Seismic refraction study investigating the subsurface geology at Houghall

Grange, Durham, Northern England

CHARLIE KENZIE
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Durham 2013
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of study
Seismic refraction is used to investigate the
subsurface geology in the area of Houghall
Grange. Analysis of the seismic data is used
to ascertain the depth to refracted layers and
is compared against hypothesized layers in
the near sub-surface taken from borehole and
leveling data. This paper also provides an
introduction to the use of seismic refraction
methods and the interpretation of seismic
data.

1.2 Geological setting
The geology of the surrounding area is
indicated by the stratigraphy found at
Houghall Pit, a disused coalmine, situated
approximately 200m away from the survey
profile (Fig.1). The coal shafts suggest that a
basement of Carboniferous sands and
limestones, at an approximate depth of 15m,
are overlain by drift deposits of silts, clays
and conglomerates, which in turn are overlain
by a thin layer of topsoil (Shirlaw, 1964).
Additionally, the water table is assumed to be
the same height as the pond, which is located
just to the south of the survey (Fig.1).

2. SEISMIC SURVEY

2.1 Profile geometry
The refraction profile was set up with a
conventional field geometry, which involved
a line of receivers (geophones) connected to a
centrally positioned seismograph. A total of
five shots were fired, two at the ends of the
profile, one in the centre, and two at quarterly
points (Fig.2). The end shots were fired at the
very end of the profile with the end
geophones being moved inward by half an
interval (3m). This method allows the most
accurate analysis of reciprocal times since the
shots are located exactly on the ends of the
profile line (Underwood, 2009).
The target depth of the survey is only around
20m, and since a length of profile
approximately five times this value is
sufficent (Kearey & Brooks 1984), the
Fig.2 Sketch of the seismic profile geometry showing
the shot positions and the 24 receivers with a spacing of
6m. Geophone spacings are shown for firing a shot at S
4

note that the end geophone (24) has been moved inwards
by half an interval (3m).
Fig.1 Survey profile and the location of the pond to
the south. The disused coal shafts are approximately
200m to the south of the profile. Durham city is
2km to the NE. Crown Copyright Ordnance
Survey, An EDINA Digimap/JISC supplied service.

ABSTRACT
Interpretation of seismic data surveyed at Houghell Grange was carried out using the plus minus method to calculate the depth to the
refracted layers. The results show large discontinuities with geological data. The calculated depth to the basement feature is much
larger than depths suggested by borehole data. Additional analysis of the data reveals that the data is attributed with large uncertainties
and consequently the accuracy and reliability of the results are diminished. It is suggested that the hidden layer or continuous
velocity problems may have caused errors in the data. In reality, the inaccuracy of the results could have been caused by a variety of
possibilities including poor data analysis and computation. This highlights the need for further and more detailed study and more
rigorous data analysis.
s3 s4
s5
geophones were spaced at 6m intervals to
give a total profile length of 138m (Fig.2).

2.2 Results
First breaks of headwaves were generally
eyeballed from the seismic data. However,
some traces were particulary affected by noise
and data from geophones 19 onwards were
especially noisy, and were consequently
disreguarded. The data from the first 18
geophones is shown below in Table 1.0. The
data from each shot, including the forward
and backward times, are plotted on plate 1,
Fig.3, and the respective lines of best fit are
added to each data set. In contrast to
geological data, the time graph suggests a two
layer case.

2.3 Plus minus method
For shallow depth surveys, subsurface layers
can be assumed to be near planar, however,
the surface of the earth is not planar and the
natural relief of the ground causes irregular
travel time segments (fig.2). Thus, normal
analysis of reciprocal times is unsuitable and
the use of the more elegant plus minus
method is utilised. If we consider our profile,
with four shots s
1
, s
2
, s
3
and s
4
or A, B, C and
D respectively (Fig., the minus time between
shots A and B (A/B) is simply given by
subtracting the travel times or
!
T
"
( )
AB
= T
A
"T
B

Similarly for shots B and C (B/C)
!
T
"
( )
BC
= T
B
"T
C

The minus time graphs for A/B, B/C, and C/D
are plotted on plate 1 Fig.4, shots A/C and
B/D are shown in Fig.5 and between shots
A/D is shown in Fig.6. For a second layer
refractor, with dip !, the gradient m of the
minus time graph is given by
!
m =
2cos"
V
2

since we are assuming sub-horizontal layers,
cos! is approximately equal to one, leading to
the gradient m of the minus graph
!
m =
2
V
2

In some cases the ends of the minus time
graphs show a different gradient, and in the
second layer case this is the gradient of the
combined V
1
and V
2
velocities
!
m =
1
V
1
+
1
V
2

To calculate the plus times we consider a
profile with a single geophone G with two
shots fired, A and B, at each end of the profile
(Fig.6). The plus time
G
T
+
is given by
!
G
T
+
= T
AG
+T
BG
"T
AB

additionally, the plus time for a three layer
case is also given by
!
G
T
+
=
2z
1
V
3
2
"V
1
2
V
3
V
1
+
2z
2
V
3
2
"V
2
2
V
2
V
3

2.4 Velocity of the first layer
Although at first glance the travel time graph
suggests a two-layer case, it is more likely
that, in reality the subsurface is made up of
three layers. Geological data indicates that the
top layer is comprised of poorly consolidated
alluvium deposits and topsoil, and it is
probable that such a layer would only
accommodate extremely low seismic
velocities. A low velocity layer such as this
would thus not be shown on the time graph,
since first arrivals of the second refractor V
2

would reach the receivers before the head
waves from the first layer. If we assume that
the first layer has a significantly lower
velocity than the layers above it then further

Geophone
number
Distance
(m)
S
1
(ms)
S
2
(ms)
S
3
(ms)
S
4
(ms)
1 6 16 31 50 62
2 12 16 25 47 59
3 18 18 23 45 58
4 24 23 20 43 57
5 30 26 18 40 52
6 36 28 12 36 47
7 42 31 13 34 46
8 48 32 15 31 42
9 54 35 12 25 40
10 60 38 21 24 35
11 66 41 26 22 36
12 72 49 32 21 38
13 78 52 40 23 35
14 84 55 - - -
15 90 53 40 28 27
16 96 51 42 31 25
17 102 - 43 40 22
18 108 61 44 35 18

Table 1.0 Seismic data shown for the first 18 geophone
stationzs
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
PLATE 1

S
1
S
4
S
2
S
3
Fig.3 Time travel graphs plotted with data from receivers 1-18 with fired shots S1, S2, S3 and S4.
Fig.4 Minus time graphs for A/B, B/C and C/D. Gradients
are shown for each line as part of the displayed equations.
Fig.5 Minus time graphs for A/c, C/D. Gradients are shown
for each line as part of the displayed equations.
Fig.5 Minus time graph for data between shots A/D
gradients of each line shown included in displayed equations
Fig. 6 General set up geometry for seismic profile with shots A
and B and geophone G. Minus times given by Equations 1 & 2,
plus times given by Equations 6 & 7.
analysis of the travel time graph shows that
the maximum velocity of the first layer V
1
is
150 ms
-1
. We continue the data analysis and
interpretation assuming a very low first layer
velocity.

2.5 Second and third layer velocities
The second and third layer velocities are
calculated from the minus time graphs shown
in Figs. 4-6 above. Minus times plotted in
Fig.4 give the velocity for the second layer,
taking the average gradient, the calculated
velocity of the second layer V
2
is
2000 100 ms
-1
. Similarly, minus times
plotted in Figs. 5 and 6 give the velocity of
the third layer V
3
and is calculated to be
2250 150 ms
-1
.

2.6 Depth profile
The depth to the refractors at each geophone
is given by rearranging Equations 6 and 7.
However, since the velocity of the first layer
V
1
is significantly smaller than that of V
2
and
V
3
, the plus time for the second layer refractor
can now be given approximately by
!
G
T
+
( )
V
2
"
2z
1
V
1

and therefore for the third refractor
!
G
T
+
( )
V
3
"
2z
1
V
1
+
2z
2
V
3
2
#V
1
2
V
2
V
3

!
"
G
T
+
( )
V
2
+
2z
2
V
3
2
#V
2
2
V
2
V
3

Additionally, if we assume that the first
refractor marks the boundary of the water
table and if we assume that the water table is
the same height as the water level in the pond,
we can estimate the likely depth of the first
layer z
1
as being equal to that of the water
level in the pond.

Leveling data is shown in Table 2.0 opposite
and displays the elevation of each geophone
station and the relative elevation to the
hypothesized water table. Some geophone
stations have a lower elevation than the water
table, suggesting that generally, the water
table is at the surface and indicating that z
1
=0.
The depth to the second refractor is calculated
from plus times, taken from the travel time
graph (Fig.2), and then by utilizing Equation
10 above. The results are shown alongside the
leveling data.
3. DISCUSSION

3.1 Lithology of layers
Table 3.0 below shows typical shear wave
velocities through some common lithologies.
The velocity of the first layer is assumed to be
very low, less than 150 ms
-1
, which is typical
of highly unconsolidated topsoil (Reynolds,
1997). The velocity of the second layer is in
the order of 2000 ms
-1
, a value that could be
accounted for by a number of stratigraphic
units (table 3.0). From the seismic velocity
(8)
(9)
(10)
Table 2.0 Leveling data for each geophone station and
also the depth to the second refractor z
2
as calculated by
the plus minus method.
Fig.6 Depth profile of the layers. Surface topography is
shown the firs red line, with the datum taken as the water
table (blue line). The water table is assumed to be the
first layer. The depth to the second refractor is shown as
the second red line.
data alone it is difficult to conclusively say
what the lithology of the second layer is.

However, geological data from the coal shafts
(Shirlaw 1964) suggests that the drift deposits
exist somewhere between the surface and the
basement, and additionally, the third layer
shows a velocity too high to be accounted for
by drift deposits. Furthermore, since we are
assuming that the second layer is below the
water table, it seems most likely that the drift
deposits are water saturated and it is therefore
reasonable to interpolate that the second layer
is made up of water saturated sands or glacial
till.

The third layer shows a slightly higher
velocity, in the order of 2300 ms
-1
, which lies
within the range of sand and limestone
velocities. Again, geological data allows us to
interpolate that the third layer is the basement
rock head.
3.2 Depth to the layers
Although the velocity profile through the
layers suggests a similar structure to that
shown by geological data, i.e. a high velocity
basement overlain by a slightly lower velocity
layer of drift deposits, the depth profile does
not. Estimates to the depth of the second
refractor, using the plus minus method, show
values far greater than those suggested by
geological data. The average depth calculated
by means of the plus minus method is 44m,
whilst geological data from the coal shafts
suggests a depth to the basement of just 15m.
Furthermore, in contrast to the previous
geological constraint that assumes all the
layers are horizontal, the calculated depths
show an undulating non-planar layer.
Although it is not unreasonable to suggest that
in reality the layer is a homogenous
concordant layer, the depth profile suggested
by our data is geological unreasonable as it
predicts a massively undulating surface. Since
the calculated values of both the depth and the
structure of the third layer seem geological
unreasonable, this indicates that errors in the
data have carried through the computation
and caused inaccuracy in the final results.

This is highlighted, when computing the
depth using the maximum and minimum
velocity values, instead of the average value.
If the maximum velocity of the second layer
and the minimum velocity of the third layer is
used, so that V
2
is almost equal to V
3

(V
3
! V
2
! 2100 ms
-1
) then the average depth to
the refractor is increased to the order of
around 180 m. Conversely, if the velocity of
the second layer is set to its minimum value,
and the velocity of the third layer is set to its
maximum possible value, so that V
3
is much
greater than V
2
(V
2
= 1900ms
-1
, V
3
= 2400ms
-1
)
then the average depth of the refractor layer is
lowered to the order of 25m.

This highlights that the calculated depth of the
layers is associated with large uncertainties,
and that relatively small changes in the
velocity of the layers causes large differences
in the calculated depths. This is of particular
concern considering the large range of
possible velocities for any given lithology in
table 3.0. If you consider a two-layered
system with identical lithologies, but with
differing velocities, this would give rise to
vastly different depth profiles.

Much like other geophysical techniques, this
highlights the ambiguity of the interpretation
of seismic data and underlines the importance
of external geological constraints. It is
apparent that even if the minimum depth is
used as an estimate for bedrock depth, this
Table 3.0 P-wave velocities of some common lithologies
(Reynolds 1997)
value is still much larger than the depth
suggested by geological data, and
additionally, the geometry of the layer is still
shown as non-planar. This further suggests
that unaccounted uncertainties in the data are
causing errors in the computed results.

