Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Geophysics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j a p p g e o

Engineering applications of seismic refraction method: A field example at Wadi

Wardan, Northeast Gulf of Suez, Sinai, Egypt
Mohamed H. Khalil, Sherif M. Hanafy ⁎
Geophysics Department, Cairo University, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Fourteen shallow seismic refraction profiles were conducted in Wadi Wardan, northeast Gulf of Suez, Sinai to
Received 30 July 2007 delineate some of the shallow soil engineering characteristics for construction purposes. Both compressional
Accepted 23 June 2008 (P) and shear (S) waves were acquired and interpreted using Generalized Reciprocal Method (GRM) then the
resulted velocity-depth model is verified using a Finite Difference (FD) method to improve the final velocity-
Keywords: depth model. A number of engineering parameters such as Concentration Index, Material Index, Density
Seismic refraction
Gradient, and Stress Ratios are calculated. The seismic velocity values, engineering, consolidation, and
Finite Difference
GRM
strength parameters show that the bedrock at northern and southern parts of the study area is characterized
by less competent rock quality, while the central part is characterized by more competent rock quality.
Hence, the central part is suggested for construction activities.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Seismic refraction is considered as one of the main geophysical
techniques used to investigate the subsurface layering and/or local
anomalies. This technique is routinely used in many applications such
as engineering, environmental, groundwater, hydrocarbon, and
industrial-mineral exploration (Lankston, 1989; Hodgkinson and
Brown, 2005; Bridle, 2006; Yilmaz et al., 2006).
Some of the traditional interpretation methods of seismic refrac-
tion data have used a concept of layered horizons or zones where each
horizon has a discrete seismic velocity (Nettleton, 1940; Hales, 1958;
Hagedoorn, 1959; Hawkins, 1961; Dobrin, 1976), while some others
present lateral velocity variations inside each horizon or velocity zone
(Palmer, 1980, 1981). Other interpretation techniques analyze and
present seismic velocity as a continuously varying gradient across a
grid or mesh (Tsokas et al., 1995; Vasco et al., 1995; Lanz et al., 1998;
Gamal and Hanafy, 2004). Such techniques may utilize optimizing
methods coupled with finite element or finite difference concepts to
achieve interpretations. These techniques have advantages and
disadvantages with respect to the traditional seismic refraction
interpretation techniques. Advantages of the former techniques, in
most cases, include better depth-velocity models while disadvantages
include requirement of bigger quantity of collected data and
processing time. In the present study, traditional seismic profiles are
conducted, interpreted, and then a finite difference technique is
applied to improve the resulting velocity-depth models.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: moh.hasan.khalil@gmail.com (M.H. Khalil), sh3m3@yahoo.com
(S.M. Hanafy).
Over the last few years Wadi Wardan, northeast Gulf of Suez, Sinai,
Egypt has seen some moderate development in connection with new
urbanization, and tourism. It is likely that such developments will
expand in the future. In that regard, soil engineering characteristics
constitute one of the cornerstones for any new urbanization
expansion.
The ultimate goal of the present study is to recommend the most
suitable area for the development of new urbanization, based on
measured and calculated shallow engineering characteristics of the
near surface. In the study area, analysis of the shallow seismic
refraction velocities (P-wave and S-wave) could tangibly delineate the
shallow subsurface layering as well as determine the following
shallow soil engineering parameters; Bulk Density, Poisson's Ratio,
Young's Modulus, Lame's Constants, Concentration Index, Material
Index, Density Gradient, and Stress Ratio.
2. Geologic setting
The study area (Fig. 1) covers an area of about 35 km2, lying
between longitudes 32° 39′ and 32° 57′E and latitudes 29° 03′ and 29°
39′N. The area is bound to the west by the Gulf of Suez and to the east
by the Jebel Bishr. The foreshore plain in Wadi Wardan area is covered
with Plio-Pleistocene and recent unconsolidated sediments and
dominated by mobile sands (Said, 1962).
Three shallow boreholes (BH1, BH2, and BH3) were drilled in the
study area (Fig. 1), showing that the shallow subsurface section
consists of two main units from top to bottom (Fig. 2): 1. Surface layer
of Plio-Pleistocene and recent superficial deposits composed of silt,
sand, and gravel (weathered surface deposits) with a thickness
ranging between 0.5 m and 4 m. 2. The second layer corresponds to

0926-9851/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2008.06.003
 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141 133

Fig. 1. A base map illustrates the locations of the study area (Wadi Wardan, Sinai), the boreholes, and the conducted 14 seismic refraction profiles.

