# A Semi-Automatic Coupling Geophone for Tunnel Seismic Detection

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. The Semi-Automatic Coupling Geophone

#### 2.1.1. Piezoelectric Sensors

#### 2.1.2. The Semi-Automatic Coupling Geophone

#### 2.2. Field Comparison Experiment

#### 2.3. Seismic Data Processing Combined with Forward Modeling

#### 2.3.1. Numerical Calculation

_{z}and v

_{x}are the velocities of the medium, τ

_{xx}and τ

_{zz}are normal stresses, τ

_{xz}is the shear stress, ρ is the medium density, λ and μ are the Lame constant, and t is the time. The finite difference method was used to perform numerical calculations [34,35]. The space step of the model was 0.4 m. A 500-Hz Ricker wavelet was used as the source, and the boundary conditions were selected as the perfectly matched layer (PML) boundaries. Due to the particularity of the tunnel conditions, free boundary conditions were set on the tunnel wall and the tunnel face, respectively, and the stress was set to zero [36]. The above conditions were used for the programming calculation.

#### 2.3.2. Field Data Processing

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Comparison Test between the Piezoelectric Sensor and the Electromagnetic Coiled Sensor

#### 3.2. Field Comparison Experiment

#### 3.3. Forward Modeling

#### 3.4. Field Data Processing

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Du, B.; Du, Y.; Xu, F.; He, P. Conception and Exploration of Using Data as a Service in Tunnel Construction with the NATM. Engineering
**2018**, 4, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, G.; Yuan, M.; Ma, X.; Wu, J. Numberical study on the seismic response of the underground subway station-surrounding soil mass-ground adjacent building system. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
**2017**, 11, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, S.; Nie, L.; Liu, B. The Practice of Forward Prospecting of Adverse Geology Applied to Hard Rock TBM Tunnel Construction: The Case of the Songhua River Water Conveyance Project in the Middle of Jilin Province. Engineering
**2018**, 4, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, J.; Yuan, Y.; Yu, H. Shaking table tests on discrepant responses of shaft-tunnel junction in soft soil under transverse excitations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
**2019**, 120, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, H.; Yuan, Y.; Ye, Z.; Yu, H.; Zhang, Z. Response characteristics of an atrium subway station subjected to bidirectional ground shaking. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
**2019**, 125, 105737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zakian, P. An efficient stochastic dynamic analysis of soil media using radial basis function artificial neural network. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
**2017**, 11, 470–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, S.C.; Liu, B.; Sun, H.F.; Nie, L.C.; Zhong, S.H.; Su, M.X.; Li, X.; Xu, Z.H. State of art and trends of advanced geological prediction in tunnel construction. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng.
**2014**, 6, 1090–1113. [Google Scholar] - Alimoradi, A.; Moradzadeh, A.; Naderi, R.; Salehi, M.Z.; Etemadi, A. Prediction of geological hazardous zones in front of a tunnel face using TSP-203 and artificial neural networks. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2008**, 23, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, Y.; Jiang, H.; Zhao, X. Tunnel seismic tomography method for geological prediction and its application. Appl. Geophys.
**2006**, 32, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cheng, F.; Liu, J.; Qu, N.; Mao, M.; Zhou, L. Two-dimensional pre-stack reverse time imaging based on tunnel space. J. Appl. Geophys.
**2014**, 104, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, S.; Li, S.; Zhang, Q.; Xue, Y.; Liu, B.; Su, M.; Wang, Z.; Wang, S. Predicting geological hazards during tunnel construction. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng.
**2010**, 2, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Tzavaras, J.; Buske, S.; Groß, K.; Shapiro, S. Three-dimensional seismic imaging of tunnels. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
**2012**, 29, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, S.; Liu, B.; Xu, X.; Nie, L.; Liu, Z.; Song, J.; Sun, H.; Chen, L.; Fan, K. An overview of ahead geological prospecting in tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2017**, 63, 69–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, H.W.; Hu, H.; Zou, Z.; Wo, Y.; Youn, O. Reverse time migration: A prospect of seismic imaging methodology. Earth Sci. Rev.
**2018**, 179, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wei, J. Seismic velocity description: Velocity or acceleration. Oil Geophys. Prospect.
**2019**, 54, 243–253. [Google Scholar] - David, N.S.; Larry, D.B.; James, H.K.; David, J.B. Comparison of explosive and vibroseis source energy penetration during COCORP deep seismic reflection profiling in the Williston Basin. Geophysics
**1996**, 61, 211–221. [Google Scholar] - Wang, X.; Zhang, M.; Yang, L.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, J. Shooting Charge Selection in Carbonate Outcropped Area Based on Numerical Simulation of Explosive Source. In Proceedings of the CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference, Beijing, China, 21–24 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jidong, W. Comparing the MEMS accelerometer and analog geophone. Lead. Edge
**2013**, 10, 1206–1210. [Google Scholar] - Lee, M.K.; Han, S.H.; Park, K.H.; Park, J.J.; Kim, W.W.; Hwang, W.J.; Lee, G.J. Design Optimization of Bulk Piezoelectric Acceleration Sensor for Enhanced Performance. Sensors
**2019**, 19, 3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kabir, M.; Kazari, H.; Ozevin, D. Piezoelectric MEMS acoustic emission sensors. Sens. Actuators A Phsical.
