DRAFT 7 5 15 Geotechnical Investigation at Olkaria II Plant PDF

KENYA ELECTRICITY GENERATING COMPANY LIMITED
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GEOLOGICAL MAPPING AND GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT AT OLKARIA

II POWER PLANT.
OLKARIA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT

NAIVASHA.
Compiled by;
Geoscientific Team
Mwania M., Omiti, A., Risper K., Kimata J., and Rutto C.
AUGUST, 2015
DRAFT COPY
Geotechnical Investigation Olkaria II- Power Plant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the finds of geotechnical investigations carried out at Olkaria II power
plant following the observed structural failures and ground movements. The investigation
involved carrying out detailed geological mapping and geophysical investigations in attempt
to interpret the characteristic nature of the subsurface, as well as the structural controls
within the study area and provide recommendations to arrest the situation.
Based on the findings of these investigations, it has been confirmed that the predominant
cause of uplifts and differential settlements, and the associated structural failures is majorly
attributed to structural setting and nature of the underlying soils (loose unconsolidated,
clayey SILTS) often compounded with presence of groundwater. This has been attested by
the geological and geophysical models of the subsurface ground characteristics.
From these models, eight boreholes have been proposed for further insitu tests involving core
drilling in order to ascertain the extend of the damaged zones as follows;
 Insitu tests involving CORE DRILLING at the proposed borehole locations (BH-1, BH-
2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7 and BH-8) be performed to ascertain the extent of
damage underneath the power plant and its vicinity.
 A total of eight boreholes are proposed for drilling at defined locations to the
recommended depth as appropriate depending on the extend of the damage as
follows;
Borehole Proposed Eastings Northings Elevation Remarks

ID Depth (m) (m) (m asl)
(m bgl)
BH-1 20 199414 9904453 2021 BHs located between
BH-2 35 199422 9904416 2021 the power plant &
BH-3 60 199465 9904377 2021 cooling tower
BH-4 42 199495 9904327 2021
BH-5 20 199354 9904425 2022
BH-7 34 199396 9904350 2022 the power plant and
BH-8 40 199432 9904298 2022 sub-station
 The site should then be subjected to subsequent foundation stabilization and

appropriate treatment to provide the necessary support underneath.
 However, this should be performed under close supervision of strutural/civil and

electrical engineers who shall provide guidance on structural design including the
network of subsurface piping and cabling.
 Further, we strongly recommend that further geotechnical investigation be conducted

to the other existing infrastracture within Olkaria as part of the monitoring process.
KenGen August, 2015; Pageii

Geotechnical Investigation Olkaria II- Power Plant
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABBREVIATIONS (All S.I Units unless indicated otherwise)
agl above ground level

amsl above mean sea level
bgl below ground level
E East
m metre
N North
S South
Sec second

C degrees Celsius: Unit for temperature
BH Borehole
ERT Electrical Resistivity Tomography
MASW Multi channel analysis of surface waves
Ω Ohm
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Aquifer: A geological formation or structure, which stores and transmits water and which is
able to supply water to wells, boreholes or springs.
Fault: A larger fracture surface along which appreciable displacement has taken place.
Gradient: The rate of change in total head per unit of distance, which causes flow in the
direction of lowest > head.
Heterogeneous: Not uniform in structure or composition.
Hydrogeological: Those factors that deal with sub-surface waters and related geological aspects of
surface waters.
Infiltration: Process of water entering the soil through the ground surface
Joint: Fractures along which no significant displacement has taken place.
Percolation: Process of water seeping through the unsaturated zone, generally from a surface
source to the saturated zone.
Peneplain: A level surface, which has lost nearly all its relief by passing through a complete
cycle of erosion (also used in a wider sense to describe a flat erosional surface in
general)
Permeability: The capacity of a porous medium for transmitting fluid.
Porosity: The portion of bulk volume in a rock or sediment that is occupied by openings,
whether isolated or connected.
Recharge: General term applied to the passage of water from surface of sub-surface sources
(e.g. rivers, rainfall, lateral groundwater flow) to the aquifer zones.
KenGen August, 2015; Pageiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 7

1.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 7
2 GEOLOGICAL SETTING .......................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Stratigraphy of Greater Olkaria Volcanic Complex (GOVC) ......................................... 8
2.2 Structural setting.............................................................................................................. 9
3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Geological Mapping....................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Structural geology .......................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Surface structures ................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Subsurface geological structures............................................................................ 12
3.3 Geophysical Investigations Techniques ......................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Introduction to Electrical Resistivity Surveys ......................................................... 14
3.3.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) ................................................................ 15
3.3.3 Interpretation of ERT Results .................................................................................. 17
3.3.4 Seismic Method....................................................................................................... 23
3.3.5 Data Acquisition ..................................................................................................... 24
3.3.6 Layout of MASW profiles ....................................................................................... 24
3.3.7 Interpretation of MASW results ............................................................................. 26
3.3.8 Gravity Measurements ........................................................................................... 28
3.3.9 Gravity Profiles ....................................................................................................... 30
3.3.10 Profiles 1, 2 and 3 ............................................................................................... 30
3.3.11 Profiles 4, 5 and 6 ............................................................................................... 31
4 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 33
4.1 Discussions and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 33
4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 34
5 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 35
Geotechnical investigations Olkaria II Power Plant
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location map of Olkaria Geothermal field sectors ........................................................ 7

Figure 2: Main structures in the Greater Olkaria geothermal (Lagat, 2004). ............................ 10
Figure 3: Structural map of the study area (Olkaria North-East Sector) .................................... 12
Figure 4: Subsurface structures in the North-East field sector .................................................... 13
Figure 5: The resistivity of rocks, soils and minerals ................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Layout of ERT profiles at Olkaria II power plant .......................................................... 17
Figure 7: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-1 ....................................................... 18
Figure 8: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-2 ....................................................... 19
Figure 9: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-3B ..................................................... 19
Figure 10: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4 ..................................................... 20
Figure 11: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4C .................................................. 21
Figure 12: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4B ................................................... 21
Figure 13: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4D .................................................. 22
Figure 16: Schematic diagram for active MASW field survey .................................................... 24
Figure 17: Aerial View of MASW profiles A-B, C-D and E-D at Olkaria II power station. ........ 25
Figure 18: Shear wave velocity cross-section profile A-B in front of Olkaria II Power Station. 26
Figure 19: Shear wave velocity cross section of profiles C-D located in front of the power
station and the substation at Olkaria II. ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 20: Shear wave velocity cross section of profiles E-D located between the Olkaria II
power station and the cooling towers. ......................................................................................... 27
Figure 21: The Bouquer anomaly map showing the six profiles................................................. 29
Figure 22: Profile 1 in SE-NW direction ...................................................................................... 30
Figure 23: Profile 2 in SE-NW direction behind the cooling tower ............................................ 30
Figure 24: Profile 3 behind the cooling tower ............................................................................. 30
Figure 25: Profile 4 between the cooling tower and power plant............................................... 31
Figure 26: Profile 5 in front of the power plant .......................................................................... 31
Figure 27: Profile 6 conducted along the main road to Olkaria 1 power station ....................... 32
Figure 28: Bouguer anomaly map showing the inferred structural lineaments within the study
area ............................................................................................................................................... 32
August, 2015 Page, 5

