Coring in glacial sequences:

comparison of cable percussion

and window sampler techniques
Integrated Geoscience Surveys (South) Programme
Internal Report IR/04/013
 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

INTERNAL REPORT IR/04/013

Coring in glacial sequences:

comparison of cable percussion
and window sampler techniques

A J M Barron, R T Mogdridge, A M Jarrow, A D Gibson

The National Grid and other

Ordnance Survey data are used
with the permission of the
Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office.
Ordnance Survey licence number
GD 272191/2004

Key words

Quaternary; drilling; till;

sampling.

Front cover

Window sampler rig at

Woodford, Northants

Bibliographical reference

BARRON, A J M, MOGDRIDGE, R
T, JARROW, A M, GIBSON, A D.
2004. Coring in glacial
sequences: comparison of cable
percussion and window sampler
techniques. British Geological
Survey Internal Report,
IR/04/013. 18pp.

© NERC 2004 Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey 2004

BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The full range of Survey publications is available from the BGS Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG
Sales Desks at Nottingham and Edinburgh; see contact details 0115-936 3241 Fax 0115-936 3488
below or shop online at www.thebgs.co.uk e-mail: [email protected]
The London Information Office maintains a reference collection www.bgs.ac.uk
of BGS publications including maps for consultation. Shop online at: www.thebgs.co.uk

The Survey publishes an annual catalogue of its maps and other

publications; this catalogue is available from any of the BGS Sales Murchison House, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3LA
Desks. 0131-667 1000 Fax 0131-668 2683
The British Geological Survey carries out the geological survey of e-mail: [email protected]
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the latter as an agency
service for the government of Northern Ireland), and of the London Information Office at the Natural History Museum
surrounding continental shelf, as well as its basic research (Earth Galleries), Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London
projects. It also undertakes programmes of British technical aid in SW7 2DE
geology in developing countries as arranged by the Department
for International Development and other agencies. 020-7589 4090 Fax 020-7584 8270
020-7942 5344/45 email: [email protected]
The British Geological Survey is a component body of the Natural
Environment Research Council.
Forde House, Park Five Business Centre, Harrier Way,
Sowton, Exeter, Devon EX2 7HU
01392-445271 Fax 01392-445371

Geological Survey of Northern Ireland, 20 College Gardens,

Belfast BT9 6BS
028-9066 6595 Fax 028-9066 2835

Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford,

Oxfordshire OX10 8BB
01491-838800 Fax 01491-692345

Parent Body
Natural Environment Research Council, Polaris House,
North Star Avenue, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 1EU
01793-411500 Fax 01793-411501
www.nerc.ac.uk
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

Foreword
This internal report results from a study by the Eastern England Integrated Surveys project of the
British Geological Survey (BGS) into the glacial sequence in Northamptonshire. Shallow drilling
and sampling was partially funded by the Quaternary Methods and Training project and this
report compares two techniques for acquiring continuous samples in relatively thin (up to 10 m)
glacial (predominantly till) sequences and gives an account of the sub-sampling strategy
undertaken.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge advice given by Mike Bird (BGS Wallingford) for
drilling specifications, Jim Riding for biostratigraphical sampling, Jon Lee for sedimentological
sampling and Claire Fleming for providing the PIMA equipment (all BGS Keyworth), and Roger
Belshaw (formerly of University College, Northampton) on local stratigraphy.

Contents

Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... i

Contents........................................................................................................................................... i

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ii

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

2 Site selection............................................................................................................................ 2

3 Drilling and sampling method selection............................................................................... 3

3.1 Biggin Grange site .......................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Woodford House site ...................................................................................................... 3

4 Account of operations ............................................................................................................ 4

4.1 Biggin Grange site .......................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Woodford House site ...................................................................................................... 4

5 Comparison of methods ......................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Cable percussion, pros and cons..................................................................................... 6
5.2 Window/windowless sampler, pros and cons................................................................. 6

6 Logging and sub-sampling .................................................................................................... 7

6.1 Biggin Grange boreholes ................................................................................................ 9
6.2 Woodford boreholes ..................................................................................................... 11

References .................................................................................................................................... 13

i
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

PLATES

Plate 1. Window sampler rig being manoeuvred to site at Woodford.

Plate 2. Window sampler rig in operation at Woodford.
Plate 3. Split U100 samples, Biggin Grange No.1.
Plate 4. Split window samples from Woodford No.1.

