See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320298106

Rock Quality, Seismic Velocity, Attenuation and Anisotropy

Book · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
2 1,068

1 author:

Nick Ryland Barton

Nick Barton & Associates
300 PUBLICATIONS   11,292 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic measurements in the earth sciences View project

Statistical mechanics and Population Genetics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nick Ryland Barton on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 1

Part I
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 2
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 3

1 Shallow seismic refraction,

some basic theory, and the
importance of rock type

‘Nature has left us an incomplete and often well-concealed record of her activities, and no ‘as con-
structed’ drawings!’ (Stapledon and Rissler, 1983)

‘Tenders for the Tay pipeline crossing did not allow time for boreholes to locate bedrock. Seismic
refraction took one day to confirm that the trench would not encounter rock. The pipeline was laid
in sediments.’ (Gardener, 1992)

‘The time may come when the various relations between geophysical parameters and rock properties
can be usefully combined into a single classification system.’ (Darracott and Orr, 1976)

1.1 The challenge of the
near-surface in civil
engineering
Refraction seismics is by far the oldest method used in
exploration seismology, with its origin traced to R. Mallet
from 1848. Shallow refraction seismic measurements
using first arrival, compressional P-wave velocities close
to the surface often give a remarkable picture of near
surface conditions due to some fortuitous interactions of
physical phenomena. Firstly, weathering and the usual
lack of significant stress near the surface has allowed joint
systems, shear zones and faults to be exaggerated in both
their extent and severity. Secondly, stress levels are low
enough to allow joints and discontinuities to be seismic-
ally visible due to their measurable apertures.
So-called acoustic closure occurs at greater depths than
those usually penetrated by conventional hammer seis-
mic, unless rock strengths are rather low (e.g., New and
West, 1980; Hudson et al., 1980). (At this juncture, we
need to differentiate between two ‘J.A. Hudson’ authors,
one in geophysics, the other in rock engineering, and
both very prominent in their chosen fields. We will
occasionally refer to ‘rock’ Hudson in Part I, and later
in Part II to ‘seismic’ Hudson).
Since micro-fractures and rock joints are sensitive to
stress levels, the more closed state of the discontinuities
that are perpendicular to the major stress, and the more
open state of those that are parallel will give the rock
mass anisotropic stiffness. Consequently the rock mass
will frequently display anisotropic seismic velocities. By
implications, hydraulic conductivities and deformation
moduli that show anisotropic distributions will be, at least
in part, detectable by seismic measurements. Anisotropy
will also be caused by layered inter-beds, foliation and
schistocity, and of course by a dominant joint set. Simple
examples of (azimuthal) anisotropy, applicable in civil
engineering, will be given in Chapter 3, while larger-
scale examples of anisotropy detection will be described
in much greater detail, and from various fields of the
earthsciences, in Chapters 13, 14 and 15 in Part II.
Despite the obvious challenges of seismic interpret-
ation in fractured and faulted petroleum reservoirs at
many kilometers depth, or of mid-ocean ridge investi-
gations beneath three kilometers of ocean, many geo-
physicists insist that obtaining high resolution images
from ground level to just 50 m depth, is still one of the
major challenges of modern geophysics. This happens to
be the layer of the subsurface closest to most of our civil
engineering endeavours, from tunnels, to dams, to the
foundations for high buildings.
Undoubtedly, the ‘0 to 50 m’ challenge is mainly due
to the extreme variability of the near-surface, resulting
from the contrasting geological materials and weathering
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 4
4 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy
grades that are often present. There is also a velocity
gradient that is extreme compared to anything found at
greater crustal depths, where consolidation effects smooth
out some of the differences. The first 5 m of unconsoli-
dated dry beach sand may see velocity increase from
150 m/s to 300 m/s, (Bachrach et al., 2000), giving a gra-
dient of 30 s-1, which may be an order of magnitude
higher than the gradient over the next 50 to 100 m, where
weathered and jointed rock may typically be found.
There are an infinite number of challenges in the near-
surface. Some of the worse may be karst phenomena in
limestones, or the ‘inverse’ problems of core-stone anom-
alies in the case of sparsely jointed but deeply weathered
granites and gneisses. These features have caused tun-
nelling surprises in numerous countries, with nearly as
numerous arbitrations as a result. Although completely
weathered Grade V is an expected feature beneath the
Grade VI soil in tropical terrains, Grade V saprolite
sometimes confusingly swaps places with the usually
deeper, and almost unjointed Grade I or II. (Saprolite
is a weak, water sensitive, weathered in-place, some-
times beautifully structured and coloured relic of the
rock).
If this reversal of weathering grades appears in a tunnel
arch beneath massive, high velocity core-stones, or if
there is a generally very undulating rock surface, with fre-
quent tunnel penetrations into weathered materials,
there can be major delays. A tunnel collapse is difficult to
avoid when water is present, unless preparations have
been made, as a result of the more frequent exploratory
drilling demanded when seismic anomalies such as these
are suspected.
Pre-injection ahead of the tunnel face, and heavier
tunnel support, would be the very basic requirements
in a drill-and-blasted tunnel. (This is one of the purposes
of the ‘Q-system’ of rock mass characterization and
tunnel support selection). In the case of a TBM (tunnel
boring machine) excavation, a change to a closed mode
in the case of a hybrid machine with earth-pressure-
balance (EPB) would be needed, especially if the wea-
thered depressions in the bedrock contained water, as is
usually the case.
Best advice of all, as a direct result of a seismic refrac-
tion survey, would be to drive a deeper tunnel from the
start. It is easy to imagine subway station construction
under such heterogeneous conditions. It could be
extremely time-consuming, and even dangerous. The
cost of deeper access to the stations, via longer escal-
ators, would be a small price to pay for much reduced
tunnelling and station costs.
Sjøgren, 2000 suggested the following list of essen-
tial information expected from near-surface seismic
surveys, performed for civil engineering geotechnical
investigations:
● The velocities of the overburden layers, including
the upper, less consolidated rock layers.
● The thickness of the various overburden velocity
layers, and the total depth to the main refractor.
● A detailed determination of the velocity distribu-
tion in the main refractor.
● An estimate of the uncertainty of the velocity and
depth determinations.
● An analysis of the (velocity-) depth structure.
● An assessment of velocities in vertical and lateral
directions in relation to the geology.
● Seismic results in relation to results from other
investigations, if available.
● Conclusions and recommendations resulting from
the investigation that are of importance to the
project.
Although reflection methods have eventually dom-
inated the field of exploration seismics due to the various
needs involved with deeper exploration, there is ‘univer-
sal’ use of shallow refraction seismic in sub-surface inves-
tigations for civil engineering projects around the world,
due to its apparent simplicity and low cost. Further-
more, refraction seismics can be used to remove (from
the more deeply focussed reflection data), the ‘adverse’
effect of the first meters or tens of meters of the hetero-
geneous weathered layer, where differences in the ori-
ginal rock quality may cause tens of meters of sub-surface
‘topography’ in the case of on-land exploration.
1.2 Some basic aspects concerning
elastic body waves
It is usually assumed that the strains associated with the
passage of a seismic wave are of minute, sub-micron mag-
nitude, and except in the neighbourhood of the source,
the strains are generally assumed to be elastic. Based on
this assumption, the velocities of propagation of seismic
waves are determined by the appropriate elastic moduli
and densities of the materials passed through. The general
form of the classic equations linking these three quan-
tities is V
(E/) ⁄ . Compressional bodywaves (primary
1
2
or P-waves) propagate by alternating compression and
dilation (Figure 1.1 a) in the direction of the waves.
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 5

Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type 5

The third important elastic modulus influencing the

conversion between dynamic properties is the bulk modu-
lus (K), defined as the ratio of the volumetric stress (P)
and the volumetric strain (v/v). Since the three mod-
uli are linked by the equation 
K  4/3, it
follows that Vp can also be expressed as:

1
⎡ K  4 /3  ⎤ 2

Vp
⎢ ⎥ (1.3)
⎢⎣  ⎥⎦

This equation therefore demonstrates the fundamen-

tally faster nature of Vp in relation to Vs. The ratio of these
two dynamic properties are also linked by the dynamic
Poisson’s ratio for the material, as will be shown in the
next section, which contains some standard equations.

1.2.1 Some sources of reduced

elastic moduli

In the case of micro-cracked, fractured, or jointed rock

masses, there is a correspondingly reduced set of moduli
in relation to the undisputed elastic nature of the intact
matrix, because of micro (and probably elastic) displace-
ments in normal and/or shear directions across and/
Figure 1.1 Elastic deformations and particle motions associated or along the micro-cracks, fractures or joints. These repre-
with the propagation of body waves: a) P-wave, sent an important part of the source of attenuation of
b) S-wave. Based on Bolt, 1982. the seismic waves in the dry state, due both to various
scales of wave scattering and due to the intrinsic micro-
deformations. Added losses are incurred if these micro-
The oscillating uniaxial strain involved in the case of a or macro-discontinuities are partly saturated, since there
confined body, means that the axial modulus () con- is communication with the pores and eventual pore
trols the velocity of propagation, thus: fluid, and minute flows may be initiated to equilibrate
pressures. These micro-imbalances will only be equili-
1
⎛⎞ 2 brated when the frequency is sufficiently low.
Vp
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ (1.1) The above mechanisms mean that dynamic proper-
⎜⎝  ⎟⎠
ties, such as the velocities, Poisson’s ratio and attenuation
tend in practice to be dispersive, or frequency depend-
Shear bodywave waves, termed secondary, transverse ent. They are also of course rock quality and environment-
or S-waves propagate by a sinusoidal pure shear strain dependent, in the broadest possible meanings of these
(Figure 1.1 b) in a direction perpendicular to the direc- words. As rock quality declines, or the surface is
tion of the waves. The shear modulus (), which is approached, there develops a serious discrepancy between
given by the ratio of shear stress () divided by the shear the dynamic or elastic properties of the intact matrix
strain (tan ), will therefore control the (lower) velocity and the dynamic properties of the (partly discontinu-
of propagation, thus: ous) medium. The ratio between the dynamic proper-
ties of the (partly discontinuous) medium and the static
⎛ ⎞
1
2 deformation properties, such as the (rock mechanics)
Vs
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ (1.2) deformation moduli and joint stiffnesses (the inverse
⎜⎝  ⎟⎠
of compliances), may rise into double figures in this
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 6

