U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AN EVALUATION OF SEVERAL GEOPHYSICAL METHODS FOR 

CHARACTERIZING SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSITS

by 

Karl J. Ellefsen1 , Jeffrey E. Lucius 1 , and David V. Fitterman1

Open-File Report 98-221

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity to U. S. Geological 

Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive 

purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U. S. Government.

1 U. S. Geological Survey, MS 964, Box 25046, Denver, CO 80225-0046

1998
ABSTRACT

A geophysical investigation can provide valuable geologic information needed to 

characterize sand and gravel deposits and can be an attractive complement to more 

common characterization methods like drilling. Although such investigations have already 

been conducted, a comparison of the different geophysical methods used in these 

investigations apparently has never been done. For this reason, a study was initiated by the 

Mineral Resources Program of the U. S. Geological Survey. The goal was to determine 

the advantages and the limitations of different geophysical methods when used to 

characterize alluvial sand and gravel deposits. The study is focused on those geophysical 

methods that are commonly available because these are most likely to be used by industry. 

Furthermore, the study is focused on surface geophysical methods.

Heretofore, four different methods have been evaluated. Three of the four methods 

time-domain electromagnetic (TEM) soundings, DC resistivity soundings, and frequencydomain electromagnetic (FEM) profiling are similar in that they all measure the 

electrical conductivity of the ground with depth. Ground penetrating radar, however, maps 

changes in the dielectric permittivity and/or the electrical conductivity with depth. For all 

four methods, the objective is to relate the measured physical quantity to the stratigraphy 

of the alluvial sediments.

The comparisons were conducted at two sites in the South Platte River valley, northeast 

of Denver, Colorado. One site was a transect across the entire South Platte River valley, 

and the geology here had been determined from 12 test holes. The alluvial sediments 

consist of gravel, sand, and some clay, and the sediments are covered with soil that is 1 to 

2 m thick. In the center of the transect, the sediments and the soil are 9 to 16m thick; on 

the western and the eastern sides, they are 15 to 25 m thick. The underlying bedrock is 

mostly shale. Across the entire transect, the water table is believed to be 2 or 3 m below 

the ground surface. In the center of the transect, the combined thickness of the sediments 

and the soil was accurately determined with TEM soundings and DC resistivity soundings. 

On the western and the eastern sides of the transect, the thickness was not determined 

with either method because sedimentary layers that are not present in the test holes or the 

water table were detected. Ground penetrating radar could not detect any sediments 

beneath the soil because the soil is clay-rich.

The other site was adjacent to an active sand and gravel pit, where the sediments and the 

bedrock are well exposed. These alluvial sediments are roughly 7 m thick and consist of 

gravel, sand, and some clay. The bedrock beneath these sediments is mudstone. The water 

table is within the alluvial sediments there are roughly 6 m of unsaturated sediments 

and 1 m of saturated sediments. The thickness of the unsaturated sediments was accurately 

determined with TEM soundings and DC resistivity soundings; it was determined less 

accurately with FEM profiling. The thickness of the saturated sediments could not be 

determined with any of the tested methods because its electrical conductivity is practically 

identical to that of saturated bedrock. Sedimentary structures, such as foreset beds, were
detected with ground penetrating radar; the bedrock surface was possibly detected when a 

low frequency, high-power radar antenna was used.

111
CONTENTS

Abstract....................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures............................................................................................................. v

List of Tables............................................................................................................... vi

1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1

2. Geophysical Methods............................................................................................... 1

2.1 Time-Domain Electromagnetic Soundings..................................................2

2.2 Frequency-Domain Electromagnetic Profiling............................................. 2

2.3 DC Resistivity Soundings........................................................................... 3

2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar.......................................................................... 4

3. Transect of the South Platte River Valley................................................................. 4

3.1 Geology..................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Geophysical Results ................................................................................... 5

4. Howe Pit................................................................................................................. 6

4.1 Geology.....................................................................................................6

4.2 Geophysical Results................................................................................... 7

5. Discussion...............................................................................................................9

6. Conclusions............................................................................................................. 10

7. Acknowledgments................................................................................................... 10

8. References............................................................................................................... 11

IV
LIST OF FIGURES

1. Map of the South Platte River valley where the geophysical studies were

conducted (after Lindsey and Shary, 1997). The inset shows the location of the

map within Colorado................................................................................................... 16

2. Cross section the South Platte River valley (Lindsey, D. A., 1998, unpub. data) 

and the electrical models from the TEM soundings. The cross section is along line 

AA 'of Figure 1............................................................................................................ 17

3. Cross section the South Platte River valley (Lindsey, D. A., 1998, unpub. data)

and the electrical models from the DC resistivity soundings. The cross section is

along line AA' of Figure 1............................................................................................ 18

4. GPR data for center frequencies of (a) 300 MHz, (b) 80 MHz, and (c) 40 MHz.

The data were collected at 3200 m (horizontal distance) along the transect of the

South Platte River valley (Figure 2)............................................................................. 19

5. Map of the southwest corner of the Ho we Pit showing where the geophysical 

measurements were made............................................................................................ 20

6. Electrical resistivities of various materials at the Howe Pit. The distribution for

each material is shown as a box and whisker................................................................ 21

7. Cross section the Howe Pit (along line BB' of Figure 5) and the electrical

models from the TEM soundings. The depth to the Denver Formation was

measured at the base of the cliff and then projected into this cross section.................... 22

8. Cross section the Howe Pit (along line BB' of Figure 5) and the electrical 

models from the DC resistivity soundings. The depth to the Denver Formation was 

measured at the base of the cliff and then projected into this cross section.................... 23

9. Cross section the Howe Pit (along line BB' of Figure 5) and the electrical

models from the FEM profiling. The depth to the Denver Formation was measured

at the base of the cliff and then projected into this cross section...................................24

10. Apparent resistivity measured with the EM31. The location of each

measurement is shown in Figure 5................................................................................ 25

11. GPR data for center frequencies of (a) 500 MHz and (b) 300 MHz. The 

location of the GPR survey line is shown in Figure 5; the data are plotted from 

northeast to southwest, the perspective that an observer inside the pit would have, 

(c) Picture of foreset beds, which are in the upper gravel unit and are exposed by
the cliff. The picture corresponds to the regions in (a) and (b) outlined by red 

rectangles....................................................................................................................26

LIST OF TABLES

1. Typical resistivities for various geologic materials (Parasnis, 1979, p. 129;

Palacky, 1988, p. 100; Telford et al., 1976, p. 455)...................................................... 15

VI
1. INTRODUCTION

Geologic information about sand and gravel deposits is used by state governments, local 

governments, and aggregate companies to plan for the mining of these deposits (Langer 

and Glanzman, 1993). Usually this geologic information is obtained from exposed 

sediments in existing pits and from drilling. An attractive complement to these frequentlyused methods is a geophysical investigation, and indeed such investigations have been 

used during the past fifty years to characterize sand and gravel deposits (Wilcox, 1944; 

Jacobson, 1955; Shelton, 1972; Middleton, 1977; Singhroy and Barnett, 1984; Odum and 

Miller, 1988; Auton, 1992; Saarenketo and Maijala, 1994; Timmons, 1995; Jol et al., 

1998).