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Generalized stratigraphy of Olkaria Geothermal field (after KenGen Internal Report
2014) .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2: Summarized stratigraphy of North-East Field ............................................................... 11
Table 3: Caltrans/NEHRP Soil Profile Types ................................................................................ 25
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: PLATES SHOWING THE CURRENT STATUS OF OLKARIA II POWER PLANT ....... 37
APPENDIX 2: GEO-SCIENTIFIC TEAM CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATION ................................. 39
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Showing structural failures on steel metal columns....................................................... 37

Plate 2: Cracks on the floor and uplift/subsidence of the ground .............................................. 37
Plate 3: Corrosion on metals at the Biocide dosing plant ............................................................ 38
Plate 4: Microbial corrosion on the cooling tower concrete slab................................................ 38
Plate 5: Geo-scientific team carrying out investigations ............................................................. 39

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The site location for Olkaria II power plant has been experiencing gradual uplifts and
differential settlement over time. The advent of these inimical events has indeed raised
concerns on the stability condition of the ground and foundation anchorage of the power
plant. Following this, a team of geoscientists was constituted to carry out investigations at
the power plant and its vicinity to unravel the probable causes of such impacts. The team
composition comprised two geologists and two geophysicists together with ten technicians
who played a vital role in data collection and processing. The team’s mandate was to carry
out detailed geological mapping and geophysical investigations in attempt to interpret the
characteristic nature of the subsurface as well as the structural controls within the study
area and provide recommendations to arrest the situation.
1.1 Study Area
Olkaria II station is a 105Mw geothermal power plant. It located in the North east subsector
of Greater Olkaria Geothermal Area (GOGA) which is the main focus of this study. The first
70MWe was commissioned in 2003, and additional 35MWe was in 2010. The Greater
Olkaria Volcanic Complex (GOVC) has six distinct field sectors under exploitation (figure
1).
Figure 1: Location map of Olkaria Geothermal field sectors

Geological investigations included detailed surface geological mapping that was carried out
by making traverses along the gulleys and gorges, making observations and measurements
of geological structural features, and subsequently supplemented with subsurface borehole
data of the surrounding wells.
In addition, geophysical investigations were unequivocally conducted and included the use
of techniques such as Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), Seismic profiling and gravity
measurements, all aimed at investigating the subsurface characteristics geology within the
study area.
Plates showing the current status and observations made at the site of investigation are
provided in the appendix 1.
2 GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Great Olkaria Volcanic Complex (GOVC) is located within the central sector of the
Kenya Rift Valley, and is associated with a region of Quaternary volcanism. The volcanic
and structural development of the Kenya rift has been studied for many years using
chronologic and litho-stratigraphic correlation methods (e.g. Thompson and Dodson, 1963;
Baker and Wohlenberg, 1971; Baker et al., 1971, 1972). It has been determined that the
rift-related activities started during the early Miocene with extensive basaltic and phonolitic
volcanism on the crest of an uplifted dome. The early volcanic rocks crop out in the northern
part of the rift and on the eastern rift shoulder (flood phonolite). These rocks overlie late
Proterozoic schists and gneisses of the Mozambique mobile belt that occur at depths greater
than 5 km within the central sector of the Kenya rift graben.
2.1 Stratigraphy of Greater Olkaria Volcanic Complex (GOVC)
Several published and unpublished reports have revealed the stratigraphy of GOVC. The
subsurface geology of the area has been deduced from data acquired from the drilled
geothermal wells. Based on the information gathered from borehole geology, the formations
encountered can be divided into four (4) broad lithostratigraphic groups based on age,
tectno-stratigraphy, and lithology. The formations are the Upper Olkaria Volcanics, Olkaria
Basalts, Plateau Trachytes and Mau Tuffs. Based on these sub-groups, the Olkaria area can
be divided into east and west sectors having distinct litho-stratigraphy sequences. The divide
is approximately through the Olkaria Hill where the western sector is characterized by the
abundance of Mau Tuffs while Plateau Trachytes and the Olkaria Basalt are unique to the
eastern sector (Omenda, 1998). A generalized stratigraphy of the area based on borehole
geology of the recently drilled wells is provided in the table below (KenGen Internal Report,
2014).

Table 1: Generalized stratigraphy of Olkaria Geothermal field (after KenGen Internal Report
2014)
Formation Lithology Thickness (M) Characteristic
Name (Age)
Upper Comendite lavas and their pyroclastic Surface-500 Superficial
Olkaria equivalents, ashes , minor basalts ( m (Quaternary)
Volcanics Clarke et al.,1990, Omenda, 1998a)
Olkaria Basalt flow, minor pyroclastics and 100-500 Cap-rock
Basalt trachytes (Omenda, 1998a)
Plateau Trachytes with minor basalts, tuffs and 1000-2600 Reservoir
Trachyte rhyolites (Omenda 1994,1998a) (Pleistocene)
Mau Tuffs Consolidated ignimbrites (Omenda >2600 Reservoir
1994,1998a) (Late Miocene)
Pre Mau Trachytes, basalts, ignimbrites unknown Reservoir
Formation
Proterozoic Gneisses, schists, marbles and quartzites 5000-6000 Basement
Basement (Mosley,1993, Smith and Mosley, (Proterozoic)
rocks 1993, Simiyu et al., 1993)
Olkaria Granites, Syenite and Basaltic in Varying Intrusive
Intrusion composition. They occur as dykes and ( Late
sills cutting through the basement Pleistocene-
rocks, tuffs and the trachytic units. Holocene)
2.2 Structural setting
Geological structures such as faults generally play a vital role as preferential flow
paths/conduits for the movement of fluids and the converse is true. In particular, faults can
be considered to have two effects on fluid flow in that they may facilitate flow by providing
channels of high permeability or they may prove to be barriers to flows by offsetting zones
of relatively high permeability (Jean, 2005).
The structural setting within the Greater Olkaria Volcanic Complex (GOVC) can be best
understood by interpretation of both regional tectonic framework and local setting. Locally,
the GOVC is characterized by N-S, NW-SE, NNW-SSE, ENE-WSW and NE-SW trending
faults. The NW-SE and WNW-ESE faults are believed to be the oldest fault system and link
the parallel rift basins to the main extensional zone (Wheeler and Karson, 1994). Gorge
Farm fault, bounding the geothermal fields in the north eastern part and extending to
Olkaria Domes area is the most prominent of these faults and is envisaged to be a major
recharge zone for GOVC (Lagat, 2004), (figure 2). The young and most recent rejuvenated
structures are N-S, ENE-WSW and NNE-SSW faults (Mungania, 1991). Ololbutot fissure is
characteristic type of N-S trending faults associated with dyke swarms attesting the recent
reactivation of the young faults.

