1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 15, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 15 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Currently, marine ultra‐high‐resolution 3D surveys tend to be characterized by signal frequency ranges of 0–600 Hz and bin sizes of the order of 3 to 6 metres. This may be acceptable in industry geohazard studies for top‐hole well drilling, but it does not have sufficient resolution for the very detailed information required by geotechnical engineers for the design and positioning of the turbine foundations in offshore wind farms.

We present a newly developed ultra‐high‐resolution 3D system, which takes the 3D‐resolution and 3D‐imaging one step further: to frequency ranges up to 2.5 kHz and 1‐m bin sizes. This system is based on an ultra‐high‐resolution sparker source utilising negative discharge technology, thus guaranteeing a stable and repeatable source signature. The high‐fidelity multi‐channel recording system is composed of four 24‐trace streamers with GPS positioning on both sources and receivers. Sophisticated navigation processing guarantees decimetre precision and the resultant 1‐m bin sizes. In addition, slant streamer technology is applied to ensure a broadband seismic response. Processing techniques, including critical corrections for wave motion and tides, have been developed.

Trial surveys were conducted in Thailand to validate the method and later in Croatia to study the shallow geology for the foundations of a 2.5‐km bridge across a sea inlet. The resultant 3D cubes gave very detailed views of the subsurface allowing the imaging of stratigraphic structures and small‐scale features, such as individual boulders in a boulder bed, that had hitherto not been identified.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2017 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017025
2017-06-01
2024-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017025
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArcherS., GikasV., PinelC., RidyardD. and CrossP.1999. Spatially and temporally correlated navigation errors: how do they manifest themselves in seismic data.First Break17, 355–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BerndtC., CostaS., CanalsM., CamerlenghiA. et al., 2012. Repeated slope failure linked to fluid migration: the Ana submarine landslide complex, Eivissa Channel, Western Mediterranean Sea.Earth and Planetary Science Letters319–320, 65–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BrookshireB.N., LandersF.P. and StainJ.A.2015. Applicability of ultra‐high‐resolution 3D seismic data for geohazard identification at mid‐slope depths in the Gulf of Mexico: initial results.Underwater Technology32, 271–278.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BuljanR., PollakD. and GulamV.2012. Engineering properties of marine sediments in Mali Ston Bay (Croatia) based on “Mailand‐Peljesac” bridge investigations.Geologia Croatica65, 233–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BullJ.M., GutowskiM., DixJ.K., HenstockT.J., HogarthP., LeightonT.G. et al. 2005. Design of a 3D Chirp sub‐bottom imaging system.Marine Geophysical Research26, 157–169.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CrutchleyG.J., KarstensF., BerndtC., TallingP.J. et al. 2013. Insights into the emplacement dynamics of volcanic landslides from high‐resolution 3D seismic data acquired offshore Montserrat, Lesser Antilles.Marine Geology335, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DNV.2010. DNV‐RP‐C207 Recommended Practice—Statistical Representation of Soil Data.Des Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DNV.2011. Design of Offshore Wind Turbine Structures:DNV‐OS‐J101 (Sept. 2011). Des Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DuarteH., WardellN. and MonrigalO.2017. Advanced processing for UHR 3D seismic surveys. Special Issue on Applied Marine Geophysics.Near Surface Geophysics14.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GamesK.P. and WakefieldN.D.2014. The successful design, development and acquisition of UHRS 3D seismic dataset.First Applied Shallow Marine Geophysics Conference, Athens, Greece, Extended Abstracts.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. GamesK.P. and SelfE.2017. HRS 3D data—a fundamental change in site survey geohazard interpretation.First Break35, 39–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HenrietJ.‐P., VerschurenM. and VersteegW.1992. Very high resolution 3D seismic reflection imaging of small‐scale structural deformation.First Break10(3), 81–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. LiM., QuL., ZhaoQ., GuoJ. et al. 2014. Precise point positioning with the BeiDou navigation satellite system.Sensors14, 927–943.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. MalvićT., VelicJ., CvetkovicM., VekicM. and SapinaM.2015. Definition of new Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene lithostratigraphic units in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea (shallow offshore).Geoadria20, 85–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. MarssetB., MissiaenT., NobleM., VersteegW. and HenrietJ.‐P.1998. Very high resolution 3D marine seismic data processing for geotechnical applications.Geophysical Prospecting46(2), 105–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. MarssetB., HenrietJ.