Pyramid Environmental & Engineering

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

(866) 545-9507

  • Home
  • About
    • Our Staff:
    • Certifications and Affiliations
    • Company History
    • Testimonials
  • Services
    • Industrial and Environmental Compliance
    • Due Diligence Environmental Services
    • Soil and Groundwater Services
    • Geophysical Services
    • Private Utility Locating
    • Brownfield Redevelopment and Land Revitalization
  • Who We Serve
  • Pyramid Geophysics
  • Newsletters
  • Careers
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Newsletter Archive / September 2017 Newsletter: Geophysical Conductivity Mapping – The Importance of Multiple Geophysical Methods and Sampling

September 2017 Newsletter:
Geophysical Conductivity Mapping – The Importance of Multiple Geophysical Methods and Sampling

 

Geonics EM31 Ground Conductivity Meter
Geonics EM31 Ground Conductivity Meter

The use of electromagnetic (EM) geophysical methods to evaluate ground conductivity variations is an effective tool to resolve environmental issues. However, the EM profiling instruments commonly used for such applications provide depth-averaged conductivity values at point locations. Additionally, a variety of factors can contribute to conductivity variance, including soil type, moisture content, and the thickness of stratigraphic units. For many projects, it may be necessary to resolve the depth or thickness of such soil units, and to verify the dominant factor that is causing the observed conductivity changes.  This month we provide you with two recent case studies where geophysical conductivity mapping was combined with either secondary geophysical methods and/or physical sampling to better understand site conditions.

EM31 Conductivity Contour Map
EM31 Conductivity Contour Map

Our first case study involves a site that was known to contain isolated zones of shallow clayey soils and organic deposits. An EM survey was conducted to identify the locations of these deposits based on conductivity variance. Multiple areas of conductive soils were identified that were interpreted to correspond to shallow clay or organic soil deposits.  However, the depths of these deposits were still unknown.

electrical ressitivity
Resistivity profile showing low conductivity (clay/organic) zone.

Subsequent to the EM survey, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was performed across specific locations to further constrain the zones of high conductivity identified by the EM, and to examine the depths of the high conductivity soils. Resistivity profiles were performed across the site at locations of conductive soils as well as in zones of lower conductivity to provide background information.

The combined EM and ERT data sets allowed us to generate a comprehensive map of clay/organic soils across the property, and provide the vertical extent of these soils in the subsurface.  Subsequent to the geophysics, physical samples were collected using a hand auger and the soils were analyzed for grain size and organic content.  The samples verified higher concentrations of clay and/or organics within the zones identified by the geophysical survey.  The combination of multiple geophysical methods and sampling provided a detailed analysis of the site!
EM31 conductivity mapping
Clay/organic zones identified by the geophysical survey (in blue)
physical sample of geophysical area
Clay sample obtained from low conductivity zone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EM31 conductivity coal ash
EM31 conductivity map of buried fly ash

The second project site was thought to contain a significant volume of buried fly ash that had been deposited from a coal combustion plant. The suspected ash deposit was located in an undeveloped parcel of land with fill material covering the suspected dumping area. The EM survey was performed to delineate the extents of the buried ash deposit. A clear zone of high conductivity was observed in the EM results; however, the specific boundary between ash and native soil was unclear due to a lack of physical sampling.

 

 

geophysical mapping coal ash
Physical sampling of ash correlated well to geophysical interpretations

Shallow soil borings were performed to ground-truth the EM data, allowing for a well-constrained ash/soil boundary to be established using the conductivity measurements.  The photo on the left is from a sample taken in the zone of highest conductivity, where the ash deposit was thought to be thickest.  This sample recorded up to 19 feet of ash material, in contrast to thinner ash deposits observed moving outward toward the zones of lower conductivity.  The sampling allowed for an accurate boundary to be established using the geophysics, and also drastically reducing the number of samples that may have otherwise been required.

The case studies help to show the importance of ground-truthing geophysical data, and the added benefit of utilizing more than one geophysical method when possible!  If you have any questions regarding these geophysical methods or any other applications, Contact Us today!

Filed Under: Newsletter Archive Tagged With: Coal Ash, conductivity mapping, EM31

#gsa #contract

Newsletter

Subscribe

Recent Articles

  • October 2020 Newsletter:
    Supplemental Tools for Geophysics – How We Present the Results
  • July 2020 Newsletter:
    Density Anomalies and Geophysics – Concepts and Methods
  • January 2020 Newsletter:
    More interesting information about bedrock fractures and how to analyze them
  • October 2019 Newsletter:
    Seismic Geophysical Surveys to Examine Bedrock Depth and Integrity
  • June 2019 Newsletter:
    How the Roads that lead to Rome were made

Certifications and Affiliations

AFFILIATED COMPANIES

LPT Systems

Provider of lubrication, pump and tank systems and equipment, sales and service

Pyramid Geophysical Services

A subsidiary of Pyramid Environmental, Pyramid Geophysical specializes in subterranean/subsurface metrics and monitoring through a variety of technologies

© Pyramid Environmental & Engineering P.C. | site by jbQ Media Web & SEO