<%BANNER%>

Ground Proving Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) in Laterally Variable Karstic Terrain

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101208_AAAAJL INGEST_TIME 2010-12-08T19:37:06Z PACKAGE UFE0018220_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 780 DFID F20101208_AABQIK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH quigley_t_Page_123.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f3c6a7322dcbbf9982f56ee97af12fb4
SHA-1
33a1690b2d5ab4fb318763832eaea5e710be1bce
2204 F20101208_AABQHW quigley_t_Page_108.txt
079633cff23febe1785241892e1842c9
e0441f62643697ea18ab4468989847c840605b46
967 F20101208_AABQJA quigley_t_Page_139.txt
b10e7050e2ddd3d520ab1ac552f39826
b44a3ea217541154b95bcb218e5e8200e9940925
589 F20101208_AABQIL quigley_t_Page_124.txt
7648a716e39da57ebd690eb3eb13d10d
c4052653a98ce490ba73ac948a7be7199f7f38c7
1249 F20101208_AABQHX quigley_t_Page_109.txt
8a951a05ba6c75e80de91a6c9a5896b9
4587b5a659f84f1245fbc9672a54c601518fc6d0
2522 F20101208_AABQJB quigley_t_Page_140.txt
2a86c86cf92a9758b02184d1370723e6
e36d846db0bae2f73b4daa4d45f1fe06f5db794a
375 F20101208_AABQIM quigley_t_Page_125.txt
61c50937b2e471462c01754bab1bf24c
6d16407710012c0ddb5aa5736fc7fd7f7e25d82b
2452 F20101208_AABQHY quigley_t_Page_110.txt
cd5dea1ec730abb83628bb30f7243ab6
be17b51db7f224e2a150bd34d48ed53a079b4022
2700 F20101208_AABQJC quigley_t_Page_141.txt
858e31b92331fac2b96f5092fa427b91
41d4ed8fb9550f2b7bd2abc7414cb2da89eb4841
975 F20101208_AABQIN quigley_t_Page_126.txt
7c602f4f32b79f529c31087df1d9ecdc
fb37b0bdad340f79f67ba2d4ad9126fe475fd059
1458 F20101208_AABQHZ quigley_t_Page_111.txt
75c6b28cde23a8a6e68aad5a1b6c5e4d
f4670567ba93dfbf2bbf8c85d01ed8897ddbd395
184 F20101208_AABQJD quigley_t_Page_142.txt
6afa40af01672416493e4f7e31b66a64
cc227663580b2f17fd338287b11b9aa1ab06eef6
795 F20101208_AABQIO quigley_t_Page_127.txt
a678464763107b3eba190b032956117a
8508249a78870bf4c08a5997ef44380ec8907bbc
1193 F20101208_AABQJE quigley_t_Page_143.txt
fa644ecee551f867e1e39e5c31b2bc72
1a78c8c36414def3dc7f822564a06e15bdea14ef
883 F20101208_AABQIP quigley_t_Page_128.txt
f64d36c540e16801e7f0408738723e7a
caddf1c884265ab8198cca4be7bd8eae0b19d3bb
1832 F20101208_AABQJF quigley_t_Page_001thm.jpg
4c814b5c64d9abd18c5fcbc73d55d914
f6945a84d221970e498de0187806e50e3b1f34e2
950 F20101208_AABQIQ quigley_t_Page_129.txt
59ea8525f96c344d321b9a21344371cc
8ba3c404a5c4f646c8f79ef2c40f811acd0ea509
21084441 F20101208_AABQJG quigley_t.pdf
6411a6169bdb3eba670b475d6823b9e7
5600c7d0cf4eeb5e244c120d63f2ca495a76ec00
1172 F20101208_AABQIR quigley_t_Page_130.txt
f1418d699a885f5fc005ff40a0680522
84f6091ab59b78382627beb10ee65a72798932c3
1305 F20101208_AABQIS quigley_t_Page_131.txt
2ff9b8ba38cc3c19accce2f79009ceed
243400a4e4ab1b127941112de1f9b13e5c56269d
11085 F20101208_AABQJH quigley_t_Page_122.QC.jpg
a7bc4282cde5cfda4999fbeaca9179c1
c9949514705ef7858d9206f46a2985fa640a043f
796 F20101208_AABQIT quigley_t_Page_132.txt
55d6973a564d1f09ec7751623ed19b3e
a69ce4b8462d751073877ebc8820a53662b8d760
1006 F20101208_AABQIU quigley_t_Page_133.txt
6d4091a2fccae7a7f73cf86e35fafe7f
e395d0ae524beec93b575c936524d1f7f77912c5
6263 F20101208_AABQJI quigley_t_Page_075thm.jpg
ed26798ed4578971b8f1c0ea05541997
e5727d74e95770e130ce2458205b8cf449e48256
970 F20101208_AABQIV quigley_t_Page_134.txt
535cf930b5fb60268064356d246ff8c0
21ae74bcf66269885565fb478f724659307febd4
6564 F20101208_AABQJJ quigley_t_Page_072thm.jpg
8617cf50ef5f50248cc4af2e5480ac80
2f6f6eb28d78d32cc5ea696303a54fe12ee4fab5
773 F20101208_AABQIW quigley_t_Page_135.txt
4907fc443a5ab39f7cda019eab80560f
b69072b773a07cc5164f0f4a3499f16711f27933
19736 F20101208_AABQJK quigley_t_Page_099.QC.jpg
94037645183b2e0466cc59c7af45bb41
72adf2a3b24aad1bef5c736bb957858b58386dd7
1427 F20101208_AABQIX quigley_t_Page_136.txt
49cc71af3db73f2faa66091c1750df1a
cae33b9ee2170c7c29d846eaf904be73a11594d4
30320 F20101208_AABQKA quigley_t_Page_043.QC.jpg
9642cbb5d98316a128460be05a21733a
7e5d03f3d809f5d15146b3f621a53685603b7bcc
28402 F20101208_AABQJL quigley_t_Page_036.QC.jpg
6f1b6bf4472bdfd709772698f21a1efe
6f15779d1781b3d1e4d068dcab131481bd4a3efc
904 F20101208_AABQIY quigley_t_Page_137.txt
38292c469e11ef038facfa65a4362b49
6afece83b1be38a8af560d2f16019c755d9a4ef6
4669 F20101208_AABQKB quigley_t_Page_109thm.jpg
f16e821fc370642051c7a3e9145299ae
905927c8c9a956f53571431a3dbd85479273cd01
3537 F20101208_AABQJM quigley_t_Page_117thm.jpg
b92ea519afbb81e0199517bf81149b17
f5f7ddc68adfbe338d36be0a2bb0451ce2725087
1350 F20101208_AABQIZ quigley_t_Page_138.txt
e6359b92402cc6b4a7147d2446e99fb6
c7b1bf86b993a154c1392cd25f3ffc621aad25d5
28634 F20101208_AABQKC quigley_t_Page_028.QC.jpg
fa879d0e01a5c787550efb66e92f1018
e98c1b814598a9be67909c94cd3e6392dce9996b
6823 F20101208_AABQJN quigley_t_Page_038thm.jpg
77cbf3742268fecf128607a87f8bdf80
f66b72dfc5f692e8a2f159fdababb3b44af9e8f7
3736 F20101208_AABQKD quigley_t_Page_113thm.jpg
551675b2e9044bc7c3c1867750b9dbc5
1517f24d84b1406e6dbaa81b3ff8f322ac79d4d5
6652 F20101208_AABQJO quigley_t_Page_037thm.jpg
e758bfbb036698213e51d1442dc8c118
dfbcc7ddb95e7300e5e99c7f4af3df0b2c80762c
6430 F20101208_AABQKE quigley_t_Page_025thm.jpg
6a223c5b678932ad2ee32f23ba001f39
761ad37cfb8f4be0fae6bbd8f87c31e779fc3460
29328 F20101208_AABQJP quigley_t_Page_068.QC.jpg
b412a405c08224b0fcac3bb8235c3ca9
1a5fa323d5899e63c3c9bf8265509de7fc605793
19099 F20101208_AABQKF quigley_t_Page_108.QC.jpg
2c31cfb30f7502ec11883d21d0c3db4d
625bffaeda31dec7ac80481afe62637579d99ccb
6795 F20101208_AABQJQ quigley_t_Page_041thm.jpg
d7e82a2061c581a5ac61c9b3c2910773
1d8bff212065d60b45f85adfce770750ead2d6b2
875 F20101208_AABPHE quigley_t_Page_007.txt
821b3779246bbaed479aa6f4b65779d3
570d6c7add38bd870170ee38ad8fd8287c3c494b
26050 F20101208_AABQKG quigley_t_Page_017.QC.jpg
4ad80bcec40fed7f94890d810b0c7249
28ab4501e0663fecfa2be8e02c91b0d4c5754742
19237 F20101208_AABQJR quigley_t_Page_094.QC.jpg
2375adfa377f10f9c3d7b496118be8b5
66b12c0b12cec375530262bbc126bfde95fa1326
4195 F20101208_AABPHF quigley_t_Page_078thm.jpg
d54bd20f6ff1c6103874d0eccf1b24e9
c63662a9f3e6d017fd6ad7ba4a9086a90ec03d06
6463 F20101208_AABQKH quigley_t_Page_057thm.jpg
4fa305a71c2411fb121e78b4a4c053ce
02756b75e9322875c2ee4bd8f39ae0e3236af632
14153 F20101208_AABQJS quigley_t_Page_047.QC.jpg
6d9c24174af27ad7d28d439bec31c659
57a2b8a71a06e0f117effabca7a2f6fed19deb5a
16956 F20101208_AABQJT quigley_t_Page_004.QC.jpg
bc53feea9f6bb4ae290c7146a172457a
c99d06250f4ec4b1d06c22a8992ac6ce5bd869e7
451494 F20101208_AABPHG quigley_t_Page_118.jp2
e9cf1cceeaca03f8af9eca3216582c56
1b47ee5401cdea604a60ef47467b48095557ef22
6900 F20101208_AABQKI quigley_t_Page_089thm.jpg
23bc26513b502f92a758a9ab0f9972b2
1d1c042ed85644ea01afefb0713eb6f20ce8232d
6934 F20101208_AABQJU quigley_t_Page_042thm.jpg
6ebd742ba6a2c202363eff90d62b1aaa
e5433ff830252513fc1122d7e032e8f476f750ea
5397 F20101208_AABPHH quigley_t_Page_112thm.jpg
42d65ff9e54cbf4873857bf1af534303
5cebb28251997a460708dd772e77acca71a9f9f3
18823 F20101208_AABQKJ quigley_t_Page_112.QC.jpg
fa3ca5056310bc0930a799dd950e9c3f
7fa133d3378d9e60ad3ead12076db9e826b039ad
2338 F20101208_AABQJV quigley_t_Page_013thm.jpg
d616c2a0c6344c9ebaeadd62d98317ec
50d7ad9f7992539db3ccf42f90310022a818519e
6781 F20101208_AABPHI quigley_t_Page_003.jpg
cced643470c8e4227109809f6e785a9b
81cb92e27e97e432994a415c49ba806fd5723c2f
6270 F20101208_AABQKK quigley_t_Page_139thm.jpg
515340d47d66730ba92c990aaad38cb3
aee84d703610b1f589ca4f81b8088d770327da5c
2898 F20101208_AABQJW quigley_t_Page_104thm.jpg
542629f5de3e780827f8a90b7eb0e092
a059f135519ebb4b945090537db8c351c7ca0efc
28187 F20101208_AABQLA quigley_t_Page_037.QC.jpg
bd06eb8d115681b833144fb1755e3179
43a0e4f769a23a951d2a51d441bfeca879fc562e
2213 F20101208_AABPHJ quigley_t_Page_061.txt
58fa57b1bc8dce0985c137b62724df75
5b949ef2a10770e533393ed791fdca4fb221b5ff
6809 F20101208_AABQKL quigley_t_Page_070thm.jpg
9e83114b36befbf75e4ea8f7b9828fe9
e1ac826964b7fbfaced329819ee14576fdccca18
3929 F20101208_AABQJX quigley_t_Page_143thm.jpg
d27d0298ed8c2309bbe6b5829dd2ed7c
6358f3b337980c4494c001fa026e2622c962537b
6903 F20101208_AABQLB quigley_t_Page_036thm.jpg
0d4c06dcce93583bb8ef229692663896
75a8f0995862e8efaed482d89b7860635ee52692
5464 F20101208_AABPHK quigley_t_Page_120thm.jpg
b1b3788a3baa199553b7a7b2ea2c8cd9
3edec765987515d6d494e1f83ba0a8ce9ec86ede
4171 F20101208_AABQKM quigley_t_Page_004thm.jpg
9d838893fee12f000fce1458cb173fea
985140665bc29f8dfb59ffa4df1d0e5ea866ef18
6769 F20101208_AABQJY quigley_t_Page_058thm.jpg
e02a7b205d873ea986ef36208715a06c
ad17eecbf49a6a33cd4b29fdde49a60d6fa66aae
914 F20101208_AABPIA quigley_t_Page_104.txt
2e70105b326be44630ad031386d2d55e
43376b40959984d3c4ecca575dd3719e7517ee5b
4942 F20101208_AABQLC quigley_t_Page_107thm.jpg
862397f57fce80165bc4c1c7c03d61f8
bf593c2a35fcfab831e0992a6c4250958fa0c4f7
1575 F20101208_AABPHL quigley_t_Page_002.QC.jpg
3f7f472c940b0c3d01bb467081f1d4e0
6c4c167df426275a0cc576003e0aa6e2edd49ae2
6708 F20101208_AABQKN quigley_t_Page_019thm.jpg
d386d88d16833bcd237dd400e5d86db4
0c302c5745268eebda05ff3dc92e06c03ee1b170
731 F20101208_AABQJZ quigley_t_Page_003thm.jpg
729d5f8e768cc0a57b58f1438966bb78
b26816287c130d835780c5b05af2acb101f278b1
6167 F20101208_AABPIB quigley_t_Page_082thm.jpg
3a9711b67b2b88584319369e2b830b7a
60a39dda6f5fb6ecbcc5105e6f6d666e185b12b6
20321 F20101208_AABQLD quigley_t_Page_120.QC.jpg
3c133c32be1e6805da798a12d664e1b7
a213736ab1e949e6fdc08f9ce66eb46bd62a2075
52176 F20101208_AABPHM quigley_t_Page_106.jpg
93f4d865f2b6d409e561914ab2ce0239
902a2c265b41634900fba3c4d985fa3657a097c9
29053 F20101208_AABQKO quigley_t_Page_034.QC.jpg
dd34e43f8bdb0ead92ddd88bfbb890ea
43ecf7575bea99f20961f4897dd0dbb3b656aec9
11953 F20101208_AABPIC quigley_t_Page_126.pro
09ed5238a433eab8fc30be4b44aeefda
a4b7f10921706a2f2bc4838cdb26a951d327b031
9092 F20101208_AABQLE quigley_t_Page_103.QC.jpg
fc207e7ebe0ae4891f68ed21572efdb9
f8bea66c82fe91984306ffc36f74d197d66ef331
761 F20101208_AABPHN quigley_t_Page_103.txt
c0485a77d397b7f27e460badca8bb4a6
f9500d74c9a4b238dcc4a8525c303bf61a98b51a
6461 F20101208_AABQKP quigley_t_Page_064thm.jpg
9b85109f873375ef303e7a457f38a32c
13bbc65c1933223b7124ce7da140c8606b02e103
88655 F20101208_AABPID quigley_t_Page_062.jpg
6c997cadbf29ed43f8b612aec93819ad
840d7c36b7806648407ae09e41d206194d4abeec
9589 F20101208_AABQLF quigley_t_Page_104.QC.jpg
6b3bf7a131982f6c294423ec6f2f9b47
66abe31ba221edbdfe58a4fa29016b9443c26da6
2217 F20101208_AABPHO quigley_t_Page_065.txt
f6e60a9a96fe5581d7b61d72aeedabec
5dba2b6842e8b625c58a1fdfd4c93a4b3ddbe50e
26730 F20101208_AABQKQ quigley_t_Page_030.QC.jpg
ca78459d8c05674356c844965396927a
c21e5bf3f5a8bd4e887b223e41b78b11472e11f1
1051972 F20101208_AABPIE quigley_t_Page_139.jp2
8959e18a0ca3ff40a80b5baf6065877c
a938eaa0d2ec2e8bc67ddff0a997f29a34e5aeaf
6622 F20101208_AABQLG quigley_t_Page_055thm.jpg
1d7712b3c0e75c32baffbb9dda33d51c
dc26439459eb68899c7bff04dc8e608ba323e456
6928 F20101208_AABPHP quigley_t_Page_059thm.jpg
bb0c3bca1c2f92e4f6f0ef50fd4dc516
6a3f15efd6bc3e602da9b575663120f49367e4bb
20920 F20101208_AABQKR quigley_t_Page_073.QC.jpg
8929ba6ffcdc8c66ece5f23f0429f947
e70eb65c91900e0e32fca803ae3086d1926842fa
56147 F20101208_AABPIF quigley_t_Page_059.pro
ea16dd2b11fd3597f4dca871c7caccb1
68301915850450dc8669ee49a75a8fc8934d6fbc
6806 F20101208_AABQLH quigley_t_Page_130thm.jpg
7017c7a00901d973dc93c99623f81604
4a0116f594dbb8fd021458536cf773ec22a88e86
28656 F20101208_AABPHQ quigley_t_Page_061.QC.jpg
c09ea8d2ce6636b1fa487a107bfaa8a3
618edba462b03891e9520a83a7a63f899e517c7c
21807 F20101208_AABQKS quigley_t_Page_137.QC.jpg
8e5829bdf57289445b45037ad4d89827
df1581e0a7b1533b957ffd83fcb8688f71a09045
56408 F20101208_AABPIG quigley_t_Page_034.pro
b5207c64ae7ba54f3d534711532e7288
15f389dd0d09659788100138443af86e4f7885e1
6986 F20101208_AABQLI quigley_t_Page_043thm.jpg
d4eb2212e0c251c374f9f4cef614995c
75f0dee2f3882e687b5df16996f703e8b44efa89
25271604 F20101208_AABPHR quigley_t_Page_005.tif
78baa4b181d1d7a5833a30b30d8f010f
d833fe49ad0c2b1454bb270c4066ca4f472924c4
25968 F20101208_AABQKT quigley_t_Page_033.QC.jpg
d1df3bbbe51a7ef8dec08f45ae5ad226
d528e4e7212f32bd020fca6737cf10a256760078
108321 F20101208_AABPHS quigley_t_Page_014.jp2
ca50329c0288f5d7c2b7e23293e20c7d
2de0f7fef4e545ac2c917ae8aa4f6de647047b98
25396 F20101208_AABQKU quigley_t_Page_044.QC.jpg
e16f335b20041a1ff0f738ede0471fa6
71f4d89ba095778b43dc4979e32cdd19dca91f04
951 F20101208_AABPIH quigley_t_Page_122.txt
e7f3b26625f65dcb3ad9f61e826ddd50
181f784cc198a1b3e5ebd88f5edc96e8b833e4bb
6732 F20101208_AABQLJ quigley_t_Page_061thm.jpg
5f4ee1a46bb1b0110ccde8460d5438ab
47801b1be499ec3625c9521f954dffc4669d42ba
17992 F20101208_AABPHT quigley_t_Page_079.pro
e8de2da2024229bc1f295ef45d0b5ca1
2c06a731f3d5a4eaccf929eae33ddee3a5375cde
19017 F20101208_AABQKV quigley_t_Page_046.QC.jpg
89198eccdc958bf0dd98f49b8c95617c
764e1c7363124c30025d02c4054522b32ad4cb4e
5240 F20101208_AABQLK quigley_t_Page_126thm.jpg
940309af25acfec07e987fd6946e5c11
a7fb0654332deb9c6f4d51189e7272bff06f7ce6
596700 F20101208_AABPII quigley_t_Page_125.jp2
271fec8e5f29b3ca0e7922abca2ad2c2
86dd7424d8dd0d3f21344f19ee658fbd563f3417
786 F20101208_AABPHU quigley_t_Page_077.txt
12536c4398b98df5e7a5d8509766022b
b109a14a68a7eb16b4141ed6bface3b74a0a6bed
11606 F20101208_AABQKW quigley_t_Page_118.QC.jpg
ca03a142dd2f598dd10f9bac85b0884f
5462f6429c5aa0689621e3f08c393a7df1cee5a1
6750 F20101208_AABQMA quigley_t_Page_032thm.jpg
4d5243dd36fbe31a288f9d50278d4da4
979727929aeb13e578682d5da28e15aa9307f636
20956 F20101208_AABQLL quigley_t_Page_045.QC.jpg
dab2f5b4c59fd1209b482c7785c15dcc
d41e4568a05ec6cd5f5697dc8ed7c18d8078db02
1053954 F20101208_AABPIJ quigley_t_Page_044.tif
3c170a93a040b666930bb02b821b6394
1e061f3d435476732ac856087b84ccdf0a89ddd7
116749 F20101208_AABPHV quigley_t_Page_038.jp2
a512533294df03ee0cf60dad71b16744
6bf65fa064d720aa92774bb1878222dc00ee5d61
4491 F20101208_AABQKX quigley_t_Page_046thm.jpg
341b983f12a8990e9b39bf25644ac061
48c5bbba641ed8c555b6196c68e6a29ab5310893
9339 F20101208_AABQMB quigley_t_Page_013.QC.jpg
5f7a6ee58b0352af714ce4a125bfbbd4
68fd21cabd7d628b74283df67c4cc716b80c6c64
6748 F20101208_AABQLM quigley_t_Page_069thm.jpg
e26cb1bdd5f48e9193ed071b55174386
8e201829c3ff463915ef01a4f994166b34007051
1051982 F20101208_AABPIK quigley_t_Page_093.jp2
804048bfc7a11153f92360483ec4d319
4e47b1d0826df6184a18293da3fea4377a7a257c
5655 F20101208_AABPHW quigley_t_Page_080thm.jpg
2910b2b95f9fe9324e973c6bc7c10009
2c537a9976f942b750067415f16cd38c2a8eb2d7
32051 F20101208_AABQKY quigley_t_Page_083.QC.jpg
52c0626de1f7615ee2c4a0cc06cf2994
0faa22274f515fc5a764f464d6cf8a142dd422c1
16288 F20101208_AABQMC quigley_t_Page_106.QC.jpg
610cfff644a9a8678ec72edfa0f2f7c0
3b768bf8cc622fd97a5754fc989a1de8e19ba622
28667 F20101208_AABQLN quigley_t_Page_067.QC.jpg
a0b9cc705bdcf38e7032fc5698f7bf46
47156238114d24e18dbb343b9f9b87474fa96207
6210 F20101208_AABPIL quigley_t_Page_006thm.jpg
e10ba84f86b76865d07998e90921198d
56d76cb9bb0807840a16a042e571ae8b0168e924
648 F20101208_AABPHX quigley_t_Page_049.txt
2473e794360c882130cccc335879b56b
656edcad7fdf30d5bfc83366219976c968a72f8c
5018 F20101208_AABQKZ quigley_t_Page_135thm.jpg
708af135b4f5cfc87eed3975bf1b3068
194d400010cf497f6d26226d91ecfce91102d232
6740 F20101208_AABPJA quigley_t_Page_028thm.jpg
e324417943616514c6024b08bba2e610
1a72d30cfa0fe1acd00d85759229564555cd09fc
21974 F20101208_AABQMD quigley_t_Page_012.QC.jpg
81eb605f9a2e33d932c8501567d548d3
a95a49bf1bdb55e0fffc1b55274015ac1fc6ee9c
18774 F20101208_AABQLO quigley_t_Page_086.QC.jpg
297dc7cfcc47403ac49fa34712dd15fb
9cb5895103536e1161f68ade5f9d18abeb0f44a0
18309 F20101208_AABPIM quigley_t_Page_090.pro
0fdc29305f4531db42654daf54dead19
0be42c5ceaa6b51f4df53c40eaa2ad69600113d4
13051 F20101208_AABPHY quigley_t_Page_131.pro
3f6667903310d71f54b9e35c05f4402c
135150c72dea585b09c528cc2a6b630fcaf2c7f5
F20101208_AABPJB quigley_t_Page_046.tif
1e0b97c8f9bfe806ed5413a4dffc2793
65e7e45856d5fa019fbb5aa22090049eaab1cd6e
5884 F20101208_AABQME quigley_t_Page_039thm.jpg
0e9ebec082ee5f3140ccf77f15cce6d9
98341f50f4df8fad94690b44c6f3f4f13b5faceb
6366 F20101208_AABQLP quigley_t_Page_009thm.jpg
a79cd4de4f6c3546815e2eff8577df84
1f8832436a5cc4ef0c6ef2fbc55242794edd9f38
F20101208_AABPIN quigley_t_Page_125.tif
eae4cfbd31f0761a3af58755ca214317
cf00ee4f1983194b15da8237652b1b141c92d8fc
119292 F20101208_AABPHZ quigley_t_Page_071.jp2
88de1dc261f62210f50190d80e5a21d0
102ac6558f2ea0b6eec0957111c46dd8c503a149
165989 F20101208_AABPJC UFE0018220_00001.mets FULL
e1ef1790386fb20cc88ffe6df7838da9
1871b9549c3a83a7cacb9ba95e20552ac946e313
6697 F20101208_AABQMF quigley_t_Page_088thm.jpg
4927cfc86a030c549d63fbfafa1a9afb
c1a65853741f4a61677a59b90cd42a751ccb1b29
5091 F20101208_AABQLQ quigley_t_Page_134thm.jpg
510d199a59e4b9ce8fe79cd2b1a3113d
cd8dcc45559340d868a393c90af9621ced6fb3ed
107166 F20101208_AABPIO quigley_t_Page_017.jp2
c01e71d14e1223355842469e40277b59
940f3addcbbee51ccea4a41a1ca62e05b8274025
15810 F20101208_AABQMG quigley_t_Page_078.QC.jpg
b40eea16a4d4f3ed6ca237edd234927c
7842f337e077464d1ca432e193bf0f6466e1a604
21067 F20101208_AABQLR quigley_t_Page_115.QC.jpg
82567820c89d54a1a5e64c9d669ee3f5
5b75c90af46a5c2b9ff2daba54e0c0f4395ed264
F20101208_AABPIP quigley_t_Page_018.tif
1cbc6100ced275fb3449c2f58b0c36c5
02003e2b3fd64530f718e286c9995b4aa96fb376
13495 F20101208_AABQMH quigley_t_Page_102.QC.jpg
e111529df8fbff76662bce683d9fb284
b25343f92ccb10679abcfb842d86b0e6fba0e3f9
5898 F20101208_AABQLS quigley_t_Page_133thm.jpg
32693f7c285f95a57da8344b72e28ca9
672ad3b771a020cc0778a60be0b26afa5ba21f3c
10604 F20101208_AABPIQ quigley_t_Page_085.jp2
74a91f497dccef7e5ff93d51ce5e62b8
189a7f0adcb4f10286def50ab62ee59b67e1802c
24246 F20101208_AABPJF quigley_t_Page_001.jpg
094f912509ece3b828dd6ab2c9130962
33f77597bc9f78f218cbbe61f665a7fdcdbc3fdb
18716 F20101208_AABQMI quigley_t_Page_079.QC.jpg
705636ee56c337d4087ab1494e55b064
d45cf02fe59698f9bf4c6ea2f26a3e7a5a91f476
16098 F20101208_AABQLT quigley_t_Page_096.QC.jpg
b0accbe12e41862c10cb8881e9227775
abfb85696a966c0d57519be2feec7b8bee936011
1051971 F20101208_AABPIR quigley_t_Page_135.jp2
7618cf6258c58918b38583926c68cf4c
c071b03d47430766762bcf797da839b51ec8cb8b
4667 F20101208_AABPJG quigley_t_Page_002.jpg
590c58a27ad375735c3c942e8ba81d21
329d27e2ad86efff2f014dbc745ca8ae4d1c25ad
16287 F20101208_AABQMJ quigley_t_Page_143.QC.jpg
c4ed87791319b76aebf5d57e0902dd42
22b2a382168845abcd4f7a8d38a5e49ad169238c
5250 F20101208_AABQLU quigley_t_Page_099thm.jpg
d396fdd57df3676a7b50e1b67357c78e
ce7c62dfd4093c51030f9d9c54bab48eb0e4c777
1697 F20101208_AABPIS quigley_t_Page_081.txt
455b3d5c1f8f0143ae82fa67f780f511
c9974ee430a04392f41702d2d88aab43ac51e256
54026 F20101208_AABPJH quigley_t_Page_004.jpg
44bff17a4e877ebe5ef4ffb67a2cb9bc
9202a8d4ed44383e3a973f25eb5efd6e86065880
3772 F20101208_AABQLV quigley_t_Page_008thm.jpg
073a43b68b77521444ac7a1edefff5d9
9825193560ca6c718f8e0db84060b35bc5d97bf9
F20101208_AABPIT quigley_t_Page_106.tif
5341b67768132d0fd3807845e7a947d5
a399bcc80b11f85488cbc73a8edd5e09717f070c
29106 F20101208_AABQMK quigley_t_Page_041.QC.jpg
17e9c19e60d25a17d71c4f4bc335153e
9d89e6c6fbdb6a01d79989af489e0a19685b0143
6181 F20101208_AABQLW quigley_t_Page_014thm.jpg
86da94a22cd2f73c807d782214389f8e
25e7c5c7b3c5bafab0a48cab287a1c60749f3e74
89672 F20101208_AABPIU quigley_t_Page_038.jpg
74c6566a0b3dd9c6b51729d21a96d706
ed5664dd77b1f7388c85080ee91a18dcfe562ee7
86092 F20101208_AABPJI quigley_t_Page_005.jpg
f081727045514a2c5dde373111d94799
093e687a7085e89b4498f328c5a523fc187c3757
6475 F20101208_AABQNA quigley_t_Page_026thm.jpg
e838a2ecec2971a8858c5d8597718459
1a26d316bd5822592eaf43c534f9f91668f53e36
4859 F20101208_AABQML quigley_t_Page_027thm.jpg
fed64dd06c3a80bcd938aeddb4c6e5f2
c470c20b00263d2defd444702afa9c644724619c
833 F20101208_AABQLX quigley_t_Page_142thm.jpg
1ee2d1cbdd11c1a145efc537ac39455e
a265b2c0270e65f0f44eabaf31079fbf24b7a76c
F20101208_AABPIV quigley_t_Page_047.tif
a4ba9d91918e1448ac3dff72112c0061
6df9738b566f411c85c9cdcb30588021920faf6c
132233 F20101208_AABPJJ quigley_t_Page_006.jpg
184b86cb5ac50a1f86b8169663df7b35
7b06b10c620ab8a37547b185830a0f862eefe2f1
6635 F20101208_AABQNB quigley_t_Page_023thm.jpg
83e34f27d7c5028d8d7eec22c5db2795
aba604f617dd7b645b696bb6a18e9ab0b797e94d
2763 F20101208_AABQMM quigley_t_Page_101thm.jpg
9509faddb5e66f1f0db09b2aedc5ede1
2e114223d90e2389893d8a2b94abdaf883d34fe9
17516 F20101208_AABQLY quigley_t_Page_119.QC.jpg
1f462ccd69158639eb0779dd6e9238a2
6f773c3b84cdab2152810fd33f98d9b7a565845b
37448 F20101208_AABPJK quigley_t_Page_007.jpg
b9affdedff89e0db92f36c8c53fb7509
8efedf3ec152f0211c57b7a1654c2a8fd7435080
F20101208_AABPIW quigley_t_Page_138.tif
6731171088cb3cd35afc1acfc9e9d750
5b8fc03b7be958f8ccfccb30750ae35ceba5c323
20214 F20101208_AABQNC quigley_t_Page_107.QC.jpg
d30607d037940c6c7e0753484c0d6301
ce66d90d8cbb893f920ebabca044ecbca49f032d
25567 F20101208_AABQMN quigley_t_Page_010.QC.jpg
c6ec5118bd67af018f6e2148d2cc777b
d834acf9b56928208be3adddd752e99ebd4b6d20
28362 F20101208_AABQLZ quigley_t_Page_057.QC.jpg
c424920d0b714f7bab2f2b1b1b892ac7
0b41918d08a3048ce49a60d6c09ded3202421143
89380 F20101208_AABPKA quigley_t_Page_023.jpg
ed6c2fba7ea0608c6e9e11087a7cdb69
9711a962f9257bc25b3d266d5eb8d170d77f999f
55316 F20101208_AABPJL quigley_t_Page_008.jpg
3151189fcbc80381c968c2c838442de9
ed1a7a5bf69b46faaaa752868df913bee41bce62
4477 F20101208_AABPIX quigley_t_Page_005thm.jpg
85f95a33c8f09c218bf6d6c45dbc3911
e72242c89b270cc67f640ec13a87ba90752834b6
26745 F20101208_AABQND quigley_t_Page_009.QC.jpg
d00dda9e76f644877d5f9fb4a8205ad1
69300a5a290f595e122c3c1141724343d7aa0252
16141 F20101208_AABQMO quigley_t_Page_109.QC.jpg
738dd31c57d6804e95fe397d93b34e43
39496e0d4105506c36abbd051177180820e1bacf
79746 F20101208_AABPKB quigley_t_Page_024.jpg
5d6320cb4900a37741b2acc7873294ac
173ddce290f2313e3dce67a9c53ba492365826ab
99384 F20101208_AABPJM quigley_t_Page_009.jpg
62136b861e38762a8a75c42012805834
1b060abb09f0f216a34bb2f02140a1cec14164a9
52502 F20101208_AABPIY quigley_t_Page_021.pro
604db8ee8448138fc99285a2812834d9
cc6d668b567e27469855bb3702832aff448be345
6657 F20101208_AABQNE quigley_t_Page_031thm.jpg
10551c2bf4d34be20940f41a3ea814bb
89bb1182b3d2a37291c99aefcab6c6f2d893572c
5501 F20101208_AABQMP quigley_t_Page_086thm.jpg
e8072294ecb6de584fbc4f81b2c1ebb5
3c389ff9ee6661d83489827bbda2260f28a46e22
86043 F20101208_AABPKC quigley_t_Page_025.jpg
0889df8fb02b0eabb0c5ca953ba64558
29b4c388d3be8a60ca92d92c6cf18a3e64b71e54
94706 F20101208_AABPJN quigley_t_Page_010.jpg
bf39b878d6e0e990b28baa42f9d441df
71fa99aafe616d8ee3666cd7806ae6c91e271164
67391 F20101208_AABPIZ quigley_t_Page_099.jpg
b93e322fb146cb4cdd98369749f3215b
5c891b148440d11722deecfbe14d886e2eab9c52
3887 F20101208_AABQNF quigley_t_Page_051thm.jpg
9d4f544c65920ef13bc2c123668054be
0ab1468e6df9394a9af159e016505652057e6744
15875 F20101208_AABQMQ quigley_t_Page_135.QC.jpg
3a84cb3e6539ec9dfa676267c7f37af6
68c755376dd61a6a2f4d4def87db7b76ec325a8f
82506 F20101208_AABPKD quigley_t_Page_026.jpg
78374fdd40608e6bd1c2ebd617a7bdb7
1ccf6f0e5d77a151c662087f5421c12d029cbe17
62465 F20101208_AABPJO quigley_t_Page_011.jpg
846644d45a8222ca3df3ceb817e24672
c8dde98b0ff080456b85f7a488c59b564b32e662
7029 F20101208_AABQNG quigley_t_Page_141thm.jpg
257a0503e0db28548010aeb1b88cc777
aa68ce2d850bfe2e4aacf4109a8eea00af6f6313
6462 F20101208_AABQMR quigley_t_Page_030thm.jpg
6157bb6343345ea90008bb844e81df01
09ccdb26b16f7280dc00a92777579c9e39642b13
59156 F20101208_AABPKE quigley_t_Page_027.jpg
f36ac448c390ee6e526840b5a3f1bf52
c51606de571215cb4b34bc40a87ab7eb55f4d9c5
74520 F20101208_AABPJP quigley_t_Page_012.jpg
2a48d7db50b55975cb53ba4102f1ca73
7188f5fa3ba54accc7cca796fcfa699bf890c39f
17111 F20101208_AABQNH quigley_t_Page_011.QC.jpg
f4810b80c611b5953854c8a1efae3133
37a4d77093d85073dc2b9a78956fa117f152a9b4
7188 F20101208_AABQMS quigley_t_Page_129thm.jpg
b28c16d99831c4037e4da9a57040c92b
fd2501faa65a1ed35b851e88711c3de3b21728c7
87079 F20101208_AABPKF quigley_t_Page_028.jpg
30e2f93e45fad85a04c5f42f7ccc32ed
10d51766632844cff149b52f28eb116be763cfe2
28747 F20101208_AABPJQ quigley_t_Page_013.jpg
cdab0d8b42b670c332214297230cdcfb
b69de8b35064206d8423f123d87c4b6173b1825f
27877 F20101208_AABQNI quigley_t_Page_031.QC.jpg
f53acf5a3c0487f0095452c41c36e20b
d2af01f55f47b347c95f7700e0ea75346e8885b6
14673 F20101208_AABQMT quigley_t_Page_051.QC.jpg
d43fc32b5a43d2349be49fc363fa1d80
2cb9a57a90defc8e4bb69ac15ff4d7755ad6c3a1
92389 F20101208_AABPKG quigley_t_Page_029.jpg
ac894f0208dffd3fb3b8be67de948d29
55f2e42619d973425eed5a08f991b76d7501f8ed
84024 F20101208_AABPJR quigley_t_Page_014.jpg
6bb165fbf8ce3996744d570c0e26d3ec
fde22b0d0e1cf57f4cfa7d3c2c333d4b4dcc1cb5
6117 F20101208_AABQNJ quigley_t_Page_049thm.jpg
ef9a0318cf55ef67c8c601b21ffd4ed8
c17c02adcfced1d15701c5c267d042fbef178734
6398 F20101208_AABQMU quigley_t_Page_024thm.jpg
b7d01a51e337ec8bbc892340adbd0f0a
59720efc0c1f29c1ddeb200872a1a2e78d9a596b
83411 F20101208_AABPKH quigley_t_Page_030.jpg
25ea452675a8cf03e9167b87f04bb40a
68fcbc9f4b071967c2133e54af54f73f47db32b5
88386 F20101208_AABPJS quigley_t_Page_015.jpg
efbee7a79e42de2576912749158ed75d
460795829cae270b27bb2baafee232c8a10b7978
5573 F20101208_AABQNK quigley_t_Page_074.QC.jpg
f5f189f5c0fb3c409459156f6ea47364
b4742af4f8465314e80dd00a0a97abaf135051c6
21138 F20101208_AABQMV quigley_t_Page_105.QC.jpg
0b29461966945c999e57ad2353e3b08a
5f85c586225de33fab8367b69ff045e11d617fb6
87790 F20101208_AABPKI quigley_t_Page_031.jpg
d7cd4b77abb0c9a3fd2d48e53b2383da
eea76078debf7dd65e3ec9d5d34605a87b52e635
27957 F20101208_AABPJT quigley_t_Page_016.jpg
e8cbe24b93b91ef87b9ddaa4aaab4a31
005939e1f5c5adc755b0e5ae4afe8f99ec46888c
8522 F20101208_AABQMW quigley_t_Page_101.QC.jpg
904de0a99fe4d3aca399526697a7c60c
96b06fbf019fc1c9d8475d6ea0556616c0f350cb
84827 F20101208_AABPJU quigley_t_Page_017.jpg
acdd98be4bdce9a633998b940f370e36
fbabe66a3c45e7de9de527b75cd0cd3bf3faec4a
19187 F20101208_AABQOA quigley_t_Page_005.QC.jpg
ac8d67bcad884917d292ff84325e1f5a
b5ef3fbf1dfb1365231040a0cb7dbbbb5608710f
6667 F20101208_AABQNL quigley_t_Page_020thm.jpg
ae90a267993a1544e5f53c874f00689a
1949034a6c84b9788c71a3eb17ce06f7243123ae
28521 F20101208_AABQMX quigley_t_Page_069.QC.jpg
e0af2b11606b00dd6f24f108ed3a79c9
5eb8132ae53b09094c9c080a28220b38f2414584
90464 F20101208_AABPKJ quigley_t_Page_032.jpg
45082ef3a6526cfa084b2c5c836c86f8
80f677bbbe8e8e09c3af47246253ac857527a5ec
88243 F20101208_AABPJV quigley_t_Page_018.jpg
e7ba0375f6ff44880b4fb1b15a4ba836
2934387d08e5f503fcc7c5b0e16e603e1f959d83
6250 F20101208_AABQOB quigley_t_Page_087thm.jpg
acc98873b734741695678594b97c4c4a
33b82c43138d03af8556c0b04deed375a5f0b638
5903 F20101208_AABQNM quigley_t_Page_079thm.jpg
22f500f4994bf9be8a03f565bf892687
27139148faa04c3d113d4dcf895a307ce4229c7a
20262 F20101208_AABQMY quigley_t_Page_114.QC.jpg
23207f2163c4e557d52d6894ec7a35dc
4547f21945b519f653889de4857b9d42b990832e
83621 F20101208_AABPKK quigley_t_Page_033.jpg
3e0189e4aeaea8f47224c9c16838dc5d
30bd65d4a45671ba6e80d4c9fd82d916127a0884
92112 F20101208_AABPJW quigley_t_Page_019.jpg
27b5da77cd9113f926f91de7f0a1c2e4
b8d1b4216cda834599e968d47bf719a9eabb8399
5969 F20101208_AABQOC quigley_t_Page_010thm.jpg
5b08ba8301793b862777469f3609dfb9
ca22fac5a5751ff2746c113234b34b4ecbf387e3
6646 F20101208_AABQNN quigley_t_Page_022thm.jpg
0a8e7ae640339f75fdfaaf191c1d3354
3f4e569456373c61d44303b57dc6e24f44a73b90
29399 F20101208_AABQMZ quigley_t_Page_006.QC.jpg
2d45f909bd8359f0c2e35a4715506670
c34da7204a805ae2b0331f72a833b03c0d338fa9
91896 F20101208_AABPKL quigley_t_Page_034.jpg
c86bac2e13a8da9051a28026a5ebfc95
a6e9d77c0ef25fccf0802bef3f79d8ab6042bd68
86823 F20101208_AABPJX quigley_t_Page_020.jpg
8d18e222129cf8d9737076e5ed581412
b98e25eb8aafc8bbda5c3d2f655e0a0c68ab22c7
80143 F20101208_AABPLA quigley_t_Page_050.jpg
c588f485cae0fc378663c78d28b39b09
c47131fe8bf6d0ab82eec385999f60a1982a8b42
F20101208_AABQOD quigley_t_Page_056thm.jpg
51c5fb1c4b39c9cacaac43d5c8fd9cec
25f3aa137fb9ad5367fb5844e89dc93188883e02
2501 F20101208_AABQNO quigley_t_Page_007thm.jpg
e049429e0bb267e175f3d4ce90a4eb5b
3ef405c13af9fb170ccbb522c45a3e4a09ed2d6c
87655 F20101208_AABPKM quigley_t_Page_035.jpg
bd79cc888c82c19332742f6cad135680
f0020d36e1c5baaa22582b22a91a16920f1922d0
87804 F20101208_AABPJY quigley_t_Page_021.jpg
dce1affdae6d62691a0688445238bd78
2bbb197252d13b1eaac1b6c04e020ff4b6ab9239
57475 F20101208_AABPLB quigley_t_Page_051.jpg
0f35bb9e9a5df8c91725ea0e6db80713
8663be7627f6a4ee12f94053c73cea1053ee0fc4
5284 F20101208_AABQOE quigley_t_Page_048.QC.jpg
4aed3c2602c5f9882f7100cfc2b225ac
b93e705ad37c10d1999e9b20f4644c4738d052f4
3813 F20101208_AABQNP quigley_t_Page_098thm.jpg
d702fdecb2d88ae2152f1e2aad391e7b
a1808c3dc08d863bcf53ebaeff8ee668115e6154
90404 F20101208_AABPKN quigley_t_Page_036.jpg
9d0e4dff38e2d83f4ee8426f730f4c95
3dfe909c424f342c9c0ade6089433fca366d58a9
89864 F20101208_AABPJZ quigley_t_Page_022.jpg
5c2998d624f1fb1846ce9a1864c218cf
efbfb9f81b6b133993956453fd0b4dc065a5fdf3
58390 F20101208_AABPLC quigley_t_Page_052.jpg
2e31745c444ba72ab325e22d9af48734
c0028c169e460ea0a5b4443627b42efd60cf08c9
6814 F20101208_AABQOF quigley_t_Page_040thm.jpg
84e1e120a32df7db6c42df5c74104a50
ba4200240c2646ff91394faf07f764e55ea27fda
6688 F20101208_AABQNQ quigley_t_Page_054thm.jpg
cca70146488dff7b1f14f5d1dda34155
746bd0bbb1c0a946252acdaa390abc8187650a9a
91214 F20101208_AABPKO quigley_t_Page_037.jpg
b17d31d950ae10ba21b8139ae8500707
4bbc59b7b15e24cd3e7aa8718d1ec88ed0254ee7
85847 F20101208_AABPLD quigley_t_Page_053.jpg
30d24ece993e0b2701a86f19cc35c27a
abe6cefef63c66e615008b2ab8872cbf49a038ed
27130 F20101208_AABQOG quigley_t_Page_025.QC.jpg
6bdc25d1ba4b6340b68ce5c81d4ecb0d
e51e9459b1c013f5e5e70a5ce91e7ca2cf67e534
21307 F20101208_AABQNR quigley_t_Page_124.QC.jpg
e6aa76f59d2d1c77b2176e2828940173
5674ea67fd25de922363a13ac629886d33787239
79310 F20101208_AABPKP quigley_t_Page_039.jpg
8c0cab3cbde568b2835e7bcb35e783eb
98cf07a4b61f093c90699d4c31e3d3e2644b0b02
89119 F20101208_AABPLE quigley_t_Page_054.jpg
25fa7d8108a36357e188f7d69c0035b1
5a7b19c43c2597fc823774014777ea0490952ef3
28049 F20101208_AABQOH quigley_t_Page_038.QC.jpg
8fdce98b7fc8787f5c70a5a248cd33a8
ad7663eac54d0f8bdd49f15bd1cfb8b4d77a8b64
27748 F20101208_AABQNS quigley_t_Page_062.QC.jpg
f782319de0894769580b11794d5b3bcb
c8edf88a420eb71a6dfeea47a640118c8ffd1e7a
93128 F20101208_AABPKQ quigley_t_Page_040.jpg
449b3e331c56ad08748073036baf976e
5e6aa587a73983944a6717db5f811e7c93d3e52e
88778 F20101208_AABPLF quigley_t_Page_055.jpg
edd638da7491655f910d5b06af37b863
36014f99efbbefb6df9c6664acf26de1580747d8
20448 F20101208_AABQOI quigley_t_Page_126.QC.jpg
31fe11db3dffded558ffaaedf3aa25af
92be9e00321602885f1c9f91eaaeed1882f113a6
29481 F20101208_AABQNT quigley_t_Page_042.QC.jpg
ba038495f0f6d6005fcc7807e318eec1
e1b92cfc87ec63c6fba888705f1c49e0a1a5ae7a
91337 F20101208_AABPKR quigley_t_Page_041.jpg
22c6c5fd83743f2d5b058d41cdc6cb69
d08c29177cc0dcbdd17337ca021d494cdf8f13ac
91219 F20101208_AABPLG quigley_t_Page_056.jpg
df8b850269ad75c2ac5e5644103d9e90
bb6a533f0f393e177acf4708de32f6a2186130e6
5427 F20101208_AABQOJ quigley_t_Page_136thm.jpg
63a509d75f03b1590b6c5007e1775594
2e56fe2bbf79e3cd0221d7e0e302cf3a66c0854f
12241 F20101208_AABQNU quigley_t_Page_117.QC.jpg
fbe834670f391600678e511d78e51119
9b4382a3004bbcabb3ce1aff2b589700700a27ec
93817 F20101208_AABPKS quigley_t_Page_042.jpg
006acc5ff293a9527080c5d6d1415ebb
e18c108988999e11a89aed075eb1bac225c912d0
87597 F20101208_AABPLH quigley_t_Page_057.jpg
ecc14f3741cb1d539ba4be37e2bd33be
46cd539bceb0830c7116428483d01a8f04a637f4
25790 F20101208_AABQOK quigley_t_Page_015.QC.jpg
675ae59a8ae025f0e83c843f9342c839
06cce8704907ac76b99d7e13ac799d7bb6adee3f
3514 F20101208_AABQNV quigley_t_Page_047thm.jpg
d8192c3079bbfbe8a54f2bca7b92daaf
523574e645aca42e079b1d35b4748a27a1e91352
94335 F20101208_AABPKT quigley_t_Page_043.jpg
2fccc7d6f93b3dc89b634f95caa8dbeb
77668b32583d617c9402aaf699030f2a797eced1
88583 F20101208_AABPLI quigley_t_Page_058.jpg
7694a017a4f30dd4f674538af1287e8e
492dab83dc1a60509ce4c774ccf2889c85b05d0c
6572 F20101208_AABQOL quigley_t_Page_076thm.jpg
a5e87649865bd197776ae0f0ea2e2da9
ce3d1244037d633b5f36c4f6e6e56f2dc0c7dc04
6906 F20101208_AABQNW quigley_t_Page_071thm.jpg
bc6d3fdce1e97879421ab5597ba0cb66
83368740e8acc765eb23f6d786685d75e2d46348
80425 F20101208_AABPKU quigley_t_Page_044.jpg
db9e3a5216a17d4bfcef5fa2537c373a
d08f75639c9aebdc44f3c91209ae4f9ee3997d2d
93704 F20101208_AABPLJ quigley_t_Page_059.jpg
e99571a9c5657106e36e95e6e5a6f824
6666ff7fd15815750b66236ad493fb52bc421d3b
20450 F20101208_AABQPA quigley_t_Page_110.QC.jpg
be32f869c42f9da6d3b1ab2ed4ba63fa
901289b49e7271589a2c7084f7abf4018881be8e
28830 F20101208_AABQNX quigley_t_Page_140.QC.jpg
2599e71e2d90ebb71fb30bde4c862da8
b6dff845f8c2b5175bd9172d1240c9f9a67969c5
70401 F20101208_AABPKV quigley_t_Page_045.jpg
bfa655275e10f19102acc688ed7fb3c5
20601982519c737f7808b80c1d95df30d3728d13
25814 F20101208_AABQPB quigley_t_Page_026.QC.jpg
9ce5e508cc723e5789bfcd42a2c95d51
fadcac69004942b50b7fa27496e2d8dbbdc2adf3
21095 F20101208_AABQOM quigley_t_Page_076.QC.jpg
e65a1dddbf751a682a575c4038a3b970
9184846d558207f6fff77aff5fb1dd89c4c91009
24554 F20101208_AABQNY quigley_t_Page_039.QC.jpg
fa7895d5f7f645e42913c1eef79572eb
a82f6e4058de10ac7b688c5c70deffe31019f481
74011 F20101208_AABPKW quigley_t_Page_046.jpg
2e0c74e6f0c67a12bdc0d61bef884067
1b44e3a9d9bd7bfa680ad5dc0ed7a98b6bfcbc03
85612 F20101208_AABPLK quigley_t_Page_060.jpg
2579039f0b0415510a579320ecfa6554
d7664476789558ca3502ba1581a0c918750041fb
5136 F20101208_AABQPC quigley_t_Page_045thm.jpg
9643a7cd657e922d9199fd780ae962fe
b72b8ce6376f8190677a5369d90c6ef0cac13598
27514 F20101208_AABQON quigley_t_Page_053.QC.jpg
9f78d7c1ab50dcedc7f68d210bb3c835
a8389071294d401eadc44e00025a54184a4e5720
24604 F20101208_AABQNZ quigley_t_Page_024.QC.jpg
82efcee94da43c4d052784166e059e52
b35db0ff5781c63be09f7bfc41fe1cc1c1ac6217
50156 F20101208_AABPKX quigley_t_Page_047.jpg
6e1d668fcdb123590fb7c52895280f07
e9601b8f99c082989c9e169a5c39650606de9dd4
65164 F20101208_AABPMA quigley_t_Page_077.jpg
a0bb15bdb5b8df8f76bd187bef0944f4
050fc08e355395ad67584c3b12856bcc3ee5c332
92183 F20101208_AABPLL quigley_t_Page_061.jpg
24f3bc77ce7c14597a9ca8fface5593f
5489e6d7b9a49ab9051049d5619da3db5d69a1d5
27308 F20101208_AABQPD quigley_t_Page_082.QC.jpg
673f3550af097af868aecf1e11c1c709
938868a607b2583ac014ae39a3f00d44c2868fb5
803 F20101208_AABQOO quigley_t_Page_085thm.jpg
88187abbaa917e7ff83ec617d21067c5
0b0208a6d62bcf10bf0aff48ab90618f202f89d0
14449 F20101208_AABPKY quigley_t_Page_048.jpg
7b27814c931be70eb2cd604447e4ce1f
609082758842829447fc3f84b4aee99fd2c20bd7
71430 F20101208_AABPMB quigley_t_Page_078.jpg
fab959a508948bc631675d9c948e444d
38d0e4d697a830ae9104095c46e2988eb605185d
85298 F20101208_AABPLM quigley_t_Page_063.jpg
034774846d884077e32b4b1bb39dce5a
83776271fe73a9d0c7a63ef63dd0d2b0daf84ae9
22148 F20101208_AABQPE quigley_t_Page_050.QC.jpg
7cc402f5c5579c6ebebd7677cb57bff1
1e1941ec704ac5ba9365c71a3972be912c5ec0a3
4091 F20101208_AABQOP quigley_t_Page_096thm.jpg
2654fd052bbc102ca589ae13a0af00b1
fd9f8f2cfdc822cfdbd5107178240c8e69957249
76438 F20101208_AABPKZ quigley_t_Page_049.jpg
fafb14bc5b0ea0270cfd6a6007eaa16f
9693e41e24370e43bc20ca5803833d3634a42c78
68597 F20101208_AABPMC quigley_t_Page_079.jpg
6d69819b567c278f38daf829d2554b08
f8289f9ffc200ca337cbb27dc82c7a3ef9b0672a
84172 F20101208_AABPLN quigley_t_Page_064.jpg
8b4465deff9b31ee4e184b8ed45b156e
b9408f23f74b73d5542c3119a5cb5417f43b059f
19689 F20101208_AABQPF quigley_t_Page_139.QC.jpg
d860f447027246f75c2a8b25d82c8e50
3dfefbc3327f5c66e5ced23d73586b225850ecf0
6477 F20101208_AABQOQ quigley_t_Page_060thm.jpg
8547367ea27ea96dfea57358bc6e263f
91545be46cfb8b3e4d80a40b6f425ba8dbd926e5
57545 F20101208_AABPMD quigley_t_Page_080.jpg
e7c077970b8fd42817cb2ba2504ad31d
ac6ab0a93958d940939c57bdb0623a3df017ac74
93072 F20101208_AABPLO quigley_t_Page_065.jpg
a60827a5c51ae8e33346c18c2ada4de6
1285698497d4d5a31d725aeec842b3c556ee3180
1545 F20101208_AABQPG quigley_t_Page_074thm.jpg
196941cd429af1e01326caef0e73fcf5
d09c17619f7f768aa12fb7bbb6997ab3d0af5bd1
6620 F20101208_AABQOR quigley_t_Page_050thm.jpg
9132a1b019c809e7fb09155cd12877c0
58811e6b1e30f22cb3541bb8e70bda5bec78d8ae
69994 F20101208_AABPME quigley_t_Page_081.jpg
8f159befad398768d7183df706b5b25e
56cb2ce87b7f5791db500c62c5379612b0b221d5
90423 F20101208_AABPLP quigley_t_Page_066.jpg
661eecf3bbd8ec221af6604f1723d0fb
d50e17de95834b5c1cd2eea2c2dbe11c293a38ea
5036 F20101208_AABQPH quigley_t_Page_114thm.jpg
ae93401ad4105f7adb898b301a9ad134
0270da59459a48af94dac6231bdee72931d30be4
31630 F20101208_AABQOS quigley_t_Page_141.QC.jpg
baf1461dc8258d945a584c6cd5025e06
372fd5c2e56a0808f282fd273cf1e53cbb42d2a6
96666 F20101208_AABPMF quigley_t_Page_082.jpg
2caf6ec602e799dbcd9ccd43fd971515
d63d160633990c32f0b52e493a4aa475fc914e64
91244 F20101208_AABPLQ quigley_t_Page_067.jpg
3df0f379fe008abd161c8ccc659e6145
474ea9240ce95c2c265fd3eedf132845906982d9
6757 F20101208_AABQPI quigley_t_Page_021thm.jpg
d0c195982b5254f86374ff4e0ec08ac1
50e3aac5de08eaa9a22adb36e79bb5d1708d18ee
26228 F20101208_AABQOT quigley_t_Page_064.QC.jpg
178b9a8accb33e76e8f0dc7df41addc0
4e22e50d1fefdd0aa7dc7de998246c7712dec2f7
122219 F20101208_AABPMG quigley_t_Page_083.jpg
27450cbe32d4e9cd7dec79bb645d9042
2327c5d5090f8d7b6750d854116171aa986eabfd
93082 F20101208_AABPLR quigley_t_Page_068.jpg
77755d3534191ffcfec9f663155af5b0
cff2aafbfe357efe769816018a4c8bd1e3265331
18976 F20101208_AABQPJ quigley_t_Page_128.QC.jpg
208fc45fdbd455e9416b6ea6e4997bc5
ef5baeaed26c527143879d28120d28927b443bf1
5606 F20101208_AABQOU quigley_t_Page_111thm.jpg
fc1d892e4d233f2821fd0e39d4d762e4
70a38ae7393dbb9cafc66207d29b3a6a15fe831f
90625 F20101208_AABPMH quigley_t_Page_084.jpg
f918d419b8f5c7404e19d6e53d37970a
e7d0aba682060201590be62ca683dbcda253631c
89615 F20101208_AABPLS quigley_t_Page_069.jpg
3efef05a392a13e36d4dc6f4b9da6af0
96be4a364fa135e711d5c31b00e7615a45309a5c
3882 F20101208_AABQPK quigley_t_Page_125thm.jpg
79523116d5c34aba1c59ca1185f2c747
5072e076b815e5661a23bdbc0cd88c8a52195ad1
28200 F20101208_AABQOV quigley_t_Page_055.QC.jpg
279ce9dbe7579c931a3cecfd9cf2f45c
cdd546008f4c4869bfdc530b0f8ccaec1bce30f8
7937 F20101208_AABPMI quigley_t_Page_085.jpg
44ab4edd676841c95749bd91d3110113
f0564cdbb17823c59feb84a975f756e68bfec57b
92332 F20101208_AABPLT quigley_t_Page_070.jpg
086e898a37bbeb934ea86b936ba15c20
6f898d1c9f6bc48c8051a15db0f9a7023b7cfbb7
3751 F20101208_AABQPL quigley_t_Page_102thm.jpg
a987be044ca052ab69583ac21df61f35
b066bb15ea56e8a5a825d943022e781effb90e2d
6158 F20101208_AABQOW quigley_t_Page_017thm.jpg
533fc717fbe7c78f4e5c38d2cd802f5e
3bbecf533dad8f0006792eb4117ec1db5e3701ea
63808 F20101208_AABPMJ quigley_t_Page_086.jpg
00b1e7c4adff390b1f3a18467c4040a2
8ed73195cea5b5cee18aef37e384f759474a6512
92257 F20101208_AABPLU quigley_t_Page_071.jpg
f4fce62e11e593155eaf384148230593
bd95d6a844746443a00eb5d0a5eeb63329413dcd
6892 F20101208_AABQQA quigley_t_Page_065thm.jpg
f758e46c487dd5125a05ae9bef072028
69c47df48e0d06e6640cc032af926851f365e17d
27695 F20101208_AABQPM quigley_t_Page_072.QC.jpg
cd7709606d9f719097c90b59437735f8
a583f02567a47422b97da411225cfb99df25b7ea
6566 F20101208_AABQOX quigley_t_Page_131thm.jpg
f0e4c20d149a78891a30c6b7d9dad2b5
ec7fedbca0c0db0a11ff1c811da63cb7c4890624
79844 F20101208_AABPMK quigley_t_Page_087.jpg
52b086739315e333c09812e9417eb28a
dc1011eed42c35bb11c83cd2e7b3b08f329e93b0
86839 F20101208_AABPLV quigley_t_Page_072.jpg
e6c1aabc70dad1d99d0f48b7c55d8da5
581ab5ce6fc9affc67280363f36c8b76ec1bfd11
580 F20101208_AABQQB quigley_t_Page_002thm.jpg
4011d407837d4d0dbfaaa7cd0a8b3d03
c31a54e63b585c5b3e2897da1a327dc624b6fe1b
28877 F20101208_AABQOY quigley_t_Page_056.QC.jpg
3c20ca5815202cf2673044d919f1f737
3e15709ec4248a4ce9a3dba022f60640bca05f40
71114 F20101208_AABPLW quigley_t_Page_073.jpg
72536160cf072ee2e3e83b8fb9e91caa
52ef54c3b096680e6aa5ada615a09cbd35db8906
29639 F20101208_AABQQC quigley_t_Page_029.QC.jpg
426167ae81662e1066754b9634804550
15710129288da6bfdafdd1778701215b8090078e
21557 F20101208_AABQPN quigley_t_Page_092.QC.jpg
086ca8a37cb729eb221cb45d4300e99b
d351e218f6bdf07d69d4bbbed3023a64512b2f36
5577 F20101208_AABQOZ quigley_t_Page_077thm.jpg
80f5cf3987587e817271da2a6cba1df0
c63deb64bc74b9070aa5abe4ccf7f0c53fcb3d58
29584 F20101208_AABPNA quigley_t_Page_104.jpg
47393916335a8822208825532b53dbcc
c60b324774d1305b7eea9f38e6185d7b08debd50
80185 F20101208_AABPML quigley_t_Page_088.jpg
495befe9710c5c9a566dc3806a879757
13b326e0dbcb664b34d8626a4c0ea8d40b76ec6c
17937 F20101208_AABPLX quigley_t_Page_074.jpg
3a0fec9d40ffd5ed7f3c757a2efffd24
e8cb65c9aa43af5d23cb0211a7c74c38875e8d85
2812 F20101208_AABQQD quigley_t_Page_103thm.jpg