**2018**, 279, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huo, L.; Cheng, H.; Kong, Q.; Chen, X. Bond-Slip Monitoring of Concrete Structures Using Smart Sensors—A Review. Sensors
**2019**, 19, 1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Huan, X.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Yu, W.; Li, W. The Seismic Adaptability Discussion by Different Sorts of Geophone in Marine Facies of West Sichuan Province Area. In Proceedings of the CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference, Beijing, China, 21–24 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, S.; Chen, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, F.; Wu, L. The feasibility analyse of digital geophone for exploration of tight oil in marl reservoirs. In Proceedings of the CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference, Beijing, China, 21–24 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Shang, X.M.; Liu, L.; Guan, J.; Zhu, J.; De Zhang, G. Development and application of single-point land piezoelectric sensor. In Proceedings of the SEG International Exposition and 86th Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, USA, 16–21 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Daley, T.M.; Majer, E.L.; Peterson, J.E. Crosswell seismic imaging in a contaminated basalt aquifer. Geophysics
**2004**, 69, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Balogh, W.T.; Owen, T.E.; Harris, J.M. New Piezoelectric Transducer for Hole-to-Hole Seismic Applications. In Proceedings of the SEG International Exposition and 75th Annual Meeting, Huston, TX, USA, 6–11 November 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Inazaki, T.; Lei, X. High-Frequency Seismic Measurements Using a Pizoelectric Type Accelerometer Array. In Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 6–10 April 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Liu, S.; Wang, B.; Yang, H. Response of triaxial velocity and acceleration geophones to channel waves in a 1-m thick coal seam. J. Appl. Geophys.
**2019**, 166, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Christine, E.K. Geophone ground, coupling. Lead. Edge
**1985**, 4, 56–60. [Google Scholar] - Christine, E.K. Geophone ground coupling. Geophysics
**1984**, 49, 722–731. [Google Scholar] - Liu, Y. Comparison and Contrast between TGP206 and TSP203 Advance Geology Prediction System: Advantages of TGP206. Tunn. Constr.
**2014**, 34, 198–204. [Google Scholar] - Yokota, Y.; Yamamoto, T.; Shirasagi, S.; Koizumi, Y.; Descour, J.; Kohlhaas, M. Evaluation of geological conditions ahead of TBM tunnel using wireless seimic reflector tracing system. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
**2016**, 57, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, Y.; Fu, N.; Lu, X.; Fu, Z. Application of a new geophone and geometry in tunnel seismic detection. Sensors
**2019**, 19, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dong, L.; Ma, Z.; Cao, J.; Wang, H.; Geng, J.; Lei, B.; Xu, S. A staggered-grid high-order difference method of one-order elastic wave equation. Chin. J. Geophys.
**2000**, 43, 411–419. [Google Scholar] - Dong, L.; Ma, Z.; Cao, J. A study on stability of the staggered-grid high-order difference method of first-order elastic wave equation. Chin. J. Geophys.
**2000**, 43, 856–864. [Google Scholar] - Li, H.; Zhu, P.; Ji, G.; Zhang, Q. Modified image algorithm to simulate seismic channel waves in 3D tunnel model with rugged free surface. Geophys. Prospect.
**2016**, 64, 1259–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, Y. Engineering Geophysics in China—The TST Tunnel Geological Prediction Technique. In Proceedings of the ASEG, Sydney, Australia, 22–26 August 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Esmersoy, C. Inversion of P and SV waves from multicomponent offset vertical seismic profiles. Geophysics
**1990**, 55, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ashida, Y. Seismic imaging ahead of a tunnel face with three-component geophones. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
**2001**, 38, 823–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ashida, Y.; Sassa, K. Depth Transform of Seismic Data by Use of Equi-Travel Time Planes. Explor. Geophys.
**1993**, 24, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wei, Z.; Hall, M.A. Analyses of vibrator and ground behavior on hard and soft ground. Lead. Edge
**2011**, 2, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Segarra, P.; Sanchidrián, J.A.; Castedo, R.; López, L.M.; del Castillo, I. Performance of some coupling methods for blast vibration monitoring. J. Appl. Geophys.
**2015**, 112, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zha, X.J.; Gao, X.; Wang, W.; Hou, X.H.; Yang, F.; Zhang, X.Y. Advanced prediction migration method research in tunnel engineering investigation. Chin. J. Geophy.
**2018**, 61, 1150–1156. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**The amplitude responses of the three-component piezoelectric sensor: (

**a**) low frequency; (

**b**) medium and high frequency [33].

**Figure 2.**The tri-component electromagnetic coiled sensors. The natural frequency and sensitivity of the sensor were 60 Hz and 0.6 V/(m/s), respectively.

