COMBINING SEISMIC VELOCITY TOMOGRAPHY AND SINGLE-HOLE

REFLECTOR TRACING TO IMPROVE VOLUMETRIC GROUND IMAGING.

CASE STUDIES

Descour Jozef M.1, Roger Surdahl2, Yamamoto Takuji3, and Shirasagi Suguru3
1
C-Thru Ground Inc., CO, USA: decurtibusj@qwest.net
2
Federal Highway Administration, CO, USA; roger.surdahl@fhwa.dot.gov
3
Kajima Technical Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan; yamataku@kajima.com and shirasag@kajima.com

ABSTRACT

Applications of seismic tomography typically use travel times of the fastest waves between sources
and receivers in the ground. Reconstructed velocity models are limited to panels between pairs of
boreholes. However the resolution deteriorates rapidly with distance from neighboring panels.
The authors combined cross-hole tomography with 3D reflector tracing around individual boreholes to
enhance ground images between neighboring panels. The technique uses an array of sources and
receivers placed at the same borehole (Single-Hole TRT™) to generate and detect seismic waves
reflected from anomalies in the surrounding ground due to changes in acoustic impedance.
The Single-Hole TRT™ uses volumetric velocity model derived from the velocity tomography to
measure distances from the survey borehole to surrounding anomalies. However it cannot define angular
locations of these anomalies.
A single-hole approach may be adequate for anomalies which direction from the borehole is known or
implied by cross-hole tomography. Also, for shallow targets, adding an array of sources on the surface
around the survey borehole can improve the image. For other targets, a truly three-dimensional imaging
of anomalies in the ground requires triangulation from single-hole surveys in at least three different holes.
Presented Case Studies demonstrate different applications for this technique, from mapping natural
geological features, to studies of unknown infrastructures (bridge piles, sewers).

INTRODUCTION
It continues to be a long-standing goal of being able to convert geophysical data into three-
dimensional digital images of underground structural features that could be viewed and measured at any
direction, angle and depth. Using a combination of transmitted and reflected seismic waves the authors
were able to produce “visual” images allowing to identify piles and their depth, boreholes, lamination, old
sewer walls, and even general shape of solution mining caverns.

STATE-OF-ART REVIEW

Seismic velocity tomography

Seismic body waves traveling away from their source interact with varying elastic ground features. In
general, seismic waves travel faster and are least attenuated in more competent grounds, and are slower
and more attenuated in weaker grounds. Seismic velocity tomography uses the inversion of travel times
measured between known source and receiver locations (trans-illumination) to reconstruct the velocity
model of the ground as an image of the ground features. The reconstruction is digital in nature, and is
accomplished by converting the surveyed volume into a grid of uniformly spaced nodal points forming an
orthorhombic lattice (Kittel, 1971). The spacing between the closest nodal points defines resolution of the
reconstruction in each direction.

The velocity and attenuation changes result in bending trajectories/raypaths of energy flow (Aki et al,
1980; Shea-Albin et al, 1991). This bending additionally affects the travel times measured for seismic
body waves passing along the quickest path between each pair of source and receiver locations. Thus,

396
the proper tomographic inversion nowadays must include bending of the ray paths to reliably reconstruct
the velocity model of surveyed ground.

Furthermore, the reliability and resolution of reconstructed seismic velocity models are determined by
the geometry and the number of seismic sources and receivers which in turn define the density of
coverage, and the length of raypaths.

For most of seismic tomography surveys, the configuration and length of boreholes control the access
and geometry for sources and receivers. As shown in figure 1 for a panel formed by a pair of parallel
boreholes, the tomographic reconstruction of the velocity model returns velocity values along
reconstructed raypaths. However, the velocity in islands between raypaths along the panel is imprecise at
best, and can only be “smoothed” between the raypaths by reducing the resolution (figure 1b).
Furthermore, for a number of panels connecting a reasonable array of parallel boreholes (figure 2a) there
are significant volumetric pockets of no coverage between the panels (figure 2b). This considerably
reduces the resolution of velocity tomography thus increasing the size of anomalies that can remain
undetected between the panels (figure 3a).

