Salleri Chylasa ERT Draft Reprt

Salleri Chialsa Electricity Company Limited
Solukhumbu District
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Survey

At the upslope of Powerhouse Area
(Draft Report)
Submitted to:
Salleri Chialsa Electricity Company Limited (SCECO)
Submitted by:
Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA
Engineering Services
P.O Box # 11137, Fax No. 977-1-4278336
Phone No. 4271351, 4271882
Bhagwan Pau, Swayambhu, Kathmandu,Nepal
Email: nea.srcl@nea.org.np
December, 2017
Table of Content
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................................ 2
3 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................................................... 2
4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY OF ROCKS ..........................................................................................................4
4.2 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY SURVEY DESIGN ........................................................................6
4.3 2D ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY SURVEY ...............................................................................9
4.3.1 Data Acquisition ..............................................................................................................................9
4.3.2 Data quality .....................................................................................................................................9
4.3.3 Field Crew ..................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.4 Equipments used in the field study ............................................................................................... 10
4.4 INTERPRETATION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY RESULTS ................................................. 11
4.4.1 Data Processing and Interpretation.............................................................................................. 11
4.4.2 Pitfalls of the processing and interpretation ................................................................................ 11
4.5 RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAMS AND INTERPRETATIVE CROSS-SECTION ........................................................... 13
4.5.1 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -1 (Along the slopemass) .......... 13
4.5.2 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -2 (along the slope mass). ......... 14
4.5.3 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -3 (along the slope mass). ......... 16
4.5.4 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -4. .............................................. 17
4.5.5 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -5 ............................................... 17
4.5.10 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -10 ........................................ 22
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 23
FIGURES
Figure 1: Location map of the study area .................................................................................. 1
Figure 2 : An overview of the ERT profiles around the powerhouse site.................................. 3
Figure 3: Regional geological map of study area. Ui represents Ulleri formation. ................... 3
Figure 4: Electrical Resistivity versus Lithology ....................................................................... 6
Figure 5:WENNER Electrode Array for profiling ..................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-1 ........................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-4. .......................................................................... 17
Figure 10: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-5. ........................................................................ 18
Figure 11: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-6. ........................................................................ 19
Figure 12: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-7 ......................................................................... 19
Figure 15: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-10 ....................................................................... 22
Annex: Site Photographs

Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey Salleri Chialsa Electricity Company
1 Introduction
The Salleri-Chialsa Hydropower station and its supply area are located in the Salleri area and
few nearby rural municipalities (Gaupalikas) in Solukhumbu distrit of eastern Nepal. This
power plant was commissioned in 1985 through the Swiss Aid Project. Subsequently, the
governments of Nepal (GON) and Switzerland decided to manage the Salleri-Chialsa Plant in
a non-traditional manner to address the problems of high operating costs, poor availability of
plant and supply systems, inefficient management, unproductive use of electric power, and the
low socioeconomic benefits derived from isolated mini-hydropower systems in Nepal. The
ultimate outcome was the establishment of a shareholder public limited company under the
name of Salleri Chialsa Electric Company (SCECO) in 1991.
The power plant is a 900kW run-of-river scheme housed with 4 cross-flow turbines (two old
and two new). The powerhouse plant is located at the riverbed of Solu River, just upstream of
headworks of Upper Solu Hydropower Project. The location map of the project area is shown
in figure 1.
Study Area
Figure 1: Location map of the study area
Geophysical exploration using two Dimensional (2D) electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)
survey plays a significant role in determining the subsurface resistivity distribution by making
measurement on the ground surface. From these measurements, apparent resistivities are
Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 1

recorded during the fieldwork, which are later converted to true resistivity using appropriate
computer software. These true resistivities are then interpreted in reference to subsurface
geological condition. The 2D electrical resistivity profiling is capable of detecting boundaries
between unconsolidated materials (overburden), rocks, identifying weathered rock from fresh
rock and contact between lithology, water table etc.
2 Objective of study
The main objective of the proposed study is to carry out the sub-surface investigation of the
landmass upslope of powerhouse. Identification of variation in electrical resistivity is to detect
the subsurface geology and the possible slip surface within this landmass. The main
objectives of the ERT survey are as the following:
 To establish 2D Electrical Resistivity sections of the ground profile showing different

layers of landmass.
 To find out the groundwater condition and its effect on the existing landmass.
 To find out the possible slip surface under the present slope mass.
3 Scope of Work
To fulfill these objectives of the study, the site area was mapped by 2D ERT profiles.
Table 1: 2D ERT survey coverage
Profile No. Location Length (m)

