TOMOGRAPHY ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

TEST OF SOIL
GEOPHYSICAL METHOD OF SOIL
EXPLORATION
 TEST REPORT

Ref. No.:- 6000038634

SRF. No.:- 000 & 18.05.2024

Report No.:- 2022/HTCTL/MT/000000

Date of Testing:- 18.05.2024

Date of Test Completion:- 20.05.2024

Date of Reporting:- 30.05.2024

Client Name:- Power Mech Projects Limited

Name of Project:- Water Resource Division Mandla Bichhiya Town

Name of Location: Upper Burhnerdam Projects

Test Location:- Hitech Civil Test Labs Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal

Submitted By:- 6000038634

 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................3

2. Project Objective .............................................................................................................................................3

3. Project Area & Geology .................................................................................................................................4

3.1 Location of the Project area ........................................................................................................................4

3.2 Geology................................................................................................................................................................4

4. Asset Used ..........................................................................................................................................................5

5. Methodology: Electrical Resistivity Tomography ..............................................................................5

5.1 ERT Principle ....................................................................................................................................................5

5.2 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey .....................................................................................6

5.2.1 Data Acquisition ..............................................................................................................................................6

5.2.2 Factors affecting the ERT acquisition .....................................................................................................7

6. Interpretation of Electrical Resistivity Tomography Results ........................................................8

6.1 Data Processing and Interpretation.........................................................................................................8

6.2 Resistivity Tomograms and Interpretative Cross-Sections ............................................................8

7. Resistivity Tomograms and interpreted Cross-sections .................................................................9

7.1 Resistivity Tomograms and Lithological interpretation of MT-01 ..............................................9

8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 10

9. References ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
1. Introduction

Project: To Conduct Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey for Water Resource Division
Mandla Bichhiya Town

Location Upper Burhnerdam Projects

Total Area covered 1300 m

Client Power mech Projects Limited

2. Project Objective

 The projective objective was to conduct an electrical tomography survey (ERT) to

determine stratigraphy along the route, presence of voids & other geological features
having contrast in resistivity with the surrounding soils. The objectives of the survey are
as the following:

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

layers of overburden and bedrock.
 To conduct Resistivity imaging to establish resistivity of soil and rocks showing
different layers of overburdens and bedrocks.
 To find out depths of rock head and rock mass condition up to the depth of
investigation.
 To find out weak zones and water bearing zones in the specified survey areas.

 To prepare analytical results in standard graphical format.

3. Project Area & Geology

3.1 Location of the Project area Give by Client

Fig 1. Google Earth image of survey location & its Surrounding Area

Area Start Latitude Start Longitude Length Mtr.

Upstream 100
mtr.
21.83968N 80.064996N 50 mtr. Both Side

Upstream 50
mtr.
22.33968N 80.564996E 25 mtr. Both side

Dam Asix 22.33739N 80.564346 E 350 both side

Downstream 50
mtr.
22.33285 N 80.564918E 25 mtr. side
3.2 Geology
Geologically, all the rock formations of different geological ages (Archean to Recent) are found in
the study area. A major part of area is covered with basalt lava flows generally called as Deccan trap.
This volcanic activity was confined mainly to Upper Cretaceous to Lower Eocene age. Besides
Deccan traps the formation like local alluvium, beach sand, coastal alluvium, laterites, trachyte’s
& rhyolite cover very small area of the area. The main topographic features of this lava flows are
flat topped hills and steps like terrace. Stratigraphy sequences of the geological formation in this
area are shown in table below:

Formation Age Lithology

Alluvium Recent clay, silt and sand

Beach sand Recent sand and silt

Laterite Pleistocene Laterite

Dykes --------- Basic intrusion

Deccan traps basalt Eocene to upper cretaceous Amygdaloidal Basalt

Rhyolite Eocene to upper cretaceous Rhyolite

Trachyte Eocene to upper cretaceous Trachyte

Table 1: Generalized Geological sequence of Study Area

4. Asset Used

The following assets have been used for the execution of the project:

 ABEM Terrameter LS-2

 Electrodes
 Multicore Cable
 Hammer
 DGPS

5. Methodology: Electrical Resistivity Tomography

5.1 ERT Principle

The resistivity survey is carried out by injecting DC current into the ground through two
current electrodes, and measuring the resulting voltage differences at two potential
electrodes. For the current value (I) and the observed voltage difference value (V), an
apparent resistivity value (ρa) is calculated as follows.
(ρa) = k V/I

Where, k is the geometrical factor which depends on the arrangement of the four electrodes.
The calculated value (ρa) is not the true resistivity of the sub-surface materials.
An “apparent resistivity” value of a homogeneous ground will give the same resistance value for
the same electrode arrangement. The relationship between the apparent resistivity and the
“true” resistivity is a complex relationship. In fact, an inversion of the measured apparent
resistivity values using a computer program is necessary to determine the true sub-surface
resistivity.

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, say, sandstone, 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 2.

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 litho logy to litho logy, but also within a particular formation of same litho logy.

Fig 2: Resistivity Vs Lithology

Apparent resistivity values obtained in the field are not equal to the actual resistivity of the
geologic units which affact 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.

5.2 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey

5.2.1 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. So, site condition is essential to consider for the effective layout of the
profiles. For these reasons modifications has been carried out to best suit the site conditions. In
the present mission modifications have been done for those profiles which are either difficult
to conduct due to difficult terrain or due to geological setup and in some case both. In either
case aim of the modification of the layout was for the acquisition of the better data quality and
to conduct work meaningfully.

For carrying out 2-D electrical imaging/tomography surveys large number of electrodes,
connected to a multi-core cable. Multi-electrode Resistivity system (ABEM Terrameter LS-2)
was used for automatic data collection with 1 to 81 electrodes spaced at 10 m intervals as per
availability of space. Wenner, Dipole-Dipole and Gradient array were used for data acquisition of
Ert Survey. The layout of electrodes for 2D-Imaging survey and sequences of measurement are
presented in Fig. 3.

Fig 3: Schematic diagram of 2D resistivity imaging/ERT survey

5.2.2 Factors affecting the ERT acquisition

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 profile 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. Furthermore, it is
related to the power of the transmitter and signal resolving capacity of the receiver, SP
cancellation capacity of the equipment and quality of the peripheral parts and accessories. 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 is 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.

6. Interpretation of Electrical Resistivity Tomography Results

6.1Data Processing and Interpretation

The field 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 geophysicist. 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.
This correlation table has been prepared based on the local geological information and
experience with similar works in other parts of the country. However, it should be noted that the
resistivity of certain lithology has wide variation. These inversion results showing resistivity
tomogram and interpretative cross sections of all profiles are attached. Geological/ lithological
information is extracted from the ERT result (resistivity contour value) & are marked in the
respective interpretative sections.

Geological Formation Resistivity Range(ohm_m)

Alluvial Deposit 5-30

Highly Weathered/fractured/ vesicular basalt 30-100

Slightly to Moderately
100-300
weathered/fractured/vesicular basalt
 Slightly weathered and fractured Basalt 300-1000

Massive Basalt >1000

Table 2: Resistivity values of different rock type in the study area

6.2 Resistivity Tomograms and Interpretative Cross-Sections

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 profile and their interpretations are presented in Figure as given
below.
7. Resistivity Tomograms and interpreted Cross-sections

120.000
110.000
Resistivity ohm-m/ Depth m at point 200 mtr. River axis
100.000
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
10-30 ohm_m -silty sand with
40.000
gravel
30.000 30-80 ohm_m -highly fractured
20.000 and highly weathered volcanic
10.000 Breccia
0.000
Above 80 ohm_m-slightly to
moderately weathered
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
fractured basalt
70
Resistivity ohm-m/ Depth m at point 100 mtr. upper Strem on River
60

50

40

30
10-30 ohm_m -silty sand with
gravel
20 30-80 ohm_m -highly fractured
and highly weathered volcanic
10 Breccia
Above 80 ohm_m-slightly to
0
0.000 200.000 400.000 600.000 800.000 1000.000 1200.000 1400.000

110.000 Resistivity ohm-m/ Depth m at point 50 mtr. Down stream on River

100.000

90.000

80.000

70.000

60.000 10-30 ohm_m -silty sand with

gravel
50.000 30-80 ohm_m -highly fractured
and highly weathered volcanic
40.000 Breccia
Above 80 ohm_m-slightly to
30.000
moderately weathered fractured
20.000 basalt

