MW A“ ll Im—x 0301—} EVALUATSON OF THREE SAMPLING METHGDS USEL‘I {N {ERA‘J’EL DEPOSITS Thesis far the Degzes m" M. S. MiCHSGAfl STATE Ui‘éEVERSWY THQMAS A. HERBERT 1968 ABSTRACT EVALUATION OF THREE SAMPLING METHODS USED IN GRAVEL DEPOSITS by Thomas A. Herbert Three sampling methods, auger boring, channeling and grab sampling are compared on the basis of their ability to detect natural variations within a gravel deposit. Auger boring has often been used for sampling when too little information has been known about the bias imparted by the method. This has led to errors in commercial evaluations by some gravel pit Operators. Channeling is the accepted method for commercial sampling and grab sampling is often used by geologists for sediment sampling. Samples from one gravel pit were examined on the basis of the size-frequency distributions for each sample to com— pare the three methods and assign confidence levels to each method. An analysis of variance statistical treatment of the median grain size and sorting coefficient data estab- lished that auger boring is sufficiently representative where sizes below one inch are considered. Grab samples provide a representative sample where bank exposures are available and all particle sizes are considered. Channel samples were found to be less reliable and subject to more sample error due to inconsistent sample size than either auger boring or grab sampling. EVALUATION OF THREE SAMPLING METHODS USED IN GRAVEL DEPOSITS By Thomas A. Herbert A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geology 1968 Q) , ..' . _. I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to Professor H. B. Stonehouse for his guidance as chairman of his thesis committee and to the members of the committee; Professors C. E. Prouty, W. J. Hinze, and M. M. Miller. The writer is also indebted to the staff members of the Materials Research Section, Research Laboratory Division, Department of State Highways who helped. with phases of the project. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. Purpose Reason for Study. II. METHOD OF PROCEDURE General Statement Support. Location . . Geology of the Deposit. Sampling Methods Used in Property Evaluation. Channel Method . . . . Grab Method . . . . . Auger Method . III. LABORATORY ANALYSIS . . . . Analysis of the Channel and Auger Samples. . . Analysis of the Grab Samples. IV. DATA REDUCTION . . . . V. STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA. Analyses of Variance (AOV) of Grab Sample Data . . . . AOV of Auger Data . . . . AOV of Channel Data. Examination of the Factors Which Bias Auger Samples. VI. CONCLUSIONS Auger Method . . . . . . . Channel Method . . . . . . Grab Method Future Study iii Page ii vi I--’ 22 23 2H 29 Chapter Page REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 APPENDIX l—-Auger Hole Logs . . . . . . . . . “5 2-—Site Stratigraphy. . . . . 51 3—-Cumu1ative Size- -Frequency Distribution Curves for Each Sampling Method at Each Site, Minus 3/8-Inch Fraction . . 53 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Median Grain Size Data for Grab Samples at Each Site and Position, Minus 3/8- Inch Fraction, Expressed in Phi Units . . 36 2. AOV Results for the Grab Sample Median Grain Size Data, Minus 3/8—Inch Fraction . 36 3. AOV Results for the Sorting Coefficients and Median Grain Size Data for the Channel and Auger Methods, Minus 3/8—Inch Fraction. 37 A. Comparisons Between the Three Sampling Methods on the Basis of the Minus 3/8-Inch Fraction, Values are Percent Passing the 3/8-Inch Sieve . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 10. 11. LIST OF FIGURES Location of the Area. Stratigraphy at Each Sample Site. Sampling Positions for Each Method View of the Gravel Pit Face Drilling First Auger Section into the Ground. . . . . . . . . Sampling from the Auger Tool Sample Loss from the Bottom Auger Section. Auger Boring Next to the Pit Face Pit Face Stratigraphy and Two Channels. Flow Scheme for Laboratory Analysis. Two Size—Frequency Distribution Curves for the Channel and Auger Methods at Site 1, Minus 3/8-Inch Fraction . . vi Page 20 2O 2O 2O 21 21 27 28 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose This investigation examines the variables that effect a sample of unconsolidated sand and gravel obtained by uncased auger boring, channeling, and grab sampling. The truck-mounted auger drill has been used in the past to evaluate gravel deposits but often the samples obtained were biased by unknown geological and mechanical factors. The specific problem is, therefore, to examine and compare results from several different sampling methods so that the most representative sample can be obtained and degrees of confidence assigned to other methods. Reason for Study The size distribution or grading and the total reserves with the boundary of a deposit are the two most important factors in a gravel deposit evaluation. Accurate reserves of a prOperty can only be calculated after information about the natural variability among samples is determined. To do this, representative sam- ples must be taken from the deposit, the samples analyzed by sieving, and the size distribution calculated. In order to be reasonably sure that a representative sample is being obtained, sampling along the face.ofa1deposit should provide statistically significant differences between sample sites which, by observation, are known to be slightly different." Geological factors such as changes in strati- graphy, grading, pellicular water, and position of ground water table are a few of the more obvious factors that could 'reasonably be expected to influence samples from the same deposit. 'An.understanding of comparisons and relations between samples which do detect natural variations will 'allow more.confidence to be placed upon these sampling methods and correspondingly a better estimate of the grad- ing and total reserves will be made. ‘Cased test holes provide the necessary information for an evaluation but their use is often limited because of high cost.' Vertical channeling of a pit face is the accepted method but several problems occur when sampling in this manner that may affect the final evaluation to some degree. Caving of bank material, and inability to maintain a constant width and depthhof channel, cause the size— frequency.distribution of several.adjacent samples to have a wide range in values. Small gravel pit operators in Michigan.have indicated 'a need for.a rapid, inexpensive method of property evalua- tion. Uncased auger boring can be used for such evalua- tions if its limitations are known. This study examines the uncased auger boring method of sampling with regard to the factors.that bias.an'auger sample and the ability 'of the method to detect small scale variations within a deposit. CHAPTER II METHOD OF PROCEDURE General.Statement The factor thought to contribute most to bias when sampling with the uncased auger is material selectively introduced by the drilling equipment or technique. It was thought that by studying one gravel pit with uniform overall stratigraphy and.using a uniform drilling procedure, an evaluation of selectivity could be made. ‘Channel and grab samples were taken from the pit face for comparison with the auger data to.determine stratigraphic variation. 