Since velocity tomography uses only the arrival times of a particular phase for seismic waveforms, a
wealth of additional information carried by the remainder of each waveform is discarded.

1,000 P-wave velocity (m/s) 2,200

Depth (m) Depth (m)

0 0

5 5

10 10

0 5 10 0 5 10
a) b)

Fig. 1. Seismic velocity tomogram for (a) the grid five-fold finer (0.1 m) than the spacing between
sources, and between receivers, and (b) for matching grid (0.5 m).

600 P-wave velocity (m/s) 6,800

Elev. (m) Hole 1
Hole 4 Hole 1
120
Hole 5
260 Hole 2
90
Distance Y (m)

Hole 3 Hole 4

60
Hole 5

210 Hole 2 30

0 30 60 90 0
Hole 3
120 0 30 60 90 120
Distance X (m)
Distance X (m)

a) b)

Fig. 2. Reliability of seismic velocity tomogram along (a.), and between survey panels (b.) for grid
size matching spacing between sources and between receivers.

397
 In search for more effective and still practical three-dimensional imaging of the ground features, the
authors introduced and continue to improve a new technique described below that uses reflected seismic
waves.

Three-dimensional reflector tracing (TRT™)

Any change in mechanical properties of the ground can be characterized by the size of the anomaly
and the contrast of associated acoustic impedance (the product of density and seismic velocity).
Anomalies of a size comparable with wavelengths of incident seismic waves produce detectable
scatter/reflection of these waves (figures 3b and 4).

Hole #1 Hole #1
a) Step 1
b)
Step 1

Hole #3 Hole #3

Hole #2 Hole #2
Hole #1
Hole #1

Step 2
Step 2

Hole #3 Hole #2 Hole #3 Hole #2

KEY: Hole #1
Rock Borehole w. source Step 3
Void Borehole w. hydrophones
Shadow Idling borehole Hole #2
Hole #3
zone

Fig. 3. Enhancing detection of structural features by combining direct wave seismic velocity
tomography (a), with 3D Reflector Tracing (b).

These anomalies act as reflectors returning part of incident energy of seismic waves to a detector.
These reflected waves are analyzed to determine the location and nature of each reflecting boundary.
The reflection coefficient for normal incidence of seismic energy onto a boundary between media 1 and 2
is defined (Waters, 1978; Aki et al, 1980) by:
ρ 2V2 − ρ1V1 (1)
R=
ρ 2V2 + ρ1V1

where: R is the reflection coefficient, ρ is the rock mass density, and V equals the seismic wave
propagation velocity in the ground.

A transition from a material with lower acoustic impedance to one with a higher value results in a
positive reflection coefficient, and vice versa. Thus, seismic waves in soil, reflected from steel or concrete
foundations would have the same polarity as the incident waves. Features such as fractured zones within
a more solid rock mass will give rise to reflections of reversed polarity. The larger the size of a reflector
and the acoustic impedance contrast, the larger the reflection coefficient, and the stronger and easier to
detect are the reflected waves.
The anomalies reflecting seismic waves can be imaged by transposing time records of these waves
back to the location of their origin, using the proper velocity model to convert time to distance, and then
stacking these waveforms at that location (Ashida, 1993, 2001, Neil et al, 1999; Hanson et al, 2000).
Figure 5 shows the principal concept behind this operation. For each seismic source and receiver of
known location the locus of all possible reflector positions for the same two-way (source-reflector-

398
receiver) travel time defines ellipsoidal surface in three-dimensional space. It is also called the “equi-travel
time” surface by Ashida et al (1993). For the proper velocity model the transposed reflected signals
match in phase, and are stack in space forming a well defined wave-like anomaly. That anomaly starts at
reflector surface and may stretch behind that reflector, away from the source-receiver location.

Reflecting Reflecting
surface surface

Incident wave Incident wave

Positive Negative
reflection reflection
coefficient coefficient

Reflected Reflected
wave wave
Medium 1 Medium 2 Medium 1 Medium 2
Soft Competent Competent Soft

Fig. 4. Relation between rock quality (acoustic impedance) and reflection coefficient.

