A noninvasive shallow seismic source comparison on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee

Geophysics ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 1318-1331 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Doll ◽  
Richard D. Miller ◽  
Jianghai Xia
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Reflection ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Seismic Source ◽  
Seismic Profile ◽  
Seismic Sources ◽  
Waste Site ◽  
Oak Ridge ◽  
Shallow Seismic ◽  
Wave Generator ◽  
Seismic Reflection Profiling

Nine seismic sources were compared in preparation for production seismic reflection profiling to about 500 m depth at a hazardous waste site on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee. Test data provided a 125-shotpoint common midpoint profile and a walkaway vertical seismic profile for each source. Sources tested included five swept sources and four impulsive sources. Eight of the sources were “noninvasive,” in that they would not penetrate the ground surface. When spectral whitening methods were applied to the data, the IVI Minivib provided the best image of the subsurface on the basis of continuity and clarity of reflections. Without prewhitening, the performance of the IVI Minivib and the Bison elastic wave generator were similar.

Field comparison of shallow seismic sources

Geophysics ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 2067-2092 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. Miller ◽  
S. E. Pullan ◽  
J. S. Waldner ◽  
F. P. Haeni
Keyword(s):  
Water Table ◽  
Seismic Source ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Seismic Sources ◽  
Shallow Seismic ◽  
Site Characteristics ◽  
Amplitude Spectra ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Magnitude Difference ◽  
Selection Of

Choosing a seismic source for a shallow reflection survey can be the most pivotal decision for the engineering geophysicist. The intent of this paper is to present data that will assist in selection of a shallow seismic source best meeting the goals within the constraints of specific projects, particularly in areas where the water table is near the surface. The data were collected (and displayed as seismograms and amplitude spectra) for 15 different shallow seismic sources in October, 1985, at a single site in New Jersey; they show the different characteristics of each source. Considering the almost three orders of magnitude difference in total source energy between the largest and smallest source, we chose a display format that presented the data as objectively as possible, while still allowing direct source‐to‐source comparisons. Two strong reflections at about 100 and 130 ms probably mark the top and bottom of a clay unit 80 m below the surface at this site. Our previous work and that of our colleagues suggests that, given a specific set of site characteristics, any source could dominate the comparison categories addressed here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document