Determining fractures and their orientation for preventing in-situ seepage of water in the Poison Lake, Sikkim, India

Figures & data

Figure 1. The availability of water in the poison lake area during (A) and after (B) the rainy season in the year 2021.

Figure 2. Location of the Poison Lake and its surrounding topography.

Figure 3. Geological setting (Lithostratigraphy, Lineament and Seismicity) of the Poison Lake and its surrounding area (Source: Bhattacharya and Mitra [20], Hazarika and Ravi Kumar [21], GSI [22]).

Figure 4. The Wenner Array Layout (Source: Kearey et al. [23], Telford et al. [24]).

Figure 5. The Schlumberger (Symmetric) Array Layout [23].

Figure 6. The Schlumberger (Asymmetric) Array Layout [23,24].

Figure 7. Full-azimuthal Schlumberger Geometry. The collinear array is rotated from N10°W azimuth, at a step of 45°, through 360°. Complementary angles are 180° offset (Source: Ogunbo et al. [25]).

Figure 8. Flow chart of the methodology.

Figure 9. The Wenner profiling survey at the Poison Lake, Sikkim.

Figure 10. Fieldwork carried out at the Poison Lake, Sikkim, India.

Table 1. Geo-electrical areal profiling survey using the Wenner array configuration at the Poison Lake.

Figure 11. (A) Contour plot of the Geo-Electrical Areal Profiling Survey using the Wenner Array configuration (B) Field location of two identified fractures at the Poison Lake.

Table 2. An electrical sounding survey using the Schlumberger array configuration at the Poison Lake.

	Electrode Spacing			VES-1		VES-2		VES-3		VES-4
Sr. No.	AB/2	MN/2	Geometric Factor, GF (K)	R (Ω)	ρa (Ωm)	R (Ω	ρa (Ωm)	R (Ω	ρa (Ωm)	R (Ω	ρa (Ωm)
1	2	0.5	11.77	24.9	293.19	24.70	290.8425	28.9	340.29	36.1	425.07
2	4	0.5	49.45	6.97	344.70	4.17	206.22735	4.54	224.52	8.69	429.76
3	6	0.5	112.25	2.87	322.17	1.94	217.7747	16.4	212.85	3.9	437.79
4	8	2	47.10	6.86	323.10	4.95	233.145	4.5	211.95	9.19	432.84
5	10	2	75.36	4.21	317.26	3.54	266.7744	3.36	253.209	5.84	440.10
6	12	2	109.90	2.98	327.50	2.67	293.433	2.66	292.33	4.02	441.79
7	14	2	150.72	2.33	351.17	2.14	322.5408	2.23	336.10	3.12	470.24
8	16	4	94.20	3.76	354.19	3.56	335.35	3.74	352.30	4.96	467.23
9	18	4	120.89	3.18	384.43	3.09	373.55	3.23	390.47	4.24	512.57
10	20	4	150.72	2.76	415.98	2.69	405.43	2.85	429.55	3.7	557.66
11	22	4	183.69	2.44	448.20	2.40	440.85	2.56	470.24	3.32	609.85
12	24	4	219.80	2.19	481.36	2.15	472.57	2.32	509.93	3	659.40
13	26	5	204.41	2.47	504.90	2.49	508.99	3.22	658.21	3.25	664.34
14	28	5	238.32	2.32	552.91	2.32	552.91	2.94	700.67	3	714.97
15	30	5	274.75	2.23	612.69	2.14	587.96	2.74	752.81	2.73	750.06
16	32	5	313.68	2.1	658.74	2.05	643.05	2.56	803.03	2.5	784.21
17	34	5	355.13	1.96	696.06	1.91	678.30	2.39	848.77	2.29	813.25
18	36	6	329.70	2.19	722.04	2.13	702.26	2.51	827.54	2.44	804.46
19	38	6	368.42	2.19	806.85	1.99	733.16	2.36	869.48	2.29	843.69
20	40	6	409.24	2.06	843.04	1.84	753.01	2.2	900.34	2.15	879.88
21	42	6	452.16	1.88	850.06	1.71	773.19	2.03	917.88	2.01	908.84
22	44	6	497.16	1.73	860.09	1.6	795.46	1.89	939.64	1.89	939.64
23	46	8	402.70			1.48	596.00	2.29	922.19	2.22	894.00
24	48	8	439.60			1.36	597.85	2.12	931.95	2.08	914.36
25	50	8	478.06			1.65	788.80	1.97	941.78805	1.93	922.66
26	52	8	518.10			1.59	823.77	1.85	958.48	1.8	932.58
27	54	8	559.70			1.49	833.96	1.75	979.48
28	56	10	476.65			1.74	829.37	1.95	929.41
29	58	10	512.44			1.66	850.66	1.88	963.40
30	60	10	549.50			1.55	851.72
31	62	10	587.80			1.46	858.19

Figure 12. (A to D) Apparent resistivities vs. AB/2 for VES-1 to 4 were plotted on a log-log plot using IPI2Win software.[A]: ρ₁<ρ₂>ρ₃<ρ₄ (KH- Type) VES-1, [B]:ρ₁>ρ₂<ρ₃<ρ₄ (HA-Type)VES-2 [C]: ρ₁>ρ₂<ρ₃<ρ₄ (HA- Type) VES-3 [D]: ρ₁<ρ₂<ρ₃<ρ₄ (AA-Type) VES-4.

