APPLYING THE SEISMIC REFRACTION TECHNIQUE TO EXPLORATION FOR

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Michael L. Rucker
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona 85009; mrucker@agraus.com

ABSTRACT

The seismic refraction technique provides a simplified characterization of relatively large volumes of the
subsurface in 2-dimensional (distance and depth) profiles. Compression wave (p-wave) velocities, the typical
measured geologic material parameter, are a function of the moduli of the various unsaturated material masses
in the subsurface profile. In saturated media, p-wave velocities are increased relative to equivalent unsaturated
media. Within constraints of basic laws of physics, seismic refraction profiles are a representation of subsurface
profiles as long as the p-wave velocities (material strengths) increase with depth. Soil/rock contacts or contrasts
between weaker to stronger geologic material horizons can be interpreted from seismic refraction data.
Preliminary subsurface profiles can be developed from this information, and characterization of subsurface
profiles between geotechnical borings or test pits can be accomplished. Correlations between p-wave velocities
and prediction of rock mass rippability or excavatability have been published, and correlations with other
geotechnical parameters for local conditions can be compiled. ASTM D5777 provides suggested practices for
seismic refraction investigations.

INTRODUCTION

Seismic refraction methods provide an effective and efficient means to obtain general information about
large volumes of the subsurface in the two dimensions of depth and horizontal (or slope) distance. Information
provided by seismic refraction includes compression wave (p-wave) velocities within the investigated subsurface
profile. Traditionally, these velocities are interpreted to be present within layers or horizons whose depths are
also interpreted. Newer interpretation methods are making it possible to interpret velocity changes as gradients
as well as discrete layers. Limitations due to subsurface geometries such as thin layers and lower velocity
horizons underlying higher velocity horizons, must be understood and, if necessary, accounted for. Cross-
correlation with other exploration methods such as drilling, test pits and geologic mapping, can greatly increase
the value of refraction seismic data. In return, refraction seismic data can significantly enhance the value of
other exploration data. Both basic field operations and basic interpretations of the resulting data can be
performed by properly trained and experienced geotechnical or geological engineering personnel as well as by
geophysical specialists.

This paper is intended to review seismic refraction practice for geotechnical engineering work as related to
transportation facilities such as highways. Basic equipment and methods typically used by geotechnical
engineers, and interpretation by simple, classic methods and an example interpretation by automatic
optimization software will be reviewed. Equipment and methods deployed by geophysical specialty groups may
be considerably more complex than those described in this paper. For more general application of seismic
refraction methods, Redpath (1973) and Mooney (1984) provide classic introductions to the seismic refraction
technique. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Manual EM 1110-1-1802 adapted by ASCE (1998)
provides a more current review of the method. ASTM D5777-95, "Standard Guide for Using the Seismic
Refraction Method for Subsurface Investigation" (ASTM, 2000) outlines procedures and quality control aspects
of performance and analysis.

Typical Applications

Seismic refraction work for transportation facilities is typically performed to support geotechnical site
characterization. ASTM D6429-99, "Standard Guide for Selecting Surface Geophysical Methods" (ASTM,
2000) lists seismic refraction as a primary method of choice for investigating soil/unconsolidated layers, depth to
bedrock or water table, and soil and rock properties. ASTM D6429-99 lists the method as a secondary choice
or alternate method for rock layers, fractures and fault zones, voids and sinkholes, landfill and trench
boundaries and archeological features. Assessment of rippability/excavatability (Caterpillar; 1984, 1993) is an
important application in highway engineering where large rock cut excavations are a significant construction
cost. Other applications include landslide characterization (TRB, 1996), assisting in earthwork factor
determination (CALTRANS, 1978; Rucker, 2000) and earth fissure locating (Rucker and Keaton, 1998).

Equipment portability can be a profound advantage of the seismic refraction method for obtaining
subsurface information. Systems capable of investigating to depths of up to about 75 to 100 feet are typically
small enough to be carried by a two-person crew to specific locations on a project. In the firm where the author
practices, seismic refraction is considered by other geotechnical engineers and geologists to be among the 'light
cavalry' of subsurface exploration methods. Proposed rock cuts through mountainous terrain, potential bridge
pier locations in canyons, and sensitive areas such as archeological sites (Figure 1) or biological habitat closed
to vehicular-based exploration methods are routinely investigated using seismic refraction. In addition, both
packhorse and helicopter mobilization have been used in remote route studies for highways and pipelines.

5750
p-wave velocities are in ft/sec
seismic lines are 120 feet long
5740 with about a 30-ft depth of
interpretation

5730

5720 residual soil

Elevation, feet

ground surface
1100
5710 1200 ~3200 1600
~4000 1400
5000
older
5700 5600 highly weathered/ 3400
alluvium
decomposed
granite 3000
5690

5680

5670
707 709 711 713 715 717
Project Stationing (English)

Figure 1. Subsurface profile at unmitigated archeological site based on seismic interpretation from four 120-
foot seismic setups (lines) and surficial geologic mapping as part of the 30% design submittal for rural highway
section. The area will be investigated by drilling after archeological clearance and mitigation is completed
before final design.

As can be seen from Figure 1, large areas of subsurface material can be characterized as a simple set of
layers or horizons with different compression wave (p-wave) velocities (units of feet per second or meters per
second) that increase with depth. These parameters can effectively complement other subsurface investigation
methods such as exploratory drilling and test pits that provide precise subsurface information at a single
location. A seismic refraction line encompassing that location can provide simplified two-dimensional trend data
to extrapolate knowledge laterally from the precise subsurface exploration information.