ERT-1 Along the slope 300
ERT-5 Across the slope (near riverbed) 300
ERT-6 Across the slope (along the canal penstock pipe) 300
ERT-7 Across the slope (Middle portion of slope) 300
ERT-8 Across the slope (upper middle portion of slope) 300
ERT-9 Across the slope (upper portion of slope) 300
Total length (m) 3265

ERT-10
ERT-3
ERT-1
ERT-4
ERT-2
ERT-9
ERT-8
ERT-7
ERT-5
ERT-6
Figure 2 : An overview of the ERT profiles around the powerhouse site. For those profiles along the
slope, upper crown part is the starting point and the lower part towards river is the ending point. For
those profiles across the slope, upstream is the starting point and downstream is the ending point.
The positions and lengths of the profiles were determined by surface geology and topography
and some adjustments were made on the site to cover the required area of investigation on
mutual understandings of the consultant geologist and geophysicist team.
Study Area
Figure 3: Regional geological map of study area. Ui represents Ulleri formation.

Geologically, the study area falls under the Ulleri Formation that is characterized by
feldspathic schists with augens of feldspar and quartz, augen gneisses and intrusions of
granite. The local geology within the study area is characterized by the gneiss bedrock of
Ulleri formation. But the slope mass on the study area is composed of thick molasses of
colluvium in the vicinity of power station along with the alluvial deposit at the riverbed. No
bedrock has been exposed within the study area.
The depth of investigation depends on the length of the profile and spacing between
electrodes. To collect information from the depth of more than 40 m and deeper, a full length
of profile, 300 m is used in with minimum electrode spacing of 5 m. The details of 2D ERT
coverage are tabulated in Table 1.
The field work was initiated on 25th October 2017. The crew returned to Kathmandu on 9th
November 2017 after completing the data acquisition in the field. However preliminary data
processing was done on the site itself by an experienced professional to check the reliability
of the acquired data.
4 Methodology
4.1 Electrical Resistivity of Rocks
Electrical resistivity of the rocks or sediments depends on the resistivity of the rock mineral
matrix and the fluid contained in its pore spaces. Rocks are composed primarily of quartz,
feldspar and mica or other silicate minerals, which are poor conductors. They contain water in
the pores, which is usually a better conductor. Thus the resistivity of rocks generally depends
on geometry of its pore spaces and the resistivity (or salinity) of its contained fluid. As
permeability and porosity decrease, resistivity usually increases, when there is no change in
formation fluid. The resistivity also depends upon the age of the rock or sediment as, with
age, they become compacted and/or weathered. Compacted rocks show very high resistivity
compared to unconsolidated sediments like clays, sands, gravels and so on as there will be
less fluid in it. The weathered rock shows low resistivity when there is presence of water in
it. Dry rocks or sediments have very high resistivity (of the order of 10,000 to 100,000 Ohm-

m), whereas water bearing rocks or saturated sediments become much less resistant (10 to
1,000 Ohm-m). The resistivity of different rocks and sediments are in Figure 4.
All rocks contain some pores in them. Under any reasonable circumstances, these pores are
partly or completely filled with water. This water usually carries some salt in solution so that
the water content of rock has a far greater capacity for transmitting current than does the solid
matrix of the rock unless highly conducting minerals are present.
In some rocks such as consolidated sedimentary rocks, porosity is inter-granular in nature

