High-frequency shear wave reflections from shallow subsoil layers using a vibrator source:
sweep cross-correlation versus deconvolution with groundforce derivative
Ranajit Ghose*
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Summary
Shear waves are important in geotechnical investigations of
soil. We have evaluated on shallow shear-wave reflection
data the influence of removing accurately the effective
source function on the separation and the amplitude of the
reflection events. A small vibrator can produce high
frequencies and the generated groundforce can be estimated
quite accurately. Instead of conventional cross-correlation
to compress the raw vibrograms, for each sweep we have
performed deconvolution using the estimated groundforce
derivative. Our results show that deconvolution of the
source response improves the separation of the reflections,
correlating better with the actual soil layer boundaries. The
side-lobe energy of the effective source wavelet is smaller
after deconvolution compared to cross-correlation, and this
improves the separation. As the source function is removed
separately at each shot location, the true-amplitude
reflection section offers information of the actual lateral
variation of shear-wave reflectivity, which is important to
derive the variation of soil strength at a subsoil boundary.
Introduction
Soil parameters of geotechnical interest are more directly
addressed by shear (S) waves than by compressional (P)
waves. The small strain rigidity obtained from the shear
wave velocity (VS) is important in all dynamic loading
problems. Shear waves are also more sensitive to the subtle
changes in the soil properties than the P waves. Recently
there are attempts to employ the high-resolution shear-
wave reflection method to geotechnical investigations (e.g.
Ghose et al; 1996, 1998; Brouwer et al., 1997). Shear wave
reflection coefficients are sensitive to the change of soil-
mechanical parameters at subsoil boundaries (Ghose and
Goudswaard, 2000). In addition, the laterally continuous
and high-resolution image that one obtains makes the
shear-wave reflection method an attractive supplement to
the conventional point sampling in boreholes.
Because shear waves are more sensitive, and they offer
much higher resolution than P-waves in soft soils (due to
much lower velocity for the shear waves), the processing of
shear wave reflections needs greater care. Shear wave
reflection amplitude provides information of the soil
strength distribution (Ghose and Goudswaard, 2000), hence
recording and preservation of “true” amplitude is crucial in
data acquisition and processing.
To overcome some of the practical limitations of shear-
wave seismic exploration (such as the need to use large
sources of limited frequency bandwidth), recently an
electromagnetic vibrator source has been used (Ghose et
al., 1996). In addition to the possibility of controlling the
source spectrum to accomplish a target resolution and/or
penetration, with this shear-wave vibrator one can obtain a
reasonably accurate estimate of the source motion. Because
of small energy, the slipping of the source is considerably
less, and this helps obtaining a good groundforce estimate.
Since the groundforce is well-estimated for the small shear-
wave vibrator, we have evaluated on a shallow reflection
section the merits of deconvolving the raw vibrograms with
an optimum filter derived from the groundforce derivative,
over the conventional approach of cross-correlation using
the sweep signal or the groundforce derivative.
Theory
Assuming all operations below in the frequency domain (so
convolution becomes multiplication), the raw vibrogram
(R) as received by the geophones can be expressed as,
R(ω) = W(ω)V(ω)C(ω)Q(ω) + NR(ω) + NS(ω), (1)
where W is the sweep specification given by the input
current function, V is the vibrator response including
coupling, eigenfrequencies and harmonic distortions, C is
earth’s impulse response or the reflection coefficient
sequence, Q is average attenuation, and NR and NS are,
respectively, random noise and source-generated noise.
Now, the far-field displacement is proportional to the
groundforce, Fg (Aki and Richards, 1980), and since
geophones measure velocity rather than displacement, the
source response (S) recorded by the geophones is
proportional to the time derivative of Fg:
S(ω) = iωFg(ω). (2)
The shape of the source wavelet, S is governed by the
sweep specification (W) and the vibrator response (V):
S(ω) = W(ω)V(ω). (3)
The usual procedure to compress the raw vibrogram is to
cross-correlate the measured record (R) with the sweep (W)
or with the source response (S). Recently, there are also
 High-Frequency Shear-Wave Reflection Using a Vibrator: Cross-correlation Versus Deconvolution

suggestions to deconvolve the sweep (Robinson and
Sagaaf, 2001; Brittle et al., 2001). We have attempted the
deconvolution of the estimated source response. The theory
is briefly outlined here; an overview is given by Brouwer
and Helbig (1998).
where ω lies within ωmin – ωmax range. Note that after
deconvolution the effective source signature is independent
of vibrator response and the shape of the sweep. The
spectral signal-to-noise ratio is identical after cross-
correlation and deconvolution.