Correlations with Other Geotechnical Parameters

P-wave velocities are an important parameter to assist in site characterization, especially when constrained
by other geologic information. P-wave velocities can range from a few hundred feet per second in very loose
soil deposits, to about 1,500 to 2,500 f/s in engineered fills, to greater than 15,000 f/s in intact, competent rock.
For engineering rock characterization purposes, p-wave velocities indicate overlying soils and fracturing and
weathering in a rock mass rather than the rock type. A classic use of p-wave velocity is for rippability studies.
Figure 2 summarizes anticipated rippable, marginally rippable and non-rippable conditions as a function of p-
wave velocities in granites and conglomerates. Caterpillar (1984, 1993) presents these parameters for a range
of geologic materials; limitations of their use are also discussed. Correlations between p-wave velocities and
other common geotechnical parameters indicate the wide range of materials that can be characterized using
seismic refraction methods. Figure 3 presents correlations of p-wave velocity and average of standard
penetration test (SPT) blow counts within a subsurface horizon at over 20 projects in the southwest US. Figure
4 presents correlations of p-wave velocity and average of rock quality designation (RQD) within a subsurface
horizon in granitic materials for three rural highway projects and one hotel complex in Arizona. Data scatter in
both Figures 3 and 4 are indicative of the nature of SPT and RQD measurements as well as limitations of the
geophysical measurements and analyses. Unsaturated, cohesionless, well graded sand, gravel and cobble
streambed deposits in the Southwest US (Rucker, 1996) show a correlation between mean particle size D 50 and
p-wave velocity as shown in Figure 5. The effect of saturation, which increases p-wave velocity, is also shown in
Figure 5. It should be noted that the speed of sound in air is about 1,150 f/s, and the speed of sound in water is
about 5,000 f/s.
14000 7000
UNRIPPABLE

P-Wave Velocity, ft/sec

12000 6000
P-wave velocity, ft/sec

10000 D8L, D9N 5000

245
8000 D10, 4000
D7G D9L, D11N
6000 235 D10N
3000
RIPPABLE
4000 2000
Marginal Rippability:
2000 small granites 1000
backhoe conglomerates SPT Refusal
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1 10 100 1000
Equipment horsepower
SPT blows per foot

Figure 2. Rippability as a function of p-wave velocity
for various sizes of bulldozers (D7-D11) and
trackhoes (235-245) in granites and conglomerates
(Caterpillar, 1984, 1993).
Figure 3. Correlation between p-wave velocity and
average of standard penetration test (SPT) blow
counts for about 18 sites in southwest US. Refusal
blow counts as recorded on boring logs, greater than
100 per foot, are extrapolated to blow counts per foot
for comparison purposes only.

Above the water table, p-wave velocity is a measure of rock or soil mass low-strain or dynamic Young's
modulus. Young's and shear modulus may be estimated by assuming a Poisson's ratio and measuring or
estimating the soil or rock mass unit weight. Formulas for this calculation are presented in ASCE (1998) and
ASTM D2845-95 (ASTM, 2000). At Poisson's ratio of 0.22, the shear wave velocity is 60 percent of the p-wave
velocity, and at Poisson's ratio of 0.33, the shear wave velocity is 50 percent of the p-wave velocity. Figure 6
presents correlations of calculated low-strain modulus values for sites investigated by the author where both p-
wave and s-wave velocities were measured. These relationships are not valid below the water table, where
saturation profoundly effects p-wave velocity.

Relationships between modulus as estimated by refraction seismic p-wave velocity and density have been
further investigated and developed into relationships to estimate earthwork factors for large cuts in weathered
rock and associated embankments for highway design (Rucker, 2000). This work is an extension of empirical
earthwork relationships using p-wave velocity developed by Caltrans (1978). Figure 7 presents p-wave velocity
and unit weight (density) relationships for weathered granite rock cuts and embankments on two highway
projects in Arizona. The relationship is calibrated using estimated low strain modulus values based on
unconfined compressive strengths (Bieniawski, 1989; van Heerden, 1987) of tested core samples for these
projects.
 15000 10000

13000

P-wave Velocity, ft/sec

P-wave Velocity, f/s

11000

9000

7000

5000 saturated
unsaturated
3000 1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 0.1 1 10 100
RQD
Mean Particle Size D50, mm
Figure 4. Correlation between p-wave velocity and Figure 5. Correlation between p-wave velocity at
rock quality designation (RQD) values for three depth of about 10 feet and mean particle size D50 for
highway projects and one resort project in granites in well graded cohesionless streambed deposits at 20
Arizona. Average values and ranges are shown. sites in southwest US.

10000 100
9000
Dynamic Modulus E, GPa
Young's modulus E 15,000
8000 UCS-modulus data
P-wave Velocity, f/s

10,000
7000 Shear modulus G
10 7000
6000 rock mass
p-wave vel 5000
5000
4000 3000
3000 1
2000
2000 embankment p-wave vel
1500
1000
seismic velocity, f/s
0 0.1 1
1 10 100 1000 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Modulus E & G, ksi Unit Weight, pcf

Figure 6. Correlation between p-wave velocity and
low-strain Young=s and shear moduli based on
measured p-wave and shear wave velocities at 25
sites in southwest US.
Figure 7. Estimation of earthwork factors based on
weathered granite rock mass and existing
embankment unit weights from refraction p-wave
measurements (Rucker, 2000). Low-strain modulus
values estimated from unconfined compressive
strengths of tested core samples are used to verify
unit weight-modulus trend.

BACKGROUND THEORY & CONCEPTS

The theory for refraction seismic methods is outlined or described in many references (ASTM, 2000; ASCE,
1998; Richart and others, 1970; Mooney, 1984; Redpath, 1973). A theoretical description is most commonly
treated as an optical refraction problem using Snell=s Law to quantify wave propagation geometries. P-wave
velocity is a function of material modulus, as presented in numerous references, including ASTM 2845, as
shown in Figure 6. Figure 8 presents a schematic of the refraction seismic method and equipment over a
dipping geologic interface. The true velocity of the lower layer is calculated as the harmonic mean of the
forward and reverse profiles. Proper determination of p-wave velocities requires measurements of arrival times
in forward and reverse directions to account for dipping subsurface interfaces.
10

seismograph shotpoints
hammer
5 & cable

geophones & cable

0

-5 soil;
Depth

velocity 1
rock;
-10
velocity 2

-15 velocity V2B velocity

V2A
velocity 2 = 2xV2AxV2B/(V2A+V2B)
-20
Time

velocity 1 & 2
-25 interface

velocity 1 Time-Distance Plot velocity 1

-30
-20 0 20 40 Distance
60 80 100 120 140

Figure 8. Conceptual sketch of refraction seismic method over a dipping interface. Seismograph system for
engineering application is shown. Depth interpretations occur at changes in the time-distance trend slopes. P-
wave ray directions are shown for forward and reverse profiles.

EQUIPMENT

Equipment to perform a seismic refraction survey includes a seismic energy source with an electrical timing
signal, geophone(s) to detect signals from the energy source, a seismograph to measure, process and record
energy source timing signals and received geophone signals, and cabling to bring source and receiver signals
to the seismograph. These essential equipment elements are reviewed below and detailed in ASTM D5777.