consisting of the spaces left over after the rock grains were compacted. In other rocks and
particularly in igneous rocks, porosity occurs primarily in the form of joints.
In general, hard rocks are poor conductors of electricity, but geological processes like
weathering, dissolution, hydrothermal alteration; faulting and shearing can alter rock to
increase the porosity and permeability of rock and hence decreases resistivity. By comparison,
compaction of sedimentary rock and metamorphism of all types may result in lower porosities
and permeability. Resistivity is, therefore, a widely varying parameter, which changes not
only from lithology to lithology, but also within a particular formation of same lithology.
Apparent resistivity values obtained in the field are not equal to the actual resistivity of the
geologic units which affect the potential measured at the potential electrodes, unless
measurements are being made over homogenous ground (Telford and others, 1990). At
shallow exploration depth and at short current electrode spacing, shallow layers through
which most of the current flows mostly influence measured apparent resistivity. As electrode
spacing increases, a greater proportion of the induced current flows into deeper geologic
layers, thus the response measured at the surface is reflective of the resistivity of increasingly
deeper geologic units as the electrode spacing are increased. Hence as the distance between
the current electrodes increases, so does the exploration depth or the depth of investigation of
the survey.

Figure 4: Electrical Resistivity versus Lithology
4.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey Design

Electrical Resistivity Tomography survey is usually conducted following the various
arrangements of four electrodes, two current (A and B) and two potential (M and N)
depending upon the specific purpose (Fig No. 5). The field operation is presented in Photo.
A M N B
Electrodes shifting in this direction Inhomogeneity in the overburden

(A and B are current electrodes and M and N are Potential electrodes)

Figure 5:WENNER Electrode Array for profiling
There are many electrode arrangements, which can be used in the ERT field survey. These
arrays have advantages and disadvantages. In some geological situations one is particularly
better than the other to give better response. To map lateral changes in structures Dipole –
Dipole and Schlumberger are better whereas Wenner seems to have a strong signal/noise ratio
and smoothens the picture more.
The choice of a particular electrode array for the survey in question depends upon many
factors. These are summarized below:
Ease in handling:
As mentioned above, gradient and pole-pole arrays are easier to handle. Only two electrodes
are to be moved along the profile. Three electrodes are to be moved in Pole-Dipole array and
all four electrodes are moved in Wenner, Schlumberger and Dipole-Dipole arrays adding
complications in handling more electrodes. But for multi core cables with takeouts at a fixed
distance and automatic equipments with switchers, there is no need to move once the cable
has been laid out. Our equipment automatically switches between electrodes and data
acquisition is possible for 5 m, 10 m, 15 m, 20 m, 25 m, and so on till 95 m of spacing
between two electrodes which is almost impossible in manual equipment.
Signal to noise ratio:
In a collinear electrode arrangement, signal to noise ratio or SNR depends on whether the
potential electrodes M and N are placed within or outside of the current electrodes A and B.
The voltage between M and N and SNR will be higher for the former than for the latter case.
In this regard, Wenner array rates higher followed by Schlumberger and Dipole-Dipole
arrays. Wenner array has the highest SNR among the conventional arrays. The Pole-Pole,
Pole-Dipole and Dipole –Dipole arrays are more sensitive to near surface variations. Hence,
even in very noisy areas, the Wenner array measurement is the most reliable.
EM coupling:

Frequencies of source signals used in DC resistivity surveying are usually very low (from DC
to 50 cycles per seconds) to avoid electromagnetic effects. Most commercial instruments use
square waves or pulsed direct currents as source signals. Such signals yield high harmonics,
which may result in coupling between the two dipoles and the wires connecting them to the
recording instrument. The coupling increases with the frequency, electrode configuration and
conductivity of the medium of the flowing current. In this regard, pole-dipole, gradient,
Schlumberger and Wenner arrays are progressively more susceptible to coupling. However,
the coupling can be reduced taking special care while laying the current and potential cables
in the field.
Lateral resolution:
The resolving powers of these arrays are different. It is found that the gradient array has better
ability to resolve the steeply dipping inhomogeneity. Coggon, (1973) and Dey et al (1975)
establish that Schlumberger array ranks with Wenner array in its lateral resolving power.
Vertical Resolution:
A better vertical resolution helps to demarcate the boundary between different

