DOCSLIB.ORG

Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 248323 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BENNETT'S DUMP SITE BLOOMINGTON PROJECT Bloomington, Indiana CBS Corporation 11 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1384 February 22,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Summary of Field Activities 2 2.1 Site Preparation 2 2.2 Geophysical Survey 3 3.0 Summary of Findings 6 3.1 Electromagnetic and Magnetometer Results 6 3.2 Seismic Refraction Study Results 7 4.0 Conclusions 11 List of Figures 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Layout Map 3 Geophysical Sample Location Map 4 Generalized Electromagnetic Anomaly Map 5 Lithologic Profiles 6 Bedrock Contour Map 7 Top of Clay Layer Contour Map Appendices A Geosphere Inc. Report B Soil Boring Logs 1.0 INTRODUCTION Previous investigations led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the Bennett's Dump site have identified various electromagnetic anomalies. Since the primary method of site cleanup will involve excavation of portions of the site, a refined understanding of the subsurface conditions was required to aid in planning of future delineation studies. A geophysical survey, including an electromagnetic survey, a magnetometer survey, and a seismic refraction study, were performed at the Bennett's Dump site during the week of December 14,1998. This report summarizes the geophysical survey, presents the geophysicist's findings, and, based on data gathered herein as well as from previous boring projects, provides a summary of the local geology. The complete report of the geophysical results provided by the geophysics contractor is included in Appendix A. The seismic investigation was conducted to provide an understanding of the subsurface structures in areas most likely to contain large amounts of fill. The lithologic contour maps provided herein present interpretations based the seismic refraction data gathered during this study. Limited lithologic information was gathered from boring logs provided in Appendix B to this report. Final lithologic contours will be revised based on upcoming soil boring studies. Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett 'x Dump Site Febntarv 22. 1999 2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD OPERATIONS The Bennett's Dump site is located west of the connecting ramp between State Route 37 and State Route 46 west of Bloomington, Indiana, in an area of previous cut stone quarries. A chain-link fence encloses the 3-acre site, which is bounded on the west by an abandoned railroad siding, to the south and southeast by a quarry access road, to the east by agricultural fields, and to the north by a wooded area. The site is primarily grassy field with wooded areas at the north and southeast portions. A smaller area east of the main site was included in this study. This site is herein referred to as the eastern satellite area. A site location map is provided in Figure 1. 2.1 SITE PREPARATION To facilitate the geophysical survey, the undergrowth was cleared from all of the wooded areas on site, as well as along the creek west of the site fence and in a small satellite area east of the main site. This clearing activity included the removal of thick brush and undergrowth and the trimming of low branches. No trees were removed during the clearing operation. The residual was stacked and/or chipped and left on site. A 100-ft by 100-ft grid system was established across the site using grade stakes and survey laths. The hubs of the 100-ft grid system were marked with blue survey tape. To further facilitate the geophysical survey, the grid was subdivided into 10-ft segments along the east- west lines and into 5-ft segments along north-south grid lines using orange spray paint. The origin of the grid was established as the intersection of the western-most rail of the railroad siding and the quarry road along the south end of the site. The western rail was established as the prime north-south baseline. East-west lines were established perpendicular to this line at 100-ft intervals. The grid designation used was a simple Cartesian system with all points referenced as the number of feet north and the number of feet east of the origin. Attempts were made to have the current grid correspond to a former grid system established Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site Febnuirv 22. 1999 at the site by the USEPA and others in 1983. No permanent markers or controls were from the former grid were located, however. A site layout map, including the 100-ft by 100-ft reference grids is presented in Figure 2. 2.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Geosphere Inc., under supervision of PSARA, performed a geophysical survey at the site during the week of December 14,1998. The objective of the assessment was to refine the understanding of the lateral distribution of buried waste and to determine the depth to the bedrock underneath the site. The geophysical assessment consisted of a combination of electromagnetic, magnetometry, and seismic techniques. 