Energy Sources

For geotechnical work in the American southwest, the author has found that a 10- to 12-pound
sledgehammer hitting a roughly equivalent-mass metal plate is an appropriate energy source for most
applications using a 120-foot long geophone array. It is also acceptable for many 300-foot long geophone
arrays where ambient noise is relatively low or signal attenuation by the subsurface media is not excessive.
With a sufficiently capable hammer-person, a 20-pound hammer can provide a larger signal for marginal
conditions. An electrical timing device is taped to the hammer handle immediately below the hammer head to
generate the initial time pulse. A cable connects the timing device to the seismograph. Seismographs with
signal enhancement capability, where signals from several hammer strikes are stacked (added together) permit
the effective use of these relatively low-energy sources. A sledge hammer energy source is fully portable for
difficult or remote access work. It is usable in rural and urban settings where the seismic signal can be
effectively determined over ambient background noises such as traffic or aircraft noise. Hammer energy
sources have been used for seismic refraction surveys for urban freeway design in suburban settings using
alleys as the investigation access. Timing cables are subject to being hit and damaged on occasion by the
sledgehammer; with simple tools and electrical tape, field repairs can be made.
 Explosive energy sources may be appropriate where deeper investigations are performed or greater energy
is needed and permitted. Use of explosives in urban settings or near residences or businesses is typically
impractical or impossible due to severe regulatory and liability constraints. Cartridge-type energy source guns
are available to provide a flexible and safe type of small explosive source. Explosive charge energy sources
require appropriate personnel and safety procedures. Timing devices and special blasting initiators are
available to simultaneously trigger an explosive source and the seismograph. When electric-detonating blasting
capabilities are unavailable, some seismographs can be triggered by simply opening the timing circuit.
Triggering is accomplished by wrapping wire completing the timing circuit around the explosive charge, which
can then be initiated by a fuse or other non-electric detonator.

Other energy sources including heavy drop weights, pneumatic systems, etc. are available. Typically, such
systems are vehicle or trailer-mounted for portability, and are thus limited to use in situations where energy
source locations are accessible by vehicle.

Geophones and Cabling

Deploying cables and geophones is a significant portion of the time and labor required to complete a
seismic refraction survey. A typical geophone cable has takeouts (geophone connection points) at intervals
along the cable and connectors for the seismograph at each end. Geophones normally include a spike that is
shoved into the ground for effective coupling to detect the seismic signal, and a pair of electrical clips for
electrical connection to the geophone cable. Appropriate geophone spacings are determined by the objectives
of the survey. Onsite, a measuring tape may be laid out along the survey axis and geophones are deployed at
the desired spacing. The geophone cable is then deployed with a takeout placed at each geophone location.
The geophones are clipped to the cable prior to data acquisition. A properly sized geophone cable with
takeouts at the geophone spacing intervals and marks on the cable for energy source locations can eliminate
the need for tape layout and reduce array deployment time. Cables are relatively delicate and need to be
handled with care for maximum useful life.

Seismographs

Early signal enhancement seismographs (circa 1970's) intended for civil engineering use were frequently
single channel units with only one geophone. A survey was conducted by moving the hammer shotpoint to
successive positions along the array and repeatedly hammering. The signal was displayed on a CRT screen, a
knob-controlled on-screen pointer was used to identify the first arrival, and the travel time was displayed on the
screen. Travel time was written down manually and the signal trace then erased for each shot point. No hard
copy traces were generated.

The 12-channel seismograph is an effective general-purpose tool for geotechnical investigations. The
geophone array can be deployed in a short time and the resulting data can effectively resolve up to 3
subsurface horizons. Signals for all 12 channels are displayed on CRT (older) or LCD (newer) displays. Signal
acquisition gains and display amplitudes are varied as needed to assist in determination of first arrivals. Filters
to reduce noise are typically available, but, to minimize effects on seismic signals, should be used only when
needed. Paper copies of traces are printed out in the field for permanent records. Recent instruments
operating under microcomputer control can also record data onto disk. Vehicle or gel-type batteries are
typically used to provide power; one or two 17-amp hour batteries can typically power the instrument for a day's
work in remote areas.

Seismographs with considerably more channels and capabilities are commercially available. However, the
additional equipment and labor costs, including additional cables and geophones, and specialist skills needed
for larger and deeper investigations, make such systems more useful tools for geophysical specialists rather
than geotechnical/geological engineers and geologists.

SURVEY DESIGN & DATA ACQUISITION

Design of a seismic refraction survey for a project will be influenced by many factors, including the project
requirements or information needs, personnel and equipment resources available, and budget constraints. This
discussion is relevant for straightforward applications of the method by experienced personnel in a geotechnical
group or consulting organization. Equipment can be either rented or owned by such groups.

Safety

Safety is the most important issue concerning survey design. Data cannot be collected where crews cannot
safely work. Safety must be addressed in the office phase of survey design, and safety must be central to field
modifications of the survey design. Site access is frequently a critical safety issue, especially in highway
investigations. Access to highway project work areas may involve a field vehicle turning off of and onto
roadways carrying traffic at highway speeds. Weather related safety issues include heat exhaustion or
heatstroke as well as lightning storms. Considerable lifting and carrying, in addition to perhaps 15 to 30 or more
strokes per line if a sledgehammer is used, may be required to complete work in some areas. Survey planning
and design must consider availability of field crews physically as well as technically capable to safely complete
the work. Many personnel cannot be expected to perform intensive, physically hard field operations, where the
field crew is most or all of the days actively setting up and completing lines, or considerable backpacking of
equipment, for more than two or three days without one to several days rest.

Survey Design

Within the constraints of safe operations, the number of lines (array setups) needed to complete a survey
becomes a central survey design issue. Adequate coverage will depend upon the geotechnical issues being
addressed. Fewer lines may be needed to determine appropriate excavation methodologies than would be
needed to determine volumes of each type of excavation. Whenever practical, it may be effective to pair at
least some seismic lines with geotechnical borings or test pits. The boring or test pit with sampling provides
identification and vertical characterization of the subsurface horizons at a point, while the seismic line provides a
second dimension (horizontal) to the subsurface horizon interfaces while providing further information on
excavatability. Such ground truthing of the seismic data also improves interpretation of seismic lines performed
in adjacent areas which are inaccessible or cost prohibitive to deploy drill rigs or backhoes. Seismic lines
completed along a profile with occasional borings serves to fill in the geologic or geotechnical profiles between
the borings. Cost and available resources are ultimate, realistic constraints on survey size.