Figure 2: Main structures in the Greater Olkaria geothermal (Lagat, 2004).

3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
3.1 Geological Mapping
The geology of the area is best described through lithostratigraphic analysis. Litho-
stratigraphic analysis in a geothermal environment provide pertinent information on
geochronology both directly and inferentially. The stratigraphy of the area is deduced from
the borehole geology of the surrounding wells adjacent to the Olkaria II power plant
generally covering the whole of North-East field. The surface geology is characterized by
unconsolidated loose pyroclastic and ash flows associated with strombolian and plinian
eruptive episodes. Based on the surrounding wells, the stratigraphy of the area is
summarized in the table below;
Table 2: Summarized stratigraphy of North-East Field

Depth (m bgl) Formation
0 – 60 Pyroclastics
60 - 250 Rhyolites
250 - 340 Tuffs
340 – 480 Basalts and tuffs
480 – 550 Rhyolites and trachytes
550 – 660 Basalts and minor tuffs
660 – 810 Lower trachytes
810 – 1600 Trachytes, tuffs and basalts
1600 – 2205 Lower trachytes, rhyolites, tuffs and basalts
The lithostratigraphic above conforms well to the similar summary presented in table 1
above (KenGen Internal Report, 2014).
3.2 Structural geology
3.2.1 Surface structures
Detailed structural geological mapping around Olkaria II power plant and to the North
of North-East field sector has revealed that, majority of the structures have a general NE-
SW and ENE-WSW trends. It is thus believed that these lineaments and faults are
relatively young and rejuvenated, and are associated with tectonics of the Pleistocene
times (2.6 Ma), (Omenda, 1998).
The conspicuous major structural lineament in the study area has NE-SW trend (to the
northern side) and ENE-WSW trend (to the south). These structural features are
considered to be one of the major controls for fluid movement within the study area and
also act as a barrier where other lineaments trending in NE-SW and NNE-SSW are
terminated (figure 3). Remarkably, these structures are subdued at the location of Olkaria
II power plant casting doubts on the structural competence of the site.

Figure 3: Structural map of the study area (Olkaria North-East Sector)
3.2.2 Subsurface geological structures
The tectno-stratigraphic framework of the area was similarly evaluated using

hydrothermal alteration assemblages from borehole logging of geothermal wells of the
wells in the North east field . The hydrothermal alteration zones provide important clues
for pathways of fluid travel and geochemical evidence for physical-chemical conditions
of alteration. Zones with high flux of hydrothermal fluids have elevated temperatures
especially on extensional rift terraines present favorable structural settings for
geothermal activity. These are the environments majorly with intense hydrothermal
alteration and particular index mineral assemblages that are temperature specific and
act as geothermometres. Spatial distribution of the specific geothermometers may
therefore reflect structural relationship that are indicative of the preferential conduits
for the hydrothermal fluids. For the purpose of this study, epidote (geothermometer with
reservoir temperature >2300C) was used to deduce the tectno-stratigraphic framework
of the area (figure 4).

Figure 4: Subsurface structures in the North-East field sector
The evident structures are characterized both local (young) and regional (old) structures.
The former have a general trend in NNE-SSW, NE-SW and ENE-WSW direction whilst
the latter have a general NW-SE direction. The location of Olkaria II power plant is thus
certainly located within active tectonic zone (figure 4).

3.3 Geophysical Investigations Techniques
The field methods comprised geoelectrical investigations using Electrical Resistivity

Tomography (ERT) technique, Gravity measurements and Seismic (active and passive).
Nearby well data were used for calibration and correlation of resistivity values to the
subsurface soil. The details of field investigation are discussed in the following:
3.3.1 Introduction to Electrical Resistivity Surveys
3.3.1.1 Basic Resistivity Theory
The resistivity method is one of the oldest geophysical survey techniques (Loke 2011).
The main purpose of electrical surveys is to determine the subsurface resistivity
distribution by making measurements on the ground surface. From these measurements,
the true resistivity of the subsurface can be estimated. The ground resistivity is related to
various geological parameters such as the mineral and fluid content, porosity and degree
of water saturation in the rock. Electrical resistivity surveys have been used for many
decades in hydrogeological, mining, geotechnical, environmental and even hydrocarbon
exploration (Loke el al. 2011).
The fundamental physical law used in resistivity surveys is Ohm’s Law that governs the
flow of current in the ground. The equation for Ohm’s Law in vector form for current
flow in a continuous medium is given by
J = E..................................................1
Where is the conductivity of the medium, J is the current density and E is the electric
field intensity. In practice, what is measured is the electric field potential. We note that
in geophysical surveys the medium resistivity , which is equals to the reciprocal of the
conductivity (=1/), is more commonly used. The relationship between the electric
potential and the field intensity is given by
E

Combining the above two equations we get J = -..........................................3
In almost all surveys, the current sources are in the form of point sources. In this case,
over an elemental volume V surrounding the a current source I, located at ( xs , ys , zs)
the relationship between the current density and the current (Dey and Morrison 1979a)
is given by
J V) x-xs)( y-ys)  (z-zs)....................................................4
where is the Dirac delta function. Equation (3) can then be rewritten as;
 x , y , z x , y , z)}=V) x-xs)( y-ys)  (z-zs).......................................5

