Application of Ground Penetrating Radar in Placer Mineral Exploration for Mapping Subsurface Sand Layers: A Case Study

V.J. LOVESON#, R.P. BARNWAL#, V.K. SINGH#, A.R.GUJAR* AND G.V.RAJAMANICKAM** # Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad *National Institute of Oceanography, Goa **SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur ABSTRACT
Owing to the limitations of the existing conventional methods for mapping subsurface sedimentary layers, Geophysical methods especially GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) techniques are widely being used. For the present study, a 60 m long transect at Nagoor beach, Tamil Nadu has been traversed using GPR system (GSSI make SIR 20 system) with 200 Mhz and 400 Mhz antennae. A trail pit upto 1.25 m depth has been refereed for sampling and correlation purpose with GPR data. Several GPR profiles have been carried out along and across the trail pit with different gains. The GPR data signs agreement with the field observations (trail pit data) and appreciably correlating with the heavy mineral and white sand layers. Based on the significant signature of the heavy mineral layers, they could be traced all along the sub-surface profile. It is also seen that the graunlometric data on sorting, kurtosis and skewness have fairly agreement with the GPR data. More discussions have been enumerated in the paper, which warrants more such studies for the establishment of interrelationship between the field geological parameters with the GPR sub-surface profiles.

INTRODUCTION Effective mapping of subsurface sedimentary layers on coastal beaches through conventional methods has always been a time consuming and may not be economically viable for low profit exploration purpose. There are many methods already in use for investigation into the shallow depth coastal layers like opening of area by completely removal of over-burden, drilling widely spaced boreholes, geophysical methods such as electric and gamma logs and shallow reflection seismic profiling etc. Although, study of layers information by trench cutting and borehole logging are the most common methods in use, the use of geophysical methods has been increasing. All of these methods of subsurface mapping have their own limitation in their utility. As for example, loggings of trenches are very slow, expensive and feasible only if high quality exposures are available. Drill core provides only a narrow column sample, with no information between cores, wirelines log are of limited value, due to the few boreholes and wells available and the column sample problem. In some instances such invasive techniques cannot be implemented due to environmental or conservation considerations. Shallow seismic methods provide a continuous profiling of the subsurface, but vertical resolution is limited to 3-4 m (Jol, 1991). Therefore a portable, low cost and robust continuous subsurface profiling system was needed which has high resolution mapping capability. And now, the modern Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) system is proved to be the most suitable technology, which could satisfy the need of scientific community for study of high-resolution subsurface stratigraphy including beaches areas. THE GPR CONCEPT AND SYSTEM: A typical GPR system (Fig. 1) essentially comprised of either a single transmitting and receiving antennae or two separate transmitting and receiving antennae, control unit, data logger, recording and display unit. In this system, Control unit is meant for generating a short electrical pulse, and transmitter/ receiver are used for converting electrical pulse into an electro-magnetic pulse of radio frequency and transmitting it into the ground, or receiving it. The transmitted signals propagate through the ground, which is then reflected from different sedimentary layers or materials having different electrical properties. These reflected signals received by the receiver of the antennae which

is then directed to display unit via control unit and can be interpreted in real time even in the field, or digitized and transferred to a personal computer where different digital signal processing procedures can be applied to enhance the signals and apply corrections or filters for some of the distortion that is inherent to the data acquisition procedures.

Field Computer

Controller

6 V DC Battery

GPR Antennae Survey Wheel Transmitter Receiver

Figure1: Typical Ground Penetrating Radar System WORKING THEORY OF GROUND PENETRATING RADAR: The GPR technique works on the principal of reflection and refraction theory of electromagnetic waves (Fig.2). The reflection and refraction phenomenon is mainly governed by the electrical properties of the ground i.e., the dielectric constant of the media, which is nothing but measure of the ability of the material, which allows the electromagnetic energy to propagate through it. Electrical properties of any geological materials is largely depends upon volumetric water contents, sediments characteristics including mineralogy, grain size, the presence of organics, composition of the sediments, orientation of the grains, shape of the grains and packing patterns of the sediments (Neal, 2004). For example, air, fresh water, seawater, unsaturated sand, silt, clay, bedrock have relative dielectric permittivity 1, 80, 80, 2.55-7.5, 2.5 5, 15-40 and 4 -6, and electromagnetic wave velocity (m/ns) of 0.3, 0.03, 0.01, 0.1-0.2, 0.09-0.12 and 0.12-0.13 respectively (Neal, 2004).

Reflection Refraction T R

Depth

Figure 2: Reflection and Refraction phenomena of EM waves by subsurface layers The relative dielectric permittivity, which is controlled by the above factors, is the most important parameter governing the reflection process and wave velocity. When a significant change in relative permittivity is encountered, part of the electromagnetic energy is reflected, the reflection being proportional to the magnitude of change. Low conductivity materials, such as unsaturated and coarse-grained sediments cause little attenuation and, under ideal circumstances, penetration is of the order of tens of meters (Davis & Annan, 1989). Penetration depth and resolution are also influenced by the GPR frequency used for measurement. Lower antenna frequencies are suitable for greater penetration, but do not give a good resolution. Resolution is approximately a quarter of the GPR wavelength, and ranges from 0.08 m for saturated sands and 200 MHz antennas to 0.4 m for dry sands and 100 MHz antenna (Remke et al., 2000).

STUDY AREA Nagoor, lies at 100 48.823 N and 790 51.057 E along Tamil Nadu coast, has been chosen for the present study (Fig.3). It is located at the confluence point of Vettar River with coast. The beach is straight with gentle slope. It has narrow tidal area with wider backshore zone, dotted with moderately elevated dunes. After the 26th December Tsunami, the backshore zone has been highly disturbed and the dunes were reworked.

Fig 3. Location Map of the Study Area

METHODOLOGY For the GPR survey, a GSSI Model SIR-20 GPR system was used with 400 MHz and 200 MHz antennae. Survey was conducted with an aim to assess the Sedimentological disturbances, if any, caused by the recent tsunami. Data was collected just six month after tsunami to study the post tsunami effects on sea beaches of Nagoor area. A transact of 60 m parallel to coastline (east-west) has been delineated for GPR profiling (Fig.4) just right side of the river Vettar bank. For cross check, both 200 MHz antennae and 400 MHz have been used during profiling. In addition, two longitudinal profiles of 10m length each, one using 200 MHz and another with 400 MHz antenna have been taken parallel to the pit in N-S direction. A pit has been dug upto 1.25 m along the traverse line at about 32 m from HT line. The pit was about 5.10 m long along the line (east-west) and 1.0m widths. Several GPR readings have been recorded along and across the pit with various gain condition and different antennas. The GPR system has been configured for profiling upto 2 m depth of subsurface layers. Profile-1 started from Tree side to Sea and Profile-2 from Sea to Tree as end point as shown in figure below:

West End Tree

W

60
S N E

50 Survey Line using 200 & 400 MHz Antenna 40 Pit 30 20

32 m

Dunes

10 0 HTL |----| Sea

Pit is 32 m from HT level

= 10 m GPR Profile along the pit in N-S direction = Pit (Trench of Length = 5.10 m)

Fig.4. Schematic diagram of GPR traverse line GPS readings have been recorded using Garmin handheld GPS at various points to fix the transverse line. Some of the readings are given below: Landmark Position at Sea Side From Sea side mid point position Location N 10o 48.823 E 79o 51.057 N 10o 48.819 E 79o 51.036 N 10o 48.814 E 79o 51.027 N 10o 48.814 E 79o 51.027 N 10o 48.819 E 79o 51.039 N 10o 48.816 E 79o 51.037

Mid Point Position (1) Position at Tree West end Position at Pit, East Side:

Position at Pit, West Side:

For mineralogical and graunlometric analysis, 12 Samples have been collected from the pit from visibly distinctive layers from top to bottom. The samples have been analysed and the data have been correlated with the GPR profiles in the present study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A 60 m long traverse with 200 Mhz and 400 Mhz antennas portray a good picture on the subsurface information which do not require any more image processing analysis on the signal records. Overview of sedimentary characteristics: Both 200 MHz and 400 MHz appreciably records the sub-surface features. Generally, high frequency antennas have less penetration depth but with high-resolution records. Accordingly, signals of 400 MHz are very clear and with high resolution (Fig.5) when compared to 200 MHz records.

East

Distance (m)

Pit

West

Fig.5 GPR data collected over the Nagoor coastal areas using 400 Mhz antenna

The data indicates dipping features towards seaside, depicting the coastal influence in deposition. Near to 1 m, one can observe a strong disturbance either, magnifying the erosional surface or moisture zone, on which, tsunami deposits are lying. This has been confirmed by the field evidences. This shows that after intensive erosion by tsunami waves, about a meter thick deposit might have deposited with layering of black sands. Moreover, the GPR data clearly spelt out the sequence of many layers in the sub-surface. Though the study area was dotted with many sand dunes as the results of strong wind action during post-tsunami scenario, that type of characteristics are missing now. The GPR data shows a different situation mainly indicating the accretion due to coastal waves. Below 1.00 m depth, disturbed signals show the influence of seawater intrusion / saturated with water. Sub-surface profiles at Pit area: Numbers of runs have been carried out near to the trail pit. As the sands are dry upto certain depth, the GPR data are pretty clear, indicating the layer sequences (Fig.6). At 1.0 m level, there is a strong reflectance indicating the erosional surface / saturated surface. One can easily observe a difference of layering signals seen at above and below 1.0 m depth. Again the dipping towards seaside indicates the deposition by sea waves. The field evidences in respect to mineralogical composition portray that the deposition is upto 1.0 m due to recent tsunami. This depositional feature could be traced well in the GPR data. The layers are depicted clearly in the signals. After 1.25 m, the disturbance indicates the saturation zone.

East

Distance (m)

West

Fig.6 GPR data over Trail Pit area (400 Mhz antenna) Correlation with Trail Pits details: Trail pit was made upto 1.25 m depth (Fig.7a and b) and visual observation was done (Fig 7a and b). The length of the pit was about 5 m along the transect (east-west).

Fig.7a: Study site of Nagoor Beach

Fig. 7b: View of Trail pit at study site

White disseminated sand with heavy minerals has been recorded upto 65 cm, which forms a single massive layer (Fig 8.a and b). But it has varying percentage of heavy mineral dissemination. After the white san of about 10 cm thickness, black sand with dominantly of ilmenite has been observed for another 10 cm thickness. It has been followed by the white sand and thin micro varving band of heavy mineral. This has been followed by the alternative layers of heavy minerals and white sand finally rested on white sand with shells. The basement shell layer is considered to be the erosional surface over which the tsunami sediments deposited.

5 15 25 35 45 55 65
White Disseminated Sand White Sand Black Sand Micro Varving

75 85 95 105 115

White Sand with Shells

Fig. 8.Sedimentological Logging (8a), Pit Photograph (8b) and corresponding GPR Profile(8c) The Trail pit details are correlated with the GPR data, which shows good agreement (Fig.8b and c). The white sand layer (65 to 75 cm) and the heavy mineral layer (75 to 85 cm) have characteristic signals where the detail in colour mode shows significant characters. The heavy mineral layer has been easily traced all over the profile without any difficulty, owing its specialized colour shades and characters. White sand layers prominently display unique shades, which support to follow the layer easily. After 95 cm, the layers are thin, displaying complex signatures in the GPR data but respective image shades retain their own characters for easy identification. Also below 1.0 m, the saturation level has been displayed prominently. Keeping the above correlation as key for interpretation, the heavy mineral layers could be identified easily along with white sand layers. Also, the GPR data clearly indicates the differential minor dislocations of each layer, place to place. This again portrays the one time sudden deposition, in turn, fingers out the tsunami depositional characteristics. Correlation with graunlometric parameters: Samples have been collected from each visual layers in the trail pit and analysed in the laboratory. The results are presented (Fig.9) as given below:

Sedimentological Logging

Sorting

Kurtosis

Sk ew ne s s

GPR Profile

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115
White Sand Black Sand Micro Varving White Disseminated Sand White Sand with Shells Moderately Well Sorted Well Sorted Leptokurtic Mesokurtic Coarse Skewed Symmetrical Fine Skewed

Fig. 9. Correlation diagram of GPR data with Graunlometric Parameters. The sorting shows that upto 85 cm the sediments are moderately well sorted. Well-sorted sediments are seen occupying from 85 to 110 cm depth. These characters are well represented in the GPR data (Fig 8b and e). Mostly, all heavy mineral layers shows Leptokurtic character and mostly, white sand layers displays Mesokurtic signatures (Fig 8c and e). Appreciable correlation has been noticed upto 95 cm and after that the saturation zone made difficult for further interpretation. Skewness types also represent fair correlation upto 95 cm (Fig 8d and e). The overall observation indicates that the sorting could be well correlated and kurtosis and skewness could have correlation upto saturation zone.

CONCLUSION Nagoor beach has been scanned along a selected transect using GPR system with 200 Mhz and 400 Mhz antennas. The 60 m long GPR transect provide an appreciable sub-surface data. The dipping characters seen towards seaside in the GPR data indicates marine influenced deposition. Several GPR profiling along a trail pit reserves good correlation with the visual pit details. Heavy mineral layers could be traced all along the GPR profiles and white sand layers made easy tracing in the data. After 1.0 m indicates saturated zone or erosional surface

over which tsunami deposits rest upon. Granulometric details have fairly appreciable correlation especially upto saturated zone. This preliminary study needs to be strengthen with more detailed surveys and interpretation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The entire work has been carried out under the CSIR Network Project on Coastal Placer Mining (CMM023). The authors are thankful to the Director, CMRI for permission to publish this paper. Field and laboratory assistance by Mislankar and Louis of National Institute of Oceanography, Goa; A.Sangode and V.Chandramouli of Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad; Chandrasekar of SASTRA University, Thanjavur are gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed in this paper are of the authors and not necessarily of the institutes they belong. REFERENCES Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P., 1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content measurements in coaxial transmission lines, Water Resources Res., 16, p. 574-582. Jol, H.M. and Roberts, M.C., 1988. The seismic facies of a delta onlapping an offshore island: Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. In: Sequences, Stratigraphy, Sedimentology: Surface and Subsurface, James, D.P. and Leckie, D.A. (Eds.), Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, memoir, p. 137-142. Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P., 1989. Ground Penetrating Radar for high resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy, Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 27, p. 531-551. Roth, K., Schulin, R., Fluhler, H. and Attinger, W., 1990. Calibration of time domain reflectometry for water content measurement using a composite dielectric approach, Water Resources Res., 26, 2267-2273. Jol, H.M. and Smith, D.G. 1991. Ground penetrating radar of northern lacustrine deltas. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 28, p. 1939-1947. Sutimen, R., 1992. Glacial deposits, their electrical properties and surveying by image interpretation and ground penetrating radar, Geol. Surv. Finland Bull., 359, 1-123. Huggenberger, P., 1993. Radar facies: recognition of facies patterns and heterogenisties within Pleistocene Rhine gravels, NE Switzerland, In: Braided Rivers (Eds. J.L. Best and C.S. Bristow), Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ., 75, 163-176. Harari, Z., 1996, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for imaging stratigraphic features and groundwater in sanddunes, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 36, p. 43-52. Arcone, S.A., et. al. 1998. Ground Penetrating Radar reflection profiling of ground-water and bedrock in an area of discontinuous permafrost, Geophysics, vol. 63, no. 5, p. 1573-1584. Van Dam, R.L. and Schlager, W., 2000. Identifying causes of ground penetrating radar reflections using time-domain reflectometry and sedimentological analyses, Sedimentology, v. 47, p. 435-449. Jol, H.M. & Bristow, C.S., 2003. GPR in sediments: advice on data collection, basic processing and interpretation, a good practice guide, In: Bristow, C.S. and Jol, H.M. (Eds.), GPR in sediments, Geological Society of London, Special Publication, 211. Neal, A., 2004. Ground Penetrating Radar and its use in sedimentology: Principles, Problems and Progress. Earth-Science Reviews, 66, 261-330.