Abstract
The tunnel seismic ahead prospecting method is usually used to estimate adverse geology ahead of a tunnel face. The observation system plays an important role in tunnel seismic ahead prospecting, which helps to obtain accurate imaging results. Optimizing the observation system is a key issue for seismic ahead prospecting. In this paper, observation layouts are evaluated and a new three-dimensional (3D) observation system is proposed by imaging results analysis. For linear and 3D layouts, imaging result analysis in this paper indicates that the mirror artifact caused by the linear layout (Which sets sources and geophones on a straight line) can be suppressed by the 3D layout, due to its energy concentration and convergence. Moreover, reflections using 3D layout identify real abnormal bodies better than the linear layout. Moreover, conventional observation layouts often use shot point on the tunnel face or front sidewall, which makes it difficult to filter interference waves from the back of the tunnel face. To solve this problem, typical numerical examples are conducted, and imaging results of observation layouts with shot point on front sidewall, tunnel face or back sidewall are studied. Results show shot point on the back sidewall helps to separate waves, suppress interference waves and extract effective waves (reflected P-waves by discontinuities) by apparent velocity filtering method, so shot point is designed on the back sidewall to get high-quality records. To balance record quality and application convenience, a new 3D observation system is proposed with 12 geophones and 10 shot points in a special arrangement. Compared with a linear layout, practical testing and application using the new 3D system indicate the main fractured zones are accurately identified and located, which proves the reliability and practicability of the new observation system.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alimoradi A, Moradzadeh A, Naderi R, Salehi MZ, Etemadi A (2008) Prediction of geological hazardous zones in front of a tunnel face using TSP-203 and artificial neural networks. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 23:711–717
Aoki K, Mito Y, Yamamoto T, Shirasagi S (2007) Geostatistical evaluation of the mechanical properties of rock mass for TBM tunnelling by seismic reflection method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 40(6):591–602
Ashida Y (2001) Seismic imaging ahead of a tunnel face with three-component geophones. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(6):823–831
Ashida Y, Sassa K (1993) Depth transform of seismic data by use of equitravel time planes. Explor Geophys 24(3/4):341–346
Bellino A (2013) Advanced methods for rock discontinuities estimation in tunneling (Doctoral Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino)
Bellino A, Garibaldi L, Godio A (2013) An automatic method for data processing of seismic data in tunneling. J Appl Geophys 98(3):243–253
Benecke N, Dombrowski BA, Lehmann B (2008) Trust–exploration ahead of the tunnel face for reducing tunneling risks and supporting decision-making. In: World tunnel congress, pp 1124–1129
Button E, Bretterebner H, Schwab P (2002) The application of TRT-true reflection tomography at the Unterwald tunnel in Felsbau. Geophysics 20(2):51–56
Cheng F, Liu J, Qu N, Mao M, Zhou L (2014) Two-dimensional pre-stack reverse time imaging based on tunnel space. J Appl Geophys 104:106–113
Hanson DR, Vandergrift TL, DeMarco MJ, Hanna K (2002) Advanced techniques in site characterization and mining hazard detection for the underground coal industry. Int J Coal Geol 50(1):275–301
Inazaki T, Isahai H, Kawamura S, Kurahashi T, Hayashi H (1999) Stepwise application of horizontal seismic profiling for tunnel prediction ahead of the face. Lead Edge 18(12):1429–1431
Li SC, Li SC, Zhang QS, Xue YG, Ding WT, Zhong SH, He FL, Lin YS (2007) Forecast of karst-fractured groundwater and defective geological conditions [J]. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 26(2):217–225
Li SC, Liu B, Sun HF, Nie LC, Zhong SH, Su MX, Li X, Xu ZH (2014) State of art and trends of advanced geological prediction in tunnel construction. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 33(6):1090–1113
Lüth S, Rechlin AJ, Giese R, Tzavaras J, Gross K, Buske S, Jetschny S, Denil D, Bohlen T (2009) Seismic prediction ahead of a tunnel face-modeling, field surveys, geotechnical interpretation. Int J JSRM 4(2):47–51
Petronio L, Poletto F (2002) Seismic-while-drilling by using tunnel boring machine noise. Geophysics 67(6):1798–1809
Petronio L, Poletto F, Schleifer A (2007) Interface prediction ahead of the excavation front by the tunnel-seismic-while-drilling (TSWD) method. Geophysics 72(4):G39–G44
Sattel G, Sander BK, Amberg F, Kashiwa T (1996) Tunnel seismic prediction TSP-some case histories. Tunn Tunn 4:24–30
Song J (2016) The three-dimensional seismic ahead prospecting method and its application for adverse geology in tunnel construction (Doctoral Dissertation, Shandong University)
Yamamoto T, Shirasagi S, Murakami K, Nishioka K, Descour J (2006) Imaging changing ground in front and above a TBM using seismic reflector tracing; a case study. In: Golden rocks 2006, The 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association
Yamamoto T, Shirasagi S, Yokota Y, Koizumi Y (2011) Imaging geological conditions ahead of a tunnel face using three-dimensional seismic reflector tracing system. Int J JCRM 6:23–31
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China (973 Program) under grant numbers 2013CB036002, 2014CB046901 and 2015CB058101; National Key Scientific Instrument and Equipment Development Project under grant number 51327802; National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant numbers 51139004 and 51479104; and Consulting Research Project of the Chinese Academy of Engineering under grant number 2015-05-ZD-002. The above supports are greatly appreciated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, B., Chen, L., Li, S. et al. A new 3D observation system designed for a seismic ahead prospecting method in tunneling. Bull Eng Geol Environ 77, 1547–1565 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1131-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1131-3