Receiver

Tunnel
Source
Receiver

Reflector

Fig. 5. Principal concept for transposing reflected waves onto the reflector.

The polarity of its first peak is controlled by the contrast in acoustic impedance across the boundary
of the reflector. The technique typically employs the average velocity measured for the direct waves
traveling between sources and receivers. In some cases the velocity model can be produced by seismic
velocity tomography generated for all sources and receivers.

A discrete image of reflecting anomalies in the ground is calculated using specialized software, for a
grid of regularly spaced nodal points contained in a pre-defined rectangular survey volume. This volume
has to include all sources and receivers which seismic records are used to make an image.
Presented technique for imaging reflecting structures is referred to as Three-dimensional Reflector tracing
(TRT™). This technique is currently used for imaging anomalous ground conditions ahead of excavated
tunnels with an array of sources and receivers coupled to the tunnel walls.

It requires a strict phase and frequency matching for reflected waveforms at the reflector location.
This is particularly true for smaller targets comparing to their distance from sources and receivers. Also
the frequency and phase matching condition can be easily compromised if the spread of sources and
receivers is too large compared to the distance to a reflector. The main compromising factors are: (1)

399
differences between the velocity model and the real velocity distribution in the ground, and (2) phase
changes due to changing directional characteristics of sources, receivers and reflectors, and also due to
different ground response mainly at the source. Therefore in this method, the receiver points should be
located relatively close to the source points.

Single-hole TRT™ - a new imaging tool

Modification of the TRT™ technique designed for using in boreholes has been introduced recently to
improve three-dimensional detection of anomalies, particularly the ones that were missed by the velocity
tomography. This technique is referred to as the Single-Hole TRT™ (Descour et al, 2005a, 2005b).

Survey principles
The technique uses a string of 6 to 8 hydrophones or other sensors that are coupled through water or
mechanically to the borehole walls. The source is placed either in the middle of the sensor string, or at its
bottom, or at its top, dependent on the target location with respect to the depth of a borehole.
The source sends seismic waves into the ground. Measuring travel times for waves traveling along
the hole provides basic data for an average velocity assessment in the surrounding ground.
Seismic waves traveling away from the hole become reflected from anomalies in acoustic impedance
and the reflected waves are recorded by the string of sensors.
Using the same concept of equi-travel time converted to distance through the velocity model, the
specialized software generates an axially-symmetric reflectogram for all reflected waves.

Equipment
A slim swept frequency source constitutes the core element for using the technique in shallow
surveys targeting man-made or natural features in the ground. However, the same concept was used
successfully in deep boreholes using small explosive charges for impact sources. In such case, the
source and the receivers have to be separated by the proper distance along the same hole, or two close
spaced wells should be used.
A string of hydrophones or mechanically coupled sensors is required to be equipped with a broad
band, high sensitivity, and low noise sensors responding either to pressure waves in water, or to
acceleration for seismic waves in the ground.
The diameter is important for the source and the sensors, as they both are placed in the same hole,
and the diameter of this hole should be possibly small particularly for shallow investigation, and to keep
the cost of drilling low.

Typical applications
The Single-Hole TRT™ is very useful and economical for imaging targets which direction with respect
to the borehole alignment is known, or for targets that are nearly axially-symmetric with respect to the
borehole.
For other targets a triangulation from at least two and preferably three boreholes for better three-
dimensional definition of anomalies in the surrounding ground should be used.
This technique is particularly well suited for imaging slim “one-dimensional” targets like piles
supporting foundations of any type.
This technique offers an excellent addition to a traditional cross-hole tomography as it allows imaging
targets between and away from tomography panels connecting pairs of boreholes. On the other hand it
also benefits from the cross-hole velocity tomography through better definition of the velocity model in its
survey range.
Four case studies demonstrate benefits of using the Single-Hole TRT™ technique for imaging
underground structural features.

