Research Collection

Doctoral Thesis

Automation in shallow seismic data acquisition

Author(s):
Veen, Michiel van der

Publication Date:
2000

Permanent Link:
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-003851808

Rights / License:
In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted

This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more
information please consult the Terms of use.

ETH Library
Diss.ETHNo. 13413

Automation In Shallow Seismic

Data Acquisition

A dissertation submitted to the

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich

for the degree of

Doctor of Natural Science

presented by

Michiel van der Veen

Doctorandus in de Geofysica
Utrecht University (Netherlands)
bom on October 15, 1972

citizen of the Netherlands

accepted on the recommendations of

Prof. Dr. Alan G. Green, examiner

Dr. Susan Pullan, co-examiner

Dr. Klaus Holliger, co-examiner

Dr. Hansruedi Maurer, co-examiner

Zürich, 2000
 Contents

Zusammenfassung 1

Abstract 3

1 General Introduction 5

1.1 Motivation and General Objectives 5

1.2 Review of Near-Surface Reflection Seismic Techniques 5

Historical aspects and applications 5

Acquisition 6

seismic reflection data 8

Processing shallow
Pitfalls 9

1.3 Instrumentation 9

Sources 9

Receivers 11

1.4 Goals of the Thesis: Problems and Solutions 12

2 Land-Streamer for Shallow Seismic Data Acquisition:

Evaluation of Gimbal-Mounted Geophones 21

2.1 Introduction 21

2.2 Towed Land-Streamer 22

2.3 Geophone-to-Ground Coupling Tests 22

2.4 Multichannel Test Reflection Survey 23

Acquisition 23

Processing 24

Geological interpretation 24

2.5 Conclusions 24
Contents

3 Evaluation of High-Frequency Seismic Sources for

Imaging Shallow (10-250 m) Structures 33

3.1 Introduction 34

3.2. Survey Area and Local Geology 35

3.3 Seismic Sources 35

Impulsive sources 35

Vibratory sources 36

3.4 Acquisition 36

3.5 Processing 37

3.6 Resultant Data 37

Profile A: Sledgehammer, pipegun and weightdrop system 37
Profile B: Sledgehammer and OYO and GGA vibrators 38

3.7 Discussion 38
Profile A: Sledgehammer, pipegun and weightdrop system 38
Profile B: Sledgehammer, and OYO and GGA vibrators 39
Further details of the OYO vibrator data 41

Comparison of profiles A and B 41

Comparison with the results of Doll et al.'s study 42

3.8 Conclusions 42

4 Design and Application of a Land-Streamer System For

Cost-Effective 2D and PSEUDO-3D Shallow Seismic
Data Acquisition 61

4.1 Introduction 62

4.2 Towed Land-Streamer System 63

Land-streamer 63
Field effort for acquiring 2D profile data: Land-streamer versus conventional

technique 64

Choosing the acquisition geometry for acquiring 2D profile data: Uniform

versus non-uniform receiver spacings 66

4.3 Data Quality: Land-Streamer Versus a Conventional Technique 67

Meadow 68

Asphalt 69

Compacted gravel track 69

4.4 Using the Towed Land-Streamer to Acquire Pseudo-3D Data:

A Feasibility Study 70
 Contents

Acquisition geometry 70

Processing 71

Stacked data 72

Comparison of field efforts 73

Need to check for azimuthal effects 73

4.5 Conclusions and Outlook 94

5 Outlook ....101

5.1 Additional Steps to Increase Efficiency of Towed

Land-Streamer System 101

System positioning 101

In-field processing 103

5.2 Three-Component Seismic Data 104

Land-streamer with three-component geophones 105

5.3 Statistical Experimental Design to Optimize Shallow Seismic Surveys 105

Problem definition 106
Problem constraints 106
Mathematical formulation of the statistical experimental design problem .107

6 References .....115

Acknowledgments 125

Curriculum Vitae 127

Appendices
A Overview of High-Frequency Sources for Shallow Seismic Experiments ..
129
B Field Effort for 2D Profiling: Land-Streamer System Versus
Traditional Approach 135
C Non-Uniform Receiver Geometries ......
137
D Technical Details Seismic Land Streamer 143
E Improvements High-Resolution
in Seismic and Georadar Acquisition
Techniques 159
F High-Frequency Sources in Shallow Seismic Experiments 163
G Determining Elastic Soil Parameters at Small Strains 171
 Zusammenfassung

Hochauflösende seismische Reflexionstechniken werden zur Lösung vielfältiger

Fragestellungen im
Ingenieur- und Umweltbereich benutzt. Obwohl instrumenteile

Entwicklungen in den letzten Jahrzehnten grosse Fortschritte gemacht haben, bleibt die
Akquisition ausreichend redundanter Daten weiterhin ein zeit- und kosten aufwendiger
Aspekt.
Um die Schnelligkeit und Effizienz oberflächennaher seismischer
Untersuchungen
zu erhöhen und dadurch die Akquisitionskosten zu verringern, habe ich ein "Land-
Streamer-System" entwickelt. Die wesentlichen Komponenten dieses Systems sind: (i)
rotationsfähige und selbstorientierende "GimbaU-Geophone in einem relativ schweren,
zylindrischen Gehäuse, (ii) eine verstärkte Gummimatte, welche die Geophone bedeckt
und so die Geophonausrichtung beibehält und durch zusätzliches Gewicht den

Anpressdruck erhöht, und (iii) seismische Kabel mit verstärktem Kevlarmantel. Jedes
Kabel ist mit 12 Geophon-Ausgängen in 1 m oder 2 m Intervallen ausgestattet. Die

Hauptvorteile dieses innovativen Ansatzes zur Akquisiüon oberflächennaher

seismischen Daten sind:

•
kein manuelles Stecken der Geophone;
•
kein manuelles Auslegen der Kabel;

•
Zunahme der Akquisition-Geschwindigkeit um 50-100 %;

• Reduktion des Personalbedarfs im Feld um 30-40 %;

Die Kosten Land-Streamer-Systems and das Gesamtgewicht, welches gezogen

des
werden muss, durch ungleichmässige Empfängerkonfigurationen minimiert
können
werden. Kleine Empfängerabstände in der Nähe der Quelle sind zur Identifikation und

Kartierung oberflächennaher Reflexionen notwendig, wogegen grössere

Empfängerabstände in grösseren Entfernungen von der Quelle ausreichend sind zur

Abbildung tieferer Reflexionen und zur Bestimmung der Geschwindigkeits-

Tiefenfunktion.

Aspekt in der Effizienz des Land-Streamer-Systems ist die seismische

Ein kritischer

Quelle. Der relativ

langsame Wiederholdrate moderner Quellen (z.B. etwa 1 oder 2
Quellpositionen pro minute für eine Schussquelle oder eine Hammerquelle) hat die
Akquisitionsgeschwindigkeit mit dem Land-Streamer-System bestimmt. Durch die
Auswertung verschiedener seismischer Quellen, darunter Impaktquellen und kleine bis
mittelgrosse Vibratoren, habe ich diese Problematik untersucht. Aufgrund ihrer relativ
kurzen Wiederholraten, der Bedienung durch nur eine Person und der Möglichkeit zur
Kontrolle des Ausgangssignals können Vibratoren sehr vorteilhaft bei der Benutzung mit
dem Land-Streamer-System sein. Ein einfacher Vorschlaghammer lieferte jedoch die

Ergebnisse mit der höchsten Auflösung im interessierenden Tiefenbereich meines

Untersuchungsgcbietes. Dagegen konnte ein kleiner (60 kg) Vibrator nicht ausreichend
Energie erzeugen und die Datenqualität des mittelgrossen (2,300 kg) Vibrators war durch
 2 Zusammenfassung

starke Luftwellen und ungenaue Vibroseiskorrelation beeinträchtigt. Dies verhinderte die

Identifikation von Reflexionen in Tiefen von weniger als etwa 40-50 m. Zur
Untersuchung relativ untiefer und mitteltiefer Untersuchingsbereichc habe ich die
Hammer- und Schussquellen für das Land-streamer System übernommen.
Das Land-Streamer-System wurde erfolgreich auf einer Vielzahl von Oberflächen
(z.B. Wiese, Asphalt und fester Schotterweg) getestet. Das hohe Gewicht der
Geophongehäuse sorgte zusammen mit der Gummimatte für eine gute Ankopplung der
Geophone an den Untergrund. Vergleiche der Geophonankopplung haben gezeigt, dass
die beste Übereinstimmung zwischen Gimbal- und traditionellen Spiess-Geophonen auf
einer Wiese erreicht wurde. Auf einer asphaltierten Strasse nahmen die Gimbal-

Geophone höhere Frequenzbereiche (über 300-350 Hz) auf als die auf Bodenplatten
montierten Geophone. Daraus lässt sich schliessen, dass das Land-Streamer-System
äusserst effizient undpraktisch bei der Untersuchung urbaner Gebiete ist.

Die Akquisition oberflächennaher seismischer pscudo-3D Daten mit dem Land-

streamer System wurde durch die entsprechende Datenreduktion und
Neubearbeitung
eines bestehenden 3D Datensatzes mit hoher Überdeckung simuliert. Durch die
Kombination von Informationen aus einer Anzahl
nahliegender simulierter Land-
streamer Profile wurde ein
migriertes pseudo-3D Datenvolumen erzeugt. Der Aufwant
für den simulierten pseudo-3D Datensatz betragt nur 7 % des ursprünglichen
Feldaufwandes. Die Anwendung wichtiger, datenabhängiger Bearbeitungsschritte (z.B.
refraktionsstatische Korrekturen und Geschwindigkeitsanalysen) auf den simulierten
pseudo-3D Datensatz ergab überraschend gute Ergebnisse. Die unterschiedlichen
Intervalle zwischen in-line und cross-line Profilen (6 m gegenüber 3 m) im
pseudo-3D
Datensatz und die geringere Untergrundüberdeckung resultierten in einem Muster hoher
und geringer Amplituden bei frühen Laufzeiten (<50 ms) in den Querschnitten und
Zeitscheiben. Bei grösseren Laufzeiten konnten alle wichtigen Reflexionen im
simulierten pseudo-3D Datensatz identifiziert und genau kartiert werden.

Durch dieses kostengünstige Vorgehen bei der seismischen Datenakquisition werden

reflexionsseismische Untersuchen für eine Vielzahl von Anwendungen im Tngenieur-
und Umweltbereich attraktiver.
 Abstract

High-resolution seismic reflection techniques are used for resolving a wide variety
of engineering and environmental problems. Although instrumental developments and
data processing have advanced very rapidly over the past few decades, a time consuming
and costly aspect of 2D and 3D seismic surveys continues to be the acquisition of

sufficiently high-fold data.

To increase the speed and
efficiency of shallow seismic surveying and thereby
decrease acquisition costs, I have
developed a towed land-streamer system. Principal
components of this system are: (i) self-orienting gimbal-mounted geophones housed in
relatively heavy cylindrical casings, (ii) a reinforced rubber sheet overlying the
geophones, which helped prevent cable snagging, maintained geophone alignment and
provided additional hold-down weight, and (iii) seismic cables with reinforced kevlar
outer casings. Each cable was equipped with takeouts for 12
geophones at I m or 2 m
intervals. Major advantages of this innovative approach to shallow seismic data

acquisition were:
•
no need to plant geophones;
•
no need to lay out seismic cables manually;
•
increase in acquisition speed by 50-100 %;

•
reduction of field-personnel by 30-40 %;

By using non-uniform streamer configurations (e.g., short receiver intervals at near

offsets and long intervals at far offsets) the costs of the land-streamer system and the
total weight to be pulled could be minimized. Short receiver intervals at near offsets were

necessary for identifying and mapping shallow reflections, whereas larger receiver
intervals at far offsets were sufficient for imaging deeper reflections and for
estimating
velocity-depth functions.
A critical issue in the efficiency of the land-steamer system is the seismic source.

The relatively long cycle time of modern sources (e.g., approximately Ior 2
source

locations per minute for a pipegun and sledgehammer, respectively) controlled the
acquisition speed of the land-streamer system. I have addressed this issue
by evaluating a

suite of potential seismic that included devices

sources impact and small- and
intermediate-size vibrators. Due to their relatively short cycic time, their one-person
operation, and the ability to control their output signal, vibrators could be practical for
use in the land-streamer system. However, a
simple sledgehammer provided the highest
resolution images throughout the depth range of interest at my study site. In contrast, the
small-size (60 kg) vibrator did not generate sufficient
energy and the intermediate-size
(2,300 kg) vibrator data were plagued by relatively strong airwaves and imprecise
vibroseis correlation such that the identification of reflections from
depths shallower
than -40-50 not possible. For the land-streamer system, I have
m was
adopted the
 4 Abstract

sledgehammer and pipegun sources for surveying relatively shallow- and intermediate-

depth targets, respectively.

The land-streamer system has been tested successfully on a variety of recording
surfaces (e.g., meadow, asphalt road, and compacted gravel track). The relatively heavy

weight of the cylindrical geophone casings combined with the hold-down weight of the
rubber sheet provided good geophone-to-ground coupling. Detailed coupling
comparisons demonstrated that the closest match between standard gimbal-mounted and

spike-mounted geophones was achieved on the meadow. On the asphalt road, the
gimbal-mounted geophones recorded higher frequency (above 300-350 Hz) signals than
the baseplate-mounted ones. This indicated that the land-streamer system could be a

practical and efficient means for surveying urbanized areas.

Acquisition and
processing of a pseudo-3D shallow seismic data set with the land-
streamer system was simulated by appropriately decimating and reprocessing an
existing
high-fold 3D shallow seismic data set. The effort required to collect the simulated

pseudo-3D data set would have been approximately 7 % of that needed for the original
field campaign. The application of important data-dependent processing procedures

(e.g., refraction static corrections and velocity analyses) to the simulated land-streamer
data did not influence significantly the quality of the 3D images. Different intervals
between in-line and cross-line profiles (6 m versus 3 m) of the pseudo-3D data set and

relatively low subsurface fold (5) resulted in a pattern of high and low amplitudes on the
cross-sections and time-slices at early traveltimes (<50 ms). At greater traveltimes, all

major reflections could be identified and mapped on the pseudo-3D land-streamer data
set.

With this cost-effective approach to seismic data acquisition, it is expected that

shallow seismic reflection surveying will become financially attractive for an even wider
range of engineering and environmental applications.
 1

General Introduction

1.1 Motivation and General Objectives

Detailed information about the structure of the shallow subsurface is required for

resolving a wide variety of engineering and environmental problems (Steeples et al.,

1997). To obtain such information, sparse networks of boreholes and outcrops are often

employed. An alternative
approach involves
determining accurate and reliable images of
the shallow subsurface through integrated applications of complementary wavefield-
based geophysical methods, such as the seismic or georadar techniques (Figure I.J).

Although there are various seismic methods (e.g., tomography, vertical seismic profiling,
surface wave analysis, refraction, reflection), attention is focussed in this study on high-
resolution seismic reflection surveying.

High-resolution seismic reflection surveying is an appropriate tool for the detailed

imaging of shallow geological structures at depths ranging from -10-1000 m. The
resolution provided by seismic reflection techniques for exploration deeper than -20 m
cannot be matched by any other technique. Since more than 95 % of all geophysical

exploration funds are used for seismic reflection surveying, developments have
advanced very rapidly over the past few decades. A time-consuming and costly aspect of
seismic surveys continues to be the acquisition of high-fold data. A general objective of
this study is to develop a more efficient seismic acquisition strategy that results in the

recording of data with sufficient fold to image the target structures. With more cost-
effective acquisition techniques, it is expected that seismic reflection tools will become
more attractive for an even wider variety of engineering and environmental applications.

1.2 Review of Near-Surface Reflection Seismic Techniques

Historical aspects and applications

The earliest leferenced attempts apply hydrocarbon exploration-type seismic
to

reflection techniques to near-surface investigations were made in the 1950's (Allen et al.,
Chapter 1 6

1952; Pakiser and Warrick, 1956). Since then, shallow seismic reflection profiling has
been the focus of several research activities, with a during
significant increase in effort
the 1980's. As examples, Ziolkowski and Lerwill (1979), Mair and Green (1981), and
Greaves (1984) presented results of high-resolution seismic reflection studies associated
with coal exploration and nuclear waste disposal in crystalline rocks at depths of 100 to
1000 m. During this same period, seismic reflection methods were used to resolve small-
scale structures in the very shallow subsurface (< 100 m depth) by Herber et al. (1981),

Ruskey (1981), Steeples and Knapp (1982), Doornenbal and Helbig (1983), Hunter et al.
(1984), Steeples ( 1984), and Pullan and Hunter ( 1985).

It was not until the late 1980's that the first attempt was made to record low-fold
three-dimensional (3D) high resolution seismic reflection data (Corsmit et al., 1988).
Reports of larger surveys based on "standard" 3D acquisition techniques started to

appear in the literature in the mid-1990's (Green et al., 1995: Lanz et al., 1996; Barnes
and Mereu, 1996; House et al., 1996; Büker et al, 1998b, 1999; Siahkoohi and West.
1998). hydrocarbon exploration,
In contrast to high-resolution seismic surveys have
3D
not been widely used for commercial applications. In areas characterized by highly

complex near-surface geology, it is, however, the only technique capable of yielding
reliable 3D images of such small-scale structures as sand and gravel lenses. Figure 1.2
shows an example state-of-the-art 3D shallow seismic reflection data set recorded across
an alpine valley in northern Switzerland (Büker et al., 1998b, 1999).

Significant progress has been made over the past 20 years in the application of high-
resolution seismic reflection techniques in
engineering and environmental investigations.
Yet, Steeples et al. (1997) have recognized that, although seismic techniques have been
used successfully in many studies, they have been "oversold" in others. Table 1.1

provides an overview of the applicability of shallow seismic reflection techniques for

resolving different engineering and environmental problems.

Acquisition
An effective method for recording shallow reflections at many locations is the
optimum-window technique (Figure 1.3) proposed by Hunter et al. (1984). Source-
receiver configurations that allow shallow reflections to be recorded in a minimum-noise
window between the first breaks (either the direct and/or refracted waves) and the first
arrivals of the surface waves (ground roll) are chosen. A comprehensive summary of
diverse applications of the optimum-window technique is presented by Pullan and
Hunter (1990). This technique is simple and inexpensive. Disadvantages are the:

»
effort required to determine optimum recording windows along long lines;
•
single-fold subsurface coverage and associated low signal-to-noise ratios
of some data sets;

•
ability to focus only on arrivals within a limited depth range;

• lack of consistent and reliable velocity information.

 7 Introduction

Commonmid-point (CMP) techniques (Figure 1.4) were developed for very shallow
seismic surveying in the Netherlands (Herber et al., 1981) and at the Kansas Geological

Survey (e.g., Steeples and Knapp, 1982). Since multi-fold data generally provide better
and more reliable results than single-fold data (Green et al, 1995), CMP surveying is

now applied in the vast majority of shallow seismic reflection investigations.

Acquisition of CMP data involves

sampling of the seismic-wave field in time and
space. Parameters for shallow seismic recording are best established once estimates of
the wavefield and noise properties of the study site are available. This can be achieved by

conducting walk-away noise tests (Knapp and Steeples, 1986b), which involve acquiring
extended shot records using closer than normal trace spacings, larger offset ranges and
higher sampling rates. Eventually, the acquisition parameters are determined by the
results of these walk-away noise tests and by the limitations of available hardware (e.g..
maximum number of channels).

A critical acquisition parameter is the distance between adjacent CMP's. According

to Yilmaz (1987), the maximum CMP spacing ACMP required to avoid spatial aliasing
and to migrate data correctly should satisfy the following:

ACMP<- V'»"L_^ (11)

_

d f •
sinct K1--1 J
'max max

where vmin is the minimum stacking velocity, fmax the maximum significant frequency
contained in the data and amax the maximum structural dip. Extracting these parameters
from the seismic data set shown in Figure 1.2 (i.e., fmax -250-360 Hz, vmw -1400 m/s
and ocHm~30°) demonstrates that, for this example, CMP spacing should be -2.0 m or

less. Depending on the target depth and desired resolution, high-resolution seismic
surveys in Switzerland typically require a CMP spacing between 0.25 and 3.0 m.
The CMP spacing is related to the source-receiver configuration:

ACMP = min(~AS,~AR\ (1.2)

where AS and AR are source and receiver spacings, respectively. Reducing the CMP
inteival may be achieved by reducing either the the receiver
source or spacing,
whichever is the smallest. The number of receivers N and the ratio of receiver to source

spacing determine the subsurface coverage:

Fold = - —

#, (L3)
2 AS
Chapter 1 8

as long as AS>AR. An increased number of source positions over a given distance (i.e.,

smaller source spacings) results in either higher fold and associated higher signal-to-
noise ratios (for AS > AR ) or decreased CMP spacing (for AS < AR ).

After determining the maximum allowed CMP spacing (Equations 1.1 and 1.2) and
taking into account the desired fold (Equation 1.3). the recording spread (i.e., source-
receiver offset distribution) can be designed. Efficient field handling requires that the
number of sources and receivers should be minimized. However, there are some

important additional points to consider:

•
a relatively 'wide' distribution of source-receiver offsets is essential for

accurate velocity analyses over the entire range of recorded traveltimes;

•
a dense receiver distribution at short offsets (e.g.,<24m) is generally
required to distinguish true shallow reflections from other events (e.g.,
direct, refracted, guided, and surface waves);

•
large numbers of receivers result in high CMP fold and associated

improved signal-to-noise ratios (S/N);

•
efficient conventional seismic reflection profiling requires 'roll-along' of
seismic cables and geophones, which for practical reasons dictates that
uniform receiver spacing is desirable.
Firm rules for designing source-receiver spreads do not exist. A common rale-of-
thumb is that the maximum source-receiver offset should be at least 0.7 to 1.5 times the
distance to the deepest structures of interest (e.g., a feature at 150 m depth would require
a spread length of -105-225 m (Knapp and Steeples, 1986b)).

Processing shallow seismic reflection data

Most deep seismic surveying can be

processing operations employed routinely in

applied to shallow seismic data sets. A common processing flow is illustrated in

Figure 1.5. Tt consists of four main sequences ranging from data preparation to data
presentation. For each sequence, a suite of processing routines may be chosen,
depending on the data quality, local geology and the targets of interest. In addition to
standard filtering, shallow reflections may be enhanced by application of spectral

balancing or deconvolution. Careful surgical muting or attenuation of any remaining

coherent noise may be needed in cases where these processing operations are less than
100 Coefficient.

Seismic data that have been subjected to a standard processing flow (i.e., to the stage
of stack in Figure 1.5) represent a somewhat distorted image of the subsurface.

Migration is the process that corrects these distortions and transforms the stacked section
into a geologically interprétable image (e.g.. Yilmaz. 1987). Black et al. (1994) have
demonstrated (hat migration may be unnecessary when dealing with low near-surface
velocities (< 1000 m/s) and gently dipping reflections at very shallow depths (< 50 m).
Under such conditions, the migration operator will only affect marginally the position of
the seismic signals. By comparison. Büker et al. (1998b) found that migration was
 9 Introduction

necessary to determine the position of the east-dipping events IV in Figure 1.2, which are

characterized by stacking velocities of 1000-3000 m/s, have dips of 25 ,

and range in

depth from 90-250 m.

Pitfalls

Problems in acquisition, processing and interpretation of high-resolution seismic

reflection data impede the practical implementation of seismic reflection techniques.
can

Steeples et al., (1997) and Steeples and Miller (1998) have reviewed many types of
pitfalls. The most important ones are:
•
spatial and temporal aliasing;
•
interpreting refracted or guided waves (multiply refracted-reflectcd
waves) as primary reflections;
•
inappropriate application of static corrections;

•
using overly narrow data windows when applying automatic static
routines;

•
inaccurate definition of top and stretch mute functions;

•
interpreting events dipping at angles greater than 45 on immigrated
stacked sections as reflections.

To illustrate some of the difficulties associated with

investigating depths shallower than
-200-300 m, a typical shot gather recorded in the Suhre valley (Switzerland) is presented
in Figure 1.6. It is affected strongly by the presence of guided waves that travel with
velocities very similar to those of the direct and refracted waves. They are characterized

by multiple oscillations that mask any shallow reflections. Detailed analyses of guided
waves and their effects on near-surface seismic experiments have been
presented by
Robertson et al. (1996a, 1996b) and Roth et al. (1998). They have shown that guided
waves must be properly accounted for when processing shallow seismic reflection data.

1.3 Instrumentation

Sources

There are many types of energy sources that can be used for
high-resolution seismic
experiments. Several studies have been concerned with comparisons of these sources:
Miller et al.
(1986, 1992, 1994), Pullan and MacAulay (1987). Bühnemann and HoLliger
(1998), Herbst et al. (1998), and Doll et al.. ( 1998). An overview of most sources used in
shallow seismic exploration is given in Appendix A.
Chapter 1 10

Impulsive seismic sources

simple explosion is amongst the oldest type of energy sources employed for
A
shallow seismic experiments. A wide variety of other impulsive sources exist. The most

prominent among them, which are tailored for high-resolution seismic applications, are
blasting caps, sledgehammers, pipeguns, and weightdrop systems. An ideal impulsive
source should:

•
generate sufficient energy to detect the deepest structures of interest;

•
generate a wavelet of short duration (i.e., with high frequency content and
broad bandwidth) to optimize resolution;
•
be repeatabic and fast;

•
generate a minimum of source-related noise.

The principal variable associated with impulsive sources is the amount of radiated

energy. Ziolkowski et al. (1980) have evaluated the effect of charge size on the dominant

frequency and resolution of a seismic wavelet. They have shown that, theoretically,
energy increase is related to wavelet amplitude according to a scaling law:

wB(t) =
awA(t/a), (1.4)

where a is a scaling factor, and wA(t) and wB(t) are the amplitudes of wavelets

generated by impulse sources A and B, respectively. The maximum amplitude of source

B is a times that of the source scaling law implies that if the amplilude of the
A. The
emitted signal increases (e.g., by using larger charge or a different source), the wavelet
a

is stretched according to t/a and, consequently, the resolution decreases. This suggests
that if both depth penetration and resolution are important, it may be better to vertically
stack numerous small signals than to increase the charge of an explosive source.

Consequences of the scaling law are illustrated by the following example. The solid
line A in Figure 1.7a shows typical ground displacement generated by an impulsive
source. Using Equation 1.4, the displacement of a signal with twice the amplitude of A is

presented as the dashed line B in the same figure. Associated signals recorded by
velocity sensors (geophones) are displayed in Figure 1.7b. Corresponding amplitude
spectra of the two recorded velocity signals (Figure 1.7c) demonstrate that the dominant
frequency of the large charge (-90 Flz) is much lower than that of the small charge
(-175 Hz). From Figure 1.7 it is clear that an unfiltered source gather obtained with a
small charge should provide higher resolution than that of a larger charge, assuming that
the background noise is small enough. The spectra also show that spectral amplitudes of
the large charge are higher than those of the small charge at most frequencies. Thus, if
the higher amplitudes of the large charge can be recorded without clipping, an

appropriately filtered version of the signal may provide higher resolution information
than that of the small-charge signal.
 11 Introduction

Vibratory sources

Vibratory sources are widely and successfully used in hydrocarbon exploration,

whereas today they are rarely used in shallow seismic experiments. They may offer the
following significant advantages over impulsive sources:
•
the emitted signal can be tailored for particular targets of interest (e.g.,
optimized resolution or optimized depth penetration);
•
they can be employed in urban areas.

Nijhof (1989) first reported on the design of a special vibrator for high-resolution
seismic applications. He developed an electromagnetic vibrator capable of generating

frequencies up to 1000 Hz. Since then, only a few uses of vibratory sources in shallow
seismic experiments have been reported (e.g., Ghose et al, 1995, 1998; Schneider and

Vanderkooy, 1996; Buness et al., 1997; Dolfet al., 1998)

Although vibratory systems are generally very complex, their operational principles
are relatively straightforward. An oscillatory signal, i.e., the sweep, with a limited

bandwidth (e.g., 70-400 Hz) is generated over a certain time, the sweep time. Factors
that influence the data quality (signal-to-noise ratios) are the sweep length, vertical

stacking fold and the ground force. Because of the long (typically 4-10 s) sweep lengths,
vibroseis wavelets need to be compressed by cross-correlation with a reference signal to
simulate an effective impulsive wavelet. This process is called vibroseis correlation.

Usually, an estimate of the ground force is used as a reference signal (Sallas, 1984). Van
der Veen et al. (1999a) have shown that inaccurate estimates of this reference signal can
result in significant correlation noise, especially at high frequencies (>150-200 Hz). For
shallow seismic applications, good knowledge of the vibrator behaviour at higher

frequencies is essential.

Receivers

Electrodynamic-based geophones are the most commonly used sensors for recording
high-resolution seismic reflection data. The principle of a geophone is illustrated in
Figure 1.8. Its main components arc a magnet connected rigidly to an outer casing and a
coil that encircles the magnet. This coil is connected by two circular suspension springs
to the casing. The casing is generally in rigid contact with the earth's surface via a metal

spike. If the earth moves, the magnet and case must follow, but the coil, because of its
inertia and loose coupling with the casing, tends to stay fixed. The relative motion
between the coil and magnetic field generates a voltage that may be registered by a

recording system.
The usable bandwidth of geophone is determined primarily by the natural- and
a

spurious frequencies. The natural

frequency is the resonant frequency of the geophone in
the direction of the working axis. Above this frequency, the amplitude response of a

geophone is flat and has few phase distortions. Therefore, the natural frequency sets the
lower limit of the geophone. It generally varies between 10 and 100 Flz. In practice, the

upper frequency limit of the geophone is determined by the lowest spurious frequencies,
which are resonance frequencies perpendicular to the axis. Frequencies at which these
Chapter 1 12

distortions occur depend primarily on the spring stiffness. Typically, spurious

frequencies occur at higher values for higher internal spring stiffness, corresponding to
higher natural frequencies. Knapp and Steeples (1986a) stated that, as a rough rule-of-
thumb, spurious resonances at frequencies greater than ten times the natural frequency of
the geophone can be expected. Today, in modern geophones, they occur at frequencies

greater than fifteen times the natural frequency. For example, the SM-7 30 Hz geophones
used by the ETH's Institute of Geophysics commonly exhibit spurious resonances at

frequencies >500 Hz. (Sensor NT BV, manufacturer specifications).

The choice ofgeophone is not a trivial task. Until the 1980's, the limited dynamic
range of most recording equipment for shallow seismic surveying necessitated the use of
high (100 Hz) natural frequency geophones. They have high spurious resonances and
they work as natural low-cut filters, thus limiting the recording of strong surface waves
that may saturate the A/D converters (Knapp and Steeples, 1986a). Modern
seismographs with 24-bit resolution are capable of recording larger variations in
amplitude, so that lower natural frequency geophones (-30 Hz) are now preferred in
high-resolution seismic reflection experiments (Steeples et al., 1997). They offer broader
bandwidths in the frequency ranges of interest; their maximum distortionless frequencies
of-500 Hz arc usually sufficient for typical high-resolution seismic reflection surveys. If

higher frequencies are desirable, for example when surveying in crystalline rock terrains,
higher frequency geophones (e.g., 100 Hz) may be preferred.

1.4 Goals of the Thesis: Problems and Solutions

When this project was initiated in July 1996. high-resolution seismic reflection
techniques were already commonly used in academic projects. Commercial applications
were more limited, often due to the relatively high costs involved and the lack of

experienced personnel. These costs are controlled primarily by the number of people and
the time needed for a field campaign. Particularly time-consuming components of a
seismic reflection survey are the planting of geophones and the manual movement of
standard seismic cables (roll-along). Subsequent to the van der Veen and Green (1998)

paper on the land-streamer. Steeples et al. (1999) introduced a strategy to record

efficiently ultra-high resolution seismic data by mounting standard geophones on a
wooden board. Bachrach and Rickett (1999) showed the potential of this approach for

collecting ultra-shallow 3D seismic data. Because of the generally larger receiver

spacings. Steeples et al.'s (1999) approach is, however, not applicable to standard
seismic reflection surveying.

The goal of this study has been to increase the efficiency of conventional
high-
resolution seismic reflection
surveying by reducing the acquisition effort (i.e., reducing
the number of personnel and the required acquisition time). To achieve this goal, a towed
land-streamer system was developed in cooperation with a commercial company (Sensor
NI, BV). A similar concept was developed for the acquisition of resistivity data by
Sorensen (1996). The principal advantages of the towed land-streamer system over
traditional techniques are the elimination of geophone planting and ioil-along.

Chapters 2 and 4 are concerned with the system design, acquisition effort, survey
 13 Introduction

procedures and detailed analyses of the operational characteristics of the towed land-
streamer system. Additional details concerning field effort and non-uniform receiver
geometries are discussed in Appendices B and C. The towed land-streamer system is
tested on recording surfaces such as saturated gravels covered by meadow, clay
various
covered by a meadow, an asphalt road and a compacted gravel track. Chapter 4 is also
concerned with the possibility of acquiring shallow 3D seismic data with the towed land-
streamer system. Using the high-fold shallow 3D data set recorded by Büker et al.

(1998b, 1999), recording of a pseudo 3D data set with a series of closely spaced parallel
land-streamer profiles is simulated and evaluated. Detailed technical information and a

list of manufacturers of components of the land-streamer system are given in

Appendix D.

particular concern in the design of the land-streamer system is the seismic source.
A

Currently, ETH's Institute of Geophysics employs for shallow targets a standard

sledgehammer and for deeper targets a pipegun. Down-hole sources, such as the
pipegun, are labour intensive and time-consuming. In Chapter 3, a thorough evaluation
of the recording characteristics of several impulsive sources and two vibratory sources is

presented. A mini-vibrator developed by OYO-CAG was rented and the GGA Institute
of Joint Geoscientific Research (Germany) kindly provided their recently developed
truck-mounted GGA vibrator for testing purposes. A particular objective was to
determine whether vibratory sources are of benefit to shallow seismic data acquisition.

Chapters 2 to 4 represent three independent manuscripts that have either been

published (Chapter 2), submitted for publication (Chapter 3). or about-to-be-submitted
for publication (chapter 4) in first-class international journals. Some proposals for future

developments in high-resolution seismic reflection techniques are described in

Chapter 5. Appendices E to G are selected expanded abstracts presented at international
conferences.
Chapter 1 14

Table l.l: Applicability of high-resolution seismic reflection

techniques (modified from Steeples et al., 1997)

When does it
Application
work

Most of the time Applications where reflection times are >3-5 dominant time cycles
after the first breaks:
•
characterizing gross geological structure, e.g., depth to

bedrock, etc. (Singh, 1983. 1984a, 1986; Hunter et al., 1984;

Pullan and Hunter, 1985, 1990; Miller et al., 1988b, 1990;
Treadway et al., 1988; Ali et al, 1991; Stephenson et al., 1993;
Ilawman and Ahmed, 1995);

•
detecting faults studying earthquake hazards, investigating
for
nuclear waste disposal, etc. (Mair and Green, 1981 ; Green and
Soonawala, 1982; Green and Mair, 1983; Sattel et al., 1992;
Kim et al., 1994; Gendzwill et al, 1994);
•
ground water studies (Haeni et al., 1986; Birkclo et al., 1987;
Bachrach and Nur, 1998; Bachrach et al., 1998; Liberty, 1998;
Whiteley, 1998);
•
exploration and exploitation of minerals (Ziolkowski and
Lerwill, 1979; Sing, 1984b; Gochioco, 1990, 1992; Milkereit
and Green, 1992; Al-Rawahy and Goulty, 1995; Goleby et al..
1997; Milkereit et al.. 1997; Pretorius et al., 1997; Stevenson
and Durrheim, 1997).