'A site for the sampling study was selected at the American Aggregatestorporati n gravel pit in Kalamazoo County, Michigan (Figures 1, 4 and 9). The site has essentially uniform stratigraphy and ground water condi- tions along the working face where the samples were obtained. Samples were obtained by auger boring; 'fou ”holes at each of eight sample sites adjacentrto the working face. A stand- ardized drilling technique was used for all test holes. ITwo channel samples were dug from the face opposite the four bore holes at seven of the eight bore hole sites. Grab samples from a gridded sample pattern were taken in the same position as the channel (Figure 3). OVICKSBURG SCHOOLCRAFT AMERICAN AGGREGATE PIT Location of the area. Figure 1 . The data.from three hundred mechanical analyses were used to plot.cumulative size—frequency distribution curves. Statistical moments determined from the graphical data were then used to determine the betweenesite.variability and the reliability of the three sampling methods. The percentage of fine aggregate or material passing the 3/8- inch sieve for each sample site was used in an attempt to relate the stratigraphic variability as indicated by the three sampling methods. Support This project was supported by the Michigan Department of State Highways, Research Laboratory Division, under Research Project number 63 A-2l(2). Location The sample sites were located at the north end of the American Aggregates Corporation gravel pit in Cooper Town- ship, Kalamazoo.County, Michigan (Figure 1).. The pit is located on the west bluff of the Kalamazoo River, TlS, RllW, Sections 9, IO, 15, and 16. This deposit was chosen because the large size of the pit provided excellent ver- tical exposure near the working area and approximately 1/u mile of horizontal exposure (Figures 2 and A). Geology of the Deposit The American Aggregates pit is located on an upper level fluvial terrace of the Kalamazoo River and the site SITE I SITE 2 '0 {$04 I. f I 53.31% 3;... :{SEf-fi' ~ 4: *u . "a 1',.‘:.- . a .: 03'. O Wfiojwag SITE 3 "7 if; 0 3.‘ I '5'13 5.-.. xvii". Err”; ‘:a ”V .101. o ‘s 9 1' 9‘9, ,Q“ {fifty :3' r2; ’ 1 '71 52? @422 ; a; 3’? ° W s“ SITE 5 SITE 0 VS- ’,/ /-. 6," 4 ‘d {1: ’:1‘:7¢..?’:T“’""c 315;; "2 51b.': ;':‘, :1?" fix,» p’“,' '$~‘4‘Il"‘)~ao ‘4'» Ji’a" 9"!:‘ 1"“ (:A’bfo-z Lib ?y 9 9 .,1.1&--:.-:é¢..-.:¢" 3~9r533h3'4.101 .359” 42-! wit. a" sin-"#1? .-,.a¢=-:’4J/~.>-.;.::;~. a»... , -, .:‘I- {$3.} “‘115;.:'..}.;./!, i 7 ")3- SITE 7 SITE 8 SITEIO LEGEND 1“ 13%;} ' iii: (J13 ”$3.3 133.4 HLdBO .z'k 33v,» 5‘”? «III: SITE ll 7 $ . .'J__ , COARSE GRAVEL AND SAND N‘ r! [W CROSS BEDDED PEBBLY SAND SANDY . GRAVEL v a (.55 why at each sample site ‘1 t Stratigl Figure 2. SAND & VERTICAL SCALE? _.I 2 L... is well drained, with the water table well below the bottom of the pit. The-levelwofuthe Kalamazoo River.is approxi- mately lOO.feet beIOW'thefibottomrof;the'pit. Approximately eighty feet of vertical exposure is found along the l/A mile of pit face and.below the.sandy clay loam soil horizon which has been stripped off as overburden because of its high clay content; xThere are four strata exposed in the working area where the sample:sites were located; they are, from top to bottom: Bed l--A feet to 6 feet of cobbles, pebbles, and sand, cross-bedded at the bottom, transitional into Bed 2. Bed 2-elO feet to l6.feet of cross-bedded coarse sand, with a few pebbles and cobbles. Bed 3-—A feet to 6 feet of cross—bedded cobbles and pebbles, well sorted. Bed Ae—AO feet to.60 feet of.well sorted, medium to fine sand extending to bottom of pit (not included in samples) (See Figures 2, 9, Appendix I and.2). All textural terms are based on the Wentworth grade scale. .SamplingzMethodsxfiseduinaProperty:Evaluation The most common sampling methods for property evalua- 'tion or commercial sampling areivertical channeling and test holes.z The test holes and channeling methods may be used together-or separately to obtain a sample. -Two engi- neering oriented publications; thetConcrete.Manual and the Am. Soc. for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standards could be considered the "handbooks" for commercial.sampling. Neither publication, however, makes reference to the geological, mechanical, and statistical problems involved in commercial sampling. The ASTM Standard states, for example, with regard to the channeling methods: ".'. . the.sample shall be taken by channeling.the.face vertically, bottom to top, so that it will be representative of the material proposed to be used." The ASTM Standard states further that test holes, presumably cased or uncased, "shall.be drilled or exca- vated to determine the quality and extent of the material." And with regard to correlation between test holes and bank face samples, the ASTM Standard states: Separate samples.shall be obtained.from the face of the bank and.from test holes, in the.manner described above, and if visual inspection* indicates that there is considerable variation in the material, individual samples shall be selected to represent the material in each well—defined stratum. If the deposit being investigated does not have an open face, samples shall be obtained.entirely from test holes. The statement "visual inspection"'is.indefinite and is an unreliable method of estimating size gradation where, for example,.rigid aggregate specifications are to be met. For the past AOyears geologists have studied sediment sampling techniques. The most troublesome and most fre- quently encountered problem is hOW to take a representative sample. Cochran (1963,-p. l) in his introduction expresses *Writer's underline. 10 the problem simply, . . . when the material is far from uniform, as is often the case, the method by which the sample is obtained is critical, and the study of techniques that ensure a trustworthy sample becomes important. Otto (1938) considers the aim of the engineering (commercial) sample to be that of obtaining a representa- tive or average sample. He further states that a regular sampling pattern must be established to eliminate personal bias. ‘"Visual inspection" as prescribed by the ASTM Standards has.a high degree of personal bias and for commercial evaluation this method is not sufficiently reliable. Several authors.have used rigorous statistical methods to.compare various sampling techniques. Kurk (l9Al) compared the use of the spot sample to that of a channel sample in the mechanical analysis.of a series of glacio—fluvial deposits. He concluded for the spot samp— ling method that the unweighted.average of the mean parti- cle sizes of individual beds.did.not give a representative sample of the entire series and should not be used for commercial sampling. Steinmetz (1957, 1962), compared three methods of sampling, sedimentation unit samples, grid—spot samples, and channel samples, in a study of quartzose pebbles from unstratified, poorly stratified and well stratified deposits. After rigorous statistical treatment of the data Steinmetz (1957, pp. 84-85), concluded that "well-bedded deposits 11 are most effectively sampled by sedimentational unit, unbedded deposits by channel or grid samples, and poorly- bedded gravel deposits by grid samples." } Two sampling methods were used.to determine an approx- imation of.the size frequency distribution in the deposit. Channel samples taken according to ASTM procedures, and grab samples taken on a modified grid pattern, as suggested by Steinmetz.(l957, 1962), were used for comparison to determine the size distribution and the sedimentational trends within the deposit. ‘Auger samples were then com- pared to both the channel and grab sample methods in an attempt to determine how well the auger method detects natural variations within the deposit. Channel.Method Channel samples were obtained at seven sites along the near vertical face at the American Aggregates deposit. Sites number 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7, and 8 were sampled by the channel method, sites 10 and 11 were not sampled by the channel method because of frozen ground.conditions. Two channels were excavated at each sample site with a sepa- ration between them of from four feet to eight.feet (Figures 3 and 9). Samples were not obtained at sites A and 9 because caving removed vertical exposures. The ASTM method of bottom to top vertical channeling was used. The sampler was supported on the steep face by a canvas sling attached by steel cable to a truck-mounted SITE 3 | ( CHANNEL | 12 5.153 I I3579HBBWNZ .i :94 . en‘s; . c.0305. $90.30... Steuosflo so. .14.)