10.000

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
 300.000 Resistivity ohm-m/ Depth m at Point 50 mtr. Upper Stream on River

250.000

200.000

150.000

10-30 ohm_m -silty sand with gravel

100.000 30-80 ohm_m -highly fractured and
highly weathered volcanic Breccia
Above 80 ohm_m-slightly to
50.000 moderately weathered fractured
basalt

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

70.000
Resistivity ohm-m/ Depth m 700 Mtr. Along the Dam Axis Point-01

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000
10-30 ohm_m -silty sand with
gravel
20.000 30-80 ohm_m -highly fractured
and highly weathered volcanic
Breccia
10.000 Above 80 ohm_m-slightly to
moderately weathered fractured
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
700.000
Resistivity ohm-m/ Depth m 700 Mtr. Along the Dam Axis Point-02 at 450 mtr.

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

7.1 Resistivity Tomograms and Litho logical interpretation

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (MT-1) was conducted with a spread length of 1300
meters in the investigation area. The litho logical section can be interpreted as multi layered
model.

At Point 200 Mtr. River Axis

 The top layer showed the apparent resistivity ranging 10-30 ohm_m and overall thickness
ranging between 1-20 m from existing ground level which might be silty sand with gravel.

 The second layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of
this layer varies from 21-30 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

 The underlying third layer is marked by high resistivity which suggests presence of slightly to
moderately weathered fractured basalt and this layer depth vary from 31 to 48m.

 The Fourth layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of
 this layer varies from 48-66 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

At Point 100 Mtr. Upper Stream on River Center point

 The top layer showed the apparent resistivity ranging 10-30 ohm_m and overall thickness
ranging between 0-1 m from existing ground level which might be silty sand with gravel.

 The second layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of
this layer varies from 1-34 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

 The underlying third layer is marked by high resistivity which suggests presence of slightly to
moderately weathered fractured basalt and this layer depth vary from 34 to 58m.
At Point 50 Mtr. down Stream on River Center point

 The top layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of this
layer varies from 1-8 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

 The second layer showed the apparent resistivity ranging 10-30 ohm_m and overall
thickness ranging between 8-17 m from existing ground level which might be silty sand with
gravel.

 The Third layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of this
layer varies from 17-25 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

At Point 50 Mtr. Upper Stream on River Center point

 The Top Layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of this
layer varies from 1-5 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

 The underlying third layer is marked by high resistivity which suggests presence of slightly to
moderately weathered fractured basalt and this layer depth vary from 5 to 25 m.

At Point 700 Mtr. along The Dam Axis Point-01 Near to Dadar Deori Side at 150 mtr.

The Top Layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of this
layer varies from 1-100 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.
 At Point 700 Mtr. Along The Dam Axis Point-02 Near to River at 450 mtr

The top layer showed the apparent resistivity ranging 10-30 ohm_m and overall thickness
ranging between 1-11 m from existing ground level which might be silty sand with gravel.

 The second layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of
this layer varies from 12-21 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

 The third layer showed the apparent resistivity ranging 10-30 ohm_m and overall thickness
ranging between 22-89 m from existing ground level which might be silty sand with gravel.

 The Fourth layer encountered the resistivity ranging between 30-80 ohm_m and depth of
this layer varies from 90-106 m. This layer possibly represented the highly fractured and highly
weathered volcanic Breccia.

8. Validation of Results

To further validate the interpretation of the electrical resistivity tomography value, a boreholl
conducting at various Locations.

9. Conclusions

 The site predominantly consists of 3 layers within the survey length of 1300 m. First layer is
identified as silty sand with gravel with volcanic Breccia. The second layer is identified as the
highly fractured and highly weathered volcanic Breccia. The third layer is identified as slightly
to moderately weathered fractured basalt.

10. References

 IS 15736:2007 Geological Exploration by Geophysical Method (Electrical Resistivity) Code of

Practice
 ASTM D6431-18 A standard guide for using the direct current (DC) resistivity method to
characterize subsurface sites.