‐P., NobleM., WardellN. et al. 2001. VHR3D— Very high resolution 3D seismic method for detailed site investigation.Mast Project Final Technical Report, MAS3‐CT97–0121, 258pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. MarssetT., MarssetB., ThomasY. and DidaillerS.2002. Sismique tres haute resolution 3D; une nouvelle methode d’imagerie des sols super‐ficiels.Geoscience334, 403– 408.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MissiaenT., VersteegW. and HenrietJ.‐P.2002. A new 3D seismic acquisition system for very high and ultra high resolution shallow water studies.First Break20(4), 227–232.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Minh Hue LeT., EiksundR.G., StrømP.J. and SaueM.2014. Geological and geotechnical characterisation for offshore wind turbine foundations: a case study of the Sheringham Shoal wind farm.Engineering Geology177, 40–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. MissiaenT.2005. VHR marine 3D seismics for shallow water investigations: some practical guidelines.Marine Geophysical Research26, 145–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MosherD. and SimpkinP.1999. Status and trends of marine high‐resolution seismic reflection profiling: data acquisition.Geological Survey of Canada contribution number 1999002, 22pp.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. MüllerC., MilkereitB., BohlenT. and TheilenF.2002. Toward high‐resolution 3D marine seismics using Boomer sources.Geophysical Prospecting50, 517–526.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MüllerC.2005. The marine VHR 2.5‐D seismic brute stack cube as a feasible tool for low budget investigation and research.Marine Geophysical Research26, 197–206.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MüllerC., WoelzS., JokischT., ErsoyY. et al. 2009. Ultra‐high‐resolution marine 2D/3D seismic investigation of the Liman Tepe/ Carantina Island archaeological site (Urla/Turkey).Journal of Applied Geophysics68, 124–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. NegroV., López‐GutierrezJ.‐S., EstebanM.D. and MatutanoC.2014. Uncertainties in the design of support structures and foundations for offshore wind turbines.Renewable Energy63, 125–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. NguyenT.H., PrinzA., FriisøT., NossumR. and TyapinI.2013. A framework for data integration of offshore wind farms.Renewable Energy60, 150–161.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. PerveenR., KishorN. and MohantyS.R.2014. Off‐shore wind farm development: present status and challenges.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews29, 780–792.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. RutgersW.R. and De JongI.2003. Multi‐tip sparker for the generation of acoustic pulses.Sensor Review23(1), 55–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. ScheidhauerM., MarillierF. and DupuyD.2005. Development of a system for 3D high‐resolution seismic reflection profiling on lakes.Marine Geophysical Research26, 183–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. SinsakulS.2000. Late Quaternary geology of the Lower Central Plain, Thailand.Journal of Asian Earth Science18, 415–426.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. ThomasY., MarssetB., WestbrookG.K., GrallC. et al. 2012. Contribution of high‐resolution 3D seismic near‐seafloor imaging to reservoir‐scale studies: application to the active North Anatolian Fault, Sea of Marmara.Near Surface Geophysics10, 291–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. VannesteM., SultanN., GarzigliaS., FrosbergC.F. and L’HeureuxJ.‐S.2014. Seafloor instabilities and sediment deformation processes: the need for integrated, multi‐disciplinary investigations.Marine Geology352, 183–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. VardyM.E., DixJ.K., HenstockT.J., BullJ.M. and GutowskiM.2008. Case History. Decimeter‐resolution 3D seismic volume in shallow water: a case study in small‐object detection.Geophysics73, 33–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. VardyM.E., PinsonL.J.W., BullJ.M., DixJ.K. et al. 2010. 3D seismic imaging of buried Younger Dryas mass movements flows: Lake Windemere, UK.Geomorphology118, 176–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. VardyM.E., L’HeureuxJ.‐S., VannesteM., LongvaO. et al. 2012. Multidisciplinary investigation of a shallow near‐shore landslide, Finneidfjord, Norway. Special Issue on Applied Marine Geophysics.Near Surface Geophysics10, 267–277.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. WardellN., DiviaccoP. and SinceriR.2002. 3D pre‐processing techniques for marine VHR seismic data.First Break20, 457–466.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. YilmazO.2001. Seismic data analysis. SEG, Tulsa, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017025
Loading
An ultra‐high‐resolution 3D marine seismic system for detailed site investigation
Near Surface Geophysics 15, 335 (2017); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2017025
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017025
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2017025
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