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

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The diagonal differencing algorithm, which takes spatial derivatives along the diagonals of the finite‐difference grid, is well suited to solve the elastodynamic equations for tunnel seismic modelling because it is accurate and stable at strong low‐order discontinuities of the elastic medium. Spatial high‐order finite‐difference operators increase the accuracy and efficiency of the algorithm except at steps in the elastic properties, where these operators fail. A solution is to use high‐order finite differences in most of the grid but to employ two‐point second‐order operators at low‐order discontinuities. This keeps memory requirements and computational effort on a level that allows 3D simulations on moderately priced PC hardware. Measurements with the commercial tunnel seismic prediction method yield complex seismic common‐receiver gathers with long direct‐wave pulses. Finite‐difference simulations in two and three dimensions reveal that these long pulses are due to P‐wave reverberations in and around the water‐filled shothole. Direct S‐waves originate close to the detonation point by conversion at the shothole–rock boundary. A dispersive, low‐frequency guided wave reverberates with the average S‐wave velocity inside the excavation damaged zone around the tunnel. The guided wave creates multiple body waves inside the undisturbed rock as it reverberates. It carries useful information about the degree and depth of the rock excavation damage but the guided wave often overlaps tunnel surface‐wave modes and may be difficult to extract from seismograms. Receivers should be buried deeper than the extent of the excavation damaged zone so that the guided waves and tunnel surface waves, which circulate around the tunnel, do not dominate seismic records and hide direct S‐waves, reflections or other late arrivals.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2004 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2004005
2004-01-01
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2004005
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology. Theory and Methods: Vol. 1. W.H. Freeman & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AlheidH.J., KnechtM., BoissonJ.‐Y., Homand‐EtienneF. and PepaS.1999. Comparison of in‐situ hydraulic and seismic measurements in the excavation damaged zone of underground drifts. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Rock Mechanics (eds G.Vouille and P.Berest ), Paris, pp. 1263–1266.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CerjanC., KosloffD., KosloffR. and ReshefM.1985. A non‐reflecting boundary condition for discrete acoustic and elastic wave equations. Geophysics50, 705–708.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. FluryS., EhrbarH., HenkeA. and Rehbock‐SanderM.2000. The Gotthard Base Tunnel: Construction work is progressing in 4 part‐sections. Tunnel4/2000, 14–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. HaackA.2001. Latest developments in tunnelling technology and their perspectives. Tunnel5/2001, 20–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. HronF. and MikhailenkoB.G.1981. Numerical modeling of non‐geometrical effects by the Alekseev‐Mikhailenko method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America71, 1011–1029.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. InazakiT., IsahaiH., KawamuraS., KurahashiT. and HayashiH.1999. Stepwise application of horizontal seismic profiling for tunnel prediction ahead of the face. The Leading Edge181429–1431.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. IsraeliM. and OrszagS.A.1981. Approximation of radiation boundary conditions. Journal of Computational Physics41, 115–135.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. KneibG., KasselA. and LorenzK.2000. Automatic seismic prediction ahead of the tunnel boring machine. First Break18, 295–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. KneibG. and KernerC.1993. Accurate and efficient seismic modeling in random media. Geophysics58, 576–588.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. KneibG. and ShapiroS.A.1995. Viscoacoustic wave propagation in 2‐D random media and separation of absorption and scattering attenuation. Geophysics60, 459–467.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. LeparouxD., BitriA. and GrandjeanG.2000. Underground cavity detection: A new method based on seismic Rayleigh waves. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics5, 33–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. MarfurtK.J.1984. Accuracy of finite‐difference and finite‐element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics49, 533–549.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. RothM. and HolligerK.1999. Inversion of source‐generated noise in high‐resolution seismic data. The Leading Edge18, 1402–1406.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. SängerE.H., GoldN. and ShapiroS.A.2000. Modeling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite‐difference grid. Wave Motion31, 77–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. SattelG., FreyP. and AmbergR.1992. Prediction ahead of the tunnel face by seismic methods – pilot project in Centovalli Tunnel, Locarno, Switzerland. First Break10, 19–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. StilkeG.1959. About seismic surface waves on a hollow cylinder in whole space. PhD thesis, Technical University of Clausthal (in German).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. SunR., ChowJ. and ChenK.‐J.2001. Phase correction in separating P‐ and S‐waves in elastic media. Geophysics66, 1515–1518.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. VirieuxJ.1986. P‐SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics51, 345–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. WrightC., WallsE.J. and CarneiroD.deJ.2000. The seismic velocity distribution in the vicinity of a mine tunnel at Thabazimbi, South Africa. Journal of Applied Geophysics44, 369–382.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2004005
Loading
Finite‐difference modelling for tunnel seismology
Near Surface Geophysics 2, 71 (2004); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2004005
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2004005
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2004005
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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