Seismic surveying tools for the early detection of rock W. Frei Geob:xpert AG, Amitkon, Switzerland stability zones ABSTRACT: Surface seismic surveying methods are recommended during the early phase of a geotechnical site characterization programme, preferrubly prior to drilling and excavation activities, with the objective of detecting critical zones for more detailed inv zones of rock weakness and reduced stiffness, attributable to weathering deconsolidation and tectonic faulting, are identified in a reliable manner. By using the appropriate recording equipment, the cq ec] methods can now be combined into one single field operation, resulting in significant ‘costs for the field crews, The significance of the key data acquisition parameters with the E40 above ment reduction in time jon of the data of ‘regard to the imaging resolution and to the desired investigation depth is discussed, | INTRODUCTION The direct relationships between the compressional p- ‘wave and the shear s-wave velocities on one hand and rock strength on the other are well documented in liter- ature (N. Barton, 2006), Although these relationships are well known to the geomechanical practitioner, the systematic and timely application of egineering surface seismological surveys for the detection of weakness zones sill snot an integral part in many ‘geotechnical site characterization programmes. ‘The seismic techniques commonly inuse for geome- chanical engineering are LL Surface seismic methods A Conventional high resolution reflection seismic profiling A2 The seismic reftastion method of p-wave diving wave tomogeaplhy. AB The seismic refraction method of s wave diving “wave tomogeaphy. ‘Ad Multichannel Analysisof Surface Waves( MASW) for the determination of the shear wave velocity field active, using “> controlled seismic sources, and passive methods}. [AS Spectral Analysisof Surface Waves (SASW); dual ‘channe! recording ofthe ground unrest). L2._ Seismic methods in boreholes BI Down hole p- & s-wave velocity function deter- ‘minations. B2 Cross hole p- & s-wave velocity function deter- rminations. B3 Wireline sonic logging. 2. COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE. VALIDATION OF EACH METHOD “Table 1 om the next page lists the merits and short= -comings of each technique for the various survey objectives in relation toall the other methoxls. Performance ratings are defined on a scale from @ (very poor) to 5 (very good). The attainable investiga tiom depths range from zero to high (> 500m). lim. = denotes method and equipment inherent depts limitations, bhhd:: denotes bore hole depth. In order to assess the geotechnical situation in 3D at an early stage ofa site characterization programme, the surface methods of p-wave refraction diving wave tomography (A2) and of conventional p-wave reflec i 1p (Al) are the appropriate choice, ‘by validation of the performance ratings in table I. By using the reflection seismic profiling method (A1) the stratigraphic layering and tectonic details are being probed by scismic signals being ematted from the surface and reflected back from various depth levels in near vertical direction. The resulting seismic section. has the appearance of an X-ray type image (Fig. 1) ‘depicts the undenground structures in great detail even. ‘The velocity information obtained in the near sure face range (<$0 m) by reflection seismic data analysis tools, however, is not sufficiently accurate for geome- ‘shanival correlation purposes. A better way to derive the p-wave velocity distribution in the subsurface is by applying refraction diving wave tomography (2). This method derives the velocity gradient field by analysing the refracted wave path trajectories roughiy Parallst tothe surface (Fig. 2) 293Table | Performance rating ofthe various seismic surveying metho in geomechanical engineering Investigation requirements & objectives At AS BL BD BB igh resolution at shallow depths(<20m) 3 so $ $ 2 2 8 4 fh esoution a greater depth (>25m) 3 4 4 3 3 2 5 5 Atlan depth of vestigation high im, tow tow tim, bh 130m hd Rock/woil quality &&nippabality indicator 3 5 5 $$ 3 4 8 4 Detection of velocity inversion 3 $5 2 2 3 5 3 Fault indicator 5 3 4 2 1 13a 5 General metho reliability as 4 4 3 2 dG [Atea wide information availble? Ss 5 $ 5 5 6 © a ‘Contacting (CU) ratio in the overall comextof ast charactenzation programme 3 5 3 3 3 3 Reflection wismie section showing geological and tecbnic sirctures along 4 | kin long traject of «planned motorway tunnel near Mouter, Wester Switzerland. Note the structuel eompleuity ofthe thrust faulted fold tectonic seta, of Furassc formations overlain by Tertiary nolanse misters The projected inl intersect several muajor faults 3. HYBRID SEISMIC SURVEYING The fick! data sets used for the reflection seismic section in Figure | and for deriving the refraction tomography velocity fied in Figure 2 are in fact iden tical, Thanks 0 the technival