HIMALAYAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND LTD

KATHMANDU

ELECTRIC RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY SURVEY (2D-ERT)

OF
UPPER MYAGDI-1 HYDROPOWER PROJECT
MAY 2017

Submitted by:

East Management Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd.

P. O. Box: 1192, Satdobato, Lalitpur
Reg. No.14/2050/51
Phone: 5520242/5538325, Website: www.emes.com.np
Contents

CHAPTER I - Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Physical and geological basis of ERT method ........................................................................ 1
1.3 Objectives of the study............................................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER II - Methodology .................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER III - Analysis and Interpretation......................................................................................... 11
3.1 Relation of electrical properties with geotechnical parameters .................................................. 11
3.2 Resistivity tomograms and their interpretations ......................................................................... 12
1. Headworks area ..................................................................................................................... 12
2. Surge shaft area ..................................................................................................................... 22
3. Penstock alignment ............................................................................................................... 27
4. Powerhouse and tailrace tunnel............................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER IV - Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 41

ii
 CHAPTER I - Introduction

1.1 Background

This report deals with the results and interpretations of 2D-ERT survey carried out in intake,
surge shaft, penstock, and powerhouse and tailrace tunnel of Upper Myagdi-1 Hydropower
Project located in Myagdi district. Fieldwork for data acquisition was completed in October,
2016. In this report, interpretation is made based on 2D-ERT results and geological
observations in the field.

2D-ERT is the most commonly used geophysical tool in the feasibility study of hydropower
projects of Nepal. It is useful in characterizing the subsurface geology in the sites of different
components of a hydropower project. Geological observations provide a priori information
while processing the data and interpreting the tomograms.

For 2D-ERT, apparent resistivity using different conventional electrode layout was measured
along each profile.The measurements had been carried out in all total twelveprofiles in the
project area includingheadworks, surge shaft, penstock and powerhouse areas (Figure 1,2,3,4;
Table 1). The technique of data acquisition is discussed in detail in next chapter.

1.2 Physical and geological basis of ERT method

If an electric current is introduced into the subsurface, depending upon the electrical
resistance of the subsurface material the electric current will flow variably giving rise to a
potential difference between two points in the subsurface. This is the main basis of the 2D-
ERT survey. In 2D-ERT, electrical current of very low frequency is passed through the
geological subsurface. The response of current on geological formations such as clay, silt,
sand, gravel, boulders, and bedrock are different. By virtue of different capacity of different
material on electrical conductivity, it is possible to separate different materials from each
other. Electrical resistivity of a geological material depends both on the matrix (rock and/or
sediments) and on the salinity of the fluids (water) and degree of saturation of pore spaces.

In 2D-ERT the apparent resistivity along the given profile is measured. The electrode spread
(array) and the electrode spacing are fixed according to the objective of the survey. To
measure apparent resistivity different instruments can be used. However in this survey
resistivity meter named as SYSCAL R1 Plus manufactured by IRIS, France was deployed.

1
The instrument is fully automatic and designed to measure apparent resistivity of the
subsurface materials. Noise due to spontaneous potential and other ionospheric activities can
be suppressed significantly.

The apparent resistivity measured is used to obtain the resistivity model after inversion. In
2D-inversion the best fitting model is searched by minimizing the error between the observed
and the calculated apparent resistivity.

The study area is comprised of the rocks of the HigherHimalaya. Surface observations in the
site show boulders as well as outcrops ofgneiss. Most of the profile lines exhibit colluvium
and/or alluvium deposits that may range in thickness from a few meters to a few tens of
meter. The geology and other surface conditions along each profile lines are described in the
3rd chapter of the report.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The objectives of the geophysical study are as followings:

1. To show different layers of soil and rocks along the given profiles,

2. To find out possible depth of bedrock,

3. To find out shear zones or any other possible planes of weakness, and

4. To evaluate the slope if there is any deformation or creep.

2
Table 1. Profile lines for ERT survey in the Upper Upper Myagdi-1HPP

2D ERT Profile Lines

Line Name Description Length (m) Depth of Remarks
Penetration
ERT-AA’ Across Weir Axis, RB 195 45 To access depth of rock and soil deposit underneath the
Diversion Weir, depth to water table
ERT-BB’ Across Weir Axis, LB 200 45 To access depth of rock and soil deposit underneath the
Diversion Weir, depth to water table
ERT-CC’ Downstream of Weir, 115 35 To access depth of rock and soil deposit underneath the
across ERT-AA’, ERT- Diversion Weir, depth to water table
BB’
ERT-DD’ Along Weir Axis 70 20 To access depth of rock and soil deposit underneath the
Diversion Weir, depth to water table
ERT-EE’ Across Surge Shaft, 150 25 To access depth of rock and soil deposit, depth to water table
along the penstock
ERT-FF’ Across Surge Shaft 255 60 To access depth of rock and soil deposit, depth to water table

ERT-GG’ Along Penstock 470 120 To access depth of rock and soil deposit along penstock, depth to
water table
ERT- HH’ Across Penstock 70 20 To access depth of rock and soil deposit across penstock, depth
to water table
ERT- II’ Across Penstock 115 35 To access depth of rock and soil deposit across penstock, depth
to water table
ERT- JJ’ Across Powerhouse 115 35 To access depth of rock and soil deposit across powerhouse,
depth to water table
ERT- KK’ Across Powerhouse 115 35 To access depth of rock and soil deposit across powerhouse,
depth to water table
ERT- LL’ Across Powerhouse 115 35 To access depth of rock and soil deposit across powerhouse,
depth to water table

3
Figure 1Layout showing location of ERT lines and drill holes in the headworks area

4
Figure 2Layout showing location of ERT lines and drill holes in the surge shaft area

5
Figure 3Layout showing location of ERT lines in the penstock alignment

6
Figure 4Layout showing location of ERT lines and drill holes in the powerhouse area

7
 CHAPTER II - Methodology

Resistivity data was gathered to obtain a continuous coverage of the subsurface along the
lines of investigation. In 2D-ERT, data are collected using any one of the conventional or
non-conventional electrode configurations having different degree of sensitivity, resolution
and depth penetration. Selection of any electrode configuration for data acquisition mainly
depends on the geological and topographical setup of the area, requirements of the depth of
investigation, resolution, and sensitivity of the selected electrode configuration. Further the
choice of a particular electrode configuration depends on level of noise, field logistics and
data processing facilities. In this study double dipole array was used for allprofiles with
electrode spacing between 5 and 10m.

Field data are commonly influenced by telluric and electrochemical activities in the
subsurface. The subsurface electrochemical activity is checked by SP measurements which
would help in interpretation of resistivity data. The level of noise on the collected data
depends on the quality of the equipment and accessories, methods of data acquisition and
geological setup. Selection of appropriate equipment and accessories and data acquisition
system helps to gather reliable field data. Proper selection of the orientation of the profiles or
an additional cross profiles helps to recognize noise due to the geological and morphological
setup of the area. The three dimensional subsurface heterogeneity may influence the observed
data in large scale particularly when the electrode spacing is large. Further the distortion of
signal due to geological variations within the profile in sideways also influence the
observations. Further, noise can be introduced in the data by polarization of the electrodes.
To reduce the noise by polarization, the frequency of electric current was increased after each
20 readings and the machine was switched off every 30 minutes for five minutes in each
profiling. These noises caused by subsurface geology are regarded as geological noises and
are not easily interpretable. In addition to the geological noises, the quality of the data and the
results depend on the following factors:
1. Type of the equipments and the accessories used,

2. Field crew (geophysicist, assistants, surveyors, helpers),

3. Method of inversion, and

4. Interpretation capacity of the geophysicist.

8
Type of equipment and accessories used

Data acquisition was carried out by using equipment known under the brand name SYSCAL
R1 Plus Switch 48 manufactured by IRIS, France. It consists of three main units all housed
in a single casing: the transmitter, the receiver and the microprocessor. The electrically
isolated transmitter sends out well-defined and regulated signal currents. The receiver
discriminates noise and measures voltages correlated with transmitted signal current.The
microprocessor monitors and controls operations and calculates results. The apparent
resistivity is calculated automatically and displayed in digital form.

Stainless steel electrodes (30 cm long) were used for both current transmission and voltage
receiving. These electrodes were grounded in each profile and were connected with the
Syscal by specially designed shielded multicore cables.

For each observation the instrument was set to display average value of 5 to 10 stacks.The
stacking is used to suppress unwanted electrical signals (noises). Low frequency current was
injected for 500ms for each data point.

