Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70019032

A survey of natural aggregate properties and characteristics important in remote sensing and airborne geophysics

D. H. Knepper·W. H. Langer·S. Miller
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Natural aggregate is vital to the construction industry. Although natural aggregate is a high volume/low value commodity that is abundant, new sources are becoming increasingly difficult to find and develop because of rigid industry specifications, political considerations, development and transportation costs, and environmental concerns. There are two primary sources of natural aggregate: (1) exposed or near-surface bedrock that can be crushed, and (2) deposits of sand and gravel. Remote sensing and airborne geophysics detect surface and near-surface phenomena, and may be useful for detecting and mapping potential aggregate sources; however, before a methodology for applying these techniques can be developed, it is necessary to understand the type, distribution, physical properties, and characteristics of natural aggregate deposits. The distribution of potential aggregate sources is closely tied to local geologic history. Conventional exploration for natural aggregate deposits has been largely a ground-based operation, although aerial photographs and topographic maps have been extensively used to target possible deposits. Today, the exploration process also considers factors such as the availability of the land, space and water supply for processing, political and environmental factors, and distance from the market; exploration and planning cannot be separated. There are many physical properties and characteristics by which to judge aggregate material for specific applications; most of these properties and characteristics pertain only to individual aggregate particles. The application of remote sensing and airborne geophysical measurements to detecting and mapping potential aggregate sources, however, is based on intrinsic bulk physical properties and extrinsic characteristics of the deposits that can be directly measured, mathematically derived from measurement, or interpreted with remote sensing and geophysical data. ?? 1995 Oxford UniversityPress.

Explore related subjects

Nonrenewable ResourcesArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D. H. Knepper, W. H. Langer, S. Miller. 1995. A survey of natural aggregate properties and characteristics important in remote sensing and airborne geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02257020

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS1997

Classification of mineral deposits into types using mineralogy with a probabilistic neural network

In order to determine whether it is desirable to quantify mineral-deposit models further, a test of the ability of a probabilistic neural network to classify deposits into types based on mineralogy was conducted. Presence or absence of ore and alteration mineralogy in well-typed deposits were used to train the network. To reduce the number of minerals considered, the analyzed data were restricted to minerals present in at least 20% of at least one deposit type. An advantage of this restriction is that single or rare occurrences of minerals did not dominate the results. Probabilistic neural networks can provide mathematically sound confidence measures based on Bayes theorem and are relatively insensitive to outliers. Founded on Parzen density estimation, they require no assumptions about distributions of random variables used for classification, even handling multimodal distributions. They train quickly and work as well as, or better than, multiple-layer feedforward networks. Tests were performed with a probabilistic neural network employing a Gaussian kernel and separate sigma weights for each class and each variable. The training set was reduced to the presence or absence of 58 reported minerals in eight deposit types. The training set included: 49 Cyprus massive sulfide deposits; 200 kuroko massive sulfide deposits; 59 Comstock epithermal vein gold districts; 17 quartzalunite epithermal gold deposits; 25 Creede epithermal gold deposits; 28 sedimentary-exhalative zinc-lead deposits; 28 Sado epithermal vein gold deposits; and 100 porphyry copper deposits. The most common training problem was the error of classifying about 27% of Cyprus-type deposits in the training set as kuroko. In independent tests with deposits not used in the training set, 88% of 224 kuroko massive sulfide deposits were classed correctly, 92% of 25 porphyry copper deposits, 78% of 9 Comstock epithermal gold-silver districts, and 83% of six quartzalunite epithermal gold deposits were classed correctly. Across all deposit types, 88% of deposits in the validation dataset were correctly classed. Misclassifications were most common if a deposit was characterized by only a few minerals, e.g., pyrite, chalcopyrite,and sphalerite. The success rate jumped to 98% correctly classed deposits when just two rock types were added. Such a high success rate of the probabilistic neural network suggests that not only should this preliminary test be expanded to include other deposit types, but that other deposit features should be added.

Nonrenewable Resources↗