TABLES

Table 6.1 Characterization tests carried out on samples from Biggin Grange No 1.

Table 6.2 Characterization tests carried out on samples from Woodford No 1.

Table 6.3 Characterization tests carried out on samples from Woodford No 2.

Summary
The glacial sequence of Northamptonshire in the English Midlands is relatively poorly studied,
but for over 60 years has been known to include a thin and laterally impersistent chalk-free
diamicton beneath a thick and persistent chalky till blanket. During early preparation of new
BGS publications in this region, it was deemed necessary to improve knowledge of these
deposits by obtaining high quality samples for further testing. This report compares the merits of
U100 sampling, using ‘traditional’ cable percussion (aka shell and auger) drilling techniques,
and use of a ‘window/windowless sampler’, to acquire near-continuous cored samples through
till-dominated (i.e. clay-rich) superficial deposits less than 10 metres thick.
In the event, the cable percussion operation was subcontracted at short notice, and this may have
compiled the problems of supervising two sites simultaneously (see 4). With hindsight, it seems
desirable to forbid subcontracting and to maintain constant supervision on a cable percussion
operation.
The acquisition of U100 samples by the cable percussion method offers the following
advantages: large diameter (100mm) samples, potential for near continuous coring, typically
capable of 30 to 40m depth, widely available, simple technology, not easily obstructed, able to
operate below water table in sand and gravel. The disadvantages include access restrictions,
safety issues, requirement for careful operator/close supervision for good sampling, problems
posed by use of water for drilling, costly and time consuming mobilisation, noise, water supply,
hole and site restoration.
The window/windowless sampler offers the following advantages: ease of access and
positioning, speed, fewer safety issues, continuous sampling from surface to terminal depth, no
water supply, little restoration necessary, relatively quiet, likely to be cheaper. Its disadvantages
include safety issues of solo operation, small diameter samples, limited depth capability, easily
obstructed, less robust, limited availability.
The sub-sampling and testing strategy undertaken on the samples obtained is also set out.

ii
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

1 Introduction
The glacial (pre-Devensian) sequence of Northamptonshire in the English Midlands is relatively
poorly studied, and much of the knowledge stems from BGS mapping of the region in the 1940’s
as part of the strategic ironstone survey, including the first report of a chalk-free diamicton
(‘Lower Boulder Clay’) found locally beneath a thicker and more extensive chalk-clast-rich
(‘chalky’) till blanket (‘Chalky Boulder Clay’) (Hollingworth and Taylor, 1946). This was
widely and consistently recorded on field and MS maps mainly in the Wellingborough district,
but was not distinguished from the chalky till on the published BGS maps. Additionally, their
relationship and absolute ages remained uncertain. However, during investigations at Biggin
Grange near Oundle for sand and gravel resources by the Industrial Minerals Assessment Unit
(IMAU) of the BGS in 1974 (Harrisson, 1981) (Merritt, 1982), possible organic-material-bearing
‘lacustrine’ deposits were encountered in a borehole, lying beneath the chalky till and above a
chalk-free diamicton, possibly representing the ‘Lower Boulder Clay’ (although it had not been
mapped hereabouts). These intervening deposits promised the opportunity to improve knowledge
of the age of the sequence here (Merritt, 1982).
During preparation of new editions of the BGS 1:50 000 scale sheets 171 (Kettering), 186
(Wellingborough) and 203 (Bedford), and accompanying descriptions, it was deemed necessary
to improve knowledge of these deposits by obtaining high quality samples for examination and
further testing and determinations. It was intended to examine the reputed organic material for
microflora and fauna, and coleopterans (beetles), for age and palaeoclimate indications. It was
also intended to apply sedimentological and engineering tests, and spectral analysis, to
characterise and compare these deposits, for comparison with other sequences, and to provide
data for provenance studies and calibration for further studies.
It was decided to try to replicate the 1974 IMAU borehole (which was 10 m deep) and gain
samples from the critical interval, which lay at 7 to 8 m depth, and the underlying and overlying
deposits. In addition, it was decided to obtain samples at a site where the Lower Boulder Clay
had been distinguished from the Chalky Boulder Clay on field maps, with no recorded
intervening deposits, to gain knowledge of what had been mapped in the 1940’s. It was hoped to
find a suitable site where any excavation should be less than 6 m deep, to restrict costs, and
increase choice of methods, and where the formation thought to be at rockhead should be easily
identifiable.

2 Site selection
The borehole site at Biggin Grange was chosen as close as possible to the original borehole site
(as far as known). However, allowing for practical and other factors, including the space required
to site a cable percussion rig, this reduced the choice. It was hoped to start at a similar elevation
above OD, to assist prognosis. The immediate area is slightly sloping, and the ground level of the
eventual site is probably about 0.5 m below the original, in the corner of a ploughed field. The
formation at rockhead was mapped as Oxford Clay Formation (although there was a possibility
that the Kellaways Formation might be encountered), and it was thought that this should pose no
difficulties in identification in samples.
The ‘Lower Boulder Clay’ as mapped across the Wellingborough sheet is up to about 3 m thick,
and is generally directly overlain by ‘Chalky Boulder Clay’. A site was chosen at Woodford
House, near Kettering where both were shown as present, and the limestone-dominated
Cornbrash Formation was mapped at rockhead. Hand augering appeared to confirm the map,
and indicated a prognosis of 2.5 to 4 m depth to rockhead. The site lay at the top of a grass
2
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

paddock, on flat ground. Owing to an exceptionally dry summer, soil conditions at both sites
were very dry.

3 Drilling and sampling method selection

3.1 BIGGIN GRANGE SITE

An accurate borehole prognosis was drawn from the existing log of the IMAU borehole
(TL08NW/179) as set out by Merritt (1982), indicating that rockhead should lie at about 9 m
depth, although allowance was made for it to be several metres deeper (10 to 16 m). This
precludes pitting, and it was thought that this depth and the possibilities of running sand and
boulders in the till put it beyond the capabilities of a window sampler. This depth is well within
the reach of a standard cable percussion rig (e.g. a Pilcon or Dando type, as used in the original
borehole), and a specification was drawn up to include 40 cm-long U100 samples taken at 1.5-m
intervals to 6 m depth, continuous U100 sampling between 6.0 and 10.0, and one at the terminal
depth if below this.

3.2 WOODFORD HOUSE SITE

With a prognosis of less than 6 m depth, several methods were available. Trenching/pitting was
rejected as a sampling method due to depth limitations, restoration requirements and health and
safety restrictions. Cable percussion drilling with continuous U100 sampling was considered and
invitations to tender included this option. However, the relatively new technique of window
sampling was also thought to offer considerable benefits and tenders were sought for this
method. In the event, the price quoted by the same company for a single 6 m cable percussion
hole was slightly less (£565 against £647) than for two 6m window sampler holes. However, one
window sampler hole would have cost £441.
Window sampler rigs available vary in size and therefore in capacity. However, for this size of
task they are typically mounted on a mini-crawler body (see front cover), and are sufficiently
light (less than 700 kg) and compact to be carried in a large van or a trailer drawn by a
LandRover-type vehicle (see http://www.archway-engineering.com/products/rig_features.html).
Thus they can be transported into quite restricted locations (compared with a truck-towed Pilcon
or Dando rig) and can easily be independently manoeuvred some metres to the final site, and
repositioned. They are one-man operated and with a low ground pressure cause less ground
damage than a lorry-mounted rig. The mast is about 2.3 m high. The method of progression
involves driving a hollow steel tube up to 150 mm in diameter using a caged hammer, rising and
falling through half a metre. The hole diameter is reduced as necessary to enable progression,
and a capacity of up to 15 m depth is claimed, depending on ground conditions. Strictly, in a
window sampler the steel tube has a broad slot down the side for extraction of disturbed material.
However, where continuous, less disturbed samples in liners are required, the driven tube may
lack the slot and contain a disposable plastic tube enabling the sample to be extracted intact,
marked up and sealed for easy transport and preservation. This type is strictly known as a
‘windowless sampler’, but the family are known collectively as window samplers (see
http://www.archway-engineering.com/products/windowless_sampler.html). No water needs to be
added.
Allowing for the possible presence of large stones in the till, and the aim to at least partially
penetrate the Cornbrash limestone, an initial sample tube internal diameter of not less than 83/85
mm was specified for window sampling, reducing as necessary, to perhaps less than 50 mm. This
generates 1.0-m-long samples (see link above), which in tubes are sufficiently strong and light to
be easily handled by one man. However, this diameter range produces significantly less volume

3
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

than the same length of U100, so two holes side-by-side were specified, as opposed to one cable
percussion hole.

4 Account of operations
The two sites lie about 10 miles apart, and the contractor estimated that both operations could be
completed within a single day. It was decided for cost reasons to drill the holes on the same day
(1st September 2003), with an experienced BGS supervisor (RTM) shuttling between the sites as
necessary. With hindsight (see 4.1), it seems desirable to maintain constant supervision on a
cable percussion operation.

4.1 BIGGIN GRANGE SITE

In the event, at very short notice, with our (reluctant) agreement, the successful tenderer, Ground
Engineering of Peterborough, subcontracted the cable percussion drilling. A Pilcon Wayfarer
percussion rig was utilised and was erected at the site with no problems reported. Continuous
U100 sampling was sought as specified, but across the target interval (6.0 to TD at 9.1 m) only
about 66% recovery in U100s was achieved, despite the driller’s claimed experience of working
to IMAU standards. Much water was employed in the hole, sandy and silty horizons were
reduced to a slurry and some U100 samples had consequently been lost. On arrival from the
Woodford site, RTM had the first hole terminated at 9.1 m, having already run into Oxford Clay
at 8.1 m (which the driller had failed to recognise). After consultation with AJMB at the office
and discussion of the inadequate sampling, the rig was manhandled two metres backwards and a
second attempt was made at recovering the target sequence, with the intention that the second set
of samples would straddle the gaps in the first set. Again the driller insisted on using large
amounts of water, with similar results, and only a slight improvement was achieved.
Between them, the two boreholes generated eleven 0.4-m-long U100 tubes, 32 disturbed
(cutting-shoe) samples in bags and eight bagged bulk samples, the largest weighing 9 kg. One
man easily handles each, and all samples were transported from the site in the BGS vehicle the
same day.
Both holes were filled with bentonite to 1.5 m below GL, and plugged with spoil. The site was
restored to an acceptable standard.

4.2 WOODFORD HOUSE SITE

Ground Engineering of Peterborough were also the successful tenderer for this task. Access to
the site with the rig in a Transit-type van and rapid one-man set-up of the self-contained unit
were achieved without any problems (see Plates 1 and 2). Several diameters (approximate
internal diameters between 83 and 53 mm) of windowless sampler tubes were employed, the
holes were reamed out to facilitate continued drilling, and both boreholes were cased to 1.0
metres depth. No water was used. The first borehole passed through moderately stony clay (till)
without difficulty, and struck limestone in clay (presumed weathered Cornbrash Formation) at
about 4.4 m depth, and penetrated it to continue through mottled clay (Blisworth Clay
Formation) to terminal depth at 5.65 m. Extraction of the drill string was by an integral hydraulic
jack. Repositioning of the rig between holes (about 1 m apart) was easily done, and the second
borehole progressed without reported problems. It was terminated in limestone (Cornbrash) at
4.55 m, the driller considering that no further penetration was possible or necessary. In both
cases, near-continuous coring was achieved, with recovery below the (compressible) topsoil of
over 95%. The transparent plastic sample tubes were extracted on site, and sealed and marked

4
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

up. One man easily carries them, and all eleven were removed in the BGS vehicle the same day.
The holes were plugged, and the limited site restoration necessary was carried out.

Plate 1. Window sampler rig being manoeuvred to site at Woodford.

Plate 2. Window sampler rig in operation at Woodford.

R T Mogdridge, BGS, NERC, 2003.

5
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

5 Comparison of methods

5.1 CABLE PERCUSSION, PROS AND CONS

Advantages:
• Large diameter (100mm) samples, relatively undisturbed
• Potential for near continuous coring with care
• Typically capable of 30 to 40m depth, exceptionally up to 60
• Widely available
• Simple and familiar technology
• Not easily obstructed in superficial deposits and most Mesozoic formations
• Able to operate below water table in sand and gravel
Disadvantages:
• Size and manoeuvrability limitations limit site choices and pose access and recovery
problems
• Close adherence to procedures required for safe operation
• May require close supervision to achieve quality sampling
• Tendency to use water in drilling process, jeopardising sampling and increasing
restoration work and potential for environmental damage
• Costly and time consuming mobilisation, set up and repositioning
• Noise
• Water supply may be required
• Large hole needing backfilling
• Inherently messy process may require considerable site restoration