Details in a survey design which might be addressed in the office or field can simplify the interpretation and
analysis process following completion of field work. Orient the seismic line geophone array on a uniform grade,
horizontal or slope, whenever practical. This simplifies or eliminates the need for terrain corrections or
variations in topography. If a grade break or change in slope cannot be avoided, set the midshot at the slope
change so that the line can be interpreted as two half lines without terrain corrections. Plan instrument locations
(foreshots) to be consistent to minimize the need to 'flip' or reverse the data order to maintain orientation during
interpretation, analysis and presentation.

Anticipated Survey Resolution & Depths of Investigation

Up to three or four layers or horizons can normally be resolved using the seismic refraction method in
geotechnical applications. Interpretations based on a typical 12-geophone array may have three horizons as an
effective maximum. In mixed soil and rock geologic settings, these horizons may be soil, highly weathered and
fractured rock, and less weathered, less fractured rock. An acknowledged general achievable accuracy for
velocity depth interpretations is about 10 percent as reported in ASTM D5777. Hidden layers or velocity
reversals in the subsurface profile can significantly reduce depth interpretation accuracies. Subsurface boring
data may identify the presence of subsurface profile conditions that can degrade interpretation accuracy.
 Due to the physics of refraction propagation, the anticipated maximum depth of investigation is about one
quarter to perhaps one third of the farthest energy source to geophone spacing. For 120-foot and 300-foot
geophone arrays, this depth of investigation is about 30 to 40 feet and 75 to 100 feet, respectively. However,
the actual depth of investigation depends upon the subsurface profile, and absence or presence of velocity
reversals. Furthermore. the maximum depth is attained only around the center portion of the array; the actual
zone of investigation may be roughly half ellipse shaped from the farthest shotpoints. Conservatively, the
maximum depth of investigation for a particular seismic line can be assumed to be the depth of the deepest
interpreted horizon.

shot data

25
p-wave velocities are in ft/sec

20 geophone locations
source locations

15
Time, millisec.

10

ground
0
Depth, ft

1000 1300 1300 11100 1300

~4500 ~7900 ~8700 ~9100

-5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance, ft

Figure 9. Investigation for a 4-foot deep waterline trench at a roadway using a 12-channel seismograph,
sledgehammer energy source and simple 2-layer interpretation. Note lateral variations in interpreted p-wave
velocities in a fractured rock horizon using simple intercept time method interpretation. The rock underlies an
approximately 2-foot thick surficial soil horizon. The project only needed characterization to a depth of 4 feet;
interpretation for deeper information was not needed. A Vermeer T-655 rock trencher was able to complete the
excavation.

Distances between the energy source shotpoint and near geophones determines a minimum depth of
investigation. This minimum may be estimated as about one quarter to one third of the shotpoint to near
geophone spacing. Long geophone arrays with large spacings between geophones and shotpoints will not
resolve relatively thin, low velocity surficial soils horizons. A 5-foot and 10-foot shotpoint to geophone spacing
might be able to resolve a 2-foot and 4-foot thick or less surface layer, respectively. Even with relatively close
geophone spacings, such thin surficial horizons may only be interpretable as a trend between the shotpoint and
a single nearest geophone; a trend through the source and the two nearest geophones would be needed to
assure that an interpretation is not subject to a 'hidden layer' scenario. Minor errors in the timing trigger signal
could also influence interpreted velocities. A sledge hammer trigger device must be attached to the handle very
close to the hammer head to minimize this error.

Horizontal variations in p-wave velocity within the two shallowest layers can be resolved within a 12-
geophone array if several shotpoints are used. Interpretation can be performed for a two-layer case using the
interval time method for data between adjacent shotpoints. For a seismic line with five shotpoints, up to four
separate velocities for the intermediate horizon may be practical. Such interpretations may be of especial use
in shallow rippability or excavatability investigations (Figure 9). An interpretation which presents an average
velocity for a layer may under-report excavation difficulties in part of the layer.

Some interpretation methods or analyses may inadvertently imply a greater resolution or accuracy than is
warranted. For example, a method may determine a single representative velocity for each layer or horizon.
Interface depths are calculated based on that velocity, and then iteratively readjusted to minimize errors with the
observed data. The resulting interface depth plots might present geometric detail which is ultimately based on
the model assumption of uniform velocity in each layer. The actual subsurface geologic profile could include
zones where velocities are uniform, where velocities vary due to the condition of the subsurface materials, and
where velocities vary with the overburden or confining stresses. Calculations of interpretation accuracy quantify
the data goodness of fit in the context of the modeling assumptions rather than on actual subsurface conditions.

Field Execution - Example Procedure for a Simple Setup with 2-Person Crew

Successful field execution of seismic refraction work begins with location control appropriate for the project.
Once location control has been established, execution of a typical 12-geophone array refraction line involves
layout of the geophone array, preparation of the seismograph for data acquisition, deployment and application
of the energy source at several locations, verification and recording of the seismic data, and picking up the
equipment for the next line. For geotechnical work with a two-person crew using a sledge hammer energy
source, the specific steps might be as follows. The equipment is mobilized to the foreshot position. Assuming
the geophone cable is correctly sized for the line (no measuring tape is for geophone positions), person one
holds the end at the foreshot position while person two walks the array length and lays out the geophone cable.
Person one picks up the geophones and walks the length of the array, dropping a geophone at each cable
takeout point. Person two walks back halfway and then places geophones 6 to 1 in the ground and clips them
to the cable. Person one drops the farthest geophone (geophone 12) and then places geophones 12 to 7 in the
ground, clips them to the cable, and returns to the seismograph. Person one opens the seismograph, attaches
the geophone cable and battery cable. He ties the trigger cable to the seismograph handle, leaving slack
between the connector and the handle. If the trigger cable is pulled, the force will be absorbed at the handle
rather than at the connector. Person two picks up the hammer, the target plate and the trigger cable, and walks
back to the far end of the array. Person one hooks up the battery, turns on the seismograph and prepares for
data acquisition. Person two places the target plate at the backshot position and connects the hammer trigger
to the trigger cable. Person one sets the seismograph to acquire data. Person two completes 3 to 6 hammer
blows, and moves to the next source position. Person one directs person two when to hammer to acquire data
when ambient noise is at a minimum. Person one checks the data on the screen, sets the gains, prints and
saves the data, marks the first arrivals on the paper hard copy, clears the instrument and sets the instrument to
acquire data. Person two performs hammer blows and source setup along the line at several intervals, perhaps
the ends, middle and quarter points, while person one performs instrument operation and data verification and
quality control. Once data acquisition is complete, the equipment is disconnected and picked up and cables are
reeled up in approximately reverse order to deployment. The geophone cable is always the last item picked up;
other items will not be far from the cable. This assures that no equipment becomes lost somewhere along the
array.