... {Coydw 0.; vcobéthh .~.ooo.~\ooa ’6A05}. ’9 v .t o 61 e .9 O o a o a. o v o o .WOQIQJCA O .0063“?! o 9 00 .q 9 onto » o . v0 \ A r,“ a . K. 9’64} ‘64.? OI\6\ it o q a s eta... . 9 A : 0 Q 0 \~ O s Ova $1.1 DO)¢O. 0 6.9 L D o. _ o.w.oo¢o..w> P 8.. VWOWKV9NQNII“ ‘ \ WV ~ . 63‘ sea... A...“ . w .v 90. . .3», .. . . .. p 0!»...on ‘ 0‘. a \ . O s. O p .0 C d , , . ..........w......«......... 60 o. .0.90\3s\\ .. , , {3+ 4.. o . v 5104. O V .06. I . ‘ Q4 .09; Q4 3! ‘ I . I . . . . Ohvv. vvabtbOslI )\I.O{.$ab.;n\. .0 . avI. n91). . 54”.}...3945. I. \ . «)4 I... - «v... .mw...n....~...auwoo mfloopoaaouei .90.”. y. «No.33... s . .w<0.#mu.vv. 74/3 .u Halts. . . . . 09. $0w.~00.omv¢0~)n¥¢¢o t at» . Dane. w. .. CHANNEL 2 A . . A o . . _.ooo+ootv.+oo»:1«aof.i1o§i. a. ,0. a PO 0.... .31 c-onooooob4 op. 0 ex . f. .ocosoc..o.o~¢sc«9033 0:00. 06..) 6 .963 QQYOostfiufroGs‘sixan. at D . _ 9.1.9 cit/tone. fat“... ovens «more... 3%. .. . .0 as; c c outrvnoé a can»... . h D... .1 - §es¢soovn9aswuto¥1 . r, .ooovaasoonaa..&w. cue no». 43%. .t uwnakufiowflcnotw no.9...» .90 o washes.” 1 duo ,3... Ted Cs. 9‘9GO4D. 9;! C 0.. Ox‘VCCI. I’vt‘vC QOQ “0 «Qt .~ o [0369/ \~a.9¢l~¢ a .o o A. raycaaoo AWo Q o, o ‘ . Vol. at v) 0...»... 3,309.? AUGER HOLES 9 (A... «moo. s L w. A R G E w r. on D N A S D E D D E a s S D m m C S \\\A. 9.0: . o, .\ ( .4» v 2 A. .. Aha... \ . Q .5?“ 1‘ autsovwf 03$. 0.: Ix... . t ~41» factor. .a 090 .o v u . 1 1 a. t, . . . Vfiu’fitovuouonmncooqhos. .9... thu A .QJ’IVQMOHDHnw‘03W‘” J.) x... a 0 .1... .s. «.oOobvxts? 0 o s . . 9.52.33... All... ..H x 2.0. . I'M \O.‘ OI. vflv.£ (v) k. )fi .3 ,. . \ . for each method. ions t ing posi Sampl GRAB SAMPLE Figure 3. l3 winch. The.pit.face was-divided.into.three foot vertical increments by positioning a measuring tape against the face. Each three foot increment was sampled by digging an eight-inch wide by four-inch'deep.channel or strip. The material.from each three foot interval was placed in a 16- by 26-inch canvas.bag.. Approximately.50 to 60 lbs. of material was obtained for each three feet of vertical slope distance. Since stratigraphic variation was apparent over the short distance between the two channels at one site, the "sample" was considered to be the entire amount of material removed from one 8-inch by A-inch by 2l-feet excavation. However, the samples were-analyzed on the basis of the individual bags, seven for each channel, and then com- bined arithmetically. The problems encountered in field sampling by the channel method were numerous, and the wide range in the final size-frequency distributions is probably due, to a great extent, to these factors, since the other.sampling methods detected.no measurable variation.between samples at one site. The most difficult problem is to properly weight the sample both by bulk weight and volume so that the sedimentary units are sampled proportional to their thickness. .To do this a uniform depth and width of channel must be maintained. However, the sampler can estimate the volume of material by filling identical sample bags to the same depth each time. Uniform channel width and depth can 14 be maintained fairly well as long as the.bank.does not cave, but when caving occurs, the reference channel is usually destroyed. If the channel is destroyed due to caving sampling can be resumed if careful note is kept of the reference measuring tape. Grab Method Krumbein and Graybill (1966) define a grab sample as a relatively small fixed volume.of material. Grab samples are usually taken from a grid in either a regular or random pattern and may be either single or nested samples. The selection of the sampling plan is usually determined by the.comp1exity of the deposit and the infor- mation desired. Grab samples, in this study, were.obtained from a regular, nested grid sampling plan. The sampling plan is illustrated in Figure 3. Two samples were taken at eight vertical positions at each of eight sample sites, a total of 128 individual samples were obtained from the eight sites. Site 1 was not.sampled because caving caused the lower portions of the face to be covered with talus material. The regular grid pattern was used so that the grab samples would be adjacent to the channels in order to compare grab and channel samples. *The nested, two-sample design was used to check the small-scale variations between two samples taken from the same vertical position. 15 The position of the eight vertical samples was determined.by the.thickness of the sedimentation unit at the sample.site.. In order to weight the samples correctly as to the thickness of each sedimentation unit, a steel measuring tape measure was positioned normal to the beds. The 22 foot mark was positioned at the pit edge and the samples were.taken at the 21, 18, 15, 12, 9, 6, 3, and 0 marks on the tape. This happened-to coincide with at least two sample positions for each stratigraphic unit, both samples were of approximately the same bulk weight. The samples were placed in 8- by l6~inch.canvas bags and the bags marked as to site, position and sample number (Figure 3). Sampling by sedimentation unit allowed the data to be used in two ways. ‘First, the nested samples allowed the small scale variations to be assessed.. In other words two.samples taken from a small unit volume, repeated 64 times, gave sufficient data for statistical analysis. Secondly,.the sedimentation unit data were combined arith- metically for-comparison with the channel and.auger results. Two problems were apparent when sampling.by this method. The proper-weighting'of material for each unit was again a problem.as it was in:the*channel.method. How- ever,xclose'attentiennte thezpositioning of.the tape measure and the uniformity ianulk sample weight reduced this problem. nThe sampling phase of the study was done in late December and frozen ground conditions affected 16 the sampling program. .Sample error was probably increased where it was difficult to obtain samples at the correct vertical position due to frozen ground conditions. Auger Method Opposite each channel position two.auger holes were bored and a portion of the material brought to the surface was taken as the sample. A total of 36 bore holes were drilled to a depth of 21 feet.. Site 7 was drilled, but an error in the marking of the individual bags.made the sample unusable. Figure 3.illustrates the relation between auger holes and.the grab samples and.channels.. The.auger boring equipment and operator were furnished by the Department of State Highways, Soils Division, Dis- trict 7. .The drilling.rig, a Mobile Drill Model B-52 (Figure 8) ‘was mounted on a.fourswheel drive.truck which gave the unit a high degree of mobility. Standard 6—inch diameter construction augers.were.used.- Each auger section has an actual diameter of.5-l/2 inches, a pitch of 5 inches, and a length of 5 feet. Two different methods of auger boring may be used with the same drilling equipment.‘ The lift.recovery method* which.was used in this study enables loose material to be brought to the surface on the continuous flutes or "twist" of the auger tool by lifting the auger string from *Names used by this writer to differentiate two drilling techniques that may be used with the same equipment. 