Data inversion code is another main component of the 2D-ERT method. There are numbers
of commercially available inversion code designed for the processing of 2D-ERT data. The
inversion code should be robust and precise. The limitation of the inversion code is that it is
not free from artifacts of the data processing. Therefore, the processing and the interpretation
must be done based on the geological/hydrological condition that has been observed during
the field visit.For the inversion, RES2DINV software by GEOTOMO was used. The
software is most commonly used in resistivity data interpretation.

For the interpretation of the result obtained from the inversion, detailed geological
observations were made during the fieldwork. For this purpose an experienced engineering
geologist was included in the team. During the data processing, the geologist and the
geophysicist of the team made intensive discussions to come up this report.

The main task of 2D-ERT is to search the best fitting electrical model of the subsurface that
simulates the apparent resistivity very close to the observations. In 2D-ERT, the observed
pseudosections are first prepared from the raw field data. Pseudosections show the variation
of resistivity in the subsurface, which have been affected by the electrode arrangement and
relative apparent resistivity distribution in the subsurface. The inversion of the pseudosection
was carried out to get the best fitting model of true resistivity distribution.

9
For inversion of the pseudosection, it is necessary to input processing parameters. The input
of the processing parameters largely depends on the geological concepts and data quality. The
program calculates a two-dimensional resistivity model for the subsurface using the apparent
resistivity measured along a profile and the processing parameters suitable for the geology of
the area. The depth of the bottom row of the resistivity blocks is set to be approximately
equal to the equivalent depth of investigation (median depth) of the datum points with the
largest electrode spacing. A finite element modeling is used to calculate the apparent
resistivity values, and a non-linear least-squares optimization technique is used for the
inversion. The least-square optimization basically reduces the difference between the
observed and calculated resistivity values by adjusting the resistivity of the model blocks.
The end products of the processing are refined tomograms (images) of resistivity.

10
 CHAPTER III- Analysis and Interpretation

3.1Relation of electrical properties with geotechnical parameters

Electrical resistivity depends on porosity, permeability, moisture content and material type of
the soil and rocks. The ratio of resistivity between zone of aeration to zone of saturation
ranges between 4 and 10. For saturated and clay free soil the relation between porosity and
resistivity is related by Archie's law. For saturated granular material there is direct log-log
relationship between permeability and resistivity. Further there is a nonlinear relationship
between resistivity and the internal angle of friction indicating higher the resistivity higher
the internal angle of friction. The rock mass quality also has direct relation with logarithm of
the resistivity at greater depths. All these relations between geotechnical parameters and
electrical resistivity vary among different rock types and soil deposits.

For the interpretation of electrical resistivity model, to extract subsurface geological

information, knowledge of geological setting is very important. Geological setting in ERT
implies the lithological composition along and around the profile lines. Resistivity of a
lithological unit (rock or soil) is controlled by many factors including weathering, fractures,
porosity, permeability and types and content of fluid in the pores such that the same
lithological unit may show drastic variation in resistivity under different geological settings.
In this regard, knowledge of geological setting of an area supplies key information while
correlating subsurface geology with resistivity. The project area is comprised of gneiss of
Higher Himalaya. Based on geological settings and the contrasts in electrical resistivity
between different layers and bodies in the subsurface in this study, a lithological correlation
is made and compared with standard resistivity values in Table 2.

11
Table 1. Correlation of different lithological units with model resistivity
Lithology Standard Resistivity values (Ohm- Most likely resistivity value
m) after Telford et al., 1990* in this study (Ohm-m)
Clay < 100
Loose Sediments

Sand < 800

Gravel < 10,000
Soil (colluvium or - < 2,000
alluvium with
significant gravel )
Water saturated Up to 1,000
soil
Quartzite 10-2X1010
Schist 20-104
Gneiss 6.8X104-3X106
Bedrock

Fractured and - Up to 5,000

weathered rock
Water saturated - <1000
rocks
- > 3,000
*Telford, W.M., Geldart L. P. and Sheriff, R. E. Applied Geophysics (Second Edition), Cambridge
University Press, 770p.