This is the basic equation that gives the potential distribution in the ground due to a point
current source. A large number of techniques have been developed to solve this equation.
This is the “forward” modeling problem, i.e. to determine the potential that would be
observed over a given subsurface structure. Fully analytical methods have been used for
simple cases, such as a sphere in a homogenous medium or a vertical fault between two
areas each with a constant resistivity
3.3.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) is a near-surface geophysical method that uses

direct current to measure the earth's resistivity. The current is injected into the subsurface
through steel electrodes installed at a specific interval into the ground depending on the
objectives of the research, and the apparent resistivity distribution along a profile or area
is measured. Using data processing and inverse modeling a two- or three-dimensional
resistivity model of the subsurface can be derived.
Electric current flows in earth materials at shallow depths through two main methods.
They are electronic conduction and electrolytic conduction. In electronic conduction, the
current flow is via free electrons, such as in metals. In electrolytic conduction, the current
flow is via the movement of ions in groundwater. In environmental and engineering
surveys, electrolytic conduction is probably the more common mechanism.
The resistivity of common rocks, soil materials and chemicals (Keller and Frischknecht
1966, Daniels and Alberty 1966, Telford et al. 1990) is shown in Figure 5. Igneous and
metamorphic rocks typically have high resistivity values. The resistivity of these rocks is
greatly dependent on the degree of fracturing, and the percentage of the fractures filled
with ground water. Thus a given rock type can have a large range of resistivity, from
about 1000 to 10 million W×m, depending on whether it is wet or dry. This
characteristic is useful in the detection of fracture zones and other weathering features,
such as in engineering and groundwater surveys.

Figure 5: The resistivity of rocks, soils and minerals

Geoelectrical Investigation
Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) survey was carried out using multi-electrode
system. The data were recorded using Schlumberger–Wenner sequence with 41
electrodes deployed along the profile line at an inter-electrode spacing of varying
between 3 m to 10 m interval depending on the orientation of geological structures and
the intensity of deformation on the ground. The total spread was also varying between
60 m to 400 m depending on the targeted structures and also the available space.
Processing and inversion of resistivity image profile data were performed using RES1D
software.
A total of 10 profiles soundings were done with the traverse acquired in NW-SE direction
within the area of interest. The schematic diagram below shows the locations of the
profiles.

Profile 1
Profile 2
Fenc
e
Profile 3
Profile 3B
Olkaria two Cooling Tower

Profile 4
Profile 4C Profile 4B Profile 4D
Power Station
Profile 9
Profile 6
Sub-station
Figure 6: Layout of ERT profiles at Olkaria II power plant
3.3.3 Interpretation of ERT Results
3.3.3.1 ERT- Profile 1
Profile 1 traverse in NW-SE direction with a 10 m spacing interval and extend for 400
m laterally with a penetration depth of up to 75.8 m bgl. The resistivity displayed in this
profile is a reflective of subsurface resistivity with top superficial layer range from 0 m
to about 2 m bgl and composing materials of varying conductivities with resistivity range
of 7.04 Ωm to 82 Ωm interpreted to comprise dry pyroclasts materials. The second

geoelectric layer is not uniform in the whole profile. At the centre of the profile,
geological structure influence on the resistivity is evident with a close to uniform
resistivity of 24 Ωm extending from a depth of 0 m to about 26.7 m bgl but extends
deeper to about 50 m bgl which is interpreted to be the effect of structure which
influence groundwater flow along the structure. This layer is considered to be
unfavorable for foundation of engineering structure along this traverse. The structure is
terminated at about 50 m bgl but the effect is evident much deeper with the weathered
material seen extend below 75 m bgl. The structure is localized at the centre at shallow
depth but the effect could be seen on the whole profile at depth.
Stable Formation
Stable Formation FRUCTURE
Figure 7: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-1
3.3.3.2 ERT Profile 2
Traverse 2 (Figure 8) is 400 m long profile running in a NW-SE direction with 10 m

interval electrode spacing. The top superficial layer ranges from a depth of 0 to 8 m
beneath the surface and compose of a varying resistivity materials (21 to 55 Ωm)
interpreted to be unconsolidated pyroclastic materials. The second geoelectric layer
extends from a depth of 8 to about 50 m with resistivity range from 100 to 152 Ωm
interpreted to be compacted pyroclastic formation. Three structures are seen to be
penetrating the second layer indicating the influence of the structure identified in profile
1. The first structure to NW is underlain by a huge body of low resistivity range from <3
to 8 Ωm interpreted to be clayey material.

Clay
3.3.3.3 ERT Profile 3B
Profile 3 and profile 3B are running along the same traverse with the same electrode
interval of 10 m and covering a lateral extent of 400 m long. Profile 3 was discarded
because of a large error margin of 34.7% and high noise level and instead profile 3B was
used for interpretation. The resistivity section along profile 3B shows that the superficial
layer range from 0 m to about 7 m and composed of materials of varying resistivity (30
to 59 Ωm) inferred to be top superficial deposit. The second geoelectric layer, extends
from a depth of 7 to about 37 m with resistivity range from 60 to 197 Ωm interpreted to
be consolidated pryroclast formation. The second layer is not continuous fully along the
profile, it is intercepted by the fracture identified in the profiles above. The fracture is
evident from near surface as a thin fracture but the damage enlarges with depth and is
interpreted to be composed of clayey formation. The clay material is oval in nature along
this traverse with a lateral extension 150 m at depth. This layer is inimical to foundation
of engineering structure along this traverse. The thin layer between the clay formation
and the second layer is characterized with a resistivity value of 17 to 60 Ωm interpreted
as weathered formation saturated with groundwater.
Groundwater Saturated Zone

Clay
Figure 9: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-3B

3.3.3.4 Profile 4
Profile 4 traverse NW-SE between the cooling tower and the power plant, it's about 400
m long profile. The sounding was conducted with electrode interval spacing of 10 m. The
top thin layer depth range from 0 to 2 m with a varying resistivity (22 to 72 Ωm)
interpreted to be superficial deposits. The second geoelectric layer at the central part of
the profile confirms the fracture identified in the above profiles, the lateral range of this
material is about 180 m with a resistivity value of 0.7 to 7 Ωm, and this can be interpreted
as clays. The thickness of this material varies along the profile, it's about 30 m NW side
and extend to about 80 m SE side. This zone confirms the fracture zone field with clays
and saturated by water to the outside. The end profile on both sides is characterized by
materials of resistivity >72 Ωm indicating stable formation but at the edge of the fracture.
This layer is inimical to the foundation of engineering structure along this traverse due
to its poor shear strength. The first four boreholes (Bh-1, Bh-2, Bh-3 and Bh-4) identified
for coring are located along this traverse.
Damaged Zone
BH-1 BH-2 BH-3 BH-4
Stable formation Clay Stable formation