Sometimes Those applications that require both broad bandwidths and high-fre¬
quencies:
detecting shallow
•
voids and tunnels (Steeples ct af, 1986;
Branham and Steeples. 1988; Miller et al., 1988a; Miller and

Steeples. 1991; Miller ct al., 1995; Kourkafas and Goulty,

1996);
•
mapping near-surface seismic faciès (Herber et al., 1981;
Ruskcy, 1981: Steeples and Knapp. 1982; Doornenbal and
Helbig, 1983: Steeples, 1984: Büker et al., 1998a, 1998b, 1999;
Carr et al., 1988: Ghose et al.. 1998; Wiederhold et al., 1998);

•
delineating thin beds and shallow faults (Miller and Steeples,
1986; Myers et al, 1987: Miller et al., 1988a, 1990; Treadway
et al. 1988; Ali et al., 1991; Stephenson et al, 1993; Hawman
and Ahmed, 1995; Shtivclman et al., 1998).

Almost never *
detecting chemically saturated lenses,
•
detecting tunnels or voids at depths of 100 m or more.
 15 Introduction

Geological Methods Geotechnical Methods

Pseudo 2-D & 3

Approaches

Near Surface
??

*
True 2-D & 3-D
Approaches
i
*>

Geophysics
I j

Potential and Diffusrve

Wavefield Methods
Field Methods

Magnetic Georadar

Gravimetry Near-Surface Seismic

Electromagnetic (EM)

Geoelectric

Figure 1.1: Geophysical techniques capabilities for investigating the near

offer

surface in two They are complementary to conventional

and three dimensions.

geological and geotechnical methods. High-resolution seismic reflection

profiling is an imaging tool that yields accurate images of shallow targets at
depths of -10-1000 m. Figure adapted from Lehmann (1999).
Ciiapil R I 16

Cross-line Number

20 100 180 260

^e 200
i

x*«* 150

\^X% 100

50
0

®
CD
50

100

E ©
** 150

200 1

250 ^ß
120 m (a)

(b)

Figure 1.2: (a) Example state-ot-the-att "U") high-tesolution seismic tellection data set
and (b) associated inteipietation rigiue adapted tiom Büket et al (1999) Boieholc
and outctop tntoimation v\as used to constiam inteipietation ol shallow geological
boundaiies and units I -
shallowest detectable tellection horn top ol shallow glacio-
lacustnne cla\/silt la\ei B -
basal till and fluvial sand/gta\el D lowet unit ol
-

glacio-
lacustiine clay IV -

deepest reflection which originate^ tiom top ot Molasse sandstone

basement
 17 Introduction

Distance

Figure 1.3: (a) Simple reflection model of homogeneous overburden

above bedrock showing position of optimum-window receiver array, (b)
Time-distance graph associated with model in (a). Receiver array is

placed beyond zone of surface waves (ground roll) and is limited in

extent by the onset of interference between the bedrock refraction and
reflection. Figure adapted from Hunter et al. (1984).

Common Midpoint

Commom Depth Point

Figure 1.4: Common mid-point (CMP) method. Explosion symbols and

triangles show source and receiver positions, respectively. For a flat lying
interface, reflections recorded on CMP traces with diverse source-

receiver offsets originate from a single common point.

Chapter 1 18

Geometry

Trace Editing
Data Preparation
Elevation and
Refraction Static Corrections

True Amplitude Retrieval

I Application of Gain Functions

Surface Wave Attenuation

Air Blast Attenuation

Enhancement of
Reflection Events in Spectral Balancing
Shot Gathers and/or
Deconvolution

Bandpass Filtering

I
First Top Mute

CMP-Sorting

Velocity Analyses

Processing of CMP
NMO Corrections and
Gathers Stretch Mutes

Residual Statics

Second Top Mute

I Application of Further
Gain Functions

Stack
Stack and Post-Stack
Processing Coherency Filtering

Migration

Figure 1.5: Typical processing flow for shallow seismic reflection data. Left shows 4 main
processing steps. For each step a suite of processing routines may be chosen (right). Note
that these routines by no means represent all possibilities. Some iterations of the various

steps are inevitably required. Application depends strongly on seismic data, local geology
and targets.
 19 Introduction

Offset (m)

100

200

300

Figure 1.6: Trace-normalized shot gather containing ground roll and guided waves
Chapter 1 20

Kb)
10 15
t(ms) t (ms)

1 1 V :

3
0.8 Figure 1.7: Theoretical effect of impulsive
CL •' i
source charge size
on wavelet bandwidth.
E
< 0.6
(a) Displacements. Solid line A is typical
XI

N
(0 / \B ; ground displacement generated by an
0.4
« ^; \ ;
impulsive source. Dashed line is signal
E
i»
o
/ i-*-
~—>|
i»T with twice the amplitude of A. (b)
z 0.2
Velocities, (c) Amplitude spectra of signals
/ ^A ^'^^^(c) in (b). Vertical axes are normalized to
0
0 100 200 300 400 maximum values.
f(Hz)

spring

^t

CD
C
O)
Co
Figure 1.8:
Design principle of a modern
elcctrodynamic geophone. The cylindrical
core magnet and the cylindrical shell form a

toroidal magnetic field (solid lines). In the air

gap between core and shell, the field is

radial.The moving mass is a thin cylindrical
shell carrying a coil (in the lower half wound
in the opposite direction). The coil moves

axially in the air gap. Figure adapted from

Brouwer and Ffelbig (1998).
spring
 2

Land-Streamer for Shallow Seismic

Data Acquisition: Evaluation of

Gimbal-Mounted Geophones

MlCHIEL VAN DER VEEN AND ALAN G. GREEN

Published in: Geophysics, Vol. 63, No. 4, 1998,1408-1413.

Abstract

To increase thespeed and efficiency of shallow seismic data recording, and thereby
decrease acquisition costs, the concept of a towed land-streamer containing self-
orienting gimbal-mounted geophones is being evaluated. Our initial experiments at two
locations within Switzerland demonstrate that good coupling with the ground may be
achieved when the gimbal-mounted vertical geophones are contained in heavy (-4 kg)

casings and pulled along a very shallow (2-3 cm deep) furrow. Such a furrow may be
created by mounting a heavy wheel on the towing vehicle. Placing the geophones in even
heavier casings may provide the necessary good coupling with the ground, negating the
need for the furrow. Shot gathers and stacked sections recorded with the gimbal -mounted

geophones are practically indistinguishable from those recorded with conventional spike
geophones. The principal advantage of this approach is that significantly fewer field
personnel (only two or three) are required than for conventional shallow seismic
surveying. When fully operational, the new acquisition system should be faster and less
expensive for a wide variety of engineering and environmental applications.

2.1 Introduction

High-resolution seismic reflection techniques are powerful tools foi mapping

shallow geological structures (Steeples and Miller. 1990: Lanz et al., 1996; Buker et al.,
1998a). New technological developments, such as the introduction of inexpensive 24-bit
Chapter 2 22

recording systems with capacity, together with an improved understanding

large channel
of the various waveforms recorded during typical shallow surveys (e.g., Robertsson et
al., 1996a, 1996b), have led to substantial improvements in the quality and reliability of
high-resolution seismic reflection data. In addition to increasing our ability to record
high-fold and densely spaced data, the new technologies have also markedly increased
the logistical complexity of a typical shallow seismic survey. For the same length of

survey line, many more geophones must now be planted and many more source points
employed (Büker et al., 1998b). Accurate surveying of receiver and source locations and
the manual planting of geophones are time consuming and costly aspects of shallow
seismic data acquisition.
In light of this, we project aimed at increasing the efficiency of high-
have initiated a

resolution seismic reflection techniques, with the principle goal of decreasing the
number of field personnel, time, and costs involved in conducting shallow surveys. In
order to achieve these goals we are adapting the concept of a snow streamer (Eiken et al.,
1989) for use in engineering-scale land surveys.

2.2 Towed Land-Streamer

A new type of multi-channel seismic cable has been specially designed and
manufactured for efficient shallow data acquisition on land. It consists of 96 takeouts at
fixed 1 m intervals. Each takeout is attached to a single self-orienting gimbal-mounted
vertical geophone. The seismic cable, or land-streamer (Figure 2.1), is to be towed
behind an all-terrain vehicle. A kevlar outer casing significantly increases the strength of
the cable and helps prevent it from being damaged as it is pulled across rugged ground.
The experiments reported here were conducted with a provisional set of six self-
orienting gimbal-mounted test geophones. Long recording spreads were simulated by
moving the six-geophone spread and multiple firing of shots at the same locations.
The gimbal-mounted vertical geophones are key elements of this new system
(Figure 2.2). Each geophone consists of a self-orienting velocity sensor mounted in a
heavy cylindrical outer casing. To damp the motion of the sensor around its rotational
axis, the inside of the casing is filled with viscous oil. Technical specifications of the
geophones are given in Table 2.1.

2.3 Geophone-to-Ground Coupling Tests

A critical issue of the land-streamer concept is thegeophone-to-ground coupling. In

seismic reflection surveys, the frequencies of the useful
signal depend on the energy
spectrum of the source, the attenuation in the ground, and the coupling resonant
frequency of the geophones. Krohn (1984) has shown that this resonant frequency
depends on the firmness of the soil and the actual coupling. In most practical situations,
the maximum recorded frequencies rarely exceed -500 Hz. We define good coupling as
the ability to record the seismic signal in the frequency range of interest (up to -500 H?)
with a minimum of distortion. To help ensure good coupling, each gimbal-mounted
vertical geophone is housed in a heavy casing (-1 kg). Various tests aimed at comparing
 23 Land-Streamer Concept

the coupling of traditional spike geophones with equivalent gimbal-mounted geophones

have been conducted.

At one test site (Zürich, Switzerland), six

spike geophones were carefully planted
alongside six
gimbal-mounted containing identical 30 Hz vertical sensors.
ones, each
The distance between the two parallel sets of geophones was <10 cm and the common
source was a 5 kg sledge hammer. At this site, moist sandy silt and sandy clay covered by

grass provided good surface conditions for planting the spike geophones (spike length
10 cm). In Figure 2.3, the response of a standard 30 Hz spike geophone is compared with
the "worse-case" response of a 30 Hz gimbal-mounted geophone that is poorly "planted".
This experiment was intended to simulate the effect of pulling the land-streamer across

rugged terrain without preparation of the surface. Major phase and amplitude differences
between the responses of the two types of geophone are shown in the figure.

When the gimbal-mounted geophones are placed in a shallow furrow and the entire
experiment repeated (on the same day as the previous experiment), the results are
strikingly different (Figure 2.4). This experiment was intended to simulate the towing of
the land-streamer along a shallow furrow (2-3 cm deep) generated by a heavy wheel at
the back of the towing vehicle. Clearly, the geophone-fo-ground coupling of the gimbal-
mounted geophone has considerably improved (compare Figure 2.3 to Figure 2.4). Phase
and amplitude differences between the two types of geophone have been significantly
reduced. Remaining minor differences in geophone response may be due to local
variations in near-surface conditions and differences in electro-mechanical
characteristics of the individual sensors, but these likely are to be small compared to the

effects of varying geophone-to-ground coupling (Faber et al., 1994).

The results of our detailed
coupling experiments suggest that gimbal-mounted
geophones good
in contact with the
ground have the potential to record faithfully high-
resolution seismic data. Good geophonc-to-ground coupling can be achieved by housing
the sensors in heavy casings and by pulling the land-streamer along a shallow furrow. We
will shortly be testing the practicality of employing even heavier casings in anticipation
that eventually the furrow may be avoided.

2.4 Multichannel Test Reflection Survey

Acquisition
Two coincident short seismic reflection
profiles were simultaneously recorded
within the Reuss Delta, central Switzerland (Figure 2.5). Nominal 18-fold data sets were
simulated with six standard spike geophones and six self-orienting gimbal-mounted test
units. Moist fine sediments (sandy silts and sandy clays) deposited
during recent
flooding provided excellent coupling conditions for both sets of geophones. To obtain
the nominal 18-fold data, each set of six geophones was repositioned six times, and for
each repositioning the shots was repeated. A pipegun source in 0.5-1.0 m deep boreholes

provided a repeatable signal. The most significant difference between signals generated
by sequential shots at the same location were "time delays" caused by progressive
Chapter 2 24

deepening of the hole. To account for these delay we applied simple static corrections

based on air-wave arrival times.

Detailedrecording parameters are given in Table 2.2. Typical shot gathers recorded
with the spike and gimbal-mounted geophones are displayed on the left and right sides of
Figure 2.6, respectively (note the relatively uniform signal character in these shot
gathers). Very minor differences between the two shot gathers are mostly due to small
differences in the noise characteristics of the two sets of geophones.

Processing
The two data sets were passed through simple processing sequence
the same

(Figure 2.7) using identical processing parameters. Stacking velocities ranged from 1000
to 2000 m/s. As for the shot gathers (Figure 2.6), the resultant stacked sections

(Figures 2.8a and 2.8b) are very similar. All important reflection zones are imaged on

both sections. Figure 2.8c is plot

a of the differences between Figures 2.8a and 2.8b. It
demonstrates that the amplitudes of some reflections vary slightly between the two
stacked sections (e.g., between 200 and 250 ms on the left side of the section), but that
the principal differences are at the noise level.

Geological interpretation
The Reuss Delta has experienced a complex history of tectonism and multiple
glaciations. Following the last ice age (Wurm glaciation) approximately 18000 years
ago, the region was covered by a lake in which deposited.
clays and then fine sands were

Subsequently, a thick sequence of gravels (known as the Reuss gravels) were laid down
by a large braided river system. Deposition of the Reuss gravels was periodically
interrupted by flooding events, the most recent of which occurred in 1987.
On the basis of information from a approximately 2 km south
300 m deep borehole
of the survey area, the strong reflection at 200 to 250 ms is interpreted as the boundary
between the Reuss gravels and the underlying fine sands (Figure 2.9). The top of the
basement is interpreted as the strong reflection that dips from -500 ms at the eastern end
of the profiles to -600 ms at the western end.

2.5 Conclusions

Results of our acquisition and

processing experiments have demonstrated the
potential of towed land-streamers with self-orienting gimbal-mounted geophones as a
means of efficient shallow seismic data acquisition. Flousing the sensors in heavy

casings and pulling the land-streamer along a shallow furrow offers a solution to the
geophone-to-ground coupling problem. Applying these techniques has shown that high
quality data, comparable to carefully planted spike geophone data, may be acquired with
gimbal geophones. Major advantages of this innovative approach to shallow data
acquisition are:
no need for geophone planting;
 25 Land-Streamer Concept

•
fewer field personnel (only two or three) compared to traditional surveys

(typically six to ten);

•
significant increase in acquisition speed;
•
marked decrease in survey costs.

Clearly, operation of this system will depend on local surface conditions (e.g., the

presence of trees, steep slopes, large boulders etc.). Despite these limitations, it is
expected that in many areas theacquisition time and costs of shallow seismic data

recording can be decreased significantly.

Chapter 2 26

Table 2.1: Technical specifications of the s elf-orienting gimbal

mounted geophone units (SG-1 Sensor)

Characteristic Measurement

Diameter 45 mm

Length 185 mm

Weight 1 kg

Velocity sensor 30 FIz

Table 2.2: Parameters for the high-resolution seismic reflection

profiles collected in the Reuss delta

Characteristic Measurement

Survey length 210 m

Receiver spacing m

Source type Pipegun in 0.5- to

1.0-m-deep holes
In-line source offset 2 m

Source spacing 2 m

Number of geophones 2x36

Geophone type 30-Hz spike/gimbal

Surface soil type Fine-grained sediments

Sample rate 0.25 ms

Recording time J 000 ms

Nominal fold 18
 27 Land-S trlamer Concept

Figure 2.1: Schematic illusüation of a land-stieamei to be pulled by

an all-teiram vehicle The land-stieamei compuses segments, each
with 12 gimbal-mounted geophones

Velocity sensor

Mount Viscous oil

Figure 2.2: Self-oiientmg gimbal-mounted vettical geophone

(reproduced with permission of Sensoi NL BV
Chapter 2 28

10 -

20
„>
"^
f

30
.-'
-

""
e

40 -

50
100 200 300 400 500

60 —#
Frequency (Hz)
360
i
70

80
\
\
90 \
/

(a)
100 s
200 300 500
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2.3: Results of ground coupling comparisons between 30-Ffz spiked (solid line) and
poorly planted 30-Hz, gimbal mounted geophones (dashed line), (a) Traces recorded from a
common source (5-kg sledgehammer); this particular comparison represents the worst-case

example of the initial field tests (i.e., the similarity ol adjecent spike and gimbal-mounted
geophones was usually higher than that shown here), (b) Amplitude spectra of the two traces,
(c) Phase differences between the responses of the two geophone types.

10 -

|
1
20 —

-10
E —i
-

/ Gimbal—<*
V
£s£-—SpiReF
30 "3>* 1
•S -20
«
\
'
40 __
a
-30 f \
7\
5U
(b)
^v i
-40
100 200 300 400 500

60 Frequency (Hz)
360

70 ! I i
180

80 — .

r-»^_
I \S^l/
90 \ -180-

(a) I
(C)
nn -360
100 200 300 400 500
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2.4: Results of ground coupling comparisons between the same 30-FÎ7 spiked (solid
line) and gimbal-mounted (dashed line) geophones as shown m Figure 2.3 The simbal-
mounted geophone was laid in a shallow furrow for this test (a) Ttaces recorded fiora a

common source (5-kg sledgehammer), (b) Amplitude spectrum of the two traces (c) Phase
differences between the responses of the two geophone types
 29 Land-Streamer Concept

1000 m
1 L 1 I
„J
1 pBBBBBB] teaBBHHB

A^
/ \ ® \ f

i \^\ ( s
S ^
\ <SA
\ Y® \

\ r>
\ < i\ \
\ P \ ^ V

,it> 'fe ^-x

^ \
\-2.
v

9- \
V"

^r -^""-x
A <

A Figure 2.5: Location of the suivey site

f
in

the Reuss delta, cential Switzerland

channel channel
36 1 36
0' tel
Li M ti_i^tU4^
-i*4sss ^V^^^jf
ft§2
n*.
-r2^^ ,VhfW 03

E
i^ K5

$
w .Ml
500 *££ilp ®m
^^uü
rr
s o

ftW$

4YM^\,^rMM
»V
;»M^

-rcri Mj
Spike Geophones Gimbal Geophones
1000 oil ilil

Figure 2.6: Two typical shot gatheis iccoided tn the Reuss delta The left
gather, was
lecoided with standatd spike geophones the light ones gimbal-mounted veitical
with

geophones The law data ha\e been scaled with a single mdiMdual scaling tactoi (i e trace
,

noimahyed) for each tiace

Chapter 2 30

Geometry

Trace Editing

Top Mute

Air Blast Attenuation

Time Variant Spectral Whitening

CMP Sort

Velocity Analysis

NMO-Correction

Stack

Display with AGC (100 msec) Figure 2.7: Data processing flow
 31 Land-Streamer Concept

PPiM

^Km§^^^^^ß^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^$

700

Figure 2.8: Seismic reflection data sets recorded

simultaneously at the same location.

(a) Stacked section recorded with standard spike geophones. (b) Stacked section
recorded with self-orienting, gimbal-mounted geophones. (c) Difference between the
two stacked sections.
 o

>

io

East 210 m West

Reuss
Gravel

Fine
m
350 Sands
£
i"*"* "/ »" «M» ~
~^-
,,, »./«f3* £!» "(» ,*P* j«"«« Mi ,i

'
.'.A* .„fa* V »y>A..w;Cl .
"t'y/....?.'?•*"'>' ^.;iy! ,«>>/ JdK'yt.'.it'^W.^' '( /. n>»* 1.
to

Clays

Basement

700

ligure 2.9: Simplified interpretation ba>ed on the surface geology and information
obtained from numerous nearby shallow boreholes and one deep HOO m) borehole

approximately 2 km south of the survey line

 3

Evaluation of High-Frequency

Seismic Sources for Imaging

Shallow (10-250 m) Structures

Submitted To
Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics

Abstract

Several high-frequency seismic sources (i.e. sledgehammer, pipegun, weightdrop,

and small- and intermediate-size vibrators) have been tested at a site characterized by a
surface layer of recent sediments overlying unconsolidated glacial and
glaciolacustrine
units. Reflections from
very shallow
(~10m) to moderate
(-250 m) depths were
recorded. Evaluation of the different sources involved analyzing prominent features

(e.g., reflections and signal-generated noise that includes complex patterns of interfering
reflections, direct waves, guided waves, refractions, and surface waves) on source
gathers, frequency spectra and stacked sections. Our experiments demonstrated that
minor changes in local conditions (e.g., changes in ground-water table depth) may
influence significantly the characteristics of the resulting data. Of the tested sources, the
simple sledgehammer provided the highest resolution images at shallow depths
(10-100 m) and comparably good images at greater depths ( 100-250 m). Local changes
in surficial sediments affected the quality of data generated by the small (60 kg reaction

mass) vibrator; at many locations, the input energy was insufficient to illuminate the
important geological structures. By comparison, the intermediate-size (2,300 kg reaction
mass) vibrator provided high quality images to depths as great as 250 m
(corresponding
to the deepest reflection from near the base of unconsolidated
sediments), but relatively
strong airwaves and imprecise vibroseis correlation precluded the resolution of
reflections from depths shallower than -40-50 m. Despite recent advances in vibratory

systems, the humble, but cost-effective sledgehammer continues to be an attractive

source for high-resolution seismic experiments.
Chapter 3 34

3.1 Introduction

High-resolution seismic reflection methods are used for imaging a wide variety of
geological structures. To complement innovative rapid data acquisition techniques (van
der Veen and Green. 1998; Spitzer et al., 1998, 1999). fast and versatile high-frequency

energy sources are required. In a general review of shallow seismic reflection methods.
Steeples et al. (1997) identified the need for such sources as a first-order priority. Over
the past two decades, many traditional impulsive-type seismic sources have been tested
and compared under diverse geological conditions (McCann et al., 1985: Miller et al.,

1986, 1992, 1994; Doll et al., 1998rHerbst et al, 1998; Bühnemann and Holliger, 1998).
In contrast, only a few tests of high-frequency vibrators have been reported. Vibratory

sources, which have a proven track record in hydrocarbon and deep crustal seismic

surveys, have the potential to replace conventional sources in shallow seismic

experiments. Nijhof (1989) described the first use of a specially designed vibrator system
for shallow applications. Feasibility studies of individual vibrator types have since been
described by Chose et al. (1995, 1998), Schneider and van der Kooy (1996) and Buness
et al. (1997). Herbst et al. (1998) evaluated the OYO vibrator, but no results from these

particular presented
tests were in their article. The first
comprehensive comparison to
include several high-frequency vibrator sources (OYO vibrator, IVI MiniVib and Y-

1100A vibrator) was presented by Doll et al. (1998). Their principal goal was to evaluate
seismic sources for mapping reflections at traveltimes >~100 ms.

Here, we report the results of a new suite of

comparisons of high-frequency sources.

Our study is distinct from most previously reported ones in that:

1. It included two types of high frequency vibratory sources (OYO and CGA

vibrators), one of which has not been evaluated previously.

2. Data were recorded across an environment characterized

by glacial,
glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial sediments. Such sediments
large cover

areas of many countries worldwide. They contain important ground-water

reservoirs and valuable gravel and sand deposits, and are the host of
numerous landfills (in Switzerland alone, there is approximately one

landfill per square kilometer of inhabitable land; Green et al., 1999).

3. Across our survey region, reflections from as shallow as 10 m to as deep

as 250 m were observed. Most other studies arc based on more limited

depth ranges (usually >50 m).

4. We included comparisons of source gathers and stacked sections.

5. The frequency spectra of different packages of arrivals, which include

interfering direct waves, guided waves, refractions, reflections, and
surface waves, were analyzed.

The comparisons represent the results of seismic surveys conducted for various
purposes by ETH-Zurich over the past few years. For this reason, evaluations along two
different lines at the same study site are presented.
 35 Source Evaluation

3.2. Survey Area and Local Geology

Extensive 2-D and 3-D high-resolution seismic reflection surveys were performed in
the glaciated Suhre
valley in northern Switzerland by Büker et al. (1998a, 1998b, 1999;
Figure 3.1). Figure 3.2 shows seismic reflection profile B oriented perpendicular to the
dominant north-south flow direction of the former glacier and associated river systems

(corresponds to profile 1 in Büker et al.. 1998a). It illustrates the typical seismic response
of this area. Shotholes along the profiles reveal a thin (0.5-1.5 m) low velocity humus
layer close to the surface. At greater depths, the geology is dominated by sequences of
glaciolacustrine clay/silt and glacial till (mostly sands and gravels). Molasse basement
sedimentary rocks occur at depths ranging from -32 to -250 m. Comparison of sources
along profile B were made between CMP's 650 and 940 (Figure 3.2). Here, the ancient
glacier has markedly deepened the valley, such that the Molasse basement is recorded at
travel times of -200-250 ms. The depth of the ground-water table during the various

recording campaigns was not measured, but likely lay below the surface humus layer.
Profile A was recorded parallel to the flow direction of the ancient glacier. The
seismic response along this profile was
similar to that along profile B between CMP's
950-1350 (Figure 3.2). At this location, the Molasse basement was imaged at travel
times of 80-100 ms. During the two recording campaigns associated with profile A, the

ground-water table was only a few centimeters below the surface.

3.3 Seismic Sources

Three conventional impulsive-type sources and two high-frequency vibratory

sources were evaluated:
(i) sledgehammer, (ii), pipegun (iii) accelerated weightdrop, (iv)
hand-portable mini-vibrator developed by OYO (OYO vibrator), and (v) a truck-
mounted mini-vibrator constructed by the Geowissenschaftlichc Gemeinschaftsaufgaben

(CGA vibrator).

Impulsive sources

A 5 kg sledgehammer is an inexpensive, yet effective seismic source (Figure 3.3a).

An accurate piezo-electric sensor triggers the seismograph as the hammer strikes a
225 cm steel baseplate. Keiswettcr and Steeples (1995) have shown that the energy and
bandwidth of the resultant seismic signal depend only marginally on hammer mass and
baseplate area. It is
expected, therefore, that the results shown here are representative of
most sledgehammer-baseplate configurations.
A variety of different pipegun types and designs exist (Pullan and MacAulcy. 1985,
1987; Miller et al, 1986, 1992, 1994; Herbst et al.. 1998; Wiederhold et. al., 1998). Our
12-gauge pipegun source consists of a 1.65 m long hollow metal pipe, down which a
metal rod is dropped onto a blank cartridge (Figure 3.3b). It may be used in holes up to
-1.5 m deep. A piezo-electric sensor is mounted at the
top of the rod. Advantages of this
design are its robustness and mobility under field conditions and its low purchase and
operating costs. A disadvantage is the relatively labor-intensive shothole preparation.
Chapter 3 36

Weightdrop systems are often employed in shallow seismic surveys. They may
include truck- or trailer-mounted mechanisms that accelerate
artificially a large mass

towards the large amount of energy is generated on impact. An example of a

ground. A

weightdrop system (Vakimpak) is illustrated in Figure 3.3c. Advantages of such systems

are their robustness and relatively low operating costs. Disadvantages are their high

purchase price and maintenance costs and their lack of mobility in rugged terrains.

Vibratory sources

Vibratory sources are not yet commonly high-resolution seismic

used in

experiments, but may eventually offer benefits over traditional impulsive

significant
sources, especially for surveying in urban areas. For example, by distributing the

generated energy over time (i.e. sweep time), non-linear behavior in the vicinity of the
source may be minimized. Moreover, by controlling the sweep parameters it is possible

to tailor the source signal for (i) particular targets of interest, (ii) optimized resolution or

(iii) optimized depth penetration. Disadvantages are their high purchase price and
maintenance costs and the fact that cross-correlation or deconvolution with appropriate
reference signals is necessary to generate an impulsive equivalent of the seismic record.

OYO Center of Applied Geoscience (OYO-CAG) in the Netherlands has developed

a 65 kg hand-portable vibrator (Table 3.1; Figure 3.3d) that generates a maximum

theoretical ground-force of 500 N (Nijhof, 1989). According to the manufacturer's

specifications, it operates in the frequency range 25-1500 Hz (Ghose et al., 1998).

Principal advantages of this system are its ability to produce high-frequency signals
suitable for imaging ultra-shallow to shallow geological structures and its portability,
which allows rugged terrains to be surveyed. A potential disadvantage is the limited
maximum ground-force of 500 N and associated limited depth penetration.

CGA-Institute of Joint Geoscientific Research (Germany) has developed a high-

frequency vibrator
(Table 3.1; Figure 3.3e) that is capable of generating a peak force of

-31,000 N (Buness et ah, 1997). The 2,600 kg truck-mounted vibrator can operate in the
frequency range 16-500 Hz. A key advantage of this system is the large amount of

energy it can generate at high frequencies. One disadvantage may be its limited mobility
in areas with difficult access or substantial topographic relief.

3.4 Acquisition
An overview of the tested and
acquisition parameters is given in Table 3.2.
sources

Along profile A, high-frequency data were recorded along a compacted gravel path
using the sledgehammer, pipegun and accelerated weightdrop sources. The
sledgehammer and accelerated weightdrop sources were deployed on the path, whereas
the pipegun was fired in untamped shallow holes drilled beside it. For each suite of

recordings, very similar recording parameters were employed. Data were acquired using
a fixed spread with single 30 Hz geophones spaced 1.5 m apart. Shot spacing was 3 m.

For the sledgehammer survey, a vertical stack of 5 was recorded, whereas for the other
 37 Source Evaluation

impulsive surveys, single shots impacts

or were considered sufficient. Blank 12-gauge
cartridges were used in the pipegun.

Beneath the
deepest part of the valley, along the central part of profile B. we have
evaluated the sledgehammer and both vibratory sources (OYO and CGA vibrators) along
a second compacted gravel track. Although the sledgehammer profile extended over the

entire width of the valley, we only compare the results from the region between CMP's
640 and 940 (Figure 3.2). All data were recorded with identical 30 Hz geophones. For
the OYO and CGA vibrator surveys, we used 70-300 Hz linear upsweeps of 4.5 s and
10 s duration, respectively. During initial tests, 8-fold stacks of OYO vibrator data
resulted inapproximately equivalent S/N ratios as 2-fold stacks of CGA vibrator data in
our area.Using more than 8 stacks may have increased S/N ratios, but it would also have
increased the acquisition time. For all three sources employed along profile B, we

generated stacked sections with CMP spacings of 1 m.

3.5 Processing
To obtain the stacked sections,
relatively standard processing and imaging
operations applied
were to all data
using commercial seismic software. Table 3.3
illustrates the common processing flow. Along each profile, individual processing

parameters were varied slightly to optimize S/N ratios. Initial steps involved geometry
setup, editing of the entire data set and application of elevation and refraction statics.
Spectral balancing and additional bandpass filtering were applied to enhance data
quality, especially in the higher frequency range. Finally, stacked sections were
displayed after coherency filtering.
In addition to the common processing scheme, pre-processing was necessary to
compress seismic signals recorded with the OYO and CGA vibrators. For the OYO
vibrator, measured accelerations of baseplate and reaction mass were used to estimate
the ground-force (Sallas. 1984), which was then employed as a reference signal for
vibroseis deconvolution (van der Veen et al., 1999); vibroseis deconvolution with an

appropriate reference
signal may reduce
harmonic distortions. By comparison, a

synthetic pilot sweep was correlated with data recorded with the CGA vibrator; using
this relatively standard approach, phase differences between the pilot
sweep and true
ground-force may introduce correlation noise, especially at higher frequencies.

3.6 Resultant Data

Profile A: Sledgehammer, pipegun and weightdrop system

Diagrams (a) and (b) in Figures 3.4-3.6 show typical unprocessed source gathers and
associated amplitude decay curves extracted from data collected along
profile A.
Ambient noise levels of traces at 114 m source-receiver offset were determined from
data recorded before the first-break onsets. Amplitude spectra of selected regions of the
source gathers (diagrams (c) to (e) of Figures 3.4-3.6) represent stacks of the spectra of
Chapter 3 38

traces in the respective Regions I are dominated by complex patterns of direct

windows.

waves, refractions, Regions II are focussed on reflections that originate

and reflections.

from the top of the Molasse basement. Portions of dispersed surface waves are enclosed
in regions III. The rather prominent event at -250 ms in the weightdrop data (marked DB
in Figure 3.6) may be associated with a double-bounce of the accelerated mass. In

Figure 3.7, identical source gathers are displayed after standard processing up to
bandpass filtering in Table 3.3.
Stacked sections from the three sourcesdisplayed
are in Figure 3.8 and detailed

views of the outlined portions of data are presented in Figure 3.9. Reflections RI and R2

in Figure 3.9 represent small-scale pinch-out structures.

Profile B: Sledgehammer and OYO and GGA vibrators

Three typical unprocessed source gathers and associated amplitude decay curves
extracted from data collected along profile B are displayed in diagrams (a) and (b) of

Figures 3.10-3.12. Levels of ambient noise at 94 m source-receiver offset were

determined from data recorded before first-break Amplitude spectra of three

onsets.

regions with typical signal arc presented in diagrams (c) to (e) of

characteristics

Figures 3.10-3.12. Along this profile, regions I are dominated by guided waves that are
typical of many shallow seismic reflection surveys (Robertson et al, 1996). They may
obscure shallow reflections. Regions II are focussed on reflections at traveltimes
-200-250 ms, which originate from the top of the Molasse basement and regions III

display portions of the surface waves. Stacked sections for all three sources are displayed
in Figure 3.14. A thorough geological interpretation of these sections may be found in
Büker et al. (1998a). The main units correspond to those displayed in Figure 3.2.

3.7 Discussion

Profile A: Sledgehammer, pipegun and weightdrop system

Sourcegathers produced with the three source types along profile A are very similar
(Figure 3.4-3.6). For example, the dispersed surface waves enclosed in regions TTÎ have
nearly identical dominant frequencies of -40 Hz and comparable amplitude-versus-
frequency decay curves (at 400 Hz, -65 dB for the hammer and weightdrop gathers and
-75 dB for the pipegun gather; Figure 3.4e-3.6e). Differences are observed in the

respective amplitude decay curves (Figures 3.4b-3.6b). Maximum signal-to-ambient

noise amplitudes of the sledgehammer data (18 dB) are much less than those of the

pipegun (36 dB) and weightdrop (33 dB), resulting in significant differences in S/N
ratios throughout the source gathers. Nevertheless, penetration of the least energetic

source, five impacts of the sledgehammer, is sufficient to image the deepest reflections
enclosed in regions II.

Regions I are dominated by a complex superposition of direct waves, refractions and

reflections.
Simple observation indicates that the sledgehammer data contain more high
frequency details than equivalent data from the other two sources (Figures 3 4a-3.6a).
 39 Source Evaluation

Two distinct peaks marked Al and A2 are observed in the associated amplitude spectra
(Figures 3.4c-3.6c). In the
pipegun weightdrop
and peak 40-60 Hz has a
data, the at

significantly higher amplitude than the higher frequency peak at -125 Hz, thus
explaining the relatively low frequency character of these data sets. By comparison, the
A2 peak has a slightly higher amplitude than the AI peak in the spectrum of the

sledgehammer data. Due to the complex superposition of signals in regions I, it is

difficult to associate the individual peaks in frequency content with specific wave types

(e.g., refractions versus reflections). An interpretation of the "quality" of a seismic

source based on these data alone is, therefore, equivocal.

Sinceregions II of the source gathers primarily contain reflections, they provide less
ambiguous information. Although the corresponding amplitude spectra for the three
source gathers all have high amplitude peaks at -60 Hz (Figures 3.4d-3.6d), the
sledgehammer data appears to contain a relatively higher amount of higher frequency
energy. For example, the point at which the signal has decayed to a level of -40 dB
occurs at -225 Hz in the sledgehammer data, whereas it is at -140 Hz in the pipegun and

weightdrop data. Consequently, reflections in the unprocessed sledgehammer gathers

appear to supply higher resolution information (compare Figures 3.4a with Figures 3.5a
and 3.6a). To determine whether or not comparable high-frequency details are contained
in the pipegun and weightdrop data, we analyze the processed (up to and including

bandpass filtering in Table 3.3) source gathers in Figure 3.7. These processed gathers
demonstrate that all three source types generated very shallow reflections rich in high

frequencies. Nevertheless, the temporal resolution of reflections within the circled area is
highest in the sledgehammer data.

Resultant stacked sections (Figure 3.8) show complex reflection patterns to times of
~
100-150 ms. Data from all three sources are comparable with respect to maximum

penetration depth. Although the shallowest detectable reflections may be identified on all
sections at -25 ms. the relatively higher frequency sledgehammer data
content of the
result in better resolution of
some rectangular areas marked
events. Detailed views of the

on Figures 3.8a-3.8c show the effect of the differences in resolution (Figure 3.9); small-

scale pinch-out features Rl and R2 are clearly identified on the sledgehammer section

(Figure 3.9a), whereas they are more smeared on the pipegun section, and hardly
recognized on the weightdrop section.

Along profile A, the sledgehammer, pipegun and weightdrop sources generated

comparable data sets, possibly because the ground-water table was very close to (he
surface. Reflections as shallow as -25 ms (-10 m depth) and as deep as -150 ms

(~150m) were imaged. The sledgehammer produced less energetic signals that
contained relatively higher frequencies than the other sources. Small-scale shallow
features were imaged best on the sledgehammer sections.

Profile B: Sledgehammer, and OYO and GGA vibrators

At a typical source location

along profile B (corresponding to CMP 640 in
Figure 3.2), the trace normalized source gathers (Figures 3.l()a-3.12a) are dominated at
early traveltimes by strong low-frequency oscillatory signals. Simple analysis of
Chapter 3 40

refracted arrivals recorded along the profile demonstrate that there is a large increase in
P-wave velocity from -350 m/s to -1900 m/s at depths of -1.2-1.8 m. This increase is

associated with the ground-water table.

Weanalyse the effect of the relatively thin low-velocity layer via finite difference
simulations (Robertson et al., 1994) using a simple 1-layer model (v0=350m/s;

v1=1900m/s; thickness=1.5 m). The effect of attenuation is minimized by choosing

relatively high Q values (Q„=100 and Qs=50). The synthetic section in Figure 3.13

demonstrates that the low-velocity layer is probably responsible for the prominent
revcrberatory phases in the unprocessed source gathers. These reverberations result from
multiple reflections within the low-velocity layer. A consequence of this phenomenon is
that the effective source signal is long and complex.

Maximum signal-to-ambient noise levels are comparable for the three sources:

21 dB, 24 dB and 26 dB for the sledgehammer, and the OYO vibrator and CGA
vibrators, respectively. For the particular locations represented by the source gathers of
Figures 3.10-3.12, all three sources produced sufficient energy to image the deepest

reflections at -200-250 ms.

The amplitude spectra of regions I (Figure 3.10c-3.12c), which are dominated by the
low-frequency signals, show two distinct maxima A3 and A4. In contrast to the maxima
Al of Figures 3.4c-3.6c, maxima A3 at a frequency of -80 Hz are undoubtedly
associated with the strong reverberations. Frequency analysis show that the A4 peak may
be associated with shallow reflected energy. Based on the relative amplitudes of events
A3 and A4, it seems that the sledgehammer produced the highest ratio of guided wave-
to-rcflection energy.

Reflections in regions "ringy" character similar to that of the first arrivals

II have a

in regions I. Again, this signature is caused by reverberations in the low velocity layer in
the source region. Corresponding amplitude spectra (Figures 3.10d-3.l2d) show similar
dominant frequencies (-80 Hz) to those of the guided waves in regions I. The strong

peak A5 in the high frequency range (-250-280 Hz) of the CGA vibrator spectrum
(Figure 3.12d) originates from the airwave, which interferes with the reflections.
Although airwaves are either not as prominent or absent on source gathers shown in
Figures 3.10 and 3.11, they do not appear on other records acquired along profile B.
One of the major advantages ofvibratory sources is illustrated in
regions III of the
source gathers, which enclose portions of the surface
sledgehammer
waves. The

generated very strong surface waves, similar in amplitude and frequency content to those
generated along profile A by all three impulsive sources. The sweep setting of the
vibratory sources (70-300 Hz) was tailored to limit the generation of surface waves,
while preserving the frequency bandwidth necessary to image the reflections. Dominant

frequencies of the surface waves in the OYO and CGA vibrator data are -70 Hz,
corresponding to the start frequency of the sweep.

Significant differences are observed in the shallow parts of stacked sections resulting
from data recorded along line B
(Figure 3.14). The shallowest reflections R3 at -25 ms

are only observed in the sledgehammer section (Figure 3.14a). In the OYO and CGA
 41 Source Evaluation

vibrator sections (Figure 3.14b and 3.14c), the earliest reflections occur at -40-50 ms. A
second difference is the variable S/N ratioalong the OYO vibrator section relative to the
others. This is discussed in the following paragraph. Along the entire profile, both the

sledgehammer and CGA vibrator sections show strong reflections from the vicinity of
the unconsolidated-consolidatcd sediment boundary (i.e. top of Molasse basement) at
maximum travel times of -250 ms. Events R4, which are associated with reflections
from within the layerglaciolacustrine clays are most prominent on the CGA vibrator
of

section; they can be traced

confidently over a distance of -200 m. On the sledgehammer
and OYO vibrator sections they are continuous over a distance of only -90 m, either
because of lower signal strengths or reduced high-frequency content.

Further details of the OYO vibrator data

The quality of data produced with the OYO vibrator is

highly variable
(Figure 3.14b). In the eastern part of the
profile (-0-120 m), S/N ratios are comparable to
the sledgehammer and CGA vibrator stacks, but towards the west, signal quality
decreases significantly. Coherent shallow to deep reflections cannot be identified in this

part of the stack. Diagrams (a) and (b) of Figure 3.15 show OYO source gathers from the
western and eastern parts of profile B, respectively. The ground-force was calculated

from reference signals recorded on the baseplate and reaction mass (van der Veen ct al.,

1999). It may interpreted as a measure of the amount of radiated energy. In the eastern
part of the profile, the estimated ground-force is well above the average value
(Figure 3.15c), resulting in source gathers with relatively high S/N ratios
(Figures 3.15b). The source gather shown in Figure 3.11a originates from this region.
Source gathers along the western part of the profile have much lower ground-force
values (Figure 3.15a) and correspondingly reduced amplitudes (Figure 3.15c).

A possible explanation for the large differences in S/N ratios may be the sensitivity
of the relatively lightweight OYO system to local recording conditions, which can be
associated with coupling of the base plate to the ground. Figure 3.1 shows that surface

recording conditions vary along profile B; the eastern and western parts of the studied
sections (between arrows) are covered by recent sediments of diverse origin, whereas the
center part is dominated by glacial moraines. The exact boundaries of these glacial

deposits are not well determined; they could extend further towards the western and/or
eastern parts of the profile. Van der Veen et al. (1999) show that vibrator
coupling and
the amount of radiated energy depend strongly on local surface conditions.
Along
profile B, the change from recent sediments to glacial moraines may result in a marked
change of coupling and a degradation of the radiated energy.

Comparison of profiles A and B

The only direct links between profiles A and B sledgehammer source gathers.
are the

Despite the short lateral distance of -750

m between them, the source gathers of

Figures 3.4 and 3.10 are very different. Along profile A. the ground-water table was very
close to the surface, so that revcrberatory phases were not observed. In contrast, such

phases dominate the profile B source gathers at shallow travel times. The large
Chapter 3 42

differences in responses indicate that theperformance of any seismic source depends

strongly on local recording conditions. For our study, this dependence makes a direct
comparison of the various sources employed along the two profiles somewhat
ambiguous. It is clear, however, that along both profiles, the sledgehammer produced
stacked sections rich in reflections from near the surface to the top of the Molasse
basement. Considering its
relatively purchase low and maintenance costs and the

relatively high repetition rate, the simple sledgehammer continuous to be an attractive

source for high-resolution seismic profiling.

Comparison with the results of Doll et al.'s study

A comprehensive comparison of several seismic sources has been presented by Doll
et al.( 1998). Although shallow reflections at -50-150 ms were observed in some stacked
sections at their study site, the dominant reflections occurred at -150-200 ms

(corresponding to depths -300-400 m). In contrast, our test location yielded prominent
reflections over the complete range of -25-250 ms (-10-250 m).

Very shallow reflections are a priority in many research programs. A number of

studies (e.g., Steeples ct al, 1997: Büker et al., 1998a. 1999) have concluded that
reflections shallower than about 50 ms are more difficult to image than deeper ones, such
that the choice of seismic source may be critical for very shallow surveys. At study our

site, the shallowest features were imaged best with the sledgehammer. Other impulsive
sources provided lower resolution and the quality of shallow images supplied by the

vibratory sources was uniformly poor.

For traveltimes >50 ms, some results of Doll et al.'s (1998) study were similar to
ours. For example, at both
study sites, the signal strength of the OYO vibrator was
poorer than other tested sources, resulting in stacked sections with relatively low S/N
ratios. Their conclusions regarding the most effective source differed slightly from ours,

probably because of different recording conditions. They found that the weightdrop
system and TVI vibrator, which is comparable to the CGA vibrator, provided comparably
good images of the subsurface at traveltimes >50 ms. At our test site, the sledgehammer
produced the highest resolution image at early traveltimes and an image comparable to
that provided by the GGA vibrator at later traveltimes. The combined results of both
studies demonstrate that the performance of seismic sources is site dependent.

3.8 Conclusions

Our evaluations were aimed at determining the

operational characteristics and
applicability of a various seismic sources for imaging shallow ( 10-250 m) structures at
our study site. By analysing critical features on source
gathers, frequency spectra and
stacked sections, the behaviour of these sources was examined in detail.
Important
results of our study were:

1. Local conditions, such as the occurrence of glacial moraines at the surface

or variations in the depth to the ground-water table, influenced
significantly the performance of the sources. A simple modeling
 43 Source Evaluation

investigation confirmed that large P-wavc velocity contrasts across

laterally extensive boundaries in the shallow subsurface (e.g.. at the
shallow ground-water table) may introduce strong reverberatory signals.

2. The common sledgehammer proved to be the best source for imaging all
important geological structures at our study site. Of the impulsive sources,
it provided the largest ratio of high- to low-frequency energy and the

highest resolution information at shallow depths. Although it produced

weaker signals than other impulsive sources, at our site if supplied
sufficient energy to image the deepest reflections at -250 m.

3. The pipegun and weightdrop produced comparably good signals. Of the

impulsive sources, they generated the largest amount of energy.

4. Previously, the OYO vibrator has provided excellent P-wave reflection
data in a variety of soft sediment environments (Ghose et al, 1995; Ghose
et al., 1998). At our study site, which is dominated by an upper layer of

glacial moraines or recent sediments, this lightweight vibrator proved to be

overly sensitive to local recording conditions. With the particular source
parameters that we adopted, this resulted in highly variable S/N ratios.

5. The intermediate-size CGA vibrator generated sufficient energy to image

the deepest geological structures at -250 m along the entire profile.
Relatively strong airwaves and imprecise vibroseis correlation (especially
at higher frequencies) distorted signals at traveltimes <50 ms. Therefore,

at our study site, the CGA vibrator was limited to imaging reflections

below -50 ms (-40-50 m).

Vibratory sources offer significant advantages over impulsive sources. However, their
relatively high purchase and maintenance costs and potential problems related to the
robust reconstruction of high-frequency impulsive signals via deconvolution or cross-
correlation may still limit their routine application. When prices drop and our

understanding of the relevant physical processes at shallow depths improve, it is

anticipated that vibratory sources may become as important in engineering-scale surveys
as full-size vibroseis systems are for hydrocarbon exploration.

Considering its relatively low purchase and maintenance costs and the relatively
high repetition rate, we conclude that the simple sledgehammer continues to be an
attractive source for high-resolution seismic surveying.
Chapter 3 44

Table 3.1: Characteristics of tested vibratory sources (from manufacturer's

specifications)

OYO vibrator GGA vibrator

Dimensions 0.3x0.3x0.4 m 3.9x1.8x1.9 m

Mass 65 kg 2,600 kg

Baseplate mass 3.5 kg 181 kg

Reaction mass 60 kg 2,300 kg
Peak force 500 N 31,000N

Frequency range 25-1500 Hz 16-500 Hz

Method of signal Deconvolution with esti¬ Correlation with syn¬

reconstruction mated ground-force thetic pilot sweep

Table 3.2: Acquisition parameters of stacked sections.

Profile A Profile B

Seismic Sources sledgehammer sledgehammer

pipegun OYO vibrator

weightdrop GGA vibrator

Vertical stack sledgehammer: 5 sledgehammer: 5

pipegun: 1 OYO vibrator: 8

weightdrop: 1 GGA vibrator: 2

Profile length 250 m 320 m

Number of Channels 168 96

Roll along fixed spread leap frog

CMP spacing 0.75 m 1.0 m

Nominal fold 42 48

Sweep time OYO vibrator: 4.5 s (total: 36 s)

GGA vibrator: 10 s (total: 20 s)
Taper length 0.05 s

Sweep frequencies 70-300 Hz

Sweep type linear upsweep

 45 Source Evaluation

Table 3.3: Common processing flow (see Figures 3.8, 3.9, 3.14 and 3.15)

Common Processing Flow

Geometry
Editing
Elevation Statics

Refraction Statics

Spectral Balancing
Bandpass Filtering
Top Mute

CMP Sorting

Velocity Analysis
NMO Correction

Residual Statics

Stack

Coherency Filtering
Chapter 3 46

1000 m

Glacial moraines

Recent sediments of diverse origin

Exposed basement of Molasse

sedimentary rocks

Figure 3.1: Suhre valley in northern Switzerland. Source comparisons were

made along profiles A and B (between arrows). Profiles A and B are parallel
and perpendicular to dominant flow direction of ancient glacier, respectively.
 w
CMP-Number
250 m
1350 1150 950 750 550 150
i

; KJ- ;S^^SksBS fi

^100
m
E
*"

200

300
(a)

0
\'-'i:'''^^, --^r?^-^'.--';^---_. A î

100

E 4-

200

300
(b)

Test section for sledgehammer, OYO

vibrator, and GGA vibrator.

Figure 3.2:
(a) Previously recorded seismic reflection section along profile B illustrating typical seismic response for
survey region (adapted from Büker et al., 1998a). Data were generated with a sledgehammer source, (b) Geological C/2
O
interpretation of seismic section constrained by limited borehole and outcrop information. Along the central part of
73
profile, a sledgehammer, GGA vibrator, and OYO vibrator were evaluated. Geological formations correspond to: o

-
-
A -
-
-
glaciolacustrine clays/silts; B1 basal till; B2 fluvial sands/gravels; CI reworked till; D glaciolacustrine clays; m
<
-
E reflective Molasse sandstone basement F -

(interpretation tentative); Molasse sandstone basement. Figures are plotted

with verticahhorizontal scale of approximately 1:1 for average of 2000 m/s.
velocity >
H
O
z
Chapter 3 48

^—N

X)
0)
O)
1_ -a
eu
05 'C
en CO
xj
£: o o

ezo- ingr re

Q. s=

\
M
P»-^
Ml D
if w

IU 99 I

Figure 3.3: Evaluated seismic souices (a) S kg sledgehammei and 22*» cm2 baseplate (b)
12-gauge pipegun (c) wcightdiop (Vakimpak) (d) hand-poi table (65-kg) vibiatoi
developed by OYO with co\ei to leduce amplitude ot an waves (e) tiuck mounted
(2600 kg) vibiator constiucted by GGA
 49 Source Evalua hon

xbuj ujojj gp

Figure 3.4: (a) Tiace-noimalized souice gathei piodueed with sledgehammei and recoided

along piofileA, and (b) associated amplitude decay cm\e ot trace lecoided at 114m offset

(location maiked by atiow) hate spacing was 1 5 m Amplitude spectia of (c) region I
dominated by complex pattern of dnect waves, leflections and îeftactions, (d) legion II
showing teflections at tta\eltimes of -100-150 ms from within the unconsolidated
sedimentaty
section, and (e) region III distinguished bv dispersed suiface waves Amplitude spectia aie
displayed m relative dB scale Al and A2 m diagram (c) indicate dominant peaks m amplitude
spectia ol legion I
 o

era >
-0
H
re m
73
w
Source-Receiver Offset Amplitude (dB) CO
1rs (m) -1-14 m

0 30 60 90 0 20 40

31
\
100 100 0', ^—
4-

•
o\ <:^r
E F #
c. P
200 200- -y

01 _>

o Ej >
o re ; <;
(b) o
Q.
O 300 300
Q.

Region ! Region il Region III

T3

0 X
TC RJ
S
E
E
0
X-

m
T3

200 400 0 200 400 0 100 200 300 400

f(Hz) f(Hz) f(Hz)

 51 Source Evaluation

S
m
2-
® o
"O CN

£
<
o

y
\
|3A3| asiou ;u3|qujB

....
ii i

o o o
o o o
.^ CN CO

(sui) +

c
.2
:
J O
O
CO

o N

"5>

^®
(siu)j
=ci^jr^
o O o O
CM CD 00

xeiu moi| gp

Figure 3.6: As for Figure 3 4, but for data recorded with weightdrop system. DB shows tust-

break signal associated with double-bounce on ground

Chapter 3 52

Source-Receiver Offset (m)

0 30 60 90

Figure 3.7: Souice gatheis ol Figures s 4-3 6 aftei standatd ptocessing

(up to bandpass tilteimg m lable 3.3) and subjected to a 100 ms AGC

for display purposes Highlighted areas illustiate ditteiences m tempoial
resolution
 53 Source Evaluaron

CMP-Number

100 120 140

200
weightdrop memmmsasamm
Figure 3.8: Stacked reflection sections tecoided along piofile A using three diffeient souices
(a) sledgehammei, (b) pipegun, and (c) acceleiated wcightdiop Piocessmg sequence shown m
Table 3 3 Figures plotted with veiticalhouzontal scale of 1 3 loi aveiage
are
appioximately
velocity of 2000 m/s
Chapter 3 54

CMP-number
40 60 80 100

Figure 3.9: Enlaiged and rescaled data horn windowed legions in Figuies 3 8 a
to 3 8c Figuies plotted with vertical horizontal scale of appioximately 1 1 Joi

average velocity of 2000 m/s Reflections Rl and R2 illustrate diffeiences m

images due to varying dominant frequencies

 55 Source Evaluation

o . r i 1

J2

20

Amplitude N
Ai\.
„
A
aj_J
ryv
\i

[p y |OA3| asjou juajqiue

o o o
cD
o o o
v- CN CO

(SUl)|

o
' i o
^-^

O
w

o
o
co

c
c
N
o o
-£T I
5) dx o
-

0)
^-*- CN ^
lY /SoX VSNl<^

(sui)j
£L -

o o O O o
CN CD 00

XBLU UJ0J1 gP

Figure 3.10: (a) Tiace-notmahzed souice gathei piodueed with sledgehammer and lecoided
along profileB, and (b) associated amplitude decay cuive of tiace iccoided at 94 m offset
(location marked by anovv) Trace spacing was 2 0m Amplitude spectra ot (c) legion 1
dominated by guided waves, (d) legion II showing ietlections at -200-250 ms, (e) legion 111

distinguished by dispeised suiface waves Amplitude spectra are displayed m relative dB scale
A3 and A4 m diagram (c) indicate dominant peaks in amplitude spectra of legion I
 n
p cfS" x
CK) >
c
<V> -!
(D
S T1
V3 73
c*>
Source-Receiver Offset (m) Amplitude (dB)
>-**
O

rr 80 40 0 40 80 0 20 40
o
|
>
^
ri
Ü- T1 Up
^ rfQ
o
a ."
£3 ^j
100
! level
!
E
C C

o
noise
Q ' .
200
fli
or
Cu
O P
i—f-i
P
nbient
m
^3 >-* ;^^^
n> Ct OYO vibrator 1 > •
t
o <\{ (b) OS
--!
),') ) nm
o 300 300
-y l-t

< o
ft O-
n. Region I Region If Region ill
T3
1
^T1

O X
to

O
E
E
o
w
r-. H-
p
m
o a

I w
Sweep Frequency i
Ö
p
VI (d)
n> 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
O-
f(Hz) f (Hz)
 57 Source Evai uation

.-**

CD
*"-**

o
. , . o
.^g-jjj.—.
.

CO
<•—

J?>*
C <f o

o o n
-
O JU
>
CD
CT cm y
Ct.
.

Jf CL

O
•
—-—-*"^ s -
O

=dl w*

*^

o
o
t

xT
o o o
o
o o o -

CN CO
o
(soi)} o
A CO
>.
o

r
Ldr^~ }
CD

cr O N
r ta
o -

u- CM \~~
CT) ~~>
s> a-
d) -—
eu
OC CO

O
CO -

O
1 '

~î

' t .

***

^>, k

c
®>
^\
y Ü
c
œ
jr =3
o N
o cr
O X
05
"

CT)
^*~~_ u.
cm y
CD
a: (5s) H^3* Q.

/*>" S o
j-"""**"^ w -
o
'
"
'
w

(suj)î
^%. o
o o o o
CN co co

xGiu uiojj gp

Figure 3.12: As for Figuie ^ 11, but foi data iccoided with GGA vibiatoi A5 m diagiam (d)
maiks a dominant peak in the amplitude spectrum of legion II associated with an wave signals
Chapter 3 58

Vp=350 m/s Vs=200 m/s

£ 15-
a.
CD
Q
Vp=1900m/s Vs=250m/s

(a)

Source-Receiver Offset (m)

80 40 0 40 80

,}t)i m<]
»»»»

M
100

E
>>>•

MW*»»»'»>âL

300
:;S:::::'^ &'
'H..:::.»«'
"3Mäo>
Figure 3.13: (a) ID Model denved boni lefraction
analyses of souice gathei inf igure3 10
(b) Coriesponding tiace noimah/ed svnthetic souice gathei Strong i evei bei atory signais
geneiated withm thm low-velocity layei ate similai in chaiactenstic to signals enclosed in
legion I of souice gatheis iccoided along piofile B (Figures 110 3 11)
 59 Source Evaluation

W Distance (m)
200 150

100

200

sledgehammer l|fl|f» Ill li (a)

300

Figure 3.14: Stacked sections recorded at same location along profile B with three different
sources (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2b): (a) sledgehammer, (b) OYO vibrator and (c) GGA vibrator,
Identical processing sequences were applied to all three data sets (see Table 3.3). Events R3
mark the shallowest detectable reflections that probably originate from top of basal till.
Events R4 are associated with reflections within glaciolacustrine clays.
Chapter 3 60

Channel Channel
90 70 50 30 10 90 70 50 30 10

OYO vibrator mm
300

Figure 3.15: (a) and (b) Typical OYO vibrator source gathers with "below-average" and
"above-average" ground-force amplitudes, respectively, (c) Average relative ground-forces
(70-300 Hz) for each shot point, (d) CDP profile in which variability of estimated ground-
force is represented by large fluctuations in S/N.
 4

Design and Application of a

Land-Streamer System For

Cost-Effective 2D and Pseudo-3D

Shallow Seismic Data Acquisition

To Be Submitted To:
Geophysics

Abstract

To reduce the field effort required for 2D and 3D shallow seismic surveying, we

have developed a towed land-streamer system. This acquisition system was constructed
with off-the-shelf components of which the most important were: (i) self-orienting
gimbal-mounted geophones housed in relatively heavy cylindrical casings, (ii) sturdy
seismic cables with reinforced kevlar outer casings, (iii) robust waterproof connectors,
and (iv) a reinforced rubber sheet that helped prevent cable snagging, maintained

geophone alignment, and provided additional hold-down weight for the geophones. Each
cable had takeouts for 12 geophones at 1 m or 2 m intervals. By eliminating the need for
manual geophone planting and cable laying, acquisition of 2D profiles with this system

proved to be 100-50 % faster with 40-30 % fewer personnel than conventional

procedures. Costs of the land-streamer system and total weight to be pulled could be
minimized by employing non-uniform receiver configurations. Short receiver intervals

(e.g., I m) at near offsets were necessary for identifying and mapping shallow (< 50 m)
reflections, whereas larger receiver intervals (e.g., 2 m) at far offsets were sufficient for
imaging deeper (> 50 m) reflections and for estimating velocity-depth functions. Our
land-streamer system has been tested successfully on a variety of recording surfaces

(e.g., meadow, asphalt road, and compact gravel track). The heavy weight of the
Chapter 4 62

geophone casings together with the hold-down weight of the rubber sheet ensured good
geophone-to-ground coupling. On the asphalt surface, a greater proportion of high
frequency (above 300-350 Hz) energy was recorded by the land-streamer than by
standard baseplate-mounted geophones. We concluded that the land-streamer system is a

practical and efficient means for surveying in urbanized areas.

Acquisition processing of 3D shallow seismic data with the land-streamer

and

system was simulated

by appropriately decimating and reprocessing an existing 3D
shallow seismic data set. Average subsurface coverage of the original data set was -50,
whereas that of the simulated data set was ~5. The effort required to collect the simulated

pseudo-3D data set would have been approximately 7 % of that needed for the original
field campaign. Application of important data-dependent processing procedures (e.g.,
refraction static corrections and velocity analyses) to the simulated data set produced

surprisingly good results. Since the spacing between simulated in-line profiles (6 m) was
double that between cross-line profiles (3 m), a pattern of high and low amplitudes was

observed on cross-sections and time-slices at early traveltimes (< 50 ms). At greater

traveltimes, all major reflections could be identified and mapped on the land-streamer
data set. With this cost-effective approach to pseudo-3D seismic data acquisition, it is

expected that shallow 3D seismic reflection surveying will become attractive for a

broader range of engineering and environmental applications.

4.1 Introduction

Over the past decade, high-resolution seismic methods have become popular for
resolving a wide
variety of geological, engineering and environmental problems. New
equipment, such as 24-bit recording systems with large channel capacity, have led to
substantial improvements in the quality and reliability of shallow seismic data. However,
in addition to increasing our ability to record high-fold and densely spaced data, the new

technologies have expanded markedly the logistical complexity of typical shallow

seismic surveys. Steeples et al. (1997) have stated:

"As the seismograph cycling time decreases, geophones must be posi¬

tioned morequickly. Increased acquisition speed is a key to improved
cost-effectiveness. A technique that would allow the rapid, automatic
placement of geophones is needed."
To address this issue, we have developed and extensively tested a new towed land-
streamer system.

Several attempts have been made to increase the efficiency of terrestrial data
acquisition for hydrocarbon exploration purposes. Kruppenbach and Bedender (1975,
1976) introduced and patented the concept of a towed land cable, which was based on the
principle of seismic data acquisition in marine environments. During the 197()'s,
Geophysical Service Incorporated used such a system to collect seismic reflection data
on sea ice in Arctic North America (mentioned briefly in Einarsson et al, 1977). To our

knowledge, no reports on the performance of Kruppenbaeh and Bedender's (1975, 1976)

and Einarsson et al.'s (1977) systems were ever published. Somewhat later, Eiken ct al.
 63 Land-Streamer System

(1989) constructed a seismic streamer for research and hydrocarbon exploration in

Antarctica. Until very recently (e.g., van der Veen and Green, 1998; Inazaki, 1999),
surveying with towed land-streamers restricted to ice or snow, both of which
was

provided smooth sliding surfaces suitable for long (up to 6000 m) streamer use.
Deploying long streamers on regular land would have been impractical.
In contrast tohydrocarbon exploration, the imaging of shallow features (< 200 m) in
engineering and environmental investigations requires densely spaced sources and
receivers distributed over relatively short (mostly <200 m) acquisition spreads. Van der
Veen and Green (1998) recognized that relatively short seismic arrays could be towed

across most land surfaces. They constructed and successfully tested a very short
prototype land-streamer comprising self-orienting gimbal-mounted geophones. Potential
advantages of this innovative approach were identified as:
•
no need for geophone planting;
•
automated roll-along;
•
fewer field personnel compared to traditional methods;

•
significant increase in acquisition speed;
•
marked decrease in total survey costs.

Using the land-streamer described by van der Veen and Green (1998) as a basis, we
have developed a complete towed land-streamer system for shallow seismic data

acquisition. Here, key technical details of the towed land-streamer are described, and the
field effort needed for towed land-streamer surveys is compared with that
required for
traditional surveys. To reduce the number of relatively expensive gimbal-mounted

geophones, acquisition geometries with variable receiver spacings (i.e., increased

receiver spacing with increased source-receiver offset) are examined. The
performance
of the towed land-streamer is then compared with traditional seismic methods in
differentrecording environments (i.e., on a meadow, an asphalt road, and a gravel track).
Finally, the
potential of using the towed land-streamer system for acquiring pseudo-3D
shallow seismic reflection data is evaluated.

4.2 Towed land-streamer System

Land-streamer

Our multi-channel land-streamer system is built with off-the-shelf items intended for
various other purposes (Figure 4.1):
1. Self-orienting gimbal-mounted geophones with 30 Hz velocity sensors

record the seismic signals (Figure 4.1). The mounted in

sensors are heavy
(~1 kg) cylindrical casings to ensure good geophone-to-ground coupling.
2. The gimbal-mounted geophones are attached to sturdy cables with
reinforced kevlar outer casinss. Each cable has take-outs for 12
Chapter 4 64

geophones, either at 1 m or 2 m intervals. Similar cables are used in

surveying swampy regions.

3. Cables are terminated with robust waterproof Titan-II connectors. The
towed land-streamer is presently limited by the 96-channel capacity of

these connectors. Titan-II connectors are commonly used in land-marine

transition zones.

4. The gimbal-mounted geophones and cables are attached to the underside

and upperside of a long reinforced rubber sheet, respectively. The purpose
of this sheet is to improve field handling, prevent cable snagging, and
maintain geophone alignment. It also provides extra weight, thus

increasing geophone-to ground coupling. Our extensive tests have

demonstrated that geophone-to-geophone coupling via the rubber sheet is

negligible.
To take full advantage efficiency of the towed land-streamer, fast sources that
of the

provide energetic signals characterized by high frequencies and broad bandwidths are
required (van der Veen et al., 1999), For our towed land-streamer system, we use the
sledgehammer and pipegun for relatively shallow- and intermediate-depth targets,
respectively.

Acquisition with the pipegun requires preparation of drill holes. To speed up field
operations, we employ a semi-automated trailer-mounted auger at the front of the towed

land-streamer (Figure 4. le). For l m holes in typical clay conditions, an average of 40-
50 holes per hour may be attained by a dedicated person operating the auger.

Field effort for acquiring 2D profile data: Land-streamer system versus

a conventional technique

Acquisition with the towed land-streamer is similar to that of the marine streamer. In
Figure 4.2a, the streamer comprises eight modules, each with twelve 1 m take-outs.
Initially, the streamer is kept at a fixed location and the shot positions are moved from
the back to the front of the array. Once the shot position reaches the front, it is kept at a
fixed distance relative to the first receiver. Sources and receivers are then shifted

simultaneously after each shot. In contrast to the continuous movement of marine

systems, the operational procedure of the towed land-streamer is based on a "stop-start"

concept. The streamer is moved up one shot interval, the shot is detonated once the
streamer has been stationary for a few seconds, and the process repeated. Since moving
the land-streamer generates significant noise, including variable vertical accelerations, it
would be unwise to shoot while it is in motion.

Comparable acquisition procedures using spike-mounted geophones and standard

CMP cables are more labour intensive (Figure 4.2b). To record with 96 active channels

(as for the land-streamer example), a minimum of four 24-take-out engineering cables is
required. At least one additional cable is necessary for conventional procedures using a
roll-along device to change active channels (not shown in Figure 4.2b). The leap-frog
 65 Land-Streamer System

scheme in Figure 4.2b, which minimizes the number of geophones and cables required
and avoids the use of a roll-along device, may be described as follows:

1. 96-channel seismic array is kept at a fixed location and shot positions are

moved through it;

2. 24 spike-mounted geophones and cables on the left of the array are

repositioned on the right;

3. entire seismic array is kept at a fixed location while shot positions are

moved through the newly planted cable;

4. stages 2 and 3 are repeated as necessary.

We have determined the field effort needed to record shallow seismic reflection data

using the two

strategies displayed in Figure 4.2. Two profiles (I and II in Table 4.1) were
examined. The first profile was aimed at obtaining very high-resolution data with 1 m
source and 1 m receiver spacing, whereas the second consisted of fewer shot
points and
2 m source and 2 m receiver spacing. Evaluations were made for surveys with the

sledgehammer and the pipegun.

In general, line
preparation and deployment and retrieval of geophones and cables
are amongst the most time consuming aspects of seismic surveys. Moreover, relative to
the sledgehammer, the pipegun increases significantly the field effort. For an efficient
conventional shallow seismic survey on land, a field crew of 5-6 is needed: one person
operating the recording equipment, two managing the seismic source, two geophone/
cable layers and, if necessary, one person handling the auger. For a
comparable land-
streamer survey, only 3-4 field personnel are
required: as for the traditional survey, but
the operator doubles as the driver of the towing vehicle and the geophonc/cable layers
are not required.

Using traditional recording equipment with the sledgehammer/pipegun, the densely

spaced profile I was recorded in -23/43 hours with a 5/6-person field crew. Acquisition
of the equivalent towed land-streamer sections was achieved in -10.5/30.5 hours with a

3/4-person crew. Thus, the towed land-streamer system was -100-50 % times faster, and
required only -40-30 % of the personnel. The land-streamer surveys were completed
with 25-50 % of the person-hours required for the traditional
surveys. For both recording
strategies, the more sparsely spaced profile II was recorded in approximately half the
time required for profile I.

Figure 4.3 shows estimated total time needed to acquire profiles of various lengths
using both recording methods and a sledgehammer source. The solid and dashed lines
correspond acquisition with 1-m source and receiver spacings and the dash-dot and
to

dotted lines to the 2-m acquisition geometry. Vertical time shifts (marked with circles)
are associated with repositioning of the standard cables.
Using the sledgehammer source,
acquisition speed of the towed land-streamer is uniformly faster (~2 times) than the
conventional technique.
Chapter 4 66

Choosing the acquisition geometry for acquiring 2D profile data:

Uniform versus non-uniform receiver spacings
Several factors should be considered when defining acquisition geometry (Knapp
and Steeples, 1986; Büker et al., 1998b):

•
choice of source and receiver spacings is governed by the maximum CMP

spacing required to avoid spatial aliasing (Yilmaz. 1987):

ACMP = ——--^ ,
(A n

where ctmax is maximum dip of geological features, Vrms is minimum

velocity, and fmax is maximum recorded frequency;

•
imaging structures at early traveltimes (<50 ms) requires numerous closely
spaced sources and receivers a relatively large number of near-offset
-

traces is needed to distinguish reflections from source-generated noise

(e.g., direct, guided, refracted, and surface waves) and to define top-mute
functions;

•
maximum source-receiver offsets are controlled primarily by the necessity
to obtain reliable velocity-depth estimates for the deepest features of
interest.

From these criteria, we conclude that source and receiver spacings at near offsets
should be short, minimum source-receiver offsets should be small, and the number of
near-offset traces and maximum source-receiver offsets should be large. For a given task
of mapping both shallow and moderately deep targets, satisfying all of these criteria

using traditional seismic acquisition techniques with uniform source and receiver

spacings may not be financially possible; because resources for geophysical

investigations in engineering and environmental projects are often limited, the number of
available sources and receivers are often much fewer than desired.

In contrast to standardroll-along acquisition strategies, receiver spacing may vary

along the
length of the towed land-streamer.
By employing streamer modules with
variable receiver spacings (i.e., short intervals at near offsets and long intervals at far
offsets), an appropriately designed land-streamer can satisfy all of the above criteria with
fewer traces than employed in conventional surveying. Minimizing the number of
receivers in a land-streamer also results in a decrease of the overall weight
pulled to be
(gimbal-mounted geophones quite heavy)are and a reduction in
price of the total system;
fewer recording channels would be required, and because gimbal-mounted geophones
are -10 times more expensive than traditional spike-mounted ones, minimizing their
number is cost effective.
 67 Land-Streamer System

To asses the
efficacy of variable receiver spacings, acquisition with two different
streamer geometries was simulated from a 240-channel seismic data set recorded in the

Suhre valley of northern Switzerland. The data were recorded with i m source and 1 m
receiver intervals. Beneath the Suhre valley, reflections at very early (<50 ms) to
intermediate (200-250 ms) traveltimes were expected (Bükeret al, 1998a, 1998b, 1999).

Acquisition using the following two streamer geometries with identical minimum and
maximum source-receiver offsets was simulated (Table 4.2): (i) uniform streamer 96 -

geophones spaced at m intervals, and (ii) non-uniform streamer 60 geophones of

1 -

which the first 24 were spaced at 1 m intervals and the remaining at 2 m intervals. The
uniform streamer provided a CMP spacing of 0.5 m and regular subsurface coverage of
48 (Figure 4.4). For the non-uniform streamer, the CMP spacing was also 0.5 m, but

alternating CMP bins had subsurface coverages of 12 and 48.

Typical source gathers for the two acquisition geometries are displayed in
Figure 4.5. The short receiver spacing at near offsets enable the shallowest reflections I
to be clearly identified and mapped on both source gathers. Deeper reflections (>50 ms)

are identified best at larger offsets (>24 m). At these larger offsets, the lower
density of
traces on the non-uniform streamer gather relative to that on the uniform streamer gather

does not result in a major loss of information content. The principal reflections (e.g.,
reflection IV) are well resolved on both simulated source gathers

Stacked sections resulting from the two simulated streamer geometries (Figure 4.6)
are similar over the entire traveltime range of interest (-25-250 ms). All important
reflection zones (I-IV) are well imaged on both sections. However, amplitudes and
reflection continuity are rather more variable in the deeper part of Figure 4.6b than in the
deeper part of Figure 4.6a (e.g., compare reflections III on the two sections). The
marginally lower quality of Figure 4.6b is undoubtedly the result of the non-uniform
subsurface coverage represented in Figure 4.4. For the reminder of this
paper, streamers
with uniform receiver spacings are employed.

4.3 Data Quality: Land-Streamer System Versus a

Conventional Technique

To understand the potential and limitations of operating the towed land-streamer

under different acquisition conditions, we have recorded data on a variety of surfaces.
Initial coupling tests by van der Veen and Green (1998) showed that gimbal-mounted

geophones have the potential to record faithfully high-resolution seismic data on

saturated gravels covered by grass. In the present study, we have conducted tests aimed
at comparing the coupling of gimbal-mounted geophones with that of spike- and/or
baseplate-mounted geophones in three additional recording environments that are
common in nearly every country: meadow underlain by clay,
asphalt-covered road, and
compacted gravel track. The recordings were made within the Rhine valley (meadow and
asphalt road; Figure 4.7a) and Suhre valley (compacted gravel track; Figure 4.7b). These
two areas have been the foci of extensive 2D and 3D seismic investigations
by our group
(Büker et al, 1998a. 1998b, 1999; van der Veen et al., 1999; R. Spitzer, F. Nitsche and
A. Green, in preparation), so the geological settings were well known.
Although the
Chapter 4 68

sedimentary sections beneath the Rhine and Suhre valleys differed somewhat, a thin

(0.5-1.5 m) near-surface layer of clay underlay all profiles.

Acquisition parameters for these tests are given in Table 4.4. Source and receiver
spacings were 2.0 m. Towed land-streamers with 48 (on the meadow and gravel track) or
36 (on the asphalt road) gimbal-mounted geophones were deployed alongside traditional
seismic lines with identical numbers of active spike- and/or baseplate-mounted

geophones. The distance between parallel profiles was always less than 0.5 m. Profiles in
each series of tests were recorded with exactly the same source, so that source-related
effects were identical for the coincident or nearly coincident data sets. On the meadow, a

pipegun was required to generate sufficient energy in the near-surface clay layer.
Shotholes were prepared with the semi-automated auger (Figure 4.1). On the asphalt
road and gravel track, a 5-kg sledgehammer striking a steel baseplate produced sufficient

energy for the entire depth range of interest.

After acquisition, the coincident data sets were passed through the same processing
sequence using identical processing parameters (Table 4.3).

Meadow

The furrow suggested by van der Veen and Green (1998) to optimize geophone-to-
ground coupling in unconsolidated sedimentary environments was created
"automatically" during the towing of the streamer system across the meadow; the
cylindrical casings of the gimbal-mounted geophones were pressed 1-2 cm into the soft
surface layer by the weight of the geophones and the hold-down weight of the rubber
sheet. Selected source gathers recorded on the meadow and detailed views of traces at
14 m and 68 m offsets are displayed in Figures 4.8. At early traveltimes, the unprocessed
source gathers are dominated by low frequency (-30-50 FIz) guided phases (Robertson et

al., 1996a, 1996b; Roth ct al., 1998). At greater traveltimes, reflections and weak
airwaves are present. Data from the two
geophone types are almost indistinguishable. A
detailed comparison of the individual traces
(Figure 4.8c) confirm this assertion: phase
and amplitude differences between coincident pairs of traces are extremely small. To
evaluate geophone-to-ground coupling conditions at different source-receiver distances,
the source gathers are divided into offset regions I-IV, each comprising 12 traces.

Although minor differences are observed in the corresponding amplitude spectra

(Figure 4.9), the general responses of the two geophone types are very similar in the
frequency range <500 Hz. Important peaks and troughs in the spectra of the towed land-
streamer match those in the spectra of the spike geophone data.

Stacked sections resulting from data recordedby the two suites of sensors are
displayed in Figure4.lt). As for the source gathers (Figure 4.8), the resultant stacked
sections are nearly identical. All reflection zones are imaged on both sections. A plot of
the differences between Figures 4.10b and 4.10a demonstrates that reflection amplitudes

vary only slightly between the two stacked sections (Figure 4.10c).
 69 Land-Streamer System

Asphalt
In addition to deploying the land-streamer and a line of baseplate-mounted
geophones on the asphalt, a line of spike-mounted geophones was planted in grass-
covered soil directly alongside. In Figures 4.11, the responses of the various geophones
are compared. Unprocessed source gathers recorded with the
gimbal-, baseplate-, and
spike-mounted geophones are alike. Signal-to-ambient noise levels are similarly high

(compare noise levels before first breaks) and prominent reflections (e.g., at 70-110 ms)
are imaged on all records. The superimposed coincident traces in Figures 4.lid and

4.lie provide more detailed information. At a source-receiver offset of 68 m, the phase

and amplitude differences between the individual traces are tiny. At 14 m offset, the

responses of the gimbal- and spike-mounted geophones match well, whereas the
dispersed surface-wave train (traveltimes 50-140 ms) recorded by the baseplate-mounted
sensor exhibits small phase variations relative to those recorded by the other sensors.

Other differences are observed in the signal characteristics of the airwaves

(Figures 4.1 la-4.lie). They are strongest in the streamer data and weakest in the

baseplate-mounted geophone data, probably because the baseplate-mounted geophones

suppress slightly the higher frequency signals.

In regions I, which are dominated by surface waves, the amplitude spectra of the
gimbal- and spike-mounted geophones are alike, whereas that of the baseplate-mounted
sensor differs somewhat for frequencies >120Hz (Figure 4.12a). At the
larger offsets
represented by regions II and III (Figures 4.12b and 4.12c, respectively), important
peaks and troughs on all three spectra match reasonably well up to frequencies of
-300-350 Hz. At higher frequencies, the spectra of the baseplate-mounted data fall
below the others. It seems that the
relatively heavy weight of the gimbal-mounted
geophone casing combined with the hold-down weight of the rubber sheet provides
better geophone-to-ground coupling conditions than that supplied by the light weight

casings of the baseplate-mounted geophones.

Important reflection zones are imaged well on all three stacked sections
(Figure 4.13). Although source gathers (Figure 4.11) and associated spectra
(Figure 4.12) derived from data collected with the baseplate-mounted geophones differ
somewhat from the others, the differences do not seem to affect greatly the stack
sections. Because of the filtering applied, variations in the low (<70-80 Hz) and very
high (>30O-350 Hz) frequencies are mostly absent from the stacks. Differences between
stacks resulting from the baseplate- and gimbal-mounted geophones are of the same
order as differences between the stacks resulting from the baseplate-mounted
geophones
deployed on the asphalt road and the spike-mounted geophones set firmly in the adjacent
grass-covered soil (Figure 4.14).

Compacted gravel track

Small 10 cm deep drill holes enabled the

spike-mounted geophones to be coupled
tightly to the compact gravel track. As for the previously described suites of
experiments, the data are analyzed via unprocessed source gathers and selected traces
(Figure 4.15), amplitude spectra of different offset regions I-IV (Figure 4.16), and
Chapter 4 70

stacked data (Figure 4.17). Source gathers recorded with the land-streamer and spike-
mounted geophones are veiy similar: S/N is comparably high and the same prominent
reflections are present on both data sets. In general, the more detailed plots of the
selected coincident pairs of traces (Figure 4.15c) confirm these similarities, although
small phase differences again occur in the surface-wave trains (e.g., at traveltimes
>200 ms on the traces recorded at 68 m offset). On the corresponding amplitude spectra
of the different offsetregions (Figure 4.16), major peaks and troughs match well. All
important reflection
zones are imaged on the two 300 m long stacked sections
(Figure 4.17). Only small amplitude variations are revealed on the difference plot of
Figure 4.17c.

4.4 Using the Towed Land-Streamer to Acquire Pseudo-3D

Data: A Feasibility Study
Figure 4.3 demonstrates that surveying with the towed land-streamer system results
in significantly reduced field effort compared to traditional 2D seismic reflection

profiling. Although sparse 2D profiles may be sufficient investigating relatively simple

and continuous geological features, they may not be adequate for
mapping complex
structures. Out-of-plane reflections and diffractions may lead to misprocessing and

misinterpretation of isolated 2D seismic reflection profiles (Green et al., 1995; Lanz et

al., 1996). By comparison 3D high-resolution seismic reflection methods are capable of
providing accurate images of shallow heterogeneous structures (Green et al., 1995; Lanz
et al, 1996; Barnes and Mereu, 1996; Home et al., 1996; Büker et al., 1998b, 1999;
Siakoohi and West, 1998). One major drawback of these methods is their high costs.

We
study here the possibility of using the towed land-streamer system for shallow
3D seismic surveying. Such an approach could result in a significant reduction of field
effort. For early hydrocarbon exploration in marine environments, 3D data sets were

commonly recorded with single streamers. Similarly, 3D georadar surveying usually

involves the acquisition of data along closely spaced parallel profiles (Lehmann and
Green, 1999). The tested strategy for recording shallow 3D seismic data with I he towed
land-streamer system is identical to that used in early marine and current
georadar
surveying practices. An existing high-fold 3D seismic data set (Büker et al 1998b, ,

1999; location shown in Figure 4.7) is used to simulate pseudo-3D acquisition with the
towed land-streamer system. After appropriately
decimating and reprocessing this high
quality data set, we compare the resultant images with those produced by Büker et al.
(1999).

Acquisition geometry

Although somewhat complicated than described here. Büker ct al.'s (19r>8b, 1999)
strategy for acquiring the 3D reference data set effectively involved the deployment of
receivers on a 3
regular m x 3 m grid and the detonation of shots at intervals of 3 m and
9 m along lines separated by 6 m. Using this approach, they recorded seismic reflection
data with uniform source-receiver offset and azimuth distributions, CMP's on a regular
 71 Land-Streamer System

1.5 m x 1.5 m grid, and an average fold of -50. The total area surveyed was

360 m x 430 m (Figure 4.7b).

For our simulation, we have chosen a subset of data that covers a 150 mx 225 m

area east of the Suhre river.

By selecting appropriate traces from this data subset, it was
possible to generate a suite of parallel 2D profiles, along which receiver and shot
intervals were 3 m and 12 m, respectively. Spacing between profiles was 6 m. This
combined source-receiver configuration resulted in CMP's being distributed at 1.5 m and
3 m intervals along and perpendicular to the profiles, respectively, and an
average fold of
~5.

Weemphasize that this simulation data set does not reproduce a pseudo-3D data set
that would be acquired with the towed land-streamer system. To bring subsurface

coverage to an acceptable level, many more source points along the line would be
employed, and to obtain azimuthal information, either off-line shots would be fired into
the land-streamer or a cross-profile would be recorded. Nevertheless, many aspects of a

pseudo-3D shallow seismic data set recorded with the towed land-streamer can be
assessed via the simulation.

Processing
A relatively conventional processing sequence (Table 4.5) was applied to the
original and simulated 3D streamer data sets. Among the important steps were the
computation and application of refraction static corrections, spectral balancing, bandpass
filtering, top-mute definition, velocity analyses and 3D migration. We have tested
extensively two data-dependent procedures (i.e., refraction static corrections and
velocity analyses) on the two data sets.
To understand the influence of
acquisition geometry on the refraction static
corrections, receiver and source delay times were. Delay times computed from the
original and simulated 3D streamer data sets were very similar (Figures 4.18a-4.18d),
ranging from -3 to -10 ms with an average value of -6 ms. Differences between delay
times calculated from the two data sets were uniformly small with absolute differences

being mostly < 2 ms (Figures 4.18e and 4.18f). Effects of these small differences were
largely eliminated after application of the residual static correction routines, coherency
filtering and migration. Consequently, 3D migrated images computed from the simulated
3D streamer data set using the original and the newly calculated refraction static
corrections were visually indistinguishable from each other. In the following analyses,
the newly calculated static corrections were used in the processing of the simulated 3D
streamer data set.

Accurate velocities
are important for NMO corrections and for such
post-stack
processing routines as 3D migration and time-to-depth conversion. Typical CMP
supergathers and corresponding semblance plots derived from the original and simulated
3D streamer data displayed in the upper and
sets are lower panels of Figure 4 19,

respectively. Although reflections and associated semblance maxima are much better
defined in Figure 4.19a than in Figure 4,19b, the two resultant velocity-time functions
are very similar. To evaluate the reliability of stacking velocities determined from the
Chapter 4 72

simulated 3D streamer data set, velocity-depth functions are determined at a number of

locations across the survey site using NMO-corrected CMP supergathers and semblance

plots (e.g., Figure 4.20). Velocity estimates such as those presented in Figure 4.20
demonstrate that differences between coincident pairs of velocity functions determined
from the original and simulated 3D streamer data sets are generally <6 %.

To examine the effects of varying stacking velocities by ±6 %, the simulated 3D

streamer data were fully processed to 3D migration with stacking velocities (i) equal, (ii)

6 % below, and (iii) 6 % above those derived from the original data set. After application
of coherency filtering and 3D migration, the resultant 3D images were hardly

distinguishable from each other. In the following analyses, velocity-depth functions

determined from Büker et al's (1998, 1999) original 3D data set were used in the

processing.

Stacked data

Three-dimensional seismic images and selected in-line and cross-line sections that
resulted from processing the original and simulated 3D streamer data sets are displayed
in Figures 4.21 and 4.22. Each data set was processed with individually calculated
refraction and residual static corrections. The 3D migrated images reveal a variety of
subhorizontal and dipping reflections. Most prominent in the upper part of the data
volumes is the shallowest reflection I (best seen in Figures 4.22a and 4.22b), which

originates from a boundary between a glaciolacustrine clay/silt unit near the surface and
an underlying till unitB. The latter unit is represented by a series of quasi-continuous

reflections between -25 and -100 ms. It is distinguished easily from the rather non-
reflective clay/silt unit D below. The junction of unit D with the underlying Molasse
basement is delineated by the east-dipping reflection zone IV between -100-170 ms. In
the following descriptions of Figures 4.21 and 4.22, it is worth noting that in-line trace

spacing of both the original and simulated 3D streamer data sets is 3 m, whereas cross-
line spacing is 3 and 6 m, respectively.

Although prominent reflections I and reflection zone IV can be identified on the two
suites of in-line sections (e.g., in-line sections 50 and 108 in Figures 4.21 and
4.22),
some notable differences between the pairs ofimages exist. These variations are
attributed mainly to differences in S/N resulting from the relatively high fold (-50) of the
original data set
compared to the much lower fold (-5) of the simulated 3D streamer data
set. For example, the shallowest reflection I can be traced continuously over the entire

length of Figure 4.22a, whereas the same reflection in Figure 4.22c is quite
discontinuous (choppy) with a strong undulating character. Although differences
between these two sections are less significant at greater traveltimes, variations in the S/
N continue to affect the images. Two examples of this effect are worth mentioning.

Chaotically distributed events within geological units B and D appear in Figure 4.22c at
locations where signals are either very weak or absent in Figure 4.22a, and the deepest
reflection zone IV is Jess continuous in Figure 4.22c than in Figure 4.22a.

Shallow reflection I can be followed

continuously along cross-line section 205 in
Figure 4.22b. Because pseudo-3D acquisition with the land-streamer is simulated with
 73 Land-Streamer System

in-line recordings only, and in-line profiles are spaced at 6 m intervals, a pattern of
alternating high and low amplitudes is observed on the equivalent cross-line section of
Figure 4.22d (see highlighted area). In addition to the lack of direct sampling and the
lower sampling rate (6 m versus 3 m) in the cross-line direction, differences in fold and

associated S/N affect the cross-line sections in the same manner as the in-line sections.
All major reflections and reflection patterns can be mapped in Figure 4.22d, but the
reflectivity appears less continuous than in Figure 4.22b.

Features observed on the in-line and cross-line sections also

represented on the
are

horizontal time-slices (Figure 4.21). Time-slices from the original data volume

(Figure 4.21a) are characterized by relatively gradual amplitude changes. Although all
major trends delineated on Figure 4.21a can be discerned on Figure 4.21b, the latter are
distinguished by significantly higher levels of "chatter" or noise that interrupt the trends.
Furthermore, the two shallowest time-slices in Figure 4.2 lb are affected by distinct
"acquisition footprints" (Hill et al., 1999), which appear as oscillating sequences of high
and low values parallel and perpendicular to the simulated recording lines.

Comparison of field efforts

When designing geophysical survey, it is nearly always necessary to consider

a

tradeoffs between costs and the required resolution and depth penetration of the recorded
data. Clearly, the original images of Büker et al. (1998a, 1999) are superior to those that
result from the simulated 3D streamer data set. To acquire the comprehensive data set
east of the Suhre river, Büker et al.'s (1998b) field campaign required 7 field
personnel
working a total of 220 hours or 1540 person-hours. To record a land-streamer data set
approximately equivalent to that simulated here would require 4 field personnel working
a total of 26 hours or 104 person-hours. This would result in a total field effort
equivalent
to -7 % of that expended by Büker et al. (J 998b).

Need to check for azimuthal effects

Azimuth dependence of stacking velocities was not considered in the

analysis and
processing of the simulated 3D streamer data set. Velocity-time functions were only
derived for data recorded along the in-line direction. If velocities had been strongly
azimuthal dependent, our processing would have resulted in improper alignment of
reflections and attenuation of higher frequency components during
stacking (Yilmaz,
1987). Fortunately, Büker et al. (1999) have shown that velocity functions determined in
different azimuthal ranges at our site deviated only slightly (<5 %) from each other.

Although azimuth-dependent velocities were not critical for our study, they may be in
other areas. In general, to check for azimuthal effects it would be
prudent to record a
number of cross-profiles.
Chapter 4 74

4.5 Conclusions and Outlook

We have developed lowed land-streamer system that reduces significantly the field
a

effort required for 2D and 3D shallow seismic data acquisition. Important operational
characteristics of this new system were evaluated. Key results of these studies were:

1. For 2D profiling, the towed land-streamer system was 100-50 % faster and
required only -25-50 % of the field effort used for traditional reflection
profiling. This was accomplished by eliminating the need to plant
manually the geophones and re-deploy cables.
2. A critical issue in the land-streamer system continued to be the energy
source. The relatively cycle times of our sources (e.g.,
long
approximately 1 and 2 source positions/minute for a pipegun and
sledgehammer, respectively) controlled the acquisition speed. If the time
needed at each source location could have been reduced significantly,
streamer positioning and storage of seismic data could have been achieved

at a much faster rate of 3-4 source locations/minute.

3. By using a non-uniform streamerconfiguration (i.e., short receiver

intervals at near offsets and long intervals at far offsets), high quality

images in the early (-25 ms) to intermediate (-250 ms) traveltime range
were obtained by employing -35 % fewer recording channels and

geophones than required for conventional acquisition approaches.

Simulations demonstrated that densely spaced near-offsets traces enabled
shallow reflections to be identified and mapped faithfully, whereas more

sparsely spaced longer offset traces were sufficient for determining

reliable velocity functions over the entire traveltime range. Deploying a
streamer with non-uniform geometry would have resulted in a reduction of

weight to be pulled and a significant decrease (-35 %) in the costs of the

total land-streamer system.

4. Our towed land-streamer system recorded faithfully high-resolution

seismic data on a meadow and along an asphalt road andgravel track. The
shallow furrow suggested by van der Veen and Green (1998) to improve
geophone-to-ground coupling was created on the meadow by the pulling
of the heavy gimbal-mounted geophones and the rubber sheet. Relatively-

good coupling of the gimbal- and spike-mounted geophones resulted in a

very close match between the two data sets recorded on this surface. The

asphalt road and gravel track were covered with compact material that did
not allow a shallow furrow to be created. Nevertheless, comparisons our

confirmed that the weight of the

gimbel-mounted geophone casings
together with the hold-down weight of the rubber sheet resulted in good
geophone-to-ground coupling in these recording environments. On the
asphalt road, the gimbal-mounted geophones recorded higher frequency
(above 300-350 Hz) signals than the baseplate-mounted geophones. We
concluded that the land-streamer system may be a practical and efficient

means for surveying urbanized regions.

 75 Land-Streamer System

5. By collecting largea number of closely spaced 2D profiles and

subsequently applying 3D processing routines, our simulations have

demonstrated that the towed land-streamer system may be used for

pseudo-3D surveying of the shallow subsurface. Refraction static

corrections computed with the simulated land-streamer data set were
similar to those computed with the entire original data set. Minor
differences between the two suites of refraction static corrections were

largely eliminated during subsequent application of residual static

corrections, coherency filtering, and migration. Stacking velocities

determined from the simulated 3D streamer data set were usually within

± 6 % of the original stacking velocity estimates. Because spacing

between CMP traces in the cross-line direction was double that in the in¬
line direction (6 m versus 3 m), acquisition "footprints" (i.e., patterns of
high and low
amplitudes) were observed on time-slices at early
traveltimes. Although all major reflections were identified on the
simulated 3D streamer data, continuity of the shallowest reflections at 25-
30 ms was significantly less than that produced with the original

comprehensive data set of Büker et al. (1998b, 1999).

6. For pseudo-3D surveying with the towed land-streamer system, the field
effort would have beenonly -7 % of that required by Büker et al. (1998b,
1999) to acquire their high quality data set. The resultant subsurface
coverage would have been about only 10 % ofthat attained by Büker et al.
(1998b, 1999). However, the significant reduction in field effort and
associated decrease in subsurface coverage would have resulted in a

pseudo-3D data set with -80 % of the information contained in the

original high-quality 3d data set.

Building on the
accomplishments described in this paper, at least three additional
procedures for increasing the efficiency and efficacy of data acquisition with the towed
land-streamer system will be explored in the near future:

•
Acquisition speed of the towed land-streamer system may be improved by
employing vibratory sources. They offer significant advantages over other
sources, such as the possibility to generate repeatable signals at high

repetition rates. However, in a recent study (van der Veen et al., 1999), two
modern vibratory sources provided signals marginally inferior to those

generated by the sledgehammer and pipegun. Nevertheless, when prices

drop and our understanding of the physical processes that influence
vibrator-generated signals at shallow depth improves, they may eventually
become the preferred shallow seismic source.

•
The speed and accuracy of
positioning may be improved by combining a
semi-automated positioning unit with the towed land-streamer system.
Possibilities include self-tracking laser-ranging theodolites (Lehmann and

Green, 1998) and differential global positioning systems (DGPS;

Hofmann-Wellenhof et al, 1999).
Chapter 4 76

•
As for modern marine seismic surveying, it may be possible to pull
multiple short streamers across certain regions, thus increasing data

acquisition efficiency and providing limited azimuth-dependent

information.

•
Finally, in-field processing in near real-time would allow an initial

analysis of stacked sections, so that acquisition strategies could be

adjusted to meet better the objectives of the survey.

With this cost effective seismic approach, and possible future

acquisition
developments such positioning
as the processing systems, it is expected
and/or real-time
that seismic reflection tools will become financially attractive for an even wider variety
of engineering and environmental applications.

Table 4.1: Typical acquisition parameters for two example seismic reflection

profiles using sledgehammer and pipegun sources.

Characteristic Example Profile I Example Profile II

Profile Length 480 m 480 m

Receiver Spacing 1 m 2 m

Number of Receivers 96 active 48 active

Active Spread Length 95 m 94 m

Seismic Source Sledgehammer & Pipegun Sledgehammer & Pipegun

Source Spacing 1m 2 m

Number of Shot Points 480 240

Fold 48 24
 77 Land-Streamer System

Table 4.2: Acquisition parameters of CMP-profiles using different simulated

streamer geometries.

Uniform Streamer Non-Uniform Streamer

Number of Receivers 96 60

Receiver Spacing 1 m 1 m (chan. 1-24)

2 m(chan. 25-60)
Minimum Source- Im 1 m

Receiver Offsets

Maximum Source- 96 m 96 m

Receiver Offsets

Number of Near Offset 24 24

(<24 m) Traces

Source Spacing l m 1 m

Subsurface Fold 48 12 and 48 in

alternating bins

Table 4.3: Common processing flow for profile

data (see Figures 4.5, 4.10, 4.13 and 4.17).

Processing Flow

Geometry
Editing
Elevation Statics

Refraction Statics

Spectral Balancing (80-350 Hz)

Bandpass Filtering (80-350 Hz)
Top Mute

CMP Sorting
Velocity Analysis
NMO Correction

Stack

Coherency Filtering
Chapter 4 78

Table 4.4: Parameters used for acquiring shallow multi-fold reflection data on

different surface types with towed land-streamer system and traditional seismic

equipment.

Meadow Asphalt Gravel Track

Profile Length 270 m 200 m 300 m

Receiver Spacing 2 m 2 m 2 m

Number of Receivers / 48 36 48
Line

Number of Parallel 2 3 2
Lines

Seismic Source Pipegun 5-kg Sledgehammer 5-kg Sledgehammer

Vertical Stack 1 10 10

Source Spacing 2 m 2 m 2 m

Fold Coverage 24 18 24

Table 4.5: Processing sequence for 3D data (see

Figures 4.21 and 4.22)."

Processing Flow 3D Data

Geometry
Editing
Elevation Statics

Refraction Statics

Spectral Balancing (70-350 Hz)

Bandpass Filtering (70-350 Hz)
Top Mute

CMP Sorting
Velocity Analysis
NMO Correction

Residual Statics

Trace Equalization
Stack

Coherency Filtering
3D Migration
 79 Land-Streamer System

Figure 4.1: (a) Self-orienting gimbal-mounted geophone (left) and conventional geophone
with 10 cm spike, (b) Details of gimbal geophone. Velocity sensor is mounted in metal

cylinder filled with viscous oil that damps rotational vibrations, (c) Example of streamer
module with 1 m receiver spacing. Streamer module is shown upside down to reveal gimbal-
mounted geophones attached to underside of reinforced rubber sheet. Seismic cables are

mounted on upperside of sheet; (d) Towed land-streamer system in the field. Four 24 m

modules form a 96 m long streamer. Towing vehicle is visible at front of line; (e) Semi-
automated auger that advances with towing vehicle and streamer whenever downhole source

is used.
Chapter 4 80

-A Source Position

| | 12-Channel Streamer Module

Conventional 24-Take-Out Cable

Used for Shallow Surveying

^ 1 1 1 1 h
-A A- Ar A" A- -A
Fixed Spread
.... -A-

I 1 1 1 1 !" '"
A-

b 4 1 1 b
-, b ^ b H * Towing Land-
Streamer
i 1 1 1 b ^— *

I 1 h H 1 r-
1
I -A

Land-Streamer Acquisition (a)

1
A- A-A".,.. .-A A-. ...4
J
... ...

conventional Cable^

"t^—N
I .
„

V
___
!
Repositionin^Corwen^

tAt • • • • *•••'&

"Leap-Frog" Roll-Along Scheme (b)

Figure 4.2: (a) Possible acquisition strategy with towed land-streamer system. Initially,
streamer is fixed, and shots moved through profile. When desired minimum source-receiver
offset is reached, land-streamer system is towed a distance of one or more receiver intervals
aftercompletion of each shot, (b) Comparable acquisition strategy with conventional 24-take-
out cables using 'leapfrog' roll-along scheme. Again,
spread is initially fixed and shots
moved through profile. Subsequently, one cable is repositioned to front-end of
spread, and
shot positions moved through this part of spread. To continue
roll-along, procedure is
repeated.
 81 Land Streamer Svstem

Land-Streamer
Profile I: 1 m Spacings Leap-Frog Acquisition

Land-Streamer
Profile II: 2 m Spacings
Leap-Frog Acquisition

"i r
24

^^
22
w
1«

=J 20 „-
O
T
18
a>
Ë 16
H
C
o
14
+•>

« 12
3
XX 10
a
<
X? 8
0)

m H
b
OT 4
LU

0
0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384 432 480

Profile Length (m)

Figure 4.3: Compaiison of field efloit toi towed land-streamer system and
conventional acquisition technique using a sledgehammei Solid and dashed lines
lepiesent values for CMP piofihng with l-m souice and leceivei spacings Dash-dot
and dotted lines conespond to field effoit toi CMP piofihng with 2 m souice and
icceiver spacing Vertical time shifts (maiked with circles) ate associated with
lepositionmg of cables dime estimates foi 0 m length conespond to sum ot times

leqimed to deploy and letneve 96-channcl systems

Chapter 4 82

0 Uniform Streamer
» Non-Uniform Streamer

<D 48-
U)
to
s_
q>
> 36-
o
o
a
o 24-
t
3

ja 12-
3
OT 0.5 m

Bin Number

Figure 4.4: CMP coverage resulting from two streamer acquisition

geometries in described in Table 4.2. CMP spacing is 0.5 m for both
configurations.
 83 Land-Streamer System

Source-Receiver Offset (m)

96 84 72 60 48 36 24 12
i

T/m^PfMiTlÏÏÏÏÎi illi ÄWAÖS>kjL

40

80

120
(A

160

200

(a) Uniform Streamer 240

l^¥l^'\i2V2g4illT+ri
4444 -

b
1)44444-9
Hti+irrty

80

mmmË
'mm 120
Ëffiffi
LVlt4 160

wsmmmmmmm 200

^^^^ÙÇ^^^lçi^^^t^ (b) Non-Uniform Streamer 240

Figure 4.5: Selected source gathers from identical position acquired with
source
simulated streamer geometries (Table 4.2): (a) uniform streamer; (b) non-uniform
streamer. Data are scaled with 75 ms AGC for
display purposes. Reflections I
and IV are shallowest and deepest reflections
interpreted by Büker et al. (1998).
Chapter 4 84

W Distance (m)
100 75 50 25 0
1.-,-, L _j _L_
0

'"""»»urn»,,,,, „„;;
ntj' j! till!" u.,»»'
;»3:,;l4;!,
';;; ;.:;; 4Z,;;4;;!"^;"' ''4:;;:;7;:;;;4>i'!::;(|)i
50
"*"'»
"
MU» | HILL
„„„„,

5 ;
^OHMlWWW^IHIW

£ nmMan»vmr,'''^^>'n1' >ml,.ÜÜ' '"'"'n)»»^!! llm^'Hi^

250

0-

:„:::;;v,:*> '""»ill

Ti I».,,.. ,',],m
t'>Mr'' ..""l..uiiiIllinium—W»*»*»*W>**»»>»m»H*>»»H>:K>'*>'"»»»^>'-»'iinmii L*J»* '. ' ""' "Uli" ","',.. ^,'""'|'.'IU.|^,»»(W| ,,,.*., 1 >..»
i

;^^»»imW'»*£X

'>;!i^'',"M^>>hi'',!^'!,',4i'''!'>-)[,vm,''M>''»'»'>'[)
,hPlli)|lir,.. ,„,,,,. .-^,,,v1';ivmw»Tr»-'niw<v>-;;1.;;;.i,i'm|1 ^
"*ftm;,t\uT. „„,, „,,„

200
-=5^, w> •"'•
"iimwhH>»WW "~

rrnrilV.

(b) Non-Uniform Streamer

250'

Figure 4.6: Stacked sections derived from data recorded with (a) uniform streamer, (b)
non-uniform streamer (Table 4.2). Processing sequence is given in Table 4.3. Data are

scaled with 75 ms AGC for display purposes. Reflections and reflection zones F1V
originate from boundaries that delineate distinct unconsolidated sedimentary units.
 85 Land-Streamer System

'

^^^Iv^' 44^X,;

SJ41i#lv,S4ul^yhatf;ProfileV^^Lj t44"\ 4*'#4ïï:

S^^lplft^ff\ 4^:42wUl>I~X4 Profflel\;/444ly
Meadow -

Figure 4.7: Location of survey

in northern Switzerland,
'4^mH^m^É^^m^7i4 (a) areas

(a) Rhine valley. Coincident

seismic reflection profiles with
towed land-streamer system and
.:4if3:4^
baseplate- and spike-mounted
geophones planted alongside
each other were recorded across

a meadow and along asphalt

an

road (solid lines). Highlighted

area shows location of

previously recorded shallow 3D

iï|Atfi&-- asms»»:* -|
Moosleerau seismic reflection survey (R.
fSB^^fîW^^^^^K^SS:--
Spitzer, F. Nitsche and A.

Green, in
preparation), (b)
Suhre valley. Coincident
seismic reflection profiles with
different typesof geophones
were recorded along a gravel
track (solid line). Highlighted
area shows location of

previously recorded shallow 3D

''W*4
'""

seismic reflection survey

^«2M_^2l^ (b) (Büker et al., 1998b, 1999).

 n

>

Source-Receiver Offset (m) Source-Receiver Offset (m) Eg

24 48 72 96 24 48 72 96 ^
14 m 68 m

-
-
(a) Land-Streamer Meadow Meadow
(b) Spike Geophone (c) Typical Traces

Figure 4.8: Unprocessed source gathers recorded simultaneously across a meadow with (a) towed land-
streamer system and (b) line of spike-mounted
geophones planted alongside streamer. Source was a pipegun
in a l m shothole. of 1-1V
deep untamped Frequency analyses mini-gathers are displayed in Figure 4.9. (c)
Selected traces from offsets 14 m and 68 m. Thick and thin solid lines mark land-streamer and spike-
mounted geophone data, respectively. Data are trace normalized.
 87 Land-Streamer System

——— Land Streamer

o -
A

-20

x
-40
T W\ CO

-60 £
o

-80
T3

-100
(a) Region I
-120 , i i i i , i

100 200 300 400 500 200 300 500

f(Hz) f(Hz)

500 100 200 300 500

f(Hz)

Figure 4.9: (a) to (d) Amplitude spectra calculated foi land-stieamei (thick solid lines) and
spike-mounted geophone (thin solid lines) mim-gatheis 1-IV lecoided across a meadow
Location of mini-gathers I-IV aie shown in Figure 4 8
Chapter 4 88

N Distance (m)
50 100 150 200 250
_i

i'^mi'Mitiiii|!i!;';.ii;l(i;ii
sua'; »iiitit!)«;!1«'.:;;,! JêmÊI0IÊm
''I' .'S(.,Mnii;tl-
sS,*»>,!;?ibpnih!»»;!
iii>'ii,fe«'!lSii,:iiaa:ai!'i'iii ^.^)Mi:';::; ;:;lii;,Lriv,:Ljiiii^M»wiii>i>^l:uii;l
50 ^^i-jMHrr.Tr-.Mi.iii- ^;;; j^^HiFMnwj^ii)'!,t|iii;;;;;;.;;:i'"''''''""" '"''
':,:ii.1""
'" ""'"""'»»- riJii._;; ''"'' '|l" '' ''•
,""i
!'^Uk^,:,.Li.i.^iLL'.'..i:,'t>>"l>>iîl:.>>>i},;fi|)^|i1:Jj
' '

iiillsisäs!
e ioo4S8a»^
$i§^iiii*iï^
SiliilllilliB
HI»

150111 US*; WSP'1' ''"'I'.',|#III'h

•

idiiiailv—lll'l!g""»»i'i.i.JMII,|:i""iiiinff
'mm »""«»mn
i'^;;;^^

(a) Land-Streamer -
Meadow
200

Éiiiili!
SE SmMik
Vmf.ÄMBBiniSKäfe;,,,,»»*;»» !feSS'Il'IlP?"''

50
.:» i-^Äiiiiiiiii^^
""—"nT"
S'."21"
: '
*iiito""'""'"""nil
'""''
In i^."1
'
V"'i»»f
n m in 1
|iiliL»'>»»*'''''l"''"'''IS' ""...' i.Mii.ii i .i
,

,„:• i,
„„.„ „„»„„„„»rtiiy»«""»»"«««! ii
iiniwiiiaiimiiiMi»^^T^
i1»»H """"''"""w**tw»'»»nll-.|.r)|||t||
mi ,ri,i„v ".,,.,'.
.-..^
....i-
.si."-——^*Tl|tim|(|iiiiim''',i J""*"" -
^"^^^"'m«»»»****!

»ip*»»!»«,»«^.; ,,„...z;::::,ii»*i~»»iii»^«»l,>1,i,i»». ^"^>»>w»ji^^,!:»>m.,.>»>*;

PiiiÖSS^ ^iiiiii»»^ia^igi^i)i|)
150

IP«?^^ .,„'„;;:. » ;„„.;4T S#'WS! W^iPS»

»i»>»>n»»»i
Meadow
(b) Spike Geophone -

»l?!l":;Si4?Plli!^^
200

r I
0 ',,,, ,..!

:! "'•M|'>Xi,jpnH'H>'\
)!)f'i'i',l!iîs^Hr'^4M!!!!!Îs,'*w^^î,-!,im!4!! ::;^5i4a;iiil!IiElliiliii!iE
50-
»;!;i;??llll!l!li;s?ii!l!!!li!i!
i;;;;'.;-!;,;;;,^-!!.^;:;;^!
ii||W\>M»»«»»^m,i!|'J'"
1 ">*
(ilW'Ht'iij,, >»iU^:niMiiWrtii(Vr>^>i j^tJ^^iiiifii;;! q
,«., .... U-

100 w''.fc
""'"'""fiiifili"'!"'»^^^^'!:!'''!
:H';?l''"iil>,,!;(. ':"'>i»i),,::::;;:'"""""'i".!"„

'"'j,iln'jiil!.'''ili!!^»»iimiin
;1;!:''m>w;;::'n.hi;;::|,;,i«|,i:S:»n!!i|m)Ff ^l:"';,,;1 :l44"^iil;|||ilei||lli)!|!l 'f.Y'll', V.'.-'ili'l'ilCI I'1
I. 'iniliSuitiii . I

150'
; „:;:-;""""* i i,.", »>.*.'«> j-v.ïîv'.i; "^<Ul i îi 'f vî ^*-' M U'
"

;:'":''^-«.l».;:':"l"IIB^'f'^Làî,i;!;iJii|":jiir1n''1'''''"''
' " ''

(c) Stack Difference Figures 4.10b-4.10a 'iiv,'".;;>.'!£4!: ''Ï^IiiiïiSï-ll.jlïitflii;!

200

Figure 4.10: Stacked sections recorded simultaneously across a meadow with (a) towed land-
streamer and (b) spike-mounted geophones. (c) Difference between stacked sections (b) and (a).
Amplitude scaling of three sections is identical. Processing sequence shown in Table 4.3.
 89 Land-Streamer System

(SUJ) J (SUJ) }

Figure 4.11: (a) Unpiocessed souice gathei iccoided with towed land steamer
along asphalt
road (b) Unpiocessed gather horn identical location, but lecoided with baseplate-
souice

mounted geophones (c) Unpiocessed souice gather lecoided with spike-mounted geophones

planted m giass-co\ered soil dnectly alongside load Souice was a sledgehammer stnkmg a
steel plate biequency anahses of mmi-gatheis I-Ifl are displayed in biguie 4 12 (d) and (e)
Selected traces horn offsets 14 m and 68 m Thick solid lines maik land-sticamer data Thm
solid lines maik either baseplate-mounted (left panels) oi spike-mounted (light panels)
geophone data Data are ttace noimah/ed
Chapter 4 90

, , J.
i

0 i3aseplate Geophone
Spike Geophone

x -20 •

«s

Vt^^C^Na
......

"T": f
§ -40- ^vS
?S^
*a -60
h ri \
^25a :

^X

-öU
(a) Region 1
i '

0 100 200 300 400 500

f(Hz)

0
r :\ ï

x -20
(0
2

E :...., i ,.TO...I. ..i ï ! i ..i !

-40 ..

: ^Ww kfL\- '

S -60

-80
(b) Region II
i i : i i

0 100 200 300 400 500

f(Hz)

x -20
Pw? \W/^4. ]
4.12:
Figure (a) to (c)
E -40 Amplitude spectra calculated for
land-streamer (thick solid lines),
m baseplate-mounted geophone
"O -60 -

(thick gray lines), andspike-

mounted geophone (thin solid

-80 lines) mini-gathers I-IIl recorded

(c) Region III
along asphalt road. Locations of
100 200 300 400 500 mini-gathers I-IIl are shown in
Fi sure 4.11.
f(Hz)
 91 Land-Streamer System

W Distance (m)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
n-i- _i i _J l L L__ I,,

/?) ''*'*> uV f* >>^?tf ?f ? ? r r f » V>i> 4>>»\t U ^i i v»

* *
» ; '. yi >i >> 4 4 4 '* > * > •
4n

150 Mii;C)i>'''f'ii)iiiH.»,iHu.».>H...."»>»«nV,,)i"^'>mi>>»s»~».i.u1..»iMi •l'r',>,^^wl>,lMinii!iimiiiiii'"''l'"''Tii!|ilil|K:ri.|

"•••'""»''"•'. •

''''ii''>ii"''l'lV::'«».im»>.»..>»»»..M;,..,i,,ltVm,„,>i«ii)>> !mw».,,„,,llW1rt^wiill»^»[i
"l)»»||||tt>|W>»>>, |I|.L
)>»ii.))|;i!|ni)>»>HV'.»:v,''iifM!i
,
„

; i,;|">>V.»., ...\i!::::::::::::r>»,''»M'nVm.M.i;L;,u:i^mWi''!tlMt»»Hll I i

(a) Land-Streamer-Asphalt 'i!ii!i!l!l|iHt!)Mlii)l|

200

_i_
o-fe x

ip.';!:''"-
"
ff :;'.:...."'..Fiî.'.)v:'^:tv^*^^*'^.l^^^'*îsv>tl>>*^».>^>>^tî!^^^Vî^»'^"^T?r,,.,'!.
)M)lSi!lXHfci;fc'^**>^rrr^'"^
'
"1 ' '">r !;''""fI;" :;;;.;.'\':l';!i i!f ''''"':'f-''"'!!!'»^^^
>\Vi'M:';'';;»^:;:::.;;"';':l!M.,"''V.v.'.;;,Ä;uiii^||ifK
„„, ,,
.
i'.'.'.iiSiuiÄui'ifit

M.M^H..i»>>.*»*MII
l)l)j)))l)iJ'ii''F'l')>'M>M)miiiiMiiiiii^. IMIiS'W'niSPW'llillii'lij»'»«^! Ä!rrrer#>iit!:ii')iii»>»t»w*>i!i!t!!rf
""*"'""'
'Miti'lVli.1''':1.'i'""'1 l">»>F'^"m*m"'' i;ii.:diiUnkmïii};;!!.iii,)'''**i»'>>">"»!iF'"il11' '4»«l!f4»'»»Mî!i!!!'ii'ïl
)iihi
n''?:v>>^'|,|i'i''i--"m l'r|n>>''"'''i::'!'''.'''• «lllliiliilli
""tHMMaia
150'
iiiiiiil'f,1;1;;!':;.;;;::;;;!!!)^^"»»» FilllK'i (>»iil!ll||
> i i; ï": ;»>
•:» j j; »j- j ; ^ ^ :
-
.•.»•* >.' ; v t> v» (»>>!. »»-H:*»»»
yrî",*'?-**'?i'ff i

(b) Baseplate Geophone-Asphalt

200

X
0 III

llliiillllli!!!
50
|||.i ''i1 ^'''twitlliMMM^W—»" '""'
.
'V>,IM '" ! ; 'ni».»»»-" •

l.|ni>ut>i""H>»»»iiiiiiiniinti;i^,,..^';2J^^rtTT"'V .
'iij.'plli.i,:..' f * î i.

«mnuiiinupW
»WtMlilillMillDIIIimi MMw»»MiniMiii>M>»m*tf>H»arm**
,..,»..>iiDm»);;Ki)||nHi|[
E100-

150
„FFhihl- >""""""•
;:;::::::l;;É:i;§iS
!,.»<»UUu>'ii)HHv>,;iF|.''î|,.1Fi',||î:!"''."iil)l^l!'
•"1^'.....,.,,,»,»,:,,,,,,.»,,,,,,,,,:^

(c) Spike Geophone -

Soil
200

Figure 4.13: Stacked sections recorded along an asphalt road with following geophones: (a)
towed land-streamer positioned on road, (b) baseplate-mounted geophones positioned on road,
and (c) spike-mounted geophones planted in
grass-covered soil alongside road. Amplitude
scaling of three sections is identical. Processing sequence shown in Table 4.13.
Chapter 4 92

w Distance E
(m)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
0
ill|l|lil|l!!l||i!|lhl:l!i|l!i-iii!i!i::. JiliMi
if ::.t;;M||||i!|;!|;|;U;!F:ij;:;;;:j!|!!!!!| !!!l!PIIII||ii 1
Fl

j|!|||l| ::!:!444i4i444iÉ!!
;

i;4ii4!i!i;iii!!!iiil;!i!!4"4i iiw|linii»;iii}i
|!.'!(|!lp'V"ll!.'!l
ii'li
in liili ii ii |i ; li'l'jlll
50

H
FFFFuilihi.'.'F

fill
ii }|ilpillllll «
liîliillîi1!
E100

il
iiiiliii!!!1!1!'" 1

150
life ]

lllllllllllliliill illillllEl'i 4;::4||||f||| 1 (I

200
(a) Stack Difference Figures 4.13b-4.13a ::-;4l4|ii^lililll 11 V j|;
..1 i i„„, i i i i i...
0 ,,„ ,

Ii l|j||.|;F. fj ; j j ;:;;:; ..„::;l||i!|!!lj|l fl! 1

m
II
[ill!
50

1
iiliijll)iij »'I'll
lin1
:

4
if 1 III]
II ill
E 100

150 jiiil
lllliii!'!:'i!:;'»;lii;l!ii!iiri!i;ii!il!i!iiiii!.J!!!!!'l!l
^ ill 11^ III
ISilliSSIiillJIIIli lllll 1 ll!l Illlliilfllllii! ]l4; qllllllll j| 1 1 ! t.
Ijjji
2d

(b) Stack Difference Figures 4.13b-4.13c Î4"i4iiïllilï i il II! Siil |

200

Figure 4.14: (a) Difference between stacked sections shown in Figures 4.13b and 4.13a.
(b) Difference between stacked sections shown in Figures 4.13b and 4.13c. Amplitude
scaling is identical to scaling in Figure 4.13.
 Source-Receiver Offset (m) Source-Receiver Offset (m)
24 48 72 96 24 48 72 96 14 m 68 m

-
-
(a) Land-Streamer Gravel Track Gravel Track Traces
(b) Spike Geophone (c) Typical

Figure 4.15: Unprocessed source gathers recoided along compacted giavel hack with fa) towed land-
streamer and (b) line of spike-mounted geophones planted alongside stieamei Souice was a sledgehammer
sinking a steel plate Fiequency analyses of I-IV ate in 4 16
mini-gathers displayed Figuie (c) Selected
traces horn offsets 14 m and 68 m. Thick and thm solid lines mark land-stieamer and spike-mounted
geophone data, lespectively Data are trace normalized
Chapter 4 94

x
ro
S
E
o

CQ
D

-100 -100
200 300 500 200 300 500

f(Hz) f (Hz)

o
Alf* ^

-20

"
fiW/*w
x

-40 V ^4v
ra
S
£

-60
1 \è
S
H-

CQ
TS

-80

(c) Region Ml
mn

100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
f(Hz) f(Hz)

Figure 4.16: (a)

(d) Amplitude spectra calculated toi land-stieamei (thick solid lines)
to

and spike-mounted geophone (thin solid lines) inim-gatheis I-IV lecoided along
compacted gravel track Location of mim-gathei s I-IV aie shown m Figure 4 15
 95 Land-Streamer System

W Distance (m) E
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

IIEIIIIIraMMSKSi
ii'MSm

ill il ii't'.'l'l Ü!'1''"';.'''" i ..ii "—''-"'—'*'' '„, i "*—' ••-, ", '"''. l^i. .>i->-.;;;.. :-:.!l,i"~--j-^.i''''^t2^»»-- " i"'" T»;;: 11'"Iff11''"*'>;*
'
.,
mj.tjWMttiitW^»!

1 Of) ^ '^ "*?" "^'' ' u^"4:yt'";:-':

'

! 'II '|"'""-! 'fcù'l'

L'

Ml
rÄ^snsswp .
,V:'".**'1'1:'' i»»>^t,t,|,t,|') i,1'fill'. .In"1.' 'l^vW!"'*'

»Ali!ta i»'-yi;,i;»
(a) Land-Streamer -
Gravel Track ^is;::;;:;^ »m si Si'. 11 .nu »m

300

IiïlI-~^
'iiiii'&äSsip^

>;.îiuifi thin^1
"
nun ....
...in»»"1" .'...' ..t. .........
'.m., n i i

•"'
.nrrr^fWw^'^t'"-;-^:::^'> ''''H^^.»'''".^^v.'"W)ll'''M''f!.|'il^"i:!.'

^'l!'-!.".;;L^i.'^
.

rc^"»»'*;::::*^'«
W/r/i : i'^Uäi;;i^;;;;^r-?ftiuUssr^'::
.

>>»Uuufi^H^££=»^k^
vfïù
•Villi;;' '*"''; f»^*l***w''! ;1'.' '•'""! '**i>Wt^tL'',^;;;;i!Vti>ui!^f,,^t;;;,,iM'iiiw
"'i|" """
;f/i »»»"feu J [ »film! ifr ^ Wnv,y»vj;j I' "ifi !
'">»"»"

""j^i wjjj liS\\|[j! S»| iitl ;'|; iSi'o''! i

'••"»"

'
»**»" -

it) iiwiiiiSTmHwtvunwtHiVp iiiïiVtV) Î

'
: *
' ' >
"
" ' '"" '
" ' ' '"

*iim>

(b) Spike Geophone -

Gravel Track »»iifitr

300 .' .-,„. i ..*. •

»int ,„
'"".'„1M>;?fw'|iiriir,i;[:ui^ '-—*-,u-j~
'•>!^'•\}i,"w',i,lît'n "']""W"",'^

() I.,,„„„ -JL
U
,

hihihi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiF J -JL

iiii'llii iiiil'liiilp.hi.i1 !ili|.!!»ii!iiij!!ill
"
!Jil|ii!il||llllii!li!l|i «:!! ;:;? iliilillllliüiüilil!;;«:?1
1I1I11||I1IIf1?

100

200-

(c) Stack Difference Figures 4.17b-4.17a

300

Figure 4.17: Stacked sections recorded simultaneously along a compacted gravel track in the
Suhre valley with (a) towed land-streamer and (b) spike-mounted geophones. (c) Difference.
between stacked sections (b) and (a). Amplitude scaling of three sections is identical.
Processing sequence shown in Table 4.3.
Chapter 4 96

Cross-Line Cross-Line
150 200 250 150 200 250

200 200

"*
50

(a) Source Delay Times (b) Receiver Delay Times

Original Data Set
Original Data Set

Cross-Line Cross-Line
200 250 150 200 250

200
0.00

sr« -2.00

150
8> -4.00 ®

.1
>>
-6.00
JS
100 «

i.OO

LJ-10.00

(c) Source Delay Times (d) Receiver Delay Times

Towed Land-Streamer Towed Land-Streamer

Cross-Line Cross-Line
150 200 250 150 200 250
•

IF-"*"
200 200

2.00
.:*. :
m
IpPPPfF'
1.00 ê.
o
0.75 o
150 150 0.50
c

# %
c c 0,25
0.00
O
c
:Ki -0.25 ffl

100 100 -0.50 fc

-0.75 >>

,:$' lis V -1.00

-2.00 a
50 50

(e) Difference Figures 4.18a-4.18c (f) Difference Figures 4.18b-4.18d

Figure 4.18: Refraction static corrections shown as source and receiver delay times
calculated with following data; (a) and (b) original data set; (c) and (d) simulated land-

streamer data set. (e) Differences between (c) and (a), (f) Differences between (d) and (b).
 97 Land-Sirfampr Sysrrivi

Stacking Velocity (m/s) Offset (m)

1200 2000 2800 0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 4.19: CMP supetgatheis (light) and Semblance plots (left) composed of
nine adjacent CMP gathers lot the following acquisition geometnes (a) onginal
data set. (b) simulated towed land-stieamei data set CMP location cotiesponds to

in-line numhei 60. ciossdme numbet 160 Data have been scaled with 100ms

AGC toi display puiposes Velocity pick^ aie based on a combination ol

semblance values and NMO-couected CMP supetgatheis

Cil VP1I R 4 98

Original Data Set

~
Towed Land Streamer

Stacking Velocity (m/s) Stacking Velocity (m/s)

1400 1800 2200 1800 2200
0
.
,

50
j N. \

to j I

£ , I

"^
:

150
;

! i
200 200

(a) In-Line 60, Cross-Line 160 (b) In-Line 60, Cross-Line 240

Stacking Velocity (m/s) Stacking Velocity (m/s)

2200 1400 1800 2200
0

\S i il

: i \v i i

i \ "s II

50-E 50 : , JVA _, i_.

: i \ s i i

: \ \ i i

: \ V i
(O OT i
\ \ i

E \ S i

100 100 - —.

V-vf-
:
\ V
:
\\
i.i

'
! > v
^
1504 150
' f f

-i ft

200 200

(c) In-Line 160, Cross-Line 160 (d) In-Line 160, Cross-Line 240

Figure 4.20: Lor ongmal and simulated 3D land-stieamet dala sets. \elocit\-depth
lunctions deteimmed at loui different locations m the sui\e\ aiea v ith in-line and cioss-

hne numhei s (a) 60 and 160. (b) 60 and 240. (c) 160 and IdO and id) 160 and 240 At
each location, velocity functions weie estimated independently usina onemal (solid line)
and stieamei (dashed line) data sets DiHeienccs between coincident pans ot velocity
functions aie çeneialh less than bU
 99 Land-Si ri mwrSysu m

(SIU)| (SUl)î (suj)ï (SUJ)l

E
co

TJ
0)

ça
3

E
03

(SUJ)J (sw)* (suj)j (suj)j

« o

C/)

JS
co
Q

"55
E
D)
C
O
«r

Figure 4.21: Sequence of ^D images attet ^D migration of data iccoided with (a) ongmal
acquisition geometiv and (h) simulated stieamei geometiv Common puxessms sequence is

shown m fahle 4 "> L ettei s

conespond to notation ot Büket et al (1998a 1998b 1999) and
icter lo featuies discussed in text
CHAPUR4 100

CM

s.

2
E E
3
Z CD

I g c
c|
c C

T3
CD

3 (2
s- co
Q
"S
"5
c
3
D)
C E
O OT

m o s § o
o
v T CN CM
(sw)ï (sut) %

CD
W

co
û
"S
E
O)

O
1o

CN

(stu)ï (SUJ))

Figure 4.22: (a) In-lme section 108 tecoided with oiiginal acquisition geomettv (h) Cioss-lme
section 20s) tecoided with original acquisition
geometiv. (O and (d) as loi (a) and (b) but
lecoided with simulated land-stieamei geometiv Common processing
sequence is shown m
Tabled 5 1 etteis conespond to notation ot Büket et al (1998a 1998b L999) and îetei to
leatuies discussed in text
 5

Outlook

The principal goal of this thesis was to develop a seismic acquisition strategy
capable ofdecreasing markedly the field effort. The resultant towed land-streamer
system offered significant time saving benefits by eliminating the manual planting of
geophones and avoiding traditional roll-along schemes. This semi-automated recording
system was capable of reducing 2D data acquisition costs by approximately 50-70 %
(i.e., one half to one third of the effort), part of which was a consequence of reducing the
number of field personnel by 30-40 % (Chapter 4).

Building on these accomplishments, potential procedures for

increasing the
efficiency of the towed land-streamer system are outlined in section 5.1. The
possibility
of developing a towed land-streamer system with self-orienting three-component sensors
is reviewed briefly in section 5.2. Finally, in section 5.3. I introduce the feasibility of

using statistical experimental design for determining optimum recording parameters for
a typical 3D seismic reflection survey. This final section is not specific to the further

development of the towed land-streamer system. Instead, it represents an alternative

method for improving the efficiency of 3D seismic data acquisition.

5.1 Additional Steps to Increase Efficiency of Towed Land-

Streamer System

System positioning

Currently, system positioning of the towed land-streamer is achieved via tape

measures and/or standard laser theodolite systems. Relative coordinates are surveyed to
control points on detailed maps of the study areas. A major concern associated with the
former is the accumulation of errors that may result from repeated positioning of the

measuring tape when surveying relatively long lines. Standard theodolite systems supply
coordinates with an accuracy (mm range) well suited for shallow seismic surveys.
Chapter 5 102

However, their personal-intensive and time-consuming handling prevent them from

being used for the towed land-streamer system.

efficiency and accuracy of the towed land-streamer technique may be improved

The

by employing a semi-automated real-time positioning system, such as the self-tracking

laser-ranging theodolite (Figure 5.1a; Lehmann and Green. 1999) or the differential
global positioning system (DGPS; Figure 5.1b; Hofmann-Wellenhof et al., 1997). In
Table 5.1, characteristics of standard and potential semi-automated positioning systems
arc listed andbriefly assessed. For effective use with the towed land-streamer system,
the surveying equipment should satisfy the following criteria:
•
coordinate accuracy should be in the decimeter range or better;

•
coordinates (x, y and z) must be determined simultaneously for the front
and tail of the land-streamer -

these two coordinates may be used to

reconstruct coordinates of all receiversalong the streamer (sec Lehmann
and Green [1999] for an appropriate interpolation strategy);
•
if the positioning system is used for navigating the land-streamer system
from one location to the next, it should deliver coordinate fixes at a rate of
6-12/min;

•
if the seismic survey is following a predefined route (e.g., a road or path),
accurate coordinate fixes should be available at least twice/min -
this

corresponds to the approximate maximum speed of a land-streamer survey

using a sledgehammer source (Chapter 4);

Laser-tracking theodolite

Self-tracking laser theodolites are based

principle of the standard laser
on the
theodolites (LEICA, 1998). They are capable of tracking automatically the movement of
a laser signal reflected from a moving optical prism. Positioning
requires quasi-
continuous visibility between the theodolite and the prism; interruptions in the visibility
of 1-2 s can be tolerated. They can track the prism at distances
up to -600 m with an
accuracy in the cm range at a rate of 10 measurements per second (LEICA, 1998).

A sketch of the land-streamer system with tracking theodolite is displayed in

a laser

Figure 5.1a. Real-time coordinates are transferred via a telemetry link and interface to
the recording system, where they can be merged rapidly with the seismic data. The

ability to supply accurate coordinates in real-time makes this system attractive for
navigating the towed land-streamer system. However, to track simultaneously the prism
on the towing vehicle and the prism attached to the streamer tail
requires two self-
tracking theodolites. Although the price of a single system is about half that of a high-
quality DGPS system, the need for two systems may restrict their application. In
addition, the requirement for continuous visibility between the theodolites and the prisms
may limit their practical application to relatively short surveys. Areas characleii/ed by
the presence of numerous high-standing obstacles may not be suitable for
surveying with
these systems.
 103 Outlook

Global positioning system

Globalpositioning systems (GPS) take advantage of the known location of orbiting

satellites. A positive aspect of GPS's is the ability to determine absolute positions
practically anywhere on earth. Signals transmitted from satellites supply information on
the distances between the satellites and the GPS receiver. To achieve an accuracy in the
sub-meter range, which is needed for high-resolution seismic surveys, the use of an

additional fixed GPS receiver as a reference station is essential. For reliable surveying
with this so-called differential GPS (DGPS) configuration, at least five "visible"
satellites are required. Currently, state-of-the-art DGPS systems are able to provide in a

stop-and-go mode, near real-time coordinates (e.g., ~2 positions/min) with

typical
accuracy of half Post-processing
a meter. may result in improved accuracies in the
cm range (Hofmann-Wellenhof et al.. 1997).

A sketch of the land-streamer with an integrated DGPS is displayed in Figure 5.1b.

This system requires a fixed GPS receiver as a reference station and two moving GPS

receivers, one mounted on the towing vehicle and one attached to the streamer tail. As
for theself-tracking laser system, coordinates of receivers between the end
points must
be determined using suitable interpolation routines (Lehmann and Green, 1999). Clearly,
presently available DGPS's are too slow and insufficiently accurate to control the
navigation of the towed land-streamer system. If a road or path is being surveyed,
appropriately accurate coordinates (within the cm range) can be determined via post¬
processing of the DGPS data. Other limitations on the use of DGPS are imposed by the
need for continuous ''upward visibility" of the moving satellites. The requirement for at
least five "visible'' satellites may be difficult to satisfy in urban areas, under tree cover,
and in mountainous terrains. Moreover, the relatively high price for those DGPS's that
provide sufficient accuracy may limit their widespread use with the towed-land streamer

system.

In-field processing
Shallow seismic reflection surveying (using either the towed land-streamer system
or traditional
techniques) generally involves data acquisition and subsequent processing
on a powerful PC or workstation in the laboratory. Potential disadvantages of this

strategy are: (i) inadequate in-field quality control, usually limited to the analysis of
unprocessed or primitively processed source gathers, and (ii) stacked data are produced
well after the field campaign. A consequence of these disadvantages is that information

is not available for determining whether or not acquisition strategies need to be varied,
critical areas added to the study, or key regions re-surveyed with denser acquisition

parameters. Fast semi-automated in-field data processing may overcome these

shortcomings. A possible processing flow could be as follows (Figure 5.2):
1. input initial geometry and, from preliminary processed source gathers
recorded for testing purposes, input initial top-mute functions and stacking
velocities;

2. acquire simultaneously source gather and coordinates of the source and

streamer tail (as described in the previous section);
Chapter 5 104

3. merge and store seismic data and positioning information;

4. apply standard processing (e.g.. amplitude scaling, frequency filtering....);
5. apply and, if necessary, update top-mutes;
6. sort according to CMP;

7. adjust stacking velocities using information from standard semblance

analyses -

typically these would only be adjusted at selected source

locations;

8. after application of NMO-corrections, stack and display processed

sections;

9. repeat procedure by adding new traces to existing CMP bins and

constructing new CMP bins.

Thisacquisition and processing procedure will result in a progressively stacked

section (i.e., after each shot, new data will be added to the stacked section). Assuming
the highest land-streamer acquisition speed of ~2 shots/min (Chapter 4), the processing
flow would have to be cycled in less than 30 s. Experience with ProMax processing
software has shown that 5-10 source gathers (96 channels, 300 ms record length, 0.25 ms

sample rate) per minute may be processed according to the flow chart of Figure 5.2 using
a Sun Ultra-10 (440 MHz). At these processing speeds, stacked sections using

preliminary processing parameters would be obtained in near real-time for provisional

analyses of subsurface structures. Of course, processing speed is a function of the chosen
parameters and the hardware employed. It is anticipated that a dedicated procesing
computer and a competent processer would be required to run the system. Nevertheless, I
conclude that a fast and robust in-field processing facility connected to the towed land-
streamer system would allow for more efficient application of shallow seismic reflection

techniques.

5.2 Three-Component Seismic Data

In
general, shallow seismic reflection data are recorded with single-component
geophones (usually vertical or transverse-oriented horizontal). To fake full advantage of
information contained in the diverse wave types, it is desirable to record three-

component data. By fully processing three-component data sets, it may be feasible to

obtain high-resolution images and determine critical geotechnical properties from a
single data set. Polarisation and incident angles of
incoming waves can be determined
from three-component data recorded at one location. Analyses of such data may lead to
better recognition and distinction between the different waves types (e.g., P-, S-,

Rayleigh. and Love waves). Inversion of surface waves (Park et al., 1999) or
simultaneous inversion of surface and guided waves (Roth and Holliger, 1999) provide
near-surface velocity models useful for static corrections and velocity analyses. More
reliable locations of reflectors in the shallow subsurface may be obtained via analyses of
incident directions of incoming waves. For example, in tomographic experiments.
 105 Outlook

incident angles provide important constraints on the inversion process, thus increasing
the reliability of the resultant models.

Land-streamer with three-component geophones

Clearly, three-component surveys require greater operational effort, such that new
field techniques are necessary to manage the more complex logistics involved. In
principle, it should be possible to adapt for this purpose the concept of the towed land-
streamer system. For the development of such a system, two important issues will need

to be considered:

•
to avoid spatial aliasing, data acquisition geometries (i.e., source-receiver
offsets and receiver intervals) will have to be evaluated thoroughly to
account for very slow S- and surface waves in the shallow subsurface -

acquisition of three-component data will require short source and receiver

intervals over a broad range of source-receiver offsets;
•
each receiver stationoccupies three channels of a recording system, so that
the availability of
seismographs, seismic cables and associated connectors
with high channel capacity are even more important than in conventional
near-surface seismic investigations.

Although three-component surveys are far from routine. Steeples et al. (1995)
anticipate that future civil engineering and environmental studies of the shallow
subsurface will involve three-component recording and three-dimensional data analysis.
A land-streamer comprising self-orienting three-component gimbal-mounted geophones
would improve significantly the procedures for acquiring the necessary data.

To conclude this outlook, I will consider a fundamental alternative to the land-

streamer system or other automated receiver deployment concepts.

5.3 Statistical Experimental Design to Optimize Shallow

Seismic Surveys
Many aspects of the towed land-streamer system are similar to those employed in
traditional seismic surveying: relatively large
a amount of data is recorded using
predetermined geometries. Usually, the data are processed and evaluated after they have
been recorded. An alternative approach that might improve the efficiency of shallow
seismic data acquisition involves the use of experimental design procedures (Maurer and
Boerner, 1998a, 1998b; Liner et al., 1999). Such approaches would involve designing

practical experiments that optimally resolve important features of interest, while at the
same time reducing the amount of data that only
marginally contributes to an improved
understanding of the subsurface.
Chapter 5 106

Problem definition

A possible application of
experimental design procedure is illustrated in
an

Figure 5.3. To resolve the detailed geological structure beneath a planned highway, a
shallow 3D seismic survey needs to be conducted The region is characterized by several
critical features: (i) a large flat and easily accessible terrain, (ii) an inaccessible area, (iii)

a difficult, but accessible mountainous region, (iv) existing roads, and (v) a river and a

lake. One objective of experimental design might be to determine the optimum source-
receiver configurations that result in a desired CMP distribution while minimizing the
field effort and taking into account the various constraints. The experimental design

approach to be described is not suitable for application with the towed land-streamer
system.

Problem constraints

The optimization process may be subjected to numerous constraints related to, for
example: (i) survey design objectives e.g., focus on an area of interest such as the
-

planned highway in Figure 5.3, (ii) the reflection seismic technique, (iii) equipment
specifications, (iv) available financial recourses, and (v) site-dependent features. In this
section, I list details of potential constraints (ii) to (v) that may be of interest to the
survey design problem outlined in Figure 5.3.

Technique-dependent constrabits

For the successful application of shallow seismic reflection techniques, the source-
receiver configuration should be designed to achieve (Knapp and Steeples, 1986b; Büker
etal, 1998 b):"

•
uniformly high level of subsurface coverage to assure sufficiently large
S/N;

•
uniform azimuthal coverage neglecting azimuthal velocity variations
-

may result in improper alignment of reflections and unnecessary

attenuation of higher frequency components during stacking (Yilmaz.
1987);
•
uniform source-receiver offset distributions -

minimum source-receiver
offsets are determined by the depths of the shallowest reflections, whereas
maximum source-receiver offsets are controlled by the need to obtain
velocity-depth estimates for the deepest features of interest.

Equipment-dependent constraints

Several equipment-dependent limitations may need to be accounted for, sued as:

»
maximum length of available cables;

•
maximum number of available channels.
 107 Outlook

Financial constraints

Financial constraints are among the most important factors in designing a shallow
seismic survey. These money-related constraints may be imposed on the solution as
follows:

•
number of sources and receivers need to be minimized;
•
if the choice is available, the number of sources should be minimized at
the expense of increasing the number of receivers -

generally, source

positions are more expensive than receiver positions;

•
because of high costs and logistical problems, the number of sources and
receivers in the mountainous region should be minimized (Figure 5.3).

Site-dependent constraints

Typical site-dependent constraints relevant to the problem outlined in Figure 5.3 can

be imposed on the solution in the following manner;

•
because of expected high ambient noise levels, particular effort should be
made to avoid or minimize the number of sources and receivers in the near

vicinity of roads;

•
lack of sources and receivers at some locations (e.g., in the inaccessible
area, in the vicinity of roads and in the mountainous regions) will need to
be compensated for.
Telemetered acquisition systems would allow flexible receiver layouts to be adopted.
However, because most engineering and environmental projects will continue to be
based on multi-wire cable-based recording systems, the receiver configurations may be

subjected to additional practical constraints, such as deployment along orthogonal lines

(also discussed by Liner et al., 1999).

Mathematical formulation of the statistical experimental design

problem
To help resolve 3D survey design problems using experimental design procedures,
Figure 5.4 illustrates a small portion of the survey area under the planned highway of
Figure 5.3. It is divided into 10x8 predefined CMP bins. The objective is to resolve
adequately subsurface structures with an "optimum" acquisition strategy.
As a first priority, the seismic survey should be focussed on the area of interest (i.e.,
in the direct vicinity of the highway). The CMP bins may be valued with the following
weighting factor:

WB bin importance (e.g., in Figure 5.4, WB=0 and WB=5 correspond

•
to
-

least and most important bins, respectively)

Each of the technique-dependent criteria (i.e., fold, source-receiver azimuthal
distribution, and offset distribution) affect the quality of the recorded seismic dala
Chapter 5 108

differently. Their importance may be valued with following user-defined weighting

factors:

•
Wp -
fold distribution;

•
WA -
azimuth distribution;

•
Wq -
offset distribution.

For a particular survey, WFmay be much greater than WA.

A critical issue in statistical experimental design is the quantification of the overall

goodness of a source-receiver configuration Gcmf. One possible approach is to introduce
the following goodness functions for the different technique-dependent criteria:

•
Gp -

goodness of the CMP fold relative to a predefined value;

•
GA -

goodness of the azimuth distribution relative to an ideal situation -

a

measure may be variance of the azimuth distribution -

small variance

corresponds to more uniform distribution of azimuths, whereas large

variance corresponds to an irregular distribution (Figure 5.5);

•
G0 -

goodness of the offset distribution relative to an ideal situation -

a

measure may be the variance of the offset distribution.

To find theoptimum survey layout, all possible source-receiver array configurations

should be tested in the computer simulation. Figure 5.4 displays examples of three
source positions, each with 4 active receivers. Potential source and receiver locations are

indicated by the dense grid of dots. These locations are independent of the CMP bins

(sources and receivers may be located arbitrary positions

at defined by the user).By
"testing" all possible acquisition configurations, a Gco/„anay be defined as:

Gconf= ^WB-W,GF-WAGA-W0G0 . (5.1)

Bins

This equation shows that the configuration-goodness Gcontdepends the of

on products
the weighted "goodnesses" summed over all bins. The contribution of single bin to the
a

configuration-goodness depends on the product of its relative importance (i.e., W#), with
its weighted "goodnesses" of subsurface fold (i.e.. WpGp), azimuth (i.e.,
coverage
WAGA), and offset distribution (i.e., WqGq). A bin will not contribute to the

configuration-goodness if any of the weights of goodness values is zero.

Obviously, function 5.1 will increase as the number of employed source and receiver

positions increases. Therefore, a penalty function P should account for additional

financial and site-dependent constraints (Maurer and Boerner, 1998b):

G'conf =

-ß- (5-2)
 109 Outlook

where G'coni is the modified configuration-goodness. The penalty function may be of the

form a' ,
where a is an arbitrary real number >1 and N is proportional to the field effort
or survey costs. The principle of these penalty functions can be illustrated with two

simple examples:
1. Assuming that the effort in
planting receivers can be neglected, field effort
would be determined solely by the number of source positions. The
number of sources can be minimized by setting the penalty function N to
the number of sources employed.

2. By neglecting receivers again, but taking into account the extra costs
involved in deploying sources in difficult regions (e.g., the mountains in

Figure 5.3) relative to the easily accessible areas, a possible penalty

?w
function could be defined as: P =
aM + aA s\ where aM> aA > 1,

aM and a^ are arbitrary real numbers, and N$m and NSA are the number

of positions in the mountainous and easily accessible areas,

source

respectively. The penalty function P will increase faster (i.e., decrease the
modified configuration-goodness G') by increasing the number of sources
in the mountainous region than by increasing them in more accessible
areas. Therefore, to maximize the modified configuration goodness, the

number of easily accessible source positions should be maximized relative

to the more difficult ones.

For realistic survey design problems, a very large number of possible source-
receiver configurations exist, so efficient statistical approaches (e.g.. genetic algorithms)
are required to find the optimum configuration.
I conclude that in areas characterized by large obstacles
slopes, where the and steep
land-streamer system may not be employed, statistical experimental design procedures

may represent an alternative method for improving the efficiency of 3D seismic data
acquisition.
Chapter 5 110

Table 5.1: Potential advantages and disadvantages of positioning

systems for high-resolution seismic reflection surveying

Advantages Disadvantages

Measuring •
Cost-effective •
Inaccurate over large distances

Tape (cumulative errors)

•
Robust •
Supplies only relative coordinates

•
No topographic information

•
Impractical for 3D surveys

•
Not well suited for automatic

procedures
Standard Laser •
Very high accuracy in x, y and z.
•
Supplies only relative coordinates
Theodolite (cm range)
•
Not well suited for automatic

procedures
Laser-Tracking *
Very high accuracy in .t, y and c. * Relative coordinates
Theodolite (cm range)
*
Provides real-time coordinates •
Prism and theodolite require
(-10 measurements/sec) visible contact (may be

problematic over large distances in

rugged terrain)
•
Positioning of two locations (front
and tail of streamer)
simultaneously requires two

theodolite systems

Differential •
High accuracy in x, y and z.
•
Relatively high price
GPS (cm range) after post-processing
•
Supplies absolute coordinates •
Requires large "upward visibility"
for continuous contact with

required minimum of 5 moving

satellites (may not be
practical in
regions surrounded by high trees
or high buildings)

•
Does not require direct visible •
In real-time mode, provides only 2
contact with the reference positions / min with an accuracy of
station half a (may
meter be insufficient
for navigating efficiently)
 Ill Outlook

Laser-Tracking
Theodolite

'., Telemetry Link n

0 Prism-2

•—i A
m

(a) Laser-Tracking Theodolite

GPS-Receiver at
fixed location

GPS
Receive r-1

Telemetry Link GPS

Control Unit Receiver-2

Ï
Ls>na. Recording
System

(b) DGPS

Figure 5.1: Sketch showing principal elements of towed land-streamer with semi-
automated positioning systems: (a) self-tracking theodolite; (b) differential global

positioning system (DGPS).

Chapter 5 112

Initial setup

Input: -
Initial geometry
-
Initial mute functions
-
Initial stacking velocities

Positioning of source and

streamer tail
and update geometry
Storage of raw data and
positioning information

Standard single-trace
processing

Apply and update mute

functions

Repeat source
position

CMP Sort

Velocity Analysis

NMO Correction

Stack traces to existing Display stacked

data in bins CMP traces

Figure 5.2: Proposed scheme for real-time processing of shallow seismic

reflection data recorded with the towed land-streamer svstem.

 113 Outlook

Lake
Mountainous Area

"SS

Figure 5.3: Potential survey design problem that may be solved using
a standard statistical experimental approach.

Planned Highway

• Source position
Receiver position
o CMP

Ws=5
Wß=2

Figure 5.4: Simplified example of the experimental design approach. Region represents a
small portion of survey area shown in Figure 5.3. It is divided m 10x8 CMP bins. Dark gray
and white zones represent areas of highest and lowest interest, respectively. They are assigned

different weighting factors. Data space contains all possible source and receiver locations and
is marked with dense grid. Stars, triangles and circles mark shot and receiver positions and
associated CMP locations, respectively.
Chapter 5 114

eu Variance = Small Variance =

Large
D)
c x
ro
a: X
-
x X
x x X
•
x *
E X X

3
X X X
X

m
a>
u
m
X

(a) X
X ,
X
I i 1
X (b)
60 120 180 300 240 360 0 60 120 180 300 240 360
Azimuth Azimuth

Figure 5.5: Example wheic variance is used as measuie tot goodness G4 of azimuth

distiibution Crossses indicate nuinbei of ttaces m specific azimuth lange (a) Unifoim
distiibution of azimuths (b) iriegulai distiibution ot azimuths Small and huge vaiianccs

coirespond to good and poot azimuth distributions lespectively

 6

References

Ali, M., Miller, R. D. and Steeples, D. W.. 1991, Shallow faults mapped with seismic
reflections: Lost River Fault, Idaho: Geophysical Research Letters, 18, 1767-1770.

Allen, C. F., Lombardi, L. V. and Wells, W. M., 1952, The application of the reflection
seismograph to near-surface exploration: Geophysics, 17, 859-866.

Al-Rahawy, S.Y.S., and Goulty, N.R., 1995, Effects of mining subsidence on seismic
velocity monitored by a repeated reflection profile: Geophysical Prospecting, 43.
191-201.

Bachrach, R., and Nur. A., 1998, High resolution shallow seismic experiments in
sand:l.) water table, fluid flow and saturation: Geophysics, 63, 1225-1233.

Bachrach, R., Dvorkin, J., and Nur, A., 1998, High resolution shallow seismic

experiments in sand: 2.) velocities in shallow unconsolidated sand: Geophysics, 63,

1234-1240.

Bachrach, R., and Rickett, J., 1999. Ultra shallow seismic reflection in depth: examples
from 3D and 2D ultra shallow surveys with application to joint seismic and GPR
imaging: 69th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics,
Expanded Abstracts, 488-491.

Barnes, K. M. and Mereu, R. F., 1996, An application of the 3-D seismic technique for
mapping near-surface stratigraphy near London, Ontario: Journal of Environmental
and Engineering Geophysics. 1, 171-177.

Bcres, M., Green, A.G., Huggenberger, R, Horstmeyer, H., 1995, Mapping the
architecture of glaciofluvial sediments with three-dimensional georadar: Geology,
12. 1087-1091.

Birkelo, B.A., Steeples, D.W., Miller, D.W., and Sophocleous. M.S., 1987, Seismic
reflection study of a shallow aquifer during a pumping test: Ground Water, 25,
703-707.
References 116

Black, R.A., Steeples, D.W., and Miller, R.D., 1994, Migration of shallow seismic

reflection data: Geophysics. 59. 402-410.

Branham, K. L. and Steeples, D. W., 1988, Cavity detection using high-resolution

seismic reflection methods: Min. Engin., 40, 115-119.

Brouwer, J., and Helbig, K.. 1998. Shallow high-resolution reflection seismics:
Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Volume 19.

Bühnemann, J., and Holliger, K., 1998, Comparison of high-frequency seismic sources

at the Grimsel Test Site, Central Alpes: Geophysics, 63, 1363-1370.

Büker, F., Green, A. and Horstmeyer, H., 1998a, Shallow seismic reflection study of a

glaciated Valley: Geophysics, 63, 1395-1407.

Büker, F., Green, A., and Horstmeyer, H., 1998b, Shallow 3-D seismic reflection
surveying: Data acquisition and preliminary processing: Geophysics, 63, 1434-1450.

Büker, F., Green. A., and Horstmeyer, H., 1999, 3-D high-resolution reflection seismic
imaging of unconsolidated glacial and glaciolacustrine sediments: Processing and
Interpretation: Geophysics, in press.

Buness, H., Bram, K., Druivenga, G., and Grüneberg, S., 1997, A vibrator system for
shallow high-resolution reflection seismics: 59th Annual
Meeting, European
Association of Geoscientists and Engineers. Expanded Abstracts, P154.

Can; B.J., Hajnal, Z., and Prugger, A., 1998. Shear-wave studies in glacial till:
Geophysics, 63, 1273-1284.

Clayton, C.R.I., Matthews, M.C., and Simons. N.E., 1995, Site investigations, Blackwell
Science, Oxford, U.K..

Corsmit, J., Versteeg, W. H., Brouwer, J. and Helbig, K., 1988, High-resolution 3D
reflection seismics on a tidal flat: acquisition, processing and interpretation: First
Break. 6, 9-23.

Doll, W.E., Miller, R.D., and Xia, J., 1998, A noninvasive shallow seismic source

comparison on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee: Geophysics, 63, 1318-1331.

Doornenbal, J.C., and Helbig, K., 1983, High-resolution reflection seismics on a tidal
flat in the Dutch delta -

acquisition, processing and interpretation: First Break, 1,

9-20.

Edelsbrunner, H., 1987, Algorithms in combinatorial geometry: Springer Verlag.

Eiken, O., Degutsch, M., Riste, P., and Rod, K.. 1989, Snowstreamer: an efficient tool in
seismic acquisition: First Break, 7, 374-378.

Einarsson, D.. Brooks, L.. Bennett. G., and White, A.. 1977. Seismic survey on the
Beaufort Sea Ice: Geophysics, 42, 148 (abstract).
 117 References

Faber, K., Maxwell, P.W., and Edelmann, A.K., 1994, Recording reliability in seismic
exploration as influenced by geophone-ground coupling: 56th Annual Meeting,
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, Expanded Abstracts, BO 14.

Gendzwill, D.I., Serzu. M.H., and Lodha, G.S.. 1994, High-resolution seismic reflection
surveys to detect fracture zones at the AECL Underground Research Laboratory:
Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, 30, 26-38.

Ghose, R., Matsubara, Y., Kaida, Y, and Takahashi, T., 1995, High-resolution mapping
of very shallow reflectors using an efficient portable vibrator system: 57th Annual

Meeting, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, Expanded

Abstracts, C051.

Ghose, R., Nijhof, V., Brouwer, J., Matsubara, Y. Kaida, Y, and Takahashi, T., 1998,
Shallow to very shallow, high-resolution reflection seismic using a portable vibrator

system: Geophysics, 63, 1295-1309.

Gochioco, L.M., 1990, Seismic survey for coal exploration and mine planning: The
Leading Edge, 9, 25-28.

Gochioco, L.M., 1992, Modeling studies of interference reflections in thin-layered media

bounded by coal seams: Geophysics, 57, 1209-1216.

Goleby, B.R., Drummond, B.J., Owen, A., Yeates, A.N., Jackson, J., Swag er, C, and
Upton, P., 1997, Structurally controlled mineralization in Australia How seismic -

profiling helps find minerals: Recent case histories: /;; Proceedings of Exploration
97: Fourth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration, edited by
A.G. Gubins, 409-420.

Grasmück, M., 1996, 3D ground-penetrating radar applied to fracture imaging in gneiss:

Geophysics, 61, 1050-1064.

Grasmück, M., and Green. A.G.. 1996, 3-D georadar mapping: Looking into the
subsurface: Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, II, 1-6.

Greaves, R. J., 1984. Coal prospect evaluation using high-resolution reflection

seismology -
a case study: The Leading Edge, 3, 44-47.

Green, A.G., and Soonawala, N., 1982, Detection of fracture zones in granites by
geophysical logging and seismic reflection surveys, m Geophysical Investigations in
Connection with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Nuclear Energy Agency
of the OECD, 21-28.

Green, A.G., and Mair, J.A., 1983, Subhorizontal fractures in granitic philon: their
a

detection and implications for radioactive waste disposal: Geophysics. 48, 1428-
1449.
REFERENCES 118

Green, A.G., Pugin, A., Beres, M., Lanz, E., Büker, F., Huggenberger. P.. Horstmeyer,
H., Grasmück, M., De Iaco, R., Holliger, K., and Maurer, H.R., 1995, 3-D high-
resolution seismic and georadar reflectionmapping of glacial, glacio-lacustrine and
glacio-fluvial sediments in Switzerland: Symposium on the Application of

Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems, Expanded Abstracts, 419-

434.

Green, A.G., Lanz, E., Maurer, H., and Boerner, D., 1999. A template for geophysical
investigations of small landfills: The Leading Edge, 18, 248-254.

Haeni, F.P., 1986, Application of continuous seismic reflection methods to hydrologie

studies: Ground Water, 24, 23-31.

Hawman, R. B. and Ahmed, H. O., 1995, Shallow seismic reflection profiling over a

mylonitic shear zone, Ruby Mountains-East Humboldt Range metamorphic core

complex, NE Nevada: Geophysical Research Letters, 22. 1545-1548.

Herber, M.A., Runia, D.J., and Helbig, K., 1981, The shallow structure of the Roggeplaat
(The Netherlands) as deduced from high-resolution multi-channel profiling:
Geologie en Mijnbouw, 60, 225-236.

Herbst, R., Kapp, I., Krummel, H., and Lück. E., 1998, Seismic sources for shallow

investigations: A field comparison from Northern Germany: Journal of Applied

Geophysics, 38, 301-317.

Hill, S., Shultz, M., and Brewer, J., 1999, Acquisition footprint and fold-of-stack plots:
The Leading Edge, 18, 686-695.

Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., Lichtenegger, H., and Collins, J., 1997, Global Positioning
Systems: Theory and Practice:Springer, New York.

House, J.R., Boyd, T.M., and Haeni. F.P., 1996, Haddam Meadows. Conneticut: A case

study for the acquisition processing,

,
and relevance of 3-D seismic data as applied to

the remediation of DNAPL contamination, in Weimer, P., and Davies, T.L., Eds.,
Applications of 3-D seismic data to exploration and
production. SEG Geophysical
Development Series, 5: Society of Exploration Geophysics, 257-265.

Hunter, J.A., Pullan, S.E., Burns, R.A., Gagne, R.M., and Good, R.L., 1984. Shallow
seismic reflection mapping of the overburden-bedrock interface with the engineering
seismograph -
some simple techniques: Geophysics. 49, 1381-1385.

Inazaki, T., 1999, Land streamer: a new system for high-resolution S-wave shallow
reflection surveys: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Environmental
and Engineering Problems,
Expanded Abstracts, 207-216.

Keiswetter. D.A., and Steeples, D.W.. 1995, A field investigation of source parameters
for the sledgehammer: Geophysics. 60, 1051-1057.
 119 References

Kim, J. S., Moon, W. M., Lodha, G., Serzu. M. and Soonawala, N., 1994, Imaging of
reflection seismic energy for mapping shallow fracture zones in crystalline rocks:
Geophysics, 59, 753-765.

Knapp. R.W., and Steeples, D.W., 1986a, High-resolution common depth point seismic
profiling: Instrumentation: Geophysics, 51, 276-282.

Knapp. R.W., and Steeples, D.W.. 1986b. High-resolution common-depth-point

reflection profiling: Field acciuisition parameter design: Geophysics, 51, 283-294.

Kourkafas, P. and Goulty, N. R., 1996, Seismic reflection imaging of gypsum mine
workings at Sherburn-in-Elmet, Yorkshire. England: European Journal of
Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 1, 53-63.

Krohn, CE., 1984. Geophone ground coupling: Geophysics, 49, 722-731.

Kruppenbach, J.A., and Bedendbender, J.W., 1975, Towed land cable: US patent no.

3923121.

Kruppenbach, J.A., and Bedendbender, J.W., 1976, Towed land cable: Us patent no.

3954154.

Lanz, E., Pugin, A., Green, A. G. and tlorstmeyer, H., 1996, Results of 2- and 3-D high-
resolution seismic reflection surveying of surficial sediments: Geophysical Research
Letters, 23, 491-494.

Lehmann, F., 1999, Automation in 3D georadar investigations: New acquisition and

processing techniques: Dissertation ETH-Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
No. 13007.

Lehmann, F., and Green, A.G., 1999, Semiautomated georadar data acquisition in three
dimensions: Geophysics, 64, 719-731.

LEICA, 1998, User Manuel: TPS-System 1000: Leica AG.

Liberty, L., 1998. Seismic reflection imaging of a geothermal aquifer in an urban setting:
Geophysics, 63, 1285-1294

Liner, C.L., Underwood. W.D., and Gobeli, R., 1999, 3D seismic survey design as an

optimization problem: The Leading Edge, 18, 1054-1060.

Mair, J.A., and Green, A.G., 1981, High-resolution seismic reflection profiles reveal
fracture zones within a '"homogeneous" granite batholith: Nature, 294. 439-442.

Maurer, H.R., and Boerner, D.E., 1998a, Optimized design of geophysical experiments:
The Leading Edge, 18, 1119-1125.

Maurer, H.R., and Boerner, D.E.. 1998b, Geophysical survey design: Get the most for
the least!: 67th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics.
Expanded Abstracts, 78-81.
REFERENCES 120

McCann, D.M., Andrew, E.M., and McCann, C, 1985. Seismic sources for shallow
reflection surveying: Geophysical Prospecting, 33, 943-955.

Menke, W., 1989. Geophysical data analysis: Discrete inverse theory, Academic Press
Inc. Orlando, U.S.A.

Milkereit, B. and Green, A. G., 1992. Geometry of the Sudbury structure from seismic

reflection profiling: Geology. 20. 807-811.

Milkereit, B., Berrer, E.K., Watts, A., and Roberts, B., 1997,
Development of 3D seismic
exploration technology for Ni-Cu deposits, Sudbury basin: in Proceedings of
Exploration 97: Fourth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration,
edited by A.G. Gubins, 439-448.

Miller, R.D., Pullan, S.E., Waldner, J.S., and Haeni. F.P., 1986, Field comparison of
shallow seismic sources: Geophysics, 51, 2067-2092.

Miller, R. D. and Steeples, D. W., 1986, Shallow structure from a seismic-reflection

profile across Borah Peak, Idaho, fault scarp: Geophysical Research Letters, 13,
953-956.

Miller, R. D., Steeples, D. W., Somanas, C. and Paul, B., 1988a, Detecting voids in a 0.6
m coal seam, 7 m deep, using seismic reflection: 58th Annual International Meeting,
Society of Exploration Geophysics, Expanded Abstracts. ENG 1.7.

Miller, R. D., Steeples, D. W., Treadway, J. A. and Hinschberger, S. T., 1988b, Seismic
survey over a topographic scarp in the Snake River Plain: Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 78,
299-307.

Miller, R. D., Steeples, D. W. and Myers, P. B., 1990, Shallow seismic-reflection survey
across the Meers fault, Oklahoma: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 102, 18-25.

Miller, R. D. and Steeples, D. W.. 1991, Detecting voids in a 0.6-m coal seam, 7 m deep,
using seismic reflection: Geoexploration, 28, 109-119.

Miller, R.D., Pullan, S.E., Steeples, D.W., and blunter, J.A., 1992, Field comparison of
shallow seismic sources near Chino, California: Geophysics, 57. 693-709.

Miller, R.D., Pullan, S.E., Steeples, D.W., and Hunter, J.A.. 1994. Field comparison of
shallow P-wave seismic sources near Houston, Texas: Geophysics, 59. 1713-1728.

Miller. R. D., Xia, J., Charles, C. Daniel, I., Haeni, F. P., Frederick, P. and Cardinell, A.,
1995« Delineation of near-surface paleochannel using shallow seismic reflection

techniques: 65th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics,

Expanded Abstracts. 394-397.

Miller, R.D., Hancock, W.E., Xia, J., 1996. High-resolution seismic survey at Mud
Mountain Dam, Washington: 28th Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America,

Expanded Abstracts, 524.

 121 References

Myers, P. B., Miller, R. W. and Steeples, D. W., 1987, Shallow seismic-reflection profile
of the Meers fault, Comache County. Oklahoma: Geophysical Research Letters, 14,
749-752.

Nijhof, V, 1989, Portable, high-frequency vibrator for high-resolution shallow seismic

profiling: 59th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics.
Expanded Abstracts, 670.

Pakiser, L. C. and Warrick, R. E., 1956. A preliminary evaluation of the shallow

reflection seismograph: Geophysics, 21, 388-405.

Park, C.B., Miller, R.D., and Xia, J., 1999, Multichannel analysis of surface waves:

Geophysics: 64, 800-808.

Pretorius, C.C., Trewick. W.F., and Irons, C. 1997, Application of 3-D seismics to mine

planning at vaal reefs gold mine, number of 10 shaft. Republic of South Africa: in

Proceedings of Exploration 97: Fourth Decennial International Conference on

Mineral Exploration, edited by A.G. Gubins, 399-408.

Pullan, S. E. and Hunter, J. A., 1985, Seismic model studies of the overburdendjedrock
reflection: Geophysics, 50, 1684-1688.

Pullan, S.E., and MacAulay, H.A., 1985, A new source for engineering seismic surveys:
55th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics, Expanded
Abstracts, 168-170.

Pullan, S.E., and MacAulay, H.A., 1987, An in-hole shotgun source for engineering
seismic surveys: Geophysics, 50, 1684-1688.

Pullan, S.E., and Hunter, J.A,, 1990, Delineation of buried bedrock valleys using the
optimum-offset shallow seismic reflection technique, in Ward, S., Ed., Geotechnical
and Environmental Geophysics, Volume III: Geotechnical: Society of Exploration
Geophysics, 89-97.

Robertson, J.O.A., Blanch, J.O.. and Symes, W.W., 1994, Viscoelastic finite difference
modeling: Geophysics, 59, 75-87.

Robertson, J.O.A., Holliger, K., and Green, A.G., 1996a, Source generated noise in
shallow seismic data: European Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics, 1, 107-124.

Robertson, J.O.A., Holliger, K.., Green, A.G., Pugin, A., Delaco. R., 1996b, Effects of
near-surface waveguides on shallow high-resolution seismic refraction and
reflection data: Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 495-498.

Roth, M.. Holliger, K., and Green. A.G., 1998, Guided waves in near-surface seismic
surveys: Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 1071-1074.
References 122

Roth, M., and FloUiger, K., 1999, A strategy for the inversion of source-generated noise
in high-resolution seismic data: The Leading Edge, in press.

Ruskey, F., 1981, High-resolution seismic methods for hard-rock mining: Information
Circular 8891, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 4-28.

Sallas, J.J., 1984, Seismic vibrator control and the down going P-wave: Geophysics, 49,
732-940.

Sattel, G., Frey, P. and Amberg, R., 1992. Prediction ahead of the tunnel face by seismic
methods -

pilot project in Centovalli Tunnel. Locarno, Switzerland: First Break, 10,

19-27.

Schneider, G.W., and Vanderkooy, J., 1996. A vibratory system for high-resolution
applications: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Environmental and

Engineering Problems, Expanded Abstracts. 181-188.

Shérif, R.E., and Geldart, L.P., 1995, Exploration Seismology: Cambridge University
Press.

Shtivelman, V, Frieslander, U., Zilberman. E. and Amit, R., 1998, Mapping shallow
faults at the Evrona playa site using high-resolution reflection method: Geophysics,
63, 1257-1264.

Siahkoohi, H.R., and West, G.F., 1998, 3D seismic imaging of complex structures in

glacial deposits: Geophysics, 63, 1041-1052.

Singh, S., 1983, A study of shallow reflection seismics for a placer-tin reserve evaluation
and mining: Geoexplor., 21, 105-135.

Singh, S., 1984a, Shallow seismic reflections with a propane-oxygen detonator:

Geoexplor., 22, 89-105.

Singh, S., 1984b, High-frequency shallow seismic reflection mapping in tin mining:
Geophysical Prospecting, 32, 1033-1044.

Singh, S., 1986, Reflection-window mapping of shallow bedrock: Geophysical

Prospecting, 34, 492-507.

Smith, W.H.F., and Wessel, P., 1990, Gridding with continuous curvature spline
inclusion: Geophysics, 55, 293-305.

Sorensen, K.I., 1996. Pulled array continuous electrical profiling: First Break, 14, 85 90.

Spitzer, R., van der Veen. M., Nitsche, F.O., Horstmeyer, H., and Green, A.G., 1998.
Designing three-dimensional shallow seismic surveys: 67th Annual International
Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics. Expanded Abstracts, 54-57.
 123 References

Steeples, D.W., andKnapp, R.W., 1982. Reflections from 25 feet or less: 52nd Annual
International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysics, Expanded Abstracts,
469-471.

Steeples, D.W., 1984, High-resolution seismic reflections at 200 Hz: Oil and Gas
Journal, 82, 86-92.

Steeples, D. W., Knapp, R. W. and McElwec, C. D., 1986, Seismic reflection

investigations of sinkholes beneath Interstate Highway 70 in Kansas: Geophysics,
51,295-301.

Steeples, D.W., and Miller, R.D., 1990, Seismic reflection methods applied to

engineering, environmental and groundwater problems, in Ward, S., Ed.,

Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. I: Review and Tutorial: Society
of Exploration Geophysics, 1-30.

Steeples, D.W., Schmeissner, CM., and Macy, B.K., 1995, The evolution of shallow
seismic exploration methods: Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics. 0, 15-25.

Steeples, D.W., Green, A.G., McEvilly, T., Miller, R.D., Doll, W.E., and Rector, J.W.,
1997. A workshop examination of shallow seismic reflection surveying: The

Leading Edge, 11, 1641-1647.

Steeples. D. W. and Miller, R.

D., 1998, Avoiding pitfalls in shallow seismic reflection
surveys: Geophysics, 63, 1213-1224.

Steeples, D.W., Baker, G.S., Schmeissner, and Macy, B.K., 1999, Geophones on aboard:
Geophysics, 64, 809-814.

Stephenson, W. J., Smith, R, B. and Pelton, J. R., 1993. A high-resolution seismic

reflection and gravity survey of Quarternary deformation across the Wasatch Fault,
Utah: J. Geophys. Res., 98, 8211-8223.

Stevenson, F., and Durrheim, R.J., 1997, Reflection seismic for gold, platinum and base
metal exploration and mining in South Africa: //; Proceedings of Exploration 97:
Fourth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration, edited by A.G.
Gubins, 391-398.

Treadway, J. A., Steeples, D. W. and Miller, R. D., 1988, Shallow seismic study of fault
scarp near Borah Peak, Idaho: Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, 6325-6337.

van der Veen, M. and Green, A. G., 1998. Land streamer for shallow seismic data
acquisition: Evaluation of gimbal mounted geophones: Geophysics, 63, 1408-1413.

van der Veen, M., Brouwer, J., and Helbig, K., 1999a, Weighted sum method for
evaluating ground force: An evaluation by using a portable vibrator system:
Geophysical Prospecting. 47, 251-267.
References 124

van der Veen, M., Buness. H.A., Büker, F., and Green, A.G.. 1999b, Evaluation of high-
frequency seismic sources for
imaging shallow (19-250 m) structures: Journal of
Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, submitted.

Whiteley, R. J., Hunter, J. A., Pullan, S. E., and Nutalaya, P., 1998, "Optimum offset"
seismic reflection mapping "
of shallow aquifers near Bangkok, Thailand:
Geophysics, 63, 1385-1394.

Wiederhold, H.. Buness, H., and Bram, K., 1998, Glacial structures in northern Germany
revealed by a high-resolution reflection seismic survey: Geophysics, 63, 1265-1272.

Yilmaz, O., 1987, Seismic data processing: Society of Exploration Geophysics.

Ziolkowski, A. and Lerwill, W. E., 1979, A simple approach to high-resolution seismic

profiling for coal: Geophysical Prospecting, 27, 360-393.

Ziolkowski, A., 1980, Source array scaling for wavelet deconvolution: Geophysical
Prospecting, 28, 902-918.
 Acknowledgments

This thesis would never have been written without the generous support of many

people. My gratitude to all who helped making this research project a success.

First of all, 1 would like to thank Prof. Alan Green for his help and encouragements

throughout this PhD project. I appreciate the extra effort he undertook to help me

meeting the final deadline. This thesis benefited substantially from his advice. 1 am

happy to have had the opportunity to work in the challenging but friendly ETH
environment. I thank my co-examiners Dr. Susan Pullan (Geological Survey of Canada),

Dr. Klaus Holliger and Dr. Hansruedi Maurer (ETH-Ziirich) for their contributions in

reviewing and examining this thesis and Ralf Gross and Heinrich Horstmeyer for

translating the abstract.

For the evaluation of (Chapter 3), GGA-Institute of Joint
seismic sources

Geoscientific Research (Germany) kindly provided their recently developed vibrator

system. 1 thank Hermann Buness for the cooperation and his colleagues Sigfried
Grtineberg and Günther Druivenga for field assistance. The land-streamer system was
developed in cooperation with a commercial company (Sensor NL. BV, The
Netherlands). The expertise of Peter Maxwell and Diederik Schrijvers was of great help.
I thank Peter Wild for the technical support and Roman Spitzer for his contributions to
the 3D computer simulations using the land-streamer system (Chapter 4).

1 am very grateful to all my colleagues of the Group of Applied and Environmental

Geophysics for their encouragements and help. In particular I would like to mention
Frank Lehmann and Peter Wild: I enjoyed working in this small team.

En tenslotte nog mijn ouders. Siska en Yvonne, want dat wat tovanzelfsprekend lijkt
mag niet onuitgesproken blijven: bedankt voor alle steun en hulp die ik heb mögen

ontvangen, op wat voor een manier dan ook. In het bijzonder Yvonne voor haar

ondersteuning. Ze was er gewoon, altijd. Ik hoop dat ik binnenkort een proefschrift van

jouw in mijn handen heb.

Ik draag dit proefschrift op aan Siska en Yvonne.

'Mensen Bedankt"

Michiel van der Veen

Zürich, November, 1999

 /
I
 Curriculum Vitae

Personal

Name: Michiel Minne van der Veen

Date of Birth: 15.10.72

Place of birth Den-Helder (The Netherlands)

Nationality: Dutch

Education

1992-1996 M.Sc. in Geophysics (with honors), Utrecht University, the

Netherlands.

1991-1992 Propaedeutics in Geophysics, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

1985-1991 Secondary education, VWO (pre-university level), Den-Helder, the

Netherlands.

1977-1985 Primary education, Den-Helder. the Netherlands.

Bibliography

Papers
van der Veen, M., Spitzer. R., Wild, P.B., and Green, A.G., 1999, Design and application
of a land-streamer system for cost-effective 2D and pseudo-3D shallow seismic data
acquisition: Geophysics, submitted.

van der Veen, M., Buness, H., Büker, F., and Green, A.G., 1999, Evaluation of high-fre¬
quency seismic sources imaging shallow (10-250 m)
for structures: Journal of Envi¬
ronmental and Engineering Geophysics, submitted.
van der Veen, M., Brouwer, J., and Helbig, K., 1999, Weighted sum method for calculat¬
ing ground force: An evaluation by using a portable vibrator system: Geophysical

Prospecting, 47, 251-267.

van der Veen, M., and Green, A.G. 1998, Land streamer for shallow seismic data acqui¬
sition: evaluation of gimbal-mounted geophones: Geophysics, 63, 1408-1413.

Expanded Abstracts
van der Veen, M., Wild. P., Spitzer, R., and Green, A.G. 1999. Design characteristics of a
seismic land streamer for shallow data acquisition: 61st Annual Meeting of the Euro¬

pean Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE). Helsinki (Finland).

Curriculum Vitae 128

Maurer. H., van der Veen, M., Giudici. J., and Springmann, S., 1999, Determining elastic
soil properties at small strains: Exp. Abst., 12th AnnualSymposium on the Applica¬
tions of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems (SAGEEP), Oak¬
land (USA).

van der Veen. M., Buness, H., Büker, F., Lehmann, and F. Green, A.G, 1998, High-fre¬
quency sources in shallow seismic experiments: Exp. Abst., 11th Annual Sympo¬
sium the Applications of Geophysics Environmental and
on to Engineering
Problems (SAGEEP), Chicago (USA).
Spitzer, R., van der Veen. M., Nitsche, F.O., Horstmeyer, H., and Green, A.G, 1998,
Designing three-dimensional shallow seismic surveys: Exp. Abst., 67th Annual
Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), New Orleans (USA).
Lehmann, F., van der Veen, M., and Green, A.G, 1998, True 2-D georadar migration of
data taking into account
topographic corrections: Exp. Abst., 11th Annual Sympo¬
sium on the Applications of Geophysics to Environmental and
Engineering Prob¬
lems (SAGEEP), Chicago (USA).
van der Veen, M., Lehmann, F.. Wild, P., Green., A.G, 1997, An efficient technique for
shallow high-resolution seismic data
acquisition: Preliminary results. Exp. Abst., 3rd
annual meeting of the EEGS European section, Aarhus (Denmark).
van der Veen, M., Lehmann, F., Wild, P., and Green., A.G., 1997, Improvements in high-
resolution seismic and georadar acquisition techniques: Exp. Abst., 59th Annual
Meeting of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE),
Geneva (Switzerland).

Lehmann, F., van der Veen, M.,

Wild, P., and Green., A.G, 1997, Automated three
dimensional georadar acquisition: Exp. Abst., 66th Annual Meeting of the Society of
Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), Dallas (USA).
Lehmann, F., 7 ?
van der Veen, M.. Wild, P., and Green., A.G, 1997, Three dimensional geo-
, - " " "
•• f 7
£?

radar acquisition with a real time

positioning system: Exp. Abst., 3rd Annual Meet¬
ing of the EEGS-European section, Aarhus (Denmark).
van der Veen, M., Brouwer, J., and Helbig, K., 1996. The Interaction of vibratory sources
with the ground: Exp. Abst., 58th Annual Meeting of the
European Association of
Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Amsterdam (the Netherlands).
 Appendix A

Overview of High-Frequency

Sources for Shallow Seismic

Experiments

A.l Introduction

This appendix provides brief descriptions of most of the energy sources employed in
shallow seismic experiments today. Some are often used, whereas other sources are
used. All information is based literature and/or company brochures. The
rarely on

ranges: very shallow (<50 m), shallow

expected applicability is given for different depth
(50-150 m), and intermediate (> 150 m).