lithology/geology more accurately. The experiment showed that (Loke, M. H. 1999) the
vertical resolution is best exhibited by Wenner array. The Dipole Dipole and Wenner-
Schlumberger arrays come only after Wenner array.
Anomaly Pattern:
Pole-Dipole is an asymmetrical array and gives rise to somewhat more complicated anomalies
in the pseudo section. Signal strength or anomaly strength measured with Pole-Dipole array
decrease less rapidly compared to Dipole-Dipole array.
This (Wenner) array is a robust array, which was popularized by the pioneering work carried
out by the University of Birmingham research group (Griffiths and Turnbull 1985; Griffiths,
Turnbull and Olayinka 1990). Many of the past and present 2 D surveys are carried out with
this array.
Based on these considerations, it is found that Wenner array has the advantages of i) ease of
field operation, ii) high signal to noise ratio, iii) symmetrical array and hence symmetrical
anomalies, iv) good lateral resolution, v) good vertical resolution etc. Hence this array method

was employed in the present study program. The schematic diagram of this array is shown in
Fig No. 5.
4.3 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey
4.3.1 Data Acquisition
The quality of data acquired in the field not only depends on quality of the equipment and
accessories but also depends on the topography, geological setup and density of the
measurement. Highly heterogeneous conditions are created by surface topography and
geological variation. Planning of the fieldwork and layout of profiles is usually based on
topographical map.
Field data were gathered to obtain a continuous coverage of the subsurface along the line of
investigation. As mentioned above Wenner electrode configuration was employed in the
present study. Geologically the area under investigation lies in the Lesser Himalayan Meta-
sedimentary rocks. Bed rock exposed at the study area is schist.
4.3.2 Data quality
Field data are influenced by different types of noises of different origins. The degree of
influences depends on the quality of the equipment and accessories, methods of data
acquisition and geological and topographical setup. Selection of proper 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 selection of the electrode
arrangement is based on the requirement of depth of investigation and resolution of the
subsurface. Some electrode arrangements produce high level of signal but poor resolution
whereas some produce low level of signal but higher resolution of the subsurface. As the
distance between transmitting and the receiving electrodes increase the level of the noise also
increases dramatically. The type of the noises are capacitive coupling, induction and of
telluric and cultural origin. To avoid this adverse effect on the receiving signal it is necessary
to have high quality accessories and signal processing capacity of the receiver electronics.
It is necessary to understand that the geophysical methods look not only along vertical and
lateral along the profile but also look sideways. Geological variations that come within the
radius of influence in sideways also influence the data. Such influences could clutter the
section and make difficult to meaningful interpretation. So the noises introduced into the data
due to the geological setup that are not easily interpretable are known as geological noises.
4.3.3 Field Crew
The members of the field crew are geoscientist, assistants, surveyors and laborers. The main
responsibilities lie on the geoscientist who will be involved in all stages starting from
planning to report submission. Present field mission was carried out by an experienced
geoscientist who was also involved for all stages of geophysical mission. Without good
knowledge of the field condition it is difficult to make reliable interpretation of the model.
Experienced assistants were involved during the field work and were responsible for checking
of the field layout and connection between shielded multi-core cables and the electrodes,
preparation of the station for good grounding and supervising to laborers. Surveyor was
responsible to read the profile preferred by geoscientist and to make topographic leveling
needed for data inversion. Detail topographic leveling of the profiles is important in the study
of slope.
4.3.4 Equipments used in the field study
In the surveys works the field data acquisition was made using the following equipments:
 Multi function digital DC Electrical Resistivity.
 Multiplex electrode converter (Multi electrode switching equipment).
 Multi core cable with each take out at every 5 m (60 take outs in total)
The equipment has the following special technical features:
a) Capable of conducting DC Electrical Resistivity, Induced Polarization & Spontaneous

Potential data acquisition in normal mode
b) Capable of conducting Electrical Resistivity and Induced Polarization Tomography

(Imaging). Any survey length can be covered using roll along technique.
c) Capable of mass data storage of over 100,000 number of data in equipment memory