Clay
Profile 4C Profile 4D
Profile 4B
3.3.3.5 Profile 4C
Profile 4C traverse NW-SE and runs along the same line as profile 4 but covers a lateral
extent of 120 m with electrode spacing of 3 m to be able to zoom in on the extent of the
affected zones. The traverse specifically targets the first low resistive formation towards
NW of the profile (figure 11). The penetration depth of this sounding is about 25 m deep.
The sounding produce the top superficial layer that ranges from the surface to about 5
m beneath the surface and is composed of varying resistivity material (16 to 50 Ωm)
interpreted as pyroclasts. The second geoelectric layer extend from 5 m to about 25 m
with almost uniform resistivity of less than 8 Ωm and is composed predominantly of peat
clay. The first two boreholes (Bh-1 and Bh-2) recommended for coring are along this
profile to a depth of 20m and 35 m bgl respectively.

BH 1 BH 2
Pyroclasts Pyroclasts
Clay
Figure 11: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4C
3.3.3.6 Profile 4B
Profile 4B is an extension of profile 4C to SE and is covering a spread of about 120 m

long with a penetration depth of 22 m deep. The location of profile 4C is indicated in
figure 11. The resistivity along the traverse was conducted with electrode interval of 3 m
to be able to zoom in on the formation. The resistivity section shows the extent of
superficial deposits characterized by resistivity value of about 40 Ωm covering from
surface to about 7 m deep. Below this layer is highly saturated with groundwater which
is again underlain by clays.
BH-3
Figure 12: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4B
3.3.3.7 Profile 4D
The traverse along profile 4D is an extension of profile 4B towards SE, the electrode
spacing was 3 m and a penetration depth of 22.7 m was achieved. The profile showed a
similar lithology and structural effect as evident in profile 4C and 4b. It also confirms the
existence of clay zone which is exactly beneath the fracture zone. It also confirms that
the depth of clay zone is shallower in NW side but deeper in SE side. Two more boreholes
identified for coring are proposed along this profile and are marked BH3 and BH4 (figure
13). It is recommended that coring along these profiles done to a depth of about 60 m
and 42m bgl respectively.

BH 3 BH 4
Figure 13: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-4D

3.3.3.8 Profile 6
Profile was traversed between power station and the substation on a rehabilitated grass
ground. The sounding was executed with an electrode interval of 3 m and with a total
spread of about 120 m long. The resistivity section along profile 6 shows almost similar
lithology that has been identified above. A thin layer of compacted ground of less than 4
m thick with pockets of poorly compacted surfaces.
3.3.3.9 Profile 9
The profile was traversed between power plant and profile 6 along the tarmac road just
approximately 12 m off the substation. The sounding was executed with electrode
interval of 9 m interval and probed to a depth of 58 m bgl with a total spread of about
324 m long. The resistivity section along the traverse produce top tarmac road that
ranges from the surface to a depth of 6 m bgl. The tarmacked layer has a resistivity
structure that is not constant due to the displacement that has been observed on the

ground surface hence the groundwater rising along the cracks leading to varying
resistivity. The second geoelectric layer extend from 6 m to about 42 m bgl with resistivity
value range of 0.1 to 1.73 Ωm and is composed of predominantly clay materials. The clay
material appear in four major pockets along this profile which makes it inimical to the
foundation of engineering structures along this traverse. The third geoelectric layer is
composed of highly weathered materials saturated with groundwater with resistivity
value of about 10 Ωm. Four coring boreholes have been identified along this traverse and
are located on the pockets of low resistivity interpreted as clay materials. The proposed
boreholes to be cored; BH5, BH6 BH7 and BH8 are planned to penetrate a depth of 20,
29, 34 and 40 m bgl respectively.
BH 5 BH 6 BH 7 BH 8
3.3.4 Seismic Method
3.3.4.1 Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) at Olkaria II power station
The multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method is one of the seismic survey
methods evaluating the elastic condition (stiffness) of the ground for geotechnical
engineering purposes. MASW first measures seismic surface waves generated from
various types of seismic sources, analyses the propagation velocities of those surface
waves, and then finally deduces shear-wave velocity (Vs) variations below the surveyed
area that is most responsible for the analysed propagation velocity pattern of surface
waves. Shear-wave velocity (Vs) is one of the elastic constants and closely related to
Young’s modulus. Under most circumstances, Vs is a direct indicator of the ground
strength (stiffness) and therefore commonly used to derive load-bearing capacity. After
a relatively simple procedure, final Vs information is provided in 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D
formats (MASW, 2015).
The multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method deals with surface waves
in the lower frequencies (e.g., 1-30 Hz) and probes shallower depth range of
investigation (e.g., a few to a few tens of meters). MASW images the dispersion properties
of all types of waves (body and surface waves) through a wave-field transformation
method, which directly converts the multi-channel record into an image where a specific

dispersion pattern is recognized in the transformed energy distribution. The necessary

transformed energy is extracted from the identified pattern (Taipodia and Dey 2012).
3.3.5 Data Acquisition
The fundamental mode of the surface wave is the input signal used for the analysis. The
data were acquired by a 24-channel seismograph with 2Hz geophones spaced at 6m
intervals achieving a profile length of 138m (Figure 16). The confidence limit for data
quality adopted for interpretation reaches a maximum of 30m depth from the surface.
Figure 16: Schematic diagram for active MASW field survey

The MASW are recorded at seismic profiles and passing the following processing steps
(Mohamed et al. 2013);
(i) Construction of the dispersive curve (a plot of the phase velocity versus
frequency),
(ii) Inversion of Vs, from the calculated dispersive curve to produce the 1D shear
wave velocity model, and
(iii) Interpolation of the obtained 1D model to construct the 2D shear wave
velocity model at each site.
Accurate shear wave velocity (Vs) solely depends on the generation of a high quality
dispersion curve, which is one of the most critical steps encountered during processing
of the surface wave data. This is because the dispersion curve has the greatest influence
in the confidence of the Vs profile.
3.3.6 Layout of MASW profiles
MASW survey profiles were conducted in front of Olkaria II power plant as indicated by
profile A-B and B-C and between the cooling tower and the power plant as illustrated by
profile E-D (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Aerial View of MASW profiles A-B, C-D and E-D at Olkaria II power station.
The results of MASW are interpreted based on Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria that is
based on VS of the top 30 m of the soil profile (VS30) (Wair et al. 2012), (table 3).
Table 3: Caltrans/NEHRP Soil Profile Types
Where: 1Site Class E also includes any profile with more than 10 ft (3 m) of soft clay, defined as soil with
Plasticity Index >20, water content > 40%, and undrained shear strength < 500 psf (25 KPa).