6 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

complex region, where velocity-depth gradients are

often extreme.
At depth, under high confinement, and if rock quality
is high, it is assumed that there will be only small dis-
crepancies between the dynamic properties of the matrix
and the dynamic properties of the rock mass. The ‘static’
crack and joint stiffnesses, being so high, will be close to
the dynamic (inverted) crack and joint compliances.
There is controversy however, about the ratio of the
dynamic normal and shear compliances, and the
(inversed) ratio of the ‘static’ normal and shear stiffnesses.
There is even controversy over whether friction is a valid
attenuation mechanism, at the level of these micro-
displacements.
In the rock mechanics of ‘static’, ‘macro-deformations’,
we are familiar with a significant mismatch between the
high normal stiffness, and the much lower (and scale-
dependent) shear stiffness. Concerning the ratio of
dynamic compliances, geophysicists seem not to be so
sure, a dilemma that also probably affects whether fric-
tion is, after all, to be a valid attenuation mechanism, as
assumed in much of the geophysics literature, virtually
up to the present day.
Figure 1.2 Mean Vp and Vs statistics from 4 km of seismic profiles
in metamorphic and igneous rocks. Sjøgren, 1984.
1.3 Relationships between Vp and
Vs and their meaning in
field work
The rock mass quality Q-value, mentioned earlier in
the introduction, is composed of parameter pairs (RQD/
The advantages of using both P-wave and S-wave data to
Jn, Jr/Ja and Jw/SRF – see Appendix A for descriptions
interpret seismic results in hard rock was strongly empha-
and ratings). These effectively describe relative block size,
sised by Sjøgren, 1984. This has been reinforced by the
the inter-block friction coefficient, and an active stress. This
successively easier acquisition of multi-component, multi-
rock quality term will be utilised in various places in this
channel data, and rapidly developing PC analysis cap-
book, not least as a possible interpretation of seismic
abilities. In addition to many other sets of data, some of
quality Q (the inverse of attenuation). (Improvements
which will be referred to later, Sjøgren, 1984 presented
to equation 1.4 will be developed in Chapter 5, to allow
average Vp/Vs ratios from 93 rock sections from 5 differ-
for its application to weaker and more porous rock
ent sites in igneous and metamorphic rocks. These are
types, and to adjust it for depth or stress effects).
reproduced in Figure 1.2.
A rock quality Q-value of 1 tends to be heavily
P-wave velocities ranged from 3.3 to 5.7 km/s, and
jointed, containing some clay, while values
1, are tend-
S-wave velocities from 1.6 to 3.4 km/s. On average, Vp/Vs
ing towards better quality, with wider spacing of joints,
ratios were 1.89 in the rock mass with lower velocities
less joint sets, and no clay. (Q may reach values of about
(heavier jointing) and 1.80 in the rock mass with higher
1000 to 2000 in the case of massive, unjointed rock
velocities (sparser jointing).
masses, confined at depths of say 500 m or more).
These two ratios of Vp/Vs imply rock mass quality
The ratio Vp/Vs depends on dynamic Poisson’s ratio
Q-values of roughly 1 to 10, and 10 to 100 respectively,
() according to the following:
according to the following near-surface, hard rock Vp–Q
relationship (Barton,1991).
Vp 2  2

(1.5)
Vp ≈ 3.5  log10 Q (1.4) Vs 1  2
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 7

Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type 7

From equation 1.5 one can derive the value of dynamic In the case of massive rocks of low porosity, the static
Poisson’s ratio as follows: and dynamic values of the elastic constants (e.g., the
elastic moduli Estat. and Edyn.) are quite close, while for
( Vp / Vs )2  2 heavily fractured and clay bearing zones, large differ-

(1.6) ences between Estat and Edyn are seen (e.g. Cosma, 1995).
2( Vp / Vs )2  1
–
The ratio Vp/Vs is about
3 for hard (zero-porosity)
rocks, for which   0.25. However, in the case of
unconsolidated sediments, the ratio Vp/Vs can even reach
values of 20 to 40 for near surface material, for which  is
commonly greater than 0.45. Later in this chapter, high
values of (dynamic) Poisson’s ratio for a near-surface fault
zone will also be seen, for similar reasons to the above.
A rock quality interpretation, linking these dynamic
parameters, can be added here, by taking Sjøgren’s (1984)
P- and S-wave results from 4.1 km of seismic profiles
for hard but sometimes weathered metamorphic and
igneous rocks (Figure 1.2). The mean value of Vp/Vs

1.89 in the more heavily jointed rocks (perhaps a rock
quality Q  1–10), and the mean value of Vp/Vs
1.80
in sparsely jointed rocks (perhaps a rock quality Q 
10–100), can be used to calculate dynamic Poisson’s ratios
of 0.30 and 0.28 respectively.
As lower rock quality Q-values are approached in shear
zones and faulted zones (e.g. rock quality Q  0.1), the
ratio Vp/Vs increases to about 2.0, corresponding to a
calculated value of dynamic Poisson’s ratio of about 0.33.
The corresponding Q-value (from equation 1.4, using
minimum Vp data from Figure 1.2) is indeed about 0.1.
Extremely low Q-values, for example Q
0.01–0.001
(when Vp  1.5–2.5 km/s) will be needed before
dynamic Poisson’s ratio values become as large as 0.45
(as indicated for near-surface shear zones, in a later
section of this chapter).
Further basic equations linking Vp, Vs, dynamic
Poisson’s ratio (), density (
) and dynamic Young’s modu- equivalent compressional-wave reflections.
lus Edyn. are as follows (Darracott and Orr, 1976):
Rock mass quality descriptions such as Q or RMR or
RQD, which are described in more detail later, correlate
better with static moduli than with dynamic moduli.
Numerous relations between these moduli will be given
in Chapter 6.
1.4 Some advantages of shear
waves
In addressing the challenge of resolving the 0–50 m reso-
lution problem, Dasios et al., 1999 reported multi-
component investigations at four shallow sites (thick
clays, clay/sand sequences over chalk, mudstone overly-
ing granodiorite bedrock, and landfill), using a combin-
ation of both compressional and shear wave seismic.
The authors of course admit that there is a higher
level of effort required to conduct multi-component
seismic, requiring a three-component source configur-
ation, and three-component geophones, but otherwise
conventional multi-channel seismic recording systems,
and PC-based processing software. Obviously the sur-
veys are more difficult and more time consuming than
compression-wave refraction or reflection, but the level
of geophysical information is that much more useful.
They varied the acquisition geometry to optimize
results. They found that under all the conditions, shear-
waves penetrated with less attenuation than compres-
sional waves, also being unaffected by water saturation.
Shear-wave reflections from shallow interfaces were in
some cases less affected by noise compared with the
They offered the following simple explanation of
why shear-waves offer better vertical resolution than
⎛ Edyn.(1   ) ⎞⎟
1
2 compressional-waves, particularly in shallow, unconsoli-
Vp
⎜⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1.7) dated sediments. The dominant reason is that the
⎜⎝
(1   )(1  2 ) ⎟⎟⎠ shear-wave velocities in such cases, are only a fraction
(sometimes less than one fifth) of the compressional-wave
1 velocities. This results in very small wavelengths, despite
⎛ Edyn. ⎞⎟ 2

Vs
⎜⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎟
(1.8) the fact that the dominant frequency of shear wave data
⎝⎜  2(1   ) ⎠⎟ is generally lower than is the case for compressional wave
data. In order to obtain the same level of resolution with
P-waves, energy of very high dominant frequency has to
3( Vp / Vs )2  4 (1.9) be generated, and this is correspondingly more attenuated
Edyn.
Vs2  
( Vp / Vs )2 1 in the low seismic Q sub-surface.
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 8

8 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

(a)

(b)

Figure 1.3 a) Shear-wave velocities (km/s) and Vp/Vs ratios versus depth. b) Shear-wave velocities (km/s) and dynamic Poisson’s ratio versus
depth for a clay-over-mudstone-above-basement sequence, with an interpreted water table at 4.7 m depth. Results of multi-
component seismic at one of four shallow sites described by Dasios et al., 1999.

Since shear-waves are not attenuated at the water table,
and are little affected by changes in fluid saturation, they
can more easily detect lithological changes with corres-
pondingly less ambiguous velocity contrasts. The authors
found that under conditions of full water saturation,
P-wave velocity contrasts between lithologies were small,
whereas the shear-wave velocities reflected the true litho-
logical changes.
In this brief summary, the results from a site they inves-
tigated in Crewekerne, Dorset will be reproduced. Their
results give a good illustration of the subtle interaction
of Vp, Vs and the dynamic Poisson’s ratio, in the presence
of a water table, and also show the effect of increasing
depth in a uniform sedimentary rock. At their site, thin
clays overlayed mudstone, with a basement of granodi-
orite at 70 m depth.
Figure 1.3 shows multi-component plots of shear-wave
velocity versus the ratio of Vp/Vs, and of shear-wave
velocity versus (dynamic) Poisson’s ratio, each as a func-
tion of depth to the basement rock at 70 m depth.
Analysis of the P-wave first arrivals gave velocities of
496 m/s and 1,766 m/s for the unsaturated and saturated
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 9
Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type
layers, and indicated a depth of 4.7 m for the top of the
saturated zone. The dynamic Poisson’s ratio showed a
small decrease close to the surface as a result of the con-
solidation, then a sharp increase as a result of the water
saturation, followed by a steady decrease with depth
within the uniform water-saturated mudstones.
As expected from the theoretical calculation of the
dynamic Poisson’s ratio, there is a certain accentuation
of the above trends for the case of the ratio Vp/Vs, except
that this ratio reduces faster at shallow depth (rather
than when deeper), due to the strong Vp gradient. The
authors point out that the P-wave velocity was not avail-
able at the greatest depths, due to attenuation, so the
data was extrapolated to 70 m. There were indications of
shear-wave anisotropy in the uppermost meters of clay,
but whether due to desication fractures or some form of
layering is not certain.
Although outside the usual range of Vp/Vs (about 1.4
to 2.0) for water saturated rocks, it is of interest to see
details of the development of Vp/Vs ratios in unconsoli-
dated (e.g., subsea) sediments, by noting the progres-
sion from soft soils through compacted soils, to rocks.
Hamilton, 1979 gave comprehensive Vp-depth, Vs-depth
and Vp/Vs-depth data for silty clays, turbidites and mud-
stones to 1 km depth. Vp values increased slowly from
about 1.5 to 2.3 km/s as porosity reduced with increased
depth, while Vs increased rapidly from only .05 km/s
close to the surface, to 0.15 km/s at depth. Vp/Vs ratios
therefore reduced very rapidly from double figures down
to about 2.5 at 1000 metres depth. The dynamic values
of Poisson’s ratio decreased, as a result, from about 0.49
near the surface to 0.41 at 1000 m depth.
In connection with these high values of Poisson’s
ratio for sediments, it is significant to note the relatively
high values of (dynamic) Poisson’s ratio that tend to be
recorded in shear zones and fault zones at much shal-
lower rock engineering projects. Gardener, 1992, calcu-
lated the values of Poisson’s ratio from Vp and Vs
measurements at the Transfynydd power station in Wales,
estimating 0.45 for the shear zones, where the Vp velocity
range was 1.6–2.7 km/s.
The higher values of Poisson’s ratio for shear zones
have psuedo-static parallels to the special feature of
heavily jointed rock masses, which can show ‘expansion
ratios’ or pseudo-Poisson’s ratios far in excess of 0.5, and
even in excess of 1.0 as (shear) failure is approached
(Barton and Bandis, 1982). Elastic continuum theory
is of course ‘violated’ by the shear displacements tend-
ing to occur on the failing joint surfaces.
9
1.5 Basic estimation of rock-type
and rock mass condition, from
shallow seismic P-wave velocity
When first investigating the bedrock for suitability for
near-surface tunnelling or other relatively shallow con-
struction in rock, the preliminary use of shallow refrac-
tion seismic is very typical, where surface access (including
noise) do not present major problems. As a minimum,
the information gives a Vp – depth profile of inestimable
value for further planning of the sub-surface investiga-
tion, in particular the optimal siting of boreholes for
future core-logging and permeability testing.
Figure 1.4 reproduces four examples of shallow refrac-
tion results from Sjøgren 1984, demonstrating the help-
ful information about the location, width and depth of
zones of lower velocity. Later in this chapter, and in sub-
sequent chapters, we will be seeing the many ways of
interpreting such velocities in terms of rock quality and
degree of fracturing, each tempered by the effect of rock
type, density, porosity, depth (or stress level), and of
course the possible anisotropy (or directional depend-
ence) of the result in relation to an anisotropic jointing
frequency, and horizontal stress anisotropy.
The seismic refraction survey provides numerous
depth to bedrock and quality of bedrock assessments at
a small fraction of the cost and time needed for drilling.
Depths are given at the impact points (hammer or shal-
low explosive source) and at the detector points (geo-
phones or 3D seismometers), so a close spacing of
detectors gives the equivalent of a large number of sound-
ings or borings.
Sjøgren, 1984, gives the example of 5 m detector and
25 m source separations for a 10 m deep bedrock inves-
tigation. A 100 m profile gives the equivalent of 250 m
of soundings, and a complete distribution of relative
quality beneath the profile. With the 10 m source and
50 m detector separations needed for a deeper survey to
50 m depth, the equivalent of 650 m of soundings per
100 m profile is given.
The knowledge and experience of the geophysical team
is essential in setting out optimal profiles in relation to the
geology and structural geology, in particular in relation to
anisotropic, layered media, and in relation to fault and
shear zones. ‘Correct’ interpretation of the calculated
information cannot be divorced from the geology, since a
given velocity (Vp or Vs or dynamic Poisson’s ratio) is not
unique to any one material but part of a scale or gradation
in the specific geological profile at the site, and reflects
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 10

10 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

Figure 1.4 Seismic refraction results illustrating the wealth of potential information obtained concerning near surface conditions. Sjøgren, 1984.
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 11

Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type 11

Figure 1.5 Typical ranges of Vp for sediments and for little weathered, moderately fractured rocks. Sjøgren, 1984.

various ‘environmental’ factors acting on each rock
domain, as will be demonstrated in subsequent chapters.
The later geological and rock quality interpretation
of core recovered from boreholes drilled close to the
seismic profiles is the domain of engineering geologists,
who besides identifying rock type, will perform careful
logging of RQD, joint or fracture spacing, joint rough-
ness and discontinuity mineral filling identification (or
testing). The performance of rock quality characteriza-
tion of drillcore is also standard practice for civil engin-
eering and many mining projects, using the Q-value
(Barton et al., 1974, Barton, 2002) and RMR
(Bieniawski, 1989) as a minimum. Although these two
methods have similarities, and common goals, there are
differences, and care is needed in converting Q to RMR
and visa versa, e.g. Barton, 1995.
Typical ranges of velocities for relatively competent (lit-
tle weathered moderately fractured) rocks are given in
Figure 1.5. Much lower velocities, covering most of the
lower diagonal space between 1 km/s and 6 km/s are seen
with extremes of weathering, jointing and fault related
fracturing. The following is an example of the effects of
weathering for just one rock type, from Sjøgren, 1984:
A similar range of values from the SSDS Project
granites in Hong Kong (Gardener, 1992) gives a useful
qualitative impression of variations caused by weather-
ing and jointing in the same rock type.
Table 1.2 Typical range of Vp (km/s) for granite (Gardener, 1992).
Decomposed granite (soil) 1.6–1.8
Fracture zones 2.8–3.5
Jointed granite 3.5–4.5
Intact granite 4.5–6.5
At the hazardous second Severn Estuary crossing
between England and Wales, tidal currents are so strong
that 85% of the crossing had continuous rock outcrops
between low and high tide. Sonar buoys and bottom
drag cable gave the following relatively tight ranges of
velocities for five rock types that were confirmed with
boreholes, enabling the rocks to be identified across
the site.
Table 1.3 P-wave velocities at the Second Severn Crossing
(Gardener, 1992).

Average velocity Velocity range

Rock description (km/s) (km/s)
Table 1.1 Typical range of Vp for gneiss (Sjøgren, 1984).
Triassic mudstone 2.1 1.7–2.3
500 m/s Soil (above water table) Triassic siltstone 2.4 2.2–2.6
1700 m/s Highly weathered biotite gneiss Triassic sandstone 2.6 1.8–3.1
2800 m/s Weathered biotite gneiss Carboniferous siltstone
3500 m/s Jointed biotite/granitic gneiss and sandstone 3.0 2.5–4.4
4900–5400 m/s Sound biotite gneiss Carboniferous sandstone 4.0 3.0–4.4
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 12

12 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

Table 1.4 A list of typical Vp and Vs values from Press, 1966.

Material Vp (m/s) Vs (m/s)

Alluvium 500–2100
Clay 1100–2500
Sand 200–2000
Glacial Till 400–1700
Sandstone 1400–4500
Shale, Slate 2300–4700
Limestone
Soft 1700–4200
Hard 2800–6400
Crystalline 5700–6400
Dolomite 3500–6900
Granite, Granodiorite 4600–6000 2800–3200
Diabase 5800–6000
Gabbro 6400–6700 3400–3600
Basalt 5400–6400 2700–3200
Schist 4200–4900 2500–3200
Figure 1.6 Typical ranges of Vp for common rock types. Griffiths Gneiss 3500–7500 3300–3700
and King, 1987. Water 1450
Air 335

Griffiths and King, 1987, also give typical Vp ranges
for common rock types. These are reproduced in Figure
1.6, as a source of cross-referencing. Fractured, faulted
and heavily jointed zones extend the six major ranges
for these rocks far to the left on occasion. Note the
extremely high velocities of the dense, ultramafic rocks,
which lie outside the common range of 1 to 6 km/s.
A comprehensive set of in situ seismic Vp values, and
some Vs values for common rock types, is also shown in
Table 1.4. The data are given by Press, 1966.
The wide ranges of velocity for sandstone, shale, lime-
stone and dolomite are mainly due to the wide ranges of
porosity (and density) for these materials. The surpris-
ingly high range for gneiss is due to the wide range of
mineralogical composition (and density) for this rock.
The marked variation of velocities that are measured
in superficial deposits (0.5 to 2.0 km/s in Figure 1.5)
are partly caused by location either above or below the
water table, as shown by Sjøgren’s 1984 data set. The
list given in Table 1.4 shows 0.2 to 2.0 km/s just for
the case of sand, mostly for this reason.
The following is perhaps a good example of the influ-
ence of particle size in river born sediments.
The last line of Table 1.5 (for cobbles and boulders)
differs significantly from the range 1.3 to 1.9 km/s for
‘river boulders’ given by Dhawan et al., 1983, presum-
ably due to differences in porosities. In the latter case,
the ‘silty sand matrix’ is presumably absent. These last
Table 1.5 P-wave velocities for different horizons in a river bank
terrace (Sen and Bandyoadhyay, 1990).
0.7–0.8 km/s Clayey and silty soil with pebbles
1.7–1.8 km/s Pebbles/cobbles in silty sand matrix
2.1–2.2 km/s Cobbles/boulders in silty sand matrix
Table 1.6 P-wave velocities for phyllites at a Himalayan dam site
(Dhawan et al., 1983).
Overburden/weathered phyllites 925–1200
Unweathered phyllites 2520–4500
authors also give data for phyllites, which do not appear
on the foregoing figures or tables of Vp data.
1.6 Some preliminary conversions
from velocity to rock quality
Due to the seismic ‘visibility’ of jointing in the upper 25
to 30 metres or so, Sjøgren et al., 1979 and Sjøgren, 1984
and others, have been able to record significant correl-
ations between Vp, RQD and joint frequency. These
authors compared the results from a total of 113 km of
P-wave profiles from fifteen sites, with the results of
2.85 km of core-logging from seventy four drill holes at
eight of the hard rock sites. (They also had 5 km of
S-wave surveys at five of the sites).
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 13

Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type 13

The range of rocks occurring at the measured locations,
mostly in Norway, were: amphibolite, granite, gneiss,
meta-anorthosite, pegmatite, porphyry, quartzite and
mylonite. The authors were careful to emphasise that
the correlations they derived between P-wave velocity
and jointing descriptions such as mean RQD and mean
Figure 1.7 reproduces Sjøgren et al., 1979 data in the
readily absorbed format used by the authors. Mean values
for all the parameters apply. The Edyn modulus is the
same as the symbol () used to denote the uniaxial or
axial modulus in equation 1.1.
Since their measurements were shallow, the effect of
frequency F(m1) were relevant only to unweathered
igneous and metamorphic rocks, and generally for the
upper 20 to 30 metres.
Figure 1.7 Mean values of physical and dynamic properties for
hard, unweathered igneous and metamorphic rocks,
based on shallow refraction seismics. Sjøgren et al., 1979.
Q-Scale added by Barton, 1995.
stress-induced joint closure was minimised. They also
effectively removed other sets of variables by generally
recording correlations for hard and almost unweathered
igneous and metamorphic rocks. The usual variables of
depth, porosity, uniaxial compressive strength and dens-
ity were therefore largely removed.
A hard rock, near surface correlation of Vp and the
rock quality Q-value was derived by Barton, 1995, on
the basis of trial and error fitting to cases known to the
writer and also Q-logged. (These will be described in
Chapter 5). In Figure 1.8, the important effects of poros-
ity, uniaxial strength and depth are ignored, as for the
Sjøgren et al., 1979 data. Note that the RQD and F/m
mean data have been smoothly extrapolated beyond
both ends of the Sjøgren et al., ‘data-base’ represented
by Figure 1.7.
1.7 Some limitations of the
refraction seismic velocity
interpretations
The seismic refraction method has some important limi-
tations. One is that the horizontal or sub-horizontal ray

