Comparison of Amplitudes and Frequencies of Explosive vs. Hammer Seismic Sources for a 1-km Seismic Line in West Texas

In May 2016, the National Seismic Source Facility (NSSF) located at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Department of Geological Sciences collected seismic data at the Indio Ranch located 30 km southwest of Van Horn, Texas. Both hammer on an aluminum plate and explosive sources were used. The project objective was to image subsurface structures at the ranch, owned by UTEP. Selecting the appropriate seismic source is important to reach project objectives. We compare seismic sources between explosions and hammer on plate, focusing on amplitude and frequency. The seismic line was 1 km long, trending WSW to ENE, with 200 4.5 Hz geophones at 5m spacing and shot locations at 10m spacing. Clay slurry was used in shot holes to increase shot coupling around booster. Trojan Spartan cast boosters (150g) were used in explosive sources in each shot hole (1 hole per station). The end of line shots had 5 shot holes instead of 1 (750g total). The hammer source utilized a 5.5 kg hammer and an aluminum plate. Five hammer blows were stacked at each location to improve signal-to-noise ratio. Explosive sources yield higher amplitude, but lower frequency content. The explosions exhibit a higher signal-to-noise ratio, allowing us to recognize seismic energy deeper and farther from the source. Hammer sources yield higher frequencies, allowing better resolution at shallower depths but have a lower signal-to-noise ratio and lower amplitudes, even with source stacking. We analyze the details of the shot spectra from the different types of sources. A combination of source types can improve data resolution and amplitude, thereby improving imaging potential. However, cost, logistics, and complexities also have a large influence on source selection.