17 the hole. The sample can be removed as.material is brought to the surface. The spin recovery method* uses the spin- ning or augering action.of.the auger tool to bring material to the surface. .This method is commonly used where quali- tative subsurface information is required. The drilling started when the drilling rig was posi- tioned over a predetermined drilling site and the first section of auger was connected to the spindle. The auger sections were.drilled.into the ground by a combination of spindle rotation and hydraulic.ram feed supplied by two cylinders mounted on the mast.. Five sections of auger were advanced.into the ground to a depth of 21 feet at the slowest possible.feed.rate. .The normal, slow hydraulic feed rate.is.lA feet-per—minute,.but this was reduced even more by frequent disengagement.of.the.clutch mech- anism. The slow.feed rate.was.used to minimize disruption of the material (Figure 5). ‘When a depth of 21 feet was reached, the auger string was lifted.slowly.from the hole and the material adhering to the auger flutes was removed. A sample was removed from this material and put into canvas sample bags (Figure 6). Because the sample was mixed te.some.degree by the augering action and no clear-cut sedimentation.unit boun- daries were observed, no attempt was made to separate the sedimentation units. An additional sampling technique was attempted in the beginning of the study. This involved advancing the 18 auger five feet at a time and then removing the auger string and obtaining the sample. This technique proved to be too slow and caused enlargement and caving of the hole. It was expected that most of the errors using the auger method would.be due to size selectivity caused by the physical dimensions.of the auger tool. For example, the larger diameter particles would either be pushed aside by the drilling action or simply left in the ground because their diameters were greater than the flute width of the auger tool. No doubt this is a factor but, unfortunately, these effects were.masked by another factor which was some- what expected. Each auger hole had at least three to five feet of auger penetration into Bed 3, a well-sorted coarse gravel. As the auger was being lifted from the hole mechanical vibrations, caused by the lifting operation, dislodged a portion of this coarse material (Figure 7). The loss of this portion of the sample was probably the main source of error among the four auger holes at any one site. It was observed that.the amount of material lost from-the bottom of the auger string was not the same each time. At two adjacent auger holes,.where.there was a small amount of material dislodged, size—frequency dis- tributions were remarkably similar. Sample Site 1 was unusual in that little material was.lost by dislodgement; correspondingly the percentage of fine aggregate values (the statistic used for comparison among the sampling l9 methodS) had a range of only 0.4 per cent. At sites where sample loss was not uniform, the range was as much as 7.0 . per cent. Cased test holes, as a matter of reference, are excavated by-first driving a steel casing into the ground and then either augering or bailing the material from within the casing. 20 .. ‘33:}: “A '. View of the gravel pit face. Figure 4. Figure 7. Sample loss Figure 3 Drilling first au— Figure 6. Sampling from from the bottom auger sec— ger section into the ground. the auger tool. tion. £35.20 o5 use Emmewsgum coma «E .a PEEL .83 fig 05 68: wince $.95. .w 35m; . q. f \ .. , . ~ . 3. \ . ou— 21 CHAPTER III LABORATORY ANALYSIS The laboratory phase of this project involved a total of 600 sieve analyses; 300 each for material larger and smaller than 3/8 inch diameter. The samples were brought in from the field and allowed to air dry for three weeks. At the end of this time, the moisture con- tent was checked against the oven dry weights and was less than 2 per cent by weight. The field moisture con- tent was from eight to twelve per cent. Analysis of the Channel and Auger Samples Both the channel and auger samples were 300-AOO lbs. in size. A composite sample this large cannot be sieved at one.time. In order to avoid splitting the sample and introducing possible errors in the large size fraction (the ASTM Standard suggests 300 lbs. of sample for 3-inch.diameter maximum size) each bag was sieved separately and the results combined arithmetically. Each bag, representing three feet of vertical exposure, was first sieved through the 2-, 1 1/2-, l-, 3/“-, l/2-, and 3/8-inch screens.‘ The material passing the 3/8-inch screen (the fine aggregate) was then split 22 23 to from U00 to 800 grams (1 to 2 lbs.) for fine sieve analysis (Figure 10). The fine screens included the U. 3. Standard Numbers 5, 10, 18, 35, 60 and 120 which correspond to -2, -1, l, 2, and 3 units on the Phi Scale. This allowed the cumulative size-frequency distributions to be plotted on rectangular coordinate paper. The statistical moments were then taken from the frequency curves directly in phi units. Analysis of the Grab Samples The grab samples ranged in weight from 3000-4000 grams (6 to 10 lbs.). A slightly different mechanical analysis procedure was used due to the smaller sample size. The coarse fraction was separated by hand sieving through 10-inch diameter sieves. Then the fine fraction was split to 400-800 grams (1 to 2 lbs.) and sieved in the same manner as the channel and auger samples (Figure 10). CHAPTER IV DATA REDUCTION Mechanical analysis data provides quantitative information about the size distributions or grading within a sample. In order to proceed from raw data to refined data which could be used in statistical comparisons, weight percentages.were calculated. The Michigan Dep— artment of State Highways (MDSH) computer facilities were used in all calculations except for the analysis of variance routine which was run at Michigan State University. In order to examine the selectivity factOrs of size and mechanical dislodgement in the auger boring method; the mechanical analysis data were treated by calculating weight percentages for the samples in the following five ways: 1. A complete distribution for the twelve sieve sizes from 2 inches.to..00A9 inches with the plus 3/8 inch and minus 3/8 inch percentages adjusted to plot on the Same frequency curve. 2. A size-frequency distribution for the minus 3/8 inch sizes only to eliminate bias due to oversize material not included in the auger samples. 3. Complete adjusted distributions with 2 inch size deleted from calculations. 24 25 A. Complete adjusted distributions with 2 inch and l-l/2 inch sizes deleted. 5. Complete adjusted distributions with 2 inch, 1-1/2 inch and 1 inch sizes deleted. According to Krumbein and Pettijohn (1938) perhaps the most important statistical measure is that of central tendency. Measures.of central tendency would include such diverse measures as the arithmetic mean size, median size, modal size, and the geometric mean size. The most readily available of these, at least from the cumulative frequency curves, is the median size. The first step in data reduction and analysis was to plot size-frequency distribution curves for the minus 3/8 inch data from the three sampling methods. An inspection of the complete distributions from 2 inches to .00A9 inches indicated that the minus 3/8 inch data were the most readily used sizes for statistical comparisons. The minus 3/8 inch fraction was used for convenience because the two stage sieving procedure gave a natural division point. Inspection of the data indicates that sizes up to 1 inch could have been used without increasing sample error. Quartile moments which correspond to the Y inter- cepts at the 25 per cent (Q1), 50 per cent (Q2), and 75 per cent (Q3) levels were obtained from the minus 3/8 inch cumulative size-frequency curves. Figure 11 depicts the size-frequency distributions for four auger holes at Site 1 (selected as being a representative example). 