400
 H-1

CASE STUDY 1 - STEEL PILES OF BRIDGE FOUNDATION

This study was funded by the Federal Lands Highway as part of seeking emerging technologies for
identifying unknown bridge foundations. The investigation included cross-hole tomography, and the new
Three-dimensional Reflector Tracing (TRT™). The study was conducted for foundations of a few years
old bridge. It was only known to the investigators that one of the abutments had a spread footing, and the
other was supported by H-beam steel piles.

Procedure

Velocity tomography
Boreholes 9 to 11m deep were drilled on each side of the two bridge abutments. The cross-hole
tomography survey was conducted along each abutment for source in one borehole on one side of the
abutment, and the hydrophones in the second borehole on the other side of the same abutment (Figure
6). The source was activated at 0.5m centers along its borehole. The same spacing was used for
hydrophones in the second borehole. The travel times were measured for direct P-waves for each
source-receiver combination and were processed by the RockVision3D proprietary software to generate
velocity tomograms under each foundation.

Single-hole TRT™
Two boreholes, one per each abutment were drilled with larger diameter (ID 76mm) to accommodate
for placing hydrophones and the source in the same hole together for the Single-Hole TRT™ survey. The
measurements were conducted with the source-receivers array repeating measurements from the bottom
of the hole up at 2 meter intervals.
The results were processed individually by the same software for each array depth to generate an
image (reflectogram) of features in the ground along a narrow corridor below each bridge footing. Then all
the images for the same abutment were merged together.

Survey results

Figure 6 shows the velocity tomograms for each of the abutments. The top tomogram shows rather
uniform ground conditions below the east abutment.

There is only a single higher velocity structure in the middle of the image rising from bedrock
delineated at Elev. 2448.5m. The bottom velocity tomogram for the second abutment shows some higher
velocity elements in rather chaotic arrangement across most of the ground above bedrock (Elev. 2447m).
However, it is impossible to identify the nature of these elements.

401
 S N
East Abutment Foundation

H-3
S N
Elev., m
H-2 West Abutment Foundation
2455

H-5
2454

2453

Pinnacle or 2452
large
boulder
2451

2450

2449
Bedrock
2448
Bedrock
2447
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m) 2446

400 P-wave velocity (m/s) 2300

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m)

Fig. 6. Seismic velocity tomograms generated under east and west bridge abutments.

Each tomogram was used as a base to build an average velocity model for processing TRT™ data
collected under the respective abutment.

The top reflectogram in figure 7 appears to confirm the existence of a single object, more competent
than the surrounding ground, which was identified in the velocity tomogram under the footing of the east
abutment (Figure 6). On the other hand, the bottom reflectogram for the west abutment shows relatively
regular pattern of structural features appearing linear and descending from the footing down toward
bedrock. Moreover, the anomalies at each end of this abutment appear inclined.

402
S N
East Abutment Foundation

H-3

Elev., m S N
West Abutment Foundation
2455

H-5
2454

Possible top of 2453

Pinnacle or boulder/pinnacle
large
boulder 2452

2451

Bedrock/boulder
boundary 2450
Bedrock
2449
Ground water?
2448

2447
Bedrock
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m) 2446

-0.3 Reflector magnitude 0.3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m)

Fig. 7. Single-Hole TRT reflectograms generated under east and west bridge abutments. Contours
of piles as designed are superimposed on West Abutment reflectogram.

The detected features were interpreted as somewhat distorted images of individual piles. This finding
is not surprising considering that the integrity of the images produced by TRT™ technique strongly
depends on reflected signals matching in phase when transposed to the reflector location. And that match
is controlled by inaccuracies in the velocity model, and by complex or small profile of reflectors (in this
case small profile steel piles).

After this investigation was completed, the findings about the piles were confirmed including a match
between the inclined anomalies, and the battered piles at each end of the east abutment.
This case represents a situation when the Single-Hole TRT™ survey conducted in one, properly located
borehole is capable of detecting a row of reflectors (piles) due to their radial alignment from the borehole
location.

CASE STUDY 2 - DEEP SOLUTION CAVERN

This study was conducted to characterize the shape of cavities developed by solution mining
nahcolite (Ramey et al, 2005). These cavities are difficult to characterize because solution mining
removed less than 25% of the cavity volume leaving the cavern filled with insoluble material turned to
rubble. The depth of the target was between 490m and 670m. The Single-Hole TRT™ survey was
conducted in two 18mm ID production casings grouted side by side in a 0.5m diameter borehole. The
production was suspended for the time of survey.