2SiteClass F includes: (1) Soils vulnerable to failure or collapse under seismic loading (i.e., liquefiable soils,
quick and highly sensitive clays, and collapsible weakly-cemented soils). (2) Peat and/or highly organic
clay layers more than 10 ft (3 m) thick. (3) Very high plasticity clay (PI > 75) layers more than 25 ft (8
m) thick. (4) Soft to medium clay layers more than 120 ft (36 m) thick.
3.3.7 Interpretation of MASW results
3.3.7.1 Profile A-B
The 2D profile A-B (Figure 18) illustrates a near surface low VS (220-280) m/s (green
zones) between stations spread from 0m to 65m long. The low velocity extends to about
20m below the surface along the spread stations 110 m to 140m. The low velocity is
attributed to fairly stiff soils and weakly cemented (Table 3 above). The blue zone in the
profile is a higher VS zone with velocity above 280 m/s that extends deeply into the
subsurface. This high velocity zone could be attributed to very dense soils and closely
compacted.
Figure 18: Shear wave velocity cross-section profile A-B in front of Olkaria II Power Station.
3.3.7.2 Profile C-D
The 2D profile C-D (Figure 19) illustrates a generally very low velocity zone extending
from the surface to about 20m below the surface. Along spread 30m to 80m length, the
section is characterized by a very low velocity zone with 160m/s <Vs> 50m/s. This is
interpreted as a zone typified by soft clays which are saturated with groundwater.
Underneath this zone to a depth of about 20m bgl, the shear velocity increases
remarkably above the 280m/s. This is probably due to low resolution by interpolation of
the data.

Figure 19: Shear wave velocity cross section of profiles C-D located in front of the power
station and the substation at Olkaria II.
3.3.7.3 Profile E-F
The 2D profile E-F (Figure 20) illustrates two distinct low velocity zones extending from
the surface to a depth of about 20m bgl. The first zone along spread 30m to 170m stretch
has Vs between 180m/s to 130m/s to a depth of about 10m bgl interpreted as loosely
compacted and weakly cemented soils. The second zone with shear velocity between
180m/s to 280 m/s indicate slightly compacted soils.
Figure 20: Shear wave velocity cross section of profiles E-D located between the Olkaria
II power station and the cooling towers.
Note: Plates showing the geoscientific team executing the exercise are provided in the appendix
2.

3.3.8 Gravity Measurements
3.3.8.1 Basic principle
The basis of the gravity survey method is Newton’s Law of Gravitation, which states that
the force of attraction F between two masses m1 and m2, whose dimensions are small
with respect to the distance r between them, is given by
Gm1 m2
𝐹=
𝑟2
where G is the Gravitational Constant (6.67 x10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2) and r is the separation
distance. Lateral density changes on the subsurface, cause a change in the force of gravity
at the surface and the intensity of the force of gravity due to a buried mass difference
(concentration or void) is superimposed on the larger force of gravity due to the total
mass of the earth. Thus, two components of gravity forces are measured at the earth’s
surface: first, a general and relatively uniform component due to the total earth, and
second, a component of much smaller size which varies due to lateral density changes
called the gravity anomaly and causes perturbations on the total earth field. By very
precise measurement of gravity and careful corrections for variations in the larger
component due to the whole earth, a gravity survey can sometimes detect natural or
man-made voids, variations in the depth to bedrock, and geologic structures of
engineering interest. However; the main drawback is the ambiguity of the interpretation
of the anomalies which means that a given gravity anomaly can be caused by numerous
source bodies. An accurate determination of the source usually requires outside
geophysical or geological information
3.3.8.2 Methodology
Gravity measurements were carried out for one hundred and twenty four stations (124)
along six profiles within and around Olkaria II power plant on an average station spacing
of about 20m using an automatic gravity meter made by Scintrex (CG-5 Autograv) with
a resolution of 0.01 mGal. The base station GL3 near OW703 was used and repetitive
measurements were done three times a day for the purpose of performing drift
corrections. The height measurements were done by use of a GPS with a resolution of less
than 3m. To minimize the noise level, data collection was done at safe distance from
power lines though at some instances the resolution was affected due to wider station
spacing. Along the road on profile 6, acquisition of data was done in the evening when
the road was less busy to minimize the cultural noise from artificial vibration. The
collected data was then put in a gravity reduction spreadsheet for corrections
(adjustments).

3.3.8.3 Interpretations of Results
To interpret gravity data, different reductions were performed to remove gravitational

effects not related to the subsurface lateral density variation which includes latitude,
free-air and Bouguer corrections. The corrected gravity data was then used to construct
a Bouguer anomaly map using Surfer program (Golden software, 2013), (figure 21
below). After data correction, the changes in the gravitational field are expected to be
due to density variation of the underlying material, where gravity low would be expected
to correspond to low density material while gravity high is associated with high density
material.
Figure 21: The Bouquer anomaly map showing the six profiles
The interpretation of the probable causative bodies of the observed gravity anomalies is
based on the knowledge of densities of known rock types and ores. The bouguer anomaly
map shows high and low gravity regions indicating lateral density variations where both
the high and low gravity show SE-NW trends. Profiles’ 2, 3 and 4 are traversing a high
gravity region while profiles 6 and 5 are traversing a gravity low region. For detailed
interpolation of the gravity profiles, the data has been constrained as shown in figure 28.