fe6a23d86e49c9f673a1a29d86803286
c2a593d27433d1670e981e1075375d1789fd0cd8
6785 F20101208_AABQPO quigley_t_Page_062thm.jpg
42159e197f48ddfcf40981715106998c
625e80d4197063ade181dfbc78da70c8f338e538
68990 F20101208_AABPNB quigley_t_Page_105.jpg
db841f76d432ba1f210758169fa44069
01d35dcef2d66b66f249931ef666c9210125ecac
83547 F20101208_AABPMM quigley_t_Page_089.jpg
b74402d7c195f59501321d7d359d1df5
7735cc67e7e13b0cf4d04baa13589cd3f23fcd33
76626 F20101208_AABPLY quigley_t_Page_075.jpg
abda4b9f0eb5917bacff306a2d9ede0d
a0b0d65cf4eb61606cd9eeb4003ab9138a176d1c
27933 F20101208_AABQQE quigley_t_Page_084.QC.jpg
2d8e2013d6bd93b60e35796c09a89503
dd4e67d6d015058c969eae523d159db7838b7f3f
27432 F20101208_AABQPP quigley_t_Page_021.QC.jpg
61d39a8ee53c4b10b4f108d3faac6206
17a2bbc4bdfd4e7cc13ca6d0a3ed29b8b65ee34f
73407 F20101208_AABPNC quigley_t_Page_107.jpg
c735a168d94609c7d7b4c8052d461b8f
fa339c75642e1f109fa419ffd62731db2e4d793f
87727 F20101208_AABPMN quigley_t_Page_090.jpg
57ed2fbea2ee952292a631fb10cea36c
c6024605718556b0e41d39df2280f58b5f2d8a00
76206 F20101208_AABPLZ quigley_t_Page_076.jpg
b7072dbf746f91192b3332e9bb88e9ea
960aa37d9d819d60a375c5232849b132cfb76ef8
28968 F20101208_AABQQF quigley_t_Page_019.QC.jpg
b3bffff0436dd4b8a85dc0f9b3004049
127249fc76304e2aed63fdac8214d0e71523d85a
22511 F20101208_AABQPQ quigley_t_Page_130.QC.jpg
01ad86c7f284323767385791f595c51c
8cf922c34fa2d78e9fe3c33cb4aa2241b25ac368
66356 F20101208_AABPND quigley_t_Page_108.jpg
3c851d1840136f255a47d6276fdec386
c3cf0d4bb501f2b83b950bd945cb4bfa2985e750
75844 F20101208_AABPMO quigley_t_Page_091.jpg
edd6209623c66709e62b1eb6deec072f
05da2422a338cd3b7d584ca8f0d096757c4272b6
26007 F20101208_AABQQG quigley_t_Page_014.QC.jpg
c75c99d072a3bb658b57fb886f30468f
0ae4893b096a3f9e8626eb9ff06f5b293e84540b
22240 F20101208_AABQPR quigley_t_Page_138.QC.jpg
663b1bf6a5626331350c02f33a3b998e
b2c65dbeee7b6d14c490965be30fd2cb3d441ebf
53362 F20101208_AABPNE quigley_t_Page_109.jpg
deca53b05bd0ca715bcb2c7d4df15cd5
40111dc1bc5a40e19ece26182bf285ebce27da94
77295 F20101208_AABPMP quigley_t_Page_092.jpg
4fc25e49bcdebc17b1bb2eeba31c7eb5
e3ced098fdd881feb488b479c018b35989ee3a29
5549 F20101208_AABQQH quigley_t_Page_100thm.jpg
7aca23cfe9cdb7dfffbe6396cf9e10a1
b6b86ea655f4490a9bffa33cbe2d5c3663d8e2bb
2859 F20101208_AABQPS quigley_t_Page_085.QC.jpg
b48ac29cd03ffe50e03bb4bdaed41f50
277a30dc717c29eaf5ceffe3195d4ef42cfd428e
70887 F20101208_AABPNF quigley_t_Page_110.jpg
124016b22de25557ddf881cfa0a0f8be
c044a84d4a77db128b0e40cc5913b95ff210b3f9
78315 F20101208_AABPMQ quigley_t_Page_093.jpg
d4e6e00ea015ea9ae9c0459f05041c35
ac3baf735cd10b8f4629979669409d71da12c5e7
23313 F20101208_AABQQI quigley_t_Page_089.QC.jpg
e57fdc3b78e5e73ce1c09c9904e68c5a
0d8886eb3000cbd9d611d81e5f74cf0531b4bb41
22823 F20101208_AABQPT quigley_t_Page_131.QC.jpg
dbc4b951bb69fa8d9234b827de14952a
d014bff596e40171e299b658f3de5eea84a1e348
69451 F20101208_AABPNG quigley_t_Page_111.jpg
1298e294b114f59ab94dd78811b1375b
a5b93ccaf8a878342b1bf5b8be516819c9089675
66869 F20101208_AABPMR quigley_t_Page_094.jpg
d24870dee47a4c2e744d845c99731eab
3326af1658ba549cda9ff2f1f51e443b21c5f257
6559 F20101208_AABQQJ quigley_t_Page_063thm.jpg
0005c480ed9609ee0af7dfea8cf12622
51ab5da5c130e7badb6e291b5f751a6c2eaf2049
20692 F20101208_AABQPU quigley_t_Page_049.QC.jpg
b90dc17fede87da41dc53e5704cf312c
696fc2c9ad402535401610c7013e8335ffd588b9
60422 F20101208_AABPNH quigley_t_Page_112.jpg
07932fdbf18cafaade9cd1b45b2f763a
8a2173309529dd86f384e677a900e6d4146e0934
71238 F20101208_AABPMS quigley_t_Page_095.jpg
f7b971001c4e752416b77f6a087116a0
6bbbebeac4b3184bf7df89b2ff97af3a0f944abb
3403 F20101208_AABQQK quigley_t_Page_142.QC.jpg
f9de4796ab286d7c75394af4ff068d72
992177dbc6011b262f93f2fdd2080b4241213bb9
17880 F20101208_AABQPV quigley_t_Page_080.QC.jpg
2952eb40100d01a47ccfedf3b9179c97
70c4f25af69e95afc6b5428b8f56223d64903c74
42484 F20101208_AABPNI quigley_t_Page_113.jpg
4b1d565ec02c732bf2669db7e4e663b5
aeee2ea3e51893b73f2316bf02943d3f792fb655
64262 F20101208_AABPMT quigley_t_Page_096.jpg
157abb695edfb243198989006125dcaf
45b80ca216e8465aaa0da912173c5858bb888628
29003 F20101208_AABQQL quigley_t_Page_066.QC.jpg
ea458d125a6c183f59c73ee5c2992de6
37d8c32ea9704d5cfc869141a87542c60273f716
16902 F20101208_AABQPW quigley_t_Page_136.QC.jpg
565ec446b9d623051cb7fbcaa19eab50
a523a955b8c62a9b6cc03973934251b530317967
77669 F20101208_AABPNJ quigley_t_Page_114.jpg
b5cc88f3f5393582c58967cd2ec4f3ce
2799d85e76c1b58ea275d2e9198015e11f9b2e54
76298 F20101208_AABPMU quigley_t_Page_097.jpg
79deea7bbd4c351a858abefe5933e0f2
e90f32e3e89708ef5a37c0d80372c95527eaf606
3411 F20101208_AABQRA quigley_t_Page_122thm.jpg
f30a180419f2b0893bc5839a56729626
09f67d847be8483d5fca3155681ebab8adc822df
6514 F20101208_AABQQM quigley_t_Page_084thm.jpg
30ae844459eb5877ed86b11f64888368
a6b4f2001b2d0c49d73e4852d8124a2d2a6b89fa
27179 F20101208_AABQPX quigley_t_Page_020.QC.jpg
dadf214571069c448ac5efd9b1eb25a5
a23954829d8a30ac448f75243a1b36a4851c52e8
78482 F20101208_AABPNK quigley_t_Page_115.jpg
57627af62492f893b6cad2448aca4ab9
879efb5fc142852755f5e8eee344f53fa38f2947
41188 F20101208_AABPMV quigley_t_Page_098.jpg
646931eb9bbb64f6bff5e61c299d6197
8ae915cfdf2b1ee4148a33b23c195080292741cb
4039 F20101208_AABQRB quigley_t_Page_052thm.jpg
8ea4fdc445a0d70dee3d410eb00e4a97
5cc4eb4b1baa6bfc1cb0e6f01a9089eb60275354
24150 F20101208_AABQQN quigley_t_Page_090.QC.jpg
653681596e8d01446b3f72a09ab0982f
afd3addaaeae34925d004300a13a4de594e8568d
5287 F20101208_AABQPY quigley_t_Page_073thm.jpg
fac498a9bc39a3a830b386168936bd87
a54f169f395dd5b5cde9d455ac4a463d2e0f2bbe
78556 F20101208_AABPNL quigley_t_Page_116.jpg
c3743094e0f471d328a6b228b0d057f0
4fcd60d9cfbcc621f5f08279ecd02138020d1cbf
74889 F20101208_AABPMW quigley_t_Page_100.jpg
603d7b5a5ab0e19375a89d0ed0245eaf
8c7bc40968c0c5596195bb2cadbbd7583bba59de
6175 F20101208_AABQRC quigley_t_Page_091thm.jpg
d1d563b81892898d1729c5b2d32ed897
58497484b373e878d6bd9354ffd7d57d9201d397
6952 F20101208_AABQPZ quigley_t_Page_140thm.jpg
b9c7892e366ea2edf616f6a2fc637a0b
7502e84e780ba785ce40ec4473f7051adfec66d1
24819 F20101208_AABPMX quigley_t_Page_101.jpg
d1545e2df19bef34736e1dbe3618f1de
a9b1223ea670e90501b5f3cf9457892008f97587
77164 F20101208_AABPOA quigley_t_Page_131.jpg
180a1a29141be052b0d080a3e13d3056
560f52eeb598f5208108d106c6450c8fe2c1cf81
7025 F20101208_AABQRD quigley_t_Page_083thm.jpg
5616808f942cc66a8cb73a66f254ba43
e846433f24900118b64fd356ddadfbc4d1cf110a
6414 F20101208_AABQQO quigley_t_Page_092thm.jpg
abfc8ee1b6929d32f8f41ccbf38d0224
b8cdfde31d747705a91b40a694fc091af612b07f
39244 F20101208_AABPNM quigley_t_Page_117.jpg
dc998bc6c12b66be307f3e087c35151c
c56984607a9c11740995b431d9a8baa5a5384d75
44785 F20101208_AABPMY quigley_t_Page_102.jpg
763ec1d421cb963a6805498eb687fafb
e5758522df1c2d8fabee4a62a7028c5561a7c7d6
55950 F20101208_AABPOB quigley_t_Page_132.jpg
57253bdd0ba89cbdf5bd58f711b62531
38ae892be3f5702ba8782ff6ba0a867390e23198
6202 F20101208_AABQRE quigley_t_Page_033thm.jpg
4f760101a5389b727b995b45dfedd422
f9cfb5e4352d086dafe847bd555f16fa19fc8089
13237 F20101208_AABQQP quigley_t_Page_127.QC.jpg
b872f9365efc48f20498f3abb5c4681c
6931079bd73d0fb67403ef6cff4363f0d0ba6bbc
37057 F20101208_AABPNN quigley_t_Page_118.jpg
f50243b7e95bd7a0abc6d0b4562c7066
ec2f6b383d35090255f9c4a0a6d06fece470ccc2
27866 F20101208_AABPMZ quigley_t_Page_103.jpg
a17c017f7c2c7198152adfbdf5ce8e27
e6e3a26e355cf0c94f4d2f6173ed4abc7d9487f4
71652 F20101208_AABPOC quigley_t_Page_133.jpg
4e159d93fb52aa72edfdaf8ff64c0806
32250df18c069f6769d0bc890387d39b60476dcf
F20101208_AABQRF quigley_t_Page_044thm.jpg
80cfdc6524a6d6108abe217806af29dd
3e0aeeaab7256ab762355e55cfda014ae98db686
2215 F20101208_AABQQQ quigley_t_Page_016thm.jpg
76b0ec7e28bef851f3ff5b8892d64603
5d2408a769257019bafa03c4c0ece57badf9474f
66904 F20101208_AABPNO quigley_t_Page_119.jpg
c77cbb9dd246a78544b72c36461836af
db3b3a3138f0e3920f3f548f52a4e6eeffedfdec
61785 F20101208_AABPOD quigley_t_Page_134.jpg
60cf8f561c1b9f380e5c675ed97f2ab2
d409c77fd4f67fd389a6c590480780ba3f6a467f
6884 F20101208_AABQRG quigley_t_Page_137thm.jpg
97323de72c77b11f7da23f03b3c6a7ae
8db4933310927aee6771386aca03df92a52880ba
5569 F20101208_AABQQR quigley_t_Page_128thm.jpg
69c5e579cf2c92e38a9463674baa89f1
36dea832f86f2335f4922390043635b23d02cea6
71853 F20101208_AABPNP quigley_t_Page_120.jpg
576187ea185455715a4abc2cf0ff5ad7
056b565b87bf39dabe07baf27a2e18178db1f991
64015 F20101208_AABPOE quigley_t_Page_135.jpg
098f4613be3b5e2a350f86d6dcb4c22a
976448b81da4783d2d18471994a3ee33af95ecc7
5414 F20101208_AABQRH quigley_t_Page_115thm.jpg
2d2b189b7a6ed7ae77ca1e0c67cab05f
1bb3825c865d78a58a6f097400e6db8bf3fdd1e8
22836 F20101208_AABQQS quigley_t_Page_088.QC.jpg
2df6f692096857114a918e0d778b5b19
8c138929fe3a5f5285000a14f87e32c98eda7496
68608 F20101208_AABPNQ quigley_t_Page_121.jpg
82d5b74092fb6b0c62ed04e3131b8629
3bf7c9802cfe0667a1bed0fd01c1d5ca76865d03
51683 F20101208_AABPOF quigley_t_Page_136.jpg
6c613481dc9b6e268bf3aa715751991d
779f48731992ca98725a1867cfbefb609357f88d
20533 F20101208_AABQRI quigley_t_Page_111.QC.jpg
cdf78616f709899739d44685fd398f1c
c9e46a2f03d56295256c6feb8115955b6491b484
21009 F20101208_AABQQT quigley_t_Page_123.QC.jpg
4619e1b45c04f9a70282629876213872
59b38da7ba75ccd595cffbb3ca41bc1f402581cf
34338 F20101208_AABPNR quigley_t_Page_122.jpg
03ba727ae477ebd105e59b30ef217b0e
ed0615d0bb660db235f0ed94a52a667f3efcb39f
71829 F20101208_AABPOG quigley_t_Page_137.jpg
f694f66bfb5f7a33faa1060e6d14eb11
175c14d956a77717815066346105888e23813fe4
13093 F20101208_AABQRJ quigley_t_Page_113.QC.jpg
3f3fb6e2b96e37bf489554778b7f0453
f3f5a0a8ba55678bd64be82655446669b8b21d55
13276 F20101208_AABQQU quigley_t_Page_125.QC.jpg
d2449da1d2782baebd7532f23834e689
96513b616d8f7ead2cad6b6a34ae5548d42454ce
79556 F20101208_AABPNS quigley_t_Page_123.jpg
1f2ad286f16a6c81a1b80139cafd66b6
3ef619123c57a3be7bfbfcf13f449503eaf3d822
69361 F20101208_AABPOH quigley_t_Page_138.jpg
bc19825ba2330109b16a7338ef581e36
7f4ba848f1075a92d7dc2afcf5ce26e3de9e9dbe
3362 F20101208_AABQRK quigley_t_Page_118thm.jpg
38ca4fed1b2588d2327ced970865138e
967b2cbddb2500a76b9e1c380c281088a8a23d25
28377 F20101208_AABQQV quigley_t_Page_054.QC.jpg
7c2831426d04a69efc9c09b4396e4d50
e1ab975d829864660a2d68b7927eabc719a124f6
63865 F20101208_AABPOI quigley_t_Page_139.jpg
d1501dcb60289cd26131b8e7713da1e0
9e545bedf4b8ab2f0b82294885f94d056081e664
76973 F20101208_AABPNT quigley_t_Page_124.jpg
0c402d42dbbe709a8ec90a7f6613859d
38a5a806f4ec10e1fb16e70c77b2f8c32b23b5a2
22086 F20101208_AABQRL quigley_t_Page_081.QC.jpg
b3ada5db03ef3fc9130e93a1d68a23ad
f11381234b01b1b2a2e23b332da606414ebb6851
5148 F20101208_AABQQW quigley_t_Page_097thm.jpg
e619ac98a89135633e69fead1870e927
3ae0709e277247e3cd0dd9ebe82018f77119d5a3
104724 F20101208_AABPOJ quigley_t_Page_140.jpg
b60834a1809536cf9db1f7dd07a01ba1
cba0761b9aef8edbf6e4240121ca6ad74cf6cdff
42476 F20101208_AABPNU quigley_t_Page_125.jpg
f1a9d3092dfe102dc501c09d26190bb5
0d6acb76eca025e575ab09de929e2ae50e337c64
6816 F20101208_AABQSA quigley_t_Page_066thm.jpg
9d64a7585faab76b41d0b86c80a794d4
1c9aca54f3ffa4e63729e4afd5cbd273063a63bf
18394 F20101208_AABQRM quigley_t_Page_133.QC.jpg
02b3db3658c667e4503026588c3fee27
c0504437427e0e05aae4e27f3eec213346888b42
20870 F20101208_AABQQX quigley_t_Page_095.QC.jpg
a7c3d6214845eec40f94971ef8c00fde
51aeeb97a8681250a29d985a3089d28541fa44d4
116396 F20101208_AABPOK quigley_t_Page_141.jpg
7e5861b1e966cb232eedec7afe59479c
8d35ad2613e435c2ced16830d7902cb8b63f4742
72882 F20101208_AABPNV quigley_t_Page_126.jpg
cbd415db3067eb5b8d2041a8e7621662
7313af54decabeeff3434f0c1412ad29b7ddc0c2
21587 F20101208_AABQSB quigley_t_Page_093.QC.jpg
c51fe2994313fbfa22a9ffd00c54ed03
05420d4133e338cea9463ee7e217ee0b1f052f31
15468 F20101208_AABQRN quigley_t_Page_134.QC.jpg
0178b1ca1c6ba6a7e183b7456b030bab
3cf13832e4cbf5f875bf57a2079a58462f711461
21643 F20101208_AABQQY quigley_t_Page_100.QC.jpg
80b9b4e425e4f177299cbf0b22a608b9
cd5c4424653f203f88cedc43d952db56eb384050
10652 F20101208_AABPOL quigley_t_Page_142.jpg
587fdf0c03e1d2865541f380b4ac02f1
2a063c95aa8e5846bb2a71e08563617661550039
45040 F20101208_AABPNW quigley_t_Page_127.jpg
d32f747049ea7b456e8bc2d817be4aad
051712bd2f9ab938e5ddbd35415201d475fe64b2
22054 F20101208_AABQSC quigley_t_Page_087.QC.jpg
a6dee2e45f10acbddd59c23a1f974647
095e798e1bd9dfbf2aacf7d455d0c09b34ee415a
14550 F20101208_AABQRO quigley_t_Page_008.QC.jpg
e319a21b329bb6789589fcf0d7958094
64d4595138fbc6136599de684faca35072521e68
21098 F20101208_AABQQZ quigley_t_Page_075.QC.jpg
bb35a33dbccfb5e852bb815b1218c2e6
ea6f01105a8d247a98da9eadc05545840fffac2e
114549 F20101208_AABPPA quigley_t_Page_015.jp2
db13fb5ef6bbaad88fd37b7b21ba1b15
80c3c9e14b0f829c2cef1cd01123701f1aa63cb3
51495 F20101208_AABPOM quigley_t_Page_143.jpg
889212caaebffe28640574b2809d96ee
32f0f9f053bf323158946ba40eaefd75d95ab13d
66995 F20101208_AABPNX quigley_t_Page_128.jpg
385c37cecd621c28dbbe9aa043167897
2810337e01c8d8b81a902325b72e4b7d77bc310d
6860 F20101208_AABQSD quigley_t_Page_029thm.jpg
eb3cd04a5385d2958b3c1542d238ff8f
da8a0006dba1b5fe6a51412fc749c8af15769093
35903 F20101208_AABPPB quigley_t_Page_016.jp2
0cb1264d91cca8a987baa265a71c25df
1436bf6433aa35d17711cfb646af31cdaf51c922
90515 F20101208_AABPNY quigley_t_Page_129.jpg
e4afb0cccca3eb596d9ce216919b364a
131d2202ec50c4322a85bb0a91069703dc7951e6
5611 F20101208_AABQSE quigley_t_Page_116thm.jpg
90cc07cdd8d9745dc23d1b0191514a9b
40a1f1281acd228ed8fe2e554881dd0450f7fa59
12705 F20101208_AABQRP quigley_t_Page_098.QC.jpg
8327f23aa15cc5e54cd57f18d8597e53
bad3e6fbf515f6e79665bdbba765bd81aab52720
115045 F20101208_AABPPC quigley_t_Page_018.jp2
a341138cd87215f8391becc28c3b4fc0
7ad61658c9c0a3b8fa20d46c57056991eb512ede
26032 F20101208_AABPON quigley_t_Page_001.jp2
7e6420af93d045680521baa676011488
a59c958bd4866adc04cf9023bf07ec6859765705
77236 F20101208_AABPNZ quigley_t_Page_130.jpg
1e62e3d69fef0fe183287ea1e3a6f215
9e83fc7a07f3106b6aaa53f503afa0b606f32e10
9310 F20101208_AABQSF quigley_t_Page_016.QC.jpg
dda1cda8148bed52124d9a5bb453ee99
7e24f5eaadd9c76acc62ed0556e0f093534f97fd
5614 F20101208_AABQRQ quigley_t_Page_124thm.jpg
8a7fd7d33b8f93591330716594ccc69c
979c7e977f67f2f17495d937c4d9513e382d14fb
120682 F20101208_AABPPD quigley_t_Page_019.jp2
7a1fcdf071c87757b92aaf49ff750907
05d4249ec2d2d9d8793a067b5cdc31504877f28a
6435 F20101208_AABPOO quigley_t_Page_002.jp2
e02b46f1bd25ec499165350b9696bc08
73ae04736fe46b8cea05bc1649ad15fd3fa88d40
5541 F20101208_AABQSG quigley_t_Page_012thm.jpg
b884e8c50ee34a713fb79082c8ff12f9
78c8a76ba0a2b6eb3566d4517cc13113e1f3eda6
19672 F20101208_AABQRR quigley_t_Page_121.QC.jpg
dca4a8aff5b821313e5019e8f6a73496
76135f4447dec62825bb3c6800947e2a365ca68c
114285 F20101208_AABPPE quigley_t_Page_020.jp2
55116503ab5f136d46f5d79ef457e234
3fdd8a17b2647c70e868eef9d2dc8460c72eee3e
9423 F20101208_AABPOP quigley_t_Page_003.jp2
2c1a22a0a7aa6836dcfeb9fe8d46b37f
c6ce4d4b705783db022c438f76fa9d24b46348c0
29172 F20101208_AABQSH quigley_t_Page_071.QC.jpg
2db655a002f6a3e9790fcde8d3c458c8
f79f326a9615834633c772e512dfb17612d32c81
4881 F20101208_AABQRS quigley_t_Page_106thm.jpg
633867c39df74e4b00da77d2503f98f7
3c4869fe455ae81298a39c47793f74c7f1b4bca2
114600 F20101208_AABPPF quigley_t_Page_021.jp2
46e9a8748fc0646b1c52b26099a0e8d0
7bca1afa8da446aea9958a53a73498f9e9bc143a
69356 F20101208_AABPOQ quigley_t_Page_004.jp2
956a16753a0027731ff6204bec8e3261
36bd5208cbe8ecd9709f03e4e04835e1d271a9c3
28590 F20101208_AABQSI quigley_t_Page_018.QC.jpg
41b57200a179d13e13c107e3d099b4fd
49d9f57a734223ef9698e3718d14d8bfd839162d
5706 F20101208_AABQRT quigley_t_Page_105thm.jpg
0b5cdfe2b9baeac504416858f6124c22
8f9e5f99d76ace17734e2a3fc7f2df390eaf344e
117950 F20101208_AABPPG quigley_t_Page_022.jp2
29969a93f753f6a865ca4fef03068565
55e132bed61687d48e66d32de5ee93416141146d
1051973 F20101208_AABPOR quigley_t_Page_005.jp2
76aae93c0478e48514f984847d3b4704
cf65583c1afe5a5917589084ecc26d62bf658dfc
6699 F20101208_AABQSJ quigley_t_Page_081thm.jpg
f0c0b320760f8acef357d2afef5ffc74
fbd9994b50a42b3d57b81fdd53e75fd66b19a679
5261 F20101208_AABQRU quigley_t_Page_123thm.jpg
8e009e5cd14ef2ee324302a504a92bf4
10a2d47cf118f94f46277bfaf6d4830c523d093f
118161 F20101208_AABPPH quigley_t_Page_023.jp2
a616b47459b932c00e3636630a7b584c
1989279307abcaf7ff0d078cb70148772b954324
1051976 F20101208_AABPOS quigley_t_Page_006.jp2
4288ddcfbc8da467c8a49a7509949db6
24d4ab30036a51cd854eb46b8e000820e4247fa3
5918 F20101208_AABQSK quigley_t_Page_094thm.jpg
8d446a154d55bdcff8cf84f29105625c
9c5724fa54074b4a7398cf2c149d22d10ac4f757
6556 F20101208_AABQRV quigley_t_Page_053thm.jpg
0fbe766fe0adc3ea36b9c4f5db71d4c9
f06beb8eef5db47b274ca21d266541292ee7e338
101602 F20101208_AABPPI quigley_t_Page_024.jp2
0e47695fab38d8a986659055ea85bb63
25712473662567bb2667661a5c8a8eed105bede7
803636 F20101208_AABPOT quigley_t_Page_007.jp2
be6462e71fc09d89a554bc1fec908176
881f2df53396815dcd15a42674709b7dbf62c173
7359 F20101208_AABQSL quigley_t_Page_001.QC.jpg
8e59b6eae640f7ec4bb1c52b6c0512b3
137545d1be14ea51fccb8e4a795122a47f5bda3a
7045 F20101208_AABQRW quigley_t_Page_138thm.jpg
70f4892541446d8c1be4043785396b83
1dc4cbae6f6fe01e8c406a43926a2082576ecbd9
113169 F20101208_AABPPJ quigley_t_Page_025.jp2
8a621254a681e10210ba53887848e26f
edeecb89848ff83bc48d53df36c1a4ff03ae305e
1051986 F20101208_AABPOU quigley_t_Page_008.jp2
b12a951b4f47c26369d3825e523ae82e
fd8c9e285cd30fb270e2f9c0d285578f82dc6a20
5420 F20101208_AABQTA quigley_t_Page_110thm.jpg
4313866c8a55ef2c0395960edb670ba5
569a1de8487c040456970be333dc66fa78e24bd6
29719 F20101208_AABQSM quigley_t_Page_070.QC.jpg
cce6fc1fff769752c92b7e4ed81a1413
34b1bea4c03b71c68aba9fa011b6e1da0fdd496d
27201 F20101208_AABQRX quigley_t_Page_035.QC.jpg
75f3fc6c6b809ef7dbebb553953bd820
0a1388800e3fd683fd5b1d5a17ce68d3c2010c79
F20101208_AABPPK quigley_t_Page_026.jp2
142023786bc06cffab20e4e8e5f3e0d2
3692443c8b259dd84c5998133b60ff31baa15f0c
1051980 F20101208_AABPOV quigley_t_Page_009.jp2
11f1218b0cdea186c57e4fe1e8f5d70e
4f7c3f2dede33b515f46374b69d59f7ef11b9665
4143 F20101208_AABQTB quigley_t_Page_011thm.jpg
5bcd7f27e557bc683cf8b714ceb31fcc
e9e18c417422e2a34fec75eda464b321c5d257d3
6574 F20101208_AABQSN quigley_t_Page_018thm.jpg
d4037255255659780aac8134052560e5
feedd69bcab6e530a8034e5af89f763093d8d954
2017 F20101208_AABQRY quigley_t_Page_003.QC.jpg
a6e40fd40807885f723e775a17e26f57
28b8c8077a15709a925a30131f24cf3f30aaf570
798514 F20101208_AABPPL quigley_t_Page_027.jp2
e4d6ffc02c6a043256a6ca7039a03eeb
cb95e8712e3b20a98ceeddc58f2f7f82e622d9c1
1051969 F20101208_AABPOW quigley_t_Page_010.jp2
99e3cd4ca003a66853a0cd7a701c5c24
0883d53f621350dd7a76d472e2e00695e3916a25
28210 F20101208_AABQTC quigley_t_Page_022.QC.jpg
f85bb57b0c8bff7959346aa321f9724d
5ec13e9c2c8763dc06708fdb75b7a28d95feb04f
6604 F20101208_AABQSO quigley_t_Page_090thm.jpg
29587b751f96bec2c5ef8c65208ef36f
d7f002b1c45ee8025ea9bf41d3e0af7a605b8b7f
15525 F20101208_AABQRZ quigley_t_Page_132.QC.jpg
6213c0f7ce68ef77ee3cf025342d6d65
92e61efb6d91720c4218884d32cf935a1ac43cbb
112917 F20101208_AABPPM quigley_t_Page_028.jp2
09b1faa036c208df652babb49d6d194f
91055087e70edfd0f565c07512ccdeb64e19d7a2
F20101208_AABPOX quigley_t_Page_011.jp2
b88cb0dcd61fd26402d3665065469dc8
cc5b0e89be4e582422963f017fdca41dd25d5ca3
121988 F20101208_AABPQA quigley_t_Page_043.jp2
87e6878d8db046a96667031b50b61929
11aba8c603f10783672bbdcdebd3ef5762ac1054
25162 F20101208_AABQTD quigley_t_Page_129.QC.jpg
72c068d2e1b8fae12b461249b355c86f
6e61f7811aca508c16edddcada0f0a1a70ac1fd9
1701 F20101208_AABQSP quigley_t_Page_048thm.jpg
9b4f2fe10fabb6566b7391cf084d23e2
583bbbd3a543266cd70aee7d2a482a50fa2a8843
119997 F20101208_AABPPN quigley_t_Page_029.jp2
6003480180bfa7f18734fa9a458652b8
4b059be6db026bb6936a4c6aaa9db6c68d575e7e
94977 F20101208_AABPOY quigley_t_Page_012.jp2
31143df0d2a41b4cf4fef3a14477e8d6
cfae989ea451821b38eb8649fba1efc5c3ac959b
105143 F20101208_AABPQB quigley_t_Page_044.jp2
b16636664f8feea9b429bfb4d50d509d
4cce72c6e3b6149aaeca5323d4088f2c1248880a
4833 F20101208_AABQTE quigley_t_Page_132thm.jpg
e268079c8e3d540dff344fd1971cdb8c
04a28a562b73084f91b7746cbda02a36988325dc
38341 F20101208_AABPOZ quigley_t_Page_013.jp2
cf00db75bc9665a8c74936a2af4f0a9f
ec81cf5ad4bb1943c0198e16781a8d9c03f94d2d
91390 F20101208_AABPQC quigley_t_Page_045.jp2
d4e82ab8c1ece9cc4e3e98c9785dd015
e906d2638fc150e9a714d15d96f40df525203a4d
10086 F20101208_AABQTF quigley_t_Page_007.QC.jpg
c59be2e4aefe1fd28712557cfd0ecb40
22ed84bc3882996a259e9949f8b6072be7c13bd5
5364 F20101208_AABQSQ quigley_t_Page_121thm.jpg
0a917b8d8627fa43604da3d94e42be4f
62063b960a0af83554608f5fe7e5382696bd6f40
108860 F20101208_AABPPO quigley_t_Page_030.jp2
6649d04ab128de6182b7ea293adcb1bb
767f42271bd6d01476b6f78ea28989055492ba8a
898880 F20101208_AABPQD quigley_t_Page_046.jp2
10f316808abb14c53440acb438ce0010
75fa049c782aa2062391e3c4a82b5918b29cec82
16911 F20101208_AABQTG quigley_t_Page_077.QC.jpg
e3a5bc93ccc177f85cc9e64d80c7c58d
cf46cbac80feec44e50138f99b143a72bca9603d
6671 F20101208_AABQSR quigley_t_Page_035thm.jpg
d3d2c07beba390a25a4f8e695b5b31a5
63f0412a29eb390394b78810d220bde11f7df4d3
112723 F20101208_AABPPP quigley_t_Page_031.jp2
c5d9c80d93bff68a60aa2621e5fc4163
b40b3e89c4f3821aab0409508e3ad4bc21cc182d
1051911 F20101208_AABPQE quigley_t_Page_047.jp2
5c8efa8bfd8dbb4cdbe217d0e360024d
1a0a1bc340a009c3b8e1af1cf112c0602d185175
17792 F20101208_AABQTH quigley_t_Page_027.QC.jpg
f5d3ddfe963a1f4bda180457eaf84561
25e2cf75a22ce04919257932a89bda2c191a0cdb
28246 F20101208_AABQSS quigley_t_Page_023.QC.jpg
56a862aad94fbd9a819ac75ed1b0304a
885d1d807cd2211e10d00f2cdf1c508c0f6b6213
117978 F20101208_AABPPQ quigley_t_Page_032.jp2
2fd7aa50704635e2aeb438e908980ed8
366ea7bcd7ad70bd448e8ecf0703a4236ed29a51
188357 F20101208_AABPQF quigley_t_Page_048.jp2
b1856a7a41af7cfaf9b96de7a20e15b3
a44b64f9a4f904325a001d7aea8365618de2721a
6704 F20101208_AABQTI quigley_t_Page_034thm.jpg
80173c4b9d3c2d02fcd2d38848323675
3e5e81638107357d6702786c428473f0dcc859e9
6834 F20101208_AABQST quigley_t_Page_068thm.jpg
5d7cf3f5b528f933f82d98457075868d
50030ea5fdf53db8e5c177db149ae29c98cf8efc
108588 F20101208_AABPPR quigley_t_Page_033.jp2
a3e7071dffff901a53eabdb393db8bec
be81c32b557b02f7ac3ec5af57ffc168ab4af93c
F20101208_AABPQG quigley_t_Page_049.jp2
adcce3f475afe4806e5b3121a12e5963
b035c3a0004af40c9d79a52d3be8d88960838fc4
27316 F20101208_AABQTJ quigley_t_Page_063.QC.jpg
c602f02d0cf06ab5e46648a5273e8132
222e498f90e88e77c4571b9e2b5c6742e63994a6
15086 F20101208_AABQSU quigley_t_Page_052.QC.jpg
0036501ecc5f85f68c7c0d440f66318d
1fab2676f892e84573ec416c8a1746ed12cdd588
120344 F20101208_AABPPS quigley_t_Page_034.jp2
55d55a5884c4f0988ab47bdaaf42466c
b3cef25fa6fdbfb9bbc2ca3fc48ae918a7511401
1051962 F20101208_AABPQH quigley_t_Page_050.jp2
ce63f52b3251c99051a983bbbebd4131
d6184de9b1877a8ba70f1a01475ef9c8f02af82a
214983 F20101208_AABQTK UFE0018220_00001.xml
ccf0fda1e57959f7a269aacec6e0dd71
467f11e57dceff3b56b8f316a6190b92161dc6d1
6123 F20101208_AABQSV quigley_t_Page_095thm.jpg
e6c7c9bbcee5971ae02c2efbc2590a08
aca89d47ea6c1dcdf6b9b2d9df17044f95ee7718
115487 F20101208_AABPPT quigley_t_Page_035.jp2
3788079e408be34a9f263104d64e81a7
6d228a827b18b917ab80868a5d617255e6209258
1051978 F20101208_AABPQI quigley_t_Page_051.jp2
c64f5ec8ea792fb32d092e186467625f
f72f4c0b9b26a3bc37fe0ff76598cf751a2b50e6
27905 F20101208_AABQTL quigley_t_Page_032.QC.jpg
4eaa89262bd67f7d5c01ee69c04e5f59
03b6101c3beea9dd70fb6d307160a9d7af421de7
3650 F20101208_AABQSW quigley_t_Page_127thm.jpg
88448b9ce2dc602e9d32a3ab2e519d52
32d35ba71101d79f02873bd9d4fa690a30638b3a
117661 F20101208_AABPPU quigley_t_Page_036.jp2
252216c0e67a124636852d6217fe4d8a
4211cbadb7953cb3e539d3b4bb498177c7dea2b8
1051933 F20101208_AABPQJ quigley_t_Page_052.jp2
2469b6b08e5df78d1eb0e0ac52882718
9c9b7d2342ab6d4bef73e18e1ea8aa19140a5024
29366 F20101208_AABQTM quigley_t_Page_040.QC.jpg
1b6768f78e41ef82234febb35e399293
f649037a473ec9eb9da2a03b41134ef0497ca2fb
6197 F20101208_AABQSX quigley_t_Page_015thm.jpg
0786070eaa0ecf4706ff9efb1b93c8ea
5417cd60f8fb94c57dc165bdd5d95b525e54d93e
115945 F20101208_AABPPV quigley_t_Page_037.jp2
372c4bcba1ddbc501c1f176766e6e9e4
da7e86847f5c6a2f7b45633b9d00596efc9def82
112112 F20101208_AABPQK quigley_t_Page_053.jp2
14e6302a29384dd18db955f10b8ae4dd
b87eb397aecd1cda370c8a865e8a2a6faae0068d
27352 F20101208_AABQTN quigley_t_Page_058.QC.jpg
47d15341eda51d20cf837052772fe30c
5ac7008611880789f4073206b51c0f4792b0fd54
5205 F20101208_AABQSY quigley_t_Page_108thm.jpg
837bd3fd220ac72a9b979e107da47d1c
eb5f53dac35c0e0662b90c96107ec0e19d8dd31d
103096 F20101208_AABPPW quigley_t_Page_039.jp2
65130fe4c7c1652696b5687caa131639
c2b36b60e8f547230c5d01452009eb1c593aa9dc
115069 F20101208_AABPQL quigley_t_Page_054.jp2
6268b9e43c44535a7ad37c1ec570c0d6
8f9017f13ee8d0b72c11873aba17588786e7de0e
29223 F20101208_AABQTO quigley_t_Page_059.QC.jpg
a687276b0a1ce3eb75e6d4f469e84ee7
eb962d7cd4ce389f47d1dfc56bad1d59b868fb3d
4201 F20101208_AABQSZ quigley_t_Page_119thm.jpg
98d602726281febf5993260f64b612d6
9752096eb43679d90b4a5a97459ea414898118e3
120637 F20101208_AABPPX quigley_t_Page_040.jp2
c516c1a2d228665446b38066c6d25183
38d3767d68c384052b6acb371d6cce78cdf869e6
116394 F20101208_AABPRA quigley_t_Page_069.jp2
502b83d396e1e4013785175cdae4340d
69477f32875b2566a3a303ce4c5acf29828a3db3
114672 F20101208_AABPQM quigley_t_Page_055.jp2
b4ade659be532ab3e97be9cbcd8c1601
21d177badbfeafc22ca63d6a0be1162a554d1e38
26732 F20101208_AABQTP quigley_t_Page_060.QC.jpg
34706ed08b574b0ed22ff7fc7cd73871
a959d7cbb22a79eec66ec740ac864b8df8efeec8
119248 F20101208_AABPPY quigley_t_Page_041.jp2
2d3933526b6e2f60abfb48c551e0611d
e4bc1629834dcddf60ac13cff528bc95a738fe1e
119363 F20101208_AABPRB quigley_t_Page_070.jp2
9d15fb08b696317dd5ffed3aa0bf5952
f6e43d04b8187418ceae6649250f666123f24081
118012 F20101208_AABPQN quigley_t_Page_056.jp2
a2ebe7b4c090eccd6260e2454aa365b3
92bf09b8c7c206f750629dcf2e1381d0c2ea1aa2
29257 F20101208_AABQTQ quigley_t_Page_065.QC.jpg
5afee1920add88e9b9087e85cd5e1c6d
9b865e00b717ca935330d054e2a20128cea888a9
120986 F20101208_AABPPZ quigley_t_Page_042.jp2
136671a935b204a75e4745eac1503683
666374ff7497d5acf7e361a7cd74f840d4f06716
113134 F20101208_AABPRC quigley_t_Page_072.jp2
b0ae1e10303d90cd6ab62a51c4a12b1d
097351d5205cec078e39f71233f1e095d87b0fec
113001 F20101208_AABPQO quigley_t_Page_057.jp2
1eaa5f08cd8c4deb62a970e7d22f6677
7e88f4b5ea0cdf3ad7fb91d080f6a5f7a3564a9b
84803 F20101208_AABPRD quigley_t_Page_073.jp2
8acb7e382bd7184c25b514e219723370
99ef0bf72da06e773b9e5e975da6258e7e451265
6872 F20101208_AABQTR quigley_t_Page_067thm.jpg
9a6d60949417b945c33d016498bef90e
dbf38b97c90437f0a19063ecb23ad36d509c62fb
20168 F20101208_AABPRE quigley_t_Page_074.jp2
4268aecc96806fb1d503b6e45253d3f4
ffbad0cbfdaebc3ee646aae226c9288c86449c10
113111 F20101208_AABPQP quigley_t_Page_058.jp2
6ad44e8250d3388cb48a51c2034ba079
bf0a38b90a5e7e4ee8b6108fe444f8e94364e9fc
F20101208_AABQTS quigley_t_Page_091.QC.jpg
f1111a092b5f19e68e1c13e3e7cfe6c7
ec0e79b97e43c04a21ff8ab75f8b14c65cdd3476
F20101208_AABPRF quigley_t_Page_075.jp2
f7c2b958ccb70c2c900531241b55f678
875c31d5a105a3bb8128425bcb6211040547d4d1
120634 F20101208_AABPQQ quigley_t_Page_059.jp2
2ef250409bb2bcda7c9084c15c507646
407531524d78e93be4c99c989061b1370718f09f
F20101208_AABQTT quigley_t_Page_093thm.jpg
bf4a421a3798ae7724f0b87ab8b177c9
321abd198b7f3b64991a214e2742c426ca5074fd
1051985 F20101208_AABPRG quigley_t_Page_076.jp2
db121bd8f897946b5a49574268ec1417
fcf37038a7a9f6d8544dc6fb7ce61ad03290a67b
110477 F20101208_AABPQR quigley_t_Page_060.jp2
9b9420d1eee27eac722645aac81d3a8b
ca879aa772252dcf575ec52be0cd6fa3c8177095
20532 F20101208_AABQTU quigley_t_Page_097.QC.jpg
a346c46faf13efedbad604672432fa58
d02b3911148d60857f7bfdd159aec86ec7d99e98
1051938 F20101208_AABPRH quigley_t_Page_077.jp2
2fbb16fef6d625b99dafb726b0766a27
d5022c1ee1dcb09bb2c6d226ef2e9a5a4274e31d
118834 F20101208_AABPQS quigley_t_Page_061.jp2
69cb972be260a23c20af49caab789148
52145987d7508f2355586e471ada5e22227ceea8
21473 F20101208_AABQTV quigley_t_Page_116.QC.jpg
b90a13180a3419994863595f8db0a6b2
b4dc7528883ff46fa805bfcd613c8cd91ea26d61
F20101208_AABPRI quigley_t_Page_078.jp2
3d07ed59b57846df1c1557bf81f62341
14df59e302ca8a2ded2781424d84757c7e5a8b2d
116389 F20101208_AABPQT quigley_t_Page_062.jp2
eee30d7d27dbdba65eca8dee987730da
32e38f8fa2205f7edb00068e3627146229748e4f
1051979 F20101208_AABPRJ quigley_t_Page_079.jp2
0f7cd99be6376fc1635c94f76dc4ce82
d8649c1fa7499c030ed9c7c4f9ea545ec6d105bf
110816 F20101208_AABPQU quigley_t_Page_063.jp2
a9241346bc1f6a1f9550270f5b06409d
18c2b3ea02d56b6d1dd354171bb42d65ee0088c9
1051981 F20101208_AABPRK quigley_t_Page_080.jp2
78fe9ee19fb38bd4650b637efa8846d4
85e965d5efcab39c3ef4d5bbb7dd5c9a6535a416
106986 F20101208_AABPQV quigley_t_Page_064.jp2
58e161b9ecdd4873180e8233ad59371e
efb3379aaf27c70ec87e2677e346c50d7ecf1598
1051957 F20101208_AABPRL quigley_t_Page_081.jp2
4255deb86f39efa9c4b24739e9045276
75ab4d7c26ce85edb0253de1487e7b19d5a742f8
120179 F20101208_AABPQW quigley_t_Page_065.jp2
00fd42c66f79499474c89c3bc9e2d7eb
a0b8a07ee868fb7d3d6cc212e3f3af9ecbcb81ec
571994 F20101208_AABPSA quigley_t_Page_098.jp2
46d8eb2d74e917ea22d78e3803f1e578
5b2973639c07729480599f323eb9ad218d374a3a
121765 F20101208_AABPRM quigley_t_Page_082.jp2
0f8bd8e3cd80e49a18bedf37c09cf8e1
b75e2bad05061938d25fb59ada028e7242981c2a
116258 F20101208_AABPQX quigley_t_Page_066.jp2
9a5e63bd2d43768bc0987e4bd23f35d0
7dd0f612a78bcdefe198da3eeee36d6df007c6cd
1051959 F20101208_AABPSB quigley_t_Page_099.jp2
2c7baed7713d4597b98975c0af584190
64349c44b9486814043d478ba362b0d7dc650c04
156881 F20101208_AABPRN quigley_t_Page_083.jp2
f9697e12bc3cb73704d7c267d0146cb5
5a53cdc8856beefab72378602f2a045308d83b4b
118203 F20101208_AABPQY quigley_t_Page_067.jp2
b7648197c0f48eda037597e02e0fd52e
b20a20396fa65e3b8d4a9ab726f860bd9536325b
F20101208_AABPSC quigley_t_Page_100.jp2
9f8090d53d3e673e4b01982c44618be1
92d6395ff2089cd722c8f29bfb7e2d57cd8de7f1
118988 F20101208_AABPRO quigley_t_Page_084.jp2
70586678c48ae35f39459472b12a1c9f
dc8c5db5dfc6dc37b7ec3cf8e76be5b2d6d26913
120397 F20101208_AABPQZ quigley_t_Page_068.jp2
5c03b2f9190a020e29ca966cf8c0cbdc
83e506057c841d9a67c75b76f18ac82ed6cd599e
288774 F20101208_AABPSD quigley_t_Page_101.jp2
e5075a68ae4f2807c394abf05bdc8ce1
7cea45f1e436b24b56123b0d5f09a458d1880bda
F20101208_AABPRP quigley_t_Page_086.jp2
4f89a385c94eeef9f7693cdce5667a48
edaf5ef54fe5d747d3479f9810d135b093dec258
576429 F20101208_AABPSE quigley_t_Page_102.jp2
b9952e50cd4325d448cbd0915a4a9bb1
08c53f176869f623582163ba672ecb2df0843299
310993 F20101208_AABPSF quigley_t_Page_103.jp2
107f544487a183a9f13a796f4de789a5
32681a271846d5e68e2d80f76f10e5f56ea78125
F20101208_AABPRQ quigley_t_Page_087.jp2
665190cc62d53a5c9502e92218a48506
3d11e9a0beb3a78a7245523ac19770573c5a8bf2
333190 F20101208_AABPSG quigley_t_Page_104.jp2
5a60d4cb26de1b8979cfaba6c1ff8fe9
4f19e1471434bbe8768bdf39d82bab9b7e7c2025
F20101208_AABPRR quigley_t_Page_088.jp2
c874a6606dc03ea14293302a57dcecf0
3cc12e277eeea09fa2529bf4dc15fa588a02d0e9
1051952 F20101208_AABPSH quigley_t_Page_105.jp2
b6a3bab325e6005ae6258b3a0c6bdf73
739ee2937deb1facde90826a2938a2d20036ceaa
F20101208_AABPRS quigley_t_Page_089.jp2
c1f3338dd0eafb4ec48f8f72665e408e
00b6f4f7584ea9c09cc9c7b2fc07d82e87e3ddea
819271 F20101208_AABPSI quigley_t_Page_106.jp2
e0852f2d7b37b943fed2434972f980ab
ab6e31f5bebc09e7b075fc5fca8aac1b6b9b91ce
F20101208_AABPRT quigley_t_Page_090.jp2
5272fdd40ddc56090270943c34552fd4
f10c837faca34e9cafb7e60f0e83288e75f88742
1051898 F20101208_AABPSJ quigley_t_Page_107.jp2
13d1ed88dc3c3df7e56a68a7814c408f
8b4c6c860027a071de57a15a15c2781eed0d3109
F20101208_AABPRU quigley_t_Page_091.jp2
a2825df288f83465ddf2aefc36a1521b
dfadb31be8dc948950bf354f7a95b5ff25e8a070
1051934 F20101208_AABPSK quigley_t_Page_108.jp2
e2cd09b95a99c4a6af93b38476eed7be
e92917e919b7b429ca3d076d14aa271f8f46ef95
1051984 F20101208_AABPRV quigley_t_Page_092.jp2
252fb074316532ff808617b62ed3cc64
7d04dae0dc724b6e202af0fb191a44f6d6f9ea5b
822675 F20101208_AABPSL quigley_t_Page_109.jp2
bfe697dd2ec3c3a7885c0efd9093e26d
4531c9eec2872ac7054ee6162b4d8a96d5809cb7
F20101208_AABPRW quigley_t_Page_094.jp2
2ae11fcac025ee05aea11c94d47c976c
f9be289fbedcbffa3f5dacd5c5ac65b28c916ab2
1051945 F20101208_AABPSM quigley_t_Page_110.jp2
ff3cd431cad2b1b31e283915e6fd16a4
cb6050456e1d2b4c8073069d8f373f7136ee5ec0
F20101208_AABPRX quigley_t_Page_095.jp2
7b921afcfddfc79d6be91956815ab7bd
29b4efeada744d232e25d0878bdfd0ff7ab31f5a
1026010 F20101208_AABPTA quigley_t_Page_126.jp2
5e9f75c95dfe201f5d0b3c8aa3b8b2ab
a36c91da02d0e7e4fc38ab98525e4078f60cb693
1051968 F20101208_AABPSN quigley_t_Page_111.jp2
06fcd3f1ef15e6d739a946790a303ea1
f641044e8a5fc61ea1ea0224e1f654bddb33fbf4
973322 F20101208_AABPRY quigley_t_Page_096.jp2
2a45dc24a73425e5d35993f03d4723e3
df67bd86350ae03da0f1a95231fdd4605318f15a
588089 F20101208_AABPTB quigley_t_Page_127.jp2
1069587244e8664efe2d92aa3651d31f
b604fa454490bfe4a55ef70940b535dea76ca5b8
936071 F20101208_AABPSO quigley_t_Page_112.jp2
a21935acd3a83dcbbda238b544ff1884
7b44689b77a40813d00bd541d3f07d7692083970
1051935 F20101208_AABPRZ quigley_t_Page_097.jp2
14184ea9d6196cb3283d017d42f7d891
e923b495f2969dddb62f730a7398493efda7c65d
F20101208_AABPTC quigley_t_Page_128.jp2
463899d9c32e0e38dfface0e5442d9f1
e03bb00aab785af7d6389d05b5cb61356f0dfb35
536873 F20101208_AABPSP quigley_t_Page_113.jp2
cf0250216d5013163204b2282a505bf5
4b3b503c49887a848a0f0a70874cb07ec4d43144
F20101208_AABPTD quigley_t_Page_129.jp2
b9b1ad31ad57384bf209f962897c256d
6537a107f7f155c1b827d482bca614fd338daace
1051961 F20101208_AABPSQ quigley_t_Page_114.jp2
f2844352cea5716c755978b5ce936371
a2129552953ee6d9b6379074bded8374a277f4b7
F20101208_AABPTE quigley_t_Page_130.jp2
52917dcf436f12ab970d483741be22af
8ca716736c87f72db8c0816bd3fb92bcdf303beb
F20101208_AABPTF quigley_t_Page_131.jp2
2cff3f8bb0826007480f44d23c2ef602
9ba0fcde4204473281115a50d138c7aee0c680fb
1051963 F20101208_AABPTG quigley_t_Page_132.jp2
ebfaa39d094d5b0f790bf0e1b71b6d4b
bbd70a8efc4b67e9ce0b49dbdb762ef4e5bd1281
F20101208_AABPSR quigley_t_Page_115.jp2
95ad58374593ca0393de46fc66131d2d
2680055de2e8afc8e6fb475d944c7978d7fd218f
1051936 F20101208_AABPTH quigley_t_Page_133.jp2
496c6409a1957ba14bf73c89e9a6abc4
aa5b940a323504a991705eccf65359be2c4e7511
1051966 F20101208_AABPSS quigley_t_Page_116.jp2
e3ab3ed934c48691cfd9b1449e593153
ed57cd6bae2129cbaee41a1628e74d9451dd0e23
F20101208_AABPTI quigley_t_Page_134.jp2
7999167943804f962881e0c7f755cb5b
0cbb1f8831d0de948a4093cac94fcbe264fce6f5
487947 F20101208_AABPST quigley_t_Page_117.jp2
570c3aa2a170c9e4ecd39a8deafd97b4
b43b9f90432b25d3528ab9caae3d83a08ddd65e5
1051887 F20101208_AABPTJ quigley_t_Page_136.jp2
33bd9be0d572814cec6b121132e84064
7ec3f49bfa1e712e335989946712484504bc4150
F20101208_AABPSU quigley_t_Page_119.jp2
004f5db5ff91182d5b3c422cf0117c39
2ca68ae001b7d7b1171646ab7b17f2a0292a78d9
1051977 F20101208_AABPTK quigley_t_Page_137.jp2
d899db0b39b7cb05142c60a8e841af39
f49563d81e6ce83f7b272179f36ea1bbc8f8d544
1051908 F20101208_AABPSV quigley_t_Page_120.jp2
f9713828def6752cc003d9fdb093e1df
83617a965048c7a418f487ae3603780f8850b4a6
F20101208_AABPTL quigley_t_Page_138.jp2
574ec306911cb5ba02abce1674b56109
8aa95753c83ebd95ebcff412f4bf5bb50d156acd
1044656 F20101208_AABPSW quigley_t_Page_121.jp2
d4e9a95845bc51ffd3f99b2b6bcdcccf
7392df881c250c4429ae9a35d0830962bbe16338
F20101208_AABPUA quigley_t_Page_012.tif
b2f0a6152be7dd56a4e48ff87d91a966
c026b80c95aafe92ae900fc2aeb0e4271084b502
F20101208_AABPTM quigley_t_Page_140.jp2
2c461d5f9b0b7eefe3e7c6618d358b68
382d2ed49bfbf2beae336b5072364bf9781e5a6a
452560 F20101208_AABPSX quigley_t_Page_122.jp2
7f5fc453f61d642e57f960d1b26b0e61
1a39884b6cf5a5c204bec5a8365d862f996efa32
F20101208_AABPUB quigley_t_Page_013.tif
9cdf6d345ac3ddda0387da6f277134f5
7210ff0d185d71199647511ff7a96de3cec94a39
145981 F20101208_AABPTN quigley_t_Page_141.jp2
e73dea3dd6a43c86e4e3814f48b46375
184d44bab36f303428a71543c2668a25b3e2e384
1051879 F20101208_AABPSY quigley_t_Page_123.jp2
79a44275520fc19adba3a5ba8b90834b
7cc6c9fc5826365af7d717526b24a4a4e5a94ea8
F20101208_AABPUC quigley_t_Page_014.tif
7b1edc953d7db5e6667558ed897e3bc8
a28a84d4b2f8939a30105335e7e13c2fabe6678b
13725 F20101208_AABPTO quigley_t_Page_142.jp2
5570b949ccaf3c4502ebaf3ce6f1c9f8
0901f5eac0fcea400eaec82fe2d52810344b97eb
F20101208_AABPSZ quigley_t_Page_124.jp2
1cd2f0fff0e68baa74c95cca9c4db243
1702dc21031e4d00876a339b35075e0b8ef84ad8
F20101208_AABPUD quigley_t_Page_015.tif
295e5fd32d4c37dd3f36309f1ab03bc4
7b71075632bf3432cbe28fac95417586eea3eee6
66587 F20101208_AABPTP quigley_t_Page_143.jp2
b4d6816dbd79ec3fea4e8b1131399c11
fb5436e31e8f79943d92bdfe141e16f04dce87ba
F20101208_AABPUE quigley_t_Page_016.tif
cb7641a3d9312639270681a5e0d06ffd
f2ab742c3e0cd78ce28d6c6febb27cf9704d81c1
F20101208_AABPTQ quigley_t_Page_001.tif
a7f3fbb03ca077b170178ceb22e6ca27
c4545170601caaf57271d0c7e294df497789aef8
F20101208_AABPUF quigley_t_Page_017.tif
6a92793a1c4044c8ac399889966c0dd9
4248315c1b63e6f2000f950cb7cb363f7b67090b
F20101208_AABPTR quigley_t_Page_002.tif
9c51031b8b6a5909a962440b4050cb02
a1117992d438eac00aaa123c81a2d2a53186bec7
F20101208_AABPUG quigley_t_Page_019.tif
bf8bb07e01a399bf714d4648ab79f850
2a20c6eb6ddeef2885f77a7fb2ceb1c15117e376
49135 F20101208_AABQAA quigley_t_Page_033.pro
4a5d67ceee8a8796cd0b8b812d89053f
53dd96c2e86dde583de9bc070c09989a8c1df920
F20101208_AABPUH quigley_t_Page_020.tif
c25d3b155bc584c5419aac7b783811f7
18178adb68bbd2478bc70839571d4240fd041ad8
F20101208_AABPTS quigley_t_Page_003.tif
0bd1f588fc12e76a5d37cbe6ac23a615
56f22715cf83dd88f1e4fe75ea1cc9e36052d1a4
53993 F20101208_AABQAB quigley_t_Page_035.pro
2bc82aaafe63e84210b91ec0db104df0
b9ac135bd28fcbe1cd189cd10fbb88106e1fd546
F20101208_AABPUI quigley_t_Page_021.tif
8f68976db2dacb720dd24f15c1e27363
015b1f0a8de532b8ebd5093d0a011e42eefabb9d
F20101208_AABPTT quigley_t_Page_004.tif
cc2422115bcea065db1502940431448c
f927be15971fd5fffdc1f4c5a943715e51ba236a
55129 F20101208_AABQAC quigley_t_Page_036.pro
967c9d2d237202d71866ae141a31a4e2
9b04d6012e1d43722a132d447eac57e974a1f894
F20101208_AABPUJ quigley_t_Page_022.tif
c3ba59f28dd33edf22becf81e70a8ee7
c8fce53a1315cdbf364aac527239d6f74c7a63bc
F20101208_AABPTU quigley_t_Page_006.tif
2339c19bf96febcb7c374903709e9ceb
6333896ff15c8659172a2d513a6778440cbe80c8
55371 F20101208_AABQAD quigley_t_Page_037.pro
60d3f0330f274fa2f9984ef483623c0e
40bf78ef7b77cff1481da45a568b283cf65309b2
F20101208_AABPUK quigley_t_Page_023.tif
4727e8081770c67f3e879e94663b4209
673a0f6f728941657aa0b7efadc854d157710a63
F20101208_AABPTV quigley_t_Page_007.tif
25448b5e9c90e6e12cc1dff6474f1b71
108c4c9d5123e42ef4838beb79dc83b78d66a036
54756 F20101208_AABQAE quigley_t_Page_038.pro
a1f70d9932f5a2f70342b614b76acd0f
8b31d050524d250f517078b68cf1bada91e94039
F20101208_AABPUL quigley_t_Page_024.tif
caf272274b4f9c8741298eae35b6752b
5100d7976813d5ac08444bd67a48978a4314fa46
F20101208_AABPTW quigley_t_Page_008.tif
4c05b2cf1f8b599bc14d07f80984be48
9a770d9a424156bd0b389086072d6280595c9a53
48212 F20101208_AABQAF quigley_t_Page_039.pro
3afb5bc17e4e5366fad5af3bb41e1632
27860452eb52c9e1f559ba1de55fc06f8b1c7232
F20101208_AABPUM quigley_t_Page_025.tif
948b9f193f5e91b791587bebb7d3cfdb
5b095633439935e8cf5f1611b01ac8c3cb2449a6
F20101208_AABPTX quigley_t_Page_009.tif
dcb2ca99d77433ad831d57ec712b8366
5587ce28286d07e8fc3b88a73cf8defe1125e841
56111 F20101208_AABQAG quigley_t_Page_040.pro
96d6c4712aa6c8b4f524a2b653091d16
e4e1bc501e5b4c078a6bbc3b7ee1c9406990b712
F20101208_AABPVA quigley_t_Page_039.tif
9e8c67f0bce473cc0ffbb8fdd755a884
ea51f3e048c9f3f94337ff127c0ded93a23ca55d
F20101208_AABPUN quigley_t_Page_026.tif
0e48794768e6bc9835010a96e3ac453b
6ccbd60cc8f69066120a4ebc8879def3b87b5737
F20101208_AABPTY quigley_t_Page_010.tif
c96ebd9e9f29b6600e87773759ba09a7
acd38815af99f9dc83aa8d1f377802f0a887b449
55478 F20101208_AABQAH quigley_t_Page_041.pro
370bb4b47d5d10efb4d3d30108426fb6
2c2a2f8b33c87861eb3373c2e6ac155fc52e46e1
F20101208_AABPVB quigley_t_Page_040.tif
422569d239ac9f9545033fec8862b475
1ed55f69972933b8dc6637c7b4c9a54d74a30e48
F20101208_AABPUO quigley_t_Page_027.tif
9e4b0a37f0ebb111da282d7624fea98e
b01e488f0c19b9c9e7b7e210f0e09c703c2d70a0
F20101208_AABPTZ quigley_t_Page_011.tif
5a5ca061cd71f7bba18f76d4fd359780
a1718f57400541b8ce28e386ab3a421fdf8f3bd7
57415 F20101208_AABQAI quigley_t_Page_042.pro
5a5922edc06718f236b06c69608b6890
55cdf09ab51401ccd7e00647c72c5d51023a23c1
F20101208_AABPVC quigley_t_Page_041.tif
b82eb46bf83b5648185d4778b81c5431
9a02e121925e76d3f5192e372d64472f8d9eef42
F20101208_AABPUP quigley_t_Page_028.tif
ce80014868ea745ebef47e85050095fa
d172bdc22eb0a1ecab0923969720920fdae398ea
56565 F20101208_AABQAJ quigley_t_Page_043.pro