Plio-Pleistocene and Recent compacted silt and sandstone. The A total of 12 to 16 stacks were made per each S-wave shot location. Both
minimum thickness of this layer is about 9 m. waves (P and S) were recorded using 14 Hz P- and S-geophones.

3. Data acquisition 4. Data interpretation

Fourteen seismic refraction profiles were conducted in order to The first arrivals of the P-waves were directly picked from the
cover the study area (Fig. 1). Each profile extends for a total length of collected P-wave records. The first arrivals of the S-waves were picked
57.5 m. The inter-geophone spacing was 2.5 m and the shot-to-1st- from both right- and left-shots of the S-wave records.
geophone spacing was 1 m with a total of 24 geophones per profile. The following four steps briefly describe the data interpretation
The total record length for P-waves was 150 ms with sample interval procedure (Hanafy, 2005); (1). For each P- and S-wave profile,
of 0.2 ms and the number of samples per trace was of 750, while for S- interpretation of the first arrival times (Fig. 4a) was performed by the
waves total recorded length was 300 ms, sample interval was 0.2 m, Generalized Reciprocal Method (GRM) as described by Palmer (1980,
and total number of samples per trace was 1500. The study area is 1981). (2). The first arrival travel-times of the obtained GRM-depth-
located far from any noise sources such as traffic, daily human velocity model (Fig. 4b) were calculated using a Finite Difference (FD)
activities, machinery, and other factors, which contributed to enhance method (Vidale, 1988, 1990; Qin et al., 1992). (3). The FD-times and
the signal-to-noise ratio (Fig. 3).
A sledgehammer (10 Kgm) was used to generate the seismic P- and S-
waves. To generate the P-waves a metallic plate (20× 20 cm2) was used to
receive the sledge hammer strikes (Fig. 3a). A total of 8 to 12 stacks were
made per each P-wave shot location. To generate the S-waves a piece of
wood (2 ×0.3 ×0.1 m3) was used to receive the sledge hummer strikes. The
piece of wood was located such that its long side (2 m) was perpendicular
and centered relative to the line of geophones. For each S-wave shot
location two separate files were recorded (a) a right-side shot (Fig. 3b),
where the sledge hammer was striking on the wood in a horizontal
direction at its right side, and (b) a left-side shot (Fig. 3c), where the sledge
hammer was striking on the wood in a horizontal direction at its left side. Fig. 2. Logs of the drilled boreholes at the area of study.
134 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141

Fig. 3. Samples of the collected raw data. (a) P-wave forward shot, (b) right-side S-wave forward shot, and (c) left-side S-wave forward shot.

observed-times were compared (Fig. 4c) The error (Ri) between
observed-time and FD-time for each receiver (i) was calculated (Fig. 4d
and Eq. (1)) and the root mean square (RMS) error was also calculated
(Eq. (2)). (4). In case of a bad fit between observed- and FD-times (high
RMS error) the obtained GRM depth-velocity models are then modified
(Fig. 4e) until a good fit and acceptable RMS error is found as shown in
(Fig. 4f and g) (Hanafy, 2005). The root mean square (RMS) errors of the
final velocity-depth models ranged from 2.35% to 4.79%. Although the
lower the RMS error value indicates a best fit between the observed and
FD travel-times, it does not necessary mean that the resulted velocity-
 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141 135

Fig. 4. (a) The P-wave travel-time curve of profile # 12, (b) the velocity-depth model resulted from GRM interpretation, (c) the travel-time curve calculated using FD method (input
model is the GRM-velocity-depth model shown in 4b), dashed lines, compared with the observed travel-time, solid lines, (d) error between observed- and FD-times calculated using
Eq. (1), (e) the modified (final) velocity-depth model, (f) the travel-time curve calculated using FD method (input model is the final-velocity-depth model shown in 4e), dashed lines,
compared with the observed travel-time, solid lines, and (g) error between observed- and final FD-times calculated using Eq. (1).