For these geophysical investigations, several different methods have been used: DC 

resistivity, seismic refraction, airborne electromagnetics, and ground penetrating radar. 

Apparently, however, a comparison of these different methods has never been done. For 

this reason, a study was initiated by the Mineral Resources Program of the U. S. 

Geological Survey. The goal was to determine the advantages and the limitations of 

several geophysical methods when used to characterize sand and gravel deposits. The 

study focused on commonly available, surface methods because they are most likely to be 

used by industry. The results of this study should help geologists, geophysicists, and 

mining engineers select an appropriate method for their investigations.

The study was conducted in the South Platte River valley, northeast of Denver, Colorado 

(Figure 1). One study site was along a transect of the valley (lineal *); the other was 

adjacent to the Howe Pit where sand and gravel are currently being mined. At both sites, 

there was detailed information about the sediment thickness and stratigraphy, which were 

used to evaluate the geophysical results.

2. GEOPHYSICAL METHODS

Although there are a large number of different geophysical methods for characterizing the 

ground (see, e.g., Telford et al., 1976; Ward, 1990), not all are suitable for characterizing 

sand and gravel deposits. A suitably chosen method must meet at least three criteria: It 

must provide useful information, be inexpensive, and quickly provide results. Several 

different methods meet these criteria, and four were evaluated.

All four methods are affected by a physical property of the ground that is called "electrical 

resistivity." To understand this, consider a cylindrical sample of rock, having length / and 

cross-sectional area A. Its resistivity/? = RA/l where R is the familiar electrical resistance; 

because of the normalization by A/I, resistivity does not depend upon the size of the 

sample. The unit of measurement is typically an ohm-meter (Q-m). For some geophysical 

methods, the measurements are reported as "electrical conductivity," which is the
reciprocal of the resistivity. The unit of measurement is a siemens/meter (S/m), and 

frequently it is more convenient to use millisiemens/meter (mS/m).

Typical resistivities of common sediments and sedimentary rocks are listed in Table 1. The 

table shows that for any particular material the resistivity may have a large range; 

furthermore, the resistivities of clays are generally lower than the resistivities of either 

sands or gravels. Although it is not directly shown in this table, resistivity is strongly 

affected by water saturation because electrical current can readily travel through waterfilled pores. For this reason, resistivity generally decreases as the saturation increases. 

Indeed, many of the lower resistivities in this table may be from partially or completely 

saturated sediments.

2.1 Time-Domain Electromagnetic Soundings

For time-domain electromagnetic (TEM) soundings, the transient induction properties of 

electromagnetic fields are used to determine the electrical resistivity-depth function at a 

site (Kaufman and Keller, 1983; Fitterman and Stewart, 1986). The measurement is made 

by passing a steady current through a square transmitter loop, for which each side is 

typically 40 m long. The current is abruptly turned off, inducing a circulating current flow 

in the ground under the loop. As time passes, this current system diffuses downward and 

outward, much like a descending smoke ring (Nabighian, 1979). The rate of diffusion is 

controlled by the resistivity of the ground, with the current passing more quickly through 

more resistive zones than through less resistive zones. Attenuation of the current is greater 

in the more resistive zones than in the less resistive zones. A multi-turn receiver coil, 

usually located at the center of the transmitter loop, responds to the magnetic field 

produced by the decaying current system in the ground. The voltage induced in the 

receiver coil, called a transient, is recorded. The transmitter waveform is actually a 50- 

percent duty cycle square wave, resulting in positive and negative transients. Several ten's 

or hundred's of transients are recorded and averaged to make a single reading. Several 

readings are measured and further averaged to improve signal quality. The averaged signal 

is converted to apparent resistivity; this normalization to apparent resistivity makes the 

comparison of soundings from different locations easy (Fitterman and Stewart, 1986; 

Spies and Eggers, 1986).

The apparent resistivity-time curves are used to estimate how the electrical resistivity 

changes with depth. The mathematical model for the estimation consists of a stack of 

layers, each of which is homogeneous and isotropic. The electric resistivity and the 

thickness of each layer are determined with the nonlinear least squares method (Anderson, 

1982a, 1982b;Interpex, 1996).

2.2 Frequency-Domain Electromagnetic Profiling

For frequency-domain electromagnetic (FEM) profiling, the induction properties of 

electromagnetic fields are used to determine the electrical resistivity-depth function at a 

site (McNeill, 1980). This method employs a transmitter loop, which is energized with a
sinusoidally varying current. The transmitter current produces a time varying magnetic 

field, which induces current flow in the ground. The induced current is phase-shifted 90° 

from the transmitter current and is inversely proportional to the ground resistivity. A 

receiver coil senses the magnetic field produced by the transmitter current and the induced 

current in the ground. Because of the phase shift between these two signals, they can be 

separated electronically. The primary magnetic field is defined as the field that would be 

produced by the transmitter current if the conductive ground were absent, and the 

secondary magnetic field is defined as the field produced only by current flow in the 

conductive ground. The quadrature (out of phase) component of the ratio of the 

secondary to primary magnetic field is proportional to the apparent conductivity of the 

ground. The apparent conductivity is measured at several different transmitter-receiver 

loop separations and coil orientations because each probes the ground differently and to 

different depths. The measurements at the short separations were made with an instrument 

called an "EM31" (Geonics Limited, 1984); the measurements at the intermediate and 

long separations with an "EM34" (Geonics Limited, 1987).

The measurements of apparent conductivity are used to estimate how the electrical 

resistivity changes with depth. The mathematical model for the estimation consists of a 

stack of layers, each of which is homogeneous and isotropic. The electrical resistivity and 

the thickness of each layer are estimated by the nonlinear least squares method (Anderson, 

1992).