Other procedures will be appropriate with different equipment, energy sources, field conditions or project
requirements.
Possible Interferences

Noise is the most common source of interference when conducting a seismic refraction survey. Obtaining a
clear first arrival requires that the seismic first arrival energy be considerably greater than ambient noise or
ground vibrations (good signal to noise ratio). Signal enhancement, where signals from several hammer hits
are summed, improves the signal to noise ratio. The sum of the desired seismic signals increases more rapidly
than the sum of the (hopefully) random noise. Vehicles traveling nearby, aircraft, intermittent stationary
equipment, pedestrians in the immediate vicinity, etc. are sources of interference which can be avoided or
minimized by waiting until they have passed or shut down. If practical, use of shorter arrays reduces the
source-geophone distance and thus signal attenuation. Very low, very high or very specific frequency noise
might be reduced using filters built into the seismograph. A 60-Hz notch filter may be very useful when doing
refraction work in the vicinity of high voltage power lines or large electrical installations. However, such filters
might also effect the desired first arrival signal.

Weather can cause interference in any of several ways. Wind can generate noise at the geophones,
especially if there is considerable vegetation near ground level. Shallow burial of the geophones may reduce
wind noise, and clearing vegetation from around the geophones may reduce noise by preventing stalks, stems
or leaves from tapping or scraping on the geophones or adjacent cable. Rain, of course, generates profound
noise with raindrop impact on the geophones and ground. In addition, geophone and trigger cables should not
be left deployed or attached to the instrument or near personnel during or with imminent lightning storms.
Direct, intense sunlight (typical in the desert southwest) can cause an instrument LCD display to become dark
and unreadable; displays should be kept out of the sun or covered; a clipboard works fine. Finally, frozen
ground can act as a high velocity layer at or just below the ground surface which blinds the refraction method
with a velocity reversal. Wait until spring.

High voltage power lines can cause interference with seismograph timing as well as with the geophone
signals. When raised before striking, the sledgehammer and trigger switch can act as an antenna and the
instrument can falsely trigger in response to induced electrical currents. The author has found that wrapping
one end of a coil of bare wire around the hammer head, placing the other end of the bare wire coil on the
ground, and then standing on the coil, can sufficiently ground the hammer to eliminate false triggering. On
occasion in areas of dry ground, pouring water on the coil to improve the grounding may also be necessary.

Recording & Verification of Field Data

Whether the geophone signals are recorded on paper, on disk, or manually written down, it is imperative
that the first arrivals be clearly identified (or positively identifiable) before the opportunity to repeat the data
collection is past. The instrument operator (or a competent member of the crew) must review the traces and
make that decision. That person must also answer the question "Is this data interpretable, and does it make
sense?" At this point, poor or marginal quality data can be erased, and data acquisition repeated to try to
improve data quality. Field personnel experienced in interpretation, and who participate in interpretation, is thus
an important part of field data quality control.

Advice to the neophyte from the 'old geophysicist' was "run the gains wide open, get the first arrival; nothing
else counts." Only about 7 percent of the energy imparted at the seismic signal source propagates as body (p-)
waves (Richart et al., 1970); thus only a small fraction of the seismic signal detected by the geophones is the
desired first arrival. None of the following seismic signal is used in standard p-wave refraction work. Part of the
instrument operator's craft is to set sufficient gain on the geophone channels to clearly distinguish the first
arrival, yet not overwhelm the following portion of the data recording with later arriving seismic signal. Signal
amplifier gains on seismographs from the 1980's typically were manually preset before data acquisition.
Knowledge learned by experience of the anticipated signal amplitudes was part of successful data acquisition.
More modern instruments have the option of dispensing with preset gains. However, autogain options might not
provide accurate presentations of the first arrivals without further adjustments.
Quality Control of Field Data

Further quality control and occasional rough preliminary depth interpretations can frequently be made by
visual inspection of the trace data in the field. ASTM D5777 describes three quality control tests which can be
applied to data in the field. The irregularity test checks for consistent first arrival times. If arrival time
differences, such as deviation from straight line slopes, are excessive, then first arrival picks may be in error, or
the data plotting or entry may be wrong. Also, the geological conditions may be complex or considerable noise
may be present in the data. The reciprocal time test is used to verify a consistent travel time between forward
and reverse profile data. Excessive differences between the profiles may indicate errors in first arrival picks or
data plotting or entry. Parallelism checks for similarities between time-distance relations for various shotpoints
or lines on the same geologic profile. Excessive differences may indicate an error in first arrival picks or data
entry or plotting.

The author considers good quality control practice to include physical marking of the initial choice of first
arrivals on a paper printout of the geophone data by the field instrument operator. Data trends can be observed
and visual quality control checks, including irregularity, reciprocal time and parallelism, performed when making
these markings. Locations of velocity changes (change in the trend line of the first arrivals) can be used to
estimate depths of velocity changes. The depth of the velocity change is estimated to be roughly about one-
fourth to one-third the distance between the shotpoint and the change in the trend line. P-wave velocities can
also be estimated by observing the time needed for the first arrivals to reach different geophones. The velocity
is distance divided by time. Markings on trace printouts should not obscure the trace data, especially if data is
not stored digitally.

DATA PROCESSING

Data processing for the seismic refraction method consists primarily of accounting for energy source and
geophone locations, making adjustments or topographic changes along the geophone array profiles, and
determining the first arrival times at the geophones. This step can be relatively simple, and has been effectively
performed manually on analog trace records for decades. Where uniform grades are present or flexibility in
array orientation is practical, topographic considerations can be minimized.