depth model is geologically the correct model. Another verification tool Fig. 4 shows two samples of the P-wave, S-wave, and the corre-
such as outcrop, borehole, or other geophysical tool is always helpful. In sponding final depth-velocity model for seismic profiles 3 (Fig. 5) and
this work we used the three drilled boreholes (Fig. 2) as another source of 11. The final depth-velocity models for the study area reveal two
information that verifies the resulted seismic velocity-depth models. The subsurface layers. The first is a thin surface layer with low seismic
final depth-velocity models are represented in two forms: (1) Vertical velocities (P-wave velocity ranges between 416 m/s and 720 m/s and
depth-velocity models, which demonstrate vertical distributions of each S-wave velocity ranges between 273 m/s and 395 m/s). This layer
detected layer and (2) Velocity and depth contour maps, which illustrate corresponds to Plio-Pleistocene and recent superficial deposits
the lateral distribution through the study area. composed of silt, sand, and gravel (weathered surface deposits). The
thickness of this layer ranges between 0.5 m and 5 m. The second layer
TFD ðiÞ−Tobs ðiÞ


Ri ¼ 4100 ð1Þ has higher seismic velocity (P-wave velocity ranges between 1130 m/s
Tobs ðiÞ and 1320 m/s and S-wave velocity ranges between 580 m/s and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 740 m/s) and corresponds to Plio-Pleistocene and recent compacted
1 N TFD ðiÞ−Tobs ðiÞ


RMS ¼ ∑ 4100 ð2Þ silt and sandstone. The minimum thickness of this layer is about 9 m. A
N i¼1 Tobs ðiÞ good agreement between the seismic refraction results and the
corresponding available adjacent boreholes (Fig. 2).
Where;
Velocity and depth contour maps are generated for the second
N is the number of geophones layer (bedrock) since the first surficial layer will be removed prior to
Tobs(i) is the observed (picked) times any construction activity in the study area. Fig. 6a illustrates the depth
TFD(i) is the calculated times using FD method to the top of the bedrock. The northern and central parts of the study
136 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141
Fig. 5. (a) The P-wave travel-time curve of profile # 3, (b) the S-wave travel-time curve of profile # 3, and (c) the corresponding final-velocity-depth model. (d, e, and f) show the P-,
S-waves travel-times, and corresponding final-velocity-depth model of profile # 11.
area are characterized by a higher depth to basement. Fig. 6b
illustrates the distribution of the calculated P-wave seismic velocity
for the bedrock. The southeastern and northwestern central parts are
characterized by higher seismic velocity. Fig. 6c illustrates the
distribution of the S-wave seismic velocity for the bedrock in the
study area. The southeastern and northwestern central parts are also
characterized by higher seismic velocity.
5. Engineering parameters
No construction material has more variable engineering and
physical parameters than the ground's soil. These parameters vary
both laterally and vertically and often the variations are strong
(Bowles, 1982). In order to evaluate the competence of the subsurface
for construction, some of the shallow soil engineering parameters
were calculated. Four parameters are calculated; the Concentration
Index (Ci), the Material Index (V), the Density Gradient (Di), and the
Stress Ratio (Si). Integration of these four parameters is used to select
the most appropriate site for construction.
To calculate these parameters the values of P-wave velocity (VP), S-
wave velocity (VS), density (ρ), Poisson's Ratio (σ), Young's Modulus
(E), Lame's Constant (λ), and the Shear Modulus (μ) are required. Both
P- and S-wave velocities are obtained from the acquired seismic
refraction profiles. The density values are obtained from laboratorial
analysis of soil samples collected from the available boreholes, and the
elastic moduli values are calculated from the equations listed in
Table 1. The elastic moduli results for the bedrock layer (second layer)
are listed in Table 2 and can be summarized in the following points:
1. Bulk Density (ρ): ranges from 1.857 (profile 4) to 1.897 (profile
3) gm/cc. The central part of the study area towards its northwest
and southeast is characterized by relative high rock densities.
2. Poisson's Ratio (σ): ranges from 0.241 (profiles 2 and 8) to 0.331
(profile 14). The northern–central part of the area is characterized by
relative low Poisson's Ratio, which indicates a relatively more
competent soil in this part of the study area (Salem, 1990). 3. Young's
Modulus (E): ranges from 1646 (profile 4) to 2509 (profile 3) MPa
(Mega Pascal = (Newton/m2)/10 6). The northern–central part is
characterized by relatively high values of Young's Modulus. 4. Lame's
Constants (λ): ranges from 846 (profile 7) to 1363 MPa (Profile 14).
The southwestern part and north–central part are characterized by
relative low “λ” values. 5. Shear Modulus (μ) or Rigidity: ranges from
623 (profile 4) to 972 MPa (profile 3). The southeast and north–
central parts are characterized by relative high rigidity or shear
modulus “μ” values.
Using the seismic velocities and elastic moduli values (Table 2), the
shallow soil engineering parameters are calculated. These parameters
 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141 137