After cross-correlation with the sweep (W), the correlated For the small vibrator we have estimated, for each sweep
record (Rcw) and the effective source signature (Hw) are separately, the groundforce, Fg from the measured reaction-
described respectively by the following two equations: mass acceleration, ür and baseplate acceleration, üb:

RcW(ω) = R(ω)W*(ω) Fg = ürmr + übmb, (11)

= |W(ω)|2V(ω)C(ω)Q(ω) + W*(ω)N(ω) , (4)
and HW(ω) = |W(ω)|2V(ω)Q(ω), (5)
where * denotes complex conjugation, and N = NR + NS.
Similarly, cross-correlation with the source response or the
groundforce derivative (S) produces the correlated record
(RcS) and the effective source signature (HS) as follows:
RcS(ω) = R(ω)S*(ω)
= |W(ω)|2|V(ω)|2C(ω)Q(ω) + S*(ω)N(ω), (6)
and HS(ω) = |W(ω)|2|V(ω)|2Q(ω) (7)
Clearly, after correlation, the effective source signature still
contains information on vibrator response (V) and sweep
specification (W). Thus the effective source wavelet (H)
may have unwanted properties (e.g., side-lobe amplitude)
or may change considerably from sweep to sweep.
In order to deal with this problem we use deconvolution
instead of cross-correlation. Since the goundforce (Fg) and
the source signature (S) are band-limited by nature, we
need to define an inverse filter (S’) as the band-limited
inverse of S in an optimum sense taking into consideration
the usual stabilization factor (ε) to account for the zones of
where mr and mb are, respectively, the masses of the
reaction-mass and the baseplate. On shallow, shear-wave
reflection section we have evaluated the cross-correlation
against deconvolution with groundforce derivative.
Evaluation on shear-wave reflection section
A shallow, high-frequency shear-wave reflection survey
was carried out at a site where the soil structure is known
from multiple Cone Penetration Tests (CPT). The site is
covered by a sand layer of 1.5-2.0 m thickness. Fig.1 shows
CPT data at a point located exactly on our reflection line.
Sand and peat-clay layers alternate at shallow depths.
Accurate mapping of the peat-clay layers is important from
hydrological and environmental reasons. Our goal was to
resolve the distribution of the very shallow soil layers – up
to 10-12 m depth, where GPR cannot reach due to the
presence of conductive clay layers, but a depth range which
is too shallow for conventional shallow seismic reflections.
The acquisition parameters were as follows: 48 single
horizontal geophones (28 Hz) fixed, and the source moving
along the line, shear-wave vibrator (cross-line orientation)
sweep frequency: 50-300 Hz with end tapers, sweep length:
3.5 s, record length: 4.0 s, vertical stack: 1, sampling: 1
kHz, geophone orientation: cross-line, source interval: 1m,
Sleeve Resistance, fs (MPa) Friction Ratio, Rf (%)
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 10 8 6 4 2 0

low signal-to-noise ratio: 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Soil

Cone Resistance, qc (MPa) layers
0
sand
S’(ω) = S*(ω) / (|S(ω)|2 + ε). (8) (artificial)
2 A
fs qc peat
After deconvolution with the groundforce derivative (S),
Depth (m)

&
4
the record (RdS) and the effective source signature (H’S) can Rf
clay
B
be described respectively by the following two equations: 6
sand

RdS(ω) = R(ω)S’(ω) 8
peat C
&
10 clay
= C(ω)Q(ω) + S’(ω)N(ω), (9) sand
D

and H’S(ω) = Q(ω), (10) Figure 1: Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data at a point located on the
shear-wave reflection line. Soil layers of varying shear strength can be
identified. A, B, C, D mark the depths to the main interfaces.
 High-Frequency Shear-Wave Reflection Using a Vibrator: Cross-correlation Versus Deconvolution

(a) raw data (b) preprocessed data (c) preprocessed data (d) preprocessed data
sweep correlated sweep correlated Fg-derivative correlated Fg-derivative deconvolved
0 0 0 0

100 100 100 100

Time (ms)

200 200 200 200

300 300 300 300

Figure 2: (a) A typical common source gather obtained by traditional cross-correlation of the raw vibrograms, (b) same as (a) but after
preproprocessing, (c) compression via cross-correlation with groundforce derivative and identical preprocessing as in (b), (d) compression
via deconvolution with groundforce derivative and identical processing as in (b) and (c). No AGC has been applied in preprocessing.
geophone interval: 0.5 m, number of shots 36, acquisition of the source wavelet (because of successful removal of the
time: 2 hours by a crew of 3 persons. Penetration to a vibrator response and the sweep from the raw vibrograms).
greater depth was possible by increasing the vertical stack
count, increasing the sweep length, and generating more
(a) sweep: 50-300 Hz, linear
energy at the lower frequencies. However, since our target
was very shallow, high frequencies were emphasized.
Power (dB)