Processing begins in the field as the data is inspected and verified during acquisition and topographic
conditions along the arrays are documented. For single channel seismographs with no permanent record, the
first arrival field pick is the only data available for analysis. For larger seismographs with paper trace record or
digital storage, post-field data processing begins with the final determination of (picking) first arrivals. Manual
picking first arrivals off of analog paper traces consists of verifying, and if appropriate, modifying the field picks.
Digitally stored field traces can be further processed or manipulated in the office. Gains may be modified and
digital filtering might be applied. It should be noted that filtering has the potential to modify the desired signal as
well as undesired signals. Automatic and/or computer assisted first pick routines within interpretation software
packages might be used. Source and geophone array geometry and first arrival time data can then be put into
an appropriate format for interpretation by whatever methods.

The obvious choice for first arrival picks at geophones close to energy sources in some geologies may not
always be correct. Near surface, low modulus materials exist which have p-wave velocities slower than the
speed of sound in air (about 350 m/s or 1,150 f/s). Assuming such a surficial horizon is present and the
geophone spacing is sufficiently close to detect that horizon, the geophone response to the air wave from the
energy source impact noise will occur before the desired p-wave response. Figure 10 presents geophone trace
data with a readily identifiable air wave arriving before the first ground-borne p-wave. Apparent p-wave
velocities close to 350 m/s (1,150 f/s) must be treated with suspicion, and used in interpretation with caution. In
cases with relatively thin low velocity surficial horizons with actual p-wave velocities close to the speed of sound,
interpretation errors may be small. However, relatively thick, very low velocity horizons could represent
important or crucial geologic conditions such as very low density soils or landslide masses.
Figure 10. Energy source air wave (impact noise from 5 sledge hammer impacts) arrival occurring before the
first ground-borne p-wave arrival. Note field markings of first arrival picks. The surficial horizon was
interpreted to be a low density, potentially collapsible soil with a thickness of about 6 feet. Seismic line was
performed at a proposed highway embankment site; permits for vehicular access for subsurface exploration
had been delayed pending cultural resource considerations.

INTERPRETATION

Interpretation of the first arrival data into a profile of subsurface velocities (also known as inversion) can be
accomplished in several ways. Methods involving fairly laborious calculations or dependence on graphical chart
solutions have been in use for decades. Hand calculators with transcendental functions (in the 1970's),
followed by personal computers (by the 1980's), eliminated much drudgery and facilitated effective
interpretations of refraction seismic data for geotechnical engineering use. Commercial software packages are
now available for a wide range of interpretation methods and concepts.

In the manual EM 1110-1-1802, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recognized three main groups of
interpretation methods. These are intercept-time methods (ITM), reciprocal or delay-time methods, and ray-
tracing (ASCE, 1998). These methods, and their applicability to different situations, are also reviewed in ASTM
D5777. Recently developed, perhaps extreme versions of ray-trace interpretation include optimization routines
coupled with finite-difference techniques that converge on solutions after tens of thousands of iterations. For
purposes of this paper, two very different interpretation concepts will be discussed. The intercept-time method
(ITM) represents relatively simple interpretation methods with calculations that can be done with a calculator or
implemented on a computer spreadsheet. Also operating in a PC environment, automatic optimization provides
a very different type of interpretation which effectively compliments more traditional interpretation results.

Time-Distance Plots

Time-distance plots are a basic format for presentation of first arrival data needed for refraction
interpretation. Distance which encompasses the geophone array and shotpoints is plotted along the x-axis.
Recorded time for the energy to travel between shotpoints and individual geophones are plotted along the y-axis
at each geophone distance. Figure 11 presents an example set of time-distance plots for a twelve geophone
array seismic line with five shotpoints. This line was completed in an unmitigated cultural resource site on a
highway alignment east of Payson, Arizona. Until mitigation and clearance are complete, borings and test pits
cannot be completed at that site. The site was nearly level, so that topographic considerations were not needed
for interpretation.

Mooney (1984) provides an extensive set of time-distance plot examples with possible interpretations for a
variety of subsurface geometries. Manual EM 1110-1-1802 (ASCE, 1998) also provides several examples of
complex subsurface geologic conditions with corresponding time-distance plots. Such catalogs are a valuable
tool for the novice interpreter. However, it must be understood that interpretations are non-unique. Site
characterization or design needs may require further verification and exploration to meet project objectives.
Figure 11. Example time-distance plot for 12-geophone array with 5 shotpoints at the ends, center and quarter

60

50

40
Time, millisec

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance, feet

points along the array. Note complex arrival time data from the middle shotpoint, with a distinct apparent
velocity reduction between geophones 4-5 and 8-9, as well as between geophones 9-10 from the reverse
profile (backshot). This may indicate horizontal as well as vertical velocity variations in the p-wave profile.

Intercept-Time Method (ITM)

Interpretation by ITM assumes subsurface material zones where each zone has a uniform velocity.
Velocities are interpreted by determining straight-line (or nearly so) slopes along the various portions of the
time-distance plot. A minimum of three data points are needed to confidently interpret each slope. Velocities
are calculated as distance traveled divided by time elapsed for each portion of the time-distance plot. Interfaces
between different material zones are assumed to be planar, although dipping interfaces can be readily
interpreted along the two-dimensional geophone array. However, true dip is a three-dimensional problem.
Actual velocities for dipping layers are interpreted by using the harmonic mean of the interpreted forward and
reverse profile velocities. Thin zones whose influence is less than three data points cannot have their velocities
confidently interpreted, or typically even be detected. This fundamental limit is part of the blind zone problem,
where the refraction method has a limit of resolution in the vicinity of seismic interfaces. Manual EM 1110-1-
1802 discusses the blind zone problem. Fundamental physics prevents straightforward detection and
interpretation of lower velocity horizons underlying higher velocity horizons, because refraction occurs
downward rather than upward towards the surface. A higher velocity horizon underlying a velocity reversal
condition would be interpreted to be deeper than it's true depth.
 Depth interpretation formulas for 2 layers can be found in ASTM D5777. Multi-layer formulas can be found
in Manual EM 1110-1-1802 (ASTM, 1998) and in Mooney (1984). ITM interpretations of 12-channel
seismograph data can readily discern up to 3 layers, if present within the depth of investigation. Multiple
shotpoints along the geophone array permit interpretations of changing interface depths and layer velocities,
especially in the shallower layers. Depth and velocity interpretations in the deeper portion of a profile may
become more speculative when shallower interface depths and velocities are complex and changing across the
profile.