**Figure 3.**Cutaway view of the semi-automatic coupling geophone: (

**a**) side view; (

**b**) cross-sectional view of wheel [33].

**Figure 4.**Internal structure diagram of the semi-automatic coupling geophone [33].

**Figure 5.**The semi-automatic coupling geophone installation process: (

**a**) before, (

**b**) during, and (

**c**) after installation [33].

**Figure 6.**Tunnel seismic geometry, in which the minimum offset was about 30 m, and the borehole span was 2 m. Receiver 1 was the semi-automatic coupling geophone, and receiver 2 was the conventional geophone. The distance between the two geophones was about 0.5 m. For this test, 30 g of explosives were excited sequentially in the 24 holes.

**Figure 7.**Picture of a conventional geophone and auxiliary equipment: (

**a**) the auxiliary equipment consisted of four push rods, a shovel, and a fork. (

**b**) Two small holes were designed in the tail of the geophone to insert the fork into the hole and push the geophone into the receiving hole.

**Figure 8.**Sketch of the geological model. I and II are the two wave impedance interfaces, respectively. Different colors represent different media.

**Figure 10.**Spectral analysis of data acquired by the piezoelectric sensor and the electromagnetic coiled sensor: (

**a**) piezoelectric sensor; (

**b**) electromagnetic coiled sensor.

**Figure 11.**Spectral analysis of data acquired by the piezoelectric sensor and the electromagnetic coiled sensor.

**Figure 12.**Seismic data acquired by the automatic coupling geophone. (

**a**–

**c**) are the X-component, the Y-component, and the Z-component data, respectively.

**Figure 13.**Seismic data acquired by the conventional geophone. (

**a**–

**c**) are the X-component, the Y-component, and the Z-component data, respectively.

**Figure 14.**Spectrum comparison of component data of the two geophones, where (

**a**–

**c**) represent the spectra of the X-, Y-, and Z-components, respectively. The red and blue lines in the figure represent the data acquired by the semi-automatic coupling geophone and the conventional geophone, respectively.

**Figure 15.**Forward modeling data: (

**a**,

**b**) are the X-component and the Y-component, respectively. The direct wave is a seismic wave that propagates directly from the borehole to the geophone; the Rayleigh wave is the wave generated by the tunnel wall; the RS wave is the converted S-wave of the tunnel face; the IP-wave and the IPS wave are the reflected P-wave and the converted S-wave of the interface I, respectively; the II P-wave and IIPS wave are the reflected P-wave and converted S-wave of interface II, respectively.

**Figure 16.**Reflected wave in front of the tunnel face: (

**a**–

**c**) are the X-component, Y-component, and Z-component, respectively.

**Figure 17.**Reflected wave in front of the tunnel face: (

**a**–

**c**) are the X-component, Y-component, and Z-component, respectively.

**Figure 18.**Migration profile of the P-wave. The results of superimposing the three component migration results into one profile: (

**a**) the semi-automatic coupling geophone; (

**b**) the conventional geophone.

**Figure 19.**Instantaneous amplitude attribute profile: (

**a**) the semi-automatic coupling geophone; (

**b**) the conventional geophone.

Description | Value | |
---|---|---|

Sensitivity (mV/g) | X | 2810 |

Y | 2830 | |

Z | 2838 | |

Full scale (g) | 1.75 | |

Frequency bandwidth (Hz) | 10–5000 | |

Resolution (g) | 0.000006 | |

Resonance frequency (Hz) | 15,000 |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Wang, Y.; Fu, N.; Fu, Z.; Lu, X.; Liao, X.; Wang, H.; Qin, S.
A Semi-Automatic Coupling Geophone for Tunnel Seismic Detection. *Sensors* **2019**, *19*, 3734.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173734

**AMA Style**

Wang Y, Fu N, Fu Z, Lu X, Liao X, Wang H, Qin S.
A Semi-Automatic Coupling Geophone for Tunnel Seismic Detection. *Sensors*. 2019; 19(17):3734.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173734

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Wang, Yao, Nengyi Fu, Zhihong Fu, Xinglin Lu, Xian Liao, Haowen Wang, and Shanqiang Qin.
2019. "A Semi-Automatic Coupling Geophone for Tunnel Seismic Detection" *Sensors* 19, no. 17: 3734.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s19173734