d) Capable of multiple functions, high accuracy, fast operation, high reliability etc. (It takes
only 30 minutes to complete one multi electrode survey (Electrical Resistivity
Tomography) with 60 electrodes, 570 data points)
e) Data acquisition can be started from any electrode position.
g) Voltage maximum 144 V.
j) All data acquisition operations are microcomputer controlled and user friendly menu driven
k) High anti interference performance and precision, integrated with multistage wave
filtration and signal enhancement technology
l) Automatic cancellation of Self Potential, drift and electrode polarization.
n) Stored field data can be downloaded to the Personal Computer easily using RS 232 port.
The data download can also be in RES2DINV recognizable format.
4.4 Interpretation of Electrical Resistivity Tomography Results
4.4.1 Data Processing and Interpretation
The filed data were filtered, processed and treated with the software, RES2DINV. However to
check the quality of the acquired data, preliminary processing of the data was carried out in
the field itself by an experienced geoscientist. The software inverts the field data and
calculates the appropriate model in term of resistivity and provides output in the form of
resistivity contours. This inversion data is used to draw up the lithological and geological
information. The basic principle behind the relation between resistivity data and
lithology/geology are already dealt with in above sections. The inversion results showing
resistivity model with interpretative cross sections of all 10 profiles are presented. Geological/
lithological information is extracted from the ERT result (resistivity contour value) & are
marked in the respective ERT sections. The sections are prepared as per topographic
undulations, as the electrodes are fixed at each 5m slope distance (not horizontal distance or
plan distance).
4.4.2 Pitfalls of the processing and interpretation

Every geophysical method has some advantages and limitations. The limitations are usually
posed by data density, quality of the instrument and accessories, signal resolving capacity,
geological, hydrogeological and topographical setup of the area, and by the physics of the
particular methods. Data obtained from the complicated geological and topographical setup,
and noise in the data combined with the processing techniques could result in artifacts. There
could be possibility of the over interpretation of such artifacts.
In the interpretation of resistivity tomograms following factors have been taken into account:
Artifacts of inversion code are usually due to the poor data coverage. To sample a subsurface
target of interest with higher degree of reliability we need to collect data with more coverage.
The equipment used in the present study has facility which helps to collect considerable
number of data. High density data coverage and measurement helps to minimize and
recognize the artifacts which are usual in scanty data coverage.
Proximity of any unusually high or low resistivity and their relative thickness: In our case
sheared zone, fractured and jointed rock mass zone are highly conductive than the intact
bedrock. In smooth model inversion technique which is generally applied to identify the
geological boundaries low resistivity zones (if they are thin) have tendency to inflate in
thickness.
Limitations of the smooth model inversion method to estimate the true resistivity of the
subsurface.
Non-uniqueness of the geophysical interpretations, also called principle of equivalence in

electrical resistivity method. The resistivity and thickness of the thin layers are distorted.
Thickness of low resistivity zone is usually inflated than the actual thickness. The resistivity
values obtained for such thin zones are also distorted but they are indicative.
Since there are no sufficient data points in the start and end of 2D electrical resistivity
tomography profiles the reliability of the start and end of the profile largely depends on local
geological variation. Model section could be distorted at the start and end of the profile if
there is significant level of variation in the geology in these parts.

4.5 Resistivity tomograms and interpretative cross-section
The model sections obtained from data inversion are presented as resistivity tomogram
sections. These tomogram sections show the variation of modeled electrical resistivity in
depth and along the line of investigation. These variations in modeled physical properties
have relation with the subsurface geological and hydro geological set up. Representative
resistivity tomogram sections for each section and their interpretations are presented in Figure
6 to 15.
4.5.1 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -1 (Along the slopemass)
(30m long, starting from the crown of the slide to riverbed)

Overburden
20m
Bedrock Towards
Solu River
Bedrock
Weak zone
Figure 6: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-1
ERT-1 profile is 300m long and extends from the crown of the slide to riverbed passing
through the middle section of the slope mass. Based on the resistivity values and patterns two
layers; upper and lower layer are distinct within this profile. The upper layer is characterized
by very low resistivity value ranging from 200 to 800m. The lower layer differentiated by
the dotted line is characterized by the high resistivity value in the range of 1000 -4000m.
The upper layer as depicted by the low resistivity represents the overburden. The thickness of
the overburden at the central part of the slope is around 20m as measured in the ERT
tomogram. This tomogram has clearly depicted that there are four distinct events of slide
within this slope mass which are indicated within the profile too. The slip surface for each
event has been outlined by the solid line within each profile.
The lower layer as depicted by the high resistivity value represents the bedrock of gneiss. This
layer is strong enough. The transitional zone between the upper and lower layer as indicated
by the dotted line is the slip surface that is of our main concern.
4.5.2 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -2 (along the slope mass).