Fig. 6. a: A contour map illustrates the depth to the top of the second layer (bedrock). b: A contour map illustrates the compressional (P) wave velocity of the second layer (bedrock).
c: A contour map illustrates the shear (S) wave velocity of the second layer (bedrock).

include the Concentration Index, the Material Index, the Density dation and other civil engineering purposes. It depends mainly on the
Gradient, and the Stress Ratio. elastic moduli of the materials and the depth–pressure distribution.
Therefore, “C i” is a material dependent factor. Bowles (1982)
5.1. The Concentration Index (Ci) formulated the Concentration Index in terms of Poisson's Ratio (σ) as

Concentration Index is an engineering parameter indicating the ð1 þ σ Þ

Ci ¼ ð3Þ
degree of material concentration or impaction (competence) for foun- σ
138 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141

Table 1 Table 3
List of equations used to calculate elastic moduli Ranges of Concentration Index and Stress Ratio correspondent to the soil competent
degree, after Abd El-Rahman (1989)
Elastic Modulus Used equation Reference
Poisson's Ratio
" #
Adams (1951), Salem (1990) Weak Fair Good
1 1
σ¼ 1−
2 2
ðVP =VS Þ −1 Incompetent Fairly competent Competent

Young's Modulus Adams (1951) Very Soft Fairly Moderate Compacted

3VP2 −4VS2
E¼ρ soft compacted compacted
ðVP =VS Þ2 −1
Concentration 3.5–4.0 4.0–4.5 4.5–5.0 5.0–5.5 5.5–6.0
Lame's Constants σE King (1966), Toksoz et al. (1976) Index Ci
λ¼
ð1 þ σ Þð1−2σ Þ Stress Ratio Si 0.7–0.61 0.61–0.52 0.52–0.43 0.43–0.34 0.34–0.25

Shear Modulus E King (1966), Toksoz et al. (1976)

μ¼
2ð1 þ σ Þ −0.32 to 0.04 (Fig. 7b). The northern–central part is characterized by
VP and VS are the P- and S-wave velocities, respectively. relative high Material Index (ν) values ranging between −0.07 and
0.04, which reflects a fair to moderate competent soil.
Abd El-Rahman (1991) finds Ci in terms of velocities (P- and S-
wave velocities VP and VS) as: 5.3. The Density Gradient (Di)
" !# " !#
VS2 VS2 Adams (1951) introduced the quantitative form of the density
Ci ¼ 3−4 = 1−2 ð4Þ
VP2 VP2 gradient as

Abd El-Rahman (1989) summarizes the ranges of Concentration ρ

Di ¼ ð6Þ
Index (Ci) correspond to soil competent degree (Table 3). In the study K
area, the calculated (Ci) for the bedrock layer reveals values ranging Where (ρ) is the Density and (K) is the Bulk Modulus.
from 4 to 5.16 (Fig. 7a). The northern–central part is characterized by Stumpel et al. (1984) expressed the density gradient in terms of
relative high (Ci) values ranging between 4.8 and 5.16, which, compressional and shear wave velocities as
according to Abd El-Rahman (1989), reflects fairly competent soil
−1
(fair to moderate compacted soil). 4