2.2.1 Electromagnetic and Magnetometer Survey Electromagnetic (EM) and magnetic data were collected at 2.5-ft intervals along north-south lines spaced at 5-ft increments across the site. The entire area inside the fence was surveyed with the exception of the very top portions of the large rock piles located in the southeast portion of the site. Additionally, the grid was extended 50 ft south of the southern fence, at least 20 ft west of the rail siding, and outside the fence in the northeast portion of the site. The grid configuration and sampling density are shown in Figure 3. Magnetic readings were taken using a FEREX fluxgate magnetometer, and the EM survey was completed using a Geonics EM-31 conductivity instrument. This equipment is typical for the current investigation. The following paragraphs provide a summary of these methods; while detailed descriptions are presented in the Geosphere report which is included in Appendix A. The fluxgate magnetometer is used to measure the intensity of the earth's magnetic field. Disturbances or variations in this relatively uniform field may be caused by buried iron or steel objects or by the distribution of iron oxides in the subsurface. Several factors may influence the response of the magnetometer, however, including the mass of the target or combined mass of many targets, the target's shape, its orientation in the earth's field, its state of deterioration, and the permanent magnetism of the target. Consequently, quantitative Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett '.v Dump Site h'ebntan- 22. 1999 analysis of the data is difficult. The detailed results of the magnetometer survey showing individual anomaly shapes and the magnetic gradients are provided in Appendix A. The EM induction method determines the electrical properties of earth materials by inducing electrical currents in the ground and measuring the magnitude and relative phase of the secondary magnetic fields generated by these currents. These measurements are converted to components of in-phase and 90 degrees out-of-phase (or quadrature). The out-of-phase component is converted to a measure of apparent ground conductivity. The in-phase output of the EM-31 is a semi-quantitative signal representing the metallic nature of nearby targets. The EM-31 in-phase map is included in Appendix A; likewise, the EM-31 conductivity map is included in Appendix A. 2.2.2 Seismic Refraction Study A total of four seismic refraction lines were "shot" across the site to define the subsurface character beneath the site. One line (line LI) was surveyed from southwest to northeast at the southern end of the site, whereas three other lines (lines L2, L3, and L4) were surveyed at the northern end of the site. Lines L2 and L4 were basically north-south trending lines with line L3 crossing these lines to complete the study. The locations of the seismic lines are shown in Figure 3. The location of these three lines was based on the location of large electromagnetic anomalies. Seismic data was collected using a geophone spacing of 2.5 ft along each line. The geophone array was connected to a 48-channel Bison seismograph. The energy source was a 12-lb steel sledgehammer striking a steel plate on the ground surface. Adequate signal strength was gained by stacking the data gained from multiple hammer blows at each station. A detailed explanation of the seismic refraction methodology and the subsequent data reduction is provided in the Geosphere report included in Appendix A. The seismic refraction method differentiates the interface between lithologic units based primarily on changes in basic characteristics such as density or degree of compaction. Three lithologic units were identified on the basis of changes in seismic velocities. The uppermost unit is a loosely compacted soft clay that is designated the intermediate layer. The Geophysical Investigation Report Bennett's Dump Site Febnuirv 22. 1999 intermediate layer is overlaying a more dense clay layer, herein referred to as the underlaying clay. Boring investigations indicate this layer may contain minimal trash or debris. This unit is then underlain by limestone bedrock. A thin clay cap, which is known to have been installed over the site, is not identifiable based on the seismic data and is included in the intermediate laver. (jeopln'sical Investigation Report Benneii 's Dump Site Februarv 22. 1999 3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1 ELECTROMAGNETIC RESULTS AND MAGNETOMETER SURVEY 3.1.1 Main Bennett's Area A number of anomalies in the EM and magnetometer data suggest several areas of buried metal and/or trash at the site. Figure 4 of this report, and Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Geosphere report in Appendix A, present the findings of the electromagnetic survey.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preprint Arxiv:1806.10939, 2018
    Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2019-4 Manuscript under review for journal Solid Earth Discussion started: 15 January 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Bayesian geological and geophysical data fusion for the construction and uncertainty quantification of 3D geological models Hugo K. H. Olierook1, Richard Scalzo2, David Kohn3, Rohitash Chandra2,4, Ehsan Farahbakhsh2,4, Gregory Houseman3, Chris Clark1, Steven M. Reddy1, R. Dietmar Müller4 5 1School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia 2Centre for Translational Data Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 3Sydney Informatics Hub, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia 4EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Sydney, Australia Correspondence to: Hugo K. H. Olierook ([email protected]) 10 Abstract. Traditional approaches to develop 3D geological models employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative scientific techniques, which do not fully provide quantification of uncertainty in the constructed models and fail to optimally weight geological field observations against constraints from geophysical data. Here, we demonstrate a Bayesian methodology to fuse geological field observations with aeromagnetic and gravity data to build robust 3D models in a 13.5 × 13.5 km region of the Gascoyne Province, Western Australia. Our approach is validated by comparing model results to independently-constrained 15 geological maps and cross-sections produced by the Geological Survey of Western Australia. By fusing geological field data with magnetics and gravity surveys, we show that at 89% of the modelled region has >95% certainty. The boundaries between geological units are characterized by narrow regions with <95% certainty, which are typically 400–1000 m wide at the Earth’s surface and 500–2000 m wide at depth.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP14 Geophysical Survey
    SSFL Use Only SSFL SOP 14 Geophysical Survey Revision: 0 Date: April 2012 Prepared: C. Werden Technical Review: J. Plevniak Approved and QA Review: J. Oxford Issued: 4/6/2012 Signature/Date 1.0 Objective The purpose of this technical standard operating procedure (SOP) is to introduce the procedures for non-invasive geophysical investigations in areas suspected of being used for disposal of debris or where landfill operations may have been conducted. Specifics of the geophysical surveys will be discussed in the Geophysical Survey Field Sampling Plan Addendum. Geophysical methods that will be used to accurately locate and record buried geophysical anomalies are: . Total Field Magnetometry (TFM) . Frequency Domain Electromagnetic Method (FDEM) . Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) TFM and FDEM will be applied to all areas of interest while GPR will be applied only to areas of interest that require further and/or higher resolution of geophysical anomaly. The geophysical investigation (survey) will be conducted by geophysical subcontractor personnel trained, experienced, and qualified in shallow subsurface geophysics necessary to successfully perform any of the above geophysical methods. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the geophysical contractor. 2.0 Background 2.1 Discussion This SOP is based on geophysical methods employed by US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) subcontractor Hydrogeologic Inc. (HGL) while conducted geophysical surveys of portions of Area IV during 2010 and 2011. The Data Gap Investigation conducted as part of Phase 3 identified additional locations of suspected buried materials not surveyed by HGL. To be consistent with the recently collected subsurface information, HGL procedures are being adopted. The areas of interest and survey limits will be determined prior to field mobilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire
    In Cooperation with the NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES o Geophysical Investigations of Well Fields to Characterize Fractured-Bedrock Aquifers in Southern New Hampshire Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4183 U.S. Department of the Interior / U.S. Geological Survey The base map on the front cover shows geophysical survey locations overlaying a geologic map of U.S. Geological Survey, Windham, New Hampshire, 1:24,000-scale quadrangle. Geology is by G.S. Walsh and S.F. Clark, Jr. (1999) and lineaments are from Ferguson and others (1997) and R.B. Moore and Garrick Marcoux, 1998. The photographs and graphics overlying the base map are showing, counterclockwise from the left, a USGS scientist using a resistivity meter and surveying equipment (background) to survey the bedrock beneath the surface using a geophysical