Procedure

A high temperature hydrophone set of 10 hydrophones at 6m centers was used for this investigation.
A multiple round borehole perforation gun was used to fire shots at 6m centers as well.
The survey was conducted for three sets of sources and receivers (Figure 8). For the first set the
hydrophones were lowered to the depth range from 469 to 523m. The shots were fired at the range from
657 to 603m.

403
 For the second set the hydrophones were at the same range, and the shots were fired at the depth
range from 566 to 512m. For the third set, the hydrophones were at the range from 390 to 444m, and the
shots were fired at the range from 504 to 450m.

The velocity for data processing could not be measured directly from seismic records as they were
dominated by waves traveling either through steel casings, or through fluid columns in these casings.
Therefore the velocity was calculated using elastic constants for the type of a deposit. The calculation
yielded P-wave velocity of 3,200m/s, and S-wave velocity of 1,250m/s.

- 0.3 Reflection magnitude 0.3

-60 -30 0 30 60

Depth (m)
Hydrophones-
-400
set 3

Lower velocity -450

anomaly

Sources –
set 3
Hydrophones-
set 1 and 2

-500
Gas cap?

Sources –
set 2
Lower velocity
anomaly
-550
Possible shear
zone?
Lower velocity
anomaly
-600
Sources –
set 1

Lower velocity
anomalies -650

Fig. 8. Section through axially symmetric reflectogram, and profiles of solution caverns generated
for three sets of sources and receivers placed in two casings grouted in one access borehole.

Survey results

The contour image of the cavities was obtained from both P- and S-wave reflectograms merged
together. Figure 8 shows profiles for all imaged cavities. The profile was found to correlate with geological
data. Also the configuration and horizontal extent of imaged cavern profiles were consistent with the most
likely development and horizontal extent of the caverns. The volumetric assessment of the caverns based
on seismic data was verified by another direct method (partial fluid displacement). Also some statistical
analysis of the production output was conducted for the same reason. This investigation has shown
seismic evaluation of the cavern sizes matching other methods within 10% margin of error.

CASE STUDY 3 - MAPPING GEOLOGICAL PROFILE

This study was conducted in a test facility in Japan. Its purpose was to evaluate the efficiency of
cross-hole tomography and Single-Hole TRT™ for mapping inclined geological strata near the surface.
Both surveys were conducted using four vertical holes drilled in one row that was oriented perpendicular
to the strike of strata as shown in figure 9. The average depth of the boreholes was 40m.

404
Procedure

Velocity tomography
The velocity tomography was conducted for three panels between consecutive pairs of boreholes. For
each panel the seismic waves were generated by a swept frequency source at 1-m centers in one of the
holes. The other hole was instrumented with hydrophones also at 1-m centers. In addition, a number of
source points were spread along and up to 5m away from the line of boreholes. The waves from these
source points were recorded by hydrophones placed at each borehole.

18m

Hole 2

Hole 4
Hole 3
0 Hole 1

Water table: -3m

-10 Mudstone

-20
Survey boreholes

-30 Sandstone

Conglomerate
-40

Fig. 9. Geological profile and configuration of survey boreholes for the test site in Japan.

Single-hole TRT™
The TRT™ survey was conducted in boreholes 3 and 4. The survey was conducted using an array of
6 hydrophones at 2m centers with the source placed within 1.8-m long section in the middle of the
hydrophone array. The entire set was lowered to a number of depths in each of survey boreholes with the
source activated multiple times at each depth.

Survey results

Figure 10 presents the velocity tomograms combined for all surveyed panels. The image appears to
accurately address the boundary between mudstone and sandstone layers. It also shows a weathered
zone below the ground surface. However, there is no indication of a thin conglomerate zone in sandstone.
Figure 11 shows the reflectogram superimposed on velocity tomograms. It correctly delineates the
mudstone-sandstone boundary. It also appears to show some lamination in sandstone, and a chain of

405
anomalies matching known alignment of the conglomerate. Moreover, it appears to show vertically
aligned anomalies matching location of the boreholes. An additional chain of anomalies showing
reversed inclination may be a mirror image of another geological boundary to the right of Hole 4 – outside
of the velocity tomogram range.

