1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 11, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 11 Number 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Fluvio‐glacial sand and gravel provide an important resource for the construction industry. The efficient and economic extraction of such geologically complex deposits requires a detailed understanding of their grade distribution. This is typically undertaken as point observations over the resource using a borehole drilling programme. We investigate the viability of using measurements of the elastic and electrical properties of the subsurface, derived from geophysical profiles, to determine the spatial variability of aggregate quality.

A refraction seismic, surface wave seismic and resistivity survey was carried out over a fluvioglacial sand and gravel deposit at Scorton, Yorkshire, UK, on agricultural land adjacent to an active quarry. Two 190 m profiles, with borehole control at their extremes, were acquired with a 2 m source and receiver spacing. The P‐ and S‐wave velocities ( and ), together with resistivity and depth distributions were determined down to c. 20 m. The subsurface was divided into four layers: uncon‐solidated sand and gravel; dry consolidated sand and gravel; saturated sand and gravel; and basal clay.

The work flow initially involved processing and interpreting the three geophysical techniques independently. Crossplots of the elastic and electrical parameters were used to distinguish unconsolidated from consolidated material; the water table; increased silt content; and recognize the basal clay. The Vp/Vs ratio proved very powerful at discriminating fine material () from coarse material (Vp/Vs ~ 1.5). Regression analysis of crossplots produced P‐ and S‐wave relationships for the material, while electro‐acoustic relationships were less successful, especially below the water table. The results of the petrophysical analysis were used to set up guided inversions for the resistivity survey. Careful use of the refraction results as an model for the resistivity survey was found to improve the resistivity inversion, though use of a sharp boundary introduced edge effects at the water table.

The results from the integrated analysis were combined with the guided inversions into a final interpretation that enabled silt content, particle size and clay lenses to be mapped, which were not identified in the separately processed data.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2013 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013046
2013-09-01
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013046
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V.2004. Layered and laterally constrained 2D inversion of resistivity data. Geophysics69, 752–761.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BrocherT.M.2005. Compressional and Shear Wave Velocity Versus Depth in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Rules for USGS Bay Area Velocity Model 05.0.0, Technical Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Open‐File Report 051317.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CardarelliE. and FischangerF.2006. 2D data modelling by electrical resistivity tomography for complex subsurface geology. Geophysical Prospecting54, 121–133.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. CattL., WestJ. and ClarkR.2009. Use of reference models from a priori data to guide 2D inversion of electrical resistivity tomograph. Geophysical Prospecting57, 1035–1048.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DoetschJ., LindeN., CosciaI., GreenhalghS. and GreenA.2010. Zonation for 3D aquifer characterization based on joint inversions of multimethod crosshole geophysical data. Geophysics75, G53–G64.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. GallardoL.A. and Mejum. A.2004. Joint two‐dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross‐gradients constraints. Journal Geophysical Research109, B03311.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. GubbinsD.2004. Time Series Analysis and Inverse Theory for Geophysicists.Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. IvanovJ., JohnsonC.D., LaneJ.W., MillerR.D. and ClemensD.2009. Near‐surface evaluation of Ball Mountain Dam, Vermont, using multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) and refraction tomography seismic methods on land‐streamer data. SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Lokem.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. LongA., BridglandD., InnesJ., MitchellW., Rutherfordm. and VynerB.2004. The Swale‐ Ure Washlands: Landscape history and human impacts. University of Durham, 32.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.1998. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media.Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. PalmerD.1980. The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists104.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. ParkC.B., MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics64, 800–808.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ReynoldsJ.M.1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics.Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. SoccoL. and StrobiaC.2004. Surface‐wave method for near‐surface characterization: A tutorial. Near Surface Geophysics2, 165–185.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. TuressonA.2007. A comparison of methods for the analysis of compressional, shear, and surface wave seismic data, and determination of the shear modulus. Journal of Applied Geophysics61, 83–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ZhangJ. and Toksozm.N.1998. Nonlinear refraction traveltime tomography. Geophysics63, 1726–1737.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013046
Loading
Assessment of aggregate resources: an integrated geophysical approach
Near Surface Geophysics 11, 671 (2013); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2013046
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013046
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013046
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error