Page|158
AppendixJFaultdataandstructuralcontoursofLCL
Page|159

Fittingofdatapointstodetermineanequationintheformof
Section3.6.1
Inthefollowingworking isrepresentedbytheletter and isrepresentedby .

The general equation of a parabola is
, where , and are
. Hence substituting the three points
constants such that

and
in the general equation, the following three equations
willbeproduced:
Equation(1):
Equation(2):
Equation(3):
Solvingequations(2)and(3)simultaneously:
ThefollowingEquation(4)isobtainedbymultiplyingEquation(2)by
Equation(4):
Equation(3):
Equation(4)Equation(3):
Substitutingthevalueof inEquation(3)weget
.
Page|160

Hence,theequationis
Theabovequadraticequationisgraphicallyshownasfollows:
Researchshowsthattherelationshipbetweendisplacement( )andlengthoffault
( ) is of the form
, where is a constant not equal to zero (Watterson,
1986;Cartwrightetal.,1995).Hence,byadjustingtheabovequadraticequationby
varyingthecoefficientof
andfixingthecoefficientof equaltozero,wegetthe
approximation
of
and
. The negative sign of the coefficient
intercept are insignificant, as they only translate the graph on a
differentpositionontheaxesanddonotaltertheshapeofthegraph.Graphically
theadjustedequationisshownbelow.
Page|161
TableshowingfaultdataextractedfromtheGeologicalMapofMalta(1993)
Nameofsection
Line
trend
SectionAA`ofTheGeologicalMapofMalta
170 deg.fromNorth
Dip
Actual Measured Actual
App.
direction
Dip throw Throw Heave
o
[ from
[o]
[m]
[m]
[m]
N.]
Corr.
Heave
[m]
Displacement
[m]
Fault
Fault
Number
Distance
[m]
START
0.00
1,085.88
62.2
80.63
32.25
17.31
16.99
36.45
1,372.46
167
57.0
278.76
111.50
72.6
72.50
133.00
Qammiegh
1,771.53
341
66.0
17.46
6.98
3.15
3.11
7.65
2,403.42
144
71.2
94.07
37.63
14.29
12.84
39.76
3,020.52
315
59.2
58.06
23.22
16.87
13.82
27.02
3,911.21
333
65.3
49.04
19.62
9.45
9.04
21.60
4,232.21
163
71.9
86.46
34.58
11.38
11.30
36.38
4,331.73
163
72.7
155.42
62.17
19.46
19.31
65.10
5,527.27
172
73.2
119.65
47.86
14.46
14.45
49.99
10
6,087.94
340
60.5
114.77
45.91
26.42
26.02
52.77
11
6,319.83
350
57.8
81.45
32.58
20.49
20.49
38.49
12
6,743.00
165
61.8
21.17
8.47
4.56
4.54
9.61
13
7,377.05
355
66.9
25.99
10.40
4.45
4.43
11.30
14
7,498.86
167
75.8
10.06
4.02
1.02
1.02
4.15
15
7,854.30
199
65.4
61.98
24.79
12.99
11.36
27.27
16
9,086.62
61.8
452.45
180.98
98.93
97.11
205.39
Victoria
17
9,301.60
142
63.6
18.20
7.28
4.1
3.62
8.13
18
10,333.65
146
72.2
47.54
19.02
6.7
6.12
19.98
19
10,638.03
331
63.9
17.16
6.86
3.56
3.37
7.64
20
11,525.99
157
62.6
28.11
11.24
5.98
5.83
12.66
21
13,014.22
335
63.9
10.10
4.04
2.05
1.98
4.50
Page|162

Faultgeometry(sourcedfromMichieetal.,2014)Section3.6.2
CalculationofFSZwidthusinggeometryfromMichieetal.(2014)
a
b
67 deg.
80 deg.
x
wh
h
wf
FSZ
60.0
102.3
35.7
25.5
163.4
m
m
m
m
m
(averagefromMichieetal.,2014)
(averagefromMichieetal.,2014)
(GLthicknessfromPedley,1975)
HoweverFSZwidthisexpectedtobewiderthanthisdueto
presenceofBCandUCLtooatthispoint.Soletussaynotlessthan
200metres.
Page|163

Predictiveequationsfordamagezoneswidthagainstdisplacement(sourcedfrom
Michieetal.,2014)
Page|164
Calculationsofdamagezoneswidthsusingthepredictiveequationsinthe
previouspageforTable12(sourcedfromMichieetal.,2014)
Heave
Faultdip
Displacement
Formation
10 m
74 deg.
36.3 m
GL
(avg.forGLandLCLformationsMichieetal.,2014)
LCL
FSZ(m)
22.2
2.1
TDZ(m)
Avg.Faultcore(m)
71.2
14.3
0.6
15.3
(rangeforLCLbetween2.1m
and15.3m)
Page|165
StructuralcontourmapofLCL(source:Pedley,1975)
(contentsremovedduetodatalimits)
Page|166

Hydro Geology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydro Geology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPERIALCOLLEGELONDON

Exceptions to the above rule may be present as is observed at the site of

From observations it is noted that karst development differs between

A plot of spatial transmissivity in relation to distance from faults, although

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

reinterpretation of some spatial hydrodynamic and potentiometric data,

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Figure 4 Isopach map of the LGL (source: Pedley et al., 1976)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Table 2 Climate parameters monthly means (source: Sapiano et al., 2006)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Figure 10 Conceptual model of a solution subsidence structure (Pedley, 1975b:p.542)

Missenard et al. (2014) studied palaeofluid circulations. The authors made

Table 4 Average aquifer hydraulic properties compiled from literature

Geologic control factors are important in the understanding of groundwater. The

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Table 5 Table showing site names of sites included in study

well pumping tests determining aquifer transmissivity and potentiometric data

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Oneshould notethatforFommirRihBayand Xghajrathescanlinesorientations

80/353 84/192 68/258

68/158 70/217 89/031 20/045

(picture removed due to data limits)

Figure 11 and Table 5.

Discontinuity data is plotted on an equal angle lower hemispherical stereonet

Table 8 Summary of the main joint sets variability of averages

Other discontinuity characteristics including persistence, termination, aperture,

The aim is to develop an understanding of the control of faults on the hydraulic

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Table 11 D and L co-ordinates used to determine a relationship in the form D=cL2

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

The importance of faults length data in determining displacementlength

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

Figure 15 adapted from PutzPerrier & Sanderson, 2010). An approximate

(picture removed due to data limits)

Variable behaviour is expected from different strata due to their different

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)

(picture removed due to data limits)