Depth, m

Hole 3

Hole 4
Hole 1

Hole 2
Weathered rock/soil
-5

-10

Mudstone
-15

-20

-25

Sandstone

-30

Conglomerate
-35
Reflection magnitude
-0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.4

0 5 10 15
Distance (m) 500 P-wave velocity (m/s) 2900

Fig. 10. Seismic velocity tomograms generated for cross-hole tomography survey at the geological
test site in Japan.

406
 Depth, m
0

Hole 3

Hole 4
Hole 2
Hole
-5

-10

-15
Conglomerate?

-20
Hole related anomalies

Mirror image
-25

-30

Reflection magnitude
-35
-0.4 0.2 .2 0.4

0 5 10 15 500 P-wave velocity (m/s) 2900

Distance (m)

Fig. 11. Single-Hole reflectogram from holes 3 and 4 superimposed on the velocity tomogram.

CASE STUDY 4 - OLD SEWER PERIMETER

A century old, approximately 13-m deep and 3.3-m outer diameter sewer line runs near the proposed
caisson location. The sewer shell is made of concrete and protected from outside with brick. The task was
to locate the lateral profile of the sewer structure within 0.15 m margin of error.

Procedure

Four boreholes, each approximately 16-m deep, were drilled two on each side of the anticipated
sewer line as shown in Figure 12. The holes were cased with 76-cm inner diameter PVC pipes. The pipes
were grouted to the ground with a rigid grout, and were filled with water.

Velocity tomography
In the first step the seismic velocity cross-hole tomography survey was conducted along four side
panels connecting pairs of boreholes. The source was activated at 0.5-m centers along one hole of each
pair. Seismic waves were recorded by a string of hydrophones in the second hole, also with 0.5m spacing.
The travel times for detected direct P-waves were processed using the RockVision3D software to
generate velocity tomograms along all four panels.

Then the same software was used to generate an average velocity model using 3D interpolation
throughout the space between the panels. The velocity model was required for a subsequent tracing of
reflectors.

407
 6
Perimeter of the
survey/image block Approximate sewer
centerline
Panel TB-1/TB-2 TB-2

Approximate
horizontal extent of
sewer brick wall

Distance Y (m)
TB-1
3

Approximate
lateral error
TB-3

TB-4 Panel TB-3/TB-4

0
0 3 6
Distance X (m)

Fig. 12. Horizontal profile of the old sewer and location of boreholes used for seismic imaging
survey.

Single-hole TRT™
In the second step, the source and hydrophone array were placed together in the same borehole and
the Single-Hole TRT™ survey was conducted over the bottom 10 meters of the borehole depth. The
survey was repeated in each hole.

The acquired data and the velocity model generated by the cross-hole tomography were used by a
different module of the same RockVision3D software to generate three-dimensional image (reflectogram)
of the ground features reflecting seismic energy.

Survey results
Figure 13 shows P-wave velocity tomograms along two opposite side panels crossing the sewer path.
The tomograms show a weak image of the sewer shell with its top and bottom relatively well defined.

Figure 14 shows two sections through an image generated by the Single-Hole TRT™. The image is
oriented looking along the sewer alignment. In this image the side walls of the sewer are quite well
defined. The inside of the sewer appears practically free of anomalies. The image also appears showing
a vertical structure of a manhole well. The space outside both the sewer and the manhole appears full of
noise.

The lateral extent of the sewer shell was assessed by animation, moving d turning a model of the
sewer (cylindrical contour in both images) across both the velocity tomograms, and the reflectogram until
an optimum match - well within required margin of error - was received (Figure 12).