3.3.9 Gravity Profiles
3.3.10 Profiles 1, 2 and 3
Gravity measurements for profiles 1, 2 and 3 were carried out to the North-East of
Olkaria II power station.
Figure 22: Profile 1 in SE-NW direction
Figure 23: Profile 2 in SE-NW direction behind the cooling tower
Figure 24: Profile 3 behind the cooling tower

These profiles are traversing the investigation site at a higher topography as compared to
the other 3 profiles with profile 1 being at the highest point and profile 3 falling at a
relative lower topography. In this region, a generally high amplitude, long wavelength
gravity anomaly trending in the SE-NW direction is prominent which could be
interpreted to be high density material underneath. However, within these profiles a low
gravity signature trending in the NE-SW direction is also noted and interpreted to be a
gravitational effect arising from a local shallow structure of low density probably a
fracture filled with unconsolidated material (pyroclastics and alluvial deposits)
3.3.11 Profiles 4, 5 and 6
Gravity measurements for profile 4, 5 and 6 were carried out as follows; Profile-4 is
located between the cooling tower and the power plant, profile-5 was in front of the
power plant while profile-6 was along the main road to Olkaria I station. Below are
figures for the three profiles.
Figure 25: Profile 4 between the cooling tower and power plant
Figure 26: Profile 5 in front of the power plant

Figure 27: Profile 6 conducted along the main road to Olkaria 1 power station
Profiles 5 and 6 are traversing the centre of investigation site (Olkaria II power plant)
where an anomalous high amplitude low gravity signature is observed. These
pronounced gravity signature is interpreted to be a fracture intersection point possibly
containing fluids or a depression filled with low density unconsolidated material. The
physical characteristics of these material experience variation often when conditions
change from dry to wet especially in presence of fluid/water.
The gravity measurements along the six profiles were further interpolated to constrain
the trends observed to infer structures of interest within the study area. In the bouguer
anomaly map shown below, four linear structures are inferred from gravity signatures
(figure 28).
Figure 28: Bouguer anomaly map showing the inferred structural lineaments within the
study area

4 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Discussions and Conclusions
The subsurface geologcal characteristics reveal that Olkaria II power plant is located
within an area charcaterized by loose and unconsolidated soil materials (pyroclastics)
with substantial clays that are prone to washout once subjected to water flows. The
structural setting of the area depict a general NNE-SSW, NE-SW and ENE-WSW trending
faults which are very conspicuous at the surface. These are considered to be young and
rejuvenated structures believed to have profound impacts on the differential settlement
being experienced at Olkaria II power plant. The regional structures are associated with
rift basins of the main extensional zone and are clearly displayed by subsurface tectno-
stratigraphic framework of hydrothermal alteration mineralogy. They have a general
NW-SW trending direction.
The predominant cause of settlement is attributed to presence of clayey SILTS invariably

containing substantial amounts of groundwater. The presence of clayey content is
considered highly responsible for volumentric changes owing to their molecular
structure.
The ERT technique reveal distinct fractures and cavitied zones infilled with CLAYEY
material which has substantial amounts of groundwater. The clayey zone is apparently
engulfed by a zone of SILTY ZONE which is saturated with water. The swelling behaviour
of clayey material infers the potential risk of liquefaction behaviour and subsequent
volumetric changes. The presence of these geologgical structures and the characteristic
nature of the underlying material (silty-clayey), possible cases of settlement and ground
movements are likely certainly affirms the observations made at Olkaria II power plant
under investigation.
The MASW survey was carried out to investigate the subsurface condition of the Olkaria
II power station. It is observed that, the surface wave method is particularly sensitive in
detecting the near-surface anomalies and the low velocity layer to about 30m. The
velocity zones are then used to give the subsurface geotechnical characteristics of the
area of interest. Based on the MASW profiles, two distinctive zones have been identified
within the power station. Zones with shear wave velocity of above 180m/s are
characterized by fairly cemented and compacted soils while zones with shear wave
velocity below 180m/s are characterized by weakly cemented and poorly compacted
soils apparently with saturated groundwater .
From the gravity measurements, four structural lineaments have been inferred, which
seemingly intersect at the postulated zone of low density unconsolidated pyroclastic
materials characterizing the area around the power plant. These observations suggest
that the power plant could be resting on highly sensitive low density material whose
stress holding abilities may vary from time to time and supposedly if the inferred

structures act as conduits of fluids. These effects may however result to differential
settlement currently being observed on the Olkaria II power plant.
In general, albeit the four methods (geology, electrical, gravity and seismics) confirming
the existence of weak, unconsolidated, cavited clayey zones and silty zones saturated with
water, and the structural influence of the investigated site, poor workmanship cannot be
overlooked. This arise from the nature of foundation compaction and design
considerations in reference to characteristic behaviour of the undelying soils/materials.
4.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings of geological mapping and geophysical investigations at Olkaria II

power plant, it is evident that, the plant rests on highly sensitive ground deemed
susceptible to potentail risks of ground settlements and uplifts. In order to avert this
aggravated adversity, the following recommendations are made;-
 Insitu tests involving CORE DRILLING at the proposed borehole locations (BH-1,
BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7 and BH-8) be performed to ascertain the
extent of damage underneath the power plant and its vicinity.
 A total of eight boreholes are proposed for drilling at defined locations to the
recommended depth as appropriate depending on the extend of the damage as
follows;
Borehole Proposed Eastings Northings Elevation Remarks

ID Depth (m) (m) (m asl)
(m bgl)
BH-2 35 199422 9904416 2021 the power plant &
BH-3 60 199465 9904377 2021 cooling tower
BH-4 42 199495 9904327 2021
BH-5 20 199354 9904425 2022
BH-7 34 199396 9904350 2022 the power plant and
BH-8 40 199432 9904298 2022 sub-station
 The site should then be subjected to subsequent foundation stabilization and

appropriate treatment procedures to provide the necessary support underneath .
 However, this should be performed under close supervision of strutural/civil and

electrical engineers who shall provide guidance on structural design including
the network of subsurface piping and cabling.
 Further, we strongly recommend that further geotechnical investigation be

conducted to the other existing infrastracture as part of the monitoring process.

5 REFERENCES
Baker, B.H., and Wohlenberg, J., 1971: Structural evolution of the Kenya Rift Valley.
Nature, 229, 538-542.
Baker, B.H., Mohr, P.A., and Williams, L.A.J., 1972: Geology of the Eastern Rift System of
Africa. Geological Society of America. Special Paper 136, 1-67.
Clarke, M.C.G., Woodhall, D.G., Allen, D., and Darling, G., 1990: Geological,
volcanological and hydrogeological controls of the occurrence of geothermal activity in
the area surrounding Lake Naivasha, Kenya. Ministry of Energy report.
Daniels F. and Alberty R.A., 1966. Physical Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. de
Groot-Hedlin, C. and Constable, S., 1990. Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two
dimensional models form magnetotelluric data. Geophysics, 55, 1613-1624.
Dey A. and Morrison H.F. 1979a. Resistivity modelling for arbitrary shaped two-dimensional
structures. Geophysical Prospecting 27, 106-136
Jean Chorowicz., 2005: The East African rift system. Science Direct. pp 32.
Lagat, J.K., 2004: Geology, hydrothermal alteration and fluid inclusion studies of the Olkaria
Domes geothermal field, Kenya. University of Iceland, MSc thesis, UNU-GTP, Iceland, report 2,
71 pp.
Loke, M.H., 2011. Electrical resistivity surveys and data interpretation. in Gupta, H (ed.),
Solid Earth Geophysics Encyclopaedia (2nd Edition) “Electrical & Electromagnetic” Springer-
Verlag, 276-283
Loke, M.H., Chambers, J.E. and Kuras, O., 2011a. Instrumentation, electrical resistivity. In
Gupta, H (ed.), Solid Earth Geophysics Encyclopaedia (2nd Edition) “Electrical &
Electromagnetic”, Springer-Verlag, 599-604
Mungania, J., 1991: geological report of Well OW-715. K.P.L.C Internal report, No. 037.
Olk. Library
Omenda, P.A., 1998: The geology and structural controls of the Olkaria geothermal
system, Kenya. Geothermics, 27-1, 55-74.
Omenda, P.A., 1994: The geological structure of the Olkaria west geothermal field,
Kenya. Stanford Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, 19, 125-130.
Smith, M., and Mosley, P., 1993: Crustal heterogeneity and basement influence on the
development of the Kenya rift, East Africa. Tectonics, 12, 591-606.
Simiyu, S.M., Omenda, P.A., Keller, G.R., and Anthony, E.Y., 1995: Geophysical and
geological evidence for the occurrence of shallow magmatic intrusions in the Naivasha
sub-basin of the Kenya rift. AGU Fall 1995 meeting abst., F657, no. V21A-12.
Wheeler, W.H., and Karson, J.A., 1994: Extension and subsidence adjacent to a ‘‘weak’’
continental transform: an example of the Rukwa Rift, East Africa. Geology 22, 625–628.

Keller G.V. and Frischknecht F.C., 1966. Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting.
Pergamon Press Inc., Oxford
KenGen Internal Report, 2014. An updated geological conceptual model of Olkaria

Geothermal Field. Unpublished
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P. and Sheriff, R.E., 1990. Applied Geophysics (second edition).
Cambridge University Press
Thompson, A.O., and Dodson, R.G., 1963; Geology of the Naivasha area. Government of
Kenya Geological Survey, report no. 55 (1963), p. 80.
MASW (2015). Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method. In: MASW.
http://www.masw.com/WhatisMASW.html. Accessed 4 Aug 2015
Mohamed AM., Abu El Ata AS., Azim F., Taha M. (2013). Site-specific shear wave velocity
investigation for geotechnical engineering applications using seismic refraction and
2D multi-channel analysis of surface waves.
Taipodia J, Dey A (2012). A Review of Active and Passive MASW Techniques. In: National
Workshop. Engineering Geophysics for Civil Engineering and Geo-Hazards (EGCEG),
CBRI, Roorkee,
Wair B., DeJong J., Shantz (2012). Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity
Profiles. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Headquarters at the University
of California

APPENDIX 1: PLATES SHOWING THE CURRENT STATUS OF OLKARIA II POWER PLANT
Plate 1: Showing structural failures on steel metal columns
Plate 2: Cracks on the floor and uplift/subsidence of the ground

Plate 3: Corrosion on metals at the Biocide dosing plant
Plate 4: Microbial corrosion on the cooling tower concrete slab

APPENDIX 2: GEO-SCIENTIFIC TEAM CARRYING OUT INVESTIGATION
Plate 5: Geo-scientific team carrying out investigations

DRAFT 7 5 15 Geotechnical Investigation at Olkaria II Plant PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul 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

DRAFT 7 5 15 Geotechnical Investigation at Olkaria II Plant PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

KENYA ELECTRICITY GENERATING COMPANY LIMITED

GEOLOGICAL MAPPING AND GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT AT OLKARIA

OLKARIA GEOTHERMAL PROJECT

Borehole Proposed Eastings Northings Elevation Remarks

 The site should then be subjected to subsequent foundation stabilization and

 However, this should be performed under close supervision of strutural/civil and

 Further, we strongly recommend that further geotechnical investigation be conducted

KenGen August, 2015; Pageii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ABBREVIATIONS (All S.I Units unless indicated otherwise)

agl above ground level

KenGen August, 2015; Pageiii

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 7

Figure 1: Location map of Olkaria Geothermal field sectors ........................................................ 7

August, 2015 Page, 5

Plate 1: Showing structural failures on steel metal columns....................................................... 37

August, 2015 Page, 6

1.1 Study Area

Figure 1: Location map of Olkaria Geothermal field sectors

August, 2015 Page, 7

2.1 Stratigraphy of Greater Olkaria Volcanic Complex (GOVC)

August, 2015 Page, 8

2.2 Structural setting

August, 2015 Page, 9

Figure 2: Main structures in the Greater Olkaria geothermal (Lagat, 2004).

August, 2015 Page, 10

3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

3.1 Geological Mapping

Table 2: Summarized stratigraphy of North-East Field

3.2 Structural geology

3.2.1 Surface structures

August, 2015 Page, 11

Figure 3: Structural map of the study area (Olkaria North-East Sector)

3.2.2 Subsurface geological structures

The tectno-stratigraphic framework of the area was similarly evaluated using

August, 2015 Page, 12

Figure 4: Subsurface structures in the North-East field sector

August, 2015 Page, 13

3.3 Geophysical Investigations Techniques

The field methods comprised geoelectrical investigations using Electrical Resistivity

3.3.1 Introduction to Electrical Resistivity Surveys

3.3.1.1 Basic Resistivity Theory

J V) x-xs)( y-ys)  (z-zs)....................................................4

 x , y , z x , y , z)}=V) x-xs)( y-ys)  (z-zs).......................................5

August, 2015 Page, 14

3.3.2 Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) is a near-surface geophysical method that uses

August, 2015 Page, 15

Figure 5: The resistivity of rocks, soils and minerals

August, 2015 Page, 16

Olkaria two Cooling Tower

Figure 6: Layout of ERT profiles at Olkaria II power plant

3.3.3 Interpretation of ERT Results

3.3.3.1 ERT- Profile 1

August, 2015 Page, 17

Figure 7: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-1

3.3.3.2 ERT Profile 2

Traverse 2 (Figure 8) is 400 m long profile running in a NW-SE direction with 10 m

August, 2015 Page, 18

Figure 8: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-2

3.3.3.3 ERT Profile 3B

Groundwater Saturated Zone

Figure 9: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) profile-3B