FEM measurements were also made at very short loop separations, 1 m, using an "EM38" 

(Geonics Limited, 1992). Because the loop separation is so small, the measurement is 

affected primarily by the sediments that are very close to the instrument. For this reason, 

the apparent conductivity is treated as the true conductivity of the sediments near the 

instrument.

2.3 DC Resistivity Soundings

For DC resistivity soundings, magnetostatic fields are used to determine the electrical 

resistivity-depth function at a site (Telford et al., 1976, p. 632-701; Zohdy, 1974, p. 8-55; 

Koefoed, 1979). A direct current (DC) is introduced into the ground using two metal 

electrodes, and the potential difference is measured between two other metal electrodes. 

The configuration of the electrodes is the Schlumberger spread, for which all four 

electrodes are in a straight line and are symmetric about its midpoint. Sometimes, instead 

of a direct current, a low-frequency alternating current with a square waveform is used. 

The measurements are made after the transients have decayed, and the voltages for both 

directions are averaged to reduce the noise. The separation between the current electrodes 

is increased to probe the ground to a greater depth, and for each separation the voltage is 

measured. Each voltage is converted to an apparent resistivity; this normalization to 

apparent resistivity makes the comparison of soundings from different locations easy.

The measurements of apparent resistivity are used to estimate how the electrical resistivity 

changes with depth. The mathematical model for the estimation consists of a stack of
layers, each of which is homogeneous and isotropic. The electrical resistivity and the 

thickness of each layer are estimated by the nonlinear least squares method (Interprex, 

1988).

2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar

For ground penetrating radar (GPR), radar waves are used to map changes in 

electromagnetic properties of the ground (Daniels, 1989; Davis and Annan, 1989; Annan 

and Cosway, 1992). A radar wave is radiated from a transmitting antenna into the ground. 

When the wave encounters a change in an electromagnetic property, some of wave is 

reflected back towards the ground surface where it is detected by a receiving antenna. The 

voltage at the receiving antenna is recorded; the recording usually starts when the wave is 

radiated from the transmitting antenna, and it ends after the reflected waves of interest 

have arrived at the receiving antenna. This recording is called a radar scan.

A typical GPR survey is performed by slowly pulling both the transmitting and the 

receiving antennas across the ground surface, usually along a straight line. Along each line, 

many radar scans are recorded to densely probe the ground. Sometimes a survey is 

performed with several antennas, each having a different frequency range: Antennas with a 

high frequency range detect both large and small features at shallow depths only. In 

contrast, antennas with a low frequency range detect only large features at shallow and 

moderate depths. The frequency range is usually specified by the "center frequency," 

which is defined as the frequency component having the highest amplitude when the 

antenna is suspended in air.

For typical processing, the radar scans are filtered to remove random noise, and they are 

moved to their correct location along the survey line. The radar scans are displayed 

together as an image, which looks somewhat like a cross section of the ground.

3. TRANSECT OF THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER VALLEY 

3.1 Geology

The South Platte River valley is filled with alluvial sediments that were eroded from the 

Rocky Mountains (Colton, 1978; Scott, 1965; Trimble and Machette, 1979; Wayne et al., 

1991). Within the portion of the valley that is pertinent to this investigation (Figure 1), 

there are two landforms: the high terrace and the low terrace. Beneath the high terrace are 

sediments of late Pleistocene age; beneath the low terrace are sediments of Holocene age. 

The low terrace includes the modern floodplain.

Both landforms are crossed by transect AA' (Figure 1), which parallels Road 28. 

Alongside this road, the sediments were drilled and logged by the Water Resources 

Division of the U. S. Geological Survey (Schneider, 1962). From these logs, cross 

sections were made (Figures 2 and 3). Beneath the eastern high terrace, the sediments are 

about 15m thick and consist of sand and gravel. Beneath the western high terrace, the
sediments range from 19 to 25 m thick and consist of clay, sand, and gravel. Beneath the 

low terrace, the sediments range from 9 to 16m thick and consist of sand and gravel. Both 

terraces are covered with soil that is roughly 1 or 2 m thick. The bedrock is the Laramie 

Formation; in most test holes this bedrock was logged as shale, although in a few it was 

logged as coal or sandstone.

Schneider (1962, p. 14-16) reports depths to the water table that were measured in wells 

near the transect. These measurements were made during the 1940's and 1950's, and 

whether they are similar to the present depths is not known. At that time, the water table 

was roughly 2 m beneath the eastern high terrace, 2 to 3 m beneath the low terrace, and 

10m beneath the western high terrace.

3.2 Geophysical Results

The purpose of making the geophysical measurements was to determine the thickness of 

the alluvial sediments and their stratigraphy. To this end, three different geophysical 

methods were tested: TEM soundings, DC resistivity soundings, and GPR. All 

measurements were made in fields alongside Road 28. Adjacent to and within these fields 

were electrical power lines and pipelines from oil and gas wells. Since both could affect 

the geophysical measurements, the locations for the measurements had to be carefully 

chosen. As a consequence, the measurements are sparse.

Six TEM soundings were made along transect AA' (Figure 2). From these soundings, 

electrical models of the ground were developed using the procedures described in 

Section 2.1. The four models that are all within the low terrace are somewhat similar. The 

first layer has resistivities between 31 and 45 Q-m; the second layer between 13 and 20 Qm. The boundary between the first and the second layers is approximately at the boundary 

between the sediments and the bedrock. The first layer is interpreted as equivalent to three 

geologic layers: the soil, the unsaturated alluvial sediments, and the saturated alluvial 

sediments; the second layer is interpreted as the bedrock. The electrical models at 1400 

and 5000 m do not correspond to the proposed geology (Lindsey, D. A., 1998, unpub. 

data), and with both models the thickness of the alluvial sediments was not determined. 

The layers in these electrical models may correspond to sedimentary layers that are absent 

at the test holes, which in both cases are roughly 500 m from the sounding. Alternatively, 

the layers in these electrical models may correspond to the water table.

Seven DC resistivity soundings were made along transect AA' (Figure 3). From these 

soundings, electrical models of the ground were developed using the procedures described 

in Section 2.3. In all electrical models, the resistivities of the first layer are low; it is 

interpreted as the clay-rich soil. In the model at 1900 m, the second layer is interpreted as 

alluvial sediments, probably sand and gravel; the third layer is interpreted as clay. In the 

models at 3300 and 3600 m, the second layer is interpreted as alluvial sediments; the third 

layer is interpreted as bedrock. The models at 4100 and 4200 m are unreliable here a 

farmer had scrapped the soil and upper sediments to build a levee along the South Platte 

River. Likewise, the model at 4800 m is unreliable probably because pipes and electrical
power lines were close to the electrode spread. The model at 5000 m does not correspond 

to the proposed geology_(Lindsey, D. A., 1998, unpub. data), and the thickness of the 

alluvial sediments was not determined. The layers in this model may correspond to 

sedimentary layers that are absent at the test hole, which is roughly 500 m from the 

sounding.

At about 3200 m in transect AA' (Figure 2), three sets of GPR data were collected 

(Figure 4); the data were processed using the methods described in Section 2.4. All three 

sets lack any feature that may be related to a structure in the soil or the sediments. Rather, 

all three are somewhat similar: They are dominated by equally-spaced, horizontal, black 

and white lines. (The spacing depends upon the antenna the spacing increases as the 

center frequency of the antenna decreases. These lines change abruptly in the horizontal 

direction because the electromagnetic coupling between the antenna and the ground 

changes.) This phenomenon, which is called "antenna ringing," is caused by a material 

with a low electrical resistivity that is close to the antenna; this material is the clay-rich 

soil. Because of this antenna ringing, these radar data contain no useful information about 

the geology.

4. HOWE PIT

4.1 Geology

The sediments at the Howe Pit underlay the low terrace of the South Platte River valley 

(Figure 1). There are four distinct sedimentary layers (Lindsey et al., 1998):

1. Soil and overbank deposits. This layer is about \V* m thick and consists of three sublayers, which are soil, fine gravel, and clay.

2. Upper gravel unit. This layer consists of gravel, sand, isolated lenses of clayey

overbank sediments, and isolated lenses of silty-clay. At some locations, the gravel and 

the sand form cross beds, which probably were deposited in a point bar. The lenses of 

overbank sediments contain organic matter including cottonwood logs. The lenses of 

silty-clay occur only at the bottom of this unit and are up to 1 m thick.

3. Middle gravel unit. This layer consists of gravel, sand, and isolated lenses of silty-clay.

4. Basal gravel unit. This layer consists of gravel and smaller amounts of sand and clay.

The gravel is pebble to cobble size. 

Although the thickness of each gravel layer varies, their combined thickness is roughly

7 m. Beneath the sediments at the Howe Pit are the mudstones of the Denver Formation.

Near the Howe Pit are a pond and an abandoned pit; both are filled with water, indicating 

that the water table is close to the ground surface. The bottom of the Howe Pit is roughly

8 m below the ground surface, and to prevent the pit from filling with water, its north and 

east walls were sealed with clay. The south and west walls, however, were not sealed 

because they were being excavated. Along these two walls, ground water seeped from the 

bottom of the basal gravel into the pit. This water collected in a shallow trench within the 

bedrock, and then it was pumped out of the pit. Because of this procedure, most of the
sediments near the south and west walls were unsaturated. Only the sediments at the 

bottom of the basal gravel unit were saturated.

4.2 Geophysical Results

The purpose of making the geophysical measurements was to determine the thickness of 

the gravel units and their heterogeneity. To this end, four different geophysical methods 

were tested: TEM soundings, DC resistivity soundings, FEM profiling, and GPR. All 

measurements were made in the southwest corner of the Ho we Pit (Figure 5), where the 

soil and the overbank deposits had been removed to prepare for mining the three gravel 

units (see Section 4.1).

In addition to the surface geophysical measurements, the electrical resistivities of the 

sediments, the bedrock, and the ground water were measured directly. The sediments on 

the cliff face and the bedrock on the pit floor (Figure 5) were measured in situ using the 

EMS8. Samples of ground water were taken from seepage at the bottom of the basal 

gravel and from a trench along the base of the cliff, and their resistivities were measured 

with the Orion conductivity meter (model 126 with conductivity cell no. 012210) (Orion 

Research Inc., 1990). All resistivities are summarized in a box and whiskers plot 

(Figure 6); there are three important findings:

 The resistivity for the group "saturated sand & gravel and saturated bedrock" is much 

lower than the resistivities for the two groups of unsaturated sediments.

 The resistivity for "saturated sand & gravel and saturated bedrock" is similar to that 

for "ground water." The resistivity of the saturated sediments and the saturated 

bedrock is probably strongly affected by the ground water.

 The resistivity for "unsaturated sand & gravel" is somewhat similar to that for

"unsaturated clay, silt, & channel deposits." 

These baseline resistivities were used to interpret the surface geophysical measurements.

Four TEM soundings were made, and then electrical models of the ground were 

developed using the procedures described in Section 2.1. All electrical models, which are 

displayed in a cross section (Figure 7), have three layers. The top layer has high 

resistivities, which are similar to measured resistivities of the unsaturated sediments 

(Figure 6). Likewise, the middle layer has low resistivities, which are similar to measured 

resistivities of the saturated sediments and saturated bedrock (Figure 6). The thickness of 

the top layer is slightly less than the combined thickness of the three gravel units. 

Therefore, the top layer is interpreted as the unsaturated sediments in the three gravel 

units. The middle layer is interpreted as both the saturated sediments (in the basal gravel) 

and the saturated bedrock. The interface between the top and middle layers corresponds to 

the water table, which gets shallower, going from right to left (northeast to southwest). 

The bottom layer has very low resistivities and is interpreted as a sedimentary layer within 

the Denver Formation that is not exposed near the Howe Pit.

Seven DC resistivity soundings were made, and then electrical models of the ground were 

developed using the procedures described in Section 2.3. The electrical models, which are
displayed in a cross section (Figure 8), have either two or three layers. In the models with 

two layers, the top layer has high resistivities; in the models with three layers, the top and 

the middle layers have high resistivities. In both cases, these layers are interpreted as the 

unsaturated sediments in the three gravel units. The resistivities of these layers are much 

higher than the baseline resistivities of the unsaturated sediments (Figure 6), a point that 

will be addressed in Section 5. In all models, the bottom layer, which has low resistivities, 

is interpreted as both the saturated sediments (in the basal gravel unit) and the saturated 

bedrock. The layer at about 23 m depth that was detected with the TEM soundings 

(Figure 7) was not detected with the DC resistivity soundings because of the limited length 

of the Schlumberger spread.

Along BB' (Figure 5), FEM profiling was done with the EM31 and the EM34, and the 

data were processed using the procedures described in Section 2.2. The electrical models, 

which are displayed in a cross section (Figure 9), have three layers. The top and middle 

layers have high and moderate resistivites, respectively; both layers are interpreted as the 

unsaturated sediments from the three gravel units. Again, the resistivities of these two 

layers are much higher than the baseline resistivities of the unsaturated sediments 

(Figure 6), a point that will be addressed in Section 5. The bottom layer has low 

resistivities, which are similar to the measured resistivities of both the saturated sediments 

(in the basal gravel unit) and the saturated bedrock (Figure 6). Therefore, the bottom layer 

is interpreted as the saturated sediments and bedrock. In these models, the interface 

between the middle and bottom layers is 2 or 3 m deeper than the corresponding interfaces 

for the TEM models and the DC resistivity models (Figure 7 and 8). The cause of this 

discrepancy is currently unknown.

Within a rectangular area that was 200 m long and 80 m wide (Figure 5), FEM profiling 

was done with the EM31 only. Processing was unnecessary the data were simply 

contoured (Figure 10). The purpose of these measurements was to determine if this 

procedure could be used to detect signficant heterogeneity such as a clay layer. The areas 

with low resistivities are near the unmined gravel units covered with the soil and overbank 

deposits. Thus, the most likely cause for the low resistivities is the clays from the soil and 

overbank deposits. In the other areas, the resistivities vary only slightly most are 

between 91 and 67 Q-m. Because the distribution of the resistivities of unsaturated sands 

and gravels is similar to that of unsaturated clays, silts, and channel deposits (Figure 6), a 

geological inference about the resistivities in Figure 10 cannot be made. In other words, 

this procedure cannot be used to detect heterogeneity at this site.

Along the edge of the cliff (Figure 5), GPR data were collected with antennas whose 

center frequencies were 300 and 500 MHz, and the data were processed using the 

methods described in Section 2.4. Unlike the data collected along the transect of the South 

Platte River valley (Figure 4), these radar data show sedimentary structures. The 

500 MHz data (Figure 1 la) show fine-scale structures to 75 ns in time, which corresponds 

to roughly 4 m depth. In contrast, the 300 MHz data (Figure lib) show intermediate-scale 

structures up to 160 ns, which corresponds to roughly 7 m depth. An obvious sedimentary 

structure is the foreset beds in both images, they are between 5 and 50 ns (in time) and
between 10 and 40 m (in horizontal distance). In both images, the regions highlighted with 

the red rectangles correspond to beds that were exposed in the cliff face (Figure 1 Ic), 

which was only a few meters from where the data were collected. Both radar images also 

contain many diffractions, which might be caused by cottonwood logs and the ends of 

sedimentary beds (see Section 4.1). (A diffraction is scattered radar energy emanating 

from an abrupt discontinuity in the ground. An example is shown in Figure 1 la.) In the 

300 MHz data especially on the left side, there is a horizontal reflection at about 160 ns. 

This reflection is probably related to both the water table and the bedrock surface. These 

two interfaces are close together the saturated sediments are probably less than V4 m 

thick near the cliff edge. This distance is similar to the wavelengths of the radar waves, 

which are estimated to be between l/2 and 1V4 m. For this reason, the reflection is probably 

associated with both interfaces.

5. DISCUSSION

It might be expected that the models derived from the different methods TEM 

soundings, the DC resistivity soundings, and the FEM profiling should be very similar. 

Indeed, the models for the Howe Pit (Figures 7, 8, and 9) have several similarities:

 For all three methods, the resistivity of the layer (or layers) representing the

unsaturated sediments is much higher than the resistivity of the layer representing the 

saturated sediments and saturated bedrock.

 For all three methods, the resistivities for the layer representing the saturated 

sediments and saturated bedrock are similar.

 For the TEM and the DC resistivity soundings, the layer representing the saturated

sediments and the saturated bedrock is between 7 and % l/2 m deep. 

Nonetheless, the models from the different methods have some differences:

 The deepest layer in the TEM models is not present in the DC resistivity and FEM 

models. The most likely cause is that the TEM soundings were able to probe deeper 

than either the DC resistivity soundings and the FEM profiling.

 The unsaturated sediments are represented by one layer for the TEM soundings, by 

either one or two layers for the DC resistivity soundings, and by two layers for the 

FEM profiling. The most likely cause is that the three methods were affected 

differently by small-scale heterogeneity near the ground surface. For the TEM 

soundings, this heterogeneity was averaged into the measurements. For the DC 

resistivity soundings, this heterogeneity was detected only if it was near the center of 

the Schlumberger spread. Otherwise, it was averaged into the measurements. For the 

FEM profiling, this heterogeneity was detected by the EM31 measurement.

 For all three methods, the resistivities for the layer (or layers) representing the 

unsaturated sediments differ greatly. The most likely cause is that the electrical 

resistivity of the unsaturated sediments is anisotropic. For the TEM soundings, the 

electrical current travels only in a horizontal direction. For the DC resistivity 

soundings and the FEM profiling, however, the electrical current travels in both the 

horizontal and the vertical directions. The resistivities for the horizontal and the 

vertical directions may differ if, for example, the sediment grains are preferentially 

aligned. (For the saturated sediments and the saturated bedrock, anisotropy does not
appear to be significant probably because much of the electrical current passes through

the water-filled pores.)

Thus, the electrical models from the three methods differ somewhat because each method 

measured the electrical properties of the ground differently. Nonetheless, the models from 

all three methods correspond to the geology, indicating that all three methods are suitable 

for characterizing sand and gravel deposits.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Along the transect of the South Platte River valley, the thickness of the alluvial sediments 

beneath the low terrace was determined accurately by both TEM and DC resistivity 

soundings. The thickness beneath the western and the eastern terraces was not determined 

with either type of sounding; either sedimentary layers that are not present in the test holes 

or the water table were detected. Ground penetrating radar was unable to map any 

structures in the alluvial sediments because of the clay-rich soil.

Adjacent to the Howe Pit, the thickness of the unsaturated alluvial sediments was 

determined accurately with both TEM and DC resistivity soundings; the thickness was 

determined less accurately with FEM profiling. The thickness of the saturated sediments 

could not be determined with any of the three methods because its conductivity was 

practically identical to that of the saturated bedrock. Within a rectangular area 200 m long 

and 80 m wide, apparent resistivities, which were measured with an EMS 1, were similar to 

in situ measurements of unsaturated sand and gravel and of unsaturated clay, silt, and 

channel deposits. Therefore, these resistivities cannot be used to make a well-substantiated 

claim about the presence of geologic heterogeneity. Ground penetrating radar detected 

many structures within the alluvial sediments, especially foreset beds. The bedrock surface 

and water table together were probably detected when the 300 MHz antennas were used.

This study focused on four different geophysical methods that are commonly available: 

TEM soundings, DC resistivitiy soundings, FEM profiling, and ground penetrating radar. 

In most cases, useful geologic information such as sediment thickness could be obtained 

with these methods; in a few cases, however, the desired information could not be 

obtained because of the geologic or the hydrologic conditions. We hope that the examples 

presented in this study will help geologists, geophysicists, and mining engineers select an 

appropriate method for their geophysical investigations.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was part of a larger project "Minerals Information and Technology for 

Infrastructure Resource Assessment," which is funded by the Mineral Resources Program 

in the U. S. Geological Survey. Jackie Williams, Andrew Hein, and William Langer helped 

collect data. We are grateful to The Western Mobile Corporation for allowing us to work 

at the Howe Pit.

10
8. REFERENCES

Anderson, W.L., 1982a, Adaptive nonlinear least-squares solution for constrained or 

unconstrained minimization problems, (Subprogram NLSOL): U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 82-68, 65 p.

Anderson, W.L., 1982b, Nonlinear least-squares inversion of transient soundings for a 

central induction loop system (Subprogram NLSTCI): U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 82-1129, 85 p.

Anderson, W.L., 1992, Interactive inversion of dipole loop-loop electromagnetic data for 

layered earth models using numerical integration and complex image theory 

(Version 1.0): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports 92-553-A and 92-553-B, 

42 p.

Annan, A.P., and Cosway, S.W., 1992, Ground penetrating radar survey design:

Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and 

Environmental Problems, April 1992, Oakbrook, Illinois, Society of Engineering and 

Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, p. 329-351.

Auton, C. A., 1992, The utility of conductivity surveying and resistivity sounding in 

evaluating sand and gravel deposits and mapping drift sequences in northeast 

Scotland: Engineering Geology, v. 32, p. 11-28.

Colton, R.B., 1978, Geologic map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Front Range 

Urban Corridor, Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations 

Map I-855-F, scale 1:100,000.

Daniels, J.J., 1989, Fundamentals of ground penetrating radar survey design: Proceedings 

of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and 

Environmental Problems, March 1989, Golden, Colorado, Society of Engineering and 

Mineral Exploration Geophysicists, p. 62-142.

Davis, J.L., and Annan, A.P., 1989, Ground penetrating radar for high resolution mapping 

of soil and rock stratigraphy: Geophysical Prospecting, v. 37, p. 531-551.

Fitterman, D.V., and Stewart, M.T., 1986, Transient electromagnetic sounding for 

groundwater: Geophysics, v. 51, p. 995-1005.

Geonics Limited, 1984, Operating manual for EM31-D non-contacting terrain

conductivity meter: Geonics Limited, 1745 Meyerside Dr., Unit 8, Mississauga, 

Ontario, Canada, L5T1C5.

11
Geonics Limited, 1987, EM34-3 operating instructions: Geonics Limited, 1745 Meyerside 

Dr., Unit 8, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5T1C5.

Geonics Limited, 1992, EM38 operating manual: Geonics Limited, 1745 Meyerside Dr., 

Unit 8, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5T1C5.

Interpex, 1988, RESIX-IP User's Manual: Interpex Limited, Golden, Colorado. 

Interpex, 1996, TEMIX XL User's Manual (2 vol.): Interpex Limited, Golden, Colorado.

Jacobson, R.P., 1955, Geophysical case history of a commercial gravel deposit: Mining 

Engineering, v. 7, p. 158-162.

Jol, H.M., Parry, D., Smith, D.G., 1998, Ground penetrating radar: Applications in sand 

and gravel exploration in Bobrowsky, P. T., 1998, Aggregate resources: A global 

perspective: Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema, Inc., p. 295-306.

Kaufman, A.A., and Keller, G.A., 1983, Frequency and transient sounding: Amsterdam, 

Elsevier, 685 p.

Koefoed, O., 1979, Geosounding principles: 1. Resistivity sounding measurements: New 

York, Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., 276 p.

Langer, W.H., and Glanzman, V.M., 1993, Natural aggregate: Building America's future: 

U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1110, 39 p.

Lindsey, D.A., and Shary, J.F., 1997, Field measures of gravel quality in the South Platte 

River north of Denver, Colorado: A pilot study: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 97-451, 19 p.

Lindsey, D.A., Langer, W.H., Cummings, L. Scott, and Shary, J.F., 1998, Gravel deposits 

of the South Platte River valley north of Denver, Colorado, Part A: Stratigraphy and 

sedimentary structures: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-148-A, 18 p.

McNeill, J.D., 1980, Electromagnetic terrain conductiivty measurement at low induction 

numbers: Technical Note TN-6, Geonics Limited, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 

15 p.

Middleton, R.S., 1977, Ground and airborne geophysical studies of sand and gravel in the 

Toronto region, Ontario Geological Survey Study GS18, 37 p.

Nabighian, M.N., 1979, Quasi-static transient response of a conducting half-space an 

approximate representation: Geophysics, v. 44, p. 1700-1705.

12
Odum, J.K., and Miller, C.H., 1988, Geomorphic, seismic, and geotechnical evaluation of 

sand and gravel deposits in the Sheridan, Wyoming, area: U. S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1845, 32 p.

Orion Research Inc., 1990, Model 126 and 127 conductivity meter instruction manual: 

Orion Research Inc., Laboratory Products Group, The Schrafft Center, 529 Main St., 

Boston, MA 02129.

Parasnis, D.S., 1979, Principles of applied geophysics: London, Chapman and Hall Ltd., 

275 p.

Palacky, G.J., 1988, Resistivity characteristics of geologic targets in Nabighian, M. N., 

Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics Theory, Vol. I: Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

Society of Exploration Geophysicists, p. 53-129.

Saarenketo, T., and Maijala, P., 1994, Applications of geophysical methods to sand, 

gravel and hard rock aggregate prospecting in Northern Finland in Liittig, G. W., 

1994, Aggregates Raw Materials Giant. Report on the 2nd International 

Aggregates Symposium, Erlangen, Germany, October 22-27, 1990, p. 109-123.

Schneider, P.A. Jr., 1962, Records and logs of selected wells and test holes, and chemical 

analyses of ground water in the South Platte River basin in western Adams and 

southwestern Weld Counties, Colorado: Colorado Water Conservation Board BasicData Report No. 9, 84 p.

Scott, G.R., 1965, Nonglacial Quaternary geology of the southern and middle Rocky 

Mountains in Wright, H. E., Jr., Frey, D. G., eds., The Quaternary of the United 

States: Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press., p. 342-354.

Shelton, D.C., 1972, Thickness of alluvium and evaluation of aggregate resources in the 

lower Cache La Poudre river valley, Colorado, by electrical resistivity methods: 

Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado, M. S. thesis, 67 p.

Singhroy, V. H., and Barnett, P. J., 1984, Locating subsurface mineral aggregate deposits 

from airborne infrared imagery (reflected and thermal): A case study in southern 

Ontario: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Remote Sensing of 

Environment, 3rd Thematic Conference: Remote Sensing for Exploration Geology, 

p. 523-539.

Spies, B.R., and Eggers, D.E., 1986, The use and misuse of apparent resistivity in 

electromagnetic methods: Geophysics, v. 51, p. 1462-1471.

Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976, Applied geophysics: 

New York, Cambridge University Press, 860 p.

13
Timmons, B. J., 1995, Prospecting for natural aggregates: An update: Rock Products, 

v. 98, p. 31-37.

Trimble, D.E., and Machette, M.N., 1979, Geologic map of the greater Denver area, 

Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Map I-856-H, scale 1:100,000.

Ward, S.H., ed., 1990, Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, vols. I, II, and HI: 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.

Wayne, W.J. Aber, J.S., Agard, S.S., Bergantino, R.N., Bluemle, J.., Coates, D.., 

Cooley, M.., Madole, R.., Martin, J.., Mears, B., Jr., Morrison, R.B., and 

Sutherland, W.M., 1991, Quaternary geology of the northern Great Plains in 

Morrison, R.B., ed., Quaternary nonglacial geology: conterminous U. S.: Boulder, 

Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. K-12, p. 441^76.

Wilcox, S.W., 1944, Sand and gravel prospecting by the earth resistivity method: 

Geophysics, v. 9, p. 36-46.

Zohdy, A.A.R., 1974, Electrical methods in Zohdy, A.A.R., Eaton, G.P., and Mabey, 

D.R., Application of surface geophysics to ground-water investigations: Techniques 

of water resources investigations of the U. S. Geological Survey, Book 2, 

Chapter Dl, p. 5-66.

14
Table 1. Typical resistivities for various geologic materials (Parasnis, 1979, p. 129; 

Palacky, 1988, p. 100; Telford et al., 1976, p. 455).

Material

Shales

Argillites

Sandstones

Gravels

Sands

Clays

Typical Resistivities (Q-m)

20-2000

10-800

30-4000

500-900

10-800

1-100

15
105° 104° 45

- 40° 15

EXPLANATION 

Low terrace

Area 

covered 

Denver* by map

- 40° 07' 30"

39° 52' 30"

Figure 1. Map of the South Platte River valley where the geophysical studies were 

conducted (after Lindsey and Shary, 1997). The inset shows the location of the map 

within Colorado.

16
o

1490

1480 

1470 

1460 

1450

1440

LAYER

1

2

3

RESISTIVITY (n-m)

49 (33-94)

17(14-21)

27 (24-29)

31 (28-38)

20 (18-21)

40 (32-58)

15 (15-16)

36 (28-57)

13(13-14)

45 (38-60)

14 (13-14)

37(33-41)

56 (41-70)

13(11-14)

4850

<

_l HI

5000 10000 

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (ft)

15000

1000 2000 3000 4000 

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

5000 6000

Legend

^H soil ^^ 

1 1 Sand

H^| Gravel 

^| Clay

[ j Laramie Formation

| Test Hole

Location of GPR

survey line

2600

f

Center of TEM sounding projected onto AA'. The

number is the horizontal distance (m) along the

Iransect.

Electrical model for TEM sounding. The solid, 

horizontal line is the optimum elevation of the 

boundary between layers. The dashed, horizontal

lines delimit the range of acceptable elevations lor

the boundary.

The table lists the electrical resistivity for each layer 

in a model. The first number is the optimum

resistivity; the numbers in parentheses are the range

of acceptable resisitivies.

Vertical Exaggeration 40:1

RESISTIVITY (U-m) 

1 10 100

Figure 2. Cross section the South Platte River valley (Lindsey, D. A., 1998, unpub. data) 

and the electrical models from the TEM soundings. The cross section is along line AA' of 

Figure 1.

17
LAYER

1

2

3

RESISTIVITY (£l-m)

91 (55-130)

1200(940-1700)

28(25-31)

25 (19-29)

100 (86-120)

28 (26-30)

17 (2.3-40)

160 (150-170)

23 (18-27)

11 (1.1-22)

81 (71-89)

34 (30-38)

14 (8.4-21)

360 (180-930)

32 (28-37)

170 (160-180)

2700 (1800-4200)

40 (37-42)

43 (29-55)

730 (680-800)

37 (33-41)

1

1440 -

5000 10000 

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (ft)

15000

1000 2000 3000

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

4000 5000 6000

Legend

n

^^^B EH

I

Soil

Sand

Gravel 

Clay

Laramie Formation

Test Hole

3300

f

Center of DC resistivity sounding projected onto

AA'. The number is the horizontal distance (m)

along the transect.

Electrical model for DC resistivity sounding. The 

solidf horizontal line is the optimum elevation of the 

boundary between layers. The dashed, horizontal

lines delimit the range of acceptable elevations for

the boundary.

The table lists the electrical resistivity for each layer 

in a model. The first number is the optimum

resistivity; the numbers in parentheses are the range

of acceptable resisittvies.

Vertical Exaggeration 40:1

RESISTIVITY (£l-m)

1 10 100 1K10K

I I I I I

Figure 3. Cross section the South Platte River valley (Lindsey, D. A., 1998, unpub. data) 

and the electrical models from the DC resistivity soundings. The cross section is along line 

AA' of Figure 1.

18
300 MHz

(a)

(b)

200 (c)

10 20 30 40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

48

Figure 4. GPR data for center frequencies of (a) 300 MHz, (b) 80 MHz, and (c) 40 MHz. 

The data were collected at 3200 m (horizontal distance) along the transect of the South 

Platte River valley (Figure 2).

19
cliff

clfff

cliff

A A A A A A

Legend

50m

FEM measurement (EM31) 

A FEM measurement (EM31 and EM34) 

 Center of a TEM sounding

£ Center of a DC resistivity sounding

T The lines indicate the direction of the Schlumberger spread.

 GPR survey line

Pit (Denver Formation)

Unmined gravel units (soil and overbank deposits removed) 

tjjjt unmined gravel units covered by soli and overbank deposits

Figure 5. Map of the southwest corner of the Ho we Pit showing where the geophysical 

measurements were made.

20
150

5

E

100

O

=> 

Q 

Z 

O 

O

50

0

6.7

10 -§

c;

20

CO

m

50

100

200

Material

Location of

Measurements

Number of

Measurements

Instrument

used for 

Measurement

unsatu rated 

sand & gravel 

(upper, middle 

and basal gravel 

units)

cliff face

36

EM38

unsatu rated 

clay, silt, & 

channel deposits 

(upper and middle 

gravel units)

cliff face

25

EM38

saturated 

sand & gravel 

(basal gravel 

unit) & saturated 

bedrock

cliff face

and pit

7

EM38

ground 

water

base of cliff

and trenches 

within pit

8

Orion

Conductivity 

Meter

Figure 6. Electrical resistivities of various materials at the Howe Pit. The distribution for 

each material is shown as a box and whisker.

21
B

LLJ

0 20

25

30

0

LAYER

1

2

3

RESISTIVITY (n-m)

92 (56-240)

12(11-14)

5.8(5.5-6.1)

95 (59-220)

12(11-13)

5.6 (5.3-5.8)

100 (63-240)

10(9.4-11)

5.8 (5.5-6.1)

110(63-280)

7.8 (7.5-8.3)

6.1 (5.6-6.4)

50

B'

100 150 

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

200 250

Legend

Unmined gravel units (soil and 

overbank deposits removed)

Denver Formation

Vertical Exaggeration 3:f

RESISTIVITY (£l-m) 

f 10 100 tOOO

I I I inij I I iiitil I I mini

Center of TEM sounding projected onto BB'.

Electrical model for TEM sounding. The solid, 

horizontal line is the optimum elevation of the 

boundary between layers. The dashed, horizontal 

lines delimit the range of acceptable elevations for 

the boundary.

The table lists the electrical resistivity for each layer 

in a model. The first number is the optimum 

resistivity; the numbers in parentheses are the range 

of acceptable resisitivies.

Figure 7. Cross section the Howe Pit (along line BB' of Figure 5) and the electrical models 

from the TEM soundings. The depth to the Denver Formation was measured at the base 

of the cliff and then projected into this cross section.

22
LAYER

1

2

3

RESISTIVITY (n-m)

1900(1500-2300)

600 (540-650)

31 (24-38)

960(850-1100)

33 (21-46)

390 (340-440)

9.7 (7.7-12)

1500(1400-1700)

22 (17-28)

2100 (1900-2200)

760 (610-910)

9.2 (6.2-13)

550 (520-590)

160 (98-260)

4.8 (3.9-5.9)

5100(4400-6100)

950 (600-1400)

27 (18-35)

LU

B

B'

0 

5

15

20

25 

 an

OVx

c

 1 -

L --.

 . ."

)

*

. ,>

- J

t

 :.:- -.

1

50

* *

\'\

- 

 

100

r

150

*

r

I r1

~"

; 

: " 

200 25

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

Legend

Unmined gravel units (soil and 

overbank deposits removed)

Denver Formation

Vertical Exaggeration 3:1 

RESISTIVITY (fl-m)

10

lll.l .

100 1000 10000

IM.J . ......J , , IIIIIJ

Center of DC resistivity sounding projected onto BB'.

Electrical model for DC resistivity sounding. The solid, 

horizontal line is the optimum elevation of the 

boundary between layers. The dashed, horizontal 

lines delimit the range of acceptable elevations for 

the boundary.

The table lists the electrical resistivity for each layer 

in a model. The first number is the optimum 

resistivity; the numbers in parentheses are the range 

of acceptable resisitivies.

Figure 8. Cross section the Howe Pit (along line BB' of Figure 5) and the electrical models 

from the DC resistivity soundings. The depth to the Denver Formation was measured at 

the base of the cliff and then projected into this cross section.

23
LU

LAYER

1

2

3

e

0

5 

10

20

25

30

- ,.

-

0

RESISTIVITY (n-m)

690

110

7.4

1

A

.

1000

150

8.0

1

A

--

770

240

8.2

1

A 

_ 1

. 1

50

> 

 "-

610

120

7.5

A

820

150

7.6

LL800

240

8.0

I

A

100

..;

850

180

7.2

\

- :

700

170

7.4

800

99

7.5

^ \ \

A A

 . t .

150

\

760

290

6.8

\ 

 \

A A 

_J I-1

,

200 25

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

Legend

Unmined gravel units (soil and 

overbank deposits removed)

Denver Formation

Vertical Exaggeration 3:1

RESISTIVITY (n-m) 

1 10 100 1000

I I.MIlJ ,,,II,J I I III J

. Center of FEM measurement (EM31 and EM34) 

projected onto BB'.

Electrical model for FEM measurement. The solid, 

horizontal line is the optimum elevation of the 

boundary between layers.

The table lists the optimum electrical resistivity for 

each layer in a model.

Figure 9. Cross section the Howe Pit (along line BB' of Figure 5) and the electrical models 

from the FEM profiling. The depth to the Denver Formation was measured at the base of 

the cliff and then projected into this cross section.

24
cliff

cliff cliff

Legend

50m

Pit (Denver Formation)

Unmined gravel units (soil and overbank deposits removed)

Unmined gravel units covered by soil and overbank deposits

APPARENT RESISTIVITY (ii-m) 

91 83 77 71 67 63 59 56

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

APPARENT CONDUCTIVITY (mS/m)

Figure 10. Apparent resistivity measured with the EM31. The location of each 

measurement is shown in Figure 5.

25
0

w

c

LJJ

100

A diffraction

(a)

200

0

Reflection due to 

water table and 

bedrock surface

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

(b)

(c)

Figure 11. GPR data for center frequencies of (a) 500 MHz and (b) 300 MHz. The 

location of the GPR survey line is shown in Figure 5; the data are plotted from northeast 

to southwest, the perspective that an observer inside the pit would have, (c) Picture of 

foreset beds, which are in the upper gravel unit and are exposed by the cliff. The picture 

corresponds to the regions in (a) and (b) outlined by red rectangles.

26