The large extent of the errors in the results are
also shown by the large disparity between the
calculate velocity of the basement and the
expected velocity for a Carboniferous
bedrock. Calculated velocities for the
basement are in the order of 2000 ms
-1
,
however data in Table 3.0 suggests that
Carboniferous sand and limestones
accommodate velocities that are typically in
the order of 5000 ms
-1
.

3.3 Possible causes of errors
As discussed in the previous section,
relatively small changes in the velocity of the
layers can cause a large difference in
calculated depths. Further analysis of the first
break head waves on the initial seismic data
set reveals that a change in first arrival times
by only a couple of milliseconds causes
calculated depths to the refractor to change by
hundreds of metres. It is possible that
eyeballing the first breaks was not accurate or
reliable enough, and caused errors to compile
through the computation and thus leading to
large inaccuracies in the final results. This
underlines the need for further more detailed
analysis of the data and perhaps a more
elegant method for picking first-breaks.

We assume that at each layer below the first,
the velocity is greater than that of the
overlying layer. However, it is possible that
the third layer, the basement refractor, is
hidden because its velocity is lower than that
of the sediments above it. Considering the
seismic velocities in Table 3.0, it is possible
that a layer of highly saturated clay or glacial
till could accommodate higher velocities than
that of low velocity sand or limestone. In this
case rays would not be critically refracted at
the top of the basement and not give rise to
head waves.

In this case we hypothesise that the refracted
head waves picked up in our data may be the
consequence of a seismically distinct layer
within the basement, perhaps the start of older
basement rocks at around 40 or 50m depth.
However, since our survey was only designed
to investigate the top 20m of the crust, we
cannot be sure that layers calculated for
greater depths are reliable. A longer length
profile would need to be implemented in
order to investigate depths in the order of
50m.

Another scenario that could have cause
significant error in the data is by considering
a layer whose velocity continuously changes.
Such phenomena are common in thick clastic
sequences, especially clays. The area of High
Wood, to the north of the profile, has a
geology characterised by a thick layer of
boulder clay. If such a layer was present, it is
possible that increased compaction and
dewatering of the sequence with depth causes
the velocity of the layer to also change with
depth. This would cause the associated rays to
not travel along the top surface of the layer
but instead along a curved path within the
layer with a turning point at some depth
below the interface (Kearey & Brooks 1984).
Such a phenomenon would account for the
inaccuracies of the data results however, the
interpretation of diving waves is complex,
and is therefore out of the limits of this paper.

CONCLUSION
The results of the seismic survey contradict
with geological data. The extent of the
differences of the results is highlighted in
both the calculated velocity and calculated
depths of the layers. Although it is suggested
that errors in the data are caused by
phenomena present in the layers, such as a
changing velocity and hidden layers, it seems
just as likely that errors are caused by poor
data analysis, perhaps due to the eyeballing
technique used to pick first breaks. This
indicates that more detailed, more sensitive
and more rigorous data analysis needs to be
implemented. Additional data should also be
collected from a similar profile geometry in
order to increase the reliability of the data. If
time allowed, a 2-D seismic survey may be
suitable, to investigate the lateral
inhomogenities that may be indicated by the
data (Fig.6).




REFREENCES

EDINA DIGIMAP Crown Copyright
Ordnance Survey, An EDINA
Digimap/JISC supplied service
KEAREY, P., & Brooks, M. (1984).
Resitivity Surveying. In P. KEAREY, &
M. Brooks, An Introduction to
Geophysical Exploration (2nd Edition ed.,
pp. 200-235). Cardiff: Blackwell Science.
REYNOLDS, J. M. (1997). Electrical
Resistivity Methods. In J. M. Reynolds, An
introduction to applied an environmental
geophysics (pp. 430-435). Chichester:
Wiley.
SHIRLAW, D. W. (1964). Soils and deposits
in the Durham Area (Soils of the higher
ground). Durham.
TELFORD, W. M., Geldart, L. P., & Sheriff,
R. E. (1990). Gravity Interpretation. In W.
M. Telford, L. P. Geldart, & R. E. Sheriff,
Applied Geophysics (pp. 35-50).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNDERWOOD, D. (2009). Near-Surface
Seismic Refraction Surveying Field
Methods. Geometrics. California:
Geometrics Inc.