1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 8, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Two walk‐away tests were conducted at two sites in Memphis, Tennessee, USA. One site is representative of an urban setting (road median) while the other represents a rural setting (metropolitan park). Three P‐wave sources, a 7.5 kg sledgehammer, a 20 kg weight‐drop and a 12‐gauge shotgun, were tested. Analysis of the data collected indicates that the seismic data recorded from the shotgun source possess the strongest energy, the highest dominant frequency, the broadest frequency band and the least amount of ground roll energy. The source repeatability was also studied by observing the first cycle of each seismic source, showing that the shotgun can generate the most repeatable source wavelets. None of the data recorded from the three sources show significant seismic energy above 100 Hz due to seismic wave attenuation. The loess in the rural site exacerbated the attenuation and resulted in a much lower peak frequency (43.7 Hz), which is nearly half of the peak frequency recorded at the urban site (85.3 Hz). Since attenuation can be a big factor in shallow reflection surveying, we recommend that site attenuation be considered before a reflection survey is performed in the Memphis area and a reflection survey be conducted outside of the loess blanketed area when possible. Since the final goal of the survey is to search for aquitard breaches, Hagedoorns’ plus‐minus method was applied to the walk‐away data set to map the first refractor, the top of the aquitard. One depression from the obtained structure was interpreted as a paleochannel, indicating that river channel erosion may be one of the causes for the formation of aquitard breaches.

© European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers © 2010 European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010024
2010-06-01
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010024
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AritmanH.C.1997. Repeatability study – a step in the right direction. 67th SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 96–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. CushingE.M., BoswellH.E. and HosmanR.L.1964. General geology of the Mississippi embayment. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America86, 1287–1295.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. EvansJ.B.1997. A Handbookfor Seismic Data Acquisition in Exploration.Geophysical Monograph Series 7. SEG.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. EvisonF.F.1952. The inadequacy of the standard seismic techniques for shallow surveying. Geophysics17, 867–875.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. HagedoornJ.G.1959. The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction section sections. Geophysical Prospecting2, 85–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. KingsburyA.J and ParksS.W.1993. Hydrogeology city of the principal aquifers and relation of faults to interaquifer leakage in the Memphis Area, TN. US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Open Report 93‐4075.
  7. LarsenD., SpannW.E., McClureM.D. and GentryR.2003. Stratigraphic and contaminant hydrology implications of selected sediment properties of Quaternary deposits, Shelby County, Tennessee. Southeastern Geology42, 99–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. LiuH.‐P., HuY., DormanJ., ChangT. and ChuiJ.‐M.1997. Upper Mississippi embayment shallow seismic velocities measured in situ. Engineering Geology46, 313–330.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. McBrideH.J. and NelsonW.J.2001. Seismic reflection images of shallow faulting, Northernmost Mississippi embayment, North of the New Madrid seismic zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America91, 128–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. MillerR., PullanS.E., SteeplesW.D. and JamesA.H.1992. Field comparison of shallow seismic sources near Chino, California. Geophysics57, 693–709.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. MillerR., PullanS.E., SteeplesW.D. and JamesA.H.1994. Field comparison of shallow P‐wave seismic sources near Houston, Texas. Geophysics59, 1713–1728.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. MillerR., PullanS.E., WaldnerS.J. and HaeniP.F.1986. Field comparison of shallow seismic sources. Geophysics51, 2067–2092.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. MillerR. and SteeplesW.D.1996. Evaluation of fault scarp at Harlan County Lake, Harlan County, Nebraska using high resolution seismic reflection surveying. Open‐file Report 96‐32, Kansas Geological Survey and The University of Kansas.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. OdumJ., StephensonW., WilliamsR., WorleyD., GuccioneM. and Van ArsdaleR.B.2001. High resolution seismic‐reflection imaging of shallow deformation beneath the northeast margin of the Manila high at Big Lake, Arkansas. Engineering Geology62, 91–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. OvermeerenV.R.A.2001. Hagedoorn’s plus‐minus method: The beauty of simplicity. Geophysical Prospecting49, 687–696.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. ParksS.W.1990. Hydrogeology and preliminary assessment of the potential for contamination of the Memphis aquifer in the Memphis area, Tennessee. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 90‐4092.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ParksS.W. and MireckiE.J.1992. Hydrogeology, ground‐water quality, and potential for water‐supply contamination near the Selby County Landfill in Memphis, Tennessee. US Geological Survey, Water‐Resources Investigations Report 91‐4173.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. PullanS.E. and MacAulayA.H.1987. An in‐hole shotgun source for engineering seismic surveys. Geophysics52, 985.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. SchweigE.S., ShenF., KanterL.R., EugeneA., LuziettiE.A., Van ArsdalR.B., ShedlockM.K. and KingW.K.1992. Shallow seismic reflection survey of the Bootheel lineament area, southeastern MS. Seismological Research Letters63, 285–298.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. SteeplesW.D. and MillerD.R.1998. Avoiding pitfalls in shallow seismic reflection surveys. Geophysics63, 1213–1224.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Van ArsdaleR.B. and TenBrinkR.K.2000. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic geology of the New Madrid seismic zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90, 345–356.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. VelascoM., Van ArsdaleR., WaldronB., HarrisJ. and CoxR.2005. Quaternary faulting beneath Memphis, Tennessee. Seismological Research Letters76, 598–614.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. WilliamsR.A., StephensonJ.W., OdumK.J. and WorleyD.M.2001. Seismic reflection imaging of Tertiary faulting and related post Eocene deformation 20 km north of Memphis, TN. Engineering Geology62, 79–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. YaoZ. and LiB.2004. Seismic exploration technology in huge‐thick loess covered region of Ordos basin. 74th SEG meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 506.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010024
Loading
Imaging a shallow aquitard with seismic reflection data in Memphis, Tennessee, USA. Part I: source comparison, walk‐away tests and the plus‐minus method
Near Surface Geophysics 8, 331 (2010); https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2010024
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010024
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010024
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