Velocity Contours

45
ITM Interpretation
40
1000 1000
1700
35 2000 1800
30
~2400
25
~3300
20
~2800 p-wave velocities
15 are in ft/sec
Depth, ft

10

5
Non-Linear Optimization Interpretation
0
1000-1499
-5 1500-1999

-10 2000-2499

-15
2500-2999
-20 3000-3499 171704 iterations
-25

-30
0 10 20 30
30 40 50 60
60 70 80 90
90 100 110 120
120 130

Distance, ft

Figure 12. Interpretation of Figure 11 time-distance data using ITM and non-linear optimization methods. Note
that, with sufficient shotpoints, both methods can indicate lateral velocity changes in the near surface. Both
methods also indicate a deeper down-dipping higher velocity horizon. Depth increments are 5-foot intervals.
The ITM depth of investigation is inferred, while the optimization interpretation is calculated.

The time-distance plots presented in Figure 11 demonstrate capabilities and limits of ITM interpretation. An
ITM interpretation of the Figure 11 data is presented in Figure 12. Five shotpoints permits breaking the overall
interpretation into a series of smaller interpretations for the shallower part of the subsurface profile. Two major
aspects of the subsurface profile are indicated. A low velocity surficial material horizon is missing near the
profile center, and the (interpreted) weathered rock contact dips downward from the beginning towards the end
of the seismic line. No depth interpretations can be made from the centerpoint (60 ft) profiles; the velocity drops
or a roughly vertical offset occurs beyond two geophones from the center shotpoint. Depth interpretations can
be made from the shotpoints at the ends and quarterpoints. Horizontal velocity change interpretations are
made based on the results from the five shotpoints. Forward and reverse profiles obtained only from the array
ends could only interpret one velocity per layer. Finally, the geophone at a 25-foot distance appears to be at a
local surficial low velocity anomaly. Arrival times for that geophone are late for each of the other profiles. For
the purposes of interpretation for the highway project, data from that geophone was ignored. This interpretation
is essentially a manual process performed by the interpreter, with calculations and presentation of the
interpretation, implemented on a PC spreadsheet.
Non-linear Optimization

Computer programs capable of generating interpretations without operator participation (after entering input
data or preparing input data files) are available. A commercially available non-linear optimization routine
(utilizing a simulated annealing algorithm) using a finite-difference model mesh to calculate travel times
represents a recent advance in ray-tracing interpretation similar to tomography. This interpretation includes two
very important features frequently missing from other interpretations. The first is interpretation of gradational,
gradual velocity changes. The second is an explicit interpretation of the zone of investigation for the seismic
data. Input files with locations and elevations of sources and receivers and first arrival times are prepared for an
optimization run. Topographic variations are accounted for in the finite-difference mesh. A combined surface
and downhole source and geophone array could conceivably be interpreted. The optimization software
performs between thousands and tens of thousands of iterations to obtain best matches between actual arrival
times and distances between sources and receivers and modeled, calculated times based on ray paths through
the finite-difference mesh. Layers with uniform velocities are not represented. Rather, each element which is
part of a ray-path in the finite-difference grid has an optimized velocity. Elements which are not parts of ray-
paths do not have any velocity; the extent of the investigated zone is the part of the finite-difference mesh with
optimized velocities. Presentation of gradational, gradual vertical and lateral velocity changes through the
model can be presented in color bar form, where different velocities are presented as different colors. Model
results can also be output as grid coordinates and velocity for further analysis or presentation utilizing
contouring software. Effective optimization interpretations may require more field data, especially shotpint
sources, than simpler interpretation methods such as ITM.

An optimization model interpretation of the Figure 11 time-distance plots is presented in Figure 12. For the
Figure 12 presentation, model coordinates and velocities were imported into a spreadsheet, and certain velocity
ranges assigned square data points to match the finite-difference mesh, to generate a simple black-and-white
velocity pseudo-contour presentation. Similarities between the optimized velocity model and the ITM model are
apparent. A down-dipping trend for higher, deeper velocity is interpreted in both models. Both interpretations
show variations in near surface velocities, including higher very near surface velocity at the center of the array.
However, the optimized model presents an explicit zone of investigation. Such a zone is inferred for the ITM
model.

Figure 13 presents interpreted velocity with depth profiles at selected distances across the Figure 12
optimized model. A velocity with depth profile for the ITM interpretation is also presented. Gradual optimized
velocity changes with depth are apparent, while the ITM approach must break the profile into a few discrete
zones. Such an interpretation may be especially useful in soil and weathered rock profiles where gradual
velocity changes would be anticipated.

A typical trend for velocity change of cohesionless soil with depth, based on changes in soil modulus which
scale to the square root of the effective stress (Richart et al., 1970), is also presented in Figure 13. Below about
2 feet, the optimized vertical velocity trend at 90 feet is relatively close to the soil modulus trend to at least a
depth below about 12 or more feet. Optimized vertical velocity trends at 30- and 60-feet, however, appear to be
dissimilar to the soil modulus trend. Optimized vertical velocity profile trends at several highway embankments
and in cohesionless sand deposits have been similar to the cohesionless soil modulus trend.

Other geologic situations may consist of discrete horizons with very large velocity velocity contrasts at
horizon boundaries, such as presented in Figure 9. Those situations may be better interpreted using layer-
based methods such as ITM. Resolution limits of the finite-difference grid may limit the effectiveness of
interpretations in the near-surface region. This could require very close source and geophone spacings for
excavatability studies for utility trenching and other very shallow investigations.
 0

-5

-10

-15
Depth, ft

-20

optimization at 30 ft
-25 optimization at 60 ft
optimization at 90 ft
soil modulus trend
-30 ITM profile at 60 ft

-35
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
P-wave Velocity, ft/sec

Figure 13. Vertical velocity profiles with depth for interpreted results in Figure 12. Note how the ITM
interpretation of discrete horizons is interpreted as a relatively smooth velocity gradient by the non-linear
optimization routine.

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESS & COST EFFECTIVENESS

As discussed throughout this paper, the seismic refraction technique provides a simplified characterization
of large portions of the subsurface in two-dimensional profile. This information complements borings and test
pits, which typically provide point or one-dimensional (vertical) information. Above the water table, p-wave
velocity is a measure of soil or rock mass modulus at in-situ conditions. Thus, the measured parameters of p-
wave velocity and depth can be used to help characterize both material mass geometry and behavior.
Weaknesses of the technique include the limitations of velocity reversals and blind zones previously discussed,
and the possibility of oversimplified subsurface geometries from the resolution limits inherent in the methods
used or equipment deployed.