Figure 1.8 RQD and Fm1 trends from Sjøgren et al., 1979. Q-scale, (as also in Figure 1.7) added by Barton, 1995. These results and
approximate correlations to seismic-frequency Vp are relevant for hard, low porosity, unweathered, near-surface rock masses.
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:19 PM Page 14
14 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy
paths record only the upper part of each seismic layer. A
thin high-speed layer can mask underlying material, while
a low-velocity intermediate layer will not be recognised
for similar reasons. Depth calculations to underlying
refractors will be erroneous. The hidden low velocity
zones can of course be detected by up-hole shooting from
a borehole to the seismic spread (i.e. VSP), or by inspec-
tion and index testing of core, if available.
A useful review of refraction seismic methods and com-
monly used methods of interpretation is given in Whitely,
1990. Citing Sjøgren, 1984 that low velocity zones are
consistently interpreted as being shallower than the bore-
hole confirmation, Whitely, 1990 went on to compare
three interpretation methods of the simple yet frequently
occurring situation shown in Figure 1.9. The three solu-
tions were obtained by independent geophysics practi-
tioners. It is clear that control drilling of identified
features must be made before making important deci-
sions such as minimum depth of cover over a sub-sea
tunnel.
Stapledon and Rissler, 1983 emphasised the follow-
ing potential shortcomings of the seismic method, as
related to near-surface investigations for civil engineer-
ing projects.
1. Minor geological defects such as weathered seams or
minor faults may govern the engineering behaviour
of a site, especially if their orientation is unfavour-
able. The seismic method ‘generally is unable to
detect such defects’. Is this pessimism justified or is
it entirely correct?
2. P-waves are first to arrive at the geophones ‘and must
take the shortest path through the best rock’. Will
this mean that they do not represent the average
local quality but the best local quality?
Both shallow and deep refraction seismic are subject
to velocity anomalies, causing time-distortion and there-
fore depth anomalies, as we have seen in the above shal-
low example. Although the following case of Armstrong
et al., 2001 is strictly speaking a deeper reservoir case, it
provides such a nice illustration of the hazards of depth
interpretation that it will be referred to in this first
chapter.
As the authors point out, the overburden above a
hydrocarbon prospect is often more or less horizontal or
perhaps with gently dipping sedimentary layers. It is gen-
erally paid little attention, in relation to the focussed
investigation of the reservoir target at depth. Clearly,
the overburden at typical shallow refraction sites for civil
Figure 1.9 Three independently derived depth estimates for a low
velocity zone detected by refraction seismics. Whitely,
1990.
engineering projects may be far different from these
apparently uniform conditions. Yet even the ‘simple’ site
may contain velocity anomalies, which reduce the image
quality. The time horizons suffer ‘push-down’ beneath
slow-velocity anomalies, and ‘pull-up’ beneath fast
velocity anomalies.
The geological ‘reality’ shown on the left in Figure 1.10
contrasts nicely with the equivalent post-stack seismic
time section, shown on the right. There is significant
distortion of layer ‘horizons’, and perhaps surprisingly
persistent follow-through to depth. Armstrong et al.,
2001 describe a method for compensating for these
discrete overburden velocity anomalies. (Their warning
about possible miss-calculation of reserves, or miss-
positioning of infill wells, or by-passing of incremental
reserves in relation to petroleum engineering, can clearly
apply in other contexts to shallow civil engineering
projects, where for example there are buried sediment-
filled channels that have been known to plague certain
tunnel projects, due to high water storage, and
‘constant’ inflow pressure).
Also concerning the possibility of depth estimation
error, it was emphasised by Bradford and Sawyer, 2002,
in the context of shallow seismic reflection measurements,
that larger depth and layer thickness estimates would
occur when using conventional velocity analysis, if in the
presence of the extreme velocity gradient close to the dry-
saturated transition, (usually fairly close to the surface in
temperate climates).
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:20 PM Page 15

Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type 15

(a) (b)

Figure 1.10 Schematic cross-section through an overburden containing velocity anomalies of different geological age. The idealized vertical
section is shown on the left, and the contrasting, time-horizon distortions, post stacking, are shown on the right. Armstrong,
et al., 2001.

The authors indicated (as also seen earlier), that the
P-wave velocity could increase by a factor of four or
more at this transition, in the case of unconsolidated
sediments changing from dry, through partial satur-
ation, to full saturation – which may occur just above
the water table, due to the action of capillary forces. A
large velocity gradient (e.g. 400 m/s to 1600 m/s from 1
to 10 m depth) apparently violates many of the assump-
tions made in conventional reflection data processing
schemes.
In a recent paper, Sjøgren, 2000, evaluated several
standard methods for interpreting travel time curves.
He utilised the ABC method (originating from 1931),
the ABEM correction method (early 1950s, detailed in
Sjøgren, 1984), the mean-minus-T method (mid-fifties,
also adopted in the ABEM method), and the Hales
method (1958), in order to critically evaluate a more
recent (1980) generalized reciprocal method (GRM) of
Palmer, in particular Palmer, 1991.
Sjøgren, 2000 expressed concern about the useful-
ness of the GRM method for near-surface geotechnical
investigations, where details of the various overburden
layers are required since they may have important con-
sequences for the subsequent geotechnical design.
A relatively more recent technique for modelling of
travel times and travel time inversion in refraction seis-
mics is the so-called Eikonal solver. In principle, this
involves the calculation of travel times on a regular
velocity grid. Early versions, originating from the late
1980s were restricted to a plane topography for the
recording surface.
Lecomte et al., 2000, describe a first order Eikonal
solver that can incorporate the exact topography of the
surface terrain, and any arbitrary lateral variation of
velocity. There is no restriction on the velocity contrast.
In effect, the model is built up layer by layer, with the
refractor imaging, and the velocity mapping being per-
formed for each identified refractor at a time, as seen
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:20 PM Page 16

16 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1.11 An arbitrarily chosen model for demonstrating a new method of refraction seismic inversion. Lecomte et al., 2000 used this
synthetic model for demonstrating some basic elements of the Eikonal solver, which calculates the travel time of the fastest
wave at any point of a regular velocity grid, using the head waves generated in refraction seismics. The three stages of model-
ling shown here are: a) Wave-fronts and raypaths at receivers along the surface, when considering the whole model (but
minus the acoustic wave velocity in the air, which was omitted for clarity. b) Wave-fronts and raypaths at receivers along the sur-
face, when masking the deepest layer. c) Wave-fronts and raypaths at receivers along the surface, when masking the two deepest
layers.

schematically in one of their illustrative figures, repro-
duced here in Figure 1.11.
1.8 Assumed limitations may
hide the strengths of the
method
In later chapters the numerous factors influencing seismic
velocities such as joint frequency, porosity, rock (and joint
wall) strength, density, depth, stress, stress anisotropy,
degree of saturation, type of saturating fluid, will each be
reviewed. This will be done in order to emphasise that
the seismic method has numerous complications, but also
inestimable advantages, and that some of the assumed
shortcomings can be due to misinterpretations (often an
over-simplification, or perhaps even a pre-conceived
opinion about ‘seismic’ limitations).
Consider for example the jointed chalk marl at the
Chinnor Tunnel in the UK, where jointing in this weak
material were seismically closing at about 15 metres depth,
to give a stable 1.6 km/s field velocity, despite changes in
the degree of jointing (‘rock’ Hudson et al., 1980). This
can be contrasted with the jointed gneiss at the Gjøvik
cavern in Norway, which gave a continuous rise in vel-
ocity from 3.5 to 5.5 km/s in the first 50 metres depth due
to increased stress, yet had almost unchanged rock qual-
ity. The joint frequency, RQD and rock quality Q-values
did not show an improvement with depth (Barton et al.,
1994). Both the above observations could be interpreted
as ‘limitations’ of the method. In fact they are demonstrat-
ing specific and quite logical physical laws of behaviour.
The latter is an example of the need to interpret seismic
velocity with knowledge of depth and/or stress level, since
a rock quality Q-value increase from perhaps 1 to 100
might otherwise be assumed in these first 50 metres,
Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:20 PM Page 17
Shallow seismic refraction, some basic theory, and the importance of rock type
based on a ‘hard rock’, ‘stress-less’ interpretation (i.e.
equation 1.4, and Figure 1.8).
The interpretation cannot be divorced from consider-
ation of what is actually occurring in a rock mass as depth
increases, i.e. joint normal stiffness increases, joint aper-
ture reduces, joint frequency reduces (usually), and the
clay content in the joints reduces (usually). The list can
be lengthened considerably by adding that the stress
increases, the deformation modulus increases, the permea-
bility reduces, the pore pressure increases. Since there
may be changes of lithology with depth increase, the
provision ‘usually’ should really be added to each of
the above.
When considering the possibility of relating seismic
velocity to a rock quality descriptor such as the rock
quality Q-value, another quite basic problem must
also be considered. A velocity of 2.5 km/s for massive
chalk marl of high porosity, as in the better parts of
the UK-France Channel Tunnel, will have entirely dif-
ferent engineering consequences to that of a regional
fault-zone of the same 2.5 km/s velocity, crossing a
Japanese high-speed rail tunnel excavation, and delay-
ing progress by months. In this best quality chalk marl,
near-world record speeds of (TBM) tunnel boring were
achieved.
The natural velocity of the unjointed rock under in
situ conditions (Sjøgren et al., 1979), and the contrast
seen in low velocity zones is the main index of difficulty,
since an order of magnitude reduction in the rock quality
Q-value will generally accompany each 1.0 km/s reduc-
tion in seismic velocity, according to the simplified
model shown in Figure 1.8.
Low velocity and potentially high permeability zones
will be the natural focus of attention in most sub-surface
civil engineering projects. However, in a TBM (machine-
bored) tunnelling project, there will be serious delays if
there is too much high velocity rock, due to the slow
progress made in hard, sparsely jointed rock. This would
give a ‘reversed’ Vp–rock quality indication, due specif-
ically to poor borability and the need for frequent
cutter changes.
A Q-value based ‘Qtbm’ rock-machine quality factor
has been developed for this specific problem (Barton,
17
round of advance would also be demonstrating a
‘reversed’ Vp-quality behaviour. However, the more dom-
inant effect of a reduced need for time consuming rock
support would be consistent with the normal ‘high
velocity
high quality’ concept. Since it is more logical
that Vp increases should accompany rock quality or
Q-value increases, such cases of ‘reversed’ quality must
be treated as separate, method-specific cases.
1.9 Seismic quality Q and apparent
similarities to Q-rock
A fundamental feature of the propagation of stress waves
in all materials is the absorption of energy and the result-
ing change in shape of the transient waves. Non-linear
friction has traditionally been assumed to be one of the
dominant attenuation mechanisms (Kjartansson, 1979),
but as will be discussed in Part II, there are a large num-
ber of mechanisms that can explain the different degrees
of attenuation in different rock masses, including scat-
tering due to structure, and squirt flow.
Geophysicists commonly characterise seismic attenu-
ation by the seismic quality factor Q, which of necessity
has been termed Q seis throughout this book, to distin-
guish it from the rock mass quality Q. Intuitively Q seis
is related to, but no relation of, the rock mass quality Q
of Barton et al., 1974, which is a ‘quality number’ also
widely used in civil and mining engineering in the last
several decades.
The seismic quality Q seis is often defined as the max-
imum energy (Emax) stored during a cycle, divided by
the energy lost (E) during a cycle:
2
Q seis
 E max (1.10)
E
For dry rocks, Q seis has been claimed to be independ-
ent of frequency over a reasonable frequency range
(McKenzie et al., 1982). However, as will be seen in
Part II, Q seis is a remarkably sensitive indicator of
anisotropy, and is frequency dependent in the case of
saturated or partly saturated conditions. When attenu-
2000), which also allows for the fact that more jointing
is good for progress – up to some limit, when other prob-
lems may arise. (More tunnel support is needed, there
could be gripper-setting problems, the cutter head could
even be jammed).
In the case of drill-and-blasted tunnels, the drillability
and blastability components of the cycle time for one
ation (Q1seis) is high, Q seis obviously has a low value.
Chapter 10 in Part II, will address Q seis in detail, and
also draw some tentative parallels between ‘Q and Q’,
via a common link to deformation properties.
Intuitively, the rock mass quality Q (of Barton et al.,
1974) which has a high value in high-modulus, high-
velocity rock masses (i.e., Q
100, Vp
5.5 km/s,
 Barton-01.qxd 8/17/06 5:20 PM Page 18

18 Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

Emass  45 GPa) would seem likely to have high energy Further discussion of Q seis is given in Chapter 4, based
storage and low energy loss under such conditions, and on recent seismic attenuation tomography (see alterna-
therefore qualify for a high value of Q seis and a low tive tomograms). However, a much fuller treatment of
value of attenuation (Q1 seis). Conversely, in a rock mass
characterized by many joint sets with clay coatings and
fillings on many joints (i.e., Q
0.1, Vp
2.5 km/s,
Emass
5 GPa), both low energy storage and high
energy loss per cycle would be expected. (Q seis is low
Q seis is given of both lab-scale and in situ scale attenuation
phenomena, in Part II, chapter 10, and in relevant parts
of Chapters 13 and 15.
and attenuation Q1seis is correspondingly high.)

View publication stats