1887
Volume 16, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

P‐wave, as well as horizontally and vertically polarized S‐wave, tomographic data were collected between two borehole pairs. This enabled the joint‐inversion of the three datasets. By employing structural constraints, the S‐wave traveltimes were coupled to the more accurate P‐wave traveltimes during the inversion. Thereby, the traveltime and anisotropic artefacts, initially observed in the individually inverted S‐wave tomograms, were significantly reduced and the correlation with the borehole logs improved, while the resolution of the jointly inverted P‐wave tomogram was only marginally affected. The joint inversion proves successful in determining the S‐wave velocity distribution more accurately than individual inversions. In addition, the jointly inverted tomograms were used to detect aquifer heterogeneities, caused by differences in clay content, and to distinguish areas of relatively high effective pressure. Comparison of the jointly inverted S‐wave tomograms suggests the effect of S‐wave anisotropy, which showed substantial velocity differences of approximately −10% to +10%. The anisotropy may have been caused by the presence of water‐filled pores, micro‐cracks and preferred mineral alignment (mainly clay) in the media.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12010
2018-08-12
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AngioniT., RechtienR.D., CardimonaS.J. and LunaR.2003. Crosshole seismic tomography and borehole logging for engineering site characterization in Sikeston, MO, USA. Tectonophysics368, 119–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CarrionP., CostaJ., PinheiroJ.E., and SchoenbergM.1992. Cross‐borehole tomography in anisotropic media. Geophysics57, 1194–1198.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ClaytonC.R.I.2011. Stiffness at small strain: research and practice. Geotechnique61, 5–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CrampinS., and ChastinS.2003. A review of shear wave splitting in the crack‐critical crust. Geophysical Journal International155, 221–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DaleyT.M., MajerE.L., and PetersonJ.E.2004. Crosswell seismic imaging in a contaminated basalt aquifer. Geophysics69, 16–24
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DietrichP., and TronickeJ.2009. Integrated analysis and interpretation of cross‐hole P‐ and S‐wave tomograms: a case study. Near Surface Geophysics7, 101–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DietzeM.2007. Evaluierung von Feldmethoden zur Quantifizierung von Schadstoffminderungen im Fahnenbereich am Beispiel eines BTEX‐Schadens. Institut für Geowissenschaften der Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
  8. Eberhart‐PhillipsD., HanD‐H., and ZobackM.D.1989. Empirical relationships among seismic velocity, effective pressure, porosity, and clay content in sandstone. Geophysics54, 82–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FrattaD., TannerW.M., and DamascenoV.M.2004. Using elastic waves for the tomographic imaging of stresses in soils. FastTIMES9, 37–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GallardoL.A., and MejuM.A.2003. Characterization of heterogeneous near‐surface materials by joint 2D inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data. Geophysical Research Letters30, 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GallardoL.A., and MejuM.A.2004. Joint two‐dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross‐gradients constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research109, B03311.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GirouxB., GloaguenE., and ChouteauM.2007. bh_tomo – a MATLAB borehole Georadar 2D tomography package. Computers and Geosciences33, 126–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GolubG., and KahanW.1965. Calculating the singular values and pseudo‐inverse of a matrix. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Numerical Analysis Series B2, 205–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GruberT., and GreenhalghS.A.1998. Precision analysis of first‐break times in grid models. Geophysics63, 1062–1065.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. KuT., and MayneP.W.2014. Stress history profiling in soils using OCD‐G0 anisotropy relationship. Geotechnical Engineering167, 476–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LeeJ.‐S., FernandezA.L., and SantamarinaJ.C.2005. S‐wave velocity tomography: small‐scale laboratory application. Geotechnical Testing Journal28, 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MaurerH.1996. Systematic errors in seismic crosshole data: application to the coupled inverse technique. Geophysical Research Letters23, 2681–2684.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MenkeW.1989. Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MoorkampM., HeinckeB., JegenM., RobertsA.W., and HobbsR.W.2011. A framework for 3‐D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International184, 477–493
    [Google Scholar]
  20. PaascheH., OhrnbergerM., WerbanU., and FechnerT.2011. Multi‐scale S‐wave tomography for exploration and risk assessment of development sites (MuSaWa). Geotechnologien18, 24–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PaigeC.C. and SaundersM.A.1982. LSQR: an algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software8, 43–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. PrattR.G., and ChapmanC.H.1992. Traveltime tomography in anisotropic media – II. Application. Geophysical Journal International109, 20–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SullyJ.P., and CampanellaR.G.1995. Evaluation of in situ anisotropy from crosshole and downhole shear wave velocity measurements. Géotechnique45, 27–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. TanimotoK., and KurzemeM.1973. In situ shear wave velocity by cross‐hole method. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations99, 351–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. TryggvasonA. and LindeN.2006. Local earthquake (LE) tomography with joint inversion for P‐ and S‐wave velocities using structural constraints. Geophysical Research Letters33, L07303.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. WeißH., SchirmerM., TeutschG., and MerkelP.2001. Sanierungsforschung in regional kontaminierten Aquiferen (SAFIRA) – 1. Information zum Forschungsschwerpunkt am Standort Bitterfeld. Grundwasser6, 113–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WeißH., SchirmerM., TeutschG., and MerkelP.2002. Sanierungsforschung in regional kontaminierten Aquiferen (SAFIRA) – 2. Projektüberblick und Pilotanlage. Grundwasser7, 135–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. YamamotoT., NyeT., and KuruM.1994. Porosity, permeability, shear strength: crosswell tomography below an iron foundry. Geophysics, 59, 1530–1541.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12010
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12010
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Anisotropy; Borehole seismics; Inversion; Shear wave; Tomography

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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