3.2 Resistivity tomograms and their interpretations

To investigate subsurface geology of the Project, 2D-ERTsurvey was carried out along
twelve profiles (Table 1).Interpretation of the resistivity tomograms are based on the
resistivitycontrast between subsurface layers assisted by field observations.

1. Headworks area

In the headworks area altogether four profiles were surveyed namely ERT-AA’, ERT-BB’,
ERT-CC’ and ERT-DD’. The resistivity tomograms and geological interpretations along
these profiles are presented in Figures 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A,7B, 8A and 8B respectively.

ERT-AA’ lies on the lower terrace of the Myagdi Khola on its left bank. It crosses ERT-CC’
and ERT-DD’ at the chainage of 45m and 97m respectively. The resistivity tomogram and
interpretative section are shown in Figures 5A and 5B respectively. The resistivity tomogram
shows irregular patches of high resistive surface layers interpreted as gravel rich alluvium
containing gravel to boulder. The gravel deposit interfingers with the underlying sand
dominated layer. The sediment layers are underlain by highly weathered rock. Depth to the
bedrock is 21m in the southern part and 24m in the northern part (Figure 5B).
ERT-BB’ is located on the uphill side on the left bank of the MyagdiKhola. It crosses ERT-
CC’ and ERT-DD’ at the chainage of 55m and 112m respectively. The resistivity tomogram
and interpretative geological section are presented in Figure 6A and 6B. The resistivity
tomogram shows irregular surface patches interpreted as gravel rich alluvium which is
12
underlain by sand deposit (Figure 6B). Weathered bedrock is inferred at 12m depth inthe
central part of the profile, while at 20m at southwestern part and at 15m in the northeastern
part of the profile.
ERT-CC’goes uphill from the lower terrace of the Myagdi Khola and crosses ERT-AA’ and
BB’ at 15m and 50m respectively (Figure 7A). The medium resistive surface patches along
this profile are interpreted as boulder rich alluvium (Figure 7B) underlain by small patches of
sand rich alluvium in the central part of the profile. Weathered bedrocks are found at the
depth of 10m in the northern part and at 0-10 m in the southern part of the profile. Fresh
bedrock is inferred at the depth of 10-12 m at south central part (Figure 7B).
ERT-DD’ lies along the diversion weir and crosses ERT-AA’ and ERT-BB’ at 8m and 43m
respectively (Figure 8A). Weathered rock is found at the depth of 13min the southern part of
the profile which is overlain by thick boulder rich alluvium (Figure 8B).

13
Figure 5A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-AA’

14
Figure 5B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-AA’

15
Figure 6A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-BB’

16
Figure 6B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-BB’

17
Figure 7A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-CC’

18
Figure 7B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-CC’

19
Figure 8A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-DD’

20
Figure 8B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-DD’, DH1 and DH2 represent the drill holes in the area

21
2. Surge shaft area

ERT-EE’ and ERT-FF’ were surveyed to explore subsurface geology in the surge shaft area.
Surface observations indicate highly weathered rocks in the surge shaft area. The resistivity
tomograms and geological interpretations along ERT-EE’ and ERT-FF’ are presented in
Figures 9A, 9B, 10A, and 10B respectively.

ERT-EE’ lies along the headrace tunnel through the surge shaft and crosses ERT-FF’ at 85m.
Based on the geological observation different isolated resistivity patches at the hill slope are
interpreted as colluvial deposits which is underlain by thick (5-15m) weathered
bedrock(Figure 9B).Fresh bedrocks are inferred below weathered rocks in the central to
southern part of the profile.

ERT-FF’ crosses the surge shaft and intersects ERT-EE’ at 135m. Based on the surface
observations isolated resistivity patches at the central part of the profile is interpreted as
colluvial deposit and at the northwestern and southeastern part are interpreted as highly
weathered and fractured rock (Figure 10B). Fresh bedrock is inferred throughout the profile
at shallow depth (10-15m).