26 The median grain size in phi units are expressed. The arithmetic mean of the four median size values (Q2) is 0.u2 phi while the standard deviation is 0.07 phi units. Figure Ll shows the two channel samples from site at site 1. The median grain sizes are 0.18 phi and 0.h3 phi, respectively, while the mean is 0.30 phi. This compares well with the 0.A2 mean value of the auger samples at the same site. In general the three sample methods gave similar distribution curves at any one site. But the statistical treatment of the data as discussed later indicates that, while similar at one site, the three methods of sampling have a wide range in the confidence levels when natural sedimentary differences between sites are considered. The size-frequency curves at each site for the three sampling methods are included in Appendix 3. 27 CHANNEL AUGER SAMPLES SAMPLES '30-‘40 K9 20-45 K9 ..................................................................... ........................................................................ ............................................................................................... ................................................................ BULK SAMPLES WEIGHED GILSON SIEVE SHAKER ........ ....... ...... ...... 8" STANDARD SIEVES ROTAP - LWEIGHT RETAINED RECORDED CRAB SAMPLES . ....... .......... ——+ uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ................. .................. .......... ....... .......... ........ ...... ............. ........ ...... ...... Figure 10. ...... .................................. ............................................... .................. GILSON SPLITTER REMAINDER DISCARDED WEIGHT >- RETAINED RECORDED ....... ..................................................................... ........... Io" HAND SIEVES Sieve Size Sue, 0 Units mm 2" 50.8 —5.67 1-1/2" 38.1 -5.25 1" 25.4 -4.67 3/4" 19.0 -4.25 1/2" 12.7 -3.67 3/8" 9.5 -3.25 #5 4 -2 #10 2 -1 #18 1 0 #35 0.5 1 #60 0.25 2 #120 0.125 3 Flow scheme for laboratory analysis. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, PERCENT 28 IOO 90h 80>— 70—- 60— 50%- 4o— 30—- 0 l 1 1 I I “'2 '"I O I 2 3 SIZE IN PHI UNITS Figure 11. Two size-frequency distribution curves for the channel and auger methods at site 1, minus 3/8-in. fraction. CHAPTER V STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA Perhaps the most important and possibly the most overlooked factor in the commercial evaluation of a gravel deposit is that of stratigraphic variability. The channel method of sampling as outlined by the ASTM Standards does not give sufficient small—scale informa- tion to estimate the horizontal nor the vertical varia- bility within the deposit. Sedimentologists often restrict the use of channeling to search sampling only, for example, when searching for a specific lithologic or fossiliferous zone in an outcrop. Combining all segments of a channel into a bulk sample for analysis as suggested by the ASTM Standards eliminates almost all the information about the vertical variation with the deposit. Individual analysis may help to locate the economic strata more easily and reliably. In order to determine which sampling method is most reliable in detecting the stratigraphic variation within the deposit, the sample data was analyzed using an analysis of variance (AOV) computer routine. The grab sample median size data of the minus 3/8 inch fraction for 29 30 vertical position at each site were fed into the computer to calculate the significance of; (l) repetition of sample, (2) vertical position, and (3) site. Both median grain size and sorting coefficient were used in the analysis of the channel and auger data. The sorting coefficient as introduced by Trask (1932) is: .Q Sort Coeff = 5; 1 This was used for the auger and channel samples *where less data were available and it was felt that the addition of the sorting coefficient data would provide more specific information about the shape of the frequency curves . Analyses of Variance (AOV) of Grab Sample Data. Table 1 presents the array of grab sample median grain size data as to site, vertical position, and repe- tition of sample. The AOV routine was used to test the variance of position, site, and repetition of samples. The variability among vertical positions, as would be expected from the observed stratigraphy, is highly significant at the 0.99 level (Table 2). The high sig- nificance of the interaction between site and vertical position was due to the fact that the strata were not uniform in thickness among the sampling sites. 31 AOV of Auger Data The median grain size and the sorting coefficient data were used in an attempt to determine the effects ‘of sample repetition within site and the ability of the auger and channel methods to detect between site varia- tions (Tables 1,.2, and 3). The analysis determined that there was no signifi- cant difference between the four auger holes within a site (Table 3). Neither the median size nor the sorting coefficient data showed significant differences between paired auger holes at any one site at the 0.95 level. ’The auger method, however, was effective in determining between site variability. Both the median grain size and sorting coefficient data indicated significant dif- ference at the 0.99 level of confidence. AOV of Channel Data The channel method proved less reliable in detecting between site variation. Neither the median grain size data or the sorting coefficient data indicated a sig- nificant difference between sites at the 0.99 level of significance. The difference between two channels at one site was not significant. The F ratio.was tested at the 0.95 level for both the median grain size data and the sorting coefficient data. The sorting coefficient data proved significant at the 0.95 level but the median grain size values were not, which indicates that the 32 median grain size, while helpful in detecting differences among samples, provides no information about the shape of the size—distribution curve, which in turn would be related to the uniformity of the deposit. The sorting coefficient, however, gives some information about the shape of the frequency curve and thus would give addi— tional information about the sample. The median grain size for the fourteen channels probably did not provide sufficient data to detect differences between sites. The increase in information about the sample sites using the sorting coefficient showed significant difference between sites at the 0.95 level. Examination of the Factors Which Biastuger Samples In order to evaluate the auger boring method of sampling, the factors that contribute to bias must be examined. Two factors were thought to influence the sample: size selectivity due to the physical dimensions of the auger tool and sample loss due to mechanical vibrations during recovery of the sample. These two factors were examined by comparing the percentage of fine aggregate in the auger samples with the percentage of fine aggregate for the channel and grab samples. In order to study the effects of size selectivity and sample loss the.original weight percentages were recalculated deleting the larger sizes of material (2 inch and 1-1/2 inch) from the channel samples and the 33 calculated composite grab samples. Positions 7 and 8 used in the calculation of the composite grab sample were deleted and the weight percentages were recalculated. Table 4 lists the comparisons between methods of sampling. It was thought that if the average percentages for the recalculated channel and composite grab samples approached the values obtained for the auger samples, there would be an indication of the degree of bias im- parted to the auger samples by the two factors of sample loss and size selectivity. The thirty-two auger holes had an average value of 88.5 per cent fine aggregate (minus 3/8 inch) while the