A.2 Impulsive Sources

Air Gun

Source type: shothole/surface

Principle: chamber is filled with high pressure air. Sudden release

of air results in a pulse. Source may be used in water
filled borehole or water filled vessels at the surface

Depth range: very shallow to deep

Advantages: high repetition rate

Disadvantages'. need for air chambers;

Literature: McCann et al. (1985); Doll et al, (1998)
Appendix A 130

Explosives
Source type: shothole

Principle: detonating explosive charges

Depth range: shallow -
intermediate

Advantages: depending on charge size high frequency;

energetic
Disadvantages: relatively expensive;
labor intensive;
environmental problems
Literature: Miller el al. (1986, 1992, 1994); Herbst et al. (1998)

Mini Sosie

Source type: surface

Principle: earth tamper hits surface resulting in random impulse

series

Depth range: shallow -

intermediate

Advantages: high repetition rate;

relatively inexpensive
Disadvantages: operational noise;
correlationrequired
Literature: Mair and Green (1981); Green and Mair (1983);
Knapp and Steeples (1986b); Doll et al. (1998)

Piezo Electric

Source type: surface

Principle: piezoccramic transducer generates high-voltage

discharge impulse
Depth range: very shallow
-
shallow

Advantages: high frequency

Disadvantages: power supply awkward
very small source (i.e., low energy);
Literature: Miller et al. (1986)
 131 Seismic Sources Overview

Pipegun / Buffalo gun

Source type: shothole

Principle: detonation of blank cartridges in a shallow shothole

Depth range: shallow -

intermediate
Advantages: portable;
energetic depending on shells used;
robust

Disadvantages: drilling shotholes is labor intensive

Literature: Pullan andMacAulay (1985, 1987); Miller et al.
(1986, 1992, 1994. 1996); Doll et al. (1998); Herbst et
al. (1998); Wiederhold et al. (1998); van der Veen et al.

(1999b).

Sledgehammer

Source type: surface

Principle: sledgehammer hits a metal baseplate
Depth range: very shallow -

intermediate
Advantages: high frequency depending on surface condition
efficient field handling;

inexpensive
Disadvantages: relatively strong airwave;
limited energy output
Literature: Miller et al. (1986, 1992. 1994); Keiswetter and
Steeples (1995); Büker et al. (1998a); Doll et al.
(1998); Herbst et al. (1998); van der Veen et al.
(1999b)

Sparker

Source type: shothole

Principle: discharge of a capacitor bank results in a spark

between an electrode and a metal casing
Depth range: very shallow -
shallow
Advantages; high frequency;
repetitive signals
Disadvantages: power supply awkward;
need for saltwater-filled hole/container
Literature: McCann et al. (1985); Miller et al. (1986)
Appendix A 132

Weightdrop Systems

Source type: surface

Principle: a weight is artificially accelerated toward the ground

Depth range: shallow -
intermediate

Advantages: high repetition rate;

energetic
Disadvantages: heavy;
operational noise;
generation of relatively strong airwaves
Literature: Miller et al. (1986, 1992, 1994); Doll et al. (1998);
Ghose et al. (1998); Herbst et al. (1998); van der Veen
étal. (1999b)

A.3 Vibratory Sources

Acoustic Speaker

Source type: surface

Principle: acoustic signals are generated with a speaker system
Depth range: very shallow
Advantages: very high frequency:
bandwidth control;

high repetition rate

Disadvantages: correlation required;

ground coupling;
relatively strong airwaves;
low energy
Literature: Herbst ct al. (1998)

GGA Vibrator

Source type: surface

Principle; hydraulically driven vibrator system. Synthetic pilot
sweep is used as reference signal for correlation

Frequency range: 16-500 Hz

Depth Range: shallow -
intermediate

Advantages: high-Frequency;
energetic
Disadvantages: correlation/deconvolution required;
reference signals for correlation not consistently
accurate;

problems in rugged terrains

Literature: Buness et al. U997): van der Veen et al. (1999b)
 133 Seismic Sources Overview

IVI Vibrator

Source type: surface

Principle: hydraulically driven vibrator system. System may be

mounted on a trailer. Commonly water filled tanks are

used as hold down weight

Frequency range: 15-550 Hz

Depth range: shallow -

intermediate
Advantages: can be set up to generate either P- or S-waves;
high-frequency;
energetic
Disadvantages: correlation/deconvolution required;
problems in rugged terrains
Literature: Miller et al. (1996); Doll ct al. (1998)

OYO Vibrator

Source type: surface

Principle: electro-magnetic driven vibrator. System is controlled
by a PC. Accelerometers mounted on base plate and
reaction mass can be used to reconstruct reference
signals.
Frequency range: 25-1500 Hz
Depth range: very shallow -
shallow

Advantages: portable;
bandwidth control;

high frequency;
recording of accurate
ground force signal
Disadvantages: correlation/deconvolution required;
limited energy;

power supply awkward

Literature: Nijhof (1989); Doll et al. (1998); Ghose et al.(1998);
Herbst et al. (1998); Van der Veen et al. (1999b)

Y-1100 A Vibrator

Source type: surface

Principle: hydraulically driven vibrator system.

Frequency range: 10-100 Hz
Depth range: intermediate
Advantages: energetic
Disadvantages: correkition/deconvolution required;
large weight of 18.000 kg;
low frequency
Literature: Doll et al. (1998).
Appendix A 134

i
 Appendix B

Field Effort for 2D Profiling:

Land-Streamer System Versus

Traditional Approach

Inchapter 4, the field effort of the land-streamer system was compared with that of
traditionalapproaches (Figure 4.3). These evalations were completed for the two
example profiles I and II in Table 4.1. The first profile was aimed at obtaining very high-
resolution data with 1 m source and 1 m receiver spacing, whereas the second profile
consisted of fewer shot points and 2 m source and 2 m receiver spacing. Since

acquisition times depended strongly on the type of source used (e.g., surface versus
downhole), evaluations were made for recordings with the commonly used
sledgehammer and pipegun.
Detailed estimates of the field effort needed for recording the 480 m long CMP
sections given
are in Table B.l. In
general, line
preparation and deployment and retrieval
of geophones and cables are the most time consuming aspects of traditional
suiveys.
Using a pipegun increases significantly the required field effort. For an efficient shallow
seismic survey on land, a field crew of 5-6 is needed: one operating the recording
person
equipment, two persons managing the seismic source, two geophone/cahle layers and, if

necessary, person handling

one the auger. For a comparable land-streamer
survey, only
three to four field personnel are required: as for the traditional survey, but the opeiator
doubles as the driver of the towing vehicle and the geophone/cable layers are not
required.
Appendix B 136

Table B.l: Field effort for acquiring 480 m long seismic reflection profiles with (i) land-
end-on geometry with leap-frog roll-
streamer system and (ii) conventional technique using
along scheme (Table 4.1). Estimates are based on field experience.

Total Person' Hours in

—, CN
m,
—i
cr-
CN
î
«N
en

i
in
SD
1
î i i 1

«3
^o
&« >^ s»
V.
^
i»

Total Time en
CN
( i -H
>n

en
CN

l
CN
CN
!
'n
»n
i<n
in

1 ! (

13
2 c
"o o m o CI -* in \o en ^t"

E s
Ü
Cm

a. Si
s ui s-,

-E rC3 w
^ .3
5 c
U~> m,
m m
~-~
in in

i—' -~- t ! Ö Ö
< t î (
U î !

u ,
Si

LOtHol repar ¬ tion

Si Si

s
-H -C .5 i ] J3
_H
î D o j CN ô ! VQ
Ö 1
VQ o

7- 7
'—'

s 7-
—i

( \
î l
-5 Cm

«-.

o Si zz
:^ t^
s>
rF 'S, w M. 7> ZZ S Si ~ZZ Si u
jC
-C —
— .H -C
J3 — ~
-c — J5 ~
r^ ^ is
o VC o
i2 P oo 9: m
50
5 en vo
oo
en
-t
VD
oo
en
j ?
! i
^H
|

s
s .

s
V3 Si

Total eposi- oning Time

U, u
i:
-C
m
CN ö in m in en
in o m Ö
en en ri en ol en
o ö
Ö
•

en en in] —; in en en
te -
w C ! w'
! i
î !

O i «
— Tî &D
CN CN

#Cab Repos tionin,

m IT) ON On
oo 1> r-
en en

^ s.
Vî Si s.
i
RS s J3 U
-C sz
S> fa c
U. i -G

.£ S, o in
in in in in
CN CN
ö
;
ö
) î !
Cm 7 7 !

U
c !

3 3 3 o
o
s
C. u.
50 S SB so 50 £ bO Su SJj
t/l 3 T3 O T5 r- o T3 r- O TD ps Cu)
s O S
13 Cl.
'3 °
So Jj £ c/3 2 p

60
c
W)
'3 c
«s
O
'5 5

Cm
p b

g« « Tl U a s -a S
S S "S g S-'3 -3 S S 7 u 3- 3
ri £ S "Ï
-4 d 3
W 6, ^ o H < J S Pm M - J
 xVJl JT \jL\ \-J jLjl\. \^y

Non-Uniform Receiver Geometries

In chapter 4, land-streamer configurations with non-uniform receiver geometries

were introduced. Deploying such streamers would reduce the costs of the land-streamer

system and the weight to be pulled. By adapting short receiver intervals at near offsets
and longer intervals at far offsets, shallow reflections could be identified and
mapped
faithfully, and reliable velocity functions could be determined over the entire depth
range. Consequences of these non-uniform receiver configurations were variations in
subsurface coverage and source-receiver offsets for adjacent bins (Figure 4.5). Here, 1

explain briefly the origin of these effects and show their implication on the streamer
geometries used in Chapter 4.

Simple land-streamer geometries displayed stacking diagram (Figure C.l) may

in a

be used to explain the occurrence of variations in subsurface coverage and source-

receiver offsets. Eight successive source locations are shown for the following two
receiver configurations: (i) uniform streamer 8 geophones spaced at 1 m intervals, and
-

(ii) non-uniform streamer 8 geophones

-
with the first 4 spaced at 1 m intervals and the

remaining at 2 m intervals. Two typical adjacent CMP locations are marked with solid
and dashed vertical lines in Figure C.l. The uniform streamer provides a CMP spacing of
0.5 m with a regular subsurface coverage of 4. For the non-uniform streamer in

Figure C.lb, the CMP spacing continues to be 0.5 m, but alternating CMP bins have
subsurface coverages of 2 (solid line) and 6 (dashed line). The alternating CMP's

resulting from the non-uniform geometries contain traces from different source-receiver
offset ranges. For example, the 2-fold CMP gathers (solid line) provide offsets of 2 m
and 4 m, whereas the higher fold CMP locations (dashed line) include traces with offsets

ranging from 1 to 11 m.
The subsurface coverage and source-receiver offset distributions provided by the
land-streamer geometries discussed in
Chapter (Figure C.2) are
4 in illustrated

Figures C.3 and C.4. Uniform geometry yields a CMP spacing of 0.5 m with a nominal
fold of 48 (Figure C.3a and C.3b). This configurations supplies CMP's with regular
source-receiver offset distributions (Figure C.3c). Minimum and maximum offsets are
Appendix C 138

1 and 95, and 2 and 96 m in alternating CMP gathers. For the non-uniform streamer, the
CMP spacing continues to be 0.5 m, whereas subsurface coverage is highly irregular
(Figure C.4a). Detailed views of CMP positions 250-255 m demonstrate that
alternating
CMP bins have subsurface coverages of 12 and 48 (Figure C.4b). Corresponding
maximum source-receiver offsets are 24 and 96 m for the low- and high-fold bins,

respectively.

Although non-uniform streamer geometries may be adapted to reduce the costs and
weight of the land-streamer system without a significant loss of data quality (Chapter 4),
the following important aspects have to be considered:

•
only CMP gathers with long source-receiver offsets should be used for

velocity analyses (e.g., CMP locations 251.5, 252,5, 253.5 m in

Figure C.4b, etc.);

• the presence of numerous traces with short offsets (i.e., <24 m) on all
CMP gathers will result in shallow images comparable to data recorded

with uniform streamers;

•
compared to data sets recorded with uniform streamers, the lack of long
offsets on alternating CMP gathers will result in marginally lower image
quality in the deeper part of the non-uniform streamer data sets.
 139 Non-Uniform Geometry

1 m
.Fold Coverage = 4

y y y -y--y- «... 1
-VI
y
</)

A
.,
y
....

y... y Y T" T
V
7
1 2

y T" "T" T
r

F
!
, v
* q
y

y~ —y " W
T ' • T T * 4

y T y T * 5

y-jf--y—y—y--¥- w.
-y )f 6

y y y~-y--y--y—y >f 7

y y y _y_-y—y—y >f- 8

(a) Uniform Streamer

i i i ,,

kR

2 m 1
4 >. "I .Fold Coverage = 2
y, :qt—y~-y- ^
/ V FolcJ
y y y
Covera9e = 6

V W V Vr *
.. T Y T Y t T^

y
w iri w >J "5
T T T T

w „w n \w \ w w ^ /I
y t i Y"

w .v j" w : «r œ -m ^J C
Y
....

Y T T Y ,
Y y y ^- vj

r w ! »
W W W V R
T 1

w ! W W W V w \i ~*
T
' ' '

T T t T Y T T -r"" /

1t -*_ -J

(b) Non-Uniform Streamer

1 1 1 L 1

Figure C.l: Surface diagram of simple 8-channel land-streamer geometries: (a)

uniform streamer with 8 receivers at 1 m intervals; (b) non-uniform streamer with
the first 4 receivers spaced at 1 m and the
remaining at 2 m intervals. Triangles and
stars mark receivers and sources respectively. Solid/dashed lines indicate CMP

positions and subsurface fold of adjacent bins.

Appendix C 140

« -— -
AR=1 m——— »

I 1 1 1 1 \ 1 !
96 72 48 24

Source-Receiver Offset (m)

(a) Uniform Streamer

< ——

AR=2 m —
—«- AR=1 m ->

I 1 j 1 j p,
96 72 48 24
Source-Receiver Offset (m)

(b) Non-Uniform Streamer

Figure C.2: Streamer acquisition geometries used in Chapter 4. (a) Uniform streamer
comprising 96 receivers at 1 m intervals, (b) Non-uniform streamer with 24 near offset

traces at 1 m intervals and the furthest 36 receivers at 2 m intervals. Minimum and

maximum source-receiver offsets for both geometries 1 and 96 m,
were respectively.
 141 Non-Uniform Geometry

1 ! i i i i i

0)

60
V-

0J
>
O t
o
0
40 /
o /
KS /
t: /
3 /

J2
20 /
3 /

/
c/>

(a)
0 i,, i „„,)„,. i

0 50 100 150 250 "--.^ 300 350

CMP Position (m)

-A
I ] ! I I 1

a>
D)
60 -

2
ai
>
o
o 40
d)
o
(0

3
W
20 -

3
to
i l„... I I„
(b)
, . , , ,, I I 1 1

250 251 252 253 254 255

CMP Position (m)

-•••»<•<

251 • *-»<*«*•••*#• < « « • a

• •«*•••••••••*<

ê 252 • • • • * • ••••«-#.•••••<

'55
o
Qu ••*••• • ••*»••*#•

O 253 • •••••••<

• * » * « « « « « «

254 -•«••-è*»««ê«***« • *•••*•»««-**»

J7ç)
20 40 60 80 100

Source-Receiver Offset (m)

Figure C.3: (a) Subsurface fold for all CMP locations along profile resulting from
acquisition with uniform land-streamer configuration Figure C.2a.
m Survey
consists of 262 source positions (b) Details of subsurface fold at CMP locations
250-255 m (c) Source-receiver offset distribution for identical CMP locations m

(b)
Appendix C 142

0 50 100 150 250 300 350

CMP Position (m)

250 251 252 253 254 255

CMP Position (m)

<•••••••• • •••••' • •»«*«

J, 251 •*+••••***

g '«-••••••••••-< • *#•**#-###**•'

W
o
a. 252
a.

o • -»«••••••••<

253 • **»-•••

254 •»•*-•*»••#*(

(c)
20 40 60 80 100

Source-Receiver Offset (m)

Figure C.4: As for Figure C.3, but for acquisition with non-uniform streamer in

Figure C.2b.
 Appendix D

Technical Details Seismic Land

Streamer
Append rx D 144

Figure D.l: Schematic and technical details of the gimbal-mounted geophone.

Gimbal Geophone Unit

Diameter 45 mm

Length 185 mm

Weight 1000 g

Manufacturer Sensor NL BV

Rouwkooplaan 8
2251 AP Voorschoten
Netherlands

tel. 31-71-561 3941

SM-7 Velocity Sensor

Natural Frequency 30 Hz

Typical Spurious frequency > 500 Hz

Open circuit damping for 375 ohm coil 0.65 Ohm

Standard resistance 370 Ohm

Sensitivity with 375 ohm coil 12.8V/m/s

Diameter 25 mm

Height 32 mm

Weight 74 g

Cable Length 0 5 m

Operating temperature range -40 to 100 deg. C

Guarantee with normal use 2 yrs

 145 Technical Details Land Streamer

Figure D.2: Technical details towed land-streamer sytem

Lead-in Cable -
connects

recorder to active par of the line

Description I/O #BC-1029 cable, 96 twisted pair, 26 AWG, water

blocked filled, 1700# stress member.

One end terminated with Titan II 201 marine connector,
other end terminated with 4 2 DR22-55 connectors, via
an Y-mould.

Number of modules 2

Length 25 m

Seismic CMP Cable - 12 m

Description I/O #BC-1029 cable, 96 twisted pair, 26 AWG, water

blocked filled, 1700# stress member.

Both ends terminated with a Titan II 201 marine

connector.

Takeouts 12 Dynacon Geo on-board take-outs at i m intervals

Number of modules 8

Seismic CMP Cable -

24 m

Description I/O #BC-1029 cable. 96 twisted pair, 26 AWG, water

blocked filled. 1700# stress member.
Both ends terminated with a Titan II 201 marine
connector.

Takeouts 12 Dynacon Geo on-board take-outs at 2 m intervals

Number of modules 4

Other Components
12 Spool pieces B-1969

4 Wrenches RM-1175

Manufacturer Sensor NL BV

Rouwkooplaan 8
2251 AP Voorschoten
Netherlands
tel. 31-71-56139 41
Contact Person: Mr. Diederik Schrijvers
Appendix D 146

Figure D.3: Technical details additional components towed land-streamer stystem

Rubber mat: 13 m(1) & 25 m(2)

Company Angst+Pfister. Thurgauerstrasse 66

8052 Zürich. Tel. of-306 6111

Artikel nr. 10 1102 9900 133718

Description Dipla Platte NR/SBR schwarz 70+- ShA

In der länge geklebt.
Toi. Din 7715 T5P2

Size(i) 13000.0 x 400.0 x 4.0 mm

Size (2) 25000.0 x 400.0 x 4.0 mm

Schlauchklemme

Company Angst+Pfister, Thurgauerstrasse 66

8052 Zurich. Tel. 01-306 61 11

Artikel nr. 06 5046 8065

Description ABA Edelstahl schlauchklemme

Klemmbereich 50-65 mm
 147 Technical Details Land Streamer

Figure D.4: Cable assembly drawing Lead-in cable (25 m).

CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING

NS^INPUT/OUTPUT, INC. CA-2960
[REV. A

SALES ORDER NO. DATE:

CUSTOMER:

NO. OF CABLES: LENGTH: 82'-1"-o- (25m) CABLE WT.: 32.15 lbs

CABLE TYPE: BC-1371-4 CABLE DESCRIPTION: ADAPTER CABLE

IAKE OUT TYPE:

NO. PER TRACE: NO. PER CABLE:

POLARITY

COLOR OF TAKE OUTS:

MULTIPLE TAKE OUT SPACING:

STAKEPOINT SPACING:
END "A" TO NEAREST TAKE OUT:

END "B" TO NEAREST TAKE OUT:

DRAWN: L.CANTU 2/1/99 CHK'D BY- DATE:

jQC CHK'D BY DATE:

PARTS LIST
PART NO. DESCRIPTION EACH TOTAL NET#
BC-1371-4 BULK CABLE (BLK JKT) 82-1 23!

B-21 68-2-750-1 CONN.. TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE, RED NUT 5 00

B-4299-375-4 CONN., 22/55S UNE, 375 HANDLE(BLK) 2.52

A-4118-4 OVERMOLD, "Y" MOLD .75

RM-1226 TUBING, PU, 3/8"x5/8" 6-7"

RM-0881 TUBING, PU, 1/+"x3/8" 13-2"

REVISIONS
LTR DATE BY CHKED.: DATE:

2/1/99 -ISL. ECN #90202F

SHT 1 OF 4
 >
-d

X
o

82'-r!J.(25ni)
CONN# 1 22/55S CONN 375 HANDLE
BLK NUT (CH# 1 THRU 24)

CONN; 2 22/55S CONN. 375 HANDLE

BLK NUT, {CH# 25 THRU 48)

Y MOLD (BLK)
3 HANDLE
-

TTTAN II 204 MARINE

CQNN# 22/55S CONN 375
BLK NUT, (CH# 49 THRU 72)
750 HANDLE, RED NUT 3/B-x5/S" PU TUBING-

CONN! 4 22/55S CONN 375 HANDLE

BLK NUT (CH# 73 THRU 96)

1
1 ACCUMULATIVE TOLERANCE NOT TO EXCEED +6"/-C
2 SS-171 CABLE PREP
3 SS-187 KEVLAR TERMINATION
4 SS-218 TAPING OF TITAN MARINE BOOT
5 SS-5B5 22/55S CONN TERMINATION 1>M Information hanon k tha proparty o

6 SS-247 "Y MOLD PROCEDURES gpgr/QtJipnrjML, without *****

yLT/XSV' MPUT/OUTPUTJNC. pu ii wlun, any coning, dsckuMra to
7 ES-137 CABLE MEASUREMENTS tan for wMch It
o&m, and any oKCapt
8 SEE FOR CUST NAME FOR ID looiad !# prehtWUd
S/0 UBEL
9 MOLDED ID LABEL 3-0" FROM "A" END TOLERANCES
10 SHRINK TUBE ID LABEL I -0" FROM 22/55 CONN pman jb
xptted}
WITH CONN# AND CHANNELfS
11 ES-177 FOR PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION CABLE LAYOUT
+/- XXXX .001
XXX .005'
XX .010'
L CANTU
COKCENTKiCmr
2/1/93
rm hams CA2
+/- 002"
CA-2960
+/- 1/2° Bkkit
a I 4 of 4
 149 Technical Details Land Streamer

CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING CA-2960

3®/ INPUT/OUTPUT, INC.

SALES ORDER NO. DATE:

ML ORG 31 1
£11 : :
-P-l :2
LT.GRN £12 : -^-JL
ÏEL_Ii G1
3 : :3 ~

TAN HI¬ J1 _S_

4 ; :4 JL
RED ^L NI 5 -

:5
J
JL
J—
.516 : 6 U
GRY -Sl- H-7 : :conn #1: : 7
N
~£'
DK.GRN-m~ V18 : :8 Ji_ s
-B3-
BLK
C3g
-

:9 j-jl
£UR J2i. £110: :10 -X__ w
AB£ £3-
LT.GRN Gill: ill
Jil2: :12
jAN_Ki Ü13: :13
REEL —

J«14: :14 _8_

BLU £3- £2.15: :15 f

GRY S3_ Ü16: :16 JtL_

IMM —

Vil7: :17
BLK. £5- D518; :18 -

_n_
JL PUR £5_ :19
S.19:
LT.GRN YEL Q5-
H52o: :20
TAN ^5-
K521: :21
BEQ.-1-5- M5
22= :22
BLU M5. £§-23= :23
GRY ßi £5.24: -z-
MALE L24 .AA.
DKG«N^- JJ5-25: :25 -A- b
BLK &L- _k_„
:26 a
PUR £2_ E
EZ.27: :27 F
YEL
IM.— _£_
H728- £8 H
jL_
KTgg: :29 K
BLU.-I-2- ÜZ3Q= :30 _L_ M
Jg.
GRY £131 : :31 JL P
DKGRN-R7- -S132: :32
R
S
BLrv12- UZ33; :CONN#2: :33 X_ U
pur£3_ £2_34: :34 V
W
TAN
iii-35: :35 JL Y
B1LlJ2- J«36: :36 _Z_ "
n

h
M937- :37
d
blg88~ £3-38= :38 e.

BUl.-82- -S9-39: :39

t
a.
ELtS.En. GU40: :40 Ji_
BEH BLU-till. JIHH 41
£1142: :42
dkgrnMJJ MJ43: :43 J2-
R11
44; :44
PUR SU
ÜL345 45
QUI GRY.J-Ü KL346 :46
DK.GRnLÜ M1347 :47
BLÜN13,Pj348-i _48
PUR tJH| .49 -^ JL.
Sfiïl dkwnLÜ
MU50=| FEMALE 50 .C_ D

SHT 2 OF 4
Appendix D 150

CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING CA-2960

E^/ INPUT/OUTPUT, INC.

SALES ORDER NO. DATE:

GRY
£U<_j-1Lku51 -

:51 E

PUrQ14h14RP- :52 JL.

L%3= :53
PURMJ2 NI :54
"'?54~
^_=^.—

fiLK PURÜÜL12SS- :55 JL.

:56 JL.
.
OGRNE12Gi257z :conn #3: :56 T.
.

yel_R£0si_c58= :58 JL.

X
.
TAN NlPpK^g- :59
fiEB.LlûM1030 = :60 zz^
JBUL^JCUfcl:: :61 _b_
.
gry 210j±LQS2z :62
-
K»^£l%3- :63
f
_3_
aUL]1-U864= :64
ßffiBa-SS..65= :65 X
ORG
lXGRNNS.p8.gÊ,= :66 JJD„
_n_

YE^La_M867- :67
iAbLia-m683 :68 r
-_s_
BEE. ^UB-oSz :69 t
-_u_
m^SLlQz :70 •
_w_
GRY
CS_D8_71 = :71
wç9înI6__u6 7or L72 -AL
blkBS-s6.73- :73 -JL
PUR N6_£674_ FEMALE :74 -JL
USES YEL.LS-£1675r :75 -JL
LAJlJfi-Jia.7é:xvit.76—
i'."1 7& JL H
RED £S- HR 77- :CONN #4; :77 K
se-üg_77z
RED

BLU
ES-£§_7gr :78 JL
£51^-06.79= :79 JL _EL
DK.GRNUA-\"-VLSU- :80 R s
im54-14 il 8i = :81 J_
fifiE^-JileSr :82 V.
W_
YEL
IAILM±.N4 83r :83 X
X.
RED KL i4 B4- :84 z
a

BLU Hi. :85 .£_

J4_Q5r
GRYEi.G4.gg.- :86 d
D^ULj^gy-- :87 £
-T--9-
BLK.ËL ££88= ••88 Jl_

PURi^VLgg- :89-
TAN
BED-S^ILgO-: :90 HL_
BLLLE2-ß2_91=: :91 J2_'
SßY-M2.N2_92= :92 XL -£_
0!LSSNli2-iLi.93r i.
93-L-.
QLK-0-02.94:: 94-*-

EEC
EHR
^£2.95= 95- -

J_
96- AA
QßX —

97= SPARE 7-
DK.GRN 98= SPARE 98-
BLU —___99= SPARE 99-
EUß.—-__10Ct SPARE 100-

SHT 3 of 4
 151 Technical Details Land Streamer

Figure D.5: Cable assembly drawing CMP cable (12 m)

.n/W CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING CA-2725

INPUT/OUTPUT, INC.
I REV. A
SALES ORDER NO.: DATE:

CUSTOMER:

NO. OF CABLES: LENGTH: 40'-0"-o- (12m) CABLE WT.: 26.14 lbs.

CABLE TYPE: BC-1371-4 CABLE DESCRIPTION: CDP CABLE

TAKE OUT TYPE: DYNAC0N-2F GEO.

NO. PER TRACE: 1 NO. PER CABLE: 12

POLARITY

COMM. TO ODD NO. TO 1 TOWARD B END

COLOR TO EVEN NO. TO 2 TOWARD B END

COLOR OF TAKE OUTS: YELLOW

MULTIPLE TAKE OUT SPACING: SEE SHT# 3

STAKEPOINT SPACING:
END "A" TO NEAREST TAKE OUT: SEE SHT# 3

END "B" TO NEAREST TAKE OUT: SEE SHT# 3

DRAWN: B.CAMPBELL 5/5/97 CHK'D BY: DATE:

QC CHK'D BY DATE:

PARTS LIST
PART NO. DESCRIPTION EACH TOTAL NET#
BC-1371-4 BULK CABLE (BLK JKT) 40-0 11.64
3-2168-2-750-1 CONN.. TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE, RED NUT 5.00
B-2168-2-750-4 CONN., TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE, BLK NUT 5.00
B-5029-2-8 TAKEOUT, DYNAC0N-2F GEO .510-1.00 CABLE WITH DUST CAP (YEL) 12 4 50

REVISIONS
LTR DATE CHKED.: DATE:
5/15/97 TAKEOUT WAS B-4653-2-8

SHT 1 OF
 >

LT-

a
x
ö

1 -S -er 5 -4" -5- -H 3 -4" -0 3 -4" 4- 3 -4" -0

(0 5m) C1m) (im) (Im) (1m) (Im) (im) (im) (1m) (0 5m)

1 ACCUMULATIVE TOLERANCE NOT TO EXCEED l-6"/-0"

2 SS-171 CABLE PREP
3 SS-187 KEVLAR TERMINATION
4 SS-218 TAPING OF TITAN MARINE BOOT
5 SS-638 TAKEOUT TERMINATION
6 ES-1.57 CABLE MEASUREMENTS
"Ng/cS^/, ÎNPUT/OUTPUT.INC
7 ES-177 PRODUCT 1DENTIFICÀTIO
TOLERANCES

CABLE LAYOUT
./- XXXX 001
XXX 005
XX 010
B CAMPBELL
MNCOnSiCÎTY
5/6/37
*/- 002"

*/- 1/2- BHEffT

„ft 14 9< 4
 END: CONN: B-2168-2-750-1 TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE, RED NUT

\u
imm i Fl! I I I ! m
o ro i I IS IO I
is es m is |CD H -< P fTJ te
H |d
5 p 62 P r" te F°
-< ta fa\ be 1<F>
|r- le- kD |m |o H fco |z |r- |c_ j lO |CD
Kl vl kl kl
Egil5ÈgEË6gE|sp|^|2ko p kj kj
p p pi pi p p| ip^^fs^p^lspp^
ro 1-0 IX IX
|2 |S |o p) Itj Ijc |x x p c pi I c: en tj x < t- =- m < :
s x pi p H ta fe p o H PJ
U3 KD (D Kû
£ |cd j<o ki |vj j 5teM (ai p jui p p jcn p p p p p p M H M M N j
dî j± ji? i*-t* 4^-g -S-n^co >-?t- .—.- — >
cocucuojcococococorororororu rorurü ro ro "-*, „-
^) 00
vlCT> Cil 4^ OJ ro
^ ,„ K , , „>„
ui-noj o
>-* o ^ûco vier, ru>—
o^œvi^c/ijiCur\)^o^o3vic^ai^ojru|-o\£icovi(Tsa! 4=-coro

o nf
m -i>. -&.-N 4^4=.+- 4^-^-^-Mococjwojojcocjcotorurürorüro rororu ro ro oo vj ch on 4^ co ro
o oimxi (Ti(n^ ura^oinmNifix^iunif-oinmsinsdi "-»oo yooo va c^ ui4^oj ru ^;gkû
-Neuro
ovûo) vie* ai Ar.im
5P i lo H bo
'
h* C. h* œ i
|z t Èr (^ Ix te hj Ici kr j
'Pi p jco p p p p p jcn P
'Obb
|oi p p j-t- p p p I* p p Jm |n> p p p |m p p p p |—
i'ile |w ro te ix |x la l-o K Sx i : i
je p t71 |o K |t< ra iz ii- IV I" H |o K Ir1 t" I Ih I« lo lo |m |o
t; |co p> loo co co œ E p p J M
o b b to o p pjai p | p joi p p|> (S p p p p p |to p p p P

IflN >iia '31QNVH 0S/_ '3N!cJV!N t-OZ II NVlli ^-09/1-3-99 l £-8 :NNO0 ,.8„ :0N3
 >
END: "A" CONN: B-2168-2-750-1 TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE, RED NUT
co M
> Z
r—
m
O
co

o
73

pp pp p p pp p
Ix I" E: Z
|-p- *- g |T3 p |C g _
p p Sp p p p |n> |-p- p p |5 j-f* p p § p |ro p> |S |ro |0) |o> ]oo p p |œ |œ |oo p o
UD\O\DMD^Ovû^OC0COC0C0C0COC0C0COC0vlvJvJv|vJ
— \L/ ^U
^Û VU \D *OJ \U SU \±J \U W ^^ *A> UJ W U** U-i kAJ vl vivl vl vj
Q\(T< (T. CT* 0> cS^S*cflSon«Stirffeon
„
eo co vi| en 4v eu ru>—cd^dcovi cr-on 4* euro
c*c^tn4vcuru>—cD^DcovicT-o/i^coru1—cDvûcovjc^on -i>coru »-OkDcovicr.cn4^coro O^Û CO-gO^Cr^CU-O1—

n
>
cd
r-
oo co en en pi
"D Tl t! "U 4-
> > > >
;o jo to ;o
n m m
>
m

> n

cd
r~
-<

>
C

in
04

O
^\d^ jKDkD\fl\D\û»ijiûœœœœoom!»œmmNisjNiNjsj^siNjsjsjnN^(p^^^Dc^tAl(isuicii
oy3œvjc^cji4^wro|-^Q^œviaNC/i4^wru^o^ocovjc^c/i4^coro
o
PISplölgiSlEllBlfelGlglspiQpIS^^PPISlSlfefS^^PIegEgEE^^gßieeßi >
' '
^ It, It 1t 1^ It. Im ID IC Ir 17 171 ΠK |Sro fO IX IX
-i 1^ I
Ir ta ta Ir11< ta ta ta ta s:ta Ion le lo i-n Ix Ix | i ta Ix |2 |"D Ico |o
j^ Ir; g |z Ir; |C- jO jcn
' '
v ^i Ki co
j!
P p Icj p j04 joi p jtn JU! en cji en en M I ko kû ce KO F5 t lu I
lu ic^ Ioj 1-*=. Ç 14* i-fc. I^F> lw 1*° ^O Iw îq
vj

iflN ><na '31QNVH 09/. '3NiywJ f03 II NVili >-0SZ-3-99 13- :NN00 :0N3 CJI
 155 Technical Details Land Streamer

Figure D.6: Cable assembly drawing CMP cable (24 m)

Um/ INPUT/OUTPUT, INC. CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING CA-2959-Y

Ü
SALES ORDER NO.: DATE:

CUSTOMER:

NO. OF CABLES: LENGTH: SEE SHT 3 CABLE WT.: SEE SHT 3

CABLE TYPE: BC-1371-4 CABLE DESCRIPTION: CDP CABLE

TAKE OUT TYPE: DYNACON-2F GEO.

NO. PER TRACE: 1 NO. PER CABLE: SEE SHEET 3

POLARITY

COMM. TO ODD NO. TO 1 TOWARD B END

COLOR TO EVEN NO. TO 2 TOWARD B END

COLOR OF TAKE OUTS: YELLOW

MULTIPLE TAKE OUT SPACING: SEE SHT# 3

STAKEPOINT SPACING:

END "A" TO NEAREST TAKE OUT: SEE SHT# 3

END "B" TO NEAREST TAKE OUT: SEE SHT# 3

DRAWN: L.CANTU 2/1/99 CHK'D BY' DATE:

QÇ CHK'D BY DATE:

PARTS LIST
PART NO. DESCRIPTION EACH |TOTÂL~fNET#
BC-1371-4 BULK CABLE (BLK JKT) SEE SHEET 3
B-2168-2-750-1 CONN., TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE. RED NUT 1 5 00
B-2168-2-750-4 CONN., TITAN II 204 MARINE, 750 HANDLE, BLK NUT 1 5 00
B-5029-2-8 TAKEOUT, DYNAC0N-2F GEO .510-1.00 CABLE WITH DUST CAP (YEL) SEE SHEET 3

REVISIONS
LTR DATE BY CHKED: DATE'

2/1/99 JLG_ ECN #90201F

SHT 1 OF 4
 >
13
a
Z

ACCUMULATIVE TOLERANCE NOT TO EXCEED +6"/-0" 3

SS-171 CABLE PREP
SS-1S7 KEVLAR TERMINATION
S5-21B TAPING OF TITAN MARINE BOOT
SS-638 TAKEOUT TERMINATION
ES-137 CABLE MEASUREMENTS
ES-177 PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION

- —
DIU "B" DIM "C — — — — "C" — —
DIM "C —t— DIM "C" DIM "C* DIM DIM "D"

DYNACON-2F GEO OB (YEL)

WAN II 204 MARINE
750 HANDLE. BLK NUT
TITAN II 204 MARINE
750 HANDLE. RED NUT
ON

-2

-t 79 -3"^{24m) 3-4-;&1m) e'-T%(.2n,) 12 43 04 lbs

3-4-«ÏIm)

-r DIM "A" DIM "B" DIM "C" DIM "D" QTY WEIGHT
T/O

DASH TABLE

I. Without *ntun
UÎ75SZ INPÜT/OTJTPOT, INC an) on \mm auaot fw **teh It

TOLERANCES
gnapT jm wie)

CABLE LAYOUT
vl- XXXX 001
XXX .005,
XX .010
LCANTU
DOS ?/i7ää~
ru» Kim CA2659-3
+/- 002
'
CA-2959-Y
+/- 1/2- S
of 4
 157 Technical Details Land Streamer

CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING CA-2959-Y

m^/ INPUT/OUTPUT, INC.
REV A

SALES ORDER NO. DATE:

WHT äl H3
ORG cil J3
= :1
&L Fi. G3
LT« 112 = :2
GJ-3 -
M. E3
:3
Bti J1 4
-
£i C3
4
—

:
REB.-1"11- N1 5
-

: 5
ül V1
flLU £1. £16 = :6
S1
T1
GRY 5J- £1
11-7 = MALE : 7 R1
DKGRnMI V18 M1
N1
-
:8
BLK Si H1
Sis) -

:9 J1_
PUR-Û3- -S.10 = :10
EL- G1
Û8Ê LIGBS-Q- J22.il HI E1
= : 11
YELiü üi2 £1
=
Li2 CLL
32. C2
±5-13 =
:13
Üil4 D2_
=
:14 £2_
Blil£i _B115 = :15
F2
G2
Si.
GRY
13.16 =
:16
Ü2. j£
PKCRnMJ V3.17Z M2
M2.
£5.
:17
BLK P?
i35i8z :18 B2.
PUR ££. -E5.19: S2
T2
:19
YEL SZL U2
ü52Qz :20 V2
IML^- JS.21 = B4
C4
:21
RED 15. QL E4
-^22= :22
BLU *&- P5g3- E± G4
:23
GRY -B5- -§5.24= HL
MALE :24 J4.
0KG8.N-E- Ü525= KL L4
:25
BLK g-Z- M4
J27e6z CO
N4
PUR E2- £1
12-27= :27 SI
YEL SL.
TAN S4
Ü728= :28 T4
B£ELi!2- K7og- lit. V4
:29
BLU i-Z- -M230 = C6
:30 D£
GRY KL P7 31- £S_
:31
JKGBfJKL -32-32= :32
£fi.
HS.
ELK.12- MZ33z FEMALE : 33
Jß_
KS.
PUR ES_ _ES-34=
TAN
:34iÄ-L6 MÊ.
BEIL^2- ±Li35= ES.
BFUL112- K2.36= :36ff S6
GRY J^- M937- J&~
:37 ME.
DKGRN*0- £9-38= -

38
—

D8_
BJJi-53- S9.39Z E8
EL
: 39
PJJR^1 £H40 = ^
H.8-
RFD :40
ELLLÜL1 JU41-: 4°Ji
gBXKlJ L1J42; .

42 ia_
MS.
dkcrn^lJ N1H3=
^43m ES.
Bl^EJJ RU44Z sa.
PjjrGU H1345- 45I5- y.8_
BUI SEY.JJi Kiî46z £1/0
OKGRnLLÎ
M1347Z
BLKN13 E1348=
:A7m HJO
JÜP
Eli4"5z 49
^
M10
dk^nLH MJJ50 = FEMALE :50md P10

SHT 2 OF 4
Appendix D 158

CABLE ASSEMBLY DRAWING CA-2959-Y

^^^"iNPUT/OUTPUT, INC.
I REV. A

SALES ORDER NO. DATE'

CRY R10
fiUtJ-1AK1451 -

:51 S10
F12
£URQ14bLL452F: :52 G12
El? H12
Bill Rl%3= :53
K12 L12
pyRMJ2ÈLL^4-- :54
8L&. M12
PURKl2L1255r P12
N12
WHT
QES.m2m.56=: :56
R12
E12, G14
LT.GRN G1257" FEMALE : 56 H14
£19 J14
YEL KJJ.
S1Ç_g= :58
Lii Uli
TAN HLgpiL^g- :59
N14
REÛLlûMJi60 = ei4
N13
fiLM^KUfelr :61 P13

GRY S10h1(R?- Ui M13

:62
JJi K13
ÄSNElU£ii^3z: :63
013 H13
E1Xl8_jj864:- : 64
EU EU
£M£^-Sfl_65= :65
^£^ ai»-
LT.CW! M11
N11
^7=^-!-^bb~ psfiA- :66
vn L8LB- 7=TY=~ K11
YEL
M8ft7~ :67 LH
lui J11
m^-j<868z :68
Ell G11
RED Ga-ÜS.69r :69
^-£8-70 = R9. S9
au :70
£§- N9
CS-08.71 =
GRY
GRY
P9
:71
0K.M-L&- U6 13-
-7p- :72 MSL
BLK_£is6 J9
73- K9
°~ :73
0 „..„ NK TFF7"'
£i
PUR M£_
P674- FEMALE :74 H9
£9. F9
YEL.L6-_M6.75- :75
>&- K6 T7
TAN U7
76- :76
GS- R7
RED H6_77z: FEMALE :77 57
N7
:78 EL
L7
£6X^06.79- : 79 ML
5!«R.nU4_v4.80=: J7_ KL
:80
BLK S±_ T4 91 G7
-

:81 H7
PUR EA. R4 EL
3g- :82 £7.
YEL £L
Üfl-bitli4 83z: :83 02.
T5
BEB. ^11.84= :84 U5
BLU Bi
„-_-85= :85 S5.
M. P5
GRY_E4._Q4_oo.86z :86
L5
0KaNDl.JE4.87_ :87
M5
ü
fiLKEfc±88z :88 K5_
PUR M2_ V2 00- G5
H5
-r:» f— °y-
:89
£i F5
:90
C5
BLLLE2-.R2_91_ :91 OL
Mi
£RXM2-112.92= :92 Yi
w«gN^-J2_93= 5i T3
:93
E2-F2 £i R3
B1K_—iü.94' Gl94=
Rln'"k
: 94
M3
EUS. <£-£2.95: :95 M.
BEÜ am a2-£2-96. J<i
:96
SBÏ. -97E SPARE
—j*

pJ_GRN -98z: SPARE 98

ELU -99z: SPARE 99
PUR J0Q= SPARE 100

SHT 3 of 4
 Appendix E

Improvements in High-Resolution

Seismic and Georadar Acquisition

Techniques

mlciiiel van der veen, frank lehmann, peter wlld and alan g. green
Published in:

Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the European Association of

Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) Geneva, Switzerland, May 1997, PL52.

E. I Introduction

High-resolution reflection seismic and georadar techniques are powerful tools for
investigating the shallow subsurface. These two techniques frequently complement each
other; at locations where the depth penetration of georadar signals is severely limited due
to geological conditions (e.g., the presence of electrically conductive clay), good quality

reflection seismic data may often be recorded, and vice versa.

During the past few years, the advantages of three-dimensional (3D) over traditional
two-dimensional (2D) strategies in high-resolution seismic and georadar surveying have
been convincingly demonstrated (Beres et al, 1995: Grasmück and Green, 1996;

Grasmück, 1996; Lanz et al., 1996). Although three-dimensional approaches increase

significantly the potential of these two techniques, they require a much greater field
acquisition and processing effort. A principal goal of the Seismic and Radar Automation
Project, which was initiated recently at the ETH-Ziirich, is to improve data acquisition
efficiency while maintaining data quality. As a result of these improvements, it is
anticipated that the costs of 3-D seismic and georadar surveys will decrease markedly.
Here, two key aspects of the project will be considered: (i) ground coupling of gimballed
 160 Expanded Abstract, EAGE (1997)

geophones for use in land seismic surveys, and (ii) fast and accurate integration of new

topographic surveying techniques with georadar acquisition systems.

E.2 Innovations in High-Resolution Seismic Acquisition

Techniques
One significant disadvantage of traditional seismic acquisition techniques is the
labour-intensive and time-consuming planting of an ever increasing number of

geophones. 7b address this issue, the concept of a snow streamer, which has successfully
been employed in snow covered areas (Eiken, 1989), is being adapted for high-resolution
reflection seismic surveying on land. Ground motion will be measured with closely

spaced 30 Hz gimballed geophones contained within the land streamer. A major problem
associated with geophones not attached firmly to the ground is coupling, which is of

particular importance when high-frequency seismic data is to be collected. To ensure

adequate resolution, signals with frequencies up to 500 Hz have to be recorded with a
minimum of distortion.

A typical result from of

coupling experiments is illustrated in Figure E. 1 ; the
one our

response of a 30 Hz gimballed geophone is compared to that of a standard 30 Hz spiked

geophone. Sensors in the two types of casing were identical. The gimballed geophone
was mounted in a relatively heavy cylinder and placed in a small ditch alongside the

planted spiked geophone. Minor differences in the geophone responses may be due to
very local variations in near-surface conditions and differences in electro-mechanical
characteristics of the individual sensors, but these are likely to be small compared to the
effects ofground coupling. The results in Figure E. 1 indicate that the gimballed and the
conventionally planted geophones have similar characteristics over the frequency range
of interest.
Appendix E 161

1 (b)

v ,30Hz. Spike
I

/. N |

/
VV
30Hz. Gimbal
nV0
Va

0 100 200 300 400 500

Frequency [Hz]

180
' M
90
I

V^
~"A
0
_

-90

100 1R0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Frequency [Hz]

Figure E.l: Results of ground coupling comparisons between 30-IIz spiked

and 30-Hz gimballed geophones. Figure (a) shows two typical traces. Figure
(b) displays the equivalent amplitude spectrum of the two traces. Figure (c)
shows the phase difference between the response of the two geophones.

E.3 Innovations in Georadar Acquisition Techniques

Typically, positioning information for 3D georadar surveys is acquired using
surface
either semi-automated measuring wheels, or measuring tapes and field pegs. Elevation
data are usually interpolated over many positions. Employing such procedures may
result in significant systematic positioning errors of up to 10-20 cm. Furthermoie, laying
out survey lines and conducting a 3D topographic survey may account for 40 to 60 % of

the total time required for a georadar field campaign.

To overcome theseshortcomings, we have integrated an automated laser tracking

theodolite with a georadar acquisition system. Using our new approach, an 3D georadar
data set covering a 20 x 20 nr area may be collected within a few hours. A full (""artesian
coordinate set for each trace is recorded in real-time with an accuracy of better than
~5 cm (measured at walking speed).

Figure F.2 shows the measured positions for a survey conducted with 100 MHz
antennae. Ihe density of in-line coordinates is much greater point) (2-5 em between each
than that of the cross-lines(approximately 25 cm). To take advantage of standard multi-
trace processing routines, such as FK-filtering and migration, the entire data set has to be

interpolated on to an equally spaced grid. For this purpose, we have developed an

interpolation scheme that involves calculating both the convex hull and two-dimensional
Fourier transform of the positioning data. (Smith and Wessel, 1990; Edelsbrunner, 1987).
 162 Expanded Abstract, EAGE (1997)

After interpolation and other minor pre-processing steps, the data set is ready for

sophisticated processing using a wide variety of software packages.

Figure E.2: Coordinates of the

collected traces, projected on a

horizontal plane. (The insert shows

close-up detail.)

E.4 Conclusions

New developments introduced here include the use of a land streamer comprising
gimballed geophones for high-resolution seismic surveying and the integration of an
automated laser tracking theodolite with a georadar acquisition system. Our experiments

suggest that the ground coupling of gimballed geophones allows seismic signals
containing frequencies up to 500 Hz to be faithfully registered. With the theodolite and
associated interpolation software it is now possible to record georadar data and the

respective spatial coordinates (accuracy better than ~5 cm) simultaneously in real-time,

thus reducing the turn-around time required to yield reliable 3D images of the shallow
subsurface. With these new developments and future enhancements, 3D high-resolution
seismic and georadar surveys will become faster, more accurate and less expensive for a
wide variety of engineering and environmental investigations.
 Appendix F

High-Frequency Sources in Shallow

Seismic Experiments

Michiel van der Veen, Hermann Buness, Frank Nitsche, Frank Büker,
Frank Lehmann and Alan G. Green
Published in:

Proceedings of the 1 1th Annual Symposium on the Applications of Geophysics to

Environmental and Engineering Problfms (SAGEEP),
Chicago, USA, March 1998. 753-757.

Abstract

We have compared the energy,

frequency, and noise characteristics of six high-
frequency seismic sources: a 12-gauge pipegun, the Seismic Impulse Source System
(SISSY), a 5-kg sledgehammer, an accelerated weight dropper, a vibrator from GGA,
and a commercial (OYO) vibrator. Seismic measurements were undertaken in the Reuss
Delta (central Switzerland), which is characterized by shallow reflection energy arriving
at -50-200 ms, and the Suhre Valley (Northern Switzerland), which is dominated by
reflection arrivals from -20-200 Both
shotgun sources have similar signal and field
ms.

handling characteristics and are suitable for

imaging reflections from ultra-shallow to
intermediate depths. A sledgehammer generates less energy, but is relatively rich in

higher frequencies. It is therefore best used to image ultra-shallow reflections. The

accelerated weight dropper generates a strong airwave that may mask early time
reflection information, making it more suitable for shallow
to intermediate depth

reflectionsurveying. Both vibratory sources have the advantage of controlled bandwidth,

determining to some extent the penetration. The penetration depth and resolution of the
GGA vibrator is comparable to that obtained from shotgun. However, the relatively

strong airwave suggests it is best used to image shallow to intermediate reflections.

 164 Expanded Abstract, SAGEEP (1998)

F.l Introduction

High-resolution seismic reflection methods are widely used to image a variety of

geological structures (e.g., Doornenbal and Helbig, 1983; Miller and Steeples, 1991;
Green et al., 1995). An important component of these non-invasive imaging techniques
is the seismic energy source. To complement innovative rapid data acquisition

techniques, such as the land streamer (van der Veen and Green, 1998), a need exists for a
fast and versatile energy source. Many impulsive seismic sources have already been

tested and compared (e.g., Miller et al, 1994), but comparable investigations have yet to
be performed for vibratory sources. We have tested several seismic sources, including
two vibratory sources, to determine their suitability for recording ultra-shallow (<50 ms)

to intermediate (<700ms) reflected energy. The following sources were studied: a

12-gauge pipegun, the Seismic Impulse Source System (SISSY) developed by the
Geological Survey of Lower Saxony (GGA. Germany), a 5 kg sledgehammer, an
accelerated weight dropper, a vibrator constructed by GGA, and the portable OYO
vibrator.

F.2 Survey Areas

experiments were conducted in the Reuss Delta (Central Switzerland) and the
All
Suhre Valley (Northern Switzerland) (Figure F.l). The Reuss Delta has experienced a
complex history of tectonism and multiple glaciations. On the basis of previous seismic
reflection surveys (van der Veen et al, 1998), it is known that reflected energy up to

700 ms may be recorded. A 300 deep

m borehole
approximately 2 km south of the

survey area shows saturated

gravels and sands occur just below the surface humus layer.
In this test area, the principle goal is to resolve geological structures at shallow (-50 ms)
to intermediate (-700 ms) depths.

The glaciated Suhre

Valley (Northern Switzerland) has been the location of
extensive 2D and 3D high-resolution seismic reflection surveys (Büker et al. 1998a,

1998b). At this location, the near-surface geology is dominated by glacio-lacustrine clay/

silt sequences, reworked till (mostly sands and gravels), and underlying Molasse

sedimentary rocks at depths ranging from 32 to 56 m. Clays and silts occur just below
the surface humus layer. The main goal in this area is to image the ultra shallow (<50 ms)
to shallow (-200 ms) geological structures.

F.3 Source Description

The 12-gauge pipegun consists of a metal pipe in which blank cartridges are

detonated. It canbe used in holes up to -2 m deep. A piezo electric sensor triggers the

seismograph. The main advantages of this design arc flexibility in the field, robustness
and relatively low purchase and maintenance costs.

Similar in
principle to the pipegun is the Seismic Impact Source System (SISSY)
developed by GGA
(Germany). "Dynergit" cartridges are detonated electronically, thus
Appendix F 165

providing an accurate trigger pulse. The maximum shot depth is -1.3 m. The main

advantages are flexibility in the field and accurate shot time reproducibility.

The weight dropper consists of a truck-mounted mechanism in which a heavy mass

is artificially accelerated to hit the ground. This allows a large amount of energy to be

generated. The main advantages are its robustness and relative low costs.
OYO Center of Applied Geoscience (OYO-CAG, the Netherlands) in cooperation
with Utrecht University (the Netherlands) has developed a portable high frequency
vibrator (Nijhof, 1989). The 65-kg hand-portable vibrator generates a maximum peak
force of 500 N, and according to the manufacturer specifications, it can operate in the

frequency range from 25-1500 Hz. The high frequencies make it suitable for imaging
ultra-shallow to shallow geological structures. The main advantages of this source are

portability and the possibility to control the seismic signal (bandwidth and to some
extent penetration).

GGA (Germany) developed a high-frequency vibrator (Buness et al. 1997).

has also
In contrast to the OYO vibrator, it is capable of generating a peak force of -31000 N.
The 2600 kg truck-mounted vibrator can operate in the frequency range from 10-500 FIz.
A key advantage of this system is the large amount of energy it can generate and the

ability to control the seismic signal (bandwidth and to some extent penetration). One
disadvantage is limited mobility in areas with difficult access or substantial topographic
relief.

F.4 Comparison
We have recorded a high-fold seismic reflection profile in one or both of the survey

areas, with each type of source. For comparison purposes we only show a selection of
some shot records.
Geophone spacing for records in
Figures 1.5 m, and
F.2 and F.3 was

1.0 m for
Figure F.4. Figure F.2 shows unprocessed Reuss Delta shot records (trace
normalized) generated by the pipegun (Figure F.2a, F.2b), the SISSY shotgun
(Figure F.2c, F.2d), and sledgehammer with vertical stack of 10 (Figure F.2e, F.2f). On
all records, clear reflected energy can be identified at depths of -100 to 300 ms.

Corresponding amplitude spectra show a concentration of energy around 30-60 Hz,

although the signal is well above the noise level up to -250 Hz. The pipegun and the
SISSY shot records are quite similar. At very early times, relatively strong airwaves
mask some of the reflection energy on the sledgehammer record (Figure F.2e). The

corresponding amplitude spectrum (Figure F.2f) shows lower amplitudes in the entire

frequency range.

Figures F.2 and F.2 show shot records recorded at two different locations in the Suhre
Valley, where the principle goal is to resolve ultra-shallow reflections arriving before 50-
100 ms. The Figure shows the shot records and corresponding amplitude spectra

generated by the pipegun (Figure F.3a, F.3b). the sledgehammer (Figure F.3c, F.3d) and
the accelerated weight dropper (Figure F.3e, F.3f). To focus on the shallow reflections
and to suppress the dominant guided phases, the shot records arc processed using spiking
deconvolution and subsequent time variant spectral whitening. All records show clear
 166 Expanded Abstract, SAGEEP ( 1998)

reflections at depths ranging from 30-70 ms. The quality comparable.

of all records is
Different are the relative strong airwaves in the records
generated pipegun with the

(Figure F.3a) and accelerated weight dropper (Figure F.3d). Corresponding amplitude
spectra show that the pipegun (Figure F.3b) and sledgehammer (Figure F.3d) generate
stronger high-frequency energy than the accelerated weight dropper (Figure F.3F).

Figure F.4 shows processed Suhre Valley shot records generated by the pipegun
(Figure F.4a) and the GGA vibrator (Figure F.4b). We used a 10 s sweep signal ranging
from 70 to 300 Hz. The pipegun shot record was subjected to a band pass filter to match
the frequencies of the vibrator sweep signal. Both records have been subjected to time
variant spectral whitening (70-300 Hz). The two records contain very high-frequency
and ultra-shallow to shallow reflection information and are very comparable. The

stronger airwaves in the GGA vibrator shot record (Figure F.4b) may mask the ultra
shallow, short offset reflected energy. An overview of the test results is given in table 1.

F.5 Conclusion

Several high-fold seismic reflection

profiles have been recorded using a variety of
seismic sources. The
12-gauge pipegun produces acceptable results in all profiles,
providing an energetic signal containing frequencies up to -250-350 Hz. Shotgun
sources are therefore suitable for imaging ultra-shallow to intermediate reflections. A

disadvantage of these sources is its relatively labor intensive field operations. The signal
and handling characteristics of the SISSY shot gun are comparable to the pipegun. The

sledgehammer generates less energy, but produces frequencies as high as -300-350 Hz.
This makes it an excellent energy source for mapping ultra-shallow to shallow
reflections. The weight dropper generates high energy, but the relatively strong airwaves

may disturb ultra-shallow reflected energy. It is suitable for resolving shallow

reflections. The GGA vibrator is comparable to the pipegun in generating broad
bandwidth signals. The relative strong air waves may mask the ultra-shallow reflection
events. This system is suitable form mapping shallow to intermediate reflections. The

main disadvantage of truck mounted systems is the mobility in terrain's with severe

topography. The main advantage is the saving of field personnel and the increase in
acquisition speed.

Figure F.l: The two survey areas in

Switzerland. Data recorded in the Reuss
Delta is characterized by shallow-
(50-200 ms) to intermediate

(200-700 ms) reflective energy,

whereas the Suhre Valley data shows
ultra-shallow (<50 ms) to shallow
reflections.
Appendix F 167

60 t

200-
vw>mM;t: M^tmM^ Mm^H
: .;'ïiM)i'K>ïo>»>;H'*t>>i>>>>>>)>iF'>>>>v,VFFiV^SiVv>v,v>V

iiiillllllllll
« 400 -

futtîWHiî mmm-
^?'ß^,FFWliuFliliF|FiH!ii"FjvmiiiiiF

600-
200 300
a) f(Hz)

vT 400
E

100 200 300 400

f(Hz) d)

"10
à
F>n
m

0-

2o -InlillliSiily

200 300 400

f(Hz) f)

Figure F.2: Comparison of the (a) pipegun (shot record), (b) pipegun (amplitude
spectrum), (c) SISSY shotgun (shot record), (d) SISSY shot record (amplitude
spectrum), (e) sledgehammer, with a vertical stack of 10 (shot record) and (f)
sledgehammer (amplitude spectrum). The data is recorded in the Reuss-delta
(Central Switzerland) with a geophone separation of 1.5 m. The shot records have
not been processed and are trace normalized.
 168 Expanded Abstract, SAGEEP (1998)

60 T

*
my,)V V"'K\VF>wwiFiFFF.;u:>M"*F::>»MW«''**
ntF^îjî'HtF'nfrSFJffHF^

aiîi a)

60

40-—i

£20
CQ
XI

0
F' )>Ä;'FFFV''''''W^''Fi*'*.""**rv.',Fi^>JÄaV>>'F;'frSÄ^
!lH,>uFAF'&;FJi*>^ï»!Wui^*^'irUV',^V'>'"^-ÏF^^?*':K,
-20
120 'r^FFtiFFFHt'F^tF'ff^^TJ^;^^
200 300 400
le) f(Hz)

601

120-pîiM
ïîÎFFif

Figure F.3:
Comparison of (a) pipegun (shot record), (b) pipegun (amplitude
spectrum), (c) sledgehammer (shot record), (d) sledgehammer (amplitude
spectrum), (e) accelerated weight drop (shot record) and (f) accelerated weight drop
(amplitude spectrum). The data is recorded in the Suhre Valley (Northern

Switzerland) with a geophone separation of 1.5 m, Shot records have been

processed using spiking deconvolution and time variant spectral whitening,
focussing on the very shallow reflection events (< 100 ms).
Appendix F 169

channel

24 48 72 96

''I I 111 ,r.i <

^WtH^rtYttrmTtHfrnTt-

100

200
TrFrh-frrttF^ïJ-;7Ftt!V.-fC74fFVrV^

300, •i!;''{i:ill!)i)iiîi!liîtî?^:%^: a)

100
) ;: ! J"«*! • >; ^ vN_^TSöi-<?:SiF.>"; iïKvrFStiH î Pi "> Î'5ÎK'f ,r-v> Cï i1» î : 11«F#ri»)ii|iSiäi;';

\\y^M0MM^
200

t r il' ttttfItÄiiiittititiifïÉt#
i»
300. Lb)

Figure F.4: Source

comparison in the Suhre Valley (central Switzerland)
with a geophone separation of 1.0 m; (a) pipegun, displayed with a band pass
filter from 70-300 Hz, and (b) GGA Vibrator with a 10 s sweep from 70 to
300 Hz. Both records are processed using time-variant spectral whitening
with corner frequencies of 70 and 300 Hz.
 170 Expanded Abstract, SAGEEP (1998)

^V;
t s *
y> ^ \ i <

N
Ü F

I i. K
 Appendix G

Determining Elastic Soil

Parameters at Small Strains

Hansruedi Maurer, Michiel van der Veen,

jolanda gluduci, and sarah springmann

Published in:

Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium on the Applications of Geophysics to

Environmental and Engineering Problems (SAGEEP),
Oakland, USA, March 1999, 417-423.

Abstract

Geotechnical and geophysical techniques have been combined to determine the

elastic parameters of a series of lacustrine clays at a location where series of highway

underpasses are to be constructed. Piezocone penetrometer and triaxial tests on borehole

core samples allowed variations of the soil stmcture and the shear modulus
\i over a
range of larger strains to be measured. The small-strain behavior of p was established
from seismic measurements. Extremely low p. values of less than 50 MPa and Poisson's
ratios near 0.5 for small strains were found. Together with experience gained from the
first construction phase, these results will be used to optimize the design of construction

process.

G.1 Introduction

In the framework of a highway underpass construction project in northern

Switzerland, variety
a of seismic and
geotechnical experiments have been conducted.
The principal objective of the investigations was to determine the elastic properties of a
series of lacustrine clays within the 0-28 m depth range. Of particular interest was the
Appendix G 172

behavior of the shear modulus (t at small strains, which is required for optimized
construction of the underpass side-walls.

Geotechnical measurements (e.g., using standard triaxial testing of undisturbed

borehole samples) provide estimates of the shear modulus. Such estimates are only
derived from specific points in the subsurface and they may suffer from significant
inaccuracies in the small-strain domain (e < 10°). In contrast, seismic measurements

sample large provide reliable estimates of u, as e tends to zero.

subsurface volumes and
These latter estimates are determined indirectly via measurements of travel-times and
measured or assumed density distributions. We demonstrate that combined applications
of geotechnical and geophysical techniques can benefit the design process by supplying

improved information on the relevant soil stiffness.

We had access to a 28 m deep borehole in the
highway underpass area (Figure G.2e).
Core samples were tested under triaxial stress conditions in
a geotechnical laboratory.

Adjacent to the borehole, piezocone penetrometer testing was used to delineate vertical
changes of the soil strata. Small-strain estimates of the elastic parameters were obtained
from a seismic surface-to-borehole transmission experiment.

G.2 Geotechnical Measurements

Results from the piezocone penetrometer tests are depicted in Figure G.2d. They
show fluctuations with depth of the total pressure at the tip (qT). Highly variable values
between 14 and 25 m depth indicate changes of soil properties. Triaxial testing of
lacustrine clay samples collected between 5 and 15 m depth allowed the shear modulus
to be determined for a range of strains between 4 10~~ and 10 .
As shown in Figure G.2,
u, values for £ < 1 (T3 were highly scattered (note that \i values were normalized by the

overloading pressure (pn) to compensate for the different sample depths). This scatter

was the result of inherent limitations of standard triaxial devices at small strains. Besides

large fluctuations of \l in the small-strain domain, we judge that the estimated u values
are systematically too low due to bedding errors (i.e.. effects of slight mis-orientations of
the samples in the triaxial apparatus (e.g., Clayton et al.. 1995).

G.3 Acquisition, Processing and Inversion of the Seismic Data

Seismic energy was excited at the surface along a 40 meter long profile that extended
from the collar of the borehole. Seismic 3-component
waves were recorded with a

seismometer clamped to the borehole wall at various spacings depths. Shot and receiver
were both 1 m. Since determination of shear modulus was the primary objective of the

study, generation of sufficient shear-wave energy and 3-component recordings of the

waveforms were essential.

A sketch of the seismic source is shown in Figure G.3. It consists of 3 solid steel

plates welded together to give

rugged a structure with
triangular cross-section. Spikes
a

attached to the base plate ensure good coupling to the ground. Hammer blows on the left
and right plates can be represented by force vectors. Addition of the two vectors yields a
 173 Expanded Abstract, SAGEEP (1999)

vertical point source and seismic records dominated by P-wave energy, whereas
subtraction of the vectors simulates a horizontal force and seismic records dominated by
S-wave energy.

Component rotation was performed prior to the picking of the P- and S-wave onsets.
As indicated in Figure G.3, the new coordinate system is oriented such that one

component is perpendicular to the incident P-wavefront (normal component) and one

component perpendicular to the plane of the shot

profile (transverse component). Effects
of the component rotations illustrated in
Figure G.4. Signals from the left and the
are

right blows on the normal component seismograms should be almost identical, which is
indeed the case (Figure G.4a). Addition of the two normal components (Figure G.4b)
results in an improved signal-to-noise-ratio that simplifies picking of the first-arriving P-
wave.

The transverse components (Figure G.4c) exhibit a polarity reversal for wave-trains
between 75 and 100 ms. Such a reversal identifies this seismic phase as an SH-wave,
which is expected to be perpendicularly polarized to the
profile line. Note that later
phases at about 100 ms are polarized in the direction of the
profile-borehole plane. They
arc probably Rayleigh waves. Subtraction of the "left" and "right" transverse

components (Figure G.4d) reveals the first arriving SH-wavetrain unambiguously.

A total of 962 P- and 397 S-wave onsets were picked from the recorded
seismograms. They were inverted for P- and S-wave velocity-depth functions, which
were parameterized as a stack of 15 layers with fixed thicknesses. This inversion
problem is only weakly non-linear and can be solved with a damped linearized inversion
scheme (e.g., Mcnke, 1989). A variety of markedly different initial models were

employed to test the stability of the inversion. All inversions converged to the velocity-
depth functions shown in Figures Gla and Gib.

Near-surface P-wave velocities (Figure Gla) about 1200 m/s. At

a depth of 4 m
are

the velocity increases to 1500 m/s. Velocities gradually increase to about 1700 m/s at
28 m depth. S-wave velocities (Figure G lb) within the
uppermost 8 m are
approximately 150 m/s. Below 15 m depth they are in the range 250-300 m/s.
From the velocity-depth functions in Figures Gla and Gib very high PoissoiTs ratios of
0.480 -
0.495 and extremely low shear modulus values u. of 45-150 MPa (Figure G. Ic)

were derived. Estimates of p are based on a density of 1800 kg/ixr\ which was estimated
from borehole samples.

G.4 Interpretation
Depth-dependent properties determined from the piezocone penetrometer
(Figure G Id) and seismic measurements (Figure G.lc) correlate well with the
stratigraphie column derived from the borehole cores (Figure G. le). The uppermost 15 m
consist mainly of normally consolidated lacustrine clays. These sediments are expected
to exhibit low qT and low p values. Silty sands with gravely inclusions are found
between 15 and 22 They show increased qT (Figure G Id) and (1 values
m.
(Figure G. J c).
Appendix G 174

Between 22 and 25 m the lacustrine clay units reappear, with an associated decrease of
qT. Unfortunately, the seismic data provide not enough resolution to resolve this rather
thin clay layer. At about 25 m depth a moraine layer, which consists of coarse sands and

gravel, is found.

clays between 3 and 15 m and 22 and 25 m depth are the critical units for
Lacustrine

highway underpass construction. Therefore, it is important to constrain their shear

modulus over a large range of strains. As shown in Figure G.2, the triaxial measurements

could only delineate the \i versus relationship for e >

e 10"". Including an average
seismic shear modulus for the lacustrine clays (Figure G. 1c) as £ tends to zero allowed us
to identify a range of possible pi versus £ functions (dotted area in Figure G.2).

G.5 Summary and Conclusions

Using geotechnical and geophysical techniques, we have attempted to characterize

elastic soil parameters in an area of a planned highway underpass construction. Analysis
of piezocone penetrometer data, borehole cores and seismic transmission measurements
revealed layers of lacustrine clays from 3 to 15 m and from 22 to 25 m depth. Triaxial
testing with borehole samples and inversions of the seismic data yielded very low shear
moduli of less than 50 MPa. Consequently, special efforts will be required to limit
deformations of the underpass construction.

Integration of triaxial and seismic data was critical for estimating the behavior of the
shear modulus over a range from small to
large strains. Information obtained from the
different methods is complementary. Since both measurements are straightforward and
can be performed quickly, the proposed approach can be carried out in a cost-effective
manner.

P-wave S-wave
Seismic n CPT (qT) Geology
Velocity Velocity

J
Weathering Layer

Lacustrine Clays

Silty Sands

Moraine
1200 1600 2000

Figure G.l: (a) P-wave velocity-depth function, (b) S-wave velocity-depth function, (c) Sheat
modulus as derived from seismic measurements, d: Total pressure at the tip (qT) of the
penetrometer device, (e) Geological profile from borehole cores.
 175 Expanded Abstract, SAGEEP ( 1999)

600

400
c

Figure G.2: Strain-shear modulus relationship. Different symbols connected with thm
lines represent the u versus e relationships for individual borehole samples. Small-strain
limit determined from seismic data is indicated by heavy solid line (mean) and two heavy
dashed lines (standard deviation). Dotted area delimits the range where possible u. versus c

functions are expected to he.

SH-wave Source

borehole

Figure G.3: Schematic overview of seismic experiment Fxpanded view shows the
source, the force directions of the hammer blows (FL and FR). and the resulting force
vectors for added and subtracted signals
Appendix G 176

50 100
Time (ms)

Figure G.4: Examples of seismograms recorded at 10 m distance and 4 m depth. Panel

(a) shows the normal-component seismograms from the "left"' and "right" hammer
blows (see Figure G.3), whereas (c) shows the equivalent transverse-component

seismograms. Addition of the normal components in panel (a) are depicted in panel (b).
Subtraction of the transverse components m panel (c) are shown in (d).