Table 3. Delineation of fractured using numerical analysis (factor) of the Schlumberger resistivity sounding data.

Sr. No.	AB/2	VES-1	F1	VES-2	F2	VES-3	F3	VES-4	F4
1	2	293.19		290.84		425.07		340.29
2	4	344.70	1.17566	206.22	0.70906	429.76	1.01102	224.52	0.65979
3	6	322.17	0.50505	217.77	0.43811	437.79	0.51213	212.85	0.37684
4	8	323.10	0.33654	233.14	0.32614	432.84	0.33485	211.95	0.27254
5	10	317.26	0.24725	266.77	0.28141	440.10	0.25506	253.20	0.25586
6	12	327.50	0.20463	293.43	0.24155	441.79	0.20400	292.33	0.23521
7	14	351.17	0.18215	322.54	0.21385	470.24	0.18035	336.1	0.21893
8	16	354.19	0.15540	335.35	0.18317	467.23	0.15181	352.30	0.18827
9	18	384.43	0.14598	373.55	0.17245	512.57	0.14459	390.47	0.17560
10	20	415.98	0.13784	405.43	0.15964	557.66	0.13744	429.55	0.16432
11	22	448.20	0.13052	440.85	0.14969	609.85	0.13214	470.24	0.15450
12	24	481.36	0.12400	472.57	0.13956	659.40	0.12620	509.93	0.14512
13	26	504.902	0.11571	508.99	0.131914	664.34	0.11290	658.21	0.16358
14	28	552.91	0.11357	552.91	0.12659	714.97	0.10917	700.67	0.14965
15	30	612.69	0.11301	587.96	0.11949	750.06	0.10326	752.81	0.13985
16	32	658.74	0.10917	643.05	0.11674	784.21	0.09785	803.03	0.13088
17	34	696.06	0.10400	678.305	0.11026	813.25	0.09243	848.77	0.12232
18	36	722.04	0.09772	702.26	0.10282	804.46	0.08370	827.54	0.10626
19	38	806.85	0.09948	733.16	0.09734	843.69	0.08100	869.48	0.10092
20	40	843.04	0.09453	753.01	0.09110	879.88	0.07814	900.34	0.09492
21	42	850.06	0.08709	773.19	0.08859	908.84	0.07486	917.88	0.08838
22	44	860.09	0.081060	795.46	0.08124	939.64	0.07201	939.64	0.08313
23	46			596.00	0.05629	894.00	0.06391	922.19	0.07532
24	48			597.85	0.05346	914.36	0.06144	931.95	0.07079
25	50			788.80	0.06695	922.66	0.05841	941.78	0.06681
26	52			823.77	0.06553	932.58	0.05578	958.48	0.06373
27	54			833.96	0.06226			979.48	0.06123
28	56			829.37	0.05829			929.47	0.05475
29	58			850.66	0.05649			963.40	0.05380
30	60			851.72	0.05354
31	62			858.19	0.05120

Figure 13. (A to B) Apparent resistivity and its corresponding factor plot for the four VES (Log-Log plot).

Figure 14. Polar plot of apparent resistivity values versus azimuth. The orientation of the arrow (Green colour) shows the orientation of the dominant fracture orientation or seepage direction.

Table 4. Result of the azimuthal resistivity survey at location B using the Schlumberger array.

S.N	Direction (with respect to true north)	Apparent resistivity at a distance of 2 m from the centre	Apparent resistivity at a distance of 6 m from the centre
1	N10W°	317.48	276.94
2	N35E°	411.96	657.648
3	N80E°	455.17	986.47
4	N125E°	373.78	278.13
5	N170E°	284.35	185.42
6	N145W°	283.35	224.69
7	N100W°	273.3	264.42
8	N55W°	272.3	243.8

Bhattacharyya K, Mitra G. A new kinematic evolutionary model for the growth of a duplex — an example from the Rangit duplex, Sikkim Himalaya, India. Gondwana Res. 2009;16:697–715.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hazarika P, Ravi Kumar M. Seismicity and source parameters of moderate earthquakes in Sikkim Himalaya. Nat Hazards. 2012;62(3):937–952. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0122-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GSI. Bhukosh-geoscientific data repository; 09-08-2022. https://bhukosh.gsi.gov.in/

 Google Scholar

Kearey P, Brooks M, Hill I. An introduction to geophysical exploration. 3rd ed. Paris: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2002.

 Google Scholar

Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE. Applied geophysics. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 1990. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139167932

 Google Scholar

Ogunbo JN, Mamukuyomi EA, Adepoju WS, et al. Panoramic azimuthal Schlumberger vertical electrical sounding for fracture orientation and anisotropy quantification. Heliyon. 2018;4(12):e00998. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00998

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar