Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Soil parameters of geotechnical interest are more directly R(ω) = W(ω)V(ω)C(ω)Q(ω) + NR(ω) + NS(ω), (1)
addressed by shear (S) waves than by compressional (P)
waves. The small strain rigidity obtained from the shear where W is the sweep specification given by the input
wave velocity (VS) is important in all dynamic loading current function, V is the vibrator response including
problems. Shear waves are also more sensitive to the subtle coupling, eigenfrequencies and harmonic distortions, C is
changes in the soil properties than the P waves. Recently earth’s impulse response or the reflection coefficient
there are attempts to employ the high-resolution shear- sequence, Q is average attenuation, and NR and NS are,
wave reflection method to geotechnical investigations (e.g. respectively, random noise and source-generated noise.
Ghose et al; 1996, 1998; Brouwer et al., 1997). Shear wave
reflection coefficients are sensitive to the change of soil- Now, the far-field displacement is proportional to the
mechanical parameters at subsoil boundaries (Ghose and groundforce, Fg (Aki and Richards, 1980), and since
Goudswaard, 2000). In addition, the laterally continuous geophones measure velocity rather than displacement, the
and high-resolution image that one obtains makes the source response (S) recorded by the geophones is
shear-wave reflection method an attractive supplement to proportional to the time derivative of Fg:
the conventional point sampling in boreholes.
S(ω) = iωFg(ω). (2)
Because shear waves are more sensitive, and they offer
much higher resolution than P-waves in soft soils (due to The shape of the source wavelet, S is governed by the
much lower velocity for the shear waves), the processing of sweep specification (W) and the vibrator response (V):
shear wave reflections needs greater care. Shear wave
reflection amplitude provides information of the soil S(ω) = W(ω)V(ω). (3)
strength distribution (Ghose and Goudswaard, 2000), hence
recording and preservation of “true” amplitude is crucial in The usual procedure to compress the raw vibrogram is to
data acquisition and processing. cross-correlate the measured record (R) with the sweep (W)
or with the source response (S). Recently, there are also
High-Frequency Shear-Wave Reflection Using a Vibrator: Cross-correlation Versus Deconvolution
suggestions to deconvolve the sweep (Robinson and where ω lies within ωmin – ωmax range. Note that after
Sagaaf, 2001; Brittle et al., 2001). We have attempted the deconvolution the effective source signature is independent
deconvolution of the estimated source response. The theory of vibrator response and the shape of the sweep. The
is briefly outlined here; an overview is given by Brouwer spectral signal-to-noise ratio is identical after cross-
and Helbig (1998). correlation and deconvolution.
After cross-correlation with the sweep (W), the correlated For the small vibrator we have estimated, for each sweep
record (Rcw) and the effective source signature (Hw) are separately, the groundforce, Fg from the measured reaction-
described respectively by the following two equations: mass acceleration, ür and baseplate acceleration, üb:
= |W(ω)|2V(ω)C(ω)Q(ω) + W*(ω)N(ω) , (4) where mr and mb are, respectively, the masses of the
reaction-mass and the baseplate. On shallow, shear-wave
and HW(ω) = |W(ω)|2V(ω)Q(ω), (5) reflection section we have evaluated the cross-correlation
against deconvolution with groundforce derivative.
where * denotes complex conjugation, and N = NR + NS.
Evaluation on shear-wave reflection section
Similarly, cross-correlation with the source response or the
groundforce derivative (S) produces the correlated record A shallow, high-frequency shear-wave reflection survey
(RcS) and the effective source signature (HS) as follows: was carried out at a site where the soil structure is known
from multiple Cone Penetration Tests (CPT). The site is
RcS(ω) = R(ω)S*(ω) covered by a sand layer of 1.5-2.0 m thickness. Fig.1 shows
CPT data at a point located exactly on our reflection line.
= |W(ω)|2|V(ω)|2C(ω)Q(ω) + S*(ω)N(ω), (6) Sand and peat-clay layers alternate at shallow depths.