5.2 WINDOW/WINDOWLESS SAMPLER, PROS AND CONS

Advantages:
• Ease of access to sites
• Lightweight rig and transporter limit ground damage
• Ease of positioning, including on sloping ground and close to walls etc.
• Very quick set-up (minutes) and repositioning
• Rapid: approximately 5 minutes per sample/metre in diamicton. Whole operation at
Woodford took about 2 hours
• Fewer safety risks for operator and attendees
• Sampling process is integral to borehole progression
• No necessity for water reduces reliance on local services and potential for extra
restoration
• Narrow hole diameter reduces restoration

6
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

• Relatively quiet
• Likely to be cheaper per hole-metre
• Plastic liners are moderately transparent
Disadvantages:
• Unsupervised solo operation has safety implications
• Small diameter samples (may be less than 50 mm)
• May have difficulties operating below water table in sand and gravel
• Limited depth capability (15 m claimed – may be less)
• Easily obstructed by harder layers or boulders
• Less robust than cable percussion
• Less widely available (in 2003)

6 Logging and sub-sampling

The samples acquired during the drilling processes (‘the samples’) were checked on arrival at
BGS. Some of the samples from the cable percussion boreholes were not clearly marked and had
to be re-marked or noted for rechecking (i.e. for way up) once opened. The samples are
accounted for below.
The four boreholes were each assigned BGS registered numbers.
The core tubes were cut in half lengthwise (by electric saw) prior to logging. The cores and
samples were lithologically logged (by AJMB) in November 2003, and photographs taken (by
RTM). Generally, one half of the split tube samples (U100s and window sample tubes) were
retained intact, and representative and other lithology, and macrofauna specimens were also
collected for the BGS Materials Collections (not detailed below). Material collected during
logging and curated for determinations and testing (‘sub-samples’) is accounted for below.
Following advice, unless conspicuous black carbonaceous (‘lignitic’) material was present, the
biostratigraphical sub-samples (AMB series) were taken from the material with the darkest and
most clay-rich appearance. In addition, the Portable Infra-red Mineral Analyser (PIMA) was run
at 0.1 m intervals along the scraped core surfaces of the entire length of cores from Biggin
Grange No 1 and Woodford House No 1. A limited number of measurements were taken of
Woodford House No 2. Measurements of reflectance have been found to be useful in sediment
classification and provenance studies. Different rocks and soils tend to possess unique spectral
signatures which can be used to identify soil species or to, with more in depth analysis to identify
soil properties including clay mineralogy, organic matter, carbonate content or moisture.
Representative sub-samples of the lithologies were collected (FZ series) for analysing particle-
size distribution (PSD), heavy minerals and clast lithology. For PSD, samples were required to
weigh around 200 grams in order to provide representative results.
Due to the requirement of a sub-sample of ~200 g, a wider core is advantageous as it leads to a
thinner sampling band. This also provides the potential to sample at a higher resolution and
precision. Thus, if variations, such as laminations, occur within a unit, samples can be taken to
investigate this. For Biggin No.1 borehole, to collect ~200g samples, samples spanned ~5cm
vertical thickness of core.
The sub-samples are then sieved relative to the 63µm interval; the above 63µm fraction is
analysed using sieves at each phi size (63µm to 8mm, +4 to –3phi), and the below 63µm is
analysed using the Micromeritics Sedigraph 5100. For Sedigraph analysis, a sample size of ~5g
7
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