408
 Depth (m)
P-wave
velocity TB-2 TB-1 TB-3 TB-4
(m/s) 0

880
-2

-4

Simulated
-6 Simulated
sewer profile sewer profile

100 -8 Velocity
anomaly
matching
-10 sewer
Velocity location
anomaly
matching -12
sewer
location -14

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Distance (m) Distance (m)

Fig. 13. Seismic velocity tomograms along two panels crossing the sewer alignment as marked in
figure 12.

Depth (m)
TB-2 TB-1 TB-3 TB-4
0
Possible
manhole -2
signature Possible
manhole
Higher -4 signature
seismic
impedance
anomaly -6 Higher
seismic
0.3 impedance
-8 anomaly
0.15
-10

0 Simulated
-12 sewer
-0.15 profile

-14
-0.3
Reflection 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
magnitude Distance (m) Distance (m)

Fig. 14. Two sections through 3D TRT™ reflectogram looking along the sewer alignment.

SUMMARY

• A new, Single-Hole TRT™ technique offers a significant step toward being able to “see” through
an opaque ground by means of using seismic waves.
• The technique successfully complements the traditional velocity tomography by tracing anomalies
hiding in pockets of insufficient coverage between tomographic panels formed by cross-hole
surveys.
• Its significant benefit stems from using the entire wave record, and not only the “first arrivals” of
direct seismic waves typical for cross-hole tomography.
• The technique benefits from using swept frequency rather than impact sources in boreholes. This
approach provides for an exceptional repeatability of the source. It also helps to expand and

409
 control the frequency band, and subsequently the resolution of seismic imaging. However it also
requires highly sensitive sensors of the frequency range matching that of the source.
• For a single borehole data, the technique offers an axially-symmetric reflectogram. This type
image should be sufficient for structures which direction from the survey hole is known, or if the
hole is drilled in the middle of axially symmetric structure.
• For truly three-dimensional ground imaging this technique requires at least two, and preferably
three boreholes to assure a unique ground imaging solution.
• This technique is well suited for imaging shallow man-made targets such as piles, sewers, and
other mainly linear infrastructure elements. However it may also be used for deeper targets
associated with old, abandoned mine workings or shafts.
• The technique still requires an improvement so the images can be made sharper, and less prone
for disruption by multiple reflections e.g. between a cluster of piles typical for pier foundations.

REFERENCES

Kittel, Ch., 1971. Introduction to solid state physics. 4th edition. John Willey & Sons, New York.
Shea-Albin, V. R., D. R. Hanson, and R. E. Gerlick, 1991, Elastic Wave Velocity and Attenuation as Used
to Define Phases of Loading and Failure in Coal.” USBM Report of Investigation 9355, U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, 43 pp.
Aki, K, and P. G. Richards, 1980. Quantitative seismology. Theory and methods. Vol. 1. W. H. Freeman
and Co., N. York.
Watters, K. 1978. Reflection seismology. A tool for energy resource exploration. John Willey & Sons, New
York.
Hanson, D. R., K. Y. Haramy, and D. M. Neil, 2000. Seismic Tomography Applied to Site
Characterization. Paper in Proceedings of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, CO.
Ashida, Y., 2001. Seismic imaging ahead of a tunnel face with three-component geophones. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38, 823-831.
Neil, D. M., K. Y. Haramy, J. Descour, and D. Hanson, 1999. Imaging ground conditions ahead of the
face. World Tunneling, V. 12, No. 9, November, pp. 425-429.
Ashida, Y., and K. Sassa, 1993. Depth transform of seismic data by use of equi-travel time planes.
Exploration Geophysics 23: 341-346.
Descour, J. and T. Ross, 2005. Geophysical investigation of an unknown bridge foundation. Publication
No. FHWA-CFL/TD-05-02.
Descour J., T. Yamamoto, and K. Murakami, 2005. Improving 3D imaging of unknown underground
structures. Proceedings of FHWA Unknown Foundation Summit, Lakewood, CO. November 15-
16, 2005.
Ramey, M., J. Descour, and M. Hardy. 2005. Cavity shape characterization of a rubble-filled solution-
mined cavity. Proceedings of Solution Mining Research Institute; Spring 2005 Technical Meeting,
Syracuse, New York.

410