Issues in Specific Geologic Settings

Several specific situations can effectively demonstrate limitations of seismic refraction. An interpretation
may not be able to distinguish whether a relatively high velocity horizon is a weathered rock contact or a water
table. Where a water table is suspected, additional subsurface exploration might be needed to verify it's
presence or absence. It should be noted that initial seismic refraction work might be considered subsurface
reconnaissance that helps scope or direct further subsurface investigation.

Cemented soil caps common in arid climates, sometimes referred to as caliche, can cause very strong
velocity reversals. It is possible to have a 120-foot long geophone array, with an anticipated 30 foot depth of
investigation, have an actual depth of investigation of only about four to ten feet. Non-traditional analyses such
as non-linear optimization will provide explicit interpretations of depths of investigation. Alternatively, the
deepest interpreted horizon interface might be conservatively considered to be the depth of investigation. Some
sedimentary rock environments, where erosion exposed and been slowed by a relatively strong rock horizon,
may have similar seismic refraction results.
 Weathered granite rock masses may be highly weathered to decomposed along major fracture zones, yet
have large slightly to unweathered corestones between these fracture zones. An interpreted p-wave velocity for
such a rock mass will reflect an average for the low velocity highly weathered to decomposed material and the
high velocity slightly to unweathered corestones. For rippability assessment, that average p-wave velocity may
not be representative of the excavation difficulty which those large corestones represent. Rippability
assessment in these conditions should also include rock core drilling to investigate the potential and condition of
corestones. Results of coring may capture some corestone characteristics, and results of the seismic work may
assist in extrapolating the coring information across the site.

Basalt flows can consist of very hard rock particles with relatively open fracturing exacerbated by shrinkage
during cooling. These open fractures can attenuate seismic signals very rapidly. It is possible to have a
formation with a representative p-wave velocity in excess of 10,000 f/s, in which the seismic signal has
effectively disappeared in distances of about 60 to 80 feet. Rippability studies may need to be based on
relatively short geophone arrays in these environments. Additionally, basalt flows can also serve as a cap
material over softer rock or soil deposits. Strong velocity reversals are possible in basalt flow settings. Finally,
subsurface conditions can be extremely variable, even chaotic, in these geologic settings.

Cost Effectiveness

Seismic refraction data can be collected, interpreted and integrated into an overall geotechnical report for
considerably less than $1,000.00 per line (year 2000 dollars), depending upon the access, field conditions and
level of detail of the interpretations. Seismic refraction can be very cost effective at sites needing considerable
characterization of rock, where core drilling can be very expensive. Core drilling may still be necessary, but the
complementary seismic refraction method provides effective site coverage and maximizes effective use of the
knowledge obtained from the core drilling. Investigating areas with difficult access for drill rigs are obvious
places where the method is very effective. Seismic refraction may be the only practical alternative for
subsurface investigation in areas where drilling or other subsurface disturbance is prohibited, such as
unmitigated cultural resource sites, or when vehicular access is not possible.

Cost impacts of seismic refraction data as part of geotechnical investigations for large excavation projects
such as highways in mountainous, rocky terrain, are difficult to quantify. If good, representative p-wave velocity
data at large roadway cuts in weathered, fractured rock is available to potential contractors during bidding, then
those contractors will have information to effectively address their potential for high-cost excavation. The
potential for project cost savings reflected in the bids, and in reduced potential for changed conditions claims,
may be very significant.

Small investigations in rock environments with inadequate complexity or budget to justify core drilling can be
effectively served using seismic refraction to obtain useful rock mass parameters. The data in Figure 9 is from
such a small investigation.

SUMMARY

Seismic refraction is a cost effective means to obtain generalized subsurface information for geotechnical or
geological characterization over relatively large areas. The method can be used in areas inaccessible to
vehicles or of a sensitive nature where vehicles are prohibited. Efficient equipment and procedures have been
available to the geotechnical engineering profession to develop experience with implementation and use of the
results for over two decades. Continued improvements in equipment and interpretation software will make the
method more effective and useful for geotechnical exploration and design of transportation facilities.
Straightforward application of seismic refraction methods can be performed by geotechnical or geological
personnel with appropriate knowledge and experience. Applications of seismic refraction methods by
geophysical specialists can provide essential information in extraordinary or critical subsurface exploration
situations.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1998, Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental
Investigations, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 23, ASCE Press, Reston, VA, 7-23.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2000, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volumes 04.08
Soil and Rock (I) & 04.08 Soil and Rock (II), ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.

Mooney, H.M., 1984. Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, Volume 1: Seismic. Bison Instruments Inc., 5706
th
West 36 Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55416.

Redpath, B.B., 1973. ASeismic Refraction Exploration for Engineering Site Investigations.@ Technical Report E-
73-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

OTHER REFERENCES

Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 8.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1978. Calculating Earthwork Factors Using Seismic
Velocities: Report No. FHWA-CA-TL-78-23, August.
th
Caterpillar Tractor Company (Caterpillar), 1984, Caterpillar Performance Handbook 15 Edition, Peoria, Illinois.
th
--------------------1993, Caterpillar Performance Handbook 24 Edition, Peoria, Illinois.

Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. Jr. and Woods, R.D., 1970, Vibrations of Soils and Foundations, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Rucker, M.L., 1996, Integrating the refraction seismic method into stream crossing characterization for scour
and excavation conditions, in Shackelford, C.D., Nelson P.P. and Roth, M.J.S. (eds.), Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 58: ASCE, New York, 1163-1177.

------------------ 2000, Earthwork factors in weathered granites by geophysics, in Nazarian, S. and Diehl, J. (eds),
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 108: ASCE, Reston, Virginia, 201-214.

Rucker, M.L. and Keaton, J.R., 1998, Tracing an earth fissure using seismic refraction methods with physical
verification, in J.W. Borchers (ed.), Land Subsidence Case Studies and Current Research, Proceedings of
the Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symposium on Land Subsidence, Special Publication No. 8, Association of
Engineering Geologists, Star Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 207-216.

Transportation Research Board (TRB), 1996, Landslides, Investigation and Mitigation, Special Report No. 247,
Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L. (eds), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 241.

Van Heerden, W.L., 1987, General relations between static and dynamic moduli of rocks: International Journal
Rock Mechanics & Geomechanics Abstracts, 24(6), 381-385.