Accurate mapping of the peat-clay layers is important from
and HS(ω) = |W(ω)|2|V(ω)|2Q(ω) (7) hydrological and environmental reasons. Our goal was to
resolve the distribution of the very shallow soil layers – up
Clearly, after correlation, the effective source signature still to 10-12 m depth, where GPR cannot reach due to the
contains information on vibrator response (V) and sweep presence of conductive clay layers, but a depth range which
specification (W). Thus the effective source wavelet (H) is too shallow for conventional shallow seismic reflections.
may have unwanted properties (e.g., side-lobe amplitude)
or may change considerably from sweep to sweep. The acquisition parameters were as follows: 48 single
horizontal geophones (28 Hz) fixed, and the source moving
In order to deal with this problem we use deconvolution along the line, shear-wave vibrator (cross-line orientation)
instead of cross-correlation. Since the goundforce (Fg) and sweep frequency: 50-300 Hz with end tapers, sweep length:
the source signature (S) are band-limited by nature, we 3.5 s, record length: 4.0 s, vertical stack: 1, sampling: 1
need to define an inverse filter (S’) as the band-limited kHz, geophone orientation: cross-line, source interval: 1m,
inverse of S in an optimum sense taking into consideration Sleeve Resistance, fs (MPa) Friction Ratio, Rf (%)
the usual stabilization factor (ε) to account for the zones of .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 10 8 6 4 2 0
&
4
the record (RdS) and the effective source signature (H’S) can Rf
clay
B
be described respectively by the following two equations: 6
sand
RdS(ω) = R(ω)S’(ω) 8
peat C
&
10 clay
= C(ω)Q(ω) + S’(ω)N(ω), (9) sand
D
and H’S(ω) = Q(ω), (10) Figure 1: Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data at a point located on the
shear-wave reflection line. Soil layers of varying shear strength can be
identified. A, B, C, D mark the depths to the main interfaces.
High-Frequency Shear-Wave Reflection Using a Vibrator: Cross-correlation Versus Deconvolution
(a) raw data (b) preprocessed data (c) preprocessed data (d) preprocessed data
sweep correlated sweep correlated Fg-derivative correlated Fg-derivative deconvolved
0 0 0 0
4
Fig.2(a) shows a typical shot gather obtained by
conventional compression of raw vibrograms by sweep 2
cross-correlation. Fig.2(b) shows the same shot gather after 0 100 200 300
amplitude-preserved preprocessing, involving trace editing Frequency (Hz)
and muting, geometrical spreading correction, spectral (b) groundforce: Fg = ür.mr + üb.mb
shaping (10-180 Hz: 100%), fk-filtering to remove the
Power (dB)
80 6.3
120 10.0
80 6.3
120 10.0
B
80 6.3
C
120 10.0
D
0 5 10 15 20 25 27
CMP_X (m)
Figure 4: True amplitude stacked time sections; all the processing parameters are identical for the three
sections. (a) Compression by correlation with sweep, (b) compression by cross-correlation with Fg-derivative,
(c) compression by deconvolution with Fg-derivative. Asterisk is the location of the source shown in Fig.(2).
achieve wavelengths less than a meter, and hence correlation. This enables further implementation of the
resolution of a few decimeters. The 4 major soil boundaries high-resolution seismic imaging schemes, using shear
seen in the CPT data (Fig.1) can be interpreted in Fig.4(c). waves and the true reflection amplitudes.
A comparison of the three panels in Fig.(4) shows the merit
of groundforce derivative deconvolution over cross- References
correlation. The ringing nature of the reflection events in Aki K., and Richards, P.G., 1980, Quantitative Seismology.
Fig.4(a) is almost absent in Fig.4(c), thus improving Brittle, K.F., Lines, L.R., and Dey, A.K., 2001, Geophys.
separation. The reflections from the 4 major subsoil Pros., 675-686.
boundaries (A, B, C and D) can be better identified and are Brouwer, J. , Ghose, R., Helbig, K., and Nijhof, V., 1997,
stronger in Fig.4(c). Also, the lateral variation of the Proc. EEGS-ES.
reflection amplitude is more prominent in Fig.4(c), which is Brouwer J., and Helbig, K., 1998, Shallow High-Resolution
geotechnically meaningful (Ghose and Goudswaard, 2000). Reflection Seismics, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Ghose, R., Brouwer, J., and Nijhof, V., 1996, Proc. EAGE.
Conclusions Ghose, R., Nijhof, V., Brouwer, J., 1998, Proc. EEGS-ES.
High-frequency shear-wave reflections can achieve very Ghose, R, and Goudswaard, J.C.M., 2000, Proc. SEG.
high resolution in soft soil. However, for such high- Robinson, E., and Sagaaf, M, 2001, Geoph. Pros., 335-340.
resolution data, the separation between the successive
reflections is often not good, and interpretation is difficult. Acknowledgments
We have found that compression of the raw vibrograms by We thank Gemeentewerken Rotterdam to allow us do the
deconvolution using the time derivative of the estimated field experiment at their site and for the CPT data, D. Ngan
groundforce offers a better separation of shallow reflections Tillard for cooperation, and J. Brouwer for discussions.
and more reliable reflection amplitudes than cross-