method called azimuthal square-array direct- current resistivity. In the lower left, this cross section is showing the results of a survey along line 3 in Windham, N.H., using another method called two-dimensional direct-current resistivity. In the lower right, the photograph is showing a bedrock outcrop located between red lines 3 and 4 (on base map) at Windham, in which the fractures and parting parallel to foliation have the same strike as the azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey results, and remotely sensed lineaments (purple and green lines on base map). The upper right graphic shows a polar plot of the results of an azimuthal square-array direct-current resistivity survey at Windham for array 1 (red circle on base map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration, 3E
    An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION AN INTRODUCTION TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration Philip Kearey Department of Earth Sciences University of Bristol Michael Brooks Ty Newydd, City Near Cowbridge Vale of Glamorgan Ian Hill Department of Geology University of Leicester THIRD EDITION © 2002 by The right of the Authors to be distributors Blackwell Science Ltd identified as the Authors of this Work Marston Book Services Ltd Editorial Offices: has been asserted in accordance PO Box 269 Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0EL with the Copyright, Designs and Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4YN 25 John Street, London WC1N 2BS Patents Act 1988. (Orders: Tel: 01235 465500 23 Ainslie Place, Edinburgh EH3 6AJ Fax: 01235 465555) 350 Main Street, Malden All rights reserved. No part of MA 02148-5018, USA this publication may be reproduced, The Americas 54 University Street, Carlton stored in a retrieval system, or Blackwell Publishing Victoria 3053,Australia transmitted, in any form or by any c/o AIDC 10, rue Casimir Delavigne means, electronic, mechanical, PO Box 20 75006 Paris, France photocopying, recording or otherwise, 50 Winter Sport Lane except as permitted by the UK Williston,VT 05495-0020 Other Editorial Offices: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (Orders: Tel: 800 216 2522 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag GmbH 1988, without the prior
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C130 October 2008 Geophysical Methods Commonly Employed for Geotechnical Site Characterization TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008–2009 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Shelly R. Brown, Principal, Shelly Brown Associates, Seattle, Washington, Legal Resources Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Arlene L. Dietz, A&C Dietz and Associates, LLC, Salem, Oregon, Marine Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Acting Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Rail Group Chair Karla H. Karash, Vice President, TranSystems Corporation, Medford, Massachusetts, Public Transportation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Katherine F. Turnbull, Associate Director, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Planning and Environment Group Chair Daniel S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Field Mapping
    Presented at Short Course IX on Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, GDC and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, Nov. 2-23, 2014. Kenya Electricity Generating Co., Ltd. GEOPHYSICAL FIELD MAPPING Anastasia W. Wanjohi, Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd. Olkaria Geothermal Project P.O. Box 785-20117, Naivasha KENYA [email protected] or [email protected] ABSTRACT Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. Geophysical field mapping is the process of selecting an area of interest and identifying all the geophysical aspects of the area with the purpose of preparing a detailed geophysical report. The objective of geophysical field work is to understand all physical parameters of a geothermal field and be able to relate them with geological phenomenons and come up with plausible inferences about the system. Four phases are involved and include planning/desktop studies, reconnaissance, actual data aquisition and report writing. Equipments must be prepared and calibrated well. Geophysical results should be processed, analysed and presented in the appropriate form. A detailed geophysical report should be compiled. This paper presents the reader with an overview of how to carry out geophysical mapping in a geothermal field. 1. INTRODUCTION Geophysics is the study of the earth by the quantitative observation of its physical properties. In geothermal geophysics, we measure the various parameters connected to geological structure and properties of geothermal systems. In lay man’s language, geophysics is all about x-raying the earth and involves sending signals into the earth and monitoring the outcome or monitoring natural signals from the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678)