ERT-2 profile is about 450m long and extends from the flat land above the crown of the slide
to the riverbed. Two profiles have been overlapped to get this single profile in order to
achieve the overall information of the slope mass.
Blocks
Colluvium
18m IV
IV III
II
I
Bedrock
Slip Surface
III 34m
Bedrock
II 25m
I 16m
ERT-2 profile also consists of two distinct layers as differentiated by the dotted lines within
the profile (figure 5). The upper layer is characterized by the low resistivity value in the range
of 100 to 800m. The uppermost thin layer of the upper layer is characterized by the high
resistivity value. This high value arises due to dry overburden. The lower layer below the
dotted line is characterized by the high resistivity value in the range of 800 to 3000m.
The upper layer with the low resistivity value represents the overburden. The thickness of the
overburden varies from place to place. The maximum thickness of the overburden at the
middle portion of the slope is upto 34m. Four events of retrogressive slide movements within
this upper layer is clearly distinguishable (See figure 5, as depicted by dotted lines). The
lower layer with high resistivity value represents the bedrock of gneiss below the upper layer
of overburden. The resistivity value has suggested that the lower layer is strong enough.
Failure mechanism is solely concentrated within the upper layer only.

4.5.3 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -3 (along the slope mass).
Overburden
Bedrock
Weathered
bedrock Bedrock
ERT-3 profile is 300m long and lies upstream of ERT-1. This profile also passes through the
crack seen within the moved mass. Based on the resistivity value and pattern, two layers are
distinct within this profile. The upper layer is characterized low resistivity value in the range
of 100 to 800m. The thin upper layer of this layer is represented by high resistivity value.
The upper layer with low resistivity value represents the overburden. The thickness of this
upper layer is more or less uniform. The maximum thickness of this overburden is about 25m
in the middle portion. The lower layer below the dotted line represents the bedrock of gneiss.
This bedrock seems to be strong except at the middle section (0+120-0+160) of the profile.

4.5.4 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -4.
Overburden
Bedrock
Weathered
bedrock Bedrock
Figure 9: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-4.
ERT-4 is 300m long and lies at the upstream of ERT-3. This profiles passes along the natural
slope through the jungle. Based on the resistivity values and pattern, two distinct layers are
distinguishable within the profile. The upper layer is characterized by low resistivity value in
the range of 200-600m. The lower layer below the dotted line is characterized by the high
resistivity value in the range of 1000-7000m. The thickness of the upper layer is more or
less uniform throughout the profile.
The upper layer having low resistivity value represents the overburden material. The dotted
indicates the transition zone between the upper overburden layer and lower bedrock of schist.
The lower layer having high resistivity value represents the bedrock of gneiss. Overburden for
the upper part is thicker than at the lower section of the profile. The average thickness of the
overburden for this slope is around 18m.
4.5.5 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -5
ERT-5 is laid over the alluvium along the riverbed just below the powerhouse. It is extended
from the exit of forebay to intake area of Upper Solu hydropower passing through old and
new powerhouse of SCECO. Surfacially, this area is covered with boulder mix soil with fine
matrix.

The tomogram of ERT-5 has suggested that there are two distinct layers; upper layer with low
resistivity value in the range of 50-900m and the lower layer with high resistivity value in
the range of 1500-100000m.
The upper layer with low resistivity value represents the overburden materials upto 20m.
Overburden near the exit of forbay is found to be more. It is estimated to encounter the
bedrock at the depth of 15m at the riverbed material. High resistivity value measured for this
depth has strongly suggested the bedrock at this depth.
Overburden
Old PH New PH
Bedrock (?)
ERT-6 has mapped out 300m long distance extending from the the kholsi near jungle above
the stone masonry canal to beyond the new powerhouse along the canal and penstock
alignment. This profile has mapped out the zone of filling material along the penstock
alignment. This profile is important to delineate the zone of seepage as it was observed at the
new powerhouse site.
ERT-6 tomogram has delineated two zones. The initial zone from 0+000 to 0+150 has two
distinct layers; upper and lower layer. This upper layer represented by comparatively low
resistivity value represents the overburden upto 18m from the surface. The layer below 18m
with extremely high resistivity value represents the bedrock of gneiss. But the zone from
0+150 to 0+270 is characterized by the very low resistivity value in the range of 10-200m.
This very low resistivity value represents the unconsolidated mass or highly saturated zone.