fourteen channel samples averaged 77.6 per cent and the calculated composite of the grab samples averaged 80.6 per cent. The minus 3/8 inch percentage was calculated from the cased test hole data supplied by the American Aggregates Corporation and was found to be 80.6 per cent fine aggregate for five test holes located in and around the sample area for this study. The recalculated average values for the channel method with the 2 inch and the combined 2 inch and l-l/2 inch sizes deleted increased to 82.7 per cent and 8A.0 per cent, respectively (Table A). The channel samples included the lower three to four feet of coarse gravel which was lost in part with auger boring. The 1 inch size pebbles were not included in the deletion and recal- culation procedure. It is possible that a portion of 3A the 1 inch size was also selectively "missed" by the auger tool so that the 84.0 per cent value for 2 inch and l-l/2 inch deleted would be increased even more, approaching the 88.5 per cent value of the auger samples. The calculated composite grab samples were also used to reconstruct and examine the selectivity of the auger method. The average composite grab sample fine aggregate percentage, was 80.6 per cent, which is in agreement with the.77.6 per cent value of the channel method and the 80.6.per cent value of the cased test hole samples. Deletion of vertical positions 7 and 8, which were from the coarse gravel horizon, increased the percentage of fine aggregate to 83.1 per cent. The additional deletion of the 2 inch size and 2 inch and l-l/2 sizes combined produced values of 8A.5 per cent and 85.4 per cent, respectively (Table A). The fine aggregate percentages for the channel and grab sample methods approach the auger value to within four per cent which is still a significant value. The four per cent difference possibly can be explained by the fact that the horizontal distance between the sam- ples taken from the bank-face and the channels were only approximately eight feet apart at the edge of the pit, but due to the slope of the pit face, the bottom of the channel and the bottom of the auger holes were up to 20 feet apart. It was shown from the analysis of variance that sites were significantly different while the between 35 sample differences at one site were insignificant. How- ever, when considering the four per cent difference in fine aggregate between the auger samples and the channel and composite grab samples, it must be noted that the separation between the auger holes and the channel was often as great as between sample sites. If there is a significant difference between sample sites 25 to 30 feet apart, it would be reasonable to assume that there might be significant difference between the auger and channel samples separated by 10 to 20 feet. While the normal pit variation explains the dif- ferences to some degree there are no doubt additional variables which cannot be attributed to any one factor. The sample error among all the samples is dependent not only on the natural variation but also on the personal bias involved when sampling by either of the three methods. 36 TAB LE 1 MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE DATA FOR GRAB SAMPLES AT EACH SITE AND POSITION, MINUS 3/8—IN. FRACTION, EXPRESSED IN PHI UNITS Position sample Site N0. 11 10 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 -0. 71 -1.27 -1.57 -0. 28 -0.85 -0.81 -0. 98 -0.7 -0.87 -1.08 -1.43 -0.40 -1.04 -0.69 -0.94 -1.0 2 0.08 -0.19 0.42 -1.82 -1.11 -1.76 0.76 0.00 0.34 -0.38 0.38 -1.77 -1.40 -1.77 0.53 0.18 3 -0.44 '0.01 -1.63 -0.14 -0.58 1.62 0.77 0.90 ~0.32 0. 07 -1.51 ~0.05 -0.59 1.63 0.92 0.92 4 0.14 0. 06 0.51 -0.13 0.08 0. 30 -0.03 0.82 0.16 0.09 0.46 -0.19 0.07 0.39 0.03 0.66 5 0. 23 0.84 '0.10 -0. 27 -0.14 '0.72 0.78 0.90 0.21 0.90 -0.32 '0. 57 0.02 -0.62 0.82 0.95 6 0 30 0 93 0. 26 0.59 0.78 1.03 0.61 0.32 0 78 1 00 0.57 0.19 0.66 1.51 0.58 0.53 7 -0. 83 -1 . 32 0. 59 -1 . 14 -0. 33 0. 36 -1 . 97 -1 . 80 -0. 63 -1.23 0. 60 -1.14 '0. 27 -0. 20 -1.99 -1.88 8 -1.78 -0.68 -1.14 -0.48 0.60 1.87 -1.92 -1.50 -1.90 -0.76 -0. 96 -0.21 0.74 1.83 -1.94 -1.60 TAB LE 2 AOV RESULTS FOR THE GRAB SAMPLE MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE DATA, MINUS 3/8-IN. FRACTION Source of Variance Sum 0‘ Degrees 0f Mean F Squares Freedom Square Ratio Position 33. 71503393 6 5. 61917232 320. 92’ Site 3. 63913929 7 0. 51987704 29. 7‘” Position x Site 45.32912321 42 1. 07926484 61. 6(2) Repetition of Samples“) 0. 00965714 1 D Position x Repetition“) 0. 08910536 6 Site x Repetition“) 0.13517143 7 L 0. 01751“) Position x Site x Repetition“) 0.74696607 42 Remaining Error 0. 00000001 0 _/ (1) Effects pooled for error estimate (3’ Significant at 0.99 level ‘3’ Mean square error 37 TABLE 3 AOV RESULTS FOR THE SORTING COEFFICIENTS AND MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE DATA FOR THE CHANNEL AND AUGER METHODS, MINUS 3/8-IN. FRACTION Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Square Ratio f f 3 Hole 0. 08623 3 0. 02874 1. 9314‘“ :5 Site 2.22480 7 0.31783 21.3595”) 3 8 HolexSite 0.31253 21 0.01433 _--_ ‘63 go _ .5 <2 TOTAL 2.62355 31 °' L l-t " r a . g 3 Channel 0.02161 1 0.02161 0.8511“) 2 é’ Site 0.37337 6 0.06223 2.4510“) E Channel x Site 0.15234 6 0.02539 --—- 0 TOTAL 0.54732 13 L L ‘I '3 Hole 0.05294 3 0. 01765 1. 6016‘“ A: ‘26 Site 1.25954 7 0.17993 16.3276") 3 3 HolexSite 0.23151 21 0.01102 --..- O m. g _ 0 g < TOTAL 1.54399 31 8 L 0r 5 '8 Channel 0.01086 1 0.01086 0.3731“) 7. 5 5; it Site 0.90869 6 0.15145 5.2027(3) 7% Channel x Site 0.17469 6 0.02911 "-- L 5 TOTAL 1.09424 13 L (1) Not significant at 0. 95 level (3) Significant at 0. 99 level (3’ Significant at 0. 95 level 38 v .NN m .N H .NN N .cN N .NN c .HoN N .NN N .2. N025» Omauo>< m .N N .vN N .NN N .NN N H .NN N .N .Z .N .Z .N .Z N H. NN H HH INN N.H.N N .NN N.NN. H N.NN N .m .2 .m .2 .m .2 H NNN H N .NN H.«.N H.NN NNN CNN N . N .m .2 .N .2 .m .2 N N NN H N .NN N oH va «.NN NNN HHN H 06m H NZ NZ NZ H .NN N.NN N.NN NNN NJN N “.NN M N.NN c.HN 9.2. N I I C C m.aw N I O I w NNN NNN NNN NVN H . NNN NON V3. H H cm H .N .Z N.HN N.HN o.HN 23. N .m .2 M NI: N.NH. NA; N .N .z N H. N.NN o.HN o.HN N.N~. H .N .2 H N.HN NéN 5.3. H N .NN N.HN N.oN NNH. N H.NN N INN N.NN N.HN N v NN H H. .NN N N H. cN N E. N E. 0 NH. H «.NN H N VN o NN N S. H v. N vNN HINN NNN H.H.N N .H N NNN N.NN NHL. N H. «N H N .NN N N NNN v.5 v.5 N.NN H . N.HN NNN N65 H N N H . N H.NN NNN H...NN N.HN N o.H N céN «.NN H.NH. N N NN H N NQN N.NN NNH. NNN H NNN N N.NN m.NN 0.2. H HiNN H A. .NN o .NN ”.NN «.NN 5.3 N “.2 m o .3 m .5 3:. m . . . . m .3 N . . . A VNN NNN NNN NNN H . vcm NNN NNN H N N H .NN .m .2 .N .Z .m .2 .N .2 N N. N H .NN INN c.HN N e S H H m .7. m .2 .m .2 .N .2 H bNN N NNN H.vN ¢.HN H o .om H 0328 0328 moi—cam 8358 03200 as .65 N So .55 N 5828 9.6 9:0 use: not: an .65 N 5328 a £896 a N\HIH man N a A. N a H. 00 09:8 amok 8N3. van N\HIH a5 :05 N n2 Saw Ho 62 8E min N a H. 388500 No NON=< nohmm 3:530 :onmoAH oEEaN 082330 8:309 8368 230 No 0:89:00 003—3030 8358 353:0 m>mHm .ZHIN\N mHHHH. OZHmm .ZOHBOHDHh .ZHIN\N NDZHSH , MIA. .mO mHmHHOO Ho amflb CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS Auger Method Where visual inspection of a deposit is not possible, auger samples are shown to be sufficiently representative provided sizes below one inch are considered. To augment information determined from cased test-holes so that the number of cased holes may be reduced the auger may be used, but again with consideration of the selective loss of the larger sizes., Where visual inspection of the deposit is possible, auger boring provides a more representative sample for evaluating variations.than the channel method and one comparable to grab sampling. Near-surface ground water conditions, while not a factor in this study, may also limit the usefulness of the uncased auger. .Saturated material from below the water table may be dislodged more easily than less moist, material from above the water table. Dry conditions also may disrupt auger.sampling. The best time of the year for auger boring is probably in the spring or fall when pellicular water is at a maximum. 