Di ¼ VP2 − VS2 ð7Þ
3
5.2. The Material Index (V)
Abd El-Rahman (1991) expressed this equation in terms of
From the engineering viewpoint, this parameter defines the material velocity-squared ratio as
quality for foundation purposes. According to Abd El-Rahman (1989), " !
# " !
#
this expression addresses the degree of competence based on their 3 4μ 3 1−σ
Di ¼ − −1 ¼ − ð8Þ
elastic moduli. Thus, this index has relations to the material composition, VP2 E VP2 1þσ
the degree of consolidation, fracturing, jointing, and the presence or
Where (E) is the Young's Modulus.
absence of fluids in pore space, which affect the medium of the materials
In the study area, Eq. (8) is used to calculate the Density Gradient
and the wave velocities in consequence. Abd El-Rahman (1989) derived
(Di) for the bedrock layer. The calculated Density Gradient (Di) reveals
the Material Index from the ratio between Lame's Constants (λ) and the
values ranging from −0.62 to −0.51. The north–central part is char-
Rigidity Modulus (μ) or in terms of Poisson's Ratio (σ) as follows:
acterized by relative low Density Gradient (Di) values (Fig. 7c) ranging
μ−λ between −0.62 and −0.58.
m¼ ¼ ð1−4σ Þ ð5Þ
μ þλ
According to Birch (1966), Gassman (1973), Tatham (1982), Sheriff 5.4. The Stress Ratio (Si)
and Geldart (1986) Table 4 shows the Poisson's Ratio, Rigidity, and
Material Index correspond to different materials. For construction During an excess pressure caused by a stress change, a consolida-
purposes the soil properties by the material index could be classified tion settlement occurs. By the end of consolidation process the excess
into four main categories (Table 5). In the study area, the calculated pressure is nearly zero and stress change will have gone from a total to
material index (ν) for the bedrock layer reveals values ranging from an effective state. In this stress state, the soil state is defined as being
an equilibrium steady state condition of zero lateral and vertical
Table 2 strains (Bowles, 1982). Bowles (1982) pointed out that there is a
Seismic velocities for the bedrock as obtained from the refraction profiles and the relationship between Poisson's Ratio (σ) and Stress Ratio (Si) for
corresponding calculated elastic moduli normally consolidated soils. This relationship was given by Bowles
Profile VP (m/s) VS (m/s) ρ (gm/cc) σ E (MPa) λ (MPa) μ (MPa) (1982) and Thomson (1982) as
P1 1167 673 1.86507 0.251 2113 851 845
σ
P2 1221 713 1.87641 0.241 2368 890 954 Si ¼ ð9Þ
P3 1320 720 1.89657 0.290 2509 1345 972 1−σ
P4 1130 579 1.8573 0.322 1646 1126 623
P5 1211 689 1.87431 0.261 2243 969 890 From several general observations about (Si), Bowles (1982) pointed
P6 1278 682 1.88838 0.301 2285 1328 878 out that Si tends to be higher for finer soils than for coarser soils, that Si
P7 1166 673 1.86486 0.250 2112 846 845 will be larger for loose cohesionless soils, that Si tends to decrease with
P8 1201 702 1.87221 0.241 2289 855 923
an increase in overburden pressure, and that Si will be larger when the
P9 1197 627 1.87137 0.311 1929 1210 736
P10 1164 641 1.86444 0.282 1965 994 766 soil is over-consolidated. Abd El-Rahman (1991) pointed out a
P11 1210 650 1.87389 0.301 2029 1180 780 relationship between Poisson's Ratio, Si and wave velocities as
P12 1225 630 1.87704 0.318 1977 1313 750
P13 1189 658 1.86969 0.279 2071 1024 810 !
P14 1213 610 1.87473 0.331 1857 1363 698 VS2
Si ¼ 1−2 ¼ ðCi −2Þ−1 ð10Þ
Densities were calculated from available borehole data.
VP2
 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141
Fig. 7. a: Concentration Index lateral distribution for the bedrock layer (second layer) in the study area. b: Material Index lateral distribution for the bedrock layer (second layer) in the study area. c: Density Gradient lateral distribution for the
bedrock layer (second layer) in the study area. d: Stress Ratio lateral distribution for the bedrock layer (second layer) in the study area.