4
Fig.2(a) shows a typical shot gather obtained by
conventional compression of raw vibrograms by sweep 2

cross-correlation. Fig.2(b) shows the same shot gather after 0 100 200 300
amplitude-preserved preprocessing, involving trace editing Frequency (Hz)
and muting, geometrical spreading correction, spectral (b) groundforce: Fg = ür.mr + üb.mb
shaping (10-180 Hz: 100%), fk-filtering to remove the
Power (dB)

surface waves, and bandpass (15-170 Hz) filtering. Fig.2(c) 6

shows, the same shot gather, but obtained by cross- 4

correlation of the raw vibrograms with the groundforce
derivative and with identical preprocessing as in Fig.2(b).
Fig.2(d) shows the same shot gather, but obtained by
deconvolution of raw vibrograms with the groundforce
derivative and identical preprocessing same as before.
Note that cross-correlation with the sweep (Fig.2(b)) results
in reflection events of ringing nature, thus hindering the
separation between two shallow shear-wave reflections. As
explained before, cross-correlation does not remove the
vibrator response and the shape of the sweep, causing a
large side-lobe of the source wavelet - responsible for the
ringing nature. When the groundforce derivative is used for
cross-correlation (Fig.2(b)), the energy of the reflection
events is enhanced, which is due to the multiplication of the
vibrator response spectrum (eqns. (5) and (7)) including the
resonances. When the groundforce derivative is used for
deconvolution (Fig.2(c)), the reflection events are clearly
much better separated, which is due to a smaller side-lobe
2
0 100 200 300
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3: Power spectrum of (a) the sweep and (b)
the groundforce for the shot gather shown in Fig.2.
Fig.3(a) shows the power spectrum of the sweep which is
flat between 60-280 Hz, Fig.3(b) illustrates the power
spectrum of the estimated groundforce. It is clear that
beyond 100 Hz the groundforce falls gradually and beyond
170-180 Hz the noise begins to dominate. Deconvolution
with groundforce derivative does compensate correctly for
this change, but cross-correlation does not.
Fig.4 illustrates the differences in stack section. A 1-D
velocity function with velocity linearly increasing with
depth (average Vstack = 165 m/s) has been used to stack the
data. In absence of VSP, tentative depths were inferred
from the stacking velocity, and are shown on the right side.
The use of high-frequency shear waves allows us to
 High-Frequency Shear-Wave Reflection Using a Vibrator: Cross-correlation Versus Deconvolution

(a) Time stack: sweep cross-correlation

CPT
0 0.0

Temtative Depth (m)

40 3.0
Time (ms)

80 6.3

120 10.0

(b) Time stack: groundforce derivative cross-correlation

CPT
0 0.0

Temtative Depth (m)

40 3.0
Time (ms)

80 6.3

120 10.0

(c) Time stack: groundforce derivative deconvolution

CPT
0 0.0

Temtative Depth (m)

A
40 3.0
Time (ms)

B
80 6.3
C
120 10.0
D

0 5 10 15 20 25 27
CMP_X (m)
Figure 4: True amplitude stacked time sections; all the processing parameters are identical for the three
sections. (a) Compression by correlation with sweep, (b) compression by cross-correlation with Fg-derivative,
(c) compression by deconvolution with Fg-derivative. Asterisk is the location of the source shown in Fig.(2).
achieve wavelengths less than a meter, and hence correlation. This enables further implementation of the
resolution of a few decimeters. The 4 major soil boundaries high-resolution seismic imaging schemes, using shear
seen in the CPT data (Fig.1) can be interpreted in Fig.4(c). waves and the true reflection amplitudes.
A comparison of the three panels in Fig.(4) shows the merit
of groundforce derivative deconvolution over cross- References
correlation. The ringing nature of the reflection events in Aki K., and Richards, P.G., 1980, Quantitative Seismology.
Fig.4(a) is almost absent in Fig.4(c), thus improving Brittle, K.F., Lines, L.R., and Dey, A.K., 2001, Geophys.
separation. The reflections from the 4 major subsoil Pros., 675-686.
boundaries (A, B, C and D) can be better identified and are Brouwer, J. , Ghose, R., Helbig, K., and Nijhof, V., 1997,
stronger in Fig.4(c). Also, the lateral variation of the Proc. EEGS-ES.
reflection amplitude is more prominent in Fig.4(c), which is Brouwer J., and Helbig, K., 1998, Shallow High-Resolution
geotechnically meaningful (Ghose and Goudswaard, 2000). Reflection Seismics, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Ghose, R., Brouwer, J., and Nijhof, V., 1996, Proc. EAGE.
Conclusions Ghose, R., Nijhof, V., Brouwer, J., 1998, Proc. EEGS-ES.
High-frequency shear-wave reflections can achieve very Ghose, R, and Goudswaard, J.C.M., 2000, Proc. SEG.
high resolution in soft soil. However, for such high- Robinson, E., and Sagaaf, M, 2001, Geoph. Pros., 335-340.
resolution data, the separation between the successive
reflections is often not good, and interpretation is difficult. Acknowledgments
We have found that compression of the raw vibrograms by We thank Gemeentewerken Rotterdam to allow us do the
deconvolution using the time derivative of the estimated field experiment at their site and for the CPT data, D. Ngan
groundforce offers a better separation of shallow reflections Tillard for cooperation, and J. Brouwer for discussions.
and more reliable reflection amplitudes than cross-