Two sections at 0+200 and 0+240 are found to have very low resistivity value due to seepage
through the penstock pipe along this profile.
Overburden
Forebay Saturated zone along

Ruined house the canal alignment
Saturated zone
above the new PH
Bedrock
New PH
Filling Material
ERT-7 was carried out across the slope at the middle portion of the slope mass. It passes
through the highly disturbed zone where the tiled twins pole and damaged house falls in route.
Surficially, this section was observed to have moved downwards with pervasive wide cracks.
Seepage through these wide open cracks are common.
Seepage zone
Bedrock
Highly disturbed
zone
Bedrock

This tomograms has shown two layers. The upper layer with very low resistivity and lower
with low resistivity at the middle portion and high resistivity at two ends. The upper lower
low resistivity zone represents the highly disturbed and slided overburden. The thickness of
this disturbed layer is upto 35m from the surface. At the middle section of this profile, very
low resistivity value below 35m is probably due to seepage and weathering of parent
rockmass. Seepage zones are clearly observed within the ERT profiles. These zones contain
wide cracks on the surface too. High resistiviy value below 18m within 0+000 to 0+110
section represents the bedrock of gneiss. Likewise the section 0+210-0+240 below 10m
represents the bedrock of gneiss. This tomogram has shown that there are bedrocks at two
ends but the middle section is composed of thick loose materials which has slided down
retrogressively at different events.
ERT-8 profile is 300m long and is laid over across the upper middle section of the slope
where seepage has been observed at the surface. Surfacially, the middle section of this profile
has been found to have subsided by 3-4m than its either margins.
cracked zone Overburden
Bedrock Bedrock
Weathered
bedrock

The upper layer above the dotted line as indicated in figure 11 represents the overburden of
varying thickness. On the basis of the resistivity value and the observed pattern within this
profile, the maximum overburden at the middle portion could be expected upto 25-30m from
the surface. The right margin at chainage 0+060 has been found to have seepage zone for this
section. This fact has been supported by the cracks observed in the field at this margin.
Bedrock has been expected to encounter along this profile at about 15-20m from the surface
except at the middle section where bedrock could be found at deeper part.

ERT-9 is laid across the slope just below the crown of slide and is 300m long. This profile
was intentionally mapped out to get the base of the slide from the existing surface. Visually,
there is a difference of about 10m of subsidence than the existing ground above the crown for
this concave upward shaped slope.
Crack zone
Overburden
18m
Bedrock
Highly weathered
bedrock (?) Bedrock
Based on the measured resistivity values and the observed pattern within this profile, two
layers can be easily distinguishable. Resistivity values itself only can't define the layers for
this profile. The upper layer above the dotted curved line represents the upper dry overburden.

The layer below this high resistivity value is characterized by very low resistivity value in the
range of 200-600m. This low resistivity zone could be of highly weathered gneiss bedrock.
High resistivity value observed on both side of this low resistive zone is the strong bedrock of
gneiss. The maximum thickness that could be found at the middle section within this profile
could be of 18m.
ERT-10 was mapped out along the left margin of the concerned slope hill that passes along
the ridge of the slide at the headworks of Upper Solu HEP at its lower half part. A 300m long
profile has been mapped out with this ERT-10. Surfacially, the whole mapped out zone is
composed of thick overburden.
Based on the resistivity value and its pettern within the mapped out zone, two layers have
been outlined with the help of dotted curved line. The upper layer above the dotted line
represents thick overburden. Patches of low resistivity values within this upper layer has
augmented the fact for upper layer being overburden. The layer below the dotted line with
high resistivity value in the range of 800-2000m represents the bedrock of gneiss. The
maximum thickness of overburden measured at the middle section of this profile could be
upto 24m.
Overburden
Bedrock
24m
22m
Bedrock
Bedrock