is required, however analysis can be carried out on smaller samples, but may not be as accurate.
In this case, 200g samples for the diamictons were sufficient to provide more than 100g of below
63µm, so the fraction was subsampled again. The Sedigraph can be set up to record the
percentages at any particle size between 0 to 63µm. However, as the accuracy at below 1µm is so
poor, samples are rarely analysed below 1µm. The Sedigraph measured the cumulative mass
finer at the grain sizes 60, 50, 40, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1µm.
Heavy mineral analysis is to be performed on the 63-125µm (+3to +4phi) fraction of all the sub-
samples, with the separation performed by the NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory (NIGL).
The clast lithology of the 8mm to 16mm (–3 to –4phi) and 16mm to 32mm (–4 to –5phi)
fractions of all the samples is to be examined.
Particle size distributions were also determined on a second set of samples to enable the
calibration of the reflectance measurements taken using the PIMA. It was necessary to carry out
sampling at a higher resolution so that any anomalous measurements of reflectance could be
accounted for against detailed data. It was not known at the time of testing what degree of
reflectance variation would be apparent within individual facies. Ideally a detailed description
would have been carried out at each measurement point but this would have been very time
consuming and may not have yielded significant benefit if there was no reflectance variation.
Particle size was determined using the hydrometer method described in the British Standard for
Soil Testing BS1377 (British Standards Institute, 1990). Although this method is not as rapid as
those described above, it allowed the opportunity to observe any variations in clay ‘colour’ and
the presence of stratification within the sub-63 µm fraction as this is retained at the base of the
hydrometer tube after settling. Again it was not known whether this would provide useful
information in assessment of samples at the time of testing. Carrying out the particle size
distribution test in this way also allowed easier sub-sampling for other tests. Samples sizes were
not strictly comparable to those described previously, for the purpose of wet/dry sieving and
hydrometer testing the initial sample had to be sufficient to yield a <63 µm volume of 30 g for
clay soils and 50-100g for coarse soils. In the case of one sand sample this required an initial
sample of 1.2 kg, all other initial PSD samples required initial volumes of between 35-100 g dry
weight.
In addition, consistency limit tests were also carried out on those samples that demonstrated
cohesive behaviour. This test was thought potentially useful as it provides an indication of the
bulk mineralogy of the clay fraction and can also be related to other soil classification tests and
properties
In addition to providing ‘calibration’ data for reflectance measurements, these tests provide
further useful information which can be input into provenance analysis.
It was initially intended to carry out testing to determine the consolidation ratio of each till type
and relate this to possible overburden and loading conditions that each material had gone
through. These were not carried out – such tests require the extraction of ‘plug’ samples which
ideally possess as wide a diameter as possible. Although the sample is not destroyed during
testing and can be split afterwards, it is greatly disturbed and this would have conflicted with the
other tests described.

8
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

6.1 BIGGIN GRANGE BOREHOLES

6.1.1 Biggin Grange No.1

6.1.1.1 SAMPLES
Sample recovery in the chalky till (0-3.79 m) was as specified, with additional disturbed
(cutting-shoe) samples collected at c 0.5 m intervals (fit only for gross lithological description).
In the underlying sand (3.79-5.9 m), and into the interbedded sand and clay (to 6.1 m), only
bagged (bulk and cutting-shoe) samples were obtained due to use of added water (groundwater
was struck at 5.5 m). Below this, ‘continuous’ sampling by U100 (alternating with cutting shoe
samples) was achieved through interbedded sand and clay, diamicton and mudstone (Oxford
Clay Formation), apart from between 6.5 and 6.8 and between 7.3 and 7.7 where disturbed bulk
(bagged) samples were obtained (also fit only for gross lithological description, with some
suspicion of contamination by cavings). Generally the U100 samples showed little disturbance
apart from slight dragging in softer clay layers at the margins (Plate 3).

Plate 3. Split U100 samples, Biggin Grange No.1.

R T Mogdridge, BGS, NERC, 2003.

6.1.1.2 SUB-SAMPLING
Ten sub-samples (AMB715-726) were collected for biostratigraphical studies; one each from the
‘tills’, two from the Oxford Clay Formation, and six from the interbedded sand and clay, of
which four appear to include dark organic traces. Seven sub-samples were collected for
sedimentological analysis, of which two (FZ1, 2) were from the chalky till, two (FZ3, 4) were
entire bulk samples (B2 and B4) from the pebbly sand unit, one (FZ5) from the underlying
bedded clay, and two (FZ6, 7) from the lower diamicton. The above 63µm PSD for all FZ
samples was analysed, and the below 63µm fraction of the sub-samples FZ1-2, 4-7 were
analysed using the Sedigraph.

9
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

The complete PSD of FZ4 was analysed and because FZ3 represents the same unit, FZ3 was not
analysed using the Sedigraph. The above 63µm fractions of FZ3 were separated to provide the
relevant fractions for clast lithology and heavy mineral analysis.
Using this multi-proxy approach and combining the results from PSD, heavy mineral analysis
and clast lithology can improve our understanding of the environment in which the material was
laid down, aid positive identification and therefore assist stratigraphic correlation.
Five samples for engineering characterization were taken (Table 6.1). Samples were chosen to
represent each lithology and to increase the sample taken where there was considerable
lithological variation or where it was felt that spectral response might vary from ‘background’
reflectance.