advances implemented in modern seismic reconding instrumentation, the data acquisition for both methods ean now be combined into one single operation, which results in a substantia reduction ofthe costs forthe field operations. Itallows tapping the full potential ofthe information contained in the data by an appropriate joint data processing procedure, ‘Asa conclusion from the above comparison of the capabilities of the two methods, theie data acquisi- tion, processing and interpretation procedures have been combined into the technique of Hybrid Seismic Surveying. The joint presentation of the evaluation results isclone by transparently superposing the solour encoded p-wave velocity field onto the reflection seise ‘mic section. Such alybrid seismic section with colour encoded p-wave velocity field can be found on the website www geoexpert ch ‘Although the results ofthe reflection seismic data processing and the refraction tomography evaluation re based on the same data set, they are completely independent from each oiber, which enhances the relubiity of a joint interpretation. The later ix fare ther assisted by a suitable presentation of two results, whereby the drawbacks of one method are offset by the merits ofthe other. The smaller the spacing between the receiver sta- tions the higher is the reflection seismic imaging res ‘lution, and the longer the length of the active spread the greater is the atiainable depth of investigation for refraction diving wave tornography’ ‘Therefore, it is mandatory that the data acquisition is carried out with a minimum nurnber of at last 200 ‘tive data channels in order to be able to work with i uficently Fong active spread — even with close receiver station spacings ~ for the depth range to be investigated. 24“Tern Figwe I. The colur escoded veloity scale illstates the cieet lationship between p-tave velocity and rock stength The ‘lid god qualey rock The RQD values determined inthe heroes a aio poston on he profile are sel For calbeaing theseiamic veloitis and confi thal poor to ery pose rock day preva ver dstnce of ore tha ‘oreo the eng of the tune Figures, Seismic shear wae generation for save refi ton tomography (43) and fr dows-ole sare velocity ‘Seasuement (1) by means ofa ky beam sbchord ‘be proud withthe belpo ste pes dats quality under the prevailing reconding circum- “The source point distance is to be chosen not Iarper than? limon the receiver tation spacing (depend ingon the loa conditions Le.on the attainable data Figure 5. Sane vloity fel deve by MASW ev tons tr mcreseurves of SPT wae frcoewlaton ait) The length ofthe active spread layout should be at hast three to four times the desired deplh of investigation, porpoes “The following rues of thus apply for high reae. Teta ig eid nie sori 4 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY DETERMINATION ‘The receiver stan spacing should not exceed 1160 to 1/20 of the desred depth of investization Hybrid seismic surveying, ie. reflection seismic pro- (depending on the local conditions,‘ atainable filing (AT) and reftaction tomography’ (A2) usally—————_e Figue S_ P-wave vebity field berwees to bore holes by roxt hole omoyrapity 13). Note be poo nreement of the ‘etsve velocity Field with he strgrpsic Column snd the provide suficiently meaningful resus in geomechan feal ste characterization. The costs for acquiring ‘ave refraction tomography (A3) data are about 3-4 times higher thin fr prwave surveys. In adliton, the 296 desernination of the save reaction arial times ter fea snotastraighiforwandtask because wane Senatsarcv ater th the p-wave frst break, which causes the Sonate signal t be contaminated by all ‘ors of other signal events inthe acousi Wavetain tndby thes p-vavescomvertedios-vavesstat Iyer tounirieschaacteranl by acoustic impedance “Ater persistent difficalty isthe generation of 1 good quulty suave source signal of adequate seen. “The relability of dan processing reno the sr. fice wave dspersionaralyssmetiodsof MASW (Ad) and SASW (AS) strongly dependent ona the gal Syofthe raw data, b) othe expenence td te rtsine the proceasin geophysicist, and ¢) of the sur fice and subsurace complexities ofthe ste 1 be imvestyated “Among the surfice seismic methods, the s-wave seterminaton tediques (A3-AS) are not routinely applied in practice. Their results ae tobe considered ‘pplementiry tthe prwave mnthod of flection ‘Simic pofiing AI) andretaction tomography (42) (A concise end comprehensive tral covering thooetical snd practialuopcts of shar wave dere tninaton methods can be found on the web site Applicable in geomechanical engineering on the site sro pki REFERENCES, Baron, N. 2006, Rock Quay, Sele leo, Aone ‘lon and Austr 729p. Taylor & Francs. UK & ‘Netelania ISBN 91H08T 530-4813 ‘Onypon,K. 2000, Robs refation omognphy 7th Ann Tena Mg. se Exp Geophys, 2082-2085 Shen. ER, 2002, Emvelopdie Dicuonary of Appl “Geuphyies, Fourth eatin, Soe. Exp Coops, SBN periines