1887
Volume 15 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

New instrumentation, known as the 3D Autojuggie, has been developed that allows acquisition of three‐dimensional shallow seismic reflection data in a cost‐effective manner. The 3D Autojuggie is capable of simultaneously planting 220 geophones with 0.5‐m spacing in the inline and crossline directions in less than 1 minute. Likewise, all 220 geophones can be picked up in the same amount of time so that the receiver grid can be moved and redeployed on the order of a few minutes without disconnecting cables and seismographs. This significantly reduces the time required to roll geo‐phones and cables and the number of crew members needed for three‐dimensional high‐resolution seismic surveying. While efficiency of three‐dimensional surveying is demonstrated here, the use of the Autojuggie will be limited in rough terrain and in dry or rocky top soil.

This study presents two field tests of the 3D Autojuggie. The first one was conducted over soil using conventional geophones with spikes, and the second one was conducted over hard pavement using geophones mounted on base plates. Each dataset is compared to corresponding walkaway lines of conventional manually placed control geophones. Data acquired using the 3D Autojuggie are directly comparable and nearly indistinguishable to hand‐planted geophones. Field experiments resulted in a minimum of triple the acquisition efficiency increase compared with conventional geophone deployment methods. This work demonstrates that the 3D Autojuggie can facilitate the acquisition of high‐resolution three‐dimensional seismic data, making possible routine ultra‐shallow seismic imaging.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016035
2016-08-01
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BachrachR. and MukerjiT.2001. Fast 3D ultra shallow seismic reflection imaging using portable geophone mount. Geophysical Research Letters28, 45–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BachrachR. and MukerjiT.2004. Portable dense geophone array for shallow and very shallow 3‐D seismic reflection surveying—Part 1: data acquisition, quality control, and processing. Geophysics69, 1443–1455.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BachrachR. and ReshefM.2010. 3D ultra shallow seismic imaging of buried pipe using dense receiver array: practical and theoretical considerations. Geophysics75(6), G45–G51.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BarnesK.M. and MereuR.F.1996. An application of the 3‐D seismic technique or mapping near‐surface stratigraphy near London, Ontario. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics1, 171–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BükerF., GreenA.G. and HorstmeyerH.1998. Shallow 3‐D seismic reflection surveying: data acquisition and preliminary processing strategies. Geophysics63, 1434–1450.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BükerF., GreenA.G. and HorstmeyerH.2000. 3‐D high‐resolution reflection seismic imaging of unconsolidated glacial and glaciolacus‐trine sediments: processing and interpretation. Geophysics65, 18–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CorsmitJ., VersteegW.H., BrouwerJ.H. and HelbigK.1988. Highresolution 3‐D reflection seismics on a tidal flat: acquisition, processing and interpretation. First Break6, 9–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DickeyH.P., ZimmermanJ.L., PlinskyR.O. and DavisR.D.1977. Soil survey of Douglas County, Kansas, United States Department of Agriculture Experiment Station Publication 73.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FradelizioG.L., LevanderA. and ZeltC.A.2008. Three‐dimensional seismic‐reflection imaging of a shallow buried paleochannel. Geophysics73(5), B85–B98.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GrasmueckM.2005. Full‐resolution 3D GPR imaging. Geophysics70, K12–K19.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GreenA.G., PuginA., BeresM., LanzE., BükerF., HuggenbergerP. et al. 1995. 3‐D high‐resolution seismic and georadar reflection mapping of glacial, glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial sediments in Switzerland. Annual Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Expanded Abstracts, 419–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HouseJ.R., BoydT.M. and HaeniF.P.1996. Haddam Meadows, Connecticut: a case study for the acquisition, processing, and relevance of 3‐D seismic data as applied to the remediation of DNAPL contamination. In: Applications of 3‐D Seismic data to Exploration and Production: Geophysical Developments Series, Vol. 1 (eds P.Weimer and T.L.Davis ), pp. 257–265. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KaiserA.E., HorstmeyerH., GreenA.G., CampbellF.M., LangridgeR.M. and McClymontA. F.2011. Detailed images of the shallow Alpine Fault Zone, New Zealand, determined from narrow‐azimuth 3D seismic reflection data. Geophysics76(1), B19–B32.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. KnappR.W.1988. High resolution seismic data of Pennsylvanian cyclo‐thems in Kansas Geophysics. The Leading Edge of Exploration.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. KnappR.W. and WatneyW.L.1987. Seismic identification of Pennsylvanian cyclothems beneath Lawrence, Kansas. SEG Expanded Abstracts6, 338.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LanzE., PuginA., GreenA., and HorstmeyerH.1996. Results of 2‐ and 3‐D high resolution seismic reflection surveying of surficial sediments. Geophysical Research Letters23, 491–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MillerB.2013. 3‐D Seismic methods for shallow imaging beneath pavement. PhD dissertation, The University of Kansas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SchmelzbachC., HorstmeyerH. and JuhlinC.2007. Shallow 3D seismic‐reflection imaging of fracture zones in crystalline rock. Geophysics72(6), B149–B160.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SloanS.D.2008. Ultra‐shallow imaging using 2D & 3D seismic reflection methods. PhD dissertation, The University of Kansas, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SloanS.D., SteeplesD.W. and TsofliasG.P.2009. Ultra‐Shallow Imaging Using 3D Seismic Reflection Methods, Near Surface Geophysics, Special Issue on Hydrogeophysics Methods and Processes7(5), 307–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. SloanS.D., TsofliasG.P. and SteeplesD.W.2010. Ultra‐shallow seismic imaging of the top of the saturated zone. Geophysical Research Letters37, L07405.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. SpitzerR., GreenA.G. and NitscheF.O.2001. Minimizing field operations in shallow 3‐D seismic reflection surveying. Geophysics66, 1761–1773.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SteeplesD.W., BakerG.S. and SchmeissnerC.1999a. Toward the Autojuggie: planting 72 geophones in 2 sec. Geophysical Research Letters26, 1085–1088.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SteeplesD.W., BakerG.S., SchmeissnerC. and MacyB.K.1999b. Geophones on a board. Geophysics64, 809–814.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. TsofliasG.P., SteeplesD.W., CzarneckiG. and SloanS.D.2006. 3‐D Autojuggie: automating deployment of two‐dimensional geophone arrays for efficient ultra‐shallow seismic‐reflection surveys. Geophysical Research Letters33.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Van der VeenM., SpitzerR., GreenA.G. and WildP.2001. Design and application of a towed land‐streamer system for cost‐effective 2‐D and pseudo‐3‐D shallow seismic data acquisition. Geophysics66, 482–500.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. VermeerG.J.O.2002. 3‐D Seismic Survey Design: Geophysical Reference Series, Vol. 12. Society of Exploration Geophysicists
    [Google Scholar]
  28. VincentP.D., TsofliasG.P., SteeplesD.W. and SloanS.D.2006. Fixed‐source and fixedreceiver walkaway seismic noise tests: a field comparison. Geophysics71(6), W41–W44.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016035
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016035
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