• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

Implementing Advanced Site Characterization Tools

Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
1 Introduction
1 Introduction Overview
1.1 Purpose and Scope
1.2 Technologies
1.3 How to Use this Document
2 ASCT Implementation
2 ASCT Implementation Overview
2.1 Tool Selection
2.2 Tool Application
3 Direct Sensing
3 Direct Sensing Overview
3.1 How to Select and Apply Direct Sensing Tools Using this Document
3.2 Membrane Interface Probe
3.3 Optical Image Profiler
3.4 Laser-Induced Fluorescence
3.5 Cone Penetrometer Testing
3.6 Hydraulic and Groundwater Profiling Tools
3.7 Electrical Conductivity (EC) Probe
3.8 Flexible Liners
4 Borehole Geophysics
4 Borehole Geophysics Overview
4.1 How to Select and Apply Borehole Geophysical Tools Using this Document
4.2 Fluid Temperature
4.3 Fluid Resistivity
4.4 Mechanical Caliper
4.5 Optical Televiewer
4.6 Acoustic Televiewer
4.7 Natural Gamma Logging
4.8 Borehole Flow Meters
4.9 Advanced Borehole Logging Tools
5 Surface Geophysics
5 Surface Geophysics Overview
5.1 How to Select and Apply Surface Geophysical Tools Using this Document
5.2 Electrical Resistivity Imaging
5.3 Ground Penetrating Radar
5.4 Seismic Methods
5.5 Electromagnetic Surveys
6 Remote Sensing
6 Remote Sensing Overview
6.1 How to Select and Apply Remote Sensing Tools Using this Document
6.2 Drones
6.3 Visible Spectrum Camera
6.4 Camera Features
6.5 Photogrammetry
6.6 Sample Collection and Monitoring using Drones
6.7 Cost Considerations
6.8 Case Studies
7 Stakeholder and Tribal Perspectives
8 Regulatory Perspective
8 Regulatory Perspective Overview
8.1 Challenges and Solutions
9 Case Studies
9 Case Studies Overview
9.1 MIP Boring Data Allow On-Site Decisions to Fill Data Gaps and Reduce Uncertainty during Triad Approach Evaluation at Five South Dakota Sites
9.2 MIP Allows Real-Time Identification and Delineation of DNAPL Plume at a Former Naval Air Station in California
9.3 OIP-Green Probe Delineates Extent of Coal Tar NAPL at a Former Gas Manufacturing Plant in Kansas
9.4 LIF Survey with UOVOST® Provides More Accurate Representation of LNAPL Plume at a Former Bulk Petroleum Storage Facility in New Hampshire
9.5 UVOST Differentiates LNAPL Types to Allocate Financial Liabilities at a Retail Petroleum Facility in Tennessee
9.6 TarGOST Determines DNAPL Extent and HPT Confirms Site Lithology at a Former Creosote Facility in Louisiana
9.7 CPT Borings and Hydropunch Sampler Optimize Site Characterization at an Aviation Industrial Complex in California
9.8 Waterloo APS, CPT, and LIF Data Update CSM and Help Optimize Selected Remedy at a Former Refinery in Oklahoma
9.9 Conceptual Site Model Development Using Borehole Geophysics at the Savage Municipal Water Supply Superfund Site in New Hampshire
9.10 ERI Provides Data to Improve Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Models at Hanford 300 Facility in Washington
9.11 Surface and Borehole Geophysical Technologies Provide Data to Pinpoint and Characterize Karst Features at a Former Retail Petroleum Facility in Kentucky
9.12 GPR Data Show Location of Buried Debris and Piping Associated with a Former Gas Holder in Minnesota
9.13 Resistivity, Seismic Exploration, and GPR Provide Data to Evaluate Clay Reserves at a Commercially Mined Pit
9.14 Seismic Refraction, Electric Resistivity, and Multichannel Analysis of Seismic Waves Provide Data to Locate Monitoring Well Locations in a Mixed-Use Area in Northern Virginia
9.15 Surface Geophysical Methods Provide Data to Identify Prospective Utility Waste Landfill Sites in Karst Terrain in Missouri
9.16 Airborne Time-Domain Electromagnetic Method Maps Sand Distribution along the Illinois Lake Michigan Shore
9.17 Drone Technology Expedites and Streamlines Site Characterization at a Former Golf Course in Missouri
9.18 High-Resolution and Thermal Aerial Images Identify Mine Openings at an Abandoned Colorado Mine
9.19 RPAS Collects Water Samples to Avoid Safety Concerns at Montana Tunnels Mine
Additional Information
Appendix A. Tool Tables and Checklists
Glossary
References
Acronyms
Acknowledgments
Team Contacts
Document Feedback

 

Click for Selection Tool Click for Summary Tables Click for Tool Descriptions Click for Case Studies Click for Checklists Click for Training Videos Click for Home

9.13 Resistivity, Seismic Exploration, and GPR Provide Data to Evaluate Clay Reserves at a Commercially Mined Pit

Lisandro Suarez
CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)
Hartford, CT
[email protected]

The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the clay reserves at a commercially mined clay pit. Geophysical techniques including GPR, ERT, and seismic exploration were used to help characterize a shallow stratigraphy. For clay mining purposes, the main objectives of performing these tests were to proof a clay deposit (with the intention of planning extraction operations). GPR techniques were not good to use on materials that exhibit low ER, such as clays. Nevertheless, GPR provided an estimate of the thickness of the top sand layer and an approximate depth to perched groundwater or depth to water table. In contrast to GPR, ERT was used particularly on materials that exhibit low resistivity. Resistivity-supplied information related to the clay-layer thickness and its heterogeneity. Seismic exploration was used to provide a better estimate of the thickness of the clay layer and the depth to bedrock.

Prior to the geophysical survey, a review of the U.S. Geological Survey bedrock geological map for the project quadrant was performed to help in understanding the local stratigraphy and soil characteristics.

Figure 9‑47 is an aerial photo that shows where the geophysical surveys were performed. Line 1 (150 m) was the west-east line profile where DC-resistivity and seismic exploration were performed. Line 2 (150 m) was the south-north line profile for DC-resistivity and seismic exploration surveys. The GPR profile was performed along the arrow marked as GPR.

Figure 9‑48 contains the Dipole-Dipole method (top image) and Schlumberger method (bottom image) resistivity test result for line 2. The north-south profile (line 2) in Figure 9‑48 was adjusted for topography by using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. In general, all three profiles showed a clay layer with resistivity values between 10 and 150 Wm. The clay was fairly homogeneous throughout the first 20 m to 30 m below the sand layer. Perched groundwater or saturated sand and clay were found at the contact between the two distinct permeability layers (sand overlying clay) as indicated by the high resistivity values found toward the south end of the profile. In the instance when the underlying soil became saturated, the perched groundwater elevation became, by definition, the water table elevation. The survey profile for line 1 was similar to line 2 and indicated that the clay layer was relatively homogeneous.

Figure 9‑47. Aerial photo showing the approximate location where the geophysical surveys were performed.

Figure 9‑48. The the inverse model for line 2 (north to south, from left to right of the profiles above) in which the true resistivity values of the subsurface tested were represented. (All distances in meters).

The goal of the seismic survey was to determine the approximate depth-to-bedrock. The data obtained to construct the site’s depth-to-bedrock profiles were mined by using refraction and reflection. Basically, three soil layers were found: A thin sand layer, a thick clay layer, and bedrock. Figure 9‑49 shows the north-south lithostratigraphy and depth-to-bedrock graph based on refraction and reflection techniques (north to south). The sand layer was delineated in pink. The west-wast lithostratigraphy was similar and showed bedrock at approximately 30 m of depth.

Figure 9‑49. North-South lithostratigraphy and depth-to-bedrock graph based on refraction and reflection techniques (north to south).

The purpose of the GPR survey was to delineate the sand layer from the clay layer with the intention of evaluating the volumetric tonnage of sand necessary to be stripped off before the clay layer could be properly mined. The resultant information was also used to plan and calculate the equipment necessary in the process as well as labor hours and other logistical issues.

The GPR survey (see Figure 9‑50) showed a layer of sand of about 2 m thick present on the north side of the site; it gradually decreased its thickness at a rate of about 2 cm/m toward the south. At about 100 m from the benchmark, the thickness of the sand layer was just a few inches. A clay layer was under the sand and the GPR could not penetrate it. It was expected that groundwater flowed at the interface between the sand and the saturated clay layers. No surface topography adjustment was made as the surface had relatively minor changes in elevation (zero-slope, man-made dirt road).

Figure 9‑50. GPR test result. The profile run from the north end of the proposed area (left corner, at 0 m) to the south end (right corner, at 140 m).

This combination of geophysical methods was performed to support decisions made by the management of a brick manufacturing company. Because bricks are made primarily out of clay, brick manufacturing companies are continuously monitoring their clay reserves and the clay properties that affect quality. Test results obtained on this project provided sufficient evidence that the clay was of great quality and there was plenty of volume to continue manufacturing bricks for many years to come.

The cost associated with this project was less than $100; in-kind services were provided by the University of Conneticut and the USGS.

image_pdfPrint this page/section
Click here to download the entire document.



ASCT-1

web document
glossaryASCT-1
Glossary
referencesASCT-1
References
acronymsASCT-1
Acronyms

ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.