39 NO From the results of this study it can be concluded that the lift-recovery auger boring method of sampling can be used effectively in situations where the strati- graphy is simple and the ground water table is below the sampling level. -It should be realized that the uncased auger method of sampling is limited in the depth from which the auger can lift material. The Mobile Drill, Model B-52, with.the 6-inch diameter auger was effective in drilling to a depth of only approximately 25 feet through the four strata found at the sample site. The maximum depth to which the lift—recovery method is effec- tive is limited by the diameter of the auger and the lifting capacity of the drilling rig. At this time no information is available with regards to other combina- tions of auger diameters and lifting capacities, and the effective drilling depth. Channel Method The channel method of sampling provides useful information about the grading or size distribution within a deposit. However, the difficulties involved in excavating the actual channels tend to bias the small size sample to a greater.degree than with other sampling methods. Bank caving and inconsistent sample volume lead to greater sample error. Ml Grab Method The sedimentation unit method of sampling (the grab sample method as it happened in this study) is as reliable as the auger method in the ability to detect variation within the deposit. The total amount of time involved in any economic evaluation would be important not only for the recipient of the study in terms of cost but also in terms of efficiency of the method. The grab sample method provides a sample.much smaller in size, elimina- ting extra handling while providing more valuable informa- tion about the deposit with correspondingly reduced sample error as shown by Steinmetz (1957, 1961). Future Study On the basis of previous work done in the field of sediment sampling, and the results of this study, an alternate method of commercial sampling from pit face exposures is suggested. The sedimentation unit method of sampling is not new as it was first stated by both Otto (1938) and Apfel (1938). The sedimentation unit composite sample would be made up of equal spot or grab samples from each sedimen- tary unit which would contain the specific information about the unit; equally weighted samples, when combined proportionally to thickness of the units would give deposit grade and total reserves. U2 The sedimentation unit method requires more initial preparation before sampling than does the channel method but the total time involved is less. The first step is to correctly measure the thickness of each sedimentary. unit at the exposure. Next, determine the ratio of the unit thicknesses. Then, take a number of samples from each unit equal to.the ratio number. For example, if a three unit exposure had strata five feet, six feet, and seven feet thick, than the ratio would be 5:6:7 and five, siz, and seven equal volume sample would be taken, res- pectively. Each sample would be small in size, 8 to 10 lbs. and the composite would weigh approximately half as much as a channel sample at the same location. Com- bined samples from one unit would be analyzed separately for the within unit information and the data from several units combined into a composite. REFERENCES American Society for Testing Materials, 1961, Book of ASTM Standards, Part A, Cement, Lime, Gypsum, Mortar, Concrete, Mineral Aggregates, Bituminous Materials, Soils; Philadelphia, 1675pp. Apfel, E. T. 1938, Phase Sampling of Sediments: Journal Sed. Petrology, v. 8, pp. 67-68. Cochran, W. G. 1963, Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, A13pp. Ehrlich, R. 196”, The Role of the Homogeneous Unit in Sampling Plans for Sediments: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 3“, no. 2, pp. A37-A39. Griffiths, J. C. .1955, Sampling Sediment for Measurement of Grain Size and Shape (abs.): Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 66, p. 1568. Griffiths, J. C. 1962, Statistical Methods in Sedimen- tary Petrography: Chapter 16, in Milner, H. B., Sedimentary Petro ra h ; v. 1, A ed., MacMillan Co., New York, pp. 565- O9.’ Guenther, W. C. 196A, Analysis of Variance, Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 199p. Kneller, W. A. 196“, A geological and economic study of gravel deposits of Washtenaw County and vicinity, Michigan. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 190p. Krumbein, W. C. and Pettijohn, F. J. 1938, Manual of Sedimentarvaetrography, Appleton-Century Co., Inc., New York, 549p. Krumbein, W. C. 1953, Statistical designs for sampling beach sand: Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, v. 3“, pp. 857-68. Krumbein, W. C. 1960, The "geological population" as a framework for analyzing numerical data in geology: Liverpool and Manchester Geological Journal, v. 2, Part 3, pp. 391-68. “3 uu Krumbein, W. C. and Grabill, F. A. 1965, An introduction to statistical models in geology; McGraw-Hill 80., New York, H75p. Kurk, E. H. 1941, The problem of sampling heterogeneous sediments: Unpublished master's thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 37p. Otto, G. H. 1938, The sedimentation unit and its use in field sampling; Jour. Geology, v. “6, pp. 569-82. Steinmetz, R. 1957, Size and shape of quartzose pebbles from three New Jersey gravels: Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Minerology, The Pennsylvania itgte University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1 p. Steinmetz, R. 1962, Sampling and size distribution of quartzose pebbles from three New Jersey gravels: Jouro GeOIOgy, V. 70, no. 1, pp. 56-730 U. 8. Bureau of Reclamation, 1956, Concrete manual: Sixth edition, U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C., “91p. APPENDIX 1 AUGER HO LE LOGS Hole Number Depth Description (1%.) A l-la 0-7 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand with some clay 7-12 Sand with some pebbles 12-19 Pebbly sand 19-21 No sample A l-lb 0-7 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand with some clay 7-13 Sand, few pebbles 13-19 Pebbly sand 19-21. No sample A l-2a O-A Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand clay “-12 Pebbles, coarse sand 12-17 Coarse sand, few cobbles, pebbles 17-22 Coarse sand, few cobbles, pebbles A l-2b- 0-4 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand clay 4-12~ Pebbly coarse sand 12-22 Coarse sand, cobbles, pebbles A 2-la 0-2 Pebbles, sand, clay 2-7 Pebbly sand 7-12 Pebbly sand. 12-17 Sand, few pebbles 17-22. Pebbles, sand A 2-lb- O-A Cobbles, Pebbles, sand, clay A-l2' Sand, pebbles 12917‘ Coarse.sand, few pebbles 17-22 Coarse sand, cobbles A5 46 Hole Number ?;§t§ Description A 2-2a 0-2 Pebbles, sand, some clay 2—7 Pebbly sand, grading to coarse sand 7-12 Sand, grading to coarse sand 12—17 Coarse sand, pebbles 17—22 Coarse gravel, sand A 2-2b 0-2 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand clay 2—7 Pebbles, grading to coarse sand 7-12 Med. sand, grading to coarse sand 12—17 Coarse sand, pebbles 17-22 Coarse pebbly sand A 3-1a 0-2 Cobbles, pebbles, sand and clay 2-8 Pebbly sand, grading to coarse sand 9-16 Coarse sand and pebbles 17-22 Coarse pebbly sand A 3—1b' 0-2 Cobbles, pebbles, sand and . clay 2—8 Pebbly sand, grading to coarse sand 9-16. Coarse sand and pebbles 17-22- Coarse pebbly sand A 3-2a 0-3 Cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay A-lO Pebbly sand, coarse sand 11-16 