1887
Volume 4 Number 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

We tackle the problem of characterizing the subsurface, more specifically detecting shallow buried objects, using seismic techniques. This problem is commonly encountered in civil engineering when cavities or pipes have to be identified from the surface in urban areas. Our strategy consists of processing not only first arrivals, but also later ones, and using them both in tomography and migration processes, sequentially. These two steps, which form the basis of seismic imaging, can be carried out separately provided that the incident and diffracted wavefields are separated in the data space. Tomography is implemented here as an iterative technique for reconstructing the background velocity field from the first‐arrival traveltimes. The later signals are then migrated by a Kirchhoff method implemented in the space domain. To study the reliability of this methodology, it is first applied to synthetic cases in the acoustic and elastic approximation. Both the background velocity field and the local impedance contrasts are reconstructed as defined in the predicted model. An experimental case, specifically designed for the purpose, is then considered in order to test the algorithms under real conditions. The resulting image coincides well with the predicted model when only P‐waves are generated. In the elastic mode, surface waves make P‐wave extraction difficult, so that the reconstruction remains incomplete. This is confirmed by the real data example. Finally, we demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed method under such circumstances, provided that suitable preprocessing of data is carried out, in particular, the removal of surface waves.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005051
2005-11-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AltermanZ. and KaralF.C.1968. Propagation of elastic waves in layered media by finite‐difference methods. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America58, 367–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BerkhoutA.J.1987. Applied Seismic Wave Theory. Elsevier Science Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BitriA. and GrandjeanG.2004. Suppression of guided waves using the Karhunen‐Loève transform. First Break22(5), 45–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BlonkB. and HermannG.C.1994. Inverse scattering of surface waves: a new look at surface consistency. Geophysics59, 963–972.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BlonkB., HermannG.C. and DrijkoningenG.1995. An elastodynamic inverse method for removing scattered surface waves from field data. Geophysics60, 1897–1905.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CaoS. and GreenhalghS.1994. Finite‐difference solution of the eikonal equation using an efficient, first‐arrival, wavefront tracking scheme. Geophysics59, 632–643.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ČervenýV., MolotkovI.A. and PšeňíkI.1977. Ray Method in Seismology. Charles University Press, Praha.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ČervenýV. and SoaresJ.E.P.1992. Fresnel volume ray‐tracing. Geophysics57, 902–915.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ClaytonR. and EngquistB.1977. Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America67, 1529–1540.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DessaJ.‐X., OpertoS., KodairaS., NakanishiA., PascalG., UhiraK. and KanedaY.2004. Deep seismic imaging of the eastern Nankai trough, Japan, from multifold ocean bottom seismometer data by combined travel time tomography and prestack depth migration. Journal of Geophysical Research109, B02111, doi:10.1029/2003JB002689.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. EcoubletP.E., SinghS.C., ChapmanC.H. and JacksonG.M.2002. Bent‐ray traveltime tomography and migration without ray tracing. Geophysical Journal International149(3), 633–645.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GosseletA.2004. Inversion conjointe d’arrivée réfléchies de surface et d’arrivées directes au puits par tomographie de pente. PhD thesis, Ecole de Mines de Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GosseletA., Le BegatS., PetersenS.A. and AleriniM.2003. Stereotomography using direct arrivals in 2D walk‐away. 65th EAGE Conference, Stavanger, Norway, Extended Abstracts, D30.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GrandjeanG.2006. Seismic characterization of a contaminated site using a multi‐approach technique. Journal of Applied Geophysics58, 87–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GrandjeanG., BitriA. and SenechalG.2002. Détection de carrières souterraines par sismique haute résolution à Annet sur Marne (France). Les Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences334, 441–447.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GrandjeanG. and LeparouxD.2004. The potential of seismic methods for detecting cavities and buried objects: experimentation at a test site. Journal of Applied Geophysics56, 93–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GrandjeanG. and SageS.2004. JaTS: a fully portable seismic tomography software based on Fresnel wavepaths and a probabilistic reconstruction approach. Computers and Geosciences30, 925–935.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HarlanW.S.1990. Tomographic estimation of shear velocities from shallow cross‐well seismic data. 60th SEG Meeting, San Francisco, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 86–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HuiZhou and SatoM.2004. Subsurface cavity imaging by crosshole borehole radar measurements. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing35‐34142, 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HusenS. and KisslingE.2001. Local earthquake tomography between rays and waves: fat ray tomography. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors123, 129–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. JuhlinC.1995. Finite‐difference elastic wave propagation in 2D heterogeneous transversely isotropic media. Geophysical Prospecting43, 843–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KeiswetterD., BlackR. and SchmeissnerC.1996. A program for seismic wavefield modeling using finite‐difference techniques. Computers and Geosciences22(3), 267–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KellyK., AlfordR. and WhitmoreN.1982. Modelling – the forward method. In: Concepts and Techniques in Oil and Gas Exploration (eds K.Jain and R.de Figueiredo ), pp. 92–114. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LevanderA.R.1988. Fourth‐order finite‐difference P‐SV seismograms. Geophysics53, 1425–1436.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LibertyL.M.1998. Seismic reflection imaging of a geothermal aquifer in an urban setting. Geophysics63, 1285–1294.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MoraP.1989. Inversion = migration + tomography. Geophysics54, 1575–1586.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. NoletG.1987. Seismic wave propagation and seismic tomography. In: Seismic Tomography (ed. G.Nolet ). Dordrecht, Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ParkC.B., MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1998. Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on multi‐channel record. 68th SEG Meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1377–1380.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. PrattT.L., DolanzJ.F., OdumJ.K., StephensonW.J., WilliamsR.A. and TempletonM.E.1998. Multiscale seismic imaging of active fault zones for hazard assessment: A case study of the Santa Monica fault zone, Los Angeles, California. Geophysics63, 479–489.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ReynoldsA.C.1978. Boundary conditions for the numerical solution of wave propagation problems. Geophysics43, 1099–1110.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. RobeinE., 1999. Vitesses et Techniques d’Imagerie en Sismique Réflexion. Principes et Méthodes. Tec & Doc Ed., Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SethianJ.A. and PopoviciA.M.1999. 3‐D traveltime computation using the fast marching method. Geophysics64, 516–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. SniederR.1986. The influence of topography on the propagation and scattering of surface waves. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors44, 226–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. VirieuxJ.1986. SH‐wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics49, 1933–1957.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. WatanabeT., MatsuokaT. and AshidaY.1999. Seismic traveltime tomography using Fresnel volume approach. 69th SEG Meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1402–1405.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005051
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2005051
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error