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusion:
 Altogether 10 ERT-profiles were mapped out within the slope mass above the
Chialsa Salleri Powerhouse.
 ERT-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were mapped out across the slope whereas ERT-1, 2, 3, 4
and 10 were mapped out along the slope.
 ERT-1 and ERT-2 at the middle part of the slope has indicated four events of
retrogressive slide movement within the slope mass. Wide cracks seen at the
surface mostly at the middle section of the slope is due to these retrogressive
slide movement.
 ERT-5 carried out nearby the riverbed along the Solu River has suggested the
bedrock at the depth of 15m from the existing riverbed.
 ERT-6 conducted along the canal and penstock alignment has suggested the
loose filling material along the whole penstock alignment. Two seepage from
the penstock have been observed within this profile; one just above the new
powerhouse (as visually observed) and another about 40m away towards
forebay from this.
 ERT-7 has suggested thick layer of overburden (about 35m) at the middle
portion of the slope which is highly disturbed and the rock below this depth is
also highly weathered due to water seepage from the cracks developed at the
surface.
 ERT-8 and 9 has also shown thick overburden at the middle part of the slope.
This thickness has varied from 20-30m.
 ERT-10 conducted at the lower margin of the existing slope has shown 22-24m
thick overburden and bedrock of gneiss then after.
 The slope above the canal is composed of bedrock with thick cover of
overburden upto 15m.

 Laterally 40 to 60 from the river bank towards hill slope is a very weak zone
that could have played a significant role in retrogressive movement of the slide
thereof.
 The depth of slip surface is different for different sections within the slope.
ERT-2 has clearly depicted the depth of slip surface at 16m, 25m, 34m and
18m respectively for the events I, II, III and IV respectively (from lower to
upper events).
Recommendation:
 If possible, it is recommended to drill the slope at three different parts of

the slope. One at the riverbed to confirm the bedrock. Another hole at
about 50m upslope from the riverbed to confirm the geotechnical
properties of the loose materials thereof and the last one at about 230m
upslope from the river to confirm the depth and quality of the bedrock
thereof to apply further mitigation measures.

ANNEX
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS






Salleri Chylasa ERT Draft Reprt

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Salleri Chylasa ERT Draft Reprt

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Salleri Chialsa Electricity Company Limited

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Survey

Salleri Chialsa Electricity Company Limited (SCECO)

Annex: Site Photographs

Figure 1: Location map of the study area

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 1

 To establish 2D Electrical Resistivity sections of the ground profile showing different

Table 1: 2D ERT survey coverage

Profile No. Location Length (m)

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 2

Figure 3: Regional geological map of study area. Ui represents Ulleri formation.

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 4

In some rocks such as consolidated sedimentary rocks, porosity is inter-granular in nature

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 5

Figure 4: Electrical Resistivity versus Lithology

4.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey Design

Electrodes shifting in this direction Inhomogeneity in the overburden

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 6

Figure 5:WENNER Electrode Array for profiling

Signal to noise ratio:

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 7

A better vertical resolution helps to demarcate the boundary between different

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 8

4.3 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey

4.3.1 Data Acquisition

4.3.2 Data quality

4.3.3 Field Crew

4.3.4 Equipments used in the field study

 Multi function digital DC Electrical Resistivity.

 Multiplex electrode converter (Multi electrode switching equipment).

The equipment has the following special technical features:

a) Capable of conducting DC Electrical Resistivity, Induced Polarization & Spontaneous

b) Capable of conducting Electrical Resistivity and Induced Polarization Tomography

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 10

e) Data acquisition can be started from any electrode position.

g) Voltage maximum 144 V.

l) Automatic cancellation of Self Potential, drift and electrode polarization.

4.4 Interpretation of Electrical Resistivity Tomography Results

4.4.1 Data Processing and Interpretation

4.4.2 Pitfalls of the processing and interpretation

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 11

Non-uniqueness of the geophysical interpretations, also called principle of equivalence in

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 12

4.5 Resistivity tomograms and interpretative cross-section

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 13

Figure 6: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-1

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 14

Figure 7: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-2

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 15

Figure 8: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-3

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 16

4.5.4 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -4.

Figure 9: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-4.

4.5.5 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -5

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 17

Figure 10: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-5.

4.5.6 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -6

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 18

Forebay Saturated zone along

Figure 11: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-6.

4.5.7 Resistivity Tomogram and Lithological interpretation of ERT -7

Figure 12: Interpretative tomogram of ERT-7

Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA Draft Report Page 19