Near-surface Imaging at Meteor Crater, Arizona Soumya Roy, Ph. D. Student Advisor: Dr. Robert R. Stewart AGL Annual Meeting University of Houston, 2 nd.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Attributes UH Energy Numerical Modeling Numerical Modeling Prestack Data Analysis Prestack Data Analysis Data Processing Seismic Interpretation Seismic.
Advertisements

Illumination, resolution, and incidence-angle in PSDM: A tutorial
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
Seismic Reflection Ground Roll Filtering Ted Bertrand SAGE 2004.
Processing and Binning Overview From chapter 14 “Elements of 3D Seismology” by Chris Liner.
Using 3D Seismic Imaging for Mine and Mineral Exploration G. Schuster University of Utah.
Near-Surface Geophysical Investigation of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake Epicentral Area Eray Kocel, Robert R. Stewart, Paul Mann, and Li Chang Eray Kocel,
Identification of seismic phases
Houston, TX | May 2, 2012 Finding blind faults using ground roll reflection Craig Hyslop Robert Stewart.
Tania Mukherjee Department of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences University of Houston April 28, 2010 Near-surface geophysical imaging in a highly structured.
SAGEEP 2014 Refraction/Reflection Session Optimized interpretation of SAGEEP 2011 blind refraction data with Fresnel Volume Tomography and Plus-Minus refraction.
Seismic Refraction Analysis of California Wash and Astor Pass
GG450 April 22, 2008 Seismic Processing.
Fluid substitution effects on seismic anisotropy Long Huang, Robert Stewart, Samik Sil, and Nikolay Dyaur Houston April 2 nd,
Lab 2 Seismogram Interpretation
SURFACE WAVE SURVEYS LIMITED
  The word comes from the Greek word seismic, for shaking.  It is the branch of Geology which has provided the most comprehensive interpretation of.
Petrotech 2007 AOA Geophysics Inc Integrity Oil Services Specialists in Applied Geophysics.
Journal Club 17/03/2015 Uncertainty loops in travel-time tomography from nonlinear wave physics. Erica Galetti et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, (2015)
Seismic Reflection Processing/Velocity Analysis of SAGE 2007 Data Andrew Steen Team Members; Stan, Tim, Josh, Andrew.
Reflection GPH492 By: Jonathan Payne Peter Bernhard Eve Marie Hirt.
Occurs when wave encounters sharp discontinuities in the medium important in defining faults generally considered as noise in seismic sections seismic.
Advanced Seismic Imaging GG 6770 Variance Analysis of Seismic Refraction Tomography Data By Travis Crosby.
UTAM 2004 Travis Crosby. UTAM 2004 Travis Crosby Very Low Frequency EM Surveys for the Purpose of Augmenting for the Purpose of Augmenting Near-Surface.
Bedrock Delineation by a Seismic Reflection/Refraction Survey at TEAD Utah David Sheley and Jianhua Yu.
Xi’an Jiaotong University 1 Quality Factor Inversion from Prestack CMP data using EPIF Matching Jing Zhao, Jinghuai Gao Institute of Wave and Information,
The surface profiles in Grenoble area determined by the MASW measurements Seiji Tsuno, Cecile Cornou, Pierre-Yves Bard (LGIT) QSHA meeting, 1/Juin/2007,
Seismic refraction surveys
Downhole seismic and S-Waves Jacques JENNY Geo 2X Genève.
Small is beautiful: AGL physical modeling and salt measurements N. Dyaur, R. Stewart, and L. Huang Houston May 16,
Waves: Phase and group velocities of a wave packet
Surface wave tomography: part3: waveform inversion, adjoint tomography
Travel-time versus Distance Curves