Coarse sand and pebbles 17-21‘ Coarse pebbly sand A 3-2b- 0-3 Cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay “-10- Pebbly sand, coarse sand 11-16 Pebbles, coarse sand 17-21. Coarse pebbly sand, cobbles A 5-1a 0-5 Cobbles, sand. 5-13 Coarse sand to ten feet, then fine sand 13-18 Fine sand 18-20 Cobbles, pebbles, sand 20-21' No sample A7 _> — Hole Number Dgpth Description A S-lb 0-5 Pebbles, sand, clay, few cobbles 5-13 Coarse sand to ten feet 13-18 Pebbly sand. 18—20 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand 20—21 No sample A 5-2a 0-2 Pebbles, sand, few cobbles 2-12 Pebbly sand 12-14 Pebbly sand 14-20 Coarse pebbles and sand 20—21 No sample A 5-2b O—A Pebbles, sand and clay 4-8 Pebbly sand 8-10 Pebbly sand 10-13 Pebbly sandr 13—16 Coarse sand- 16-20 Pebbly sand with cobbles 20-21 No sample A 6-1a 0-5 Cobbles, pebbles, sand and clay 5-6 Block clay 6-10 Pebbly sand, grading to coarse sand at eight feet 10-13 Coarse sand, grading to pebbly sand 13-18 Coarse sand, some cobbles after sixteen feet 18-21 No sample A 6—1b O-A Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand and clay 4-5 Block clay 6-8 Six inch sand at eight feet, sand 8-12 Pebbly sand 12-18 Pebbly sand 18—21 Pebbly sand, cobbles A 6-2a o—u Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand clay A-S Block clay 5-9 Pebbly sand, grading to fine 9-13 Pebbly sand, few cobbles at thirteen feet 13-18 Pebbly sand, cobbles some large 18-21 No sample 48 Hole Number ?;§t? Description A 6-2b O-A Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand clay 4-5 Block clay 5-9 Sandy gravel, grading to fine 9-13 Pebbly sand, few cobbles at thirteen feet 13-18 Coarse sand and pebbles, cobbles after sixteen feet 18-21 No sample A 7-1a- O-A Pebbles, sand, clay A-l2, Coarse sand, pebbles 12-1A Coarse sand, pebbles 14-20 Cobbles, pebbles, sand 20-21 No sample A 7-1b. 0-3 Pebbles, sand, and clay 3-13‘ Sand and fine gravel 13-16 Grading to coarse sand» 16-20 Cobbles, gravel 20-21 No sample A 7-2a 0-3 Pebbles, sand, clay 3-12 Pebbly sand 12-16 Coarse sand and pebbles 16-18 Pebbly sand 18-20 Cobbles, pebbles, sand 20-21 No sample A 7-2b‘ 0-3 Pebbles, sand, clay 3-14- Pebbly sand 14-17 Coarse sand 17-20 Cobbles, gravel, sand 20-21 No sample~ A 8-1a 0-8 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand clay 8-11‘ Pebbly sand; 11-12 Sand, some coal pebbles 12-18 Pebbly sand, grading to coarse sand- 18-20 Gravel, cobbles. 20-21 No sample Depth “9 Hole Number (Ft.) Description A 8-lb. 0-5 Cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay 5-15 Sand, grading to coarse sand and pebbly sand 15-18 Pebbly sand 18-20 Cobbles and pebbles 20-21 No sample A 8-2a 0-6 Pebbles, sand, grading to coarse sand, pebbly sand 6-15 Pebbly sand 15-20 Cobbles and pebbles 20-21 No sample A 8-2b 0-5 Cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay 5-15 Med. sand, grading to coarse sand and pebbly sand 15-20 Pebbly sand, cobbles 20-21 No sample A lO-la- O-A Pebbles, sand, some clay 4-8 Coarse sand, grading to med. sand and pebbly sand 8-1u Pebbly sand lA-20 Pebbles, cobbles, sand 20-21 No sample A 10-1b 0-3 Pebbles, sand, clay 3-8 Coarse sand grading to med. sand and pebbly sand 8-15 Pebbly sand 15-20 Gravel, cobbles, sand 20-21 No sample A 10-2a 0-5 Pebbles, cobbles, sand 5-15 Pebbly sand 15—21 No sample, hole caved A 10-2b 0-5 Pebbles, cobbles, sand 5-10' Pebbly sand 10-18 Pebbly sand 18-21 No sample, caved A 11—1a 0-3 Pebbles, cobbles, sand 3-4 Coal pebbles, sand A-lO Pebbly sand . 10-15- Pebbly sand, cobbles 15-21 No sample, caved 50 Hole Number Dgpth Description A ll-lb- O-A Pebbles, cobbles, sand 6-14 Pebbly sand, cobbles 1A-20 Pebbly sand, cobbles 20-21. No sample. A 11-2a 0-3 Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand 3-A Coal pebbles, pebbly sand “-15 Pebbly sand 15-204 Cobbles, Pebbles 20-21' No sample A 11-2b O-A Cobbles, pebbles, sand A-S Coal pebbles, pebbly sand 5-15 Pebbly sand 15-21 Sample lost APPENDIX 2 SITE STRATIGRAPHY Site Number Unit Thick- ness (Ft.) Description I405 11.0 4.0 P QR.) N NOH w [U 00 U1 OOU'I 0 U1 0‘ O O 12.0 4.0 2.0 Cobbles and pebbles grading to finer material at bottom Cross-bedded sand, pebbles, grading to larger material at bottom Cobbles, pebbles and coarse sand Cobbles and pebbles grading to finer material at bottom Cross-bedded gravel gradational into cross-bedded sand Fine sand Cross-bedded coarse sand Cobbles, pebbles, coarse sand Cobbles, pebbles grading to finer material at bottom Cross-bedded coarse sand Cobbles, pebbles with a few boulders Cobbles, pebbles gradational into cross-bedded coarse sand at bottom Fine sand Cross-bedded coarse sand and pebbles Cobbles, pebbles with a few boulders Sand Cobbles, pebbles gradational into cross-bedded coarse sand Cross-bedded coarse sand with a few pebbles and cobbles Cobbles, pebbles grading to fine sand: Fine-sand Site Unit Thick- Number ness (Ft.) Description 7 6.0 Cobbles, pebbles, gradation into cross-bedded coarse sand- 12.0 Cross-bedded coarse sand with a few pebbles and cobbles 4.0 Cobbles, pebbles grading to fine sand 2.0 Fine sand 8 6.0 Cobbles, pebbles, gradational into cross-bedded coarse sand 12.0 Cross-bedded coarse sand with a few cobbles and pebbles 3.0 Cobbles, pebbles, grading to fine sand 1.0 Fine sand 10 4.0 Cobbles, pebbles, gradational into cross-bedded coarse sand 13.0 Cross-bedded coarse sand 5.0 Cobbles, pebbles, grading to sand 11 5.0 Cobbles, pebbles, gradational into cross-bedded coarse sand 13.0 Cross-bedded coarse sand with a few pebbles 4.0 Cobbles, pebbles grading to sand APPENDIX 3 CUMULATIVE SIZE-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR EACH SAMPLING METHOD AT EACH SITE, MINUS 3/8—INCH FRACTION The size-frequency distribution curves for each method at each site show close agreement between the channel and grab methods. The curves for the auger method are usually similar to the other methods but tend to have more fine material present. The displace- ment of the auger values from the grab and channel values is probably due in part to the size selectivity of the auger and the distance between the samples for each method. 53 54 .coHuomam socHuN\N NSQHE .opHm comm pm wonpma NSHHaEmm some QOM mm>aso COHpBAHaumHU hocmdvmamumuwm m>wpdeeso mtz: _In_ 9:23 .In N N . o .I N: N: v m N . o T. N: m: _ _ _ _ _ _ o c - _ _ _ _ o ..\. IO_ ...\\\ .I. O— .. x... ,\ ION ....\ .\.\\ TON Rx... ..... \\ II. D \m. . . .\.\ III .\ on n A... on w _. \ 19. .m x. . .\ [3. v \ u . Ion M x [on H .... d .\ 3 x m. .loo 8 \ Too , 3 A a. l Oh I. ....\ . _ Ill Oh l on x... F on \\\m\ 10“ \\ .‘\\. III-0° .V. N. 00. 00. m wtm m mtm .LN 338 3c! BAILV'IOWOO Hoccmzo mpHmomEoo nmam poms< mtz: .In. M N _ o _I Nr ml _ _ _ _ _ _ o \. .I.O_ 4 low ...\. . [8 \“xx [0‘ x .\ i. as. x. [on .H .x... rlloo ..\ .loh \ .. Ion .\.. 18 «a... \ 00. H UP; 1N3383d HALLVWDWOD 55 .COHpomam £0CHIN\N NSGHE .mpwm some pm wonpoE NGHHQEMN some now mm>ado GOHPSAHQPNHU mocoswmamnmnwm o>HPMHSESO mtz: .In. mtz: .In. _ o . I N: M: v m N . o .I N.- m... IIO. lo. \ low \\ lom N [on D \\.\\ low 9 . n ..., n W xN w n \ n loo 1.... low w. N. low M 0%.... [on 3 x d .w. d . ...... 3 .. loo m... .3. loo 3 3 A... 3 . .... l. or I. New... TON I. s... \ ....\ .. loo m... .Ioo a... loo WK loo .._.....n\ 8. . oo_ N mrh_m. N UuLLmW Hmccmno mpHmanoo nmaw mom5< 9:23 .In. _ o T m. _.._ Ml loo m NEW 00. 1N3383d BALLV'IOINOD 3.2: in. v M” m . o .I _ . . . . .ooaoomom eoow-m\m mscHE .ouHm comm pm uocpme NCHHaEmm some now mm>aso COHpSQHmeHv hoaozvoamIoNHm o>HpmHseso NI . 56 l2. loo oo. 3 mtm LNBOHBd ENLV'InanD mtz: .In. _ o .I NI MI _ _ . _ s . ‘_ "A 0H mtm 0 lo. [ON 18 N W” low .m m lo... M. M tion a D 3 rIoN m '00 [00 OO— chcmno ouwmomeoo nmaw pows< thD _In. _ o T m. _ _ .. lom. l0? lom loo th low low N utm .LNBDHBd BALLV'lnanD "lllllllllllllllllls