139
140 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141

Table 4 competent rock quality. These zones have a bedrock P-wave

Poisson's Ratio (σ), Rigidity (μ), and Material Index (ν) correspondent to different velocity of 1130–1250 m/s and S-wave velocity of 580–660 m/s.
material, after Birch (1966), Gassman (1973), Tatham (1982), Sheriff and Geldart (1986)
The Concentration Index, Material Index, Density Gradient, and
Rock sample σ μ ν Stress Ratio are ranging between 4.0–4.4, − 0.3 to − 0.2, − 0.55 to
Liquids 0.5 0 −1 − 0.515, and 0.39–0.48, respectively. The second zone is located in
Perfect elastic rocks 0.25 μ=λ 0 the central part of the study area, where the subsurface bedrock is
Very hard indurated rocks 0.00 λ≈0 +1
characterized by more competent rock quality. The P- and S-wave
velocities are ranging between 1250–1320 m/s and 660–740 m/s,
Table 5 respectively. These velocity vales are higher than those of the
Soil description with respect to Poisson's Ratio and Material Index, after Birch (1966), northern and southern parts. The Concentration Index, Material
Gassman (1973), Tatham (1982), Sheriff and Geldart (1986) Index, Density Gradient, and Stress Ratio are ranging between 4.8–
Soil Incompetent Fairly to Competent Very high 5.16, − 0.07–0.04, − 0.6–0.56, and 0.31–0.37, respectively. Table 6
description to slightly moderately materials competent indicates a summary of the calculated engineering parameters for
parameters competent competent materials the central zone of the study area.
Poisson's Ratio σ 0.41–0.49 0.35–0.27 0.25–0.16 0.12–0.03
Material Index ν (−0.5)–(−1) (−0.5)–(0.0) 0.0–0.5 N0.5
7. Summary and conclusions

Table 6 The ultimate purpose of this work is to delineate the Wadi

The ranges of the calculated engineering parameters of the bedrock layer in the central Wardan site for engineering constructions. For that purpose a total
part of the study area of 14 shallow seismic refraction profiles were acquired at the site.
Parameter Range Both compressional (P) and shear (S) waves were acquired and
Poisson's Ratio 0.23–0.27 interpreted. The GRM is used to generate a preliminary depth-
Rigidity or Shear Modulus 860–972 MPa velocity model then a Finite Difference (FD) code is used to improve
Concentration Index 4.8–5.16 the depth-velocity model and obtain the final model after several
Material Index − 0.07–0.04 iterations of minimization of RMS error between observed travel-
Density Gradient − 0.60 to −0.56
Stress Ratio 0.31–0.37
times and FD-calculated travel-times. A number of shallow rock
engineering parameters such as Concentration Index, Material
Index, Density Gradient, and Stress Ratios were calculated to assess
the subsurface bedrock from a geophysical and engineering
prospective. Integration between different engineering elastic,
consolidation, and strength parameters indicates a high competent
In the study area, the calculated Stress Ratio (Si) for the bedrock of the bedrock in the central part of the site. Therefore, this part of
layer reveals values ranging from 0.31 to 0.49 (Fig. 7d). The north– the study area is potentially recommended as the most eligible zone
central part towards the northwest is characterized by the lowest for engineering and foundation purposes (Fig. 8). The implication of
Stress Ratio (Si) with values ranging between 0.31 and 0.37, which, this work is, we showed a way to integrate the geophysical studies
according to Abd El-Rahman (1991), reflects fairly to good competent with the engineering parameters to help in site characterization.
soil. This work can be copied on other sites and the results will help
engineers to design land-use maps that avoid critical and dangerous
6. Results zones at the unseen bedrock layer. On the other hand, the use of the
FD method as a verification step increased the confidence in the
The area of study is divided into two zones according to the obtained velocity-depth models, especially because an accurate and
seismic P- and S-wave velocity values and the engineering correct velocity values are highly required to calculate the
parameter values. The first zone is the northern and southern engineering parameters, and will be used as the main criteria for
parts, where the subsurface bedrocks are characterized by less bedrock zonation.

Fig. 8. The most eligible zone for engineering and foundation purposes in the study area.
 M.H. Khalil, S.M. Hanafy / Journal of Applied Geophysics 65 (2008) 132–141
References
Abd El-Rahman, M., 1989. Evaluation of the kinetic elastic moduli of the surface
materials and application to engineering geologic maps at Maba-Risabah area
(Dhamar Province), Northern Yemen. Egypt. J. Geol. 33 (1–2), 229–250.
Abd El-Rahman, M., 1991. The potential of absorption coefficient and seismic quality
factor in delineating less sound foundation materials in Jabal Shib Az Sahara area,
Northwest of Sanaa, Yemen Arab Republic. Egypt, M. E. R. C. Earth Sci., vol. 5. Ain
Shams University, pp. 181–187.
Adams, L.H., 1951. Elastic Properties of Materials of the Earth's Crust. Internal
Construction of the Earth (edited by Gutenberg). Dover publications, Inc., New
York.
Birch, F., 1966. Handbook of physical constants. Geol. Soc. Amer. Men. 97, 613.
Bowles, J.E., 1982. Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill International
Book Company, London, p. 587.
Bridle, R., 2006. Plus/minus refraction method applied to 3D block. SEG Expand. Abstr.
25, 1421.
Dobrin, M.B., 1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill
Inc.
Gamal, M.A., Hanafy, Sh.M., 2004. Assessment of seismic hazards and engineering
problems at newly constructed cities in Egypt. SEG Expand. Abstr. 23, 490.
Gassman, F., 1973. Seismische Prospektion. Birkhaeuser Verlag, Stuttgart, p. 417.
Hagedoorn, J.G., 1959. The plus-minus method of interpreting seismic refraction
section. Geophys. Prospect. 7, 158–182.
Hales, F.W., 1958. An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines.
Geophys. Prospect. 6, 285–294.
Hanafy, Sh.M., 2005. Seismic refraction interpretation using Finite Difference method.
SAGEEP 2005, April 3–7, 2005, pp. 1012–1024.
Hawkins, L.V., 1961. The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction
investigations. Geophysics 26, 806–819.
Hodgkinson, J., Brown, R.J., 2005. Refraction across an angular unconformity between
nonparallel TI media. Geophysics 70, D19.
King, T.V.V., 1966. Mapping organic contamination by detection of clay-organic
processes. Proceeding AGWSE/NWWA/API.
141
Lankston, R.W., 1989. The seismic refraction method: a viable tool for mapping shallow
targets into the 1990s. Geophysics 54, 1535–1542.
Lanz, E., Maurer, H., Green, A.G., 1998. Refraction tomography over buried waste
disposal site. Geophysics 63, 1414.
Nettleton, L.L., 1940. Geophysical Prospecting for Oil. McGraw-Hill Inc.
Palmer, D., 1980. The Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpreta-
tion. Society of Exploration Geophysicits.
Palmer, D., 1981. An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic
interpretation. Geophysics 46 (11), 1508–1518.
Qin, F., Luo, Y., Olsen, K.B., Cai, W., Schuster, G.T., 1992. Finite-difference solution of the
eikonal equation along expanding wavefronts. Geophysics 57, 478–487.
Said, R., 1962. The Geology of Egypt. Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam. 377 pp.
Salem, H.S., 1990. The theoretical and practical study of petrophysical, electric and
elastic parameters of sediments. Germany, Kiel Insitut for geophysik. Ph.D. thesis.
Sheriff, R.E., Geldart, L.P., 1986. Exploration Seismology. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, p. 316.
Stumpel, M., Kahler, S., Meissner, R., Nikereit, B., 1984. The use of seismic shear waves
and compressional waves for lithological problems of shallow sediments. Geophys.
Prospect. 32, 662–675.
Tatham, R.H., 1982. Vp/Vs and lithology. Geophysics 47 (3), 336–344.
Thomson, L., 1982. Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophysics 1954–1966.
Toksoz, M.N., Cheng, C.H., Timur, A., 1976. Velocities of seismic waves-porous rocks.
Geophysics 41, 621–645.
Tsokas, G.N., Papazchos, C.B., Vafidis, A., Loukoyiannakis, M.Z., Vargemezis, G., Tzimeas,
K., 1995. The detection of monumental tombs buried in tumuli by seismic
refraction. Geophysics 60, 1735.
Vasco, D.W., Peterson Jr., J.E., Majer, E.L., 1995. Beyond ray tomography: wavepaths and
Fresnel volumes. Geophysics 60, 1790.
Vidale, J., 1988. Finite-Difference calculation of traveltimes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78 (6),
2062–2076.
Vidale, J., 1990. Finite-Difference calculation of traveltimes in three dimensions.
Geophysics 55 (5), 521–526.
Yilmaz, O., Eser, M., Berilgen, M., 2006. Seismic, geotechnical, and earthquake
engineering site characterization. SEG Expand. Abstr. 25, 1401.