Table 6.1 Characterization tests carried out on samples from Biggin Grange No 1.

Characterization Test
Depth
Particle Size
Consistency Limits Particle Density
Distribution

1.7-1.9 X X X

3.0-3.25 X X X

3.8-4.4 X X

5.0-5.5 X X

7.4-7.7 X X X

6.1.2 Biggin Grange No.2

6.1.2.1 SAMPLES
As instructed on site, only cutting-shoe samples were obtained, at approximately 1 m intervals,
between GL and 6 m depth. Below this, in the interbedded sand and clay, and into the diamicton
(at TD), near-continuous sampling was achieved. However, as well as the four U100s and
cutting-shoe samples, this included two smaller bagged bulk samples close to the same levels as
in Biggin Grange No.1. Similar comments apply to the condition and fitness of the samples as in
6.1.1.1 above.

6.1.2.2 SUB-SAMPLING
Two sub-samples (AMB725, 726) were collected for biostratigraphical studies from the clay
interbedded with the sand between the two diamictons. One (AMB726) appears to contain
carbonaceous material.

10
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

6.2 WOODFORD BOREHOLES

6.2.1 Woodford No.1

6.2.1.1 SAMPLES
Recovery in the first 1.0 m run was about 60%, probably due to compression of the topsoil.
However, as stated above, below this recovery through the diamicton, weathered Cornbrash
limestone and Blisworth Clay Formation was in excess of 95%. Internal diameter was reduced
progressively from approximately 83 mm (0-1.0 m) to 53 mm (3.0-4.0 m). However, reaming
out permitted ID to be 63 mm between 4.0 and 5.0 m, reducing to 53 mm to TD at 5.65. Slight
marginal distortion due to the sample driving process was present in the diamicton, and there
was more extensive distortion in the plastic and laminated clay of the Blisworth Clay Formation
(see Plate 4). It seems likely that this hole penetrated a softer part or joint in the Cornbrash,
resulting in recovery of limestone fragments in clay.

Plate 4. Split window samples from Woodford No.1.

R T Mogdridge, BGS, NERC, 2003.

11
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

6.2.1.2 SUB-SAMPLING
Three biostratigraphical sub-samples (AMB727-729) were collected in the diamicton(s). Six
samples for engineering characterization were taken (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Characterization tests carried out on samples from Woodford No 1.

Characterization Test
Depth
Particle Size
Consistency Limits Particle Density
Distribution

0.6-0.9 X X X

1.1-1.4 X X X

2.4-2.7 X X X

3.2-3.55 X X X

4.1-4.3 X X X

5.2-5.5 X X X

6.2.2 Woodford No.2

6.2.2.1 SAMPLES
Recovery in the first 1.0 m run was over 80%, probably due to compression of the topsoil, in the
next run about 85%, and in the remainder virtually full (Plate 5) to TD at 4.55. A similar pattern
of progressive reduction in internal diameter was carried out; from 83 mm to 53 mm at TD.

6.2.2.2 SUB-SAMPLING
Five samples for engineering characterization were taken (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Characterization tests carried out on samples from Woodford No 2.

Characterization Test
Depth
Particle Size
Consistency Limits Particle Density
Distribution

0.5-1 X X X

1.5-1.8 X X X

2.5-2.8 X X X

3.5-3.7 X X X

4-4.25 X X X

12
IR/04/013; Issue 1.0 19/04/2004

Plate 5. Split window samples from Woodford No.2.

R T Mogdridge, BGS, NERC, 2003.

References
Most of the references listed below are held in the Library of the British Geological Survey at
Keyworth, Nottingham. Copies of the references may be purchased from the Library subject to
the current copyright legislation.

BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTE. 1990. BS 1377, Part 2. Methods of tests for soils for civil
engineering purposes. Classification tests.
HARRISSON, A M. 1981. The sand and gravel resources of the country south-west of
Peterborough, in Cambridgeshire and east Northamptonshire: description of 1:25 000 resource
sheets TL09, 19 and SP98, TL08. Mineral Assessment Report of the Institute of Geological
Sciences, No. 60.
HOLLINGWORTH, S E, and TAYLOR, J H. 1946. An Outline of the Geology of the Kettering
District. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Vol. LVII, 204-233.
MERRITT, J W. 1982. A possible interglacial or interstadial deposit near Oundle,
Northamptonshire. Quaternary Newsletter, Vol. 37, 10-11.

13