1 © 2011 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. VSP modeling, velocity analysis, and imaging in complex structures Yue Du With Mark Willis, Robert Stewart May.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics This Week: No new lab assignment… But we’ll go over the previous labs 06 Feb 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 For Fri 07 Feb:
Effects of Lithologic Heterogeneity on Landscape Evolution in the Canyons of the Colorado Plateau Courtney Starling Kelin Whipple Andrew Darling Arizona.
Searching for blind faults: the Haiti subsurface imaging project ERAY KOCEL ERAY KOCEL with with Robert R. Stewart, Paul Mann, Robert R. Stewart, Paul.
Last week’s problems a) Mass excess = 1/2πG × Area under curve 1/2πG = × in kgs 2 m -3 Area under curve = -1.8 ×10-6 x 100 m 2 s -2 So Mass.
Tom Wilson, Department of Geology and Geography Environmental and Exploration Geophysics II tom.h.wilson Department of Geology.
Imaging Normal Faults in Alluvial fans using Geophysical Techniques: Field Example from the Coast of Aqaba, Saudi Arabia Sherif M. Hanafy 28 October 2014.
SASW – an in situ method for determining shear modulus
Impact Craters.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 28 Feb 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Last Time: Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Radar = electromagnetic radiation (light)
The main instrument used is called the sonde. A basic sonde consists of a source and two receivers one-foot apart. The sonde is lowered down the borehole.
Tom Wilson, Department of Geology and Geography Environmental and Exploration Geophysics II tom.h.wilson Department of Geology.
Bradley Central High School
The crust and the Earth’s interior
Velocity Estimation by Waveform Tomography in the Canadian Foothills: A Synthetic Benchmark Study Andrew J. Brenders 1 Sylvestre Charles 2 R. Gerhard Pratt.
Velocity Estimation by Waveform Tomography in the Canadian Foothills: A Synthetic Benchmark Study Andrew J. Brenders 1 Sylvestre Charles 2 R. Gerhard Pratt.
CREWES 2003 Sponsors Meeting We’ve presented our research results and educational progress in geophysical exploration in partnership with the resource.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 29 Feb 2016 © A.R. Lowry 2016 Last Time: Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Radar = electromagnetic radiation (light)
Lee M. Liberty Research Professor Boise State University.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 23 Feb 2016 Lab 3 © A.R. Lowry 2016 Seismic Reflections Next assignment due one week from now Due noon Mar 1.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 12 Feb 2016
Impact craters are geologic structures formed when a large meteoroid, asteroid or comet smashes into a planet or a satellite.Impact craters are geologic.
Microtremor method Saibi. Dec, 18, 2014.
Seismic Methods Geoph 465/565 Vertical Seismic Profiling– Nov 2, 2015
Ground-roll Inversion for Near-surface Shear-Wave Velocity
Seismic Methods Geoph 465/565 ERB 5104 Lecture 7 – Sept 16, 2015
R. G. Pratt1, L. Sirgue2, B. Hornby2, J. Wolfe3
Applied Geophysics Fall 2016 Umass Lowell
Modeling of free-surface multiples - 2
Creating a Conference Poster
Skeletonized Wave-Equation Surface Wave Dispersion (WD) Inversion
Initial asymptotic acoustic RTM imaging results for a salt model
Some remarks on the leading order imaging series
—Based on 2018 Field School Seismic Data
Processing and Binning Overview
Velocity and anisotropy parameter scan
Wave Equation Dispersion Inversion of Guided P-Waves (WDG)
Presentation transcript:

Near-surface Imaging at Meteor Crater, Arizona Soumya Roy, Ph. D. Student Advisor: Dr. Robert R. Stewart AGL Annual Meeting University of Houston, 2 nd May 2012

Journey Through An Astrobleme  Objectives  Meteor Crater, Arizona  Geophysical surveys: - Ultrasonic, Seismic, Gravity and Magnetics, GPR  Methodology: - Seismic refraction and reflection analysis - Ground-roll inversion  Results and Interpretations 2  Conclusions (Animation showing particle movements for Ground-roll or Rayleigh-wave ) N Daniel A. Russell (1999)

Objectives 3  To understand seismic wave propagation through brecciated materials  To estimate the thickness of the ejecta blanket (a sheet of debris thrown out of the crater during the meteorite impact)  To characterize the near-surface physical properties  To develop general survey methodologies to image a highly complex near-surface  To image near-surface reflectors and faults

4 Barringer (Meteor) Crater, Arizona 1 Ejecta blanket 3 4  Excavated some 49,000 years ago  Diameter of 1.2 km and a bowl-shaped depression of 180 m  Startigraphy similar to Grand Canyon sequence Ejecta curtain 2 (Shoemaker et al., 1974 and Kring, 2007) - P. H. Schultz, Brown University, NASA Ames Research Center

5 Seismic Surveys Seismic Line Source Type Receiver Type Source interval (m) Receiver interval (m) Total receivers Receiver spread length (m) Record length (s) Sample interval (ms) Hammer 10 lb (4.5 kg) Sledgehammer Planted vertical AWD 88 lb (40 kg) Accelerated Weight Drop Planted vertical

6 Ultrasonic Measurements Rock formation P-wave velocity (m/s) Moenkopi 1815 ± 33 Moenkopi ± 106 Moenkopi ± 89 Why do velocities vary? 1)Samples are weathered differently 2)Samples are of irregular shapes and sizes 3)Measurement errors

P-wave Velocity from Seismic Refraction Analysis o First-break Pick analysis o Initial P-wave velocity model o Iterative travel-time tomography through ray tracing o Minimizing the error between calculated and observed traveltimes P-wave Velocity Structure 7 Raw shot from AWD line

Result and Interpretation: P-wave Velocity Structure 8

S-wave Velocity from Ground-roll Inversion Raw shot from AWD line S-wave Velocity Structure Dispersion Curve Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) (Park et al., 1998, Park et al., 1999, Xia et al., 1999) 9 Frequency (Hz) Phase velocity (m/s)

Result and Interpretation: S-wave Velocity Structure 10 Ejecta blanket Moenkopi

Result: P-wave NMO Velocity Structure 11 (Turolski, 2012) Showing similar thinning pattern in low P-wave velocities

Interpretation: Near-surface Faults 12 (Turolski, 2012)

Supporting Materials 13 LiDAR (Light detection and ranging) for high-resolution topography data - National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM) (Turolski, 2012) South-East Line (Roddy et al., 1975) Hammer Line South Line (Roddy et al., 1975) AWD Line m10-14 m m15-20 m

Interpretation: Ejecta Blanket Structure and Thickness 14

Conclusions 15 Ultrasonic measurements: P-wave velocities of m/s for Moenkopi hand specimens Seismic refraction: P-wave velocities of m/s for a 55 m deep model Ground-roll inversion: S-wave velocities from m/s for a 38 m deep model A prominent change in velocities (low to high) is identified as the transition from ejecta blanket to bed-rock Moenkopi Thinning of low-velocity ejecta blanket away from crater rim Ejecta blanket thickness is estimated (15-20 m thick near the rim to only 5 m thick away from the rim)

Future Work and Proposals 16 3D seismic surveys with densely spaced (1 m) receivers (3C) Anisotropic studies of a complex near-surface Using estimated S-wave velocities to calculate multi-component (anisotropic) statics Developing a low-cost, stable method to estimate 2D rock properties (e.g. densities) Elastic full-waveform inversion through ground-roll modeling

Acknowledgments 17 Meteor Crater Field Crew (May, 2010) Dr. Robert R. Stewart Dr. C. Liner Dr. S. Hall Dr. D. A. Kring (Lunar and Planetary Institute) Generous staff at the Meteor Crater Museum Dr. K. Spikes and Ms. Jennifer Glidewell (The University of Texas at Austin)

Thank You 18 What’s so optimistic about this? This guy must be a geophysicist !!!

19

Methodology: MASW Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) - Generation of dispersion curves (phase velocity versus frequency plots) (Park et al., 1998; ibid 1999; Xia et al., 1999) 20 x t x f Amplitude spectra Phase

21 MASW (Dispersion curves) Values are stacked over entire offset The maximum value is obtained when - x t x f Phase spectra *, ω = angular frequency and c ω = phase velocity

22 Initial V S model Observed Dispersion Curve C Rayleigh = 0.92* V S Update V S model Observed Dispersion Curve Calculated Dispersion Curve Error minimized? NO Final V S model YES Initial V S model MASW (Inversion algorithm) - Modified after Xia et al., 1999