    Geophysical Abstracts 136-139 January-December 1949 (Numbers 10737-11678) Abstracts of world literature t contained in periodicals, books, and patents OHIO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director \ « For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S._ Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 5 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS [The letters in parentheses are those used]to designate the chapters for separate publication] Page <A) Geophysical Abstracts 136, January-March 1949 (nos. 10737-11001). 1 <B) Geophysical Abstracts 137, April-June 1949 (nos. 11002-11201__ 95 <C) Geophysical Abstracts 138, July-September 1949 (nos. 11202-11441). 167 (D) Geophysical Abstracts 139, October-December, 1949 (nos. 11442- 11678....._________________________________________________ 253 Under Departmental orders, Geophysical Abstracts have been published at different times by the Bureau of Mines or the Geological Survey as noted below: 1-86, May 1929-June 1936, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeo­ graphed.] 87, July-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 887. 88-91, January-December 1937, Geological Survey, Bulletin 895. 92-95, January-December 1938, Geological Survey Bulletin 909. 96-99, January-December 1939, Geological Survey, Bulletin 915. 100-103, January-December 1940, Geological Survey, Bulletin 925. 104-107, January-December 1941, Geological Survey, Bulletin 932. 108-111, January-December 1942, Geological Survey, Bulletin 939. 112-127, January 1943-December 1946, Bureau of Mines, Information Circulars. [Mimeographed.] 128-131, January-December 1947, Geological Survey, Bulletin 957. 132-135, January-December 1948, Geological Survey, Bulletin 959. in Geophysical Abstracts 136 January-March 1949 (Numbers 10737-11001) By V.
    [Show full text]
  • SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Annual Meeting
    The 2018 SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Technical Section Proposed Technical Sessions (Please note, the identified session topics here are not inclusive of all possible near-surface geophysics technical sessions, but have been identified at this point.) Session topic/title Session description and objective Coupled above and below-ground Description: There have been significant advances in a variety of geophysical techniques in the past decades to characterize near- monitoring using geophysics, UAV, surface critical zone heterogeneity, including hydrological and biogeochemical properties, as well as near-surface spatiotemporal and remote sensing dynamics such as temperature, soil moisture and geochemical changes. At the same time, above-ground characterization is evolving significantly – particularly in airborne platforms and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) – to capture the spatiotemporal dynamics in microtopography, vegetation and others. The critical link between near-surface and surface properties has been recognized, since surface processes dictates the evolution of near-surface environments evolve (e.g., topography influences surface/subsurface flow, affecting bedrock weathering), while near-surface properties (such as soil texture) control vegetation and topography. Now that geophysics and airborne technologies can capture both surface and near-surface spatiotemporal dynamics at high resolution in a spatially extensive manner, there is a great opportunity to advance the understanding of this coupled surface and near-surface system. This session calls for a variety of contributions on this topic, including coupled above/below-ground sensing technologies, new geophysical techniques to characterize the interactions between near-surface and surface environments. Near-surface modeling using Description: The first few meters of the subsurface is of paramount importance to the engineering and environmental industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Geophysical Methods for Site Characterization of Nuclear Waste Disposal Sites
    REVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract NRC−02−07−006 Prepared by Ronald N. McGinnis,1 Stewart K. Sandberg,2 Ronald T. Green,1 and David A. Ferrill1 1Department of Earth, Material, and Planetary Sciences Geosciences and Engineering Division Southwest Research Institute® 2Consulting Geophysicist Houston, Texas October 2011 CONTENTS Section Page FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. vi 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 2 CURRENT UNDERSTANDING AND RELEVANCE OF GEOPHYSICAL TECHNIQUES TO CHARACTERIZE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ............................................ 2-1 2.1 Relationships Between Physical Properties and Nuclear Waste Disposal Site Characterization ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.1 Tectonic Processes .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seismotectonic Map of Afghanistan, with Annotated Bibliography
    Prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development Seismotectonic Map of Afghanistan, with Annotated Bibliography By Russell L. Wheeler, Charles G. Bufe, Margo L. Johnson, and Richard L. Dart Open-File Report 2005–1264 This report is USGS Afghanistan Project Product No. 011 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2005 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government This report has not been reviewed for stratigraphic nomenclature Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. iii Contents 1. Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................1 2. Introduction................................................................................................................................................1 2.1. Seismotectonic
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Abstracts 105
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Bulletin 932-B GEOPHYSICAL ABSTRACTS 105 APRIL-JUNE 1941 COMPILED BY W. AYVAZOGLOU UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1942 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. - - Price 10 cents CONTENTS Page 1. Gravitational methods._________________________________________ 41 2. Magnetic methods. _____________________________________:______ 45 3. Seismic methods.______________________________________________ 50 4. Electrical methods._________________--_-______--_.___----____-- 55 5. Radioactive methods____--_--_--_----_---__--------------____-_ 57 6. Geothermal methods._________________._____._______ ___________ 60 7. Geochemical methods...________________.____.._J__.-_____-______ 61 8. Unclassified methods and topics related to geophysics.._____________ 63 9. New publications____-______---.__-_________..__-__-_---_.______ 67 10. Patents.'..._...___...____..__ . -.......'._......_.._.__..-l_..-_ 70 Index.___________________--_-_____--._-_._____-_-__-_____:_ 83 NOTE. Geophysical Abstracts 1-86 were issued in mimeographed form by the Bureau of Mines; Abstracts 87-104 were published in bulletins of the Geological Survey, ii GEOPHYSICAL ABSTRACTS 105, APRIL-JUNEJ1941 Compiled by W. AYVAZOGLOU 1. GRAVITATIONAL METHODS 5993. Aerial, geological, and geophysical survey of northern Australia, Parlia­ ment of Commonwealth of Australia, 61 pp., 9 pis., L. F. Johnston, Commonwealth' Government Printer, Canberra, 1940. This is a report of the committee appointed to direct and control the aerial, geological, and geophysical survey of northern Australia for the period ended December 31, 1939 (for the previous report see Geophys. Abstracts 102, No. 5678). It describes the geophysical surveys in the Blair Athol coal field, Queensland, and in the Granite gold field, Northern Territory, where electrical, gravitational, and magnetic methods of prospecting were applied.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 14.4 Geophysical Survey
    Appendix 14.4 Geophysical Survey Irish Water Arklow Wastewater Treatment Plant Project EIA Report Issue | Septemeber 2018 | Arup \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\DUBLIN\JOBS\247000\247825-00\4. INTERNAL\4-03 DESIGN\4-03-02 CONSULTING\EIA REPORT\VOLUME 4 - APPENDICES\CHAPTER 14\APPENDIX 14.4 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY.DOCX Site at Ferrybank, Arklow County Wicklow Geophysical Survey Report Status: Draft MGX Project Number:6049 MGX File Ref: 6049d-005.doc 14 th March 2016 Confidential Report To: Arup Arklow SS H5 Centrepoint Business Park Oak Road Dublin 12 Report submitted by : Issued by: Minerex Geophysics Limited Unit F4, Maynooth Business Campus Maynooth, Co. Kildare Ruth Jackson (Senior Geophysicist) Ireland Tel.: 01-6510030 Fax.: 01-6510033 Email: [email protected] Hartmut Krahn (Senior Geophysicist) Subsurface Geophysical Investigations Site at Ferrybank, Arklow Geophysical Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Minerex Geophysics Ltd. (MGX) carried out a geophysical survey consisting of 2D-Resistivity, seismic refraction (p-wave) and MASW (s-wave) surveying for the preliminary ground investigation at a site at Ferrybank, Arklow, Co. Wicklow. 2. The site is a former wallboard factory and the site is currently for sale. The client is considering to purchase the site and to use parts of the construction of a waste water treatment plant. 3. The main objectives of the survey were to determine ground conditions, estimate the depth to rock and overburden thickness and to determine the strength of subsurface materials. 4. The survey was carried out along the two long sides of the existing long factory building. 5. The resistivity survey showed that the ground under the site has saline conditions and that the ground is therefore corrosive.
    [Show full text]