22
Figure 9A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-EE’
Figure 9B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-EE’, DH3 represents the drill hole at surge shaft

24
Figure 10A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-FF’

25
Figure 10B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-FF’

26
3. Penstock alignment

ERT-GG’, ERT-HH’ and ERT-II’ were surveyed to explore subsurface geology along the
penstock alignment. The resistivity tomograms and geological interpretations along ERT-GG’,
ERT-HH’ and ERT-II’ are shown in Figures 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B, 13A and 13B respectively.
ERT-GG’ lies along the penstock alignment and crosses ERT-HH’ and ERT-II’ at 160m and
292m respectively. Surface observations indicate colluvium as well as alluvium deposit along
this profile (Figure 11B). In the northern and southern part of the profile the soil layer reaches up
to 10m thick. While in the central part of the profile the thickness of sand rich alluvium is less
than 7m. The sediment layers are underlain by highly weathered and fractured rocks which is
underlain by fresh bedrock. A patch of weak rock (or shear zone) is inferred at the depth of 20m
at chainage 160m. Another similar patch of weak rock (or shear zone) is inferred at the depth of
48m at chainage (Figure 11B).
ERT-HH’ shows a thin layer of colluvium in the northern part of the profile where weathered
and fractured bedrock is found at the depth of 3m. A patch of weak rock (or shear zone) is
inevitable at the depth of 4m at the chainage of 40m (Figure 12B). Fresh bedrock is inferred at
the depth between 10-12m throughout the profile.
ERT-II’ crosses the penstock at its lower part where thin layer of boulder rich alluvium is
observed at the central part of the profile and thick sand rich alluvium throughout the profile.
Sand rich alluvium is underlain by weathered and fractured bedrock. Depth to weathered rock
varies between 15-20m throughout the profile. Fresh bedrock is inferred at the central part of the
profile where the depth is between 25-30m (Figure 13B).

27
Figure 11A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-GG’
Figure 11B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-GG’

29
Figure 12A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-HH’

30
Figure 12B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-HH’

31
Figure 13A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-II’

32
Figure 13B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-II’

33
4. Powerhouse and tailrace tunnel

ERT-JJ’ and ERT-KK’ were surveyed in the powerhouse area while ERT-LL’ was surveyed
along the tailrace canal. The resistivity tomograms and geological interpretations along ERT-JJ’,
ERT-KK’ and ERT-LL’ are shown in Figures 14A, 14B, 15A, 15B, 16A and 16B respectively.
ERT-JJ’ lies in the powerhouse area and crosses ERT-KK’ at 37m. Thin layer of boulder rich
alluvium is underlain by thick pile of sand rich alluvium throughout the profile. Weathered and
fractured bedrock is inferred at the depth of 10m at the northern part of the profile while up 20m
at the central part of the profile (Figure 14B). Weathered rock is underlain by fresh bedrock
which can be inferred at the central part of the profile.
ERT-KK’ indicates thin to thick boulder rich alluvium in the central part of the profile which is
underlain by thick sand rich alluvium throughout the profile. Sand rich alluvium is underlain by
patches of boulder rich alluvium along the profile (Figure 15B) which is again underlain by sand
rich alluvium. Bedrock cannot be inferred along this profile.
Along ERT-LL’ successive gravel and boulder rich layer of alluvium and sand rich alluvium is
inferred up to the depth 30m along the profile (Figure 16B).
Figure 14A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-JJ’
Figure 14B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-JJ’, DH4 and DH5 represent the drill holes in the powerhouse area

36
Figure 15A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-KK’

37
Figure 15B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-KK’

38
Figure 16A. Resistivity tomogram along ERT-LL’

39
Figure 16B. Interpretative geological section along ERT-LL

40
 CHAPTER IV- Conclusions and Recommendations

The detailed interpretation of the result of the 2D-ERT has already been discussed in the
previous chapter. From the discussions and the field observations the following conclusions and
recommendations are made.

1. In the headworks area bedrock is found between the depth of 10 to 24m. The bedrock is
overlain by boulder and sand rich alluvial deposits. The alluvium deposits in the
headworks area indicate the possibility of many paleo-channels on the bank of the
Myagdi Khola.
2. The surge shaft area comprises highly weathered and fractured rocks. The depth to the
bedrock ranges between 5 to 15m.
3. Along the penstock alignment depth to bedrock ranges between 3m and 12m. Further
zones of weak rocks (or shear zone) are found below 4 to 48m which may pose threat the
stability of the penstock alignment.
4. In the powerhouse area bedrock is observed at the depth of 10 to 20m while along the
tailrace canal no indication of bedrock is found up to the depth of 30m.
To verify the ERT results core drilling is recommended especially along the penstock
alignment to cross-check the shear zone.

41