6c79f0231e83bd2293ca0e90baf8e08a
0ed0d29fe6b9c8f2097cc80184549e87fdddbca6
F20101208_AABPVD quigley_t_Page_042.tif
3f6f1e690d63fc18f3f48dd53bce3ebb
477260139f9ab147b2621c30d00d3e2b918b09c7
F20101208_AABPUQ quigley_t_Page_029.tif
b4a7c504d6e923b4d98a73e762354b15
7f6b6952fe1f1e701eae2d681c05734d58b196f0
47846 F20101208_AABQAK quigley_t_Page_044.pro
2acbfbdb6e32a31318a60ecf2185e820
60f42f0a2fd6343883dfc4d07ae61c120e1a8cef
F20101208_AABPVE quigley_t_Page_043.tif
f2c0870fe945ba161c749147f987254f
b8d5d21843b7a9e8f2fcfd2dc37e702b6f45cee1
F20101208_AABPUR quigley_t_Page_030.tif
540448bb345273715e453674315f4510
cee53e2a0e365b0d86c798da7cc18ee0b84cd9fa
40893 F20101208_AABQAL quigley_t_Page_045.pro
d53f7d2cddd240b79f9874aea968c7b2
b5402c58253e36bd00817f897bf8978489c8cd17
F20101208_AABPVF quigley_t_Page_045.tif
0a07b86d9bcfe2c7686c3a6e201efa60
afe87d58cd6daf43099bcf132dc1159dd0e70b71
F20101208_AABPUS quigley_t_Page_031.tif
880c400e825d1aded747f7a94e29d2ad
5c784dce4148031e681f43bc7dcbf91ea8cb868e
56276 F20101208_AABQBA quigley_t_Page_061.pro
7b29da174915c057f8415912cdebc167
45f5e47342f757feeea2c91351bf0130c4ae2aa6
16867 F20101208_AABQAM quigley_t_Page_046.pro
71a975416fafe5f31f3922bd051081e6
95c5786f1e627f57a07604a137c050420fc8cf2b
F20101208_AABPVG quigley_t_Page_048.tif
fa2a2bd9d31f9d1c0b6025eae44247a1
88b1da464a95f1a20fae162292a407f5a6f86071
53716 F20101208_AABQBB quigley_t_Page_062.pro
eb2fdb13533dd4ceaec83639db928563
8fcdc2ebadff05fa3390892a87ef3be1cf8f1ef7
14930 F20101208_AABQAN quigley_t_Page_047.pro
0da30a0c033518ecf2ac2c1ac8e402c7
be6a006ef85740cbab9f1d06f21ec261ecc9f8ed
F20101208_AABPVH quigley_t_Page_049.tif
1e9ab60badda36daf40a42754a6af372
f55ef6744e03694a019abccbb19bbed8ffc5ff65
F20101208_AABPUT quigley_t_Page_032.tif
49e70535a173c8315bf3c2bdd79dd0c8
5309af46fc2af0b88579e0d92a3e8e398bfceebf
50956 F20101208_AABQBC quigley_t_Page_063.pro
107ee06dd1b8a12bf220b6ce2098030e
76e05b9f2d270a04afdd9cec08e5469d762e4924
4191 F20101208_AABQAO quigley_t_Page_048.pro
528d6fa422a31f9d6ae497cdd9afb7be
278ba654ba7396cb20c4ca8895f555e368907746
F20101208_AABPVI quigley_t_Page_050.tif
76107b066076d4617a177827cdce02cd
60db6b6da6fcfe7c8e62bddbbf4f51592ad18788
F20101208_AABPUU quigley_t_Page_033.tif
d30b5f42fb7a97a20a2a511a1757169d
b886923831698aca04100b6c385710a0b2adc6e2
50031 F20101208_AABQBD quigley_t_Page_064.pro
b661d4af876a6254ee78c6cff2fa6bc0
9539d190f14f639e1236a349d513f4b71610a1a2
12032 F20101208_AABQAP quigley_t_Page_049.pro
9506949caa95aef00e296e88d556cf1e
b0ca8cd8ada479c3b06d9f8bb6b2370f3b9182c0
F20101208_AABPVJ quigley_t_Page_051.tif
c4df2c684983bc06fbb7b8ae582c87f1
5bf2076f29b791cc325325a8a07ebe1e8596d53c
F20101208_AABPUV quigley_t_Page_034.tif
3905fd506d994c64a1f318aae527239c
54b65ab52e206486928daa65956075495a383712
56341 F20101208_AABQBE quigley_t_Page_065.pro
d4c1c816c5d65fd80e6fa6bab0a07572
b495e7b852a18e577d6a189213a5ca13e49e06cc
12537 F20101208_AABQAQ quigley_t_Page_050.pro
92de3db0b73818b7188a8816437c5690
e30a6d10b9d8c0e6f5eead7d14cab0642e82ee45
F20101208_AABPVK quigley_t_Page_052.tif
00eaea7366762864032fccd427cc1746
7703e2edaabdf4907cf9d714684699f5d2d72483
F20101208_AABPUW quigley_t_Page_035.tif
12efe4d4e0de01d3e7f2ef0a694cf9d8
8726f956aa3f2b3e562c7db5a7c8d53be6f918ef
54325 F20101208_AABQBF quigley_t_Page_066.pro
b9234b56f7651a6bbac734129b7b2228
ea7bd824b2608c81e7c4687ed8105e0271af5917
17738 F20101208_AABQAR quigley_t_Page_051.pro
a89bbd6259a11898785be823399e9f61
b1c8b2026dbb60685befd0cd012c4397e5b9bb92
F20101208_AABPVL quigley_t_Page_053.tif
2e65ff87393779f455a1783d0646018e
32ac60c1fdabe34d36ded4c4179b5f549f7d8fd4
F20101208_AABPUX quigley_t_Page_036.tif
6652bb34d3fe6534f619b1a92f194aee
f4adc50d78a43b019f1c373626897bd429162566
55637 F20101208_AABQBG quigley_t_Page_067.pro
f345a9d2488f4495e40379737b933492
42a6cf2ff9371fdebfe4966b456a92469337d807
F20101208_AABPWA quigley_t_Page_068.tif
8b4c896a902df76b0b499ee2a820edc2
9d0c7ce6a3397776fe440f840f39ee07bbcc2520
15849 F20101208_AABQAS quigley_t_Page_052.pro
544cebfe198b28d984247f109221b01e
99e0c80f0c75f114b9df3382d085e37f34a80054
F20101208_AABPVM quigley_t_Page_054.tif
bad2449930744ce1e8fdaa452cd10f0e
74cfadfd49f7e3a2b8872293457478cc9902cddd
F20101208_AABPUY quigley_t_Page_037.tif
08b0deb70a2fca27490976dcc8b1b552
d6a146a325fc18eed0efabe79f50bb55ee940c7b
56762 F20101208_AABQBH quigley_t_Page_068.pro
8fda760eed2ff22b5868aaeab4c07bea
6d9e8911e072318a6d48701689bc2866dbfb3a28
F20101208_AABPWB quigley_t_Page_069.tif
367d30030925b20fb535e0025adb4c2d
c34a56a0ce2d85a1469b52bf1ec6ca5d36220526
51279 F20101208_AABQAT quigley_t_Page_053.pro
e77087797d18ff8c031f01502c82a0b1
a702a9ccdd6117ee3a0818f9b893118df7817b0e
F20101208_AABPVN quigley_t_Page_055.tif
77f8809b04c44ee72483a5ae728bf8a3
44e8ea1e6b8b43b39ff187e42a6db6a56e397930
F20101208_AABPUZ quigley_t_Page_038.tif
3b4419532ee6955dc495564788d1237b
b8b4a5055f59f49ab7278c31a0da9941b1cab6c8
53943 F20101208_AABQBI quigley_t_Page_069.pro
e09fca8c02cbe265668dd240875cdc92
0a351f33ce7098ce139aa4d6f0bd51f0e09c0034
F20101208_AABPWC quigley_t_Page_070.tif
ba38f4c06bb530a1c3f3a0e9ce77cc88
740495443a9bdc83ddb1842d9b0467a4fcf8311d
52482 F20101208_AABQAU quigley_t_Page_054.pro
ad27fedb9be502baf9f2c915796bd374
aabad80ee33b6b5ced9d34c571a0abc2ff8032bb
F20101208_AABPVO quigley_t_Page_056.tif
077e72cb66b506e21adec232d144a50a
7678636079a94ec997bd72e9c2ab2434a94487d2
56874 F20101208_AABQBJ quigley_t_Page_070.pro
bb43044953368ce3d7a05ae2e80951f2
93c5e87cb2d175888f1832a8985d516288b4df78
F20101208_AABPWD quigley_t_Page_071.tif
f60eb237ddd1a8b46a8323a15450506b
095006c0987210c1bccf216af6fce9f5c3b069eb
53204 F20101208_AABQAV quigley_t_Page_055.pro
29a04af456b985bc411a75694a4eea74
3e1ec92a62afe53e5fa7ce093bf5f8f03dc4c670
F20101208_AABPVP quigley_t_Page_057.tif
84dc09f8b6dd51ededf244abebdb13fb
b6cd4e86bbaa29dcc120aaef6e400fd1183c2ed0
56125 F20101208_AABQBK quigley_t_Page_071.pro
8839a74c808d195fe70a469dd8e5a1d7
c98a16c7b0cc435fb4e3d1295056131dadd47281
F20101208_AABPWE quigley_t_Page_072.tif
6c83a72372ada37a3f733515df7b638f
a3f489dc93e688b8200dd3d83eabd6fe8d327414
55221 F20101208_AABQAW quigley_t_Page_056.pro
557b5b5a368a06d87970e18838da9af2
61ea88cd7df50950e49934ec9155d22003a8c782
F20101208_AABPVQ quigley_t_Page_058.tif
68847c1a8486a3e789209de6f4f0fd13
701d62a4d9a0f9867499e624d19d8e06c92a94eb
52856 F20101208_AABQBL quigley_t_Page_072.pro
5158b5099aab101e3c62bcd236eafbd0
d5037f0ce37e04faf3d6af45eac5c0dab69493fe
F20101208_AABPWF quigley_t_Page_073.tif
2daf0ec3fe3bc467446205da9fe61028
f0688ca2c4569c66603c1a6a61fa4eec9803e71e
53145 F20101208_AABQAX quigley_t_Page_057.pro
29dadd97f246ce75bf47cb9cb8232065
84c109d9cd904e8dea370ca48d7f23c60436d462
F20101208_AABPVR quigley_t_Page_059.tif
fbad657198fb88fdf558593675e4d287
9fe716014ece52889412de1e91f4ec504cc37ab3
42043 F20101208_AABQBM quigley_t_Page_073.pro
d73832d34a6968b20ebee9b05de24501
c3afd3f629b7261edba32d455e144b207ab45a96
F20101208_AABPWG quigley_t_Page_074.tif
3953bc5d0a2214bb700f17b6db66c97e
4fd5545641fbc3a9e2b83aac27cad31cf926e870
53187 F20101208_AABQAY quigley_t_Page_058.pro
0b481c3bf299a7fd7a2843ce75919107
cc4bd3633f4fdac8e6962fc2f42a95af69491da0
F20101208_AABPVS quigley_t_Page_060.tif
6d8701f7e62019312d5dbe049fe131b5
10009a05cc37a977eaae96ea037876aa8357641c
9218 F20101208_AABQCA quigley_t_Page_088.pro
6702ffaa758b6f21d1a176e51e549ded
c9d8038e5e09adc4f33c70aaaf474a9817d7a4db
7514 F20101208_AABQBN quigley_t_Page_074.pro
4aab54c1bdc8b0312a7a37bd8812879b
8df62fac5fbd03a93443dfc1365177f1b769c8a5
F20101208_AABPWH quigley_t_Page_075.tif
029e86a18c426a304477e1db86a2b562
3febc3cff6bb755bdffbf608270b114676137281
51483 F20101208_AABQAZ quigley_t_Page_060.pro
d2c6019b02a0f91e02820a95f6d1e518
925ec3fd64248cc26a10026a48b400ad08ab5af4
F20101208_AABPVT quigley_t_Page_061.tif
0038717fc24bdb6e3ddbd8756d116da3
0fb1dfb81e72ab701ff3185353ccebcf21d6b5b6
13948 F20101208_AABQCB quigley_t_Page_089.pro
51243399bc9b0b2e400181b9b55fb138
effdb36496d1396634d2da8fc40a37ba0e55043c
12877 F20101208_AABQBO quigley_t_Page_075.pro
a0f86baabd84388786ccf603a44a14b7
65f67a6be6093661b0beff2c3aa7b271f2899c3d
F20101208_AABPWI quigley_t_Page_076.tif
d4b20af89275d84c1c4cc4d1f099149d
49f77743e0d16a8aa80466b893f5cfa22e196c91
11228 F20101208_AABQCC quigley_t_Page_091.pro
cf00c004043dc49c2cd85e12ea21ffb3
6a082813b34c0c4c1f5d01b4deb5929a81d02785
9713 F20101208_AABQBP quigley_t_Page_076.pro
fa7e5c2d704a69808907426a2c7b3a4e
0a96f0baeb285bf192717ab908aa2ee3834e8cd3
F20101208_AABPWJ quigley_t_Page_077.tif
785c7bb3bec377722b8280dc9ae97e01
8c9a48180d3668450fbc2a53337d493fd84b1feb
F20101208_AABPVU quigley_t_Page_062.tif
d53626e45e6f1c01f8a52d2a042cbe95
66e6e9e0cf8a95ee7f34658f4c7d0629584a8375
14717 F20101208_AABQCD quigley_t_Page_092.pro
55133faf62e69d951f7764b1b6487bc7
699f8ebbdc386d304ace0408c35be480e62dd407
14508 F20101208_AABQBQ quigley_t_Page_077.pro
b305f05c6c5791ee1136807b30d40ce8
e9459e4ca4f34726cb99035b2772df8d6ebcfd35
F20101208_AABPWK quigley_t_Page_078.tif
3cd0d6c09b0934a2233b86dc1037bb3a
c6a5aac3e47c68f17741f28c429ed3601a142a7a
F20101208_AABPVV quigley_t_Page_063.tif
d55a0cf8ec72a666e00faab69d6e470d
9f73b1b889e4b3d7dac77c6a626ec83d01f13b91
9980 F20101208_AABQCE quigley_t_Page_093.pro
2ff0adf9e3425b502928bef2527f769f
32214ec846777d9e8f521d14a16e7d032df1656b
13623 F20101208_AABQBR quigley_t_Page_078.pro
059e6ee494481f454208dfdc93d93610
ad86159fa1ade6f1530f0303d6f449aca6a2dd43
F20101208_AABPWL quigley_t_Page_079.tif
8dd325980258f13cc24e11113e9a082f
a415495753add46c0ab6154347b91aa7fb48e1e2
F20101208_AABPVW quigley_t_Page_064.tif
889ea5be682aee35c3b299cb8d4a6fcc
01d4c504acba01d8289e2454c0e51b54e385b1eb
11698 F20101208_AABQCF quigley_t_Page_094.pro
0fde0f8c0a6ef4094829be024baf899b
4341c8d3b354a40e0d9357798fbec56b0eebe2b0
F20101208_AABPXA quigley_t_Page_094.tif
c15164944db11a1211eba98c442f972e
ea78283cc6f7c6b26042ab8956674f95e5519bd8
23251 F20101208_AABQBS quigley_t_Page_080.pro
85048591d87ce23b4f23866f8f311d7f
476fff77e458ed97051881b3ef84f9117d596f08
F20101208_AABPWM quigley_t_Page_080.tif
fbe76745dce356bad60cded5e4e2c7af
9476d72f6824e7869acaeebce59319832fd0814c
F20101208_AABPVX quigley_t_Page_065.tif
15f3a4108c2306f36a8ef1d61ebf40f1
4f42e20d5bd3bef036fb9efa1bb13fa0e0c5ca7e
8316 F20101208_AABQCG quigley_t_Page_095.pro
6fc28a61096b0e5efeab1be9246c11cf
a66fc41adf798ed0c63874c6abc9206128d49f1c
F20101208_AABPXB quigley_t_Page_095.tif
fbc84280a5df12e0b5f600550daabdec
34137daf83ab8b2d527b1941e5e218ed642a3e3d
15372 F20101208_AABQBT quigley_t_Page_081.pro
117cd2cda617ac1fbe65801dd219e170
b7d13380988ff83c84df1d0d296b9be8882be504
F20101208_AABPWN quigley_t_Page_081.tif
848b7efa8356f7163f389c55fbef37eb
dbd7006d40ef016b09f4b9bcd0a4aea634e1f68c
F20101208_AABPVY quigley_t_Page_066.tif
3c31877bb27ddee07c1fd8c0c2cfd6cb
22da48bd267c92520a474622d0ec77d94e52ecff
4699 F20101208_AABQCH quigley_t_Page_096.pro
31a6e4fcbd1b79a3d54273ede7c27955
90cf6c768d4ba3ed2ce58a2f7fbb95e59cc3abb9
F20101208_AABPXC quigley_t_Page_096.tif
e5c90bb9a41095a82a336208433a32ec
0c8a356f0a3ab3b95e171f064d3320ea8b8d76d0
58282 F20101208_AABQBU quigley_t_Page_082.pro
1d64aac4a734dbed02d7ab6165d8e113
ffe430d8ca0612d105e3d5dd86f28930e5b1eb6c
F20101208_AABPWO quigley_t_Page_082.tif
c6d3e82d3dfd7d690350e5cf7dc7a783
9f086362891b9c4bced4d420454843d9c61c7e2f
F20101208_AABPVZ quigley_t_Page_067.tif
132a5c64ca2e318412d6d451fe41f457
1b4f4684f815f603832401546d794b6f90996938
9673 F20101208_AABQCI quigley_t_Page_097.pro
08a25384025fab210c76425f9d521aae
0a42bb358f2b73c85241ad3dd7e770190e087158
F20101208_AABPXD quigley_t_Page_097.tif
7fb37111ba36a3c186086cc6a327d995
6c37d987081d710986fc749ff5243476aa7d4402
78052 F20101208_AABQBV quigley_t_Page_083.pro
86e39dba66bb8a0cbb80407f2d5878c5
b25f6b5cf31b4deb20e4d7c3847c9802422df0e5
F20101208_AABPWP quigley_t_Page_083.tif
9cba2c43097e39f0d6a59e4a084f6fca
9e1f25899047fc5bcc193c437f7097108ad8f968
6953 F20101208_AABQCJ quigley_t_Page_098.pro
45c92cb564a584d5a7aa0ac9f090bcc3
e95331d61e413f1120715d4f33aef391b685982a
F20101208_AABPXE quigley_t_Page_098.tif
abb2efa94488410d9a4a373b063de523
8471f00769e039f1e146173a4dc696007038f9b4
55166 F20101208_AABQBW quigley_t_Page_084.pro
467336ca031ef792ca02c3d6893290fd
2f85a8141d3b363a1fe31b507821fa23aea44262
F20101208_AABPWQ quigley_t_Page_084.tif
e97833dc5882fdce2781f6864c6875ae
78baef6f02b50d1a410a14c36ad4b9ef8f1e079a
30846 F20101208_AABQCK quigley_t_Page_099.pro
23e00749b0d4732631ece97b5be0e825
668161c9f93db2473a6fae6f4bee7da43e72bf24
F20101208_AABPXF quigley_t_Page_099.tif
a8b7028fd31f37427aa48ee3fe628e6e
c56f01514cf20a2c5dd8e0553a2255276fc7d143
3345 F20101208_AABQBX quigley_t_Page_085.pro
04f9fce8e136485697a540d3f7c8c1c1
eda8d1f7388b807708157109ed3b7c782be4c787
F20101208_AABPWR quigley_t_Page_085.tif
52099101157dc2627847d175f6e8e249
24df9b9e525107f0f59015de3759bd0fdff40163
15407 F20101208_AABQDA quigley_t_Page_115.pro
1f6ba226dc3b68d2e190abe5d041ce67
0afc321ef0f1958ca4c2a82c5ece6221262d2e64
33600 F20101208_AABQCL quigley_t_Page_100.pro
06a4b1bc775513744fd4e468527c1774
645907e38e0f8a2e9b2f477a873e1a37ee25603c
F20101208_AABPXG quigley_t_Page_100.tif
fd2a589b799ac5116de080ba9c1d39b7
c3bf781889354c3a607699638110a8b250b34d6f
14652 F20101208_AABQBY quigley_t_Page_086.pro
8fc4d3d69d14f161d9dcd46ab7c96d99
66a48c07d35977dbeb482779bef7ba1fe8f78f44
F20101208_AABPWS quigley_t_Page_086.tif
686e4a4c73202376120901fcafc53a70
c936e0305227972cd563e403d2bda76a4cbbb3de
11599 F20101208_AABQCM quigley_t_Page_101.pro
11e5775cf08227959448f296bca72cf3
d8d7bd04d5fa7b6e74eb66dcaa9334ee63f96b24
F20101208_AABPXH quigley_t_Page_101.tif
7aac678c3af098c51394c77100f973e9
77079e230083b0fb2c0a8bb54281466ee96f136f
16962 F20101208_AABQBZ quigley_t_Page_087.pro
9aa4575e46d8d1c6a1cd13454556bb90
854a14a337b09b0c6fc7b3d963e3234142a5970e
F20101208_AABPWT quigley_t_Page_087.tif
fff1f592444f5a0645b7f7b510e3e652
1985c1d985388dccf1eaaa0908f30427b28aea09
20103 F20101208_AABQDB quigley_t_Page_116.pro
ab61d571dd04a0c0d193fde90f308ac5
58ff0b516b3100a84bfd3954d48275791b0b2f41
3859 F20101208_AABQCN quigley_t_Page_102.pro
2e2435c4583ba4c979d448f1cd51cda3
3b82d65840092fe088524858b756e0294868ef3d
F20101208_AABPXI quigley_t_Page_102.tif
171cfb259c8b59c1b8057855a6ba9b6e
7cd0992f8ddad345cd2a7dcb491b1d9b8165ab3b
F20101208_AABPWU quigley_t_Page_088.tif
04cbeb0ba1b66f6e4db83338a3d3a932
fb11732fe866d08cb7cc618d322f131aa077f8c0
F20101208_AABQDC quigley_t_Page_117.pro
6cf2b7d2fa9822448769a4b1c98a8ee4
1753e47661f46bc4251c222cea8e241b110a3153
14932 F20101208_AABQCO quigley_t_Page_103.pro
005e527ee48019bb48de3f93afd015f9
a12f9caa486cefde88ee2534073e83a8d7e017dc
F20101208_AABPXJ quigley_t_Page_103.tif
bf423e02df3881fa5ca2fd04c32b49b6
6aee86bfc38c4b96534d3a554d61c5609c5650c0
2833 F20101208_AABQDD quigley_t_Page_118.pro
6b0ae8bbc96e3a2ae86a201f2eebf94b
91ad0b003a32c4ecfaba9168c3b1bb2ad2f6ccfa
17772 F20101208_AABQCP quigley_t_Page_104.pro
c111563c08c7ebf9ee75508c5e0f1333
bb0edb79eee5974a2f5a5fe963da2d1aa8463c8f
F20101208_AABPXK quigley_t_Page_104.tif
ce0a295a856e9c02da52f74ad0e945cc
f74d518e6d79b811b8f03c3512bedcbe5ee40fa2
F20101208_AABPWV quigley_t_Page_089.tif
1e56326794f9e537a3ae929551000902
bc766ae24a4a590fb8937ad4788a759da346802f
23977 F20101208_AABQDE quigley_t_Page_119.pro
2931548976e70b3851a5e6900e96c2e8
5ac107e388733ad2dcbffbdeffacdfd5b0303a67
35418 F20101208_AABQCQ quigley_t_Page_105.pro
0908e924846d397a142ce2973ead0bbe
29afd4c5edfa9c3aae306233f1d5d10766d3f2e7
F20101208_AABPXL quigley_t_Page_105.tif
e2e0c640223e0e700165eaaac5d80d83
488ad23e0c49f114f8bd6453a0904769c6d9b035
F20101208_AABPWW quigley_t_Page_090.tif
ef88582b5037818f6542058b5f671378
d07fb5b471153fa96682e0c96b54bbc9905a4237
34400 F20101208_AABQDF quigley_t_Page_120.pro
c91a6f364669f7c6740c245f4568014c
864b99b27e5c9493c309247986477ae301554a83
12931 F20101208_AABQCR quigley_t_Page_106.pro
bcb79b002e7ac9fb1814ad46e3c771e2
cf86846dd6e68e3d4c0a49cde2395ad19407ef79
F20101208_AABPXM quigley_t_Page_107.tif
5f4d558cddbb316ab7129546726bdaaf
fd13cf1270720e066040dd11d62676a2810a2d9d
F20101208_AABPWX quigley_t_Page_091.tif
7ab5a82c5bfe926db2b56af372841887
5dda465722cc5aa53cb23958866f0eb755d522d6
30424 F20101208_AABQDG quigley_t_Page_121.pro
14b8b5495c5da1149d7bcea84120b059
90951a02a1c32c7a66171e08a73eafbdd857863f
F20101208_AABPYA quigley_t_Page_121.tif
b5fc0a8e54ef55860883ad769b9451f2
f48ad7daa614dd90a7aae20f095ad1e99b3a74c5
33707 F20101208_AABQCS quigley_t_Page_107.pro
80c14478e5b60c39e5957c011351e833
3bc4918c0289533401f77799cedd8a84039d2f8e
F20101208_AABPXN quigley_t_Page_108.tif
b332bb215a197a504210a2d0d0dcf4d0
859bb7bd97923632a568cc256e90be24edc94880
F20101208_AABPWY quigley_t_Page_092.tif
caaa483bd3dc9ac7d6ec521d601bb245
cfe6e5860e8f24159cfe7842d44eaf9497f6d2c2
17690 F20101208_AABQDH quigley_t_Page_122.pro
9a80558c8d597387e708d4c1078e6b75
acc046525c844c900b66a2cfb7058d2f415d93f2
F20101208_AABPYB quigley_t_Page_122.tif
4cfcb45706c0051430957a4161de5df5
28c0970aa2111658a8662c680375ff1eb2e5f627
25152 F20101208_AABQCT quigley_t_Page_108.pro
28e6e6a12266902fe7905719b0ef86b4
5f0bf962230f8b79fac7bc954d83fd13d1a7f6b0
F20101208_AABPWZ quigley_t_Page_093.tif
5f02b4c60b11c0d2ee01873b6483c31c
18d492442017bc3210e158eeeac8bff6152c8fc4
9643 F20101208_AABQDI quigley_t_Page_123.pro
6833dd568a71db10689df89b76df8b02
537471e4cd26bcefd62f6e62ed327dafb895c2bd
F20101208_AABPYC quigley_t_Page_123.tif
f4894ff54cbeeaa0ebe81761439a69f0
c92200b99e05afceeb38312dba0ee16611e8e38c
22571 F20101208_AABQCU quigley_t_Page_109.pro
993d675502c2eb7ca6669607c9ed6ba1
88e0bf4186bdbf3f78e66637c4498db961f42342
F20101208_AABPXO quigley_t_Page_109.tif
5032368eed1b3b0b46df0f6f2174f0b2
000b1886c94f648b633df09ae0d918e81b7a1bce
12249 F20101208_AABQDJ quigley_t_Page_124.pro
7d6fd9d3028c51445a37992152b95be6
8214cd77e1dab02323edbc98dbf0a812d434050f
F20101208_AABPYD quigley_t_Page_124.tif
8c3f864aed5899c2418c4d2c52b36dd3
9c3fdfe05974dd7ac2045b9feed65b576c33ab2a
35438 F20101208_AABQCV quigley_t_Page_110.pro
84b3c417749fab6333d925c74bc79de9
715b89e2717013b423e81551e9602071ad1c4205
F20101208_AABPXP quigley_t_Page_110.tif
51a70f7c26b8e74a4ed9194b00ddd4df
031ace1616c9501b7ffca457ab4e41da8ad6f445
7846 F20101208_AABQDK quigley_t_Page_125.pro
9e2b5cb4659006875640fc0ac5d78577
6789aedf5ce38212e69ee9e4bedbb0c3d07fb206
F20101208_AABPYE quigley_t_Page_126.tif
642fc9cb823ed9c93b258d55e0a4d8d9
858c9aa5fa6e33cf4b3d5fab461ee910926a8092
28445 F20101208_AABQCW quigley_t_Page_111.pro
248ca0a0af3a5cf8234311efc439f5af
2e87beaa9423d3e695ae6a0f76bee411d6d84411
F20101208_AABPXQ quigley_t_Page_111.tif
b50e0bb25709d066f1f20ea80ff660c8
8800528c5a032a57a67f4b3cb9d44fb1abde7132
28969 F20101208_AABQEA quigley_t_Page_143.pro
58df6c4682296ea55dda2baa75a189eb
33ea1da986878c912e2571b1ad6abfe7c51d7548
15678 F20101208_AABQDL quigley_t_Page_127.pro
6c2f84484b15a3205723f7046f07ab4e
5cfc2f74952c3423acf7a269ff1ed68239eaa929
F20101208_AABPYF quigley_t_Page_127.tif
6b9e263828628a8630946450fc565519
89f96a8fab370a9e4d57cdd8b67a80fc9c5bc6ab
26855 F20101208_AABQCX quigley_t_Page_112.pro
bf55ab184d6723881f7d7bc302e98960
276849ed74ba425dc2c3847bc4721687e3a2fcb7
F20101208_AABPXR quigley_t_Page_112.tif
1a7446cd74c1e23a564070851cf977aa
1ae1c162139336ae5e40a64141a44002f3cbf17d
495 F20101208_AABQEB quigley_t_Page_001.txt
b48c1d27d13343e02ae1ef5c8c86f9c8
2a34f17437999394f482d64acbad9296bd141b2d
18409 F20101208_AABQDM quigley_t_Page_128.pro
10e43043f3f30a59114cc41216ca0fb5
c6d9adc06a2fe6c45a083619e51d6e63ac82c9e6
F20101208_AABPYG quigley_t_Page_128.tif
091bdcdc93fa00ebac158107155c8ad7
59ca71c28cb658f855a18867c51c4150face1aab
2777 F20101208_AABQCY quigley_t_Page_113.pro
b317e0b88fff10fd5831279956b4ad57
101fe723939b1616eced3d31404f4b7d99c30ed2
F20101208_AABPXS quigley_t_Page_113.tif
e81e625609b6b028950a4102a2e73ad2
9e5672fdde6122acf03e5ad9417602244d265cdb
17306 F20101208_AABQDN quigley_t_Page_129.pro
2b7c29a4d758068cc62a404a6b7c6cf1
e0b8af943de5f904719b78b4013bb0a32e9be9ef
F20101208_AABPYH quigley_t_Page_129.tif
d43d20db2000063d54e6a57f038275f6
718596aa121d48e6674fd4da4f4cba16574478f8
10642 F20101208_AABQCZ quigley_t_Page_114.pro
3c1cd19f8bfeec6ee8a766832431986f
9538ff8c6a20ae13f6fe345f612717ccc56eff4c
F20101208_AABPXT quigley_t_Page_114.tif
590a84d589f30b5c2033ffa7ef9aa0fd
118c34ed2781c5a2c3aacf24be393ee49e06e2ae
120 F20101208_AABQEC quigley_t_Page_002.txt
6d9dd5426777919a25d06f3b2b728029
4a8b8127f26f364029800fccbf7a33e0f5f35ac9
13567 F20101208_AABQDO quigley_t_Page_130.pro
a65709045f561b48b320a646fb5e0603
5dcf6c11286dbf5093a1826cd1ed0d5fa0888ae0
F20101208_AABPYI quigley_t_Page_130.tif
ea572b6b69c9f6433d883e95304a0c03
e4ab9c067ed793800cb243ad1135f7136f1989e2
F20101208_AABPXU quigley_t_Page_115.tif
e303f7247b5cb5067c9373d9ca887568
df407e009219e9b6846445e35a488138aa118406
144 F20101208_AABQED quigley_t_Page_003.txt
12bb7f343da90ee26eff94a19b135e88
4ba928ae7b4282de7fe52593799685abbdcb5a42
16243 F20101208_AABQDP quigley_t_Page_132.pro
52dc894093069dcb004a8733d72896b0
15704e2c15e5c1a9f66153303e6af4636dd2f294
F20101208_AABPYJ quigley_t_Page_131.tif
8695d8b9d470aaf40792af70e05535b5
95dc91168259369733889a87de6e0eaab2a92df0
F20101208_AABPXV quigley_t_Page_116.tif
d78e96336b834d9cad591872cc08803e
dba11d02dfba47fc2ef21442475baf3a1997477b
1277 F20101208_AABQEE quigley_t_Page_004.txt
bb60799d713fe40122a30a1e5bce4920
a9b5747481af8bfee2552cb0e798e3c594a9818a
19617 F20101208_AABQDQ quigley_t_Page_133.pro
ee7dac7347088da6632492432e0d64dd
5b7988c5af54eaabbf0339789212ddaee13879ec
F20101208_AABPYK quigley_t_Page_132.tif
619a0513e7869fec692457cc5670c0ed
77d394bc976f755018822558368cfc3660eafda8
3389 F20101208_AABQEF quigley_t_Page_005.txt
4a5ffe57411e30608c5a6b9f3211f969
067694ca7e0a26d9242769ae9afe2b899c9526e9
15555 F20101208_AABQDR quigley_t_Page_134.pro
7beecb128a202606be16ff1f278594dc
6f6a745750adf8e26bc993c6b381a82215d1c6a7
F20101208_AABPYL quigley_t_Page_133.tif
36ec9f73787c650897d5a0f254f0fb2d
e8c6b5e8e66914c84e885ebd8f02d71dafe86418
F20101208_AABPXW quigley_t_Page_117.tif
e3a63fcc3f7ad400aaef7196b02e62b7
d72754fbec82d060bce1a744467de9b3fa8cf8e4
4652 F20101208_AABQEG quigley_t_Page_006.txt
0f8a0a0a82b417b1102f1712fae7cbfb
6f4d6938f4b19b7d10e515f8672e63c8c8197d48
120732 F20101208_AABPZA quigley_t_Page_006.pro
917052ba473a543c092b9f10ebab225f
f397587463fc362a7d037592d9d38402fd7e00f9
13994 F20101208_AABQDS quigley_t_Page_135.pro
7d1712b83e9c478446328aac7210fb5e
f727fe6bb88850d0a82ade1f52a9f9dbf71e0fb8
F20101208_AABPYM quigley_t_Page_134.tif
aa80fe254ce74d2039f256cedfafc173
a7222e7d5e1796e339f00762f6d4760610b8f1b4
F20101208_AABPXX quigley_t_Page_118.tif
d40da32b59a4cf34f823bd889c0ec1c7
1b9528200e6b626e9973b2574f34ef0e7183e90e
1567 F20101208_AABQEH quigley_t_Page_008.txt
a54548b8f7c284abf457bbc019d4b554
f3f390a536eaf861ec33ad87a5b361248bedb859
21932 F20101208_AABPZB quigley_t_Page_007.pro
a3f78bcdb003c143e335760be4903338
0bbb49670880b96bad434a1b9903c7b06de09f13
15416 F20101208_AABQDT quigley_t_Page_136.pro
7331eb7fefe7db9b2ea4cc919ab2aa36
a29a24a5942ca0ed94d0619902cf07e3a7e80554
F20101208_AABPYN quigley_t_Page_135.tif
62ca37a8c2baa9949fbcfd613956c1f1
3bffd73afed3994cdf33f886b0970c8e90ef7d8c
F20101208_AABPXY quigley_t_Page_119.tif
c6ed996558be30daf5da917b5f9684de
37ea605794cd1e4e4228705c0724c11df66c48ff
2858 F20101208_AABQEI quigley_t_Page_009.txt
8209906c27e56e596d6b66a7ba52b8c0
e38511bd13e9eb1f9332713d4e6058bb6aee6d7f
38215 F20101208_AABPZC quigley_t_Page_008.pro
06b8dd9590f615ee1dc09e160cc92bf1
09cbdc52f23c91cdec2ed3d814629dd809c839eb
14625 F20101208_AABQDU quigley_t_Page_137.pro
ffe5a5dae1433c39fe64773ef1d05fb7
4bc6fd328e2c1ced6a6bd39f1b83202b3f0f9945
F20101208_AABPYO quigley_t_Page_136.tif
384782b854c85919054ffeeb79fb1d9c
d8fa4a054df37b9bc99a41f49b3c2add5165e425
F20101208_AABPXZ quigley_t_Page_120.tif
4285e81500eb9f91bce1e90135902df7
b3e40166557d291cfe41abf12b727bd4fd415f23
2889 F20101208_AABQEJ quigley_t_Page_010.txt
f58a16f9abd2922eebc7d7bec9ae8d17
f0c216cc48372d0d2983ebc1d68912e4d8344d7d
71535 F20101208_AABPZD quigley_t_Page_009.pro
4ef9fb10f0852a34f11dc9a32fbb54cb
dc87917fd11a7af24f22cab195b5bc8bcfd6b1ba
13842 F20101208_AABQDV quigley_t_Page_138.pro
5f9e75cc80887e34f79c7289f75fc6e7
52c3ce01e9426e3a15bde996d005c65d8c47701e
F20101208_AABPYP quigley_t_Page_137.tif
72f344927db7dda0978a577778ec803a
7f0b6fc5281e3562557e1142113fd8dc7efaf9dc
1602 F20101208_AABQEK quigley_t_Page_011.txt
b95f2d9805622b0ab55610c3921b3355
6c79f86f632167a5d0d41d2e35c6715b6ac05ea8
73917 F20101208_AABPZE quigley_t_Page_010.pro
067814152940a05bc77f7b0d70ca258d
644c0b14c92e74fd4c5a068e60348a1cc3c57971
15933 F20101208_AABQDW quigley_t_Page_139.pro
d6503c0c6927b261c285b5507c9bfed0
27a59c02dddee0eca84bffe8ca36163fe4f0abec
F20101208_AABPYQ quigley_t_Page_139.tif
aac5578ab164405cbde854bf52bc0486
4aff82567f61a45c58a56c78bfc19297197dab34
40209 F20101208_AABPZF quigley_t_Page_011.pro
932b574bb0160f9b13a65f1a387fa477
d977f2c5775b433504cd07a2e641e14f2dd96287
62308 F20101208_AABQDX quigley_t_Page_140.pro
61ab5e13d6a9bad5bfebb521ce518056
a2013b320700d55ab74ed33b03a5b9a46be80002
F20101208_AABPYR quigley_t_Page_140.tif
d9457a20e03064048cbd1a47792ea444
0a5a316aa96aa98317b5110d67c029f6366288d1
1485 F20101208_AABQFA quigley_t_Page_027.txt
cd4cc69cfc1abc109c20f0807c7c81dd
202b615ad72cfd01a59aefdb0d437c8a2ebb207b
1905 F20101208_AABQEL quigley_t_Page_012.txt
7efbfd10a8cb0369d08cd0be890f2c78
8e6eb267728321d34802c67a13c18a6e822574cd
43164 F20101208_AABPZG quigley_t_Page_012.pro
3b63fa685a60ab5e51381f089684e743
1c2ac2193aa179ee36e3c0b6b3bb741d65b894f7
67220 F20101208_AABQDY quigley_t_Page_141.pro
000f3a6051e248eee3e9dd651fb1edfd
3fbad3fb5d026fcd49898708ed5453bf55e37c80
F20101208_AABPYS quigley_t_Page_141.tif
de20478da98c6ed84223ff4ee7f85dd9
192ca6fab5820d4e7a170c81fdb4557185627a8a
2117 F20101208_AABQFB quigley_t_Page_028.txt
c6a39d0a3ece56e3b3005a24c1908d00
c3c210a94eb936cc86327bd8924e5de0ba5d41fd
636 F20101208_AABQEM quigley_t_Page_013.txt
0ed2e8efcc03e67f22b1480d41a9a572
10cd6472a4f422122575abd75c917aa190e4a8e1
15785 F20101208_AABPZH quigley_t_Page_013.pro
e7905cc8327bf693807dcfe544c4ad23
a3e7f516a916c4666c233d18a7077ac6ff2d690e
4489 F20101208_AABQDZ quigley_t_Page_142.pro
b68e401815efbaecb6aeb3415f8a03f5
baab31dea70f79ef5acb77beb60ba8592ab7f00e
F20101208_AABPYT quigley_t_Page_142.tif
bbcc939901371508a4d049f79542fbb9
3bc91557c1e6bbb772faa4bf4651ea77181245ad
2253 F20101208_AABQFC quigley_t_Page_029.txt
1d69c203ac02f159b69b73fe70a9a554
a6515c867c50b434b38f0d4ed09886199bf29014
2111 F20101208_AABQEN quigley_t_Page_014.txt
eba86d5a0dc269a2054c81cb83a7d69b
1eb9a46ef1af4c209efe2f1bbccebf125920fab9
50752 F20101208_AABPZI quigley_t_Page_014.pro
d86baaa108806cf0db0484f2b0001bc5
d492f08b0f607909c31c1ef394d2cf1b565b4a3e
F20101208_AABPYU quigley_t_Page_143.tif
08b86d2d98ac6196fc2df5cbe61d1566
8cea9f539f171056125fb03399accdd0d86a5628
2206 F20101208_AABQEO quigley_t_Page_015.txt
77649923851a0be9aa040fdca5436305
9b52cf7da83cbd09a4e90e3fba2af431efafda05
52812 F20101208_AABPZJ quigley_t_Page_015.pro
1eef546a916b972e45f9fdf08c36be2a
8a2193c9f7303af724c1c8042f5974add358f69e
8449 F20101208_AABPYV quigley_t_Page_001.pro
e4c6b9240ce95325e0844bd346ff318a
01697574daa9e082b6b5c8c38ebfe9b004f2f201
2049 F20101208_AABQFD quigley_t_Page_030.txt
33f5e74cff68740b385b940f9d3e468c
8085d669a43173849f4bfaf9601d3590f2052f69
624 F20101208_AABQEP quigley_t_Page_016.txt
5b35df55782dad3dc41fab3aab99556c
6f1274fe2cfc35f3252a085c5ef5db668bffa332
15536 F20101208_AABPZK quigley_t_Page_016.pro
365d5e0a972b1f6ee9d26af7d8e93e2e
b6104430a6653662dbcc3ed092a0674b8e8358ac
1384 F20101208_AABPYW quigley_t_Page_002.pro
3632f9f4997186b750430471b5775eb5
54a5cb4e425fa240204aae9338ea96bfa11bc9ab
2123 F20101208_AABQFE quigley_t_Page_031.txt
4225d9b8ec0649c2cce73ebdde834e27
71b93515e3213bf70fae8b7cc1184874e82c7063
2134 F20101208_AABQEQ quigley_t_Page_017.txt
0facfe05061e7315ed42fcc69dbe55c3
64e7f76af971ae0c2efaf2655d754856290705cb
50319 F20101208_AABPZL quigley_t_Page_017.pro
1237840c6b11bdd01edebe748779d4ad
117ac77d1f3ac9bc7d01a9e2fbc6f5d70c60302b
2184 F20101208_AABQFF quigley_t_Page_032.txt
a63eac3dcbe166ef3b15ed50f0710e15
b144c8e2b0bb021d5935adf011aabbe056b7e157
2115 F20101208_AABQER quigley_t_Page_018.txt
dfaa45822abc6a2784e6b13423393a49
8c2f75434047f8795c31c8072b0c282a8f56d940
53755 F20101208_AABPZM quigley_t_Page_018.pro
9a5c0da88adacf63b9b87a3b2f4349ce
52c5ec37e76d6210a5f89311ffbb8f5a2bc467ee
2654 F20101208_AABPYX quigley_t_Page_003.pro
26fd3d487ef8de6b38b46f68d78d90d0
29422ce146a288e6edcb1ba10bef595351d2633a
1942 F20101208_AABQFG quigley_t_Page_033.txt
903f3e4bf997f857094b2691fd30440e
79200a47d79a7c2f489fe3112281875d52255a89
2257 F20101208_AABQES quigley_t_Page_019.txt
557909255ccc6512ccdfbf7e1a67a26e
13b6242fb1392b7bea685a6485d0194f0cc7a5af
56867 F20101208_AABPZN quigley_t_Page_019.pro
8ab03dcf4b432c59c6da27980bc9f92f
cbceb209cf59c54bef3f1376455a4833b9f3b574
31086 F20101208_AABPYY quigley_t_Page_004.pro
66fddd7fbf0e62181b09f10430a82853
031781c75795bedeab868bbbebb0db0ec136f25f
F20101208_AABQFH quigley_t_Page_034.txt
b07700888316a14eaa6c4517e9fc58bd
df7d2839b6d72ffe9d78bb615f33e02e58ad6d5f
2104 F20101208_AABQET quigley_t_Page_020.txt
be270cb61522e3bd0585f42843d4cf64
ac58b353c038d976765488cd6f8b880e08ed0c59
53330 F20101208_AABPZO quigley_t_Page_020.pro
c0dc9d4d934a1f57de939d4295832861
3d02bd9247dd6a6294b17004d79277db5afbb260
85631 F20101208_AABPYZ quigley_t_Page_005.pro
bf007d72b4633f9e6dbeba6ec1cc2bcd
74d8e2e8bb230d65866fa7ff844f02d536d7066e
2126 F20101208_AABQFI quigley_t_Page_035.txt
7a3a770eafb0539376ad88ddfdd616fc
82c205bd9690e0744745e5a53e3dfc1a909065c0
2066 F20101208_AABQEU quigley_t_Page_021.txt
fc7a06d3c07966eb11e003333e85f445
2dfe9a8ff395262997544caea0905a8a9fa729ba
54957 F20101208_AABPZP quigley_t_Page_022.pro
8a4985218785b84cbb8d679144c18e7b
ca9419d921ae4e801f289ae0b22c6c94c6f6d18f
2166 F20101208_AABQFJ quigley_t_Page_036.txt
4971a2b64667982f21e5ed9d5f864bb9
2d15e67ce2c43325d3363ee5b1b9ddbde3d27631
2165 F20101208_AABQEV quigley_t_Page_022.txt
5e3df36a60bb1ffb982dd810595d0c7d
03aeaca90470e095c16de4771275e3282bd7e3f8
54528 F20101208_AABPZQ quigley_t_Page_023.pro
8a694d8243ac969564a33d7a93561794
9bf9c767e148213971d77086dbf1340daa65bb64
2177 F20101208_AABQFK quigley_t_Page_037.txt
9b4a20344300a9c85915f24262e0d908
a5d9e649e06d8bfe5a42e97222dadb3451086907
2147 F20101208_AABQEW quigley_t_Page_023.txt
189b070eec304f6d11513b86422d7a48
5bb64ec83f987ad9c21bf7249b1a67062e551bc9
47651 F20101208_AABPZR quigley_t_Page_024.pro
98a4f05be9348d98ead89196c32d6aad
3d9f6602e224783596848883a6dafdba2dc95187
2071 F20101208_AABQGA quigley_t_Page_054.txt
7d49de91c221d127a4c89dddf5d24509
0e91b97ea7a7450b313fc2cc4ae44190dea6cd27
2152 F20101208_AABQFL quigley_t_Page_038.txt
6a550250880dcb885bc472011e2e63ed
c00c3c0ab07b3e6740af99bcec0d4938155ebb92
1890 F20101208_AABQEX quigley_t_Page_024.txt
48738757f19e48e6c0d66e856072e374
78d0d20953b26370edd1c1bcc5c960f285d04bc5
52532 F20101208_AABPZS quigley_t_Page_025.pro
0c8b8cb90fbde4626ef7b87043654c85
75eb83f94b885da0df2d04382e2ee5de45864700
2120 F20101208_AABQGB quigley_t_Page_055.txt
eecf0ec12658b19409c8d7fe09c5112d
86c5a6beec453741cda7cffa17d3241a2cda7237
1915 F20101208_AABQFM quigley_t_Page_039.txt
659226a160d046a1734660d9c5fae154
14bfc6116fd6d8c43828fcbaf1a0b045d32d5764
2075 F20101208_AABQEY quigley_t_Page_025.txt
af1582a2445dd8b797f24300c08c9207
6108257a0f4a20679d78786752a314207b7bd515
43538 F20101208_AABPZT quigley_t_Page_026.pro
3c0e76d1dede977384af19795706a75f
fa2b4bbc79f294287aac63a49c297d69ac05079f
F20101208_AABQGC quigley_t_Page_056.txt
0702d8d13fdedd2c8338ce38ae0732c6
558445b1065a3612bde3be83adc45f8cd3a71872
2231 F20101208_AABQFN quigley_t_Page_040.txt
c171bcc8b3025dcc1e7dc6f5842a4b98
190b0e7f08ca96b67925f6933677845be1667ce3
1956 F20101208_AABQEZ quigley_t_Page_026.txt
cd373bfd46f88d241a9ac459a7b2a29c
542527ac77772a46673efc1986f682b95e54fc25
33903 F20101208_AABPZU quigley_t_Page_027.pro
d1ee484c8891d9be0178a69282575ccb
12b38d1e1510085ce6ec610b812052b1bbb4c598
2091 F20101208_AABQGD quigley_t_Page_057.txt
58bfaa6747eaff408a9f8d9e75c635a3
74604ad8d76d7bfde01897ddadd414464466e8b1
2175 F20101208_AABQFO quigley_t_Page_041.txt
efb1f8634d124365ccd1eb4e64770b5f
4a799f5b9fb0a2f7b3adf9eebc66c4d521c77673
51907 F20101208_AABPZV quigley_t_Page_028.pro
98d4836378105c667b41139e95e80067
65f5f9081df3cb9a69976efe56e8b7039676d5c8
2254 F20101208_AABQFP quigley_t_Page_042.txt
3289cf16a50c5d8000d4bf79de2127b8
5e5f9048793b575cc13ee773706f009c9395a688
57605 F20101208_AABPZW quigley_t_Page_029.pro
df790550414a03388ce7b0b5d786e325
c9586205be62e352dd533371f4dd52b9d99e62b6
2108 F20101208_AABQGE quigley_t_Page_058.txt
709bcda2be45e44abb8531823a2f0e36
12c33b39033dc69085d8f902a35a0655b4d8a669
F20101208_AABQFQ quigley_t_Page_043.txt
a331af174b6758e87bc518ac7eb49bd8
a5830b20b66cafb22392aa02e4fdeece84cd2c2a
51429 F20101208_AABPZX quigley_t_Page_030.pro
c5c96b1f8a777899308252528d2cbc89
d1abd60cbbe652ec1f516d9f073ca0eed66f686d
2205 F20101208_AABQGF quigley_t_Page_059.txt
c9b099901c537971e03281774ef41d0d
1ee9272bfa86c2f3c6385c4644d80a2eed0444cb
1892 F20101208_AABQFR quigley_t_Page_044.txt
e59a7f9be3477b78d8c3258c24821c21
27b98c2f8cf174ea0df43e33f99caf0bb5283ddb
2028 F20101208_AABQGG quigley_t_Page_060.txt
d98f05dd68c0fcc6a4ce02d485f7a262
2961238cdf026905b7a7680ffc24a7f6601755ca
F20101208_AABQFS quigley_t_Page_045.txt
826ffdc78a6111dd8a3b42ca68c83539
743523977967b4936a8769834955b5645394bb42
53533 F20101208_AABPZY quigley_t_Page_031.pro
909dbafb2c8a8818c2975892dce8bad6
1514ae325c99fe17489ae1d4bb0bd38e70fdc859
2110 F20101208_AABQGH quigley_t_Page_062.txt
35bc8e94f4758549cf8129c87cfc06a6
0057a6307587587f4c0d9bc737a421aac2baf4d0
835 F20101208_AABQFT quigley_t_Page_046.txt
3ca4999074b7239ae47eb8b7101b39b3
76b1328ff6310097db8dc444edb9aa56e1ba2728
55508 F20101208_AABPZZ quigley_t_Page_032.pro
d607b283bd9df53f82130fa51c95c1aa
eed277c88a52fa6522cb84c750c309f82968034d
2007 F20101208_AABQGI quigley_t_Page_063.txt
c5eb65039c929e5e8a55adca1d4ab503
f2b3b620467761e6dd01afa5d895ec16db2f87d7
1049 F20101208_AABQFU quigley_t_Page_047.txt
0c2965cabb644a8de58929c5b4d97105
c0638ec9638fbedc9f9e70ddb290a6d84e94d632
1981 F20101208_AABQGJ quigley_t_Page_064.txt
56abf34fee4b3e71d69e1502ccceb3d2
cc72d3a2e0b3c626955942ade354f6c135ba3da9
333 F20101208_AABQFV quigley_t_Page_048.txt
a68341429aa91efef2993fd3c2e90778
2e6eb85bde1d0cc8630efce54718bfda2a625db9
2140 F20101208_AABQGK quigley_t_Page_066.txt
2d59b48987ceda05bc48d864582e13c8
7e3e0f62615a6f4d399beb24ce6e0117098350a7
802 F20101208_AABQFW quigley_t_Page_050.txt
72553fab3797ff7234cc83db1905e967
665acd93d42126844dda012409371d11ec4d682d
2182 F20101208_AABQGL quigley_t_Page_067.txt
2769f6f6d885af51184cff9250ab25bc
bdf3b77afcf63c36a7b3699bba9ad1282263248b
1143 F20101208_AABQFX quigley_t_Page_051.txt
5b9fbadb1beecca88eb57ed57263505e
f4a2d61c8f13a1352026f4125bd2d787f78dbd26
2237 F20101208_AABQHA quigley_t_Page_084.txt
1c37d82dc1e9315390af4766d8d26baf
1a7a0cb2903301337a7bd48f09c0f57fb1253e43
2266 F20101208_AABQGM quigley_t_Page_068.txt
e8bf9c64199418d080b43cc60756f384
094bf16b385998ad0176725fea8040aed2377969
920 F20101208_AABQFY quigley_t_Page_052.txt
6ed55763a8bfd07da7ac618c1b35dcf4
3b219466af8fee6a36576dd974636026f222339e
137 F20101208_AABQHB quigley_t_Page_085.txt
1d07c367829cf10ce7aee86a064c60fa
37013feb474d6451d102b2b926d81333cef4508f
2131 F20101208_AABQGN quigley_t_Page_069.txt
076b0740459da2317247a5cdb15ba617
3a6b329490d3ee49887cfed02389a34ee05afeff
F20101208_AABQFZ quigley_t_Page_053.txt
fc69f0af16f8826a770a255fa378347f
37593f7b21d422d1cdbbe68c996bdb63e171b577
F20101208_AABQHC quigley_t_Page_086.txt
4d93f4a0f81c0f0d31ba6f43ddd2783e
35d456af4516bd49433277dd4c0e16bd4822df90
2233 F20101208_AABQGO quigley_t_Page_070.txt
6c035a7be4bbcdfc6a89c16d64929640
f796487d48c5fb75f98bc7cf9a200ed40d457896
1005 F20101208_AABQHD quigley_t_Page_087.txt
894fa05b0b80c1535f255c00c628c5ad
dc992c3951c66346821b0379ba202d82222c37d2
2202 F20101208_AABQGP quigley_t_Page_071.txt
62ae0c10c0626fb9bfa892e4d811840b
1b1aa7a81ed5784523c86c969be6c9752753b287
540 F20101208_AABQHE quigley_t_Page_088.txt
c0fbb09df83b03245e2a686ee2cab2f8
d99404738a98acea2529dc9d57c2d8908b022e71
2082 F20101208_AABQGQ quigley_t_Page_072.txt
c4621ed482c278dd4995ad074bcec333
dcca0ebe5a19a85da60e7a9766179a81b2e5a017
2056 F20101208_AABQGR quigley_t_Page_073.txt
56b5b40d342bc195b3fe28e6b2fa20da
030d700be0fec711200514c769a3be8763ed6936
853 F20101208_AABQHF quigley_t_Page_089.txt
ac85cd28dc5ef2b1ad9c86c434ca5b2a
dd0d2aa9c255b895c96104566611dfb6eb9ee946
320 F20101208_AABQGS quigley_t_Page_074.txt
8af26718fe189fa24b44f71f6372d9e6
91d756cadfbb965eda6238ee50a886739764ae09
1562 F20101208_AABQHG quigley_t_Page_090.txt
7eef8e6707e7c7c5eaf8ac3dcf01f4d7
a19278297bdf4a35a9311cfe7cc00718f37f6143
722 F20101208_AABQGT quigley_t_Page_075.txt
7b81239d9751b53e2b6a05ee80a374b3
8e2d830fb9c5833b00e46597a459ff9f8a9e87d2
680 F20101208_AABQHH quigley_t_Page_091.txt
353ce225bec4bacc4f5c12145132a5a9
c7e4862dfae7065e5fa293b0aedf7fe927284452
653 F20101208_AABQGU quigley_t_Page_076.txt
798d3bcb6d8e9662a350b8d5f03eebf5
bdb9675f83e01dbce4923c1cfdf81378f45a47cf
895 F20101208_AABQHI quigley_t_Page_092.txt
4aaaaf2918ff00146a60bf49d57f0495
3ce06ea29085e625ae275ae025f7c8e8d7354e5d
697 F20101208_AABQGV quigley_t_Page_078.txt
8ddd775eafe6957c21299b0a03c8b422
0ead156397749c4b49f44dae2affe401bf33a77c
581 F20101208_AABQHJ quigley_t_Page_093.txt
2f3f099fa77ede31e805624cd4eb64c9
a5d0875935698749afe7c77bd3a97a5efd35c306
953 F20101208_AABQGW quigley_t_Page_079.txt
4c9c50778c66088379de41fe07d4815a
af271ccbe1fcd4c2add407896cb0a6447dba45ba
677 F20101208_AABQHK quigley_t_Page_094.txt
88bc356b2252f96543920b19dd20d0a0
a26896c8af4fb04a1bcdde290470d674d7ce0a65
2775 F20101208_AABQGX quigley_t_Page_080.txt
2c8ca68a15f114b0987b21940782f7ec
7ac71d4514ba2288fc5aa3a462de277ba8524167
1568 F20101208_AABQIA quigley_t_Page_112.txt
d55d3f39a31da3c810bfcc159a4006a5
98e15271df38be435bf430e2431b286d55365545
429 F20101208_AABQHL quigley_t_Page_095.txt
13e0f3c059d9cbb8051f9c3267f6b3e5
a58e2d67cdbce0131bb1d1c646a44ebe9070ea94
2421 F20101208_AABQGY quigley_t_Page_082.txt
cbb882a2032f3d9258d802f2e69d2631
d05f1091a5c2ead9344eee3154d3ed1fa7a10157
218 F20101208_AABQIB quigley_t_Page_113.txt
f1fa725bc5b89acc88eba2776d65d98f
df52fe889a38f2130d42c9f80903254bae0fd471
199 F20101208_AABQHM quigley_t_Page_096.txt
09b7f15fad3da761d62b4cffc536cf2f
6e8c46254c23d8af29442bf67b91d485b406770a
3094 F20101208_AABQGZ quigley_t_Page_083.txt
bc4c20ffc546e197c98d5f0dbf6c58e7
2a774b57b6a07552fbf5dc40f0450cf59186bc79
760 F20101208_AABQIC quigley_t_Page_114.txt
cb5fa94bb1864e69e01e19646013857e
875f6cc396e12a1803aa38c13cc88063fb15af72
477 F20101208_AABQHN quigley_t_Page_097.txt
e0959a551b74d453b2461bcebfd4e5da
3136d1d9f8e7340bd9438340dc132b0b2441ac8e
1173 F20101208_AABQID quigley_t_Page_115.txt
2ded2924b3ca370ffe7f6ca419d482a4
3e0a71729f89699224d2fd3a90ca2f369d29493e
F20101208_AABQHO quigley_t_Page_098.txt
183162aaeb97561cd7b085abd67b2793
a713f24b919edf8df3746980470015c7de33f2ab
898 F20101208_AABQIE quigley_t_Page_116.txt
54f25f7ec3def83a43d767441aee3c70
413c94e26ebf3c9dc9df1b0661fbc1daf96fb0b5
2185 F20101208_AABQHP quigley_t_Page_099.txt
d07d2a2cdd9dc1972f3e80c5822beffc
ae417db25b0fe3b5b2d9cfc1363be88dda6ebc35
318 F20101208_AABQIF quigley_t_Page_117.txt
b8ebf862364baca8469e9527475c7391
054f1340330834d5beabbf121fdde0cbccf1fcab
1729 F20101208_AABQHQ quigley_t_Page_100.txt
b37fb47ed757bf77f84c80f0709ea09e
96f92a8d46f3ad73074b13779d8cecd0beab25a9
685 F20101208_AABQHR quigley_t_Page_101.txt
016ed0abf8e3c3b2275013f83b70e22d
b40e5768eccd5b231ec19aacebb8c75f4e2b9afc
220 F20101208_AABQIG quigley_t_Page_118.txt
6d7c9ee5ae387f07daf1a807dbaf7654
24d5f46fe1028a08708cb634ea595cfcc1d5001b
317 F20101208_AABQHS quigley_t_Page_102.txt
828a717ddda2ddcbd98397566464cb57
fa9ed416b571523b74eea8468283efa36134d402
1851 F20101208_AABQIH quigley_t_Page_119.txt
56c4fa8c7e208cd04207fbf21175cdd1
3a48c90864bb50712c945a578748ab11a4f9e58e
2349 F20101208_AABQHT quigley_t_Page_105.txt
e30d473d31a009dad970f5a78c0228e3
4307a8db8a1b60e2b9b4cae5ba362c0525ca36c2
2193 F20101208_AABQII quigley_t_Page_120.txt
922690e9ed54268a92ab25dc208d0b97
a5d4682e8d00eb41b00584e86f1e4a74f02f152f
794 F20101208_AABQHU quigley_t_Page_106.txt
a077d6800588f982d9b95e834dedad54
7c574174d566c367f13666029fbd68184bcf1c01
1727 F20101208_AABQIJ quigley_t_Page_121.txt
524a0a4472196e1a4c6cb9b64e06a1ca
79d2c4831edf73aa4b14f35e02016dd432f18f1c
2704 F20101208_AABQHV quigley_t_Page_107.txt
35a17e43ebc5e49303b80862dd607762
adeb9ee5e72356100fbace9e66d11078410e255a



PAGE 1

GROUND PROVING SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) IN LATERALLY VARIABLE KARSTIC LIMESTONE TERRAIN By TIMOTHY PATRICK QUIGLEY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006 1

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Timothy Patrick Quigley 2

PAGE 3

To my grandfather, John Link, whose lifetime of hard work has made mine immeasurably easier 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I thank Dr. Dennis Hiltunen for serving as my advisor. His continued support, encouragement, and availability during my research and studies were what made this possible. I thank the other members of my thesis committee, Dr. Frank Townsend for his guidance, advice, and real world perspective on academic problems during my graduate studies, as well as Dr. Nick Hudyma for his guidance and input during this research. Acknowledgements must also be given to the remaining University of Florida faculty, and to current and former graduate students from whom I learned an immense amount from both academically and personally. Any acknowledgements made would be incomplete without thanking those who helped get me to this point. I thank my mother who was seemingly able to do it all, without ever tiring or complaining, and my father for his tireless work ethic. I thank the remaining members of my family for their support, as well as all of my friends who treated me like family. Lastly, special gratitude goes out to my girlfriend Rosanne Lee, who has been supportive of all my decisions and the results of those decisions for the past three years. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 1.1 Problem Statement...................................................................................................................14 1.2 Objective..................................................................................................................................15 1.3 Scope........................................................................................................................................15 2 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................17 2.1 Location...................................................................................................................................17 2.2 Geological Setting....................................................................................................................17 2.2.1 Characteristics of Karstic Limestone....................................................................................18 2.3 Seismic Refraction Method......................................................................................................19 2.3.1 Previous Studies in Karst using Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) Programs............21 2.3.2 Overview of Seismic Refraction Tomography Programs.....................................................23 2.3.2.1 Rayfract (version 2.64)......................................................................................................23 2.3.2.2 SeisImager (version 2.67)..................................................................................................25 2.3.2.3 SeisOpt Pro (version 3.0)...................................................................................................25 3 SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) PROGRAMS ON FIELD DATA........28 3.1 Seismic Refraction Testing Site Layout..................................................................................28 3.1.1 Field Testing Procedure........................................................................................................28 3.1.2 Testing Limitations and Potential Sources of Error..............................................................29 3.2 Analyzing and Processing Field Data......................................................................................30 3.2.1 Selection of First Arrivals from Time Records.....................................................................30 3.2.2 Travel Time Curve Generation.............................................................................................30 3.3 Seismic Refraction Tomography Program Processing Flow...................................................31 3.3.1 Rayfract (Version 2.64)........................................................................................................31 5

PAGE 6

3.3.2 SeisImager (version 2.67).....................................................................................................34 3.3.3 SeisOpt Pro (version 3.0)......................................................................................................37 3.4 Comparison of the (SRT) Programs........................................................................................40 3.4.1 Creation of Tomograms using Surfer (version 8.04)............................................................40 3.4.2 General Visual Observations of Tomograms........................................................................41 3.4.4 Specific Visual Observations of Tomograms.......................................................................42 3.4.5 Quantitative Comparison of Calculated Travel Times.........................................................43 3.4.5 Processing Time....................................................................................................................44 3.5 General Assessment of Performance of the SRT Programs Evaluated...................................45 4 COMPARISON OF SRT PROGRAM RESULTS AND INTRUSIVE TESTING DATA...53 4.1 Selection of Intrusive Test Locations......................................................................................53 4.2 Types of Intrusive Testing Performed.....................................................................................53 4.2.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Procedure...............................................................................54 4.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedure.........................................................................54 4.2.3 Rock Coring Procedure.........................................................................................................55 4.3 General Results of Intrusive Testing........................................................................................55 4.3.1 A Line Intrusive Testing Results..........................................................................................56 4.3.2 F Line Intrusive Testing Results...........................................................................................56 4.3.3 U Line Intrusive Testing Results..........................................................................................57 4.3.4 Z Line Intrusive Testing Results...........................................................................................57 4.4 Comparison of Intrusive Testing to the SRT Tomograms.......................................................58 4.4.1 Comparison of A Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results..............................................59 4.4.1.1 Sinkhole Observations Along the A Line..........................................................................63 4.4.2 Comparison of F Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results...............................................63 4.4.3 Comparison of U Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results..............................................65 4.4.4 Comparison of Z Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results...............................................66 4.5 Geological Explanations for Variability in P-wave Velocity..................................................68 4.6 CPT Tip Penetration and P-Wave Velocity.............................................................................68 4.7 Comparison of the SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results....................................69 4.7.1 A line 0-36.6 m SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results.....................................69 4.7.2 Comparison of A Line 36.6-73.2 m Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results..............70 4.7.3 General Observations for each of the Three SRT Programs Ray Path Diagram Comparisons to the Intrusive Test Data...................................................................................................71 5 CLOSURE..............................................................................................................................82 5.1 Summary of Findings...............................................................................................................82 5.1.1 Summary of Findings from the SRT Programs....................................................................82 5.1.2 Summary of Findings from the Comparison of the SRT Programs to the Intrusive Testing Data.......................................................................................................................83 5.2 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................84 5.3 Research Recommendations....................................................................................................84 6

PAGE 7

APPENDIX A P-WAVE VELOCITY TOMOGRAMS.................................................................................86 B INTRUSIVE TESTING FIELD DATA.................................................................................96 C COMPARISON OF P-WAVE VELOCITY TOMOGRAMS TO TOP OF BEDROCK DEPTHS ENCOUNTERED THROUGH INTRUSIVE TESTING....................................128 D CLOSE CONTOUR P-WAVE TOMOGRAM INTRUSIVE DATA COMPARISON.......132 E RAYTRACING DIAGRAMS FOR TOMOGRAMS..........................................................136 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................140 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................143 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line Station 0-36.6 m......................................................................................................................45 3-2 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line Station 36.6-73.2 m.................................................................................................................45 4-1 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the A line...................................................................................................................73 4-2 Comparison of depth to bedrock determined from intrusive testing and visually inferred from close contour interval, 10 m/s, tomograms for the A line..............................................73 4-3 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the F line. .................................................................................................................73 4-4 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the U line...................................................................................................................73 4-5 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the Z line....................................................................................................................74 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Location of geophysical/ground proving test site and zones within the site........................26 2-2 Dissolution of carbonate rock ..............................................................................................27 2-3 Karstic limestone features ....................................................................................................27 3-1 Example of PickWin95 time record along survey line A from stations 0-36.6 m for source location 0 m. .............................................................................................................46 3-2 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m...........................................................47 3-3 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 36.6-73.2 m......................................................47 3-4 PlotRefa outside source location travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m.....................48 3-5 P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 0 36.6 m. .................................................................49 3-6 P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 36.6-73.2 m. ...............................................................50 3-7 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 0 36.6 m. ..............................51 3-8 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ...........................52 4-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced for A line station 0-36.6 m. .......................................................................................................75 4-2 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced for A line station 36-73.2 m. .....................................................................................................76 4-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. ....................................................................77 4-4 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 50 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. .....................................................................78 4-5 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the A line 36.6-73.2 m. ................................................................79 4-6 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 0-36.6 m. ..............80 4-7 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 36.6-73.2 m. ..........81 A-1 P-wave tomograms, F line, station 0 36.6 m. ....................................................................86 9

PAGE 10

A-2 P-wave tomograms, F line, station 36.6 73.2 m. ...............................................................87 A-3 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 0-36.6 m. ......................................................................88 A-4 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 36.6-73.2 m. .................................................................89 A-5 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 0 36.6 m. ....................................................................90 A-6 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 36.6-73.2 m. .................................................................91 A-7 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 0 36.6 m. ...................................................................92 A-8 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 36.6-73.2 m. .................................................................93 A-9 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 0 38.4 m. ...................................................................94 A-10 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 36.6-73.2 m. .................................................................86 B-1 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 19.8 m...............................................................96 B-2 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 36.6 m...............................................................99 B-3 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 39.6 m.............................................................102 B-4 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 44.2 m.............................................................103 B-5 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 66.5 m.............................................................104 B-6 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 66.5 m.............................................................105 B-7 Intrusive Testing Data from F Line, Station 3.0 m.............................................................107 B-8 Intrusive testing data from F Line, station 13.7 m..............................................................110 B-9 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 8.5 m...............................................................113 B-10 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 24.4 m.............................................................114 B-11 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 36.6.................................................................117 B-12 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 73.2 m.............................................................118 B-13 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 21.9 m..............................................................119 B-14 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 35.0 m..............................................................123 B-15 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 64.0 m..............................................................126 C-1 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for F Line, station 0-36.6 m. ...................128 10

PAGE 11

C-2 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for U Line, station 0-36.6 m. ...................129 C-3 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for Z Line, station 0-38.4 m. ...................130 C-4 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for Z Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ..............131 D-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the F line 36.6-73.2 m. ..............................................................132 D-2 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the U line 0-36.6 m. ...................................................................133 D-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the Z line 0-38.4 m. ...................................................................134 D-4 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the Z line 36.6-73.2 m. ..............................................................135 E-1 Raytracing diagram for F Line, station 0-36.6 m. ..............................................................136 E-2 Raytracing diagram for U Line, station 0-36.6 m. .............................................................137 E-3 Raytracing diagram for Z Line, station 0-38.4 m. .............................................................138 E-4 Raytracing diagram for Z Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ........................................................139 11

PAGE 12

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering GROUND PROVING SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) IN LATERALLY VARIABLE KARSTIC LIMESTONE TERRAIN By Timothy Patrick Quigley May 2007 Chair: Dennis Hiltunen Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering The ability to characterize the subsurface of a site containing a laterally variable top of bedrock surface that is also prone to sinkhole development is extremely limited through the sole use of traditional, physically intrusive geotechnical exploration techniques, such as soil borings and rock coring. These types of tests provide information regarding the subsurface only at the specific location performed and cannot be used reliably to interpret the surrounding conditions at sites with significant lateral variability. Seismic refraction testing serves as a well established geophysical tool that can help provide more complete detail of the subsurface over a much larger area. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) constructs retention basins in order to provide effective return of surface water runoff to the subsurface aquifer. This runoff water frequently contains contaminants which are naturally filtered by the overburden soil above the aquifer. However, many of these retention basins are located in areas with karstic limestone as the bedrock at shallow depths. The increased flow of water into these basins may lead to the increased development of sinkholes, which provide an open conduit for the contaminated runoff 12

PAGE 13

to return directly into the aquifer. As a result the FDOT is interested in methods of early detection. The capabilities of three commercially available seismic refraction tomography (SRT) programs, specifically Rayfract, SeisImager, and SeisOpt Pro, to image the subsurface were evaluated. The resulting tomograms were then compared to traditional, intrusive geotechnical test methods such as: CPT soundings, SPT soundings, and rock coring data. The results of these comparisons suggest that SRT is capable of accurately imaging the laterally-variable top of bedrock typical of karst terrain. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem Statement The ability to characterize the subsurface of a site containing a laterally variable top of bedrock surface that is also prone to sinkhole development is extremely limited through the sole use of traditional physically intrusive geotechnical exploration techniques, such as soil borings and rock coring. These types of tests provide information regarding the subsurface only at the specific location performed and cannot be used reliably to interpret the surrounding conditions at sites with lateral variability. Seismic refraction testing serves as a well-established geophysical tool that can help provide more complete detail of the subsurface over a much larger area. Commercially available seismic refraction tomography (SRT) software has only had limited use on sites with these types of complex conditions. The purpose of my study was to provide ground-truthing for three different commercially available SRT programs on a site whose top of bedrock elevation varies laterally and was prone to sinkhole formation. The seismic refraction testing presented herein was performed on a storm water retention basin site with variable top of bedrock elevation in the subsurface and with known previous sinkhole activity with the hope of being able to detect subsurface features associated with sinkhole formation. Testing on these types of sites is of interest because of the potential environmental concerns associated with sinkhole formation, which provide an open conduit for contaminated storm water runoff to enter the subsurface aquifer rather than flowing slowly down through the overburden soil, which effectively filters pollutants out of the water. The ability to detect subsurface features associated with early sinkhole formation can be used to remediate a site, and, if desired, make the site suitable for future construction. The ability to map the 14

PAGE 15

changing top of bedrock surface is also of interest for foundation and numerous other geotechnical engineering designs. 1.2 Objective This study will provide additional confidence in the ability of SRT programs to provide accurate subsurface imaging on a site with karstic terrain containing variable top of bedrock elevations and sinkhole potential, as very little field study has been done on these types of sites. Three commercially available SRT programs: Rayfract, SeisImager, and SeisOpt Pro were chosen to develop tomograms of the sites subsurface. To accomplish this objective: 1 P-wave velocity tomograms were produced along each line for each of the three SRT programs and the features generated by each program were then compared against one another. 2 Next, these final P-wave tomograms were compared against results obtained from physically intrusive traditional geotechnical techniques (Cone Penetration Tests (CPT), Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), and rock coring. 3 Finally, the tomograms produced by the SRT programs were evaluated for accuracy based on visual observations between the tomograms and intrusive testing results, as well as quantitative calculations between the measured and calculated travel times. These comparisons will demonstrate the ability of SRT programs to map laterally variable top of bedrock surfaces as well as features indicative of sinkhole formation. 1.3 Scope The data presented in this paper comes from seismic refraction testing performed on a single Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) storm water runoff retention basin, located in Alachua County off of State Road 26 in Newberry, Florida. The physical layout of the seismic refraction test performed consisted of six lines, each of which was 73.2 meters in length, and spaced 3 m apart from one another. This study was conducted in order to see how well three commercially available SRT programs were able to model the subsurface features of this particular site. 15

PAGE 16

The testing performed was intended to serve as the first step in building a database from multiple sites to demonstrate the viability of using SRT programs on sites with laterally variable top of bedrock in sinkhole prone karstic terrain. It is not intended to serve as the final answer regarding the abilities or inabilities of them to do so. The conclusions drawn from the performance of the three SRT programs evaluated for this site are only intended to present how each of the programs performed when used on this particular site using this particular test procedure and layout. 16

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Location The University of Florida (UF) and the University of North Florida (UNF) have developed a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) dry retention pond into a karstic limestone geophysical ground proving test site. The test site is located just outside of Newberry, Florida on State Road 26 in Alachua County, approximately 29 kilometers to the west of Gainesville. The location of the test site within the state and Alachua County is shown in Figure 2.1(a). The test site is approximately 1.6 hectares in size and contains a number of survey lines and 5 PVC-cased boreholes extending to approximately 15 meters below the surface elevation so that future geophysical testing may be conducted. What makes this test site ideal for study is that the northern portion of the retention pond commonly experiences sinkhole activity due to the increased accumulation of surface water runoff, whereas the southern portion rarely experiences sinkhole activity. Numerous sinkholes have formed in the northern portion of the site, requiring repair. However, the southern portion has been relatively free of sinkholes and is an ideal location for characterizing a karstic limestone site, as the subsurface has yet to be modified from the repairing process. This portion of the site is roughly 113 m x 78 m in size. The two zones within the test site are shown in Figure 2.1(b). 2.2 Geological Setting The area of study is located just outside of Newberry, Florida which is located in the western portion of Alachua County, more specifically identified geologically as the Western Valley (Newberry Limestone Plain). The Western Valley is generally flat in nature with sinkholes, quarries, and low hills composed of erosional remnants of the Northern Highlands providing the greatest topographic relief in the area. It is a subdued limestone plain composed of 17

PAGE 18

the upper unit of the Ocala Group, the Crystal River Formation which is Upper Eocene in age. It consists of nearly pure limestone and dolostones (Scott, 2001). Numerous terrestrial vertebrate fossil deposits preserved in sinkholes formed in the Crystal River Formation indicate that it has undergone karstification periodically since the Late Ogliocene (Williams et al. [1977]). Karstification is a geological term that refers to the formation of the features of karst topography by the chemical and sometimes mechanical, action of the water in a region of limestone. As a result of this karstification, along with erosion, the top of the limestone surface is extremely variable. The Crystal River Formation is overlain by a thin or variable soil cover and occasional residual hills composed of sediments of the Hawthorne Formation, which is Miocene to early Plio-Pliestocene in age. This thin layer of sand and soil cover commonly includes residual boulders of silicified limestone ranging in size from 0.3 to 4.6 m in diameter as well as interbedded and intermixed carbonate and siliclastics containing varying percentages of phosphate grains. Residual sediments occur most frequently as sinkhole fillings and tend to mask the great irregularities of the limestone surface (Williams et al. [1977] and Campbell and Scott [1991]). 2.2.1 Characteristics of Karstic Limestone Karstic terrain forms primarily from the solution of soluble bedrock, such as limestone, by natural waters. In general, the solution process begins as rainwater absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and as it percolates downward through the soil, which is high in CO2, generated from the decay of organic matter. This absorbed carbon dioxide makes the recharge water weakly acidic (carbonic acid), and this acidic water then dissolves the limestone (CaCO3). When the slightly acidic water reaches the limestone it continues moving downward through any interconnected pores or fractures, dissolving and enlarging any pores or cracks 18

PAGE 19

through which it flows, as shown in Figure 2.2. The most favored vertical path dissolves more rapidly than the surrounding areas, because it is now larger and can transmit more water in ever greater quantities. This "self accelerating" process results in few greatly enlarged tubes or pipes permeating down through the limestone, with little dissolved rock in between (Tihansky [1999]). Over time, chemical weathering within the limestone enlarge the vertical discontinuities forming slots. These slots may remain narrow or they may enlarge to form valleys or bowls depending on whether or not additional chemical weathering occurs. As the limestone weathers from its massive structure it transitions through the block structures to pinnacles (Hudyma et al. [2007]). This transition is shown is Figure 2.3 from left to right. The surface of the soluble rock may be erratic indicating that chemical weathering/dissolution is occurring or had occurred before the overburden soil was deposited, in which case it is termed as a karstic limestone. Features of karstic terrain may include horizontal bedding planes delineating the different times of deposition as well as near vertical fissures/fractures/joints, depending on their geological formation. 2.3 Seismic Refraction Method The seismic refraction test method consists of measuring the travel times, at known points along the surface, of seismic compression (P) waves generated by an energy source. The energy source is usually generated by a small explosive charge or accelerated weight drop, such as a sledgehammer (Redpath [1973]). Energy that radiates out from the source, or shot point, either travels directly through the upper layer, known as a direct arrival, or travels down to and laterally along a lower high velocity layer, known as a refracted arrival. This energy is detected on the surface using receivers (geophones) arranged in a linear array and travel times are recorded via seismograph (Geo-Services International Limited, [1999]). The recorded travel time information is then used to generate a velocity profile of the subsurface along the length of 19

PAGE 20

the refraction profile relying upon the assumption that the velocity of the subsurface material increases with depth. Conventional processing of refraction data falls short of showing the true strength of seismic refraction testing because it uses oversimplified geometry and media (Zhang and Toksoz [1998]). Whereas conventional methods divide the model into continuous layers of constant velocity, SRT divides the model into a large number of smaller constant velocity grid cells or nodes. The model is then inverted by performing ray tracing, or by other techniques, through the initial model, with the grid cells adjusted after each iteration in attempt to match the calculated travel times with the measured as closely as possible. This is repeated until the number of predefined iterations within the program has been completed, with the resulting subsurface velocity model, known as a tomogram, being produced upon completion. It is because of these techniques that seismic refraction tomography is able to resolve velocity gradients and lateral velocity changes within the subsurface with greater ability than conventional methods. As such, SRT may be applied in settings where conventional refraction methods fail, such as areas of compaction, karst, and zone faults (Zhang and Toksoz, [1998]). These enhanced capabilities seem to make it ideal for this study because of the karstic terrain and the lateral variability of the overburden material present. However, some drawbacks do exist when choosing to use SRT techniques over conventional methods. SRT requires that more shots and receivers be used than conventional techniques. This allows for denser data collection, which, when coupled with increased available computing power, allows for a much more detailed interpretation of the subsurface. This increase in field data collected significantly increases the amount of time necessary to perform the field testing. The time required to prepare and process this data, i.e., make first 20

PAGE 21

arrival picks, before it is ready to be imported into the SRT programs for inversion is also significantly increased. An experienced operator using a similar test procedure as this study should be able to perform field testing on one 36.6 m long survey line, process the field data, make first arrival picks, and generate a reasonable tomogram using one of the SRT programs in one full working day. 2.3.1 Previous Studies in Karst using Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) Programs The use of SRT programs in karstic field applications is relatively new and as such few published accounts document their performance. However, several synthetic model studies coupled with field investigations have been undertaken that demonstrate the capabilities of SRT programs. Carpenter et al. (2003) used SRT programs, among them SeisOpt Pro, on sites known to be karstic in Illinois and Kentucky, to determine their accuracy by comparing with known subsurface geology from outcrops, borehole logs, other geophysical methods, and synthetic travel time data. The tomograms seemed to indicate consistency with known geology and borehole information. However, the authors mention problems when using the SeisOpt Pro program with model instability, and with artifacts appearing such as pinnacles or cutters in the lower third of the model when too many velocity elements are used. This is important to note when looking at the model produced because these types of artifacts are consistent with actual karstic features and may actually not be present in the subsurface. Cramer and Hiltunen (2004) used SRT to characterize the subsurface at Pennsylvania bridge sites in mantled karst terrain. They found the method can produce valuable information for subsurface profiles that include dropping and pinnacle interfaces. Refraction profiles generated by SeisImager were found to match the basic layer structure gathered from the intrusive testing data, particularly the top of rock profile. 21

PAGE 22

In an on-going study dating back prior to 2003, Sheehan et al. have been evaluating the use of different SRT programs, including Rayfract and SeisImager, with the long term goal being to assess the performance of these codes for karst terrains. In Sheehan et al. (2003), synthetic models were used with gradational velocity change and lateral velocity variation with the final models produced found to be reliable. However, the codes did have difficulty modeling sharp boundaries, instead modeling them as areas of higher gradient. In Sheehan et al. (2005a), the ability of SRT programs to detect cavities in karst terrains was explored. They found SRT to have the potential to be an effective tool in cavity detection. This study did indicate false positives and negatives were possible, and that further study would be needed to determine the ability of SRT programs to detect cavities in karst. After several years of using synthetic and field data to investigate the effectiveness of commercially available SRT codes, Sheehan et al. (2005b) indicated that refraction tomography is able to resolve many of the features observed in a karst environment. Through the use of synthetic models and field data these authors were able to test the capabilities of the programs while at the same time learning the programs limitations. All previous studies have demonstrated the ability of SRT to generally, determine the top of bedrock elevations at sites with complex subsurface conditions. Very little if any investigation has been done to examine the capabilities of SRT programs on karstic sites located in Florida. Floridas karstic limestone presents some very unique conditions for SRT programs to resolve, such as variation of the material properties within the limestone due to different degrees of weathering and times of deposition, as well as differing top of bedrock elevation due this weathering and subsequent sinkhole related activity. This study will expand the use of SRT programs into karstic terrains and the subsurface features associated with them. 22

PAGE 23

2.3.2 Overview of Seismic Refraction Tomography Programs In this study, three commercially available programs were used to produce P-wave velocity tomograms from travel time data sets collected in the field. The three programs, Rayfract, SeisImager, and SeisOpt Pro, are described in great detail by their authors and in publications by users of these programs. The following is intended to serve as a brief overview, with references noted for the reader if more detail is desired. While each of the three programs uses different methods to arrive at the final velocity tomogram, they each contain the same three important components. Each use a forward model for calculating source to receiver first arrival times based upon the current velocity model. Each has an inversion routine that adjusts the calculated and measured first arrival travel times. Finally, each updates the velocity model until an acceptable match is found for a preset number of iterations, and each has a way to generate an initial velocity model. With respect to cost, the list price for Rayfract was $2200 plus the cost of Surfer by Golden Software, Inc., $599, to display the final tomograms, SeisImager was $1800, and SeisOpt Pro cost $3200. 2.3.2.1 Rayfract (version 2.64) Rayfract uses the wavepath eikonal traveltime (WET) inversion method in its tomography processing, as presented by Schuster and Quintus-Bosz (1993). WET inversion computes wavepaths by using finite-difference solutions to the eikonal equation (Qin et al. [1992]). Woodward (1992) showed that a wavepath similar to a fat ray defines the propagation path of band limited seismic energy from the source to the receiver point. WET inversion uses the Fresnel volume approach as an alternative to the ray path approach used by most programs. The Fresnel volume approach takes into account the effects that the real waves have on the adjacent parts of the model in the vicinity of the ray paths. It accomplishes this by taking into account ray paths with slightly longer travel times (Sheehan et 23

PAGE 24

al. [2005b]). These effects are unaccounted for by simple ray tracing methods, however the WET inversion method is able to account for effects such as shadow zones and multi-pathing effects (Schuster et al. [1993]). Rayfract provides the user with two different methods to generate an initial model: 1) the Delta t-v inversion method, or 2) the smooth inversion method. The Delta t-v method is useful in identifying small features and velocity inversions. The disadvantage of using the Delta t-v for the initial output is that there may be artifacts in the Delta t-v output that are not completely removed by the subsequent WET inversion (Sheehan et al. [2005b]). As a result, the final tomogram produced after using the Delta t-v method to generate the initial model often contains artifacts. The smooth inversion method is recommended by the Rayfract users manual as the fail-safe method to generate the initial model. This method eliminates artifacts in the initial model in areas of strong refractor curvature and lateral variation that the Delta t-v method would produce. If these artifacts are eliminated in the initial model generation the subsequent WET inversions are more likely to generate a final tomogram that accurately models the features of the subsurface. However, with the smooth inversion the ability to detect and image velocity inversions as well as vertical velocity resolution is somewhat decreased (Intelligent Resources Inc., [2006]). Because of this the Rayfract users manual still recommends that the Delta t-v method at least be tried in order to generate an initial model. Once the initial model has been generated the WET inversion is performed with user defined input parameters and number of iterations set to generate the final velocity tomogram model. 24

PAGE 25

2.3.2.2 SeisImager (version 2.67) SeisImager uses nonlinear traveltime tomography consisting of ray tracing for forward modeling and simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT) for inversion. The main features of the algorithm are: 1) an initial model is constructed so that the velocity is layered and increasing with depth, 2) first arrival travel times and ray paths are calculated by the ray tracing method based on shortest path calculation, as described by Moser (1991), and a travel time between a source and a receiver is defined as the fastest traveltime of all ray paths, 3) the model is updated by SIRT and the velocity of each cell is updated during the iterations (Hayashi and Takahashi [2001]). The SeisImager users manual describes two methods for creating an initial model. In the first method the user may create a simple layer-cake initial model by assigning layers manually to the travel time curve and performing a time-term inversion. The second method makes use of tomographic inversion and creates the initial model based on a user defined velocity range, depth to top of lowest layer, and number of layers to divide the model into. There is no user control of the grid spacing in SeisImager, and the code creates a variable cell size with the width equal to the geophone spacing and the height varying with shorter cells at the surface and taller cells deeper in the model. This is presumably to decrease processing time and avoid artifacts caused by low ray coverage at deeper depths (Sheehan et al. [2005b]). Upon completion of the initial model the inversion takes place which generates the final velocity tomogram. 2.3.2.3 SeisOpt Pro (version 3.0) SeisOpt Pro uses a Monte Carlo-based optimization scheme called generalized simulated annealing to invert first arrival times for velocities, as described by Pullammanappallil and Louie (1994). For the forward model it employs a fast finite-difference scheme based on a solution to 25

PAGE 26

the eikonal equation which computes first arrival travel times through the velocity model (Vidale [1988]). Travel time inversions that use linearized inversions do not take into account changes in the velocity field due to ray paths, making them initial model dependent, which could cause them to converge at an incorrect solution. SeisOpt Pro avoids ray tracing and uses nonlinear optimization, namely generalized simulated annealing, to invert first arrival travel times for shallow velocities making it independent of the initial model. This accounts for curved rays and all types of primary arrivals (Pullammanappallil and Louie [1994]). The user must specify the vertical and horizontal resolution spatial resolution (cell size) and velocity range of the initial model. This may be accomplished by using the autocal setting and allowing the program to choose the resolution parameters and velocity range or by manually entering these parameters based on results from previous runs. With this information defined the program begins the inversion routine and outputs a final velocity tomogram. (a) (b) Figure 2-1 Location of geophysical/ground proving test site and zones within the site (from Hudyma, N., Hiltunen, D.R., and Samakur, C. (2007), Variability of Karstic Limestone Quantified Through Compressional Wave Velocity Measurements, (Accepted for Publication), Proceedings of GeoDenver 2007, New Peaks in Geotechnics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, CO, February 18-21. 26

PAGE 27

Figure 2-2 Dissolution of carbonate rock (from Tihansky, A.B. (1999), Sinkholes, West-Central Florida: A link between surface water and ground water, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, pp. 126.) Figure 2-3 Karstic limestone features (from Hudyma, N., Hiltunen, D.R., and Samakur, C. (2007), Variability of Karstic Limestone Quantified Through Compressional Wave Velocity Measurements, (Accepted for Publication), Proceedings of GeoDenver 2007, New Peaks in Geotechnics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, CO, February 18-21.) 27

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) PROGRAMS ON FIELD DATA 3.1 Seismic Refraction Testing Site Layout Seismic refraction testing was conducted during the summer of 2005 in the southern portion of the test site, as shown in Figure 2.1(b). This area was subdivided into 26 north-south survey lines, A through Z, going from west to east across the site, and spaced at a distance of 3.0 m apart from one another. Each line was 85.3 m in length with station 0 m located at the southern end of the line. For this study, testing was performed along six of the lettered survey lines: A, F, K, P, U, and Z, which are each 15.2 m apart from one another. Along each of these six lettered survey lines two 36.6 m long refraction surveys were conducted end to end beginning at station 0 m and ending at station 73.2 m, for a total of 12 refraction lines tested. 3.1.1 Field Testing Procedure The twelve 36.6 m long refraction lines chosen were each tested individually. Vertical geophones were used as receivers and spaced equally at 0.61 m apart from one another other along the line, for a total of 61 geophones along each 36.6 m length of line. The geophones used were 4.5 Hz and were manufactured by Geophysical Instrument and Supply Company, Inc. (GISCO). The seismic energy to produce the compression, or (P), wave first arrivals was induced by striking a metal plate on the ground with an 89 N sledgehammer, with a geophone placed at the source location in order to record the zero-time of wave propagation. Shots were spaced at 3.0 m intervals starting at 0 m along each of the 36.6 m refraction lines, for a total of 13 shots along each of the twelve refraction lines. The time records measured in the field by the geophones were recorded by a Data Physics Mobilizer II 32-channel dynamic signal analyzer with Signal Calc software and saved on a Dell Inspiron 8600 laptop computer. Because each of the twelve lines contained 61 geophones and 28

PAGE 29

the dynamic signal analyzer only had 32-channels to collect the time records, each of the twelve lines had to be further subdivided into two parts. For example, a line going from 0-36.6 m would be subdivided into test sections from 0-18.3 m and from 18.3-36.6 m. However, even though a line of geophones only went from 0-18.3 m, source locations were still visited at 3.0 m intervals from 0 to 36.6 m. As a result each of the 13 shot locations for each of the twelve 36.6 m survey lines had to be visited twice. 3.1.2 Testing Limitations and Potential Sources of Error The length of the refraction lines tested in the field were limited to a length of 36.6 m, as Hiltunen and Cramer (2005) had found this distance to be a limiting refraction line length using a similar testing layout and testing procedure. Once lengths were increased beyond this, using the same falling weight sledgehammer source, first arrival times became difficult to pick from the far receivers when the source location was at the opposite end of the refraction line. This was due primarily to the fact that traffic and other environmental noise energy levels became so close to the dissipated seismic compression (P) wave energy imparted that it was difficult, if not impossible, to make a first arrival pick at the far geophone locations. Similar observations were noted during the field testing at this site. This limiting length also served as a limiting factor with respect to the depth to which the subsurface could be explored due to the geometry of the layout. However, the first arrival P-waves recorded traveled to sufficient depths to delineate the soil/bedrock interface and lateral variability of the overburden soil in the subsurface for this site. In order to image the subsurface at greater depths it would be necessary to increase the length of the line while at the same time imparting a greater amount of source energy. Another possible source of error that may have occurred as a result of having to visit each shot location twice due to limitations of the number of channels on the dynamic signal analyzer. However this error is thought to be random and small. 29

PAGE 30

Traffic and other environmental noises recorded on the travel time records also made choosing first arrival times at geophone locations far from the source location difficult and sometimes impossible. 3.2 Analyzing and Processing Field Data After the field portion of the seismic refraction testing was completed, the next step was to begin processing the data collected. The first step in this process was to determine the first arrival times, which was accomplished using SeisImagers first arrival picking module PickWin95. It should be noted that all three of the SRT programs had first arrival picking capability and that PickWin95 was chosen simply because of previous experience and familiarity. 3.2.1 Selection of First Arrivals from Time Records The data files for each of the twelve refraction survey lines tested were imported into SeisImagers PickWin95 module where first arrival times were determined manually through visual inspection from the collected time records and were then saved, see Figure 3.1 for a typical time record with first arrivals chosen manually. This was done for each of the twelve survey lines for each of the thirteen source locations for each line. The first arrival data files were then saved for subsequent analysis by each of the three different SRT programs. 3.2.2 Travel Time Curve Generation After PickWin95 was used to determine the first arrivals PlotRefa, the interpretation module of SeisImager, was used to append the thirteen source first arrival time records for each refraction line into one file, as well as to generate travel time curves. In order to do this each of the first arrival data files along a refraction line for the 13 source locations were appended to a single graph and then saved to one file. Typical travel time curves generated by PlotRefa for the A line are shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. This data contains the first arrival times for each of the 30

PAGE 31

13 shot locations at each of the 61 geophone locations along a given refraction line. It is this file that will be imported into each of the three SRT programs for inversion into a final velocity model so that each of the programs would start off with the same initial set of first arrival times. 3.3 Seismic Refraction Tomography Program Processing Flow While each of the three SRT programs use different inversion methods they each have the same basic components in processing flow in order to generate the final velocity model, as described previously in section 2.5. First the complete appended first arrival file saved in PlotRefa was imported into each of the SRT programs. Each of the programs generates initial models, and then use inversion methods to produce improved velocity models. The user may also make changes to the inversion parameters to improve the final velocity model. 3.3.1 Rayfract (Version 2.64) The first step in using Rayfract is to create a profile for the refraction survey line to be analyzed. Once the profile is created the user may enter information such as Line ID, Job ID, station spacing, and station offset information. The next step is to import the complete travel time data file, previously created in PlotRefa, into Rayfract. However, Rayfract requires the travel time file imported be in a station number format, which requires the shot and receiver locations be assigned station numbers instead of their position in meters along the survey line. For example, a receiver at location 0.6 m along the refraction line would be renamed as receiver station 1 and the next receiver at 1.2 m would be receiver station 2, and so on until the final receiver located at 36.6m is renamed as station number 60. Likewise the source or shot locations needed to be assigned shot numbers as well as shot station numbers, so a shot at source location 0 m would be identified as shot number 1 at shot station 0, the second shot at 3.0 m would be shot number 2 at shot station number 5. 31

PAGE 32

Rayfract also required some relatively minor formatting changes be made to the travel time data file produced by PlotRefa. In order to make these formatting changes most efficiently an Excel macro program was created which allowed the user to make these changes with minimal manipulation and then save as an ASCII text file. Rayfract also has a first arrival picking module within the program which, if utilized, may have lessened the amount of time and effort to get the data ready to be imported. Since all the shot and receiver locations are identified as station numbers, Rayfract requires that a station coordinate file be created to give the location in meters of these station numbers along the refraction line. This file contains four columns: 1) Station Number, 2) x coordinate, 3) y coordinate, and 4) elevation. The x coordinate column simply gives the location in meters of the station number assigned to the receiver and shot locations, while columns 3 and 4 remained zero for this set of data because the testing was assumed to have been done in a straight line at a constant elevation. Only two of these files needed to be created for all twelve refraction survey lines, one from 0-36.6 m and the other from 36.6-73.2 m, and the appropriate one chosen for each refraction line imported because the geometry of the test layout remained the same throughout the testing. This coordinate file was then imported into Rayfract and the modified travel time data file was now ready to be imported into Rayfract for inversion. The Rayfract users manual recommends that the initial velocity model be determined using the smooth inversion method, which produces a simple layer cake model with one-dimensional variation in velocity with depth. Once complete, the wavepath eikonal traveltime (WET) inversion method was used with the velocity smoothing set to full for 10 iterations to generate the velocity tomogram using the default WET tomography parameters, as recommended by the Rayfract users manual. The purpose of smoothing, as it relates to velocity inversion, is to 32

PAGE 33

take into account the velocity of neighboring cells when assigning a cell a velocity to keep it from deviating too much from neighboring cells, as the actual velocities of neighboring cells in most subsurfaces should be similar to one another. By doing so the final velocity model should be less effected by changes in velocity for a single cell, and therefore be more representative of the actual subsurface velocity profile. Rayfract sets the maximum velocity to 6000 m/s as a default, which was observed to be well above the maximum velocities encountered and was left unchanged as lowering it did not show any decrease in error calculation in the runs. The final velocity tomogram and ray path model produced were automatically outputted by Rayfract for viewing to Surfer, a mapping program by Golden Software, Inc. They were then reviewed looking at how complete the ray coverage was throughout the model and if any artifacts or unusual features existed within the final velocity tomogram. Based on observations from the first tomogram produced, additional runs at full smoothing were made to see if adjusting the wavepath width parameter up from the default of 3.0%, as recommended in the Rayfract users manual to smooth out gaps or anomalies, produced a better tomogram. While this often helped remove anomalies and gaps in ray coverage, the downside to increasing the wavepath width was that some features became blurred. Rayfract also has a few other parameters related to the wavepath that may also be adjusted, however no recommendations were made regarding adjustments to these parameters and the few that were tried yielded little change in the final tomogram. So the tomogram chosen to go forward with was the one that had the lowest wavepath width, while still providing adequate ray path coverage and velocity model lacking artifacts. 33

PAGE 34

Once the best velocity models were chosen, they were specified as the initial models and an additional 10 iterations, for a total of 20 iterations, were run using the full velocity smoothing option to further refine the tomogram, as suggested by the Rayfract users manual. The Rayfract manual then suggests using the minimal smoothing setting for the second run of 10 iterations. However this produced models with velocity features appearing sharp and jagged, which were deemed not representative of the even these highly variable geologic conditions. With several models now complete for a line, it became necessary to evaluate them in order to determine the best overall model produced. The criteria looked at were: 1) how complete the ray path coverage was, 2) if any anomalies occurred in the velocity model, and 3) how the final error compared with the other models. Upon completion of the inversion process Rayfract displayed the results of three error calculations: 1) mean unsigned error (ms), 2) maximum unsigned error (ms), and 3) the relative misfit function, calculated by squaring the error over all of the traces modeled and dividing that by twice the modeled trace count (Schuster [1993]). In cases where ray path coverage was complete and no anomalies existed in several models, the velocity model with the smallest wavepath width was usually selected as it often showed the most detail and had the lowest error. The final P-wave velocity tomograms for the A line stations 0-36.6 m and 36.6-73.2 are shown in Figures 3.5 (a) and 3.6 (a), respectively, with the remaining final tomograms shown in Appendix A. 3.3.2 SeisImager (version 2.67) SeisImager uses PlotRefa to develop P-wave velocity tomograms. The first step in using PlotRefa is to open the previously saved appended travel time data file. Next the initial model needs to be generated, using user specified parameters such as velocity range, depth to top of lowest layer, and the number of layers. The SeisImager users manual notes that the most important parameters to correctly identify are the minimum and maximum velocities, and if 34

PAGE 35

unsure of actual velocities to be conservative in choosing them as the inversion will not converge if the actual velocities are not bracketed. Since no information existed regarding the actual P-wave velocities for the subsurface at this site, it was necessary to employ a method to help bracket them, as well as the depth to the top of the lowest layer. Cramer and Hiltunen (2003) determined these parameters by generating simple layer-cake initial models consisting of two or three layers in SeisImager which were generated by manually assigning layers to the travel time curves from the to the two outside source locations, stations 0 and 36.6 m. Since the SeisImager manual offers minimal guidance to the user in determining these initial model parameters, this method was used as a first attempt to bracket these parameters. Figure 3.4 shows the two end source travel time curves for the A line 0-36.6 m with three layers assigned to each: red, green, and blue. After the assignment of layers the inversion was run and a simple two or three layer velocity model was produced. The minimum velocity initial model parameter was determined from the velocity of the first layer, the maximum velocity from the deepest layer, and the depth to the top of the lowest layer from that interface. Cramer and Hiltunen (2003) found that the best velocity models could be generated by decreasing the minimum velocity found by 25%, and increasing the maximum velocity and depth to top of lowest layer by 25%. This same method was attempted for this particular set of data, however it was unable bracket the actual velocity range and depth to top of lowest layer. Thus, in order to develop an initial model, a wide velocity range was assigned to the parameters based on values well outside of what was expected. With that the minimum velocity was initially set as 300 m/s, and the maximum velocity to 4500 m/s, with the depth to the top of the lowest layer assigned based on the depth of the lowest ray from the velocity model produced 35

PAGE 36

using the method of Cramer and Hiltunen (2003). The velocity model inversion was run setting the number of layers equal to twenty, and producing the best final velocity model became an iterative process in which the previously run final velocity model was evaluated in order to see what changes were necessary to make in the initial model parameters to produce a better velocity model. The velocity parameters were the first that needed to be bracketed, so the minimum velocity was reduced if the model was within 100 m/s of the 300 m/s minimum velocity, and the maximum velocity was reduced from 4500 m/s if the maximum value found was less than 3500 m/s, approximately 25% less than 4500 m/s. Usually any velocity changes were minimal and were made only after the first model inversion. With the velocity range now bracketed, determining the top of the lowest layer parameter for the initial model was an iterative process in which the velocity range inputs were held constant and the depth was changed. This depth was then adjusted incrementally several times to progressively lower depths to make sure the lowest ray paths were at depths sufficiently less than the lowest layer depth specified in the initial model. This was done to ensure the depths that the ray paths traveled were not being constrained by the initial model parameters. After this was complete, the final velocity model was chosen based on having: 1) a lack of artifacts, 2) a low RMS error, but not necessarily the lowest, and 3) a depth to top of lowest layer depth sufficiently large enough to allow ray path travel not to be constrained. The runs were each made using the default number of iterations of 10. Additional runs made using 20 iterations and were found to produce models looking virtually identical with a minimal reduction in error, so final models were generated using 10 iterations. The final P-wave velocity tomograms for the A line stations 0-36.6 m and 36.6-73.2 m are shown in Figures 3.5(b) and 3.6(b), and the final tomograms for the remaining lines are shown in Appendix A. 36

PAGE 37

3.3.3 SeisOpt Pro (version 3.0) SeisOpt Pro requires that the input files used for inversion of the final velocity model consist of 3 ASCII (text) files. The first file contains source location information, the second receiver location information, and the third first-arrival pick times (Optim LLC, [2004]). In order to accomplish this, SeisOpt Pro has several conversion programs built in to take the first arrival information from travel time data files created using other first-arrival picking programs and converts them into the required ASCII format. Since this version of SeisOpt Pro did not have a conversion program to convert first arrival files created in PickWin95, customer support at Optim Software, the programs manufacturer, was contacted and a conversion program was written and sent electronically. This is a service offered to the user in the SeisOpt Pro users manual. The next step was to set the input parameters for the initial model. SeisOpt offers five different preset resolutions that determine the cell width (hx) and cell height (hz) to be used in the model. The higher the resolution the smaller the cell size used in the inversion and, consequentially, the more detailed the final velocity model becomes. The SeisOpt manual recommends running the inversion at the Medium, High, and Highest settings to determine which resolution will provide the best solution without any artifacts, but suggests that the Highest or sometimes the High resolution setting for geotechnical type applications usually performs the best. Runs were made for each of these three different resolutions using the autocal option, which automatically determines the cell width (hx), cell height (hz), number of cells in the x direction (nx), and number of cells in the z direction (nz) to be used in the velocity model inversion based on receiver spacing, for each refraction line. The velocity models from each of the three resolutions were compared against one another, and it was observed that the high and medium resolution settings produced models with fewer 37

PAGE 38

artifacts and better ray coverage than the highest. Carpenter et al. (2003) also noted in their study of SeisOpt Pro that using the highest resolution developed severe modeling artifacts and could not be used to infer subsurface geology. With this observation, it was decided to no longer make runs using the highest resolution setting because of the inadequacy of the models, and the lengthy computational time necessary to produce them, approximately 9 hours. The high and medium resolution models use larger cell sizes which, when a ray passes though it, will cover a larger area of the model. While some detail in the model may be lost due to the increased size of the cell, ray coverage should be greater with fewer artifacts present due to a lack of ray coverage. The output from high and medium initial autocal runs included the default nx, nz, hx, hz, and maximum and minimum velocity used to produce the velocity model. With these values determined, 10 additional runs were made with 10 different values of nz, changing it by increments of 1, with 5 of them above the default nz value and 5 below, as recommended by the SeisOpt Pro users manual. The other output parameters determined in the initial autocal run were held constant. The reason for changing only the number of cells in the vertical direction (nz) is that the depth of penetration of the first arrival rays is a nonlinear function of source-receiver offset and subsurface velocities, as a result the depth of the model is the biggest unknown (Optim LLC, [2004]). The resulting 10 velocity models produced from the medium and high resolutions were then compared against one another. The best velocity model was determined for each resolution based on: 1) displaying a lack of artifacts, 2) having adequate ray path coverage, and 3) having comparatively low least square error. The best tomogram of the high and medium resolution models were compared against one another using this criteria and it was found that the medium resolution setting produced the best overall velocity models. 38

PAGE 39

Carpenter et al. (2003) also found for their data sets that the medium resolution models produced velocity tomograms consistent with the geology and provided a reasonable solution that resembled the best high-resolution models. Thus, it was decided to proceed forward with the remaining lines using primarily only the medium resolution setting. However, to be certain a better velocity model had not been overlooked, a few runs were conducted at the high and highest resolutions. After reviewing the 10 initial runs using different nz values it was noted that the best models often occurred at or near the lowest and highest nz values run. In order to help ensure that a better model did not exist outside these initial ten runs, and to effectively bracket the best model with several inferior models of both higher and lower nz values, the number of runs was expanded to between 20 and 25 different nz values. This process was accelerated by using the batch processing feature which allows the user to set the model input parameters with the different nz values, saving them into separate files, and set them up to be run consecutively. This allows the user to batch up multiple runs and have them run automatically without any interaction or need to be present. The resulting models were then examined for each of the refraction lines and the best model was chosen based on the previously mentioned criteria. For 11 of the 12 refraction lines the medium resolution tomogram was chosen as the final velocity model. However, a low resolution model was run and chosen for the A line station 0-36.6 m due to the number of artifacts present in even the best medium resolution model. Figures 3.5(c) and 3.6(c) show the final P-wave velocity tomograms for the A line, and the remaining lines are presented in Appendix A. 39

PAGE 40

3.4 Comparison of the (SRT) Programs With the final P-wave velocity tomograms chosen from each of the three programs for each of the twelve refraction lines it was now necessary to compare them against one another. Comparing velocity models from different SRT programs against one another can be done by either comparing the calculated final error of the travel times or by visual inspection. An error calculation provides a more effective, less subjective means of evaluating code performance. However, visual inspection best approximates how the results from a real field study will be interpreted. In a field study visual interpretation is necessary because there is no truth with which to compare mathematically (Sheehan et al. [2003]). In real world geotechnical applications models will be evaluated on how consistent they appear to be with the expected geology of the area and with data obtained from more traditional geotechnical techniques, such as SPT, CPT and rock coring. A model chosen solely based on having low error may still show features not consistent with the expected and contain artifacts. It is for this reason that model comparisons between programs will be made based primarily upon visual inspection with error calculations performed to provide an objective comparison. 3.4.1 Creation of Tomograms using Surfer (version 8.04) Each of the three SRT programs displays its final velocity model in a different format and scale. In order to visually inspect each of the final models from each of the three programs without becoming biased by the visual quality of one SRTs program model versus another, each was imported into a single mapping program, Surfer. SeisImager and SeisOpt create output files of the velocity model in a format in which the user can directly import them into Surfer to create a contour map, and since Rayfract automatically outputs its velocity model into Surfer, only minimal changes to map properties needed to be made. Once imported, contour maps were created for each of the three models from each of the SRT programs for each of the twelve lines, 40

PAGE 41

as presented in Figures 3.5 and 3.6 as well as in Appendix A. Map properties such as scale, minimum and maximum velocity, and contour interval (set as 100m/s) were made to be identical for each of the three models across a line in order to remove any unintentional visual bias. 3.4.2 General Visual Observations of Tomograms Even though the models have been imported into Surfer to remove any visual bias some important differences do exist. Most notably the SeisImager models are rectangular in shape, while Rayfract models are bowl like and SeisOpt Pro are pyramidal. The reason for this difference in model geometry is that Rayfract and SeisOpt Pro do not model portions outside the area of ray path coverage, while SeisImager extrapolates the velocity model outward and downward from areas of nearby ray coverage. Any regions of the velocity model, whether in the inner or outer portion of the model, outside the area of ray path coverage should be interpreted carefully as not enough information is available in these regions for the SRT programs to determine features of the subsurface. Some other general trends were also observed between the three programs. The minimum velocities modeled in the final velocity tomograms tended to be similar in all three programs for a given refraction line, while the maximum velocity tended to be the highest in SeisImager and Rayfract and was usually the lowest in SeisOpt Pro. However, the differences in the maximum velocity seemed to occur only near the bottom of the model and in areas of low ray coverage, while the majority of the velocities in other areas of the models across the programs remained similar. With respect to the depth of the final model for the twelve refraction lines, SeisImager and sometimes Rayfract tended to be the deepest, while SeisOpt always resulted in the shallowest model. It is important to note that SeisImager often had only one or a few ray paths traveling at the bottom of model, with several meters above in which no ray paths traveled through. These areas should be interpreted with caution. 41

PAGE 42

SeisOpt often produced oval shaped artifacts in the lower half of the model that could usually be attributed to areas of low ray path coverage, but not always. Sheehan et al. (2003) also reported model instability in SeisOpt Pro when too many layers (too large a nz value) or too many velocity elements are used (usually at the highest resolution setting). The instability manifests itself in the appearance of high or low velocity artifact pinnacles, cutters or oval areas, usually within the lower third of the section. The amount of artifacts seemed to decrease in SeisOpt Pro as the resolution was decreased, so some additional runs were made to see if these artifacts could be removed by setting the resolution to the low setting. This did seem to help, however the detail of the subsurface features was also greatly reduced. 3.4.4 Specific Visual Observations of Tomograms Figure 3.5 shows the final velocity models from all three programs for the A line station 0.6 m. While some differences do exist between the models the same general subsurface features exist, particularly in the upper portion. All three models show a valley or bowl-like feature in the middle stations with pinnacles on the right and left sides of the lines occurring at approximately the same station numbers and depth. The velocities associated with these features and the remaining portions also compare similarly to each other with depth. Likewise, Figure 3.6 shows the velocity models from the A-line station numbers 36.6.2 m with pinnacle like features toward the right and left side of the model, with a valley or bowl-like feature towards the center of the model in each of the three SRT programs. The resulting final tomograms for each of the three SRT programs for the remaining refraction lines, F, K, P, U, and Z, were examined and compared against each other, see Appendix A. After careful examination of the final tomograms it was noted that, like the A line, each program imaged the same general subsurface features at similar locations and depths. For the most part the P-wave velocities were also observed to be similar with depth at the same 42

PAGE 43

location across the models produced by all three SRT programs. The few minor differences observed usually occurred in areas of low ray path coverage, usually the lower portion of the models, where the programs had to interpret the velocity model with little or no measured ray paths traveling through. This was the case particularly for the SeisOpt Pro models, which resulted in artifacts and other features being modeled that are not consistent with the geological history. Based on visual inspection of the tomograms across the three SRT programs generated for this site, it can be stated that each of the three SRT programs are able to produce final velocity models with the same general subsurface features being imaged. 3.4.5 Quantitative Comparison of Calculated Travel Times Although visual inspection of the final P-wave tomograms produced by the models is important in the evaluation of the programs, the results are subjective and may vary depending on the viewer. In order to help provide a more objective comparison of the programs, the differences between the measured and the calculated travel times of each program were evaluated for the two A line final tomograms, stations 0-36.6 m and 36.6-73.2 m, see Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 are provided to show visually the closeness of the measured versus predicted travel time curves for each of the three SRT programs. The RMS error and the mean and maximum differences were calculated for each of the three programs for the A line. The results show the RMS, mean difference, and maximum difference to be comparatively close between Rayfract and SeisImager calculated travel times, with Rayfract having a lower RMS for the A line 0-36.6 m, and SeisImager having a lower RMS for the A line 36.6-73.2 m. SeisOpt Pro had RMS, mean difference, and maximum difference values slightly higher than the other two programs for the A-line. This closeness between the programs quantitatively as well as through visual inspection should give the user further confidence in the ability of each of the programs to model the general features of the subsurface 43

PAGE 44

similarly. Perhaps the differences that do exist between SeisOpt Pro and the other two programs may help explain the reason why Rayfract and SeisImager were able to produce tomograms with some more detail and less artifacts. 3.4.5 Processing Time Along with comparisons between the velocity tomograms, the amount of processing time each program requires is also important to take into consideration. The amount of processing time to run an inversion will vary depending upon the data set, the speed of the computer used, and the size of the data in the refraction line, so times recorded can only be used when comparing the three programs for these data sets. Times were recorded for runs made by each of the programs for the A line station numbers 0-36.6 m, however similar times were observed in the remaining runs. The resulting times showed SeisImager taking approximately 8 minutes and Rayfract taking approximately 10 minutes to run inversion routines for ten iterations. However, Rayfract was run for 20 iterations, approximately 20 minutes, in order to bring out some finer subsurface details. The SeisOpt Pro run made using the medium resolution setting took approximately 1 hour, as it is the most complex inversion routine. Similar processing times were observed for the other refraction lines. The length of the processing times reflect the complexity of the inversion routines behind the programs, with SeisImager being the simplest and SeisOpt Pro being the most complex. However, simply using the most complex and time intensive inversion does not guarantee the best final model. SeisImager and Rayfract were able to produce a final model that seemed to be consistent with the known geology as well as containing fewer artifacts than SeisOpt Pro in a significantly less amount of time. 44

PAGE 45

3.5 General Assessment of Performance of the SRT Programs Evaluated Although each of the three programs rely upon completely different inversion methods, each was capable of producing final tomograms showing similar subsurface features. With the three SRT programs evaluated based on visual inspection as well as quantitatively the following statements may be made: 4 All three SRT programs when visually compared to one another for a given refraction line were able to generate tomograms showing similar subsurface features and P-wave velocities. 5 Quantitatively, the error between the measured and calculated travel times for each of the three SRT programs were comparatively close to one another. However, the slightly larger error calculated for the calculated SeisOpt Pro travel times may account for the differences and artifacts modeled. 6 An increase in processing time does not necessarily lead to a better model being produced as SeisOpt Pro took significantly longer to run and generally produced models with more artifacts. Table 3-1 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line Station 0-36.6 m Rayfract SeisImager SeisOpt RMS (ms) 24.4 29.6 34.5 Mean Difference (ms) 0.68 0.84 0.99 Maximum Difference (ms) 3.29 3.77 4.14 Table 3-2 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line Station 36.6-73.2 m Rayfract SeisImager SeisOpt RMS (ms) 28.1 25.0 31.6 Mean Difference (ms) 0.66 0.74 0.87 Maximum Difference (ms) 5.61 5.24 6.21 45

PAGE 46

Figure 3-1 Example of PickWin95 time record along survey line A from stations 0-36.6 m for source location 0 m. Chosen first arrival times are denoted for each trace by the horizontal red line. 46

PAGE 47

Figure 3-2 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m Figure 3-3 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 36.6-73.2 m 47

PAGE 48

Figure 3-4 PlotRefa outside source location travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m 48

PAGE 49

Figure 3-5 P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract tomogram, (b) SeisImager tomogram, and (c) SeisOpt Pro tomogram. 49

PAGE 50

Figure 3-6 P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract tomogram, (b) SeisImager tomogram, and (c) SeisOpt Pro tomogram. 50

PAGE 51

05101520253035400510152025303540Horizontal Distance (m)Travel Time (msec) Measured Predicted (a) 05101520253035400510152025303540Horizontal Distance (m)Travel Time (msec) Measured Predicted (b) 05101520253035400510152025303540Horizontal Distance (m)Travel Time (msec) Measured Predicted (c) Figure 3-7 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract travel times, (b) SeisImager travel times, and (c) SeisOpt Pro travel times. 51

PAGE 52

0510152025303540354045505560657075Horizontal Distance (m)Travel Time (msec) Measured Predicted (a) 0510152025303540354045505560657075Horizontal Distance (m)Travel Time (msec) Measured Predicted (b) 0510152025303540354045505560657075Horizontal Distance (m)Travel Time (msec) Measured Predicted (c) Figure 3-8 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract travel times, (b) SeisImager travel times, and (c) SeisOpt Pro travel times. 52

PAGE 53

CHAPTER 4 COMPARISON OF SRT PROGRAM RESULTS AND INTRUSIVE TESTING DATA 4.1 Selection of Intrusive Test Locations The selection of the seismic refraction testing locations were made blindly, with no information known regarding the subsurface from traditional geotechnical exploration methods, such as SPT and CPT borings. The seismic refraction field testing was performed and the data was then collected, processed, and imported into SeisImager to generate initial P-wave velocity tomograms. These preliminary velocity models were then reviewed and locations for the CPT soundings were selected based on features of interest such as valleys, or bowl-like features, and pinnacles. Once the CPT soundings were completed the P-wave velocities from the SeisImager tomograms were noted at the top of bedrock depths. The P-wave velocities for these locations at the top of bedrock were found not to be consistent, but rather ranged from 600 m/s to 2200 m/s. In an effort to explain this, subsequent SPT and rock coring locations were then chosen in some of these locations, as well as others, to recover physical samples to try to find out why the P-wave velocity in the tomograms for the top of bedrock varied so greatly. Since the project did have financial constraints an intrusive test would not be able to be performed at every feature of interest, consequently intrusive tests were only performed along the A, F, U, and Z lines. However, the selections made were broad enough to ensure the major features of the subsurface imaged in the preliminary SeisImager tomograms would be able to be explored. 4.2 Types of Intrusive Testing Performed The field exploration at this site consisted of three types of physically intrusive tests: CPT, SPT, and rock coring. These tests were chosen because they represent the most commonly used intrusive tests in practice, and in order for seismic refraction testing to be considered for 53

PAGE 54

widespread use it will be necessary to show how well it compares against traditional methods. The following three sections provide technical detail and discuss the test procedures used for each of the three test types of intrusive tests used. 4.2.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Procedure CPT soundings were performed first at ten selected locations within the site during November of 2005. These locations, as previously discussed, were chosen as areas of interest based on the SeisImager tomograms. A Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) field crew, using a Hogentogler Electric Cone Penetration Rig, performed the soundings at the locations selected. The soundings were performed in general accordance with the testing procedures outlined in the FDOT 2004 Soils and Foundations Manual. The CPT soundings were terminated at depths in which the tip met refusal due to the top of bedrock, approximately 30 MPa. This refusal was inferred to mean that the top of the bedrock had been encountered, SPT borings would later be performed at some of these locations to confirm this. 4.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedure SPT boring locations were chosen after the CPT soundings had been performed and were also compared to the tomograms. They were utilized in order to confirm the top of bedrock depth determined by the CPT soundings, as well as to recover a physical sample to learn more about the properties of the subsurface material. It was hoped that this would help explain the wide range of P-wave velocities encountered in the top of bedrock material. The SPT borehole locations were performed at eight selected locations during December of 2005 by Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc., and were performed in general accordance with the FDOT Soils and Foundations Handbook 2004. A standard split spoon sampler was advanced 450 mm by dropping a 63.5 kg hammer on the drill rod from a height of 760 mm. The SPT boring was advanced continuously from 0.3 m 54

PAGE 55

below the ground surface until the top of the bedrock was encountered and the Standard Penetration N values were recorded. To prevent the borehole from collapsing, and to wash away the soil cuttings, drilling mud was circulated as a 0.1 m diameter auger was used to widen the borehole after each sampling interval. The depth of the groundwater table was recorded and soil samples were classified. Once the SPT borehole encountered the top of bedrock, 0.1 m diameter casing was set inside the borehole. The casing had teeth on the bottom of the initial length of casing to enlarge the hole and embed it several centimeters into the top of bedrock. With the casing now firmly set inside the borehole the rock coring was ready to proceed. 4.2.3 Rock Coring Procedure Once the top of bedrock was encountered in each of the eight SPT boring locations, rock coring was initiated. The rock coring was performed using a diamond impregnated double barrel core bit with an inner barrel diameter of 85 mm. Water was circulated through to the bottom to cool the bit and wash away any cuttings. Rock coring was performed through the limestone in 1.5 m runs by the same drill rig used to perform the SPT borings. Coring was continued to a depth at which good quality rock was encountered. The rock core samples were recovered and later examined to provide more detailed information such as: Recovery (%), Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (%), and a physical description of the rock itself. The samples were saved so that future laboratory tests may be performed to further characterize them. 4.3 General Results of Intrusive Testing The subsurface information obtained through the various intrusive testing methods revealed how variable the site is, see Appendix B for complete results of the intrusive testing. The top of bedrock varied from being visible at the ground surface to 9 m below the surface, depending on the location. Along with the changes in the depth to top of bedrock, the quality of 55

PAGE 56

the rock, (RQD), varied greatly from each borehole and even within a single borehole. The overburden soil layers varied not only in depth due to the changing top of bedrock elevation, but also in type of soil at a particular depth from borehole to borehole, with no discernable pattern. One of the only constants in this extremely variable subsurface was the depth of the groundwater table, which was measured at approximately 4.6 m in each of the boreholes. The following sections provide a brief summary of the material encountered during the intrusive testing. 4.3.1 A Line Intrusive Testing Results CPT soundings were performed at stations 19.8, 39.6, 44.2, and 65.5 m along the A line, with SPT borings and rock coring performed at stations 19.8, 36.6, and 65.5 m, see Appendix B for detailed information from these intrusive tests. The results showed the top of bedrock depth to vary greatly along the line ranging from 0.2 to 9.0 m, see Table 4-1 for specific top of bedrock depths at each intrusive test location. Likewise the overburden soil above the limestone also varied considerably, consisting of very loose to loose sand and clayey sands at varying depth and thickness, with station 19.8 m containing a layer of clay from 8.5 to 13 m deep. The limestone encountered not only varied in depth in which it was encountered, but also varied greatly with respect to RQD (%) as the rock coring was advanced. The logs frequently describe the limestone as being weak and containing fracture zones, with a cavity encountered at station 36.6 m from 5 to 5.3 m. 4.3.2 F Line Intrusive Testing Results Along the F line from station 0-36.6 m two SPT borings with rock coring were performed at stations 3.0 and 13.7 m, see Appendix B for detailed information from these intrusive tests. A summary of the top of bedrock depths may also be seen in Table 4-2. The logs show at station 3.0 m highly weathered limestone was encountered at a depth of approximately 4.5 m. This limestone was overlain by alternating layers of soft to very soft clay and loose to medium dense 56

PAGE 57

clayey sand, each of about 1 m in thickness. The RQD of the underlying limestone also alternated between the lengths of core run from 0% and approximately 40 to 60%. The boring logs at station 13.7 m showed that heavily weathered limestone was encountered at 1.7 m with more competent limestone, RQD 70%, being encountered at 3.4 m. The overburden material consisted of a 1 m layer of soft clay underlain by a 0.7 m layer of loose sand with clay and gravel. Numerous fractures and fossils were noted within limestone in the rock coring logs. 4.3.3 U Line Intrusive Testing Results CPT soundings were performed along the U line at stations 8.5, 24.4, 36.6 and 73.2 m along with a single SPT boring and rock coring performed at station 24.4 m, detailed logs for each of the intrusive tests performed on this line may be found in Appendix B. The depth to top of limestone varied at the intrusive test locations along the line from 1.2 to 8.2 m, see Table 4-3 for specific top of limestone depths at each intrusive test location. Because soil sampling was only performed at the single SPT location along the line, the only description of subsurface is available at station 24.4 m, which showed the top of limestone to be at a depth of 8.2 m, overlain by layers of loose sand and very soft to soft clay. The rock coring logs show the RQD to gradually decrease from 60% at 9.5 m to 20% at 14 m where a sandy clay filled cavity was encountered from 14 m to the end of hole depth at 15.5 m. 4.3.4 Z Line Intrusive Testing Results Along the Z line two CPT soundings were performed at stations 35 and 64 m along with two SPT borings and rock corings at stations 21.9 and 35 m, the complete logs of the intrusive testing performed along the Z line may be seen in Appendix B. Based on the intrusive tests the depth to the top of competent limestone ranged from 6.1 to 7.8 m along the line, see Tables 4-4 and 4-5 for a summary of the top of limestone depths encountered along the Z line. Compared to 57

PAGE 58

the results from the other lines tested this was the least amount of variation with respect to top of bedrock depth along a single survey line, using the limited amount of intrusive data available. At station 21.9 limestone was encountered 7.3 m deep, with a RQD of 50%, and was overlain by an approximately 1.0 m thick layer of heavily weathered limestone, overlain by 1.2 m of stiff clay, overlain by 5.3 m of sand. Likewise the boring logs from station 35 m show limestone to be at a depth of 6.4 m, RQD of 50%, overlain by 1.2 m of heavily weathered limestone with clay overlain by 3.7 m of soft to stiff clay overlain by 1.5 m of loose clayey sand and sand. Both of the rock coring logs note core runs containing fractures within the limestone, with station 21.9 m noted as containing a sand and clay filled cavity between 13.6 and 15.1 m deep. 4.4 Comparison of Intrusive Testing to the SRT Tomograms Upon completion of the intrusive field testing program, final tomograms were produced using each of the three SRT programs, as described in Chapter 3. The next step was to see how these tomograms compared to the information obtained from the intrusive testing. In comparing, the principal objective was the ability of the SRT programs to delineate the laterally variable soil/bedrock interface. The ability to delineate this interface accurately for the locations in which this information is known would give the user confidence about the programs abilities to delineate this interface in regions for which no information is available. At sites with uniform bedrock properties this may be accomplished by simply identifying the P-wave velocity of the material, which should remain relatively constant along the survey line, and tracing it across the tomogram to delineate the soil/bedrock interface. For this site a simple constant P-wave velocity delineation of the soil/bedrock interface will probably not be possible due to variation in the bedrock material due to its geologic history. 58

PAGE 59

4.4.1 Comparison of A Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results The intrusive testing results were first compared along refraction survey line A from stations 0-36.6 m, see Figure 4.1. The first step in the comparison was to make note of the P-wave velocity in the tomograms at the depth in which the intrusive tests encountered the top of bedrock to see if a specific velocity or a small range of velocities could be identified as the top of bedrock velocity. The top of bedrock at station 19.8 m was encountered by the intrusive testing at a depth of approximately 9.0 m below the ground surface. When the tomograms for each of the three programs were examined at this location the P-wave velocity was approximately 2000 m/s, depending on which of the three tomograms was used. Three CPT soundings and one SPT boring were performed along the second A line of refraction, stations 36.6-73.2 m, see Figure 4.2. The CPT sounding at station 39.6 m was terminated before a large tip resistance was encountered at depth of about 2.2 m because the CPT rod was bending seriously to the south as penetration was attempted. After a close review of the tomograms, Figure 4.2, it can be seen that station 39.6 m appears to be just to the left, or south, of the top of a block/pinnacle feature, and that the bending of the CPT rod to the south of the site is consistent with the subsurface featured in the tomograms (Hiltunen et al. 2007). The P-wave velocity of the material at the depth the CPT met refusal was approximately 700 m/s, based on the tomograms. CPT soundings were also performed at stations 44.2 m and 65.5 m, with the tip resistance approaching 30 MPa at approximately 0.2 and 0.4 m, respectively. A SPT boring was also performed at station 65.5 m, which confirmed the top of limestone depth to be at 0.3 m, with the RQD being approximately 75 %. The P-wave velocities determined from the tomograms for this shallow top of limestone region ranged between 600 and 800 m/s, depending on the tomogram. Small limestone outcrops were visible at the ground surface, and noted for the A line for station 59

PAGE 60

62.5 to 64 m and 66.1 through 67.1 m. This shallow depth to top of bedrock appears to be consistent with the pinnacle/block type feature imaged by each of the tomograms at these locations. After review of the P-wave velocities at the top of bedrock depth it became obvious that not only did the depth of limestone vary greatly across the line, ranging from the ground surface to 9.0 m deep, but so did the P-wave velocity, ranging from 600 m/s to 2000 m/s, see Table 4-1 for a summary of the top of bedrock P-wave velocities determined from the tomograms. As a result it would not be possible to determine the top of bedrock depth by simply tracing a single velocity contour line across the tomogram, as the top of bedrock velocity changed greatly along the survey line. With the contour interval for the tomograms set at 100 m/s, general subsurface features were evident such as valley and block/pinnacle type features. However, the depth to the soil/bedrock interface is not immediately obvious to the user. In an attempt to try and make the soil/bedrock interface within the tomograms more visually apparent, the contour intervals within Surfer were reduced for each of the three SRT programs. It was found that by reducing the contour interval to 10 m/s for the Rayfract tomograms along the A line stations 0-36.6 m that the contour intervals would concentrate to the point of being so close that they appeared solid or near solid at depths corresponding with the top of bedrock measured from the intrusive tests, see Figure 4.4. The contour fill coloring and labeling was also removed to make this concentration of contour lines more apparent. This concentration at the location of the soil/rock interface makes physical sense because there should be a large gradient (change) in P-wave velocity due to the abrupt material change, and this large change should be observed in the tomogram via a dense concentration of contour lines. 60

PAGE 61

In order to confirm this, the next step was to compare the location of the increased contour line concentration in the Rayfract tomograms against the results of the intrusive testing program. The top of limestone depth seemed to corresponded well with the depth of contour line concentration, see Table 4-2 for a comparison of intrusive top of limestone depth versus the depth of the contour line concentration at that depth. For example, along the A line at station 19.8 m the SPT and CPT testing determined the top of limestone to be at approximately 9.0 m, see Figure 4.3 (a). Looking at the Rayfract model, a large concentration of contour lines occurs at depth of approximately 8.8 m in the Rayfract tomogram. Although no further intrusive test data exists for this line, if one were to trace the front of contour line concentration from station 19.8 m, presuming this did delineate the top of bedrock, one would expect to find pinnacle/block like features at depth of approximately 1.0 m at stations 13.0 and 27.0 m with the top of bedrock undulating from left to right. It would be interesting to see if future intrusive testing confirmed this hypothesis. A similar trend was noted for the A line station 36.6-73.2 m Rayfract tomogram, see Figure 4.5. In their analysis of synthetic models, Sheehan et al. (2005b) found SRT programs to be incapable of accurately imaging abrupt velocity changes. Instead they smear the boundary into a gradient. Therefore, boundaries must be interpreted from areas of maximum gradient. Reducing the contour interval to 10 m/s visually shows this increase in gradient as closely spaced P-wave velocity contour lines. The largest increase in gradient, or concentration of contour lines, should occur where the greatest increase in P-wave velocity occurs, typically at the soil/rock interface. It should also be noted that a similar procedure was tried for the SeisImager and SeisOpt tomograms, however they were unable to show any concentration of contour lines at locations corresponding to the top of bedrock depth, see Figures 4.3 (b) and (c) and Figures 4.5 (b) and (c). 61

PAGE 62

However, when the contour interval was set at 50 m/s for SeisImager and SeisOpt Pro for the A line 0-36.6 m tomograms, some concentrations were able to be seen near depths corresponding to the top of bedrock depth at some of the intrusive test locations. However, this close contour depth was not as obvious, and did not correspond as closely to the intrusive test results as the Rayfract tomogram did, see Figure 4.4. The reason believed as to why Rayfract was able to show this concentration of contour lines clearer and more accurate than the other two SRT programs probably is due to the fact that during the inversion process it creates a dense grid file of the velocity model that is updated after each iteration and is exported to Surfer. A grid is a rectangular region composed of evenly spaced rows (the y coordinate), and columns (the x coordinate), with the intersection of a row and a column called a grid node. By generating a grid file Surfer will interpolate or extrapolate a Z value (velocity) at each unknown grid node based on known data values. For the models produced in Rayfract the grid size was typically 300 rows by 600 columns. SeisImager and SeisOpt Pro simply provide the x and y coordinates with the respective velocity (z) at a data point, and do not interpolate for values in between. Rayfract models typically contained approximately 2000 data points in the initial model, compared to approximately 1200 in SeisImager and 3000 in SeisOpt Pro. However, because Rayfract updated the entire velocity grid file after each iteration, interpolating to determine unknown values at the grid nodes, it typically contained between 70,000-100,000 node values. By having so many more nodes to create contour lines with, Rayfract was able to show this concentration clearer, smoother, and more accurately than SeisImager or SeisOpt Pro, despite having less actual data points in the initial model than SeisOpt Pro. Grid sizes were also increased to the same Rayfract values from the Surfer default 62

PAGE 63

values for the SeisImager and SeisOpt Pro models, with little, if any, improvement in accuracy noted visually. The possibility also exists that Rayfract may be more accurate due to a setting in the code that automatically creates a Surfer file of the final velocity model, although no differences could be found through a basic inspection of the code. 4.4.1.1 Sinkhole Observations Along the A Line As noted above, the seismic refraction field testing was conducted during the summer of 2005, with the intrusive testing performed during November and December of 2005. Following a period of heavy rain and storm water runoff in February 2006, two sinkholes formed along the A line at approximately stations 19.5 m and 52.1 m. These two locations appear as valley/bowl features in the P-wave velocity tomograms, Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The valley/bowl feature was especially well documented for station 19.5 m, as a CPT and SPT boring had been performed at station 19.8 m. Sinkhole formation in these valley/bowl type features seems much more likely than at the top of the block/pinnacle features, and the ability to image these valley/bowl type features could potentially make seismic refraction tomography useful in identifying high-risk areas for sinkhole development (Hiltunen et al. [2007]). 4.4.2 Comparison of F Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results Two SPT borings along with rock coring were performed along the F line. The first boring at station 3.0 m showed highly weathered limestone encountered at approximately 4.5 m, with limestone of higher quality, RQD 50%, encountered at 6.4 m. Due to the proximity of the boring at station 3.0 m to the end of the refraction array, and resulting shallow tomogram modeling in these areas, P-wave velocities can only be compared in the very top of the limestone material using the SeisImager tomogram because the other two programs did not produce a tomogram to 63

PAGE 64

that depth. This P-wave velocity was found to be approximately 700 m/s, see Table 4-3 for a summary of the top of bedrock P-wave velocities and Appendix A for the tomograms. The second SPT boring performed along the survey line was at station 13.7 m. Highly weathered limestone with numerous large voids and a RQD of 0% was encountered at 1.7 m extending to 3.4 m where the quality of the rock increased to 70%. The P-wave velocity of this more competent limestone at 3.4 m was 800 m/s. The tomograms appear to show more of a valley/bowl like feature at station 3.0 m when compared to station 13.7 m, and results from the intrusive testing seem to confirm that the top of bedrock is at a greater depth. A close examination of the tomograms, Figure C-1 in Appendix C, reveals that the downward slope of the velocity contour lines toward station 13.7 m from the pinnacle/block feature at station 8.0 m is less than the slope from station 8.0 m to station 3.0 m. Station 3.0 m also appears to be more at the bottom of a valley, while station 13.7 m appears to be slightly before the bottom of the valley. The shapes within the tomograms seem to indicate that the top of rock elevation should be deeper at station 3.0 m than 13.7 m. The SPT tests confirm this hypothesis as the top of bedrock was encountered at 4.5 m for station 3.0 m, and at 1.7 m at station 13.7 m. An examination of the Rayfract and SeisOpt Pro tomograms with a contour interval of 10 m/s at station 13.7 m, using the same procedure used in the A-line comparison, showed a concentration of contour lines at depth of approximately 3.5 m, see Figure D-1 in Appendix D. This compares well with the SPT result at this location, which showed the depth to the top of limestone to be at 3.4 m. The SeisImager tomogram was also examined, however the concentration of contour lines was observed to begin at approximately 2 m. 64

PAGE 65

4.4.3 Comparison of U Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results Along the U line from station 0-36.6 m, three CPT soundings and one SPT boring with rock coring were performed. The first CPT sounding was performed at station 8.5 m, and recorded the top of limestone depth to be 1.8 m, see Table 4-4 for a summary of these depths and Figure D-2 in Appendix D for the tomograms. The approximate P-wave velocity determined from the tomograms at this depth was 700 m/s. The second CPT sounding was performed at approximately station 24.4 m, and was pushed to refusal at a depth of 8.2 m. A SPT boring at this location confirms the top of limestone to be at a depth of 8.2 m. The P-wave velocity from the tomograms at this depth of 8.2 m was approximately 1600 m/s. During the rock coring at station 24.4 m a cavity containing sandy clay was encountered from 14.0 m and extending past the end of the hole at 15.5 m. The tomograms were examined to see if they were able to image this cavity encountered. The SeisImager tomogram is the only one of the three that shows anything, an oval feature that may be indicative of a cavity. However, this is most likely the result of the lack of ray path coverage passing through this area and not due to SeisImager actually imaging the cavity. The third CPT test along this line was performed at the very end of the refraction array, station 36.6 m, with the tip meeting refusal at approximately 1.5 m below the ground surface. The approximate P-wave velocity from the tomograms at this depth was 600 m/s. Data evaluated at the end of an refraction array should be viewed with caution as often the ray coverage is insufficient for the user to rely on features of the tomogram produced, however, for this location and depth, 1.5 m, the ray path coverage appears to be adequate for comparison. When looking at the gross features of the tomograms the two outer locations of intrusive testing, stations 8.5 and 36.6 m, appear to be on more pinnacle/block type features, see Figure D-2. The top of bedrock depths determined from the intrusive testing, 1.8 and 1.5 m, also support 65

PAGE 66

this. On the other hand, station 24.4 m appears to be near the bottom of a valley based on the tomograms, confirmed by the top of rock being encountered at 8.2 m. Simply by looking at the tomograms the user could note the gross features and probably expect the boring at station 24.4 m to encounter top of limestone at a greater depth. However, it was not visually obvious from the tomograms that the variation in top of bedrock depth would be as great as was encountered. While rock coring was not performed at stations 8.5 and 36.6 m, the reason for this variation is most likely due to the fact the limestone encountered at these locations has been weathered heavily to the point where the P-wave velocity has been reduced to velocities closer to the surrounding particulate overburden material. As a result, the P-wave velocity contrast between the limestone and overburden soil in the tomograms using a 100 m/s contour interval is not as great. However, once the contour interval was reduced to 10 m/s in the Rayfract model, the top of limestone depth could be observed as a boundary where the contour lines experienced a large concentration, see Appendix D. At station 8.5 m the top of bedrock was encountered at approximately 1.8 m, and at station 24.4 m the top of bedrock was encountered at a depth of 8.2 m. When comparing these locations and associated depths to top of limestone depth to the reduced contour interval tomogram, the concentration of contour lines present appears to be in agreement with the location of the top of bedrock as determined by the intrusive testing. The SeisImager and SeisOpt Pro tomograms were examined as well. However, the correlation between the beginning of the close contour lines and the top of bedrock was not as strong as Rayfract, see Figure D-2. 4.4.4 Comparison of Z Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results Along the Z line from stations 0-38.4 m, two SPT and one CPT test were performed, see Table 4-5 for a summary of the top of bedrock depths along with P-wave velocities and Figure 66

PAGE 67

C-3 in Appendix C for the tomogram. The first SPT test was performed at station 21.9 m, and the top of bedrock was encountered at depth of approximately 7.3 m, with highly weathered limestone encountered at 6.5 m. The P-wave velocity determined from the tomograms at the top of the more competent limestone at 7.3 m was approximately 1300 m/s, depending on the SRT program. A SPT and CPT test was also performed at station 35.0 m, with the heavily weathered limestone encountered at a depth of 5.2 m, and the more competent limestone found at 6.4 m. This test was performed near the end of the refraction line, and only SeisImager generated a tomogram to that depth, showing a P-wave velocity of 1100 m/s. A CPT was also performed at station 64 m with refusal at 7.8 m, see Figure C-4. The Rayfract and SeisImager tomograms show the P-wave velocity as 1400 m/s, while the SeisOpt model shows it as 1900 m/s. This was the largest disparity noted when comparing the P-wave velocity at the depth of the top of bedrock between the three SRT programs across all lines, and can probably be attributed to the fact that this depth was near the bottom of the SeisOpt model, and appeared to be located at or near an artifact in the model. The Z line exhibited the least amount of variability in the depth to top of bedrock, ranging from 6.4 to 7.8 m. While this may be the line that exhibits the least depth to top of bedrock variability, it provides an important test for the close contour interval tomograms to see if it will hold up the along a more horizontal surface, see Figures D-3 and D-4 in Appendix D. Perhaps the imaging of the valleys in the previous tomograms was the result of something within the Rayfract inversion routine and merely coincidental. The close contour tomograms for the two lines do appear to show the largest contour line concentrations pretty consistently at about the 6 to 7m depth across the Z line, which is consistent with what was found using the limited amount of intrusive testing. However, upward curvatures of lesser contour line concentrations do exist in 67

PAGE 68

the tomograms, as there is only limited intrusive test data available, it remains to be seen if they are indicative of actual subsurface features or just an artifact of the modeling. 4.5 Geological Explanations for Variability in P-wave Velocity The limestone bedrock (Ocala Limestone) was formed in the Upper Eocene (Scott[1991]). The limestone itself was formed in a variety of environments, notably open marine, shallow water, and middle shelf deposition, with a wide variety of organisms that contributed to the formation of the limestone. The upper surface of the Ocala limestone has undergone dissolution during a major sea level drop that occurred during the late Ogliocene and early Miocene. This event is the precursor to the karst terrain that later developed (Randazzo [1997]). As discussed in the previous sections the P-wave velocity of the limestone measured at the top of a block/pinnacle structure is significantly less than the P-wave velocity measured at the bottom of a valley. During the weathering/dissolution/ karstification that occurred, the limestone was most susceptible to weathering was weathered from the top down, leaving behind slots and valleys. The more competent limestone was able to withstand this weathering and is marked today by the block and pinnacle structures, which are highly weathered but are the most competent of the highest weathered rock. So the low P-wave velocities measured at these block pinnacle structures, and the comparatively higher P-wave velocities measured within the valley regions may be explained by the geologic history of the limestone. 4.6 CPT Tip Penetration and P-Wave Velocity As previously discussed, the P-wave velocity at the depth to the top of bedrock, where CPT refusal was met, ranged from 600 to 2000 m/s. In looking at the tomograms produced it is also interesting to note that the CPT tip will penetrate through a high velocity particulate material such as sand, like along the A line at station 19.8 m, but met refusal in lower velocity rock, like at station 65.5 m. This is because P-wave velocity is related to the small-strain modulus of the 68

PAGE 69

material, while CPT tip resistance is related to the strength of the material. So even though the rock at station 65.5 m is broken and has a velocity much lower than the particulate material at station 19.8 m, it will have a higher local tip resistance because the broken pieces are still an intact, cemented material, and highly resistant to local CPT penetration (Hiltunen et al. [2007]). 4.7 Comparison of the SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results A further step that was taken in comparing the raytracing diagrams produced by the SRT programs to the intrusive test results. Areas of relatively large contrast in P-wave velocity, like the boundary between soil and bedrock, should show up on the raytracing diagram as a location in which the P-waves concentrate and travel laterally along the higher velocity material. This shows itself on the raytracing diagram as areas in which there is a concentration of propagated rays traveling through. These areas should be indicative of changes in the P-wave velocity, type of material, and consequently should correspond with changes noted on the intrusive testing data logs. 4.7.1 A line 0-36.6 m SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results Rayfract was the first SRT program raytracing diagram to be examined. Rayfract outputs its raytracing diagram, which shows the wavepaths used to generate the velocity model, as a contour map into Surfer in which areas with greater contour values correspond to areas in which a greater number of wavepaths travel through. The Rayfract wavepath model for refraction survey line stations 0-36.6 m diagram was examined first at station 19.8 m, where SPT and CPT data were available, see Figure 4.6(a). A sudden increase in number of wavepaths traveling through was measured starting at a depth of approximately 9.0 m, the same depth at which the top of bedrock was noted for the SPT and CPT tests. A distinctive bowl shaped feature, characteristic of severely weathered karstic limestone with known previous sinkhole formation, 69

PAGE 70

was also observed at this location. This indicates that the program has modeled a relatively higher velocity layer at 9.0 m along which the rays travel laterally along. The SeisImager raytracing model was examined next. SeisImager uses a simpler raytracing method that shows the calculated straight line path from the source and the layer along which the refracted arrivals travel laterally to the receiver for the first arrival P-waves propagated. The SeisImager raytracing model was viewed within the program, as it did not provide an option to save in a format in which it could be imported into Surfer. At station 19.8 m at a depth of approximately 9.1 m several rays travel laterally, which indicates that the program has modeled a relatively higher velocity layer along which the rays travel along, see Figure 4.6(b). This depth corresponds with the depth to the top of limestone determined via the intrusive testing. SeisImager also showed several other areas of laterally traveling rays, making it less visually obvious as to where the soil/bedrock interface was. SeisOpt computes the ray paths for each source/receiver pair, and then determines the number of times each cell in the model is crossed (hit) by a ray path and then creates an output file known as a hitfile (Optim LLC, [2004]). This hitfile was imported into Surfer and a contour map was created to provide a visual representation of this for the A line from 0-36.6 m, see Figure 4.6(c). A significant increase in the number of hits is can be observed at a depth of approximately 9.1 m at station 19.8 m, corresponding with the depth of to the top of bedrock determined by the intrusive testing. 4.7.2 Comparison of A Line 36.6-73.2 m Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results The same procedure described in the previous section was used to compare the ray path models to the intrusive testing data, see Figure 4.7. Three CPT penetrations were performed at stations 39.6, 44.2, and 65.5 m, as well as one SPT boring at station 65.5 m. In the SeisImager model at test station 39.6 m, the nearest area of laterally traveling rays to the top of bedrock 70

PAGE 71

determined to be at approximately 2.2 m is at approximately 1.6 m below the surface, see Figure 4.7(b). The difference between the two may be a result of the limited ray path coverage on the end of a refraction array. At station 44.2 m a strong refractor appears to be present at 0.2 m based on the ray paths, corresponding with the depth to the top of limestone determined by the CPT test. Next the ray paths were examined at station 65.5 m and a concentration of ray paths existed at 0.3 m, the depth at which the CPT and SPT borings determined the top of limestone to be at. The Rayfract wavepath model was also examined to see if the depth to the top of limestone at the three intrusive test locations corresponded with significant increases in wavepaths. This seemed to be visually obvious at only one of the three test locations, station 65.5 m, see Figure 4.7(a). Likewise the SeisOpt Pro model was examined and nothing was visually apparent to indicate where the depth to the top of limestone may exist, see Figure 4.7(c). The reason for this is most likely due to the fact that the P-wave velocity of the shallow top of bedrock material encountered is relatively low, 600-800 m/s, and does not provide enough contrast against the velocity of the overburden soil to show any features indicative of the soil/bedrock interface. 4.7.3 General Observations for each of the Three SRT Programs Ray Path Diagram Comparisons to the Intrusive Test Data The ray path diagrams were also examined for each of the three SRT programs for the four remaining lines that intrusive test data was available for, F line station 0-36.6 m, U line station 0-36.6 m, Z line station 0-38.4 m, and Z line station 36.6 -73.2 m, shown in Appendix E. For each of these remaining lines, the Rayfract wavepath diagrams were able to show a significant increase in the number of wave paths traveling through depths that corresponded with the depth to the top of competent limestone. The SeisOpt Pro ray path diagrams showed an increase in the number of ray paths going through cells at depths corresponding to the top of competent 71

PAGE 72

limestone for all of the remaining ray path models, with the exception of F line stations 0-36.6 m. The SeisImager ray path diagrams showed the ray paths traveling laterally for each of the 4 remaining lines at depths corresponding to the top of limestone. Interestingly, the SeisImager ray path diagrams also showed several laterally traveling ray paths that corresponded with changes in the overburden material in all of the models, such as changes from sandy to clayey material. Although an area of lateral ray path travel can be found at the depth of the top of limestone for SeisImager, many other areas of lateral ray path travel exist at various depths of the model. The SeisImager model shows where changes in material occur, however, the user would probably not be able to tell what that change was, i.e. the soil/rock interface or a sand to clay layer change. Despite SeisImager not being able to show visually easily where the soil/rock interface was, it is still able to pick up actual changes in material type at the proper depth, giving the user more confidence in the tomograms generated of the subsurface. The ability of SeisImager to identify the depths of soil changes via refraction boundaries may be a function of the simple, thin line ray tracing model it produces as opposed to Rayfract and SeisOpt which show the number of times a ray has traveled through a cell. SeisImager does not show the number of rays which travel through a cell in the model making it difficult to determine where the soil/rock interface begins because this interface typically has a large P-wave velocity contrast and consequently is an area through which a large number of rays should travel through. So, while SeisImager may be able to show where changes in materials take place visually, it does not clearly show where the top of limestone begins as well as Rayfract and SeisOpt. Obviously, being able to delineate the top of bedrock is an important ability that SRT programs must have. 72

PAGE 73

Table 4-1 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the A line Location Intrusive Test Method Depth to Bedrock (m) P-wave Velocity from Tomograms (m/s) A-19.8 CPT and SPT 9.0 2000 A-39.6 CPT 2.1 700 A-44.2 CPT 0.2 600 A-65.5 CPT and SPT 0.3 800 Table 4-2 Comparison of depth to bedrock determined from intrusive testing and visually inferred from close contour interval, 10 m/s, tomograms for the A line. Note: (1) Unable to differentiate an exact depth of concentration from Rayfract tomogram Location Intrusive Test Method Intrusive Testing Depth to Bedrock (m) Approximate Depth to Concentration of Contour Lines in Rayfract Tomogram (m) A-19.8 CPT and SPT 9.0 8.8 A-39.6 CPT 2.1 N/A(1) A-44.2 CPT 0.2 0.3 A-65.5 CPT and SPT 0.3 0.2 Table 4-3 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the F line. Note: (1) Velocity determined only from the SeisImager tomogram. Location Intrusive Test Method Depth to Bedrock (m) P-wave Velocity from Tomograms (m/s) F-3.0 SPT 6.4 700 (1) F-13.7 SPT 3.4 800 Table 4-4 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the U line. Location Intrusive Test Method Depth to Bedrock (m) P-wave Velocity from Tomograms (m/s) U-8.5 CPT 1.8 700 U-24.4 CPT and SPT 8.2 1600 U-36.6 CPT 1.5 600 73

PAGE 74

Table 4-5 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test data for the Z line. Location Intrusive Test Method Depth to Bedrock (m) P-wave Velocity from Tomograms (m/s) Z-21.9 SPT 7.3 1300 Z-35 CPT and SPT 6.4 1100 Z-64 CPT 7.8 1400 74

PAGE 75

Figure 4-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced for A line station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 75

PAGE 76

Figure 4-2 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced for A line station 36-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 76

PAGE 77

05101520253035 -15-10-50 A -19.8Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m) (a) Rayfract A -19.8(b) SeisImagerHorizontal Distance (m)Depth (m) 05101520253035 -10-50 A -19. 8 (c) SeisOpt Pr o Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m) 05101520253035 -10-50 Figure 4-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 77

PAGE 78

A -19.8A-19.8A-19.8Horizontal Distance (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt ProHorizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)Depth (m) 05101520253035 -10-50 05101520253035 -10-50 05101520253035 -15-10-50 Figure 4-4 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 50 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 78

PAGE 79

40455055606570 -50 Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro 40455055606570 -10-50 40455055606570 -15-10-50 A-39.6A-44.2A-65.5A-39.6A-39.6A-44.2A-44.2A-65.5A-65.5 Figure 4-5 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the A line 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 79

PAGE 80

(a) (b) (c) Figure 4-6 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 80

PAGE 81

Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro 05101520253035 -15-10-50 020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320 05101520253035 -10-50 Figure 4-7 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 81

PAGE 82

CHAPTER 5 CLOSURE 5.1 Summary of Findings After completing the analysis of the three different Seismic Refraction Tomography SRT programs several findings may be stated that not only to show the capabilities of SRT programs but just as importantly their limitations. It is the hope that they will help to serve as a guide for future seismic refraction testing conducted in similar laterally variable karstic terrain. These findings are listed below and may be broken down into two distinct categories: findings about the SRT programs themselves and findings between the comparisons of SRT programs and the intrusive testing data. 5.1.1 Summary of Findings from the SRT Programs Despite each of the programs using completely different methods to develop their final P-wave velocity models, for the most part, they each produced models showing the same gross features of the subsurface, particularly in the upper portion. P-wave velocities at the top of bedrock depth at an intrusive test location were close across the tomograms from the three SRT programs, often only varying by only 100 m/s. The best tomogram cannot be chosen from each SRT program solely based on lowest error between the measured and calculated travel time curves. The model must be examined carefully to make sure it does not contain any artifacts and that features modeled make sense knowing the geological history of the site. Review of the ray path diagrams for each of the SRT programs is essential after a tomogram is produced to ensure that there is adequate ray coverage throughout the model. SeisImager tended to produce tomograms of the greatest depth, sometimes with several meters between a single ray traveling at the bottom of the model to the next set of rays traveling above it. These large regions in which no rays travel through should be viewed with extreme caution as the program has simply interpolated the tomogram in that region. SeisOpt Pro tended to produce the shallowest tomograms, with oval and pinnacle shaped artifacts often produced in the lower portion of the tomogram. This was often, but not always, the result of that area of the subsurface lacking ray path coverage. 82

PAGE 83

SeisOpt Pro, although systematic, required the most amount of user interaction and number of runs to ensure that the best final tomogram was produced, making it the most time intensive of the three SRT programs evaluated. Generally, Rayfract required the least amount of user interaction and number of runs to produce the best final tomogram. Which, for this particular study, when compared to the performance of the other two programs gave the author slight preference towards its use. 5.1.2 Summary of Findings from the Comparison of the SRT Programs to the Intrusive Testing Data Each of the three SRT programs were able to show the gross features of the subsurface, such as valleys or pinnacles in the top of limestone that were found through the intrusive testing. Due to the geologic history of the limestone formation and subsequent weathering processes the top of bedrock depth cannot be determined from the tomograms by simply tracing a single P-wave velocity, as top of bedrock P-wave velocities range from 600 to 2000 m/s. CPT penetrations would meet refusal in limestone that had a P-wave velocity of only 600 m/s but would push through particulate material, sands, with a P-wave velocity of 1500 m/s. The limestone has been severely weathered and fractured, however enough cementation remains to give the material enough strength to resist local CPT penetration. P-wave velocities for the top of bedrock at the pinnacle features were significantly less than at the bottom of a valley. This makes sense, and can be explained for by knowing the geologic history of the site and weathering processes that have and continue to take place at the site. The combination of a relatively small increase in P-wave velocity at the soil/bedrock interface and range of top of limestone P-wave velocity from 600 to 2000 m/s makes it nearly impossible for the user to delineate the top of limestone by visual inspection of the tomogram produced using typical contour intervals of 100 m/s. Using a close contour interval of 10 m/s for the Rayfract, and to a lesser extent the SeisImager and SeisOpt Pro, the tomograms were found to show that areas of extremely close contour intervals matched up to the variable top of bedrock depth determined by intrusive testing. While the increase in P-wave velocity at the soil/rock interface is not dramatic as it would be if the rock were unweathered, a small enough increase still exists so that the top of limestone surface can be delineated through visual inspection of this close contour interval tomogram. Reviewing ray path diagrams is not only essential to ensure that the tomogram produced has adequate coverage but often can be used to determine top of bedrock depths by looking for areas of sudden increases in laterally traveling rays. These areas are indicators that a sudden, relatively large change in P-wave velocity has occurred, like the soil/bedrock interface. 83

PAGE 84

5.2 Conclusions Based on the findings of this study the tomograms produced by each of the SRT programs tested were able to image the gross features of the subsurface. They were also found to be similar to one another when evaluated visually as well as quantitatively. Most importantly, after comparing the tomograms to the intrusive testing data it was shown that they were able to show the gross subsurface features and provide accurate subsurface imaging of the top of bedrock location on a site containing laterally-variable top of bedrock elevations and sinkhole potential. These findings collectively show the potential of SRT programs to accurately image the subsurface of sites with laterally variable karstic bedrock conditions. As part of a complete subsurface evaluation traditional intrusive geotechnical exploration techniques may be employed more efficiently at locations of interest, when selected from the tomograms produced by the SRT programs, helping to characterize features that would ordinarily be missed if intrusive testing were performed at locations chosen blindly. However, seismic refraction testing cannot be used in place of traditional intrusive methods, as it does not provide physical recovery of the soil sample that is necessary to describe the subsurface. Therefore, seismic refraction tomography should be used in conjunction with traditional intrusive testing techniques in order to characterize a subsurface more completely and efficiently. 5.3 Research Recommendations In order to help validate using the close contour interval method to delineate the top of bedrock, additional intrusive testing is necessary to determine if the top of bedrock encountered at other locations corresponds with what would be expected from the tomograms produced. Laboratory testing of the limestone collected during the rock coring to learn more about the material properties would also probably help in explaining the reason for the wide range of P-wave velocities encountered throughout the site. Also these findings only apply to this site, 84

PAGE 85

additional testing needs to be performed on similar types of sites to build a database and to confirm these findings. 85

PAGE 86

APPENDIX A P-WAVE VELOCITY TOMOGRAMS Figure A-1 P-wave tomograms, F line, station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 86

PAGE 87

Figure A-2 P-wave tomograms, F line, station 36.6 73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 87

PAGE 88

Figure A-3 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 88

PAGE 89

Figure A-4 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 89

PAGE 90

Figure A-5 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 90

PAGE 91

Figure A-6 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 91

PAGE 92

Figure A-7 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 92

PAGE 93

Figure A-8 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 93

PAGE 94

Figure A-9 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 0 38.4 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 94

PAGE 95

Figure A-10 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 95

PAGE 96

APPENDIX B INTRUSIVE TESTING FIELD DATA Figure B-1 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 19.8 m 96

PAGE 97

Figure B-1 Continued 97

PAGE 98

Figure B-1 Continued 98

PAGE 99

Figure B-2 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 36.6 m 99

PAGE 100

Figure B-2 Continued 100

PAGE 101

Figure B-2 Continued 101

PAGE 102

Figure B-3 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 39.6 m 102

PAGE 103

Figure B-4 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 44.2 m 103

PAGE 104

Figure B-5 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 66.5 m 104

PAGE 105

Figure B-6 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 66.5 m 105

PAGE 106

Figure B-6 Continued 106

PAGE 107

Figure B-7 Intrusive Testing Data from F Line, Station 3.0 m 107

PAGE 108

Figure B-7 Continued 108

PAGE 109

Figure B-7 Continued 109

PAGE 110

Figure B-8 Intrusive testing data from F Line, station 13.7 m 110

PAGE 111

Figure B-8 Continued 111

PAGE 112

Figure B-8 Continued 112

PAGE 113

Figure B-9 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 8.5 m 113

PAGE 114

Figure B-10 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 24.4 m 114

PAGE 115

Figure B-10 Continued 115

PAGE 116

Figure B-10 Continued 116

PAGE 117

Figure B-11 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 36.6 m 117

PAGE 118

Figure B-12 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 73.2 m 118

PAGE 119

Figure B-13 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 21.9 m 119

PAGE 120

Figure B-13 Continued 120

PAGE 121

Figure B-13 Continued 121

PAGE 122

Figure B-13 Continued 122

PAGE 123

Figure B-14 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 35.0 m 123

PAGE 124

Figure B-14 Continued 124

PAGE 125

Figure B-14 Continued 125

PAGE 126

Figure B-15 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 64.0 m 126

PAGE 127

Figure B-15 Continued 127

PAGE 128

APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF P-WAVE VELOCITY TOMOGRAMS TO TOP OF BEDROCK DEPTHS ENCOUNTERED THROUGH INTRUSIVE TESTING The yellow rectangles indicate locations of intrusive testing, with the bottom end representing the depth at which bedrock was encountered. Figure C-1 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for F Line, station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 128

PAGE 129

Figure C-2 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for U Line, station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 129

PAGE 130

Figure C-3 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for Z Line, station 0-38.4 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 130

PAGE 131

Figure C-4 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for Z Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 131

PAGE 132

APPENDIX D CLOSE CONTOUR P-WAVE TOMOGRAM INTRUSIVE DATA COMPARISON Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro F-3.0F-13. 7 F-13.7F-13.7F-3.0F-3.0 05101520253035 -10-50 05101520253035 -20-15-10-50 05101520253035 -50 Figure D-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the F line 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 132

PAGE 133

05101520253035 -10-50 05101520253035 -15-10-50 05101520253035 -15-10-50 Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro U-8. 5 U-24.4U-36. 6 U-8.5U-8.5U-24.4U-24.4U-36.6U-36.6 Figure D-2 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the U line 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 133

PAGE 134

05101520253035 -50 05101520253035 -15-10-50 05101520253035 -15-10-50 Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro Z-21.9Z-35Z-21.9Z-21.9Z-35Z-35 Figure D-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the Z line 0-38.4 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 134

PAGE 135

40455055606570 -50 40455055606570 -10-50 40455055606570 -15-10-50 Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro Z-64Z-64Z-64 Figure D-4 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval tomograms produced for the Z line 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro 135

PAGE 136

APPENDIX E RAYTRACING DIAGRAMS FOR TOMOGRAMS Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro 05101520253035 -15-10-50 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240 05101520253035 -10-50 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190 Figure E-1 Raytracing diagram for F Line, station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 136

PAGE 137

Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro 05101520253035 -20-15-10-50 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270 05101520253035 -15-10-50 04812162024283236404448525660646872768084889296100104 Figure E-2 Raytracing diagram for U Line, station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 137

PAGE 138

Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro 0510152025303540 -15-10-50 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260 05101520253035 -10-50 05101520253035404550556065707580859095100105 Figure E-3 Raytracing diagram for Z Line, station 0-38.4 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro. 138

PAGE 139

Horizontal Distance (m)Horizontal Distance (m)Depth (m)Depth (m)(a) Rayfract(b) SeisImager(c) SeisOpt Pro 05101520253035 -20-15-10-50 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270 40455055606570 -10-50 0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180 Figure E-4 Raytracing diagram for Z Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro 139

PAGE 140

LIST OF REFERENCES Campbell, K. M. and Scott, T. M. (1991), Radon Potential Study, Alachua County, Florida: Near-Surface Stratigraphy and Results of Drilling, Florida Geological Survey Open File Report Number 41, 15 pp. Carpenter, P. J., Higuera-Diaz, I. C., Thompson, M. D., Atre, S., and Mandell, W. (2003), Accuracy of Seismic Refraction Tomography Codes at Karst Sites, Geophysical Site Characterization: Seeing Beneath the Surface, Proceedings of a Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, San Antonio, Texas, April 6-10, pp. 832-840. Cramer, B.J., and Hiltunen, D.R. (2004), Investigation of Bridge Foundation Sites in Karst Terrane Via Seismic Refraction Tomography, 83rd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 11-15. Florida Department of Transportation, (2004) Soils and Foundations Handbook, FDOT Homepage, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Structures/Manuals/SFH.04-22-2004.pdf (Accessed September 2006). Geo-Services International Limited, Geo-Services International Limited Homepage, (1999) http://www.geophysics.co.uk/mets3.html#srp (Accessed August 2006). Golden Software, Inc., (2003), Surfer version 8.04 Users Manual and Software for Windows. Hayashi, K. and Takahashi, T. (2001), High Resolution Seismic Refraction Method Using Surface and Borehole Data for Site Characterization of Rocks, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 38, pp. 807-813. Hiltunen, D.R., Hudyma, N., Quigley, T.P., and Samakur, C. (2007), Ground Proving Three Seismic Refraction Tomography Programs, (Accepted for Publication), Transportaion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Hudyma, N., Hiltunen, D.R., and Samakur, C. (2007), Variability of Karstic Limestone Quantified Through Compressional Wave Velocity Measurements, (Accepted for Publication), Proceedings of GeoDenver 2007, New Peaks in Geotechnics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, CO, February 18-21. Intelligent Resources Inc., (2006), Rayfract Version 2.64 Users Manual and Software for Windows. Moser, T. J. (1991), Shortest Path Calculation of Seismic Rays, Geophysics, Vol. 56, No. 1, January, pp. 59-67. Optim LLC, (2004), SeisOpt Pro Version 3.0 Users Manual and Software for Windows. 140

PAGE 141

Oyo Corporation, (2001), SeisImager Users Manual and 2D Refraction Analysis Software for Windows. Pullammanappallil, S. K. and Louie, J. N. (1994), A Generalized Simulated-Annealing Optimization for Inversion of First-Arrival Times, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 5, October, pp. 1397-1409. Qin, F., Luo, Y., Olsen, K., Cai, W., and Schuster, G. T. (1992), Finite-Difference Solution of the Eikonal Equation, Geophysics, Vol. 57, pp. 478-487. Randazzo, A.F., (1997), The sedimentary platform of Florida: Mesozoic to Cenozoic, in The Geology of Florida (ed. Randazzo, A.F. and Jones, D.S.), University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Redpath, B.B. (1973), Seismic Refraction Exploration for Engineering Site Investigations, Technical Report TR E-73-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Explosive Excavation Research Laboratory, Livermore, California, May. Schuster, G. T. and Quintus-Bosz, A. (1993), Wavepath Eikonal Traveltime Inversion: Theory, Geophysics, Vol. 58, No. 9, September, pp. 1314-1323. Scott, T. M. (2001), Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida, Florida Geological Survey Open File Report Number 80, 28 pp. Sheehan, J.R., Doll, W.E., and Mandell, W.A. (2003), Evaluation of Refraction Tomography Codes for Near-Surface Applications, Submitted for Publication in Proceedings of 73rd Annual Meeting of Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Dallas, Texas, October 26-31. Sheehan, J., Doll, W., Watson, D.B. and Mandell, W. (2005a), Application of Seismic Refraction Tomography to Karst Cavities, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings. Rapid City, South Dakota, September 12-15, pp. 29-33. Sheehan, J.R., Doll, W.E., and Mandell, W.A. (2005b), An Evaluation of Methods and Available Software for Seismic Refraction Tomography Analysis, Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Vol. 10, No. 1, March, pp. 21-34. Tihansky, A.B. (1999), Sinkholes, West-Central Florida: A link between surface water and ground water, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, pp. 121-140. Vidale, J. E. (1988), Finite Difference Calculation of Travel Times, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 78, pp. 2062-2076. Williams, K.E., Nicol, D. and Randazzo, A.F. (1977), The Geology of the Western Part of Alachua County, Florida Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 85. Woodward, M.J., (1992), Wave-equation Tomography, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Geophysics, Vol. 57, No.1, pp. 15-26. 141

PAGE 142

Zhang, J. and Toksoz, M.N., (1998), Nonlinear Refraction Traveltime Tomography, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Geophysics, Vol. 63, No.5, pp. 1726-1737. 142

PAGE 143

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Timothy Patrick Quigley was born on June 18, 1980 in East Meadow, NY and remained there until he graduated from East Meadow High School in 1998. He enrolled in college at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC, and graduated with a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering in May of 2003. After working in the universitys Co-Op program for a semester as an undergraduate for a materials testing firm he realized the importance of work experience for a geotechnical engineer. With that he decided that it would be most beneficial to gain a few years of work experience before continuing on with graduate studies. He moved to Lakeland, FL to work for a geotechnical and materials testing engineering consulting firm for the next two years. He enrolled at the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL in August of 2005 where he worked as a graduate research assistant under Dr. Dennis Hiltunen. He completed his studies in December of 2006, graduating with a Master of Engineering degree and is employed at a geotechnical engineering consulting firm in North Carolina. 143


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0018220/00001

Material Information

Title: Ground Proving Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) in Laterally Variable Karstic Terrain
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0018220:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0018220/00001

Material Information

Title: Ground Proving Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) in Laterally Variable Karstic Terrain
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0018220:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text






GROUND PROVING SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) IN LATERALLY
VARIABLE KARSTIC LIMESTONE TERRAIN
















By

TIMOTHY PATRICK QUIGLEY


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006






























Copyright 2006

by

Timothy Patrick Quigley



























To my grandfather, John Link, whose lifetime of hard work has made mine immeasurably easier










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I thank Dr. Dennis Hiltunen for serving as my advisor. His continued support,

encouragement, and availability during my research and studies were what made this possible. I

thank the other members of my thesis committee, Dr. Frank Townsend for his guidance, advice,

and real world perspective on academic problems during my graduate studies, as well as Dr.

Nick Hudyma for his guidance and input during this research. Acknowledgements must also be

given to the remaining University of Florida faculty, and to current and former graduate students

from whom I learned an immense amount from both academically and personally.

Any acknowledgements made would be incomplete without thanking those who helped get

me to this point. I thank my mother who was seemingly able to do it all, without ever tiring or

complaining, and my father for his tireless work ethic. I thank the remaining members of my

family for their support, as well as all of my friends who treated me like family. Lastly, special

gratitude goes out to my girlfriend Rosanne Lee, who has been supportive of all my decisions

and the results of those decisions for the past three years.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IST O F T A B L E S .............. ..... ............... .......................................................... . 8

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .9

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 12

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ............................ .............................. 14

1.1 Problem Statem ent .......................................................... ............................. 14
1 .2 O bjectiv e ................... ...................1...................5........
1 .3 S c o p e ........... ....................................................................................1 5

2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................... .... 17

2 .1 L o c atio n ............................................................................17
2 .2 G e o lo g ic a l S ettin g .............................................................................................................. 17
2.2.1 C characteristics of K arstic L im estone........................................................................ ... ... 18
2 .3 Seism ic R fraction M ethod ............... .................. ................... ............................................ 19
2.3.1 Previous Studies in Karst using Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) Programs............21
2.3.2 Overview of Seismic Refraction Tomography Programs................. ............................23
2 .3 .2 .1 R ayfract (v version 2 .64) ............................................................................ ....................23
2 .3.2 .2 SeisIm ager (version 2 .67) ......................................................................... ...................25
2 .3 .2 .3 SeisO pt P ro (v version 3 .0).......................................................................... ................... 2 5

3 SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) PROGRAMS ON FIELD DATA........28

3.1 Seism ic R fraction Testing Site L ayout ....................................................... .....................28
3.1.1 Field Testing Procedure .................. ......... ........... .... .... ............................. 28
3.1.2 Testing Limitations and Potential Sources of Error..........................................................29
3.2 Analyzing and Processing Field D ata ................................................... ... ............30
3.2.1 Selection of First Arrivals from Time Records ............................................. ...............30
3.2.2 Travel Tim e Curve G generation .................. ............... ............ ...... .... ........ ............... 30
3.3 Seismic Refraction Tomography Program Processing Flow............................................31
3.3.1 R ayfract (V version 2.64) ....................... ......................... ...... ........... .... 31









3 .3 .2 SeisIm ager (v version 2 .67) ............................................................................ ................... 34
3.3.3 SeisO pt Pro (version 3.0) .................. ............ ............ .. .. .............. .............. .. 37
3.4 Com prison of the (SRT) Program s .................................................................................. 40
3.4.1 Creation of Tomograms using Surfer (version 8.04).............. ............... ........ ......40
3.4.2 General Visual Observations of Tomograms............................................. ...................41
3.4.4 Specific Visual Observations of Tomograms ............................................ ............... 42
3.4.5 Quantitative Comparison of Calculated Travel Times ............................... ................43
3.4.5 Processing T im e ...................................................................................... 44
3.5 General Assessment of Performance of the SRT Programs Evaluated ..............................45

4 COMPARISON OF SRT PROGRAM RESULTS AND INTRUSIVE TESTING DATA...53

4.1 Selection of Intrusive T est L locations .....................................................................................53
4.2 Types of Intrusive Testing Perform ed ...................................................................................53
4.2.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Procedure ..................................................... ............. 54
4.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedure ........................................ ...... ............... 54
4.2.3 R ock C oring P rocedure............................................................................... .. ............. 55
4.3 General Results of Intrusive Testing........................................................................ 55
4.3.1 A Line Intrusive Testing R results ................................................ .............................. 56
4.3.2 F Line Intrusive Testing R results ............................................. ..... .......................... 56
4.3.3 U Line Intrusive Testing R results ................................................ .............................. 57
4.3.4 Z Line Intrusive Testing Results ........................................................ .. .............. 57
4.4 Comparison of Intrusive Testing to the SRT Tomograms............................ ...............58
4.4.1 Comparison of A Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results............................................59
4.4.1.1 Sinkhole Observations A long the A Line.................................. ....................... ........... 63
4.4.2 Comparison ofF Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results............... .... ............... 63
4.4.3 Comparison of U Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results............................................65
4.4.4 Comparison of Z Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results.............................................66
4.5 Geological Explanations for Variability in P-wave Velocity ..............................................68
4.6 CPT Tip Penetration and P-W ave V elocity ........................................................ ..................68
4.7 Comparison of the SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results............................... 69
4.7.1 A line 0-36.6 m SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results ...................................69
4.7.2 Comparison of A Line 36.6-73.2 m Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results .............70
4.7.3 General Observations for each of the Three SRT Programs Ray Path Diagram Comparisons
to the Intru siv e T est D ata ....................................................................... ..................... 7 1

5 C L O SU R E ................... ...................8...................2..........

5.1 Sum m ary of F indings............................................................ .......... .. ....... ...... .. ... 82
5.1.1 Summary of Findings from the SRT Programs .........................................................82
5.1.2 Summary of Findings from the Comparison of the SRT Programs to the Intrusive
T e stin g D ata ...................................... ................................................... 8 3
5 .2 C o n clu sio n s ................................................................................ .8 4
5.3 R research R ecom m endations ............................................................................. .............. 84









APPENDIX

A P-W AVE VELOCITY TOM OGRAM S....................................................... .... ........... 86

B INTRU SIVE TESTIN G FIELD DATA ........... .............................................................96

C COMPARISON OF P-WAVE VELOCITY TOMOGRAMS TO TOP OF BEDROCK
DEPTHS ENCOUNTERED THROUGH INTRUSIVE TESTING.................................. 128

D CLOSE CONTOUR P-WAVE TOMOGRAM INTRUSIVE DATA COMPARISON .......132

E RAYTRACING DIAGRAMS FOR TOMOGRAMS ......................................................... 136

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... .. ............... ................. .......................................................... 140

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......... ................. ............................................. .......................... 143










LIST OF TABLES


Table page


3-1 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line
Station 0-36 .6 m ..............................................................................4 5

3-2 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line
Station 36 .6-73 .2 m .................................... ................... .............................. 4 5

4-1 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test
d ata fo r th e A lin e .......................................................................... 7 3

4-2 Comparison of depth to bedrock determined from intrusive testing and visually inferred
from close contour interval, 10 m/s, tomograms for the A line...........................................73

4-3 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test
data for the F line. ......................................................... ................. 73

4-4 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test
data for the U line. ............................................................................73

4-5 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive test
data for the Z line ............................. ......... .... ..... .................. ................. 74










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page


2-1 Location of geophysical/ground proving test site and zones within the site.....................26

2-2 D dissolution of carbonate rock ..................................................................... ...................27

2-3 K arstic lim stone features .......................................................................... ....................27

3-1 Example of PickWin95 time record along survey line A from stations 0-36.6 m for
source location 0 m .........................................................................46

3-2 PlotRefa travel tim e curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m ................................... ..................... 47

3-3 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 36.6-73.2 m...................................................47

3-4 PlotRefa outside source location travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m ............... 48

3-5 P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 0 36.6 m. ............... ............. .............................. 49

3-6 P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 36.6-73.2 m. .................. ....... .................50

3-7 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 0 36.6 m. ..............................51

3-8 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ...........................52

4-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced for
A line station 0-36.6 m ......................... ........................ .. .... ................. 75

4-2 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced for
A line station 36-73.2 m .......................... ...... .... ......... ......... ..... 76

4-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. ......................................... ............... 77

4-4 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 50 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m .......................................... ............... 78

4-5 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the A line 36.6-73.2 m. ........................................... ..... ..........79

4-6 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 0-36.6 m. ..............80

4-7 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 36.6-73.2 m. ..........81

A-i P-wave tomograms, F line, station 0 36.6 m. ........................................ ............... 86









A-2 P-wave tomograms, F line, station 36.6 73.2 m. .................................... .................87

A-3 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 0-36.6 m. ........................................... ............... 88

A-4 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 36.6-73.2 m. .............. ...... ............. ..............89

A-5 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 0 36.6 m. ........................................ ............... 90

A-6 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 36.6-73.2 m. .............. ..... .......................91

A-7 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 0 36.6 m. ...................................... ............... 92

A-8 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ..............................................................93

A-9 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 0 38.4 m. ....................................... ...............94

A-10 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ............. .............. ..... ............... 86

B-l Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 19.8 m .................................... ............... 96

B-2 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 36.6 m .................................... ............... 99

B-3 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 39.6 m ....................................... .........102

B-4 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 44.2 m ....................................... .........103

B-5 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 66.5 m ....................................... .........104

B-6 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 66.5 m ....................................... .........105

B-7 Intrusive Testing Data from F Line, Station 3.0 m....................................... .........107

B-8 Intrusive testing data from F Line, station 13.7 m.....................................................110

B-9 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 8.5 m ............................................................113

B-10 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 24.4 m ........................................................ 114

B-11 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 36.6 .............................................................117

B-12 Intrusive testing data from U Line, station 73.2 m ........................................................ 118

B-13 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 21.9 m .................... ..... ...............119

B-14 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 35.0 m................................... .................123

B-15 Intrusive testing data from Z Line, station 64.0 m................................... .................126

C-l Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for F Line, station 0-36.6 m. ..................128









C-2 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for U Line, station 0-36.6 m. .................129

C-3 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for Z Line, station 0-38.4 m. .................130

C-4 Top of bedrock location from intrusive testing for Z Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ............131

D-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tom ogram s produced for the F line 36.6-73.2 m ......................... ..............................132

D-2 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the U line 0-36.6 m. ...................................... ............... 133

D-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the Z line 0-38.4 m. ...... ................... ..................134

D-4 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the Z line 36.6-73.2 m. ............ .......... .... ........ ........... 135

E-1 Raytracing diagram for F Line, station 0-36.6 m. ................................... ............... 136

E-2 Raytracing diagram for U Line, station 0-36.6 m. ............ ............................................137

E-3 Raytracing diagram for Z Line, station 0-38.4 m. .................................. ............... 138

E-4 Raytracing diagram for Z Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. ................................. ............... 139










Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

GROUND PROVING SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) IN LATERALLY
VARIABLE KARSTIC LIMESTONE TERRAIN

By

Timothy Patrick Quigley

May 2007

Chair: Dennis Hiltunen
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering

The ability to characterize the subsurface of a site containing a laterally variable top of

bedrock surface that is also prone to sinkhole development is extremely limited through the sole

use of traditional, physically intrusive geotechnical exploration techniques, such as soil borings

and rock coring. These types of tests provide information regarding the subsurface only at the

specific location performed and cannot be used reliably to interpret the surrounding conditions at

sites with significant lateral variability. Seismic refraction testing serves as a well established

geophysical tool that can help provide more complete detail of the subsurface over a much larger

area.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) constructs retention basins in order to

provide effective return of surface water runoff to the subsurface aquifer. This runoff water

frequently contains contaminants which are naturally filtered by the overburden soil above the

aquifer. However, many of these retention basins are located in areas with karstic limestone as

the bedrock at shallow depths. The increased flow of water into these basins may lead to the

increased development of sinkholes, which provide an open conduit for the contaminated runoff









to return directly into the aquifer. As a result the FDOT is interested in methods of early

detection.

The capabilities of three commercially available seismic refraction tomography (SRT)

programs, specifically Rayfract, Seislmager, and SeisOpt Pro, to image the subsurface were

evaluated. The resulting tomograms were then compared to traditional, intrusive geotechnical

test methods such as: CPT soundings, SPT soundings, and rock coring data. The results of these

comparisons suggest that SRT is capable of accurately imaging the laterally-variable top of

bedrock typical of karst terrain.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

The ability to characterize the subsurface of a site containing a laterally variable top of

bedrock surface that is also prone to sinkhole development is extremely limited through the sole

use of traditional physically intrusive geotechnical exploration techniques, such as soil borings

and rock coring. These types of tests provide information regarding the subsurface only at the

specific location performed and cannot be used reliably to interpret the surrounding conditions at

sites with lateral variability. Seismic refraction testing serves as a well-established geophysical

tool that can help provide more complete detail of the subsurface over a much larger area.

Commercially available seismic refraction tomography (SRT) software has only had limited use

on sites with these types of complex conditions. The purpose of my study was to provide

ground-truthing for three different commercially available SRT programs on a site whose top of

bedrock elevation varies laterally and was prone to sinkhole formation.

The seismic refraction testing presented herein was performed on a storm water retention

basin site with variable top of bedrock elevation in the subsurface and with known previous

sinkhole activity with the hope of being able to detect subsurface features associated with

sinkhole formation. Testing on these types of sites is of interest because of the potential

environmental concerns associated with sinkhole formation, which provide an open conduit for

contaminated storm water runoff to enter the subsurface aquifer rather than flowing slowly down

through the overburden soil, which effectively filters pollutants out of the water. The ability to

detect subsurface features associated with early sinkhole formation can be used to remediate a

site, and, if desired, make the site suitable for future construction. The ability to map the









changing top of bedrock surface is also of interest for foundation and numerous other

geotechnical engineering designs.

1.2 Objective

This study will provide additional confidence in the ability of SRT programs to provide

accurate subsurface imaging on a site with karstic terrain containing variable top of bedrock

elevations and sinkhole potential, as very little field study has been done on these types of sites.

Three commercially available SRT programs: Rayfract, SeisImager, and SeisOpt Pro were

chosen to develop tomograms of the site's subsurface. To accomplish this objective:

1 P-wave velocity tomograms were produced along each line for each of the three SRT
programs and the features generated by each program were then compared against one
another.

2 Next, these final P-wave tomograms were compared against results obtained from
physically intrusive traditional geotechnical techniques (Cone Penetration Tests (CPT),
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), and rock coring.

3 Finally, the tomograms produced by the SRT programs were evaluated for accuracy based
on visual observations between the tomograms and intrusive testing results, as well as
quantitative calculations between the measured and calculated travel times.

These comparisons will demonstrate the ability of SRT programs to map laterally variable

top of bedrock surfaces as well as features indicative of sinkhole formation.

1.3 Scope

The data presented in this paper comes from seismic refraction testing performed on a

single Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) storm water runoff retention basin, located

in Alachua County off of State Road 26 in Newberry, Florida. The physical layout of the

seismic refraction test performed consisted of six lines, each of which was 73.2 meters in length,

and spaced 3 m apart from one another. This study was conducted in order to see how well three

commercially available SRT programs were able to model the subsurface features of this

particular site.









The testing performed was intended to serve as the first step in building a database from

multiple sites to demonstrate the viability of using SRT programs on sites with laterally variable

top of bedrock in sinkhole prone karstic terrain. It is not intended to serve as the final answer

regarding the abilities or inabilities of them to do so. The conclusions drawn from the

performance of the three SRT programs evaluated for this site are only intended to present how

each of the programs performed when used on this particular site using this particular test

procedure and layout.









CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND

2.1 Location

The University of Florida (UF) and the University of North Florida (UNF) have developed

a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) dry retention pond into a karstic limestone

geophysical ground proving test site. The test site is located just outside of Newberry, Florida on

State Road 26 in Alachua County, approximately 29 kilometers to the west of Gainesville. The

location of the test site within the state and Alachua County is shown in Figure 2.1(a). The test

site is approximately 1.6 hectares in size and contains a number of survey lines and 5 PVC-cased

boreholes extending to approximately 15 meters below the surface elevation so that future

geophysical testing may be conducted.

What makes this test site ideal for study is that the northern portion of the retention pond

commonly experiences sinkhole activity due to the increased accumulation of surface water

runoff, whereas the southern portion rarely experiences sinkhole activity. Numerous sinkholes

have formed in the northern portion of the site, requiring repair. However, the southern portion

has been relatively free of sinkholes and is an ideal location for characterizing a karstic limestone

site, as the subsurface has yet to be modified from the repairing process. This portion of the site

is roughly 113 m x 78 m in size. The two zones within the test site are shown in Figure 2.1(b).


2.2 Geological Setting

The area of study is located just outside of Newberry, Florida which is located in the

western portion of Alachua County, more specifically identified geologically as the Western

Valley (Newberry Limestone Plain). The Western Valley is generally flat in nature with

sinkholes, quarries, and low hills composed of erosional remnants of the Northern Highlands

providing the greatest topographic relief in the area. It is a subdued limestone plain composed of









the upper unit of the Ocala Group, the Crystal River Formation which is Upper Eocene in age. It

consists of nearly pure limestone and dolostones (Scott, 2001). Numerous terrestrial vertebrate

fossil deposits preserved in sinkholes formed in the Crystal River Formation indicate that it has

undergone karstification periodically since the Late Ogliocene (Williams et al. [1977]).

Karstification is a geological term that refers to the formation of the features of karst topography

by the chemical and sometimes mechanical, action of the water in a region of limestone. As a

result of this karstification, along with erosion, the top of the limestone surface is extremely

variable.

The Crystal River Formation is overlain by a thin or variable soil cover and occasional

residual hills composed of sediments of the Hawthorne Formation, which is Miocene to early

Plio-Pliestocene in age. This thin layer of sand and soil cover commonly includes residual

boulders of silicified limestone ranging in size from 0.3 to 4.6 m in diameter as well as

interbedded and intermixed carbonate and siliclastics containing varying percentages of

phosphate grains. Residual sediments occur most frequently as sinkhole fillings and tend to

mask the great irregularities of the limestone surface (Williams et al. [1977] and Campbell and

Scott [1991]).

2.2.1 Characteristics of Karstic Limestone

Karstic terrain forms primarily from the solution of soluble bedrock, such as limestone, by

natural waters. In general, the solution process begins as rainwater absorbs carbon dioxide from

the atmosphere and as it percolates downward through the soil, which is high in CO2, generated

from the decay of organic matter. This absorbed carbon dioxide makes the recharge water

weakly acidic (carbonic acid), and this acidic water then dissolves the limestone (CaCO3).

When the slightly acidic water reaches the limestone it continues moving downward

through any interconnected pores or fractures, dissolving and enlarging any pores or cracks









through which it flows, as shown in Figure 2.2. The most favored vertical path dissolves more

rapidly than the surrounding areas, because it is now larger and can transmit more water in ever

greater quantities. This "self accelerating" process results in few greatly enlarged tubes or pipes

permeating down through the limestone, with little dissolved rock in between (Tihansky [1999]).

Over time, chemical weathering within the limestone enlarge the vertical discontinuities

forming slots. These slots may remain narrow or they may enlarge to form "valleys" or "bowls"

depending on whether or not additional chemical weathering occurs. As the limestone weathers

from its massive structure it transitions through the block structures to pinnacles (Hudyma et al.

[2007]). This transition is shown is Figure 2.3 from left to right. The surface of the soluble rock

may be erratic indicating that chemical weathering/dissolution is occurring or had occurred

before the overburden soil was deposited, in which case it is termed as a karstic limestone.

Features of karstic terrain may include horizontal bedding planes delineating the different times

of deposition as well as near vertical fissures/fractures/joints, depending on their geological

formation.

2.3 Seismic Refraction Method

The seismic refraction test method consists of measuring the travel times, at known

points along the surface, of seismic compression (P) waves generated by an energy source. The

energy source is usually generated by a small explosive charge or accelerated weight drop, such

as a sledgehammer (Redpath [1973]). Energy that radiates out from the source, or shot point,

either travels directly through the upper layer, known as a direct arrival, or travels down to and

laterally along a lower high velocity layer, known as a refracted arrival. This energy is detected

on the surface using receivers (geophones) arranged in a linear array and travel times are

recorded via seismograph (Geo-Services International Limited, [1999]). The recorded travel

time information is then used to generate a velocity profile of the subsurface along the length of









the refraction profile relying upon the assumption that the velocity of the subsurface material

increases with depth.

Conventional processing of refraction data falls short of showing the true strength of

seismic refraction testing because it uses oversimplified geometry and media (Zhang and Toksoz

[1998]). Whereas conventional methods divide the model into continuous layers of constant

velocity, SRT divides the model into a large number of smaller constant velocity grid cells or

nodes. The model is then inverted by performing ray tracing, or by other techniques, through the

initial model, with the grid cells adjusted after each iteration in attempt to match the calculated

travel times with the measured as closely as possible. This is repeated until the number of pre-

defined iterations within the program has been completed, with the resulting subsurface velocity

model, known as a tomogram, being produced upon completion.

It is because of these techniques that seismic refraction tomography is able to resolve

velocity gradients and lateral velocity changes within the subsurface with greater ability than

conventional methods. As such, SRT may be applied in settings where conventional refraction

methods fail, such as areas of compaction, karst, and zone faults (Zhang and Toksoz, [1998]).

These enhanced capabilities seem to make it ideal for this study because of the karstic terrain and

the lateral variability of the overburden material present.

However, some drawbacks do exist when choosing to use SRT techniques over

conventional methods. SRT requires that more shots and receivers be used than conventional

techniques. This allows for denser data collection, which, when coupled with increased available

computing power, allows for a much more detailed interpretation of the subsurface.

This increase in field data collected significantly increases the amount of time necessary to

perform the field testing. The time required to prepare and process this data, i.e., make first









arrival picks, before it is ready to be imported into the SRT programs for inversion is also

significantly increased. An experienced operator using a similar test procedure as this study

should be able to perform field testing on one 36.6 m long survey line, process the field data,

make first arrival picks, and generate a reasonable tomogram using one of the SRT programs in

one full working day.

2.3.1 Previous Studies in Karst using Seismic Refraction Tomography (SRT) Programs

The use of SRT programs in karstic field applications is relatively new and as such few

published accounts document their performance. However, several synthetic model studies

coupled with field investigations have been undertaken that demonstrate the capabilities of SRT

programs. Carpenter et al. (2003) used SRT programs, among them SeisOpt Pro, on sites known

to be karstic in Illinois and Kentucky, to determine their accuracy by comparing with known

subsurface geology from outcrops, borehole logs, other geophysical methods, and synthetic

travel time data. The tomograms seemed to indicate consistency with known geology and

borehole information. However, the authors mention problems when using the SeisOpt Pro

program with model instability, and with artifacts appearing such as pinnacles or cutters in the

lower third of the model when too many velocity elements are used. This is important to note

when looking at the model produced because these types of artifacts are consistent with actual

karstic features and may actually not be present in the subsurface.

Cramer and Hiltunen (2004) used SRT to characterize the subsurface at Pennsylvania

bridge sites in mantled karst terrain. They found the method can produce valuable information

for subsurface profiles that include dropping and pinnacle interfaces. Refraction profiles

generated by SeisImager were found to match the basic layer structure gathered from the

intrusive testing data, particularly the top of rock profile.









In an on-going study dating back prior to 2003, Sheehan et al. have been evaluating the use

of different SRT programs, including Rayfract and Seislmager, with the long term goal being to

assess the performance of these codes for karst terrains. In Sheehan et al. (2003), synthetic

models were used with gradational velocity change and lateral velocity variation with the final

models produced found to be reliable. However, the codes did have difficulty modeling sharp

boundaries, instead modeling them as areas of higher gradient.

In Sheehan et al. (2005a), the ability of SRT programs to detect cavities in karst terrains

was explored. They found SRT to have the potential to be an effective tool in cavity detection.

This study did indicate false positives and negatives were possible, and that further study would

be needed to determine the ability of SRT programs to detect cavities in karst. After several

years of using synthetic and field data to investigate the effectiveness of commercially available

SRT codes, Sheehan et al. (2005b) indicated that refraction tomography is able to resolve many

of the features observed in a karst environment.

Through the use of synthetic models and field data these authors were able to test the

capabilities of the programs while at the same time learning the programs limitations. All

previous studies have demonstrated the ability of SRT to generally, determine the top of bedrock

elevations at sites with complex subsurface conditions. Very little if any investigation has been

done to examine the capabilities of SRT programs on karstic sites located in Florida. Florida's

karstic limestone presents some very unique conditions for SRT programs to resolve, such as

variation of the material properties within the limestone due to different degrees of weathering

and times of deposition, as well as differing top of bedrock elevation due this weathering and

subsequent sinkhole related activity. This study will expand the use of SRT programs into

karstic terrains and the subsurface features associated with them.









2.3.2 Overview of Seismic Refraction Tomography Programs

In this study, three commercially available programs were used to produce P-wave velocity

tomograms from travel time data sets collected in the field. The three programs, Rayfract,

SeisImager, and SeisOpt Pro, are described in great detail by their authors and in publications by

users of these programs. The following is intended to serve as a brief overview, with references

noted for the reader if more detail is desired. While each of the three programs uses different

methods to arrive at the final velocity tomogram, they each contain the same three important

components. Each use a forward model for calculating source to receiver first arrival times

based upon the current velocity model. Each has an inversion routine that adjusts the calculated

and measured first arrival travel times. Finally, each updates the velocity model until an

acceptable match is found for a preset number of iterations, and each has a way to generate an

initial velocity model. With respect to cost, the list price for Rayfract was $2200 plus the cost of

Surfer by Golden Software, Inc., $599, to display the final tomograms, Seislmager was $1800,

and SeisOpt Pro cost $3200.

2.3.2.1 Rayfract (version 2.64)

Rayfract uses the wavepath eikonal traveltime (WET) inversion method in its tomography

processing, as presented by Schuster and Quintus-Bosz (1993). WET inversion computes

wavepaths by using finite-difference solutions to the eikonal equation (Qin et al. [1992]).

Woodward (1992) showed that a wavepath similar to a "fat" ray defines the propagation path of

band limited seismic energy from the source to the receiver point.

WET inversion uses the Fresnel volume approach as an alternative to the ray path

approach used by most programs. The Fresnel volume approach takes into account the effects

that the real waves have on the adjacent parts of the model in the vicinity of the ray paths. It

accomplishes this by taking into account ray paths with slightly longer travel times (Sheehan et









al. [2005b]). These effects are unaccounted for by simple ray tracing methods, however the

WET inversion method is able to account for effects such as shadow zones and multi-pathing

effects (Schuster et al. [1993]).

Rayfract provides the user with two different methods to generate an initial model: 1) the

Delta t-v inversion method, or 2) the "smooth inversion" method. The Delta t-v method is useful

in identifying small features and velocity inversions. The disadvantage of using the Delta t-v for

the initial output is that there may be artifacts in the Delta t-v output that are not completely

removed by the subsequent WET inversion (Sheehan et al. [2005b]). As a result, the final

tomogram produced after using the Delta t-v method to generate the initial model often contains

artifacts.

The "smooth inversion" method is recommended by the Rayfract users manual as the fail-

safe method to generate the initial model. This method eliminates artifacts in the initial model in

areas of strong refractor curvature and lateral variation that the Delta t-v method would produce.

If these artifacts are eliminated in the initial model generation the subsequent WET inversions

are more likely to generate a final tomogram that accurately models the features of the

sub surface.

However, with the "smooth inversion" the ability to detect and image velocity inversions as

well as vertical velocity resolution is somewhat decreased (Intelligent Resources Inc., [2006]).

Because of this the Rayfract users manual still recommends that the Delta t-v method at least be

tried in order to generate an initial model. Once the initial model has been generated the WET

inversion is performed with user defined input parameters and number of iterations set to

generate the final velocity tomogram model.









2.3.2.2 Seislmager (version 2.67)

Seislmager uses nonlinear traveltime tomography consisting of ray tracing for forward

modeling and simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT) for inversion. The main

features of the algorithm are: 1) an initial model is constructed so that the velocity is layered and

increasing with depth, 2) first arrival travel times and ray paths are calculated by the ray tracing

method based on shortest path calculation, as described by Moser (1991), and a travel time

between a source and a receiver is defined as the fastest traveltime of all ray paths, 3) the model

is updated by SIRT and the velocity of each cell is updated during the iterations (Hayashi and

Takahashi [2001]). The SeisImager users manual describes two methods for creating an initial

model.

In the first method the user may create a simple "layer-cake" initial model by assigning

layers manually to the travel time curve and performing a time-term inversion. The second

method makes use of tomographic inversion and creates the initial model based on a user defined

velocity range, depth to top of lowest layer, and number of layers to divide the model into.

There is no user control of the grid spacing in SeisImager, and the code creates a variable cell

size with the width equal to the geophone spacing and the height varying with shorter cells at the

surface and taller cells deeper in the model. This is presumably to decrease processing time and

avoid artifacts caused by low ray coverage at deeper depths (Sheehan et al. [2005b]). Upon

completion of the initial model the inversion takes place which generates the final velocity

tomogram.

2.3.2.3 SeisOpt Pro (version 3.0)

SeisOpt Pro uses a Monte Carlo-based optimization scheme called generalized simulated

annealing to invert first arrival times for velocities, as described by Pullammanappallil and Louie

(1994). For the forward model it employs a fast finite-difference scheme based on a solution to










the eikonal equation which computes first arrival travel times through the velocity model (Vidale

[1988]). Travel time inversions that use linearized inversions do not take into account changes in

the velocity field due to ray paths, making them initial model dependent, which could cause them

to converge at an incorrect solution.

SeisOpt Pro avoids ray tracing and uses nonlinear optimization, namely generalized

simulated annealing, to invert first arrival travel times for shallow velocities making it

independent of the initial model. This accounts for curved rays and all types of primary arrivals

(Pullammanappallil and Louie [1994]). The user must specify the vertical and horizontal

resolution spatial resolution (cell size) and velocity range of the initial model. This may be

accomplished by using the autocal setting and allowing the program to choose the resolution

parameters and velocity range or by manually entering these parameters based on results from

previous runs. With this information defined the program begins the inversion routine and

outputs a final velocity tomogram.




0 5 10 t / /
ALACHUA
STATE OF COUNTY
FLORIDA
Newberry GAINESVILLE
Appoxma. Location







(a) (b)

Figure 2-1 Location of geophysical/ground proving test site and zones within the site (from
Hudyma, N., Hiltunen, D.R., and Samakur, C. (2007), "Variability of Karstic Limestone
Quantified Through Compressional Wave Velocity Measurements," (Accepted for Publication),
Proceedings of GeoDenver 2007, New Peaks in Geotechnics, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Denver, CO, February 18-21.
















ATMOS I-ERE



MANTLE cr
COCER SEDIMENT



C ARBOfATE
BEDROCK
iJrnestone and
dolonrrte


(C ""
1^

Carin %cicwe Wter
Carbon CbAnk Water
X02) TF@
Carbonic acid
i .,k -'
DdnT-te- iracskn
[Ctdrg(Cc)] (CaCO)I

Ir i,'.;.r Caidum, Bkarblrtnt
.ri. .c) (HCO)f;


Water (i-I ) filing through the atmosphere
and percolating the jound dsdves carbon
dioxide (CC3 es from the air and soil,
forrrinea weak aid-carbcnk acid (HI-COj)


As the carbonic add infiltrates the ground
and contacts the bedrck surfaces, it areas
readily with limestone (Crcoj) andfor
doomnite [CaMgtliCOj.


Cavities and voids develop as limestone or
dolnite is disoked into component
ions of caldum (ca"), mag esiur (Mg'),
and bicarbonate (HCO-).;


Figure 2-2 Dissolution of carbonate rock (from Tihansky, A.B. (1999), "Sinkholes, West-
Central Florida: A link between surface water and ground water," U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1182, pp. 126.)


Figure 2-3 Karstic limestone features (from Hudyma, N., Hiltunen, D.R., and Samakur, C.
(2007), "Variability of Karstic Limestone Quantified Through Compressional Wave
Velocity Measurements," (Accepted for Publication), Proceedings ofGeoDenver
2007, New Peaks in Geotechnics, American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, CO,
February 18-21.)









CHAPTER 3
SEISMIC REFRACTION TOMOGRAPHY (SRT) PROGRAMS ON FIELD DATA

3.1 Seismic Refraction Testing Site Layout

Seismic refraction testing was conducted during the summer of 2005 in the southern

portion of the test site, as shown in Figure 2.1(b). This area was subdivided into 26 north-south

survey lines, A through Z, going from west to east across the site, and spaced at a distance of 3.0

m apart from one another. Each line was 85.3 m in length with station 0 m located at the

southern end of the line. For this study, testing was performed along six of the lettered survey

lines: A, F, K, P, U, and Z, which are each 15.2 m apart from one another. Along each of these

six lettered survey lines two 36.6 m long refraction surveys were conducted end to end beginning

at station 0 m and ending at station 73.2 m, for a total of 12 refraction lines tested.

3.1.1 Field Testing Procedure

The twelve 36.6 m long refraction lines chosen were each tested individually. Vertical

geophones were used as receivers and spaced equally at 0.61 m apart from one another other

along the line, for a total of 61 geophones along each 36.6 m length of line. The geophones used

were 4.5 Hz and were manufactured by Geophysical Instrument and Supply Company, Inc.

(GISCO). The seismic energy to produce the compression, or (P), wave first arrivals was

induced by striking a metal plate on the ground with an 89 N sledgehammer, with a geophone

placed at the source location in order to record the zero-time of wave propagation. Shots were

spaced at 3.0 m intervals starting at 0 m along each of the 36.6 m refraction lines, for a total of

13 shots along each of the twelve refraction lines.

The time records measured in the field by the geophones were recorded by a Data Physics

Mobilizer II 32-channel dynamic signal analyzer with Signal Calc software and saved on a Dell

Inspiron 8600 laptop computer. Because each of the twelve lines contained 61 geophones and









the dynamic signal analyzer only had 32-channels to collect the time records, each of the twelve

lines had to be further subdivided into two parts. For example, a line going from 0-36.6 m would

be subdivided into test sections from 0-18.3 m and from 18.3-36.6 m. However, even though a

line of geophones only went from 0-18.3 m, source locations were still visited at 3.0 m intervals

from 0 to 36.6 m. As a result each of the 13 shot locations for each of the twelve 36.6 m survey

lines had to be visited twice.

3.1.2 Testing Limitations and Potential Sources of Error

The length of the refraction lines tested in the field were limited to a length of 36.6 m, as

Hiltunen and Cramer (2005) had found this distance to be a limiting refraction line length using a

similar testing layout and testing procedure. Once lengths were increased beyond this, using the

same falling weight sledgehammer source, first arrival times became difficult to pick from the

far receivers when the source location was at the opposite end of the refraction line. This was

due primarily to the fact that traffic and other environmental noise energy levels became so close

to the dissipated seismic compression (P) wave energy imparted that it was difficult, if not

impossible, to make a first arrival pick at the far geophone locations. Similar observations were

noted during the field testing at this site.

This limiting length also served as a limiting factor with respect to the depth to which the

subsurface could be explored due to the geometry of the layout. However, the first arrival P-

waves recorded traveled to sufficient depths to delineate the soil/bedrock interface and lateral

variability of the overburden soil in the subsurface for this site. In order to image the subsurface

at greater depths it would be necessary to increase the length of the line while at the same time

imparting a greater amount of source energy. Another possible source of error that may have

occurred as a result of having to visit each shot location twice due to limitations of the number of

channels on the dynamic signal analyzer. However this error is thought to be random and small.









Traffic and other environmental noises recorded on the travel time records also made choosing

first arrival times at geophone locations far from the source location difficult and sometimes

impossible.

3.2 Analyzing and Processing Field Data

After the field portion of the seismic refraction testing was completed, the next step was to

begin processing the data collected. The first step in this process was to determine the first

arrival times, which was accomplished using SeisImager's first arrival picking module

PickWin95. It should be noted that all three of the SRT programs had first arrival picking

capability and that PickWin95 was chosen simply because of previous experience and

familiarity.

3.2.1 Selection of First Arrivals from Time Records

The data files for each of the twelve refraction survey lines tested were imported into

SeisImager's PickWin95 module where first arrival times were determined manually through

visual inspection from the collected time records and were then saved, see Figure 3.1 for a

typical time record with first arrivals chosen manually. This was done for each of the twelve

survey lines for each of the thirteen source locations for each line. The first arrival data files

were then saved for subsequent analysis by each of the three different SRT programs.

3.2.2 Travel Time Curve Generation

After PickWin95 was used to determine the first arrivals PlotRefa, the interpretation

module of SeisImager, was used to append the thirteen source first arrival time records for each

refraction line into one file, as well as to generate travel time curves. In order to do this each of

the first arrival data files along a refraction line for the 13 source locations were appended to a

single graph and then saved to one file. Typical travel time curves generated by PlotRefa for the

A line are shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. This data contains the first arrival times for each of the









13 shot locations at each of the 61 geophone locations along a given refraction line. It is this file

that will be imported into each of the three SRT programs for inversion into a final velocity

model so that each of the programs would start off with the same initial set of first arrival times.

3.3 Seismic Refraction Tomography Program Processing Flow

While each of the three SRT programs use different inversion methods they each have the

same basic components in processing flow in order to generate the final velocity model, as

described previously in section 2.5. First the complete appended first arrival file saved in

PlotRefa was imported into each of the SRT programs. Each of the programs generates initial

models, and then use inversion methods to produce improved velocity models. The user may

also make changes to the inversion parameters to improve the final velocity model.

3.3.1 Rayfract (Version 2.64)

The first step in using Rayfract is to create a profile for the refraction survey line to be

analyzed. Once the profile is created the user may enter information such as Line ID, Job ID,

station spacing, and station offset information. The next step is to import the complete travel

time data file, previously created in PlotRefa, into Rayfract. However, Rayfract requires the

travel time file imported be in a "station number" format, which requires the shot and receiver

locations be assigned station numbers instead of their position in meters along the survey line.

For example, a receiver at location 0.6 m along the refraction line would be renamed as receiver

station 1 and the next receiver at 1.2 m would be receiver station 2, and so on until the final

receiver located at 36.6m is renamed as station number 60. Likewise the source or "shot"

locations needed to be assigned shot numbers as well as shot station numbers, so a shot at source

location 0 m would be identified as shot number 1 at shot station 0, the second shot at 3.0 m

would be shot number 2 at shot station number 5.









Rayfract also required some relatively minor formatting changes be made to the travel time

data file produced by PlotRefa. In order to make these formatting changes most efficiently an

Excel macro program was created which allowed the user to make these changes with minimal

manipulation and then save as an ASCII text file. Rayfract also has a first arrival picking module

within the program which, if utilized, may have lessened the amount of time and effort to get the

data ready to be imported.

Since all the shot and receiver locations are identified as station numbers, Rayfract requires

that a station coordinate file be created to give the location in meters of these station numbers

along the refraction line. This file contains four columns: 1) Station Number, 2) x coordinate, 3)

y coordinate, and 4) elevation. The x coordinate column simply gives the location in meters of

the station number assigned to the receiver and shot locations, while columns 3 and 4 remained

zero for this set of data because the testing was assumed to have been done in a straight line at a

constant elevation. Only two of these files needed to be created for all twelve refraction survey

lines, one from 0-36.6 m and the other from 36.6-73.2 m, and the appropriate one chosen for

each refraction line imported because the geometry of the test layout remained the same

throughout the testing. This coordinate file was then imported into Rayfract and the modified

travel time data file was now ready to be imported into Rayfract for inversion.

The Rayfract users manual recommends that the initial velocity model be determined using

the "smooth inversion" method, which produces a simple "layer cake" model with one-

dimensional variation in velocity with depth. Once complete, the wavepath eikonal traveltime

(WET) inversion method was used with the velocity smoothing set to "full" for 10 iterations to

generate the velocity tomogram using the default WET tomography parameters, as recommended

by the Rayfract users manual. The purpose of smoothing, as it relates to velocity inversion, is to









take into account the velocity of neighboring cells when assigning a cell a velocity to keep it

from deviating too much from neighboring cells, as the actual velocities of neighboring cells in

most subsurfaces should be similar to one another. By doing so the final velocity model should

be less effected by changes in velocity for a single cell, and therefore be more representative of

the actual subsurface velocity profile.

Rayfract sets the maximum velocity to 6000 m/s as a default, which was observed to be

well above the maximum velocities encountered and was left unchanged as lowering it did not

show any decrease in error calculation in the runs. The final velocity tomogram and ray path

model produced were automatically outputted by Rayfract for viewing to Surfer, a mapping

program by Golden Software, Inc. They were then reviewed looking at how complete the ray

coverage was throughout the model and if any artifacts or unusual features existed within the

final velocity tomogram.

Based on observations from the first tomogram produced, additional runs at full smoothing

were made to see if adjusting the wavepath width parameter up from the default of 3.0%, as

recommended in the Rayfract users manual to smooth out gaps or anomalies, produced a better

tomogram. While this often helped remove anomalies and gaps in ray coverage, the downside to

increasing the wavepath width was that some features became blurred. Rayfract also has a few

other parameters related to the wavepath that may also be adjusted, however no

recommendations were made regarding adjustments to these parameters and the few that were

tried yielded little change in the final tomogram. So the tomogram chosen to go forward with

was the one that had the lowest wavepath width, while still providing adequate ray path coverage

and velocity model lacking artifacts.









Once the best velocity models were chosen, they were specified as the initial models and

an additional 10 iterations, for a total of 20 iterations, were run using the full velocity smoothing

option to further refine the tomogram, as suggested by the Rayfract users manual. The Rayfract

manual then suggests using the minimal smoothing setting for the second run of 10 iterations.

However this produced models with velocity features appearing sharp and jagged, which were

deemed not representative of the even these highly variable geologic conditions.

With several models now complete for a line, it became necessary to evaluate them in

order to determine the best overall model produced. The criteria looked at were: 1) how

complete the ray path coverage was, 2) if any anomalies occurred in the velocity model, and 3)

how the final error compared with the other models. Upon completion of the inversion process

Rayfract displayed the results of three error calculations: 1) mean unsigned error (ms), 2)

maximum unsigned error (ms), and 3) the relative misfit function, calculated by squaring the

error over all of the traces modeled and dividing that by twice the modeled trace count (Schuster

[1993]). In cases where ray path coverage was complete and no anomalies existed in several

models, the velocity model with the smallest wavepath width was usually selected as it often

showed the most detail and had the lowest error. The final P-wave velocity tomograms for the A

line stations 0-36.6 m and 36.6-73.2 are shown in Figures 3.5 (a) and 3.6 (a), respectively, with

the remaining final tomograms shown in Appendix A.

3.3.2 Seislmager (version 2.67)

SeisImager uses PlotRefa to develop P-wave velocity tomograms. The first step in using

PlotRefa is to open the previously saved appended travel time data file. Next the initial model

needs to be generated, using user specified parameters such as velocity range, depth to top of

lowest layer, and the number of layers. The SeisImager users manual notes that the most

important parameters to correctly identify are the minimum and maximum velocities, and if









unsure of actual velocities to be conservative in choosing them as the inversion will not converge

if the actual velocities are not bracketed.

Since no information existed regarding the actual P-wave velocities for the subsurface at

this site, it was necessary to employ a method to help bracket them, as well as the depth to the

top of the lowest layer. Cramer and Hiltunen (2003) determined these parameters by generating

simple "layer-cake" initial models consisting of two or three layers in SeisImager which were

generated by manually assigning layers to the travel time curves from the to the two outside

source locations, stations 0 and 36.6 m. Since the SeisImager manual offers minimal guidance to

the user in determining these initial model parameters, this method was used as a first attempt to

bracket these parameters. Figure 3.4 shows the two end source travel time curves for the A line

0-36.6 m with three layers assigned to each: red, green, and blue.

After the assignment of layers the inversion was run and a simple two or three layer

velocity model was produced. The minimum velocity initial model parameter was determined

from the velocity of the first layer, the maximum velocity from the deepest layer, and the depth

to the top of the lowest layer from that interface. Cramer and Hiltunen (2003) found that the best

velocity models could be generated by decreasing the minimum velocity found by 25%, and

increasing the maximum velocity and depth to top of lowest layer by 25%. This same method

was attempted for this particular set of data, however it was unable bracket the actual velocity

range and depth to top of lowest layer.

Thus, in order to develop an initial model, a wide velocity range was assigned to the

parameters based on values well outside of what was expected. With that the minimum velocity

was initially set as 300 m/s, and the maximum velocity to 4500 m/s, with the depth to the top of

the lowest layer assigned based on the depth of the lowest ray from the velocity model produced









using the method of Cramer and Hiltunen (2003). The velocity model inversion was run setting

the number of layers equal to twenty, and producing the best final velocity model became an

iterative process in which the previously run final velocity model was evaluated in order to see

what changes were necessary to make in the initial model parameters to produce a better velocity

model. The velocity parameters were the first that needed to be bracketed, so the minimum

velocity was reduced if the model was within 100 m/s of the 300 m/s minimum velocity, and the

maximum velocity was reduced from 4500 m/s if the maximum value found was less than 3500

m/s, approximately 25% less than 4500 m/s. Usually any velocity changes were minimal and

were made only after the first model inversion.

With the velocity range now bracketed, determining the top of the lowest layer parameter

for the initial model was an iterative process in which the velocity range inputs were held

constant and the depth was changed. This depth was then adjusted incrementally several times to

progressively lower depths to make sure the lowest ray paths were at depths sufficiently less than

the lowest layer depth specified in the initial model. This was done to ensure the depths that the

ray paths traveled were not being constrained by the initial model parameters.

After this was complete, the final velocity model was chosen based on having: 1) a lack of

artifacts, 2) a low RMS error, but not necessarily the lowest, and 3) a depth to top of lowest layer

depth sufficiently large enough to allow ray path travel not to be constrained. The runs were

each made using the default number of iterations of 10. Additional runs made using 20 iterations

and were found to produce models looking virtually identical with a minimal reduction in error,

so final models were generated using 10 iterations. The final P-wave velocity tomograms for the

A line stations 0-36.6 m and 36.6-73.2 m are shown in Figures 3.5(b) and 3.6(b), and the final

tomograms for the remaining lines are shown in Appendix A.









3.3.3 SeisOpt Pro (version 3.0)

SeisOpt Pro requires that the input files used for inversion of the final velocity model

consist of 3 ASCII (text) files. The first file contains source location information, the second

receiver location information, and the third first-arrival pick times (Optim LLC, [2004]). In

order to accomplish this, SeisOpt Pro has several conversion programs built in to take the first

arrival information from travel time data files created using other first-arrival picking programs

and converts them into the required ASCII format. Since this version of SeisOpt Pro did not

have a conversion program to convert first arrival files created in PickWin95, customer support

at Optim Software, the program's manufacturer, was contacted and a conversion program was

written and sent electronically. This is a service offered to the user in the SeisOpt Pro users

manual.

The next step was to set the input parameters for the initial model. SeisOpt offers five

different preset resolutions that determine the cell width (hx) and cell height (hz) to be used in

the model. The higher the resolution the smaller the cell size used in the inversion and,

consequentially, the more detailed the final velocity model becomes. The SeisOpt manual

recommends running the inversion at the "Medium", "High", and "Highest" settings to

determine which resolution will provide the best solution without any artifacts, but suggests that

the Highest or sometimes the High resolution setting for geotechnical type applications usually

performs the best. Runs were made for each of these three different resolutions using the autocal

option, which automatically determines the cell width (hx), cell height (hz), number of cells in

the x direction (nx), and number of cells in the z direction (nz) to be used in the velocity model

inversion based on receiver spacing, for each refraction line.

The velocity models from each of the three resolutions were compared against one another,

and it was observed that the high and medium resolution settings produced models with fewer









artifacts and better ray coverage than the highest. Carpenter et al. (2003) also noted in their

study of SeisOpt Pro that using the highest resolution developed severe modeling artifacts and

could not be used to infer subsurface geology. With this observation, it was decided to no longer

make runs using the highest resolution setting because of the inadequacy of the models, and the

lengthy computational time necessary to produce them, approximately 9 hours. The high and

medium resolution models use larger cell sizes which, when a ray passes though it, will cover a

larger area of the model. While some detail in the model may be lost due to the increased size of

the cell, ray coverage should be greater with fewer artifacts present due to a lack of ray coverage.

The output from high and medium initial autocal runs included the default nx, nz, hx, hz,

and maximum and minimum velocity used to produce the velocity model. With these values

determined, 10 additional runs were made with 10 different values of nz, changing it by

increments of 1, with 5 of them above the default nz value and 5 below, as recommended by the

SeisOpt Pro users manual. The other output parameters determined in the initial autocal run

were held constant. The reason for changing only the number of cells in the vertical direction

(nz) is that the depth of penetration of the first arrival rays is a nonlinear function of source-

receiver offset and subsurface velocities, as a result the depth of the model is the biggest

unknown (Optim LLC, [2004]).

The resulting 10 velocity models produced from the medium and high resolutions were

then compared against one another. The best velocity model was determined for each resolution

based on: 1) displaying a lack of artifacts, 2) having adequate ray path coverage, and 3) having

comparatively low least square error. The best tomogram of the high and medium resolution

models were compared against one another using this criteria and it was found that the medium

resolution setting produced the best overall velocity models.









Carpenter et al. (2003) also found for their data sets that the medium resolution models

produced velocity tomograms consistent with the geology and provided a reasonable solution

that resembled the best high-resolution models. Thus, it was decided to proceed forward with

the remaining lines using primarily only the medium resolution setting. However, to be certain a

better velocity model had not been overlooked, a few runs were conducted at the high and

highest resolutions.

After reviewing the 10 initial runs using different nz values it was noted that the best

models often occurred at or near the lowest and highest nz values run. In order to help ensure

that a better model did not exist outside these initial ten runs, and to effectively bracket the best

model with several inferior models of both higher and lower nz values, the number of runs was

expanded to between 20 and 25 different nz values. This process was accelerated by using the

"batch processing" feature which allows the user to set the model input parameters with the

different nz values, saving them into separate files, and set them up to be run consecutively. This

allows the user to batch up multiple runs and have them run automatically without any

interaction or need to be present.

The resulting models were then examined for each of the refraction lines and the best

model was chosen based on the previously mentioned criteria. For 11 of the 12 refraction lines

the medium resolution tomogram was chosen as the final velocity model. However, a low

resolution model was run and chosen for the A line station 0-36.6 m due to the number of

artifacts present in even the best medium resolution model. Figures 3.5(c) and 3.6(c) show the

final P-wave velocity tomograms for the A line, and the remaining lines are presented in

Appendix A.









3.4 Comparison of the (SRT) Programs

With the final P-wave velocity tomograms chosen from each of the three programs for

each of the twelve refraction lines it was now necessary to compare them against one another.

Comparing velocity models from different SRT programs against one another can be done by

either comparing the calculated final error of the travel times or by visual inspection. An error

calculation provides a more effective, less subjective means of evaluating code performance.

However, visual inspection best approximates how the results from a real field study will be

interpreted. In a field study visual interpretation is necessary because there is no "truth" with

which to compare mathematically (Sheehan et al. [2003]).

In real world geotechnical applications models will be evaluated on how consistent they

appear to be with the expected geology of the area and with data obtained from more traditional

geotechnical techniques, such as SPT, CPT and rock coring. A model chosen solely based on

having low error may still show features not consistent with the expected and contain artifacts. It

is for this reason that model comparisons between programs will be made based primarily upon

visual inspection with error calculations performed to provide an objective comparison.

3.4.1 Creation of Tomograms using Surfer (version 8.04)

Each of the three SRT programs displays its final velocity model in a different format and

scale. In order to visually inspect each of the final models from each of the three programs

without becoming biased by the visual quality of one SRT's program model versus another, each

was imported into a single mapping program, Surfer. SeisImager and SeisOpt create output files

of the velocity model in a format in which the user can directly import them into Surfer to create

a contour map, and since Rayfract automatically outputs its velocity model into Surfer, only

minimal changes to map properties needed to be made. Once imported, contour maps were

created for each of the three models from each of the SRT programs for each of the twelve lines,









as presented in Figures 3.5 and 3.6 as well as in Appendix A. Map properties such as scale,

minimum and maximum velocity, and contour interval (set as 100m/s) were made to be identical

for each of the three models across a line in order to remove any unintentional visual bias.

3.4.2 General Visual Observations of Tomograms

Even though the models have been imported into Surfer to remove any visual bias some

important differences do exist. Most notably the Seislmager models are rectangular in shape,

while Rayfract models are bowl like and SeisOpt Pro are pyramidal. The reason for this

difference in model geometry is that Rayfract and SeisOpt Pro do not model portions outside the

area of ray path coverage, while Seislmager extrapolates the velocity model outward and

downward from areas of nearby ray coverage. Any regions of the velocity model, whether in the

inner or outer portion of the model, outside the area of ray path coverage should be interpreted

carefully as not enough information is available in these regions for the SRT programs to

determine features of the subsurface.

Some other general trends were also observed between the three programs. The minimum

velocities modeled in the final velocity tomograms tended to be similar in all three programs for

a given refraction line, while the maximum velocity tended to be the highest in Seislmager and

Rayfract and was usually the lowest in SeisOpt Pro. However, the differences in the maximum

velocity seemed to occur only near the bottom of the model and in areas of low ray coverage,

while the majority of the velocities in other areas of the models across the programs remained

similar. With respect to the depth of the final model for the twelve refraction lines, Seislmager

and sometimes Rayfract tended to be the deepest, while SeisOpt always resulted in the

shallowest model. It is important to note that Seislmager often had only one or a few ray paths

traveling at the bottom of model, with several meters above in which no ray paths traveled

through. These areas should be interpreted with caution.









SeisOpt often produced oval shaped artifacts in the lower half of the model that could

usually be attributed to areas of low ray path coverage, but not always. Sheehan et al. (2003)

also reported model instability in SeisOpt Pro when too many layers (too large a nz value) or too

many velocity elements are used (usually at the highest resolution setting). The instability

manifests itself in the appearance of high or low velocity artifact "pinnacles," "cutters" or oval

areas, usually within the lower third of the section. The amount of artifacts seemed to decrease

in SeisOpt Pro as the resolution was decreased, so some additional runs were made to see if these

artifacts could be removed by setting the resolution to the "low" setting. This did seem to help,

however the detail of the subsurface features was also greatly reduced.

3.4.4 Specific Visual Observations of Tomograms

Figure 3.5 shows the final velocity models from all three programs for the A line station

0-36.6 m. While some differences do exist between the models the same general subsurface

features exist, particularly in the upper portion. All three models show a valley or bowl-like

feature in the middle stations with pinnacles on the right and left sides of the lines occurring at

approximately the same station numbers and depth. The velocities associated with these features

and the remaining portions also compare similarly to each other with depth. Likewise, Figure

3.6 shows the velocity models from the A-line station numbers 36.6-73.2 m with pinnacle like

features toward the right and left side of the model, with a valley or bowl-like feature towards the

center of the model in each of the three SRT programs.

The resulting final tomograms for each of the three SRT programs for the remaining

refraction lines, F, K, P, U, and Z, were examined and compared against each other, see

Appendix A. After careful examination of the final tomograms it was noted that, like the A line,

each program imaged the same general subsurface features at similar locations and depths. For

the most part the P-wave velocities were also observed to be similar with depth at the same









location across the models produced by all three SRT programs. The few minor differences

observed usually occurred in areas of low ray path coverage, usually the lower portion of the

models, where the programs had to interpret the velocity model with little or no measured ray

paths traveling through. This was the case particularly for the SeisOpt Pro models, which

resulted in artifacts and other features being modeled that are not consistent with the geological

history. Based on visual inspection of the tomograms across the three SRT programs generated

for this site, it can be stated that each of the three SRT programs are able to produce final

velocity models with the same general subsurface features being imaged.

3.4.5 Quantitative Comparison of Calculated Travel Times

Although visual inspection of the final P-wave tomograms produced by the models is

important in the evaluation of the programs, the results are subjective and may vary depending

on the viewer. In order to help provide a more objective comparison of the programs, the

differences between the measured and the calculated travel times of each program were

evaluated for the two A line final tomograms, stations 0-36.6 m and 36.6-73.2 m, see Tables 3-1

and 3-2. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 are provided to show visually the closeness of the measured versus

predicted travel time curves for each of the three SRT programs.

The RMS error and the mean and maximum differences were calculated for each of the

three programs for the A line. The results show the RMS, mean difference, and maximum

difference to be comparatively close between Rayfract and Seislmager calculated travel times,

with Rayfract having a lower RMS for the A line 0-36.6 m, and Seislmager having a lower RMS

for the A line 36.6-73.2 m. SeisOpt Pro had RMS, mean difference, and maximum difference

values slightly higher than the other two programs for the A-line. This closeness between the

programs quantitatively as well as through visual inspection should give the user further

confidence in the ability of each of the programs to model the general features of the subsurface









similarly. Perhaps the differences that do exist between SeisOpt Pro and the other two programs

may help explain the reason why Rayfract and SeisImager were able to produce tomograms with

some more detail and less artifacts.

3.4.5 Processing Time

Along with comparisons between the velocity tomograms, the amount of processing time

each program requires is also important to take into consideration. The amount of processing

time to run an inversion will vary depending upon the data set, the speed of the computer used,

and the size of the data in the refraction line, so times recorded can only be used when

comparing the three programs for these data sets. Times were recorded for runs made by each of

the programs for the A line station numbers 0-36.6 m, however similar times were observed in

the remaining runs.

The resulting times showed SeisImager taking approximately 8 minutes and Rayfract

taking approximately 10 minutes to run inversion routines for ten iterations. However, Rayfract

was run for 20 iterations, approximately 20 minutes, in order to bring out some finer subsurface

details. The SeisOpt Pro run made using the medium resolution setting took approximately 1

hour, as it is the most complex inversion routine. Similar processing times were observed for the

other refraction lines. The length of the processing times reflect the complexity of the inversion

routines behind the programs, with SeisImager being the simplest and SeisOpt Pro being the

most complex. However, simply using the most complex and time intensive inversion does not

guarantee the best final model. SeisImager and Rayfract were able to produce a final model that

seemed to be consistent with the known geology as well as containing fewer artifacts than

SeisOpt Pro in a significantly less amount of time.









3.5 General Assessment of Performance of the SRT Programs Evaluated


Although each of the three programs rely upon completely different inversion methods,

each was capable of producing final tomograms showing similar subsurface features. With the

three SRT programs evaluated based on visual inspection as well as quantitatively the following

statements may be made:

4 All three SRT programs when visually compared to one another for a given refraction line
were able to generate tomograms showing similar subsurface features and P-wave
velocities.

5 Quantitatively, the error between the measured and calculated travel times for each of the
three SRT programs were comparatively close to one another. However, the slightly larger
error calculated for the calculated SeisOpt Pro travel times may account for the differences
and artifacts modeled.

6 An increase in processing time does not necessarily lead to a better model being produced
as SeisOpt Pro took significantly longer to run and generally produced models with more
artifacts.

Table 3-1 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line
Station 0-36.6 m


RMS (ms)
Mean Difference (ms)
Maximum Difference (ms)


Rayfract SeisImager
24.4 29.6
0.68 0.84
3.29 3.77


SeisOpt
34.5
0.99
4.14


Table 3-2 Comparison of Calculated Travel Time Differences Between Programs for A Line
Station 36.6-73.2 m


RMS (ms)
Mean Difference (ms)
Maximum Difference (ms)


Rayfract
28.1
0.66
5.61


SeisImager
25.0
0.74
5.24


SeisOpt
31.6
0.87
6.21












Source= 0.0ft
00 r-


Tim e (msec)


100
20
30
4 0

60 -
7 0
80
90 +
100
110
120
13.0 I _










22 0 ----------------------------------------------------------_ -------
140 -
150
,; 160
o 170
S 180-- -- -
S190f
200
Q- 210
220 ---
230





280 __
29 0
300
31 0


33.0-----
34 0
35.0
360



Figure 3-1 Example of PickWin95 time record along survey line A from stations 0-36.6 m for
source location 0 m. Chosen first arrival times are denoted for each trace by the
horizontal red line.






















n i ' v ____
S3 .. *




I '


h. '
", : i '
20














Figure 3-2 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m



(ms)
40 '




30
... r .____











F-7





Distance (M)

Figure 3-3 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 36.6-73.2 m
,, .'* :...
"-- lm = ill *1.*t', 'r .= "<


\: .* ," : "










Distance {m)

Figure 3-3 PlotRefa travel time curves, A line, station 36.6-73.2 m














(mr]













I-
40



















0 10 20 30 40
Distame Im)


Figure 3-4 PlotRefa outside source location travel time curves, A line, station 0-36.6 m





























5 1I
5 10


15 20
Horizontal Distance (m)
(a) Rayfract


25 30 35


5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (mn)

(b) Seislmager


5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal D i stance (m)
(c) SeisOpt Pro


P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract tomogram, (b)
Seislmager tomogram, and (c) SeisOpt Pro tomogram.


0-







E

r-
a'


Figure 3-5















0-





E 5-
r
a


-10-









0-




-5



E
r





-15-










0-

E


S-5-


65 70


40 45 50 55 50 65 70

Horizontil Distance (m)

(b) Seislmager


40 45 50 5 60 65 70
Horitontal Distance (m)

(c) SeisOpt Pro


P-wave Tomograms, A line, Station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract tomogram, (b)
Seislmager tomogram, and (c) SeisOpt Pro tomogram.


40 45 50 55 60
Horizontal Di stance(m)

(a) Rayfract


Figure 3-6















40

35




E

E 20
1--
1 15

1(-





0


30 35 40


0 5


10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (m)


10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (m)


35


30 35
-M00s0,00


40


Figure 3-7 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract

travel times, (b) Seislmager travel times, and (c) SeisOpt Pro travel times.








51


5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (m)


2W
--: 71

.-x x
'' ~ r~/
:+. ''~ 4


40

35






2(-
.''* : ... : ,' : .-




:, .

IC. : D =
", ,
|

,, ", p


..i :


4U

35




E

E 20
g
15

1(





0


-


'



























35 40 45 50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (m)


65 70
--Measured --i


^.'\\*, *.2.. ^ : : ".- -"









15 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Horizontal Distance (m) -Measured --Pedt


(b)







..... ....... .-.

K ~ I 15-~~ C
.;iiii:. ii; ;7
::A

2K:


35 40


45 50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (m)


65 70
I -Measured --


Figure 3-8 Measured vs. predicted travel time curves, A Line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract
travel times, (b) Seislmager travel times, and (c) SeisOpt Pro travel times.


~-.


A..~:::

"N









CHAPTER 4
COMPARISON OF SRT PROGRAM RESULTS AND INTRUSIVE TESTING DATA

4.1 Selection of Intrusive Test Locations

The selection of the seismic refraction testing locations were made blindly, with no

information known regarding the subsurface from traditional geotechnical exploration methods,

such as SPT and CPT borings. The seismic refraction field testing was performed and the data

was then collected, processed, and imported into SeisImager to generate initial P-wave velocity

tomograms. These preliminary velocity models were then reviewed and locations for the CPT

soundings were selected based on features of interest such as valleys, or bowl-like features, and

pinnacles.

Once the CPT soundings were completed the P-wave velocities from the SeisImager

tomograms were noted at the top of bedrock depths. The P-wave velocities for these locations at

the top of bedrock were found not to be consistent, but rather ranged from 600 m/s to 2200 m/s.

In an effort to explain this, subsequent SPT and rock coring locations were then chosen in some

of these locations, as well as others, to recover physical samples to try to find out why the P-

wave velocity in the tomograms for the top of bedrock varied so greatly. Since the project did

have financial constraints an intrusive test would not be able to be performed at every feature of

interest, consequently intrusive tests were only performed along the A, F, U, and Z lines.

However, the selections made were broad enough to ensure the major features of the subsurface

imaged in the preliminary SeisImager tomograms would be able to be explored.

4.2 Types of Intrusive Testing Performed

The field exploration at this site consisted of three types of physically intrusive tests: CPT,

SPT, and rock coring. These tests were chosen because they represent the most commonly used

intrusive tests in practice, and in order for seismic refraction testing to be considered for









widespread use it will be necessary to show how well it compares against traditional methods.

The following three sections provide technical detail and discuss the test procedures used for

each of the three test types of intrusive tests used.

4.2.1 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Procedure

CPT soundings were performed first at ten selected locations within the site during

November of 2005. These locations, as previously discussed, were chosen as areas of interest

based on the SeisImager tomograms. A Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) field

crew, using a Hogentogler Electric Cone Penetration Rig, performed the soundings at the

locations selected. The soundings were performed in general accordance with the testing

procedures outlined in the FDOT 2004 Soils and Foundations Manual. The CPT soundings were

terminated at depths in which the tip met refusal due to the top of bedrock, approximately 30

MPa. This refusal was inferred to mean that the top of the bedrock had been encountered, SPT

borings would later be performed at some of these locations to confirm this.

4.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedure

SPT boring locations were chosen after the CPT soundings had been performed and were

also compared to the tomograms. They were utilized in order to confirm the top of bedrock

depth determined by the CPT soundings, as well as to recover a physical sample to learn more

about the properties of the subsurface material. It was hoped that this would help explain the

wide range of P-wave velocities encountered in the top of bedrock material. The SPT borehole

locations were performed at eight selected locations during December of 2005 by Universal

Engineering Sciences, Inc., and were performed in general accordance with the FDOT Soils and

Foundations Handbook 2004.

A standard split spoon sampler was advanced 450 mm by dropping a 63.5 kg hammer on

the drill rod from a height of 760 mm. The SPT boring was advanced continuously from 0.3 m









below the ground surface until the top of the bedrock was encountered and the Standard

Penetration "N" values were recorded. To prevent the borehole from collapsing, and to wash

away the soil cuttings, drilling mud was circulated as a 0.1 m diameter auger was used to widen

the borehole after each sampling interval. The depth of the groundwater table was recorded and

soil samples were classified.

Once the SPT borehole encountered the top of bedrock, 0.1 m diameter casing was set

inside the borehole. The casing had "teeth" on the bottom of the initial length of casing to

enlarge the hole and embed it several centimeters into the top of bedrock. With the casing now

firmly set inside the borehole the rock coring was ready to proceed.

4.2.3 Rock Coring Procedure

Once the top of bedrock was encountered in each of the eight SPT boring locations, rock

coring was initiated. The rock coring was performed using a diamond impregnated double barrel

core bit with an inner barrel diameter of 85 mm. Water was circulated through to the bottom to

cool the bit and wash away any cuttings. Rock coring was performed through the limestone in

1.5 m runs by the same drill rig used to perform the SPT borings. Coring was continued to a

depth at which "good quality rock" was encountered. The rock core samples were recovered and

later examined to provide more detailed information such as: Recovery (%), Rock Quality

Designation (RQD) (%), and a physical description of the rock itself. The samples were saved so

that future laboratory tests may be performed to further characterize them.

4.3 General Results of Intrusive Testing

The subsurface information obtained through the various intrusive testing methods

revealed how variable the site is, see Appendix B for complete results of the intrusive testing.

The top of bedrock varied from being visible at the ground surface to 9 m below the surface,

depending on the location. Along with the changes in the depth to top of bedrock, the quality of









the rock, (RQD), varied greatly from each borehole and even within a single borehole. The

overburden soil layers varied not only in depth due to the changing top of bedrock elevation, but

also in type of soil at a particular depth from borehole to borehole, with no discernable pattern.

One of the only constants in this extremely variable subsurface was the depth of the groundwater

table, which was measured at approximately 4.6 m in each of the boreholes. The following

sections provide a brief summary of the material encountered during the intrusive testing.

4.3.1 A Line Intrusive Testing Results

CPT soundings were performed at stations 19.8, 39.6, 44.2, and 65.5 m along the A line,

with SPT borings and rock coring performed at stations 19.8, 36.6, and 65.5 m, see Appendix B

for detailed information from these intrusive tests. The results showed the top of bedrock depth

to vary greatly along the line ranging from 0.2 to 9.0 m, see Table 4-1 for specific top of bedrock

depths at each intrusive test location. Likewise the overburden soil above the limestone also

varied considerably, consisting of very loose to loose sand and clayey sands at varying depth and

thickness, with station 19.8 m containing a layer of clay from 8.5 to 13 m deep. The limestone

encountered not only varied in depth in which it was encountered, but also varied greatly with

respect to RQD (%) as the rock coring was advanced. The logs frequently describe the limestone

as being weak and containing fracture zones, with a cavity encountered at station 36.6 m from 5

to 5.3 m.

4.3.2 F Line Intrusive Testing Results

Along the F line from station 0-36.6 m two SPT borings with rock coring were performed

at stations 3.0 and 13.7 m, see Appendix B for detailed information from these intrusive tests. A

summary of the top of bedrock depths may also be seen in Table 4-2. The logs show at station

3.0 m highly weathered limestone was encountered at a depth of approximately 4.5 m. This

limestone was overlain by alternating layers of soft to very soft clay and loose to medium dense









clayey sand, each of about 1 m in thickness. The RQD of the underlying limestone also

alternated between the lengths of core run from 0% and approximately 40 to 60%.

The boring logs at station 13.7 m showed that heavily weathered limestone was

encountered at 1.7 m with more competent limestone, RQD 70%, being encountered at 3.4 m.

The overburden material consisted of a 1 m layer of soft clay underlain by a 0.7 m layer of loose

sand with clay and gravel. Numerous fractures and fossils were noted within limestone in the

rock coring logs.

4.3.3 U Line Intrusive Testing Results

CPT soundings were performed along the U line at stations 8.5, 24.4, 36.6 and 73.2 m

along with a single SPT boring and rock coring performed at station 24.4 m, detailed logs for

each of the intrusive tests performed on this line may be found in Appendix B. The depth to top

of limestone varied at the intrusive test locations along the line from 1.2 to 8.2 m, see Table 4-3

for specific top of limestone depths at each intrusive test location. Because soil sampling was

only performed at the single SPT location along the line, the only description of subsurface is

available at station 24.4 m, which showed the top of limestone to be at a depth of 8.2 m, overlain

by layers of loose sand and very soft to soft clay. The rock coring logs show the RQD to

gradually decrease from 60% at 9.5 m to 20% at 14 m where a sandy clay filled cavity was

encountered from 14 m to the end of hole depth at 15.5 m.

4.3.4 Z Line Intrusive Testing Results

Along the Z line two CPT soundings were performed at stations 35 and 64 m along with

two SPT borings and rock corings at stations 21.9 and 35 m, the complete logs of the intrusive

testing performed along the Z line may be seen in Appendix B. Based on the intrusive tests the

depth to the top of competent limestone ranged from 6.1 to 7.8 m along the line, see Tables 4-4

and 4-5 for a summary of the top of limestone depths encountered along the Z line. Compared to









the results from the other lines tested this was the least amount of variation with respect to top of

bedrock depth along a single survey line, using the limited amount of intrusive data available.

At station 21.9 limestone was encountered 7.3 m deep, with a RQD of 50%, and was

overlain by an approximately 1.0 m thick layer of heavily weathered limestone, overlain by 1.2

m of stiff clay, overlain by 5.3 m of sand. Likewise the boring logs from station 35 m show

limestone to be at a depth of 6.4 m, RQD of 50%, overlain by 1.2 m of heavily weathered

limestone with clay overlain by 3.7 m of soft to stiff clay overlain by 1.5 m of loose clayey sand

and sand. Both of the rock coring logs note core runs containing fractures within the limestone,

with station 21.9 m noted as containing a sand and clay filled cavity between 13.6 and 15.1 m

deep.

4.4 Comparison of Intrusive Testing to the SRT Tomograms

Upon completion of the intrusive field testing program, final tomograms were produced

using each of the three SRT programs, as described in Chapter 3. The next step was to see how

these tomograms compared to the information obtained from the intrusive testing. In comparing,

the principal objective was the ability of the SRT programs to delineate the laterally variable

soil/bedrock interface. The ability to delineate this interface accurately for the locations in which

this information is known would give the user confidence about the programs abilities to

delineate this interface in regions for which no information is available. At sites with uniform

bedrock properties this may be accomplished by simply identifying the P-wave velocity of the

material, which should remain relatively constant along the survey line, and tracing it across the

tomogram to delineate the soil/bedrock interface. For this site a simple constant P-wave velocity

delineation of the soil/bedrock interface will probably not be possible due to variation in the

bedrock material due to its geologic history.









4.4.1 Comparison of A Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results

The intrusive testing results were first compared along refraction survey line A from

stations 0-36.6 m, see Figure 4.1. The first step in the comparison was to make note of the P-

wave velocity in the tomograms at the depth in which the intrusive tests encountered the top of

bedrock to see if a specific velocity or a small range of velocities could be identified as the top of

bedrock velocity. The top of bedrock at station 19.8 m was encountered by the intrusive testing

at a depth of approximately 9.0 m below the ground surface. When the tomograms for each of

the three programs were examined at this location the P-wave velocity was approximately 2000

m/s, depending on which of the three tomograms was used.

Three CPT soundings and one SPT boring were performed along the second A line of

refraction, stations 36.6-73.2 m, see Figure 4.2. The CPT sounding at station 39.6 m was

terminated before a large tip resistance was encountered at depth of about 2.2 m because the CPT

rod was bending seriously to the south as penetration was attempted. After a close review of the

tomograms, Figure 4.2, it can be seen that station 39.6 m appears to be just to the left, or south,

of the top of a block/pinnacle feature, and that the bending of the CPT rod to the south of the site

is consistent with the subsurface featured in the tomograms (Hiltunen et al. 2007). The P-wave

velocity of the material at the depth the CPT met refusal was approximately 700 m/s, based on

the tomograms.

CPT soundings were also performed at stations 44.2 m and 65.5 m, with the tip resistance

approaching 30 MPa at approximately 0.2 and 0.4 m, respectively. A SPT boring was also

performed at station 65.5 m, which confirmed the top of limestone depth to be at 0.3 m, with the

RQD being approximately 75 %. The P-wave velocities determined from the tomograms for this

shallow top of limestone region ranged between 600 and 800 m/s, depending on the tomogram.

Small limestone outcrops were visible at the ground surface, and noted for the A line for station









62.5 to 64 m and 66.1 through 67.1 m. This shallow depth to top of bedrock appears to be

consistent with the pinnacle/block type feature imaged by each of the tomograms at these

locations.

After review of the P-wave velocities at the top of bedrock depth it became obvious that

not only did the depth of limestone vary greatly across the line, ranging from the ground surface

to 9.0 m deep, but so did the P-wave velocity, ranging from 600 m/s to 2000 m/s, see Table 4-1

for a summary of the top of bedrock P-wave velocities determined from the tomograms. As a

result it would not be possible to determine the top of bedrock depth by simply tracing a single

velocity contour line across the tomogram, as the top of bedrock velocity changed greatly along

the survey line. With the contour interval for the tomograms set at 100 m/s, general subsurface

features were evident such as valley and block/pinnacle type features. However, the depth to the

soil/bedrock interface is not immediately obvious to the user.

In an attempt to try and make the soil/bedrock interface within the tomograms more

visually apparent, the contour intervals within Surfer were reduced for each of the three SRT

programs. It was found that by reducing the contour interval to 10 m/s for the Rayfract

tomograms along the A line stations 0-36.6 m that the contour intervals would concentrate to the

point of being so close that they appeared solid or near solid at depths corresponding with the top

of bedrock measured from the intrusive tests, see Figure 4.4. The contour fill coloring and

labeling was also removed to make this concentration of contour lines more apparent. This

concentration at the location of the soil/rock interface makes physical sense because there should

be a large gradient (change) in P-wave velocity due to the abrupt material change, and this large

change should be observed in the tomogram via a dense concentration of contour lines.









In order to confirm this, the next step was to compare the location of the increased contour

line concentration in the Rayfract tomograms against the results of the intrusive testing program.

The top of limestone depth seemed to corresponded well with the depth of contour line

concentration, see Table 4-2 for a comparison of intrusive top of limestone depth versus the

depth of the contour line concentration at that depth. For example, along the A line at station

19.8 m the SPT and CPT testing determined the top of limestone to be at approximately 9.0 m,

see Figure 4.3 (a). Looking at the Rayfract model, a large concentration of contour lines occurs

at depth of approximately 8.8 m in the Rayfract tomogram. Although no further intrusive test

data exists for this line, if one were to trace the front of contour line concentration from station

19.8 m, presuming this did delineate the top of bedrock, one would expect to find pinnacle/block

like features at depth of approximately 1.0 m at stations 13.0 and 27.0 m with the top of bedrock

undulating from left to right. It would be interesting to see if future intrusive testing confirmed

this hypothesis. A similar trend was noted for the A line station 36.6-73.2 m Rayfract tomogram,

see Figure 4.5.

In their analysis of synthetic models, Sheehan et al. (2005b) found SRT programs to be

incapable of accurately imaging abrupt velocity changes. Instead they smear the boundary into a

gradient. Therefore, boundaries must be interpreted from areas of maximum gradient. Reducing

the contour interval to 10 m/s visually shows this increase in gradient as closely spaced P-wave

velocity contour lines. The largest increase in gradient, or concentration of contour lines, should

occur where the greatest increase in P-wave velocity occurs, typically at the soil/rock interface.

It should also be noted that a similar procedure was tried for the SeisImager and SeisOpt

tomograms, however they were unable to show any concentration of contour lines at locations

corresponding to the top of bedrock depth, see Figures 4.3 (b) and (c) and Figures 4.5 (b) and (c).









However, when the contour interval was set at 50 m/s for SeisImager and SeisOpt Pro for the A

line 0-36.6 m tomograms, some concentrations were able to be seen near depths corresponding to

the top of bedrock depth at some of the intrusive test locations. However, this close contour

depth was not as obvious, and did not correspond as closely to the intrusive test results as the

Rayfract tomogram did, see Figure 4.4.

The reason believed as to why Rayfract was able to show this concentration of contour

lines clearer and more accurate than the other two SRT programs probably is due to the fact that

during the inversion process it creates a dense grid file of the velocity model that is updated after

each iteration and is exported to Surfer. A grid is a rectangular region composed of evenly

spaced rows (the y coordinate), and columns (the x coordinate), with the intersection of a row

and a column called a grid node. By generating a grid file Surfer will interpolate or extrapolate a

Z value (velocity) at each unknown grid node based on known data values. For the models

produced in Rayfract the grid size was typically 300 rows by 600 columns. SeisImager and

SeisOpt Pro simply provide the x and y coordinates with the respective velocity (z) at a data

point, and do not interpolate for values in between. Rayfract models typically contained

approximately 2000 data points in the initial model, compared to approximately 1200 in

SeisImager and 3000 in SeisOpt Pro.

However, because Rayfract updated the entire velocity grid file after each iteration,

interpolating to determine unknown values at the grid nodes, it typically contained between

70,000-100,000 node values. By having so many more nodes to create contour lines with,

Rayfract was able to show this concentration clearer, smoother, and more accurately than

SeisImager or SeisOpt Pro, despite having less actual data points in the initial model than

SeisOpt Pro. Grid sizes were also increased to the same Rayfract values from the Surfer default









values for the Seislmager and SeisOpt Pro models, with little, if any, improvement in accuracy

noted visually. The possibility also exists that Rayfract may be more accurate due to a setting in

the code that automatically creates a Surfer file of the final velocity model, although no

differences could be found through a basic inspection of the code.

4.4.1.1 Sinkhole Observations Along the A Line

As noted above, the seismic refraction field testing was conducted during the summer of

2005, with the intrusive testing performed during November and December of 2005. Following

a period of heavy rain and storm water runoff in February 2006, two sinkholes formed along the

A line at approximately stations 19.5 m and 52.1 m. These two locations appear as valley/bowl

features in the P-wave velocity tomograms, Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The valley/bowl feature was

especially well documented for station 19.5 m, as a CPT and SPT boring had been performed at

station 19.8 m. Sinkhole formation in these valley/bowl type features seems much more likely

than at the top of the block/pinnacle features, and the ability to image these valley/bowl type

features could potentially make seismic refraction tomography useful in identifying high-risk

areas for sinkhole development (Hiltunen et al. [2007]).



4.4.2 Comparison of F Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results

Two SPT borings along with rock coring were performed along the F line. The first boring

at station 3.0 m showed highly weathered limestone encountered at approximately 4.5 m, with

limestone of higher quality, RQD 50%, encountered at 6.4 m. Due to the proximity of the boring

at station 3.0 m to the end of the refraction array, and resulting shallow tomogram modeling in

these areas, P-wave velocities can only be compared in the very top of the limestone material

using the Seislmager tomogram because the other two programs did not produce a tomogram to









that depth. This P-wave velocity was found to be approximately 700 m/s, see Table 4-3 for a

summary of the top of bedrock P-wave velocities and Appendix A for the tomograms.

The second SPT boring performed along the survey line was at station 13.7 m. Highly

weathered limestone with numerous large voids and a RQD of 0% was encountered at 1.7 m

extending to 3.4 m where the quality of the rock increased to 70%. The P-wave velocity of this

more competent limestone at 3.4 m was 800 m/s. The tomograms appear to show more of a

valley/bowl like feature at station 3.0 m when compared to station 13.7 m, and results from the

intrusive testing seem to confirm that the top of bedrock is at a greater depth.

A close examination of the tomograms, Figure C-l in Appendix C, reveals that the

downward slope of the velocity contour lines toward station 13.7 m from the pinnacle/block

feature at station 8.0 m is less than the slope from station 8.0 m to station 3.0 m. Station 3.0 m

also appears to be more at the bottom of a valley, while station 13.7 m appears to be slightly

before the bottom of the valley. The shapes within the tomograms seem to indicate that the top

of rock elevation should be deeper at station 3.0 m than 13.7 m. The SPT tests confirm this

hypothesis as the top of bedrock was encountered at 4.5 m for station 3.0 m, and at 1.7 m at

station 13.7 m.

An examination of the Rayfract and SeisOpt Pro tomograms with a contour interval of 10

m/s at station 13.7 m, using the same procedure used in the A-line comparison, showed a

concentration of contour lines at depth of approximately 3.5 m, see Figure D-1 in Appendix D.

This compares well with the SPT result at this location, which showed the depth to the top of

limestone to be at 3.4 m. The Seislmager tomogram was also examined, however the

concentration of contour lines was observed to begin at approximately 2 m.









4.4.3 Comparison of U Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results

Along the U line from station 0-36.6 m, three CPT soundings and one SPT boring with

rock coring were performed. The first CPT sounding was performed at station 8.5 m, and

recorded the top of limestone depth to be 1.8 m, see Table 4-4 for a summary of these depths and

Figure D-2 in Appendix D for the tomograms. The approximate P-wave velocity determined

from the tomograms at this depth was 700 m/s. The second CPT sounding was performed at

approximately station 24.4 m, and was pushed to refusal at a depth of 8.2 m. A SPT boring at

this location confirms the top of limestone to be at a depth of 8.2 m. The P-wave velocity from

the tomograms at this depth of 8.2 m was approximately 1600 m/s.

During the rock coring at station 24.4 m a cavity containing sandy clay was encountered

from 14.0 m and extending past the end of the hole at 15.5 m. The tomograms were examined to

see if they were able to image this cavity encountered. The Seislmager tomogram is the only one

of the three that shows anything, an oval feature that may be indicative of a cavity. However,

this is most likely the result of the lack of ray path coverage passing through this area and not

due to Seislmager actually imaging the cavity.

The third CPT test along this line was performed at the very end of the refraction array,

station 36.6 m, with the tip meeting refusal at approximately 1.5 m below the ground surface.

The approximate P-wave velocity from the tomograms at this depth was 600 m/s. Data

evaluated at the end of an refraction array should be viewed with caution as often the ray

coverage is insufficient for the user to rely on features of the tomogram produced, however, for

this location and depth, 1.5 m, the ray path coverage appears to be adequate for comparison.

When looking at the gross features of the tomograms the two outer locations of intrusive

testing, stations 8.5 and 36.6 m, appear to be on more pinnacle/block type features, see Figure D-

2. The top of bedrock depths determined from the intrusive testing, 1.8 and 1.5 m, also support









this. On the other hand, station 24.4 m appears to be near the bottom of a valley based on the

tomograms, confirmed by the top of rock being encountered at 8.2 m. Simply by looking at the

tomograms the user could note the gross features and probably expect the boring at station 24.4

m to encounter top of limestone at a greater depth.

However, it was not visually obvious from the tomograms that the variation in top of

bedrock depth would be as great as was encountered. While rock coring was not performed at

stations 8.5 and 36.6 m, the reason for this variation is most likely due to the fact the limestone

encountered at these locations has been weathered heavily to the point where the P-wave velocity

has been reduced to velocities closer to the surrounding particulate overburden material. As a

result, the P-wave velocity contrast between the limestone and overburden soil in the tomograms

using a 100 m/s contour interval is not as great.

However, once the contour interval was reduced to 10 m/s in the Rayfract model, the top of

limestone depth could be observed as a boundary where the contour lines experienced a large

concentration, see Appendix D. At station 8.5 m the top of bedrock was encountered at

approximately 1.8 m, and at station 24.4 m the top of bedrock was encountered at a depth of 8.2

m. When comparing these locations and associated depths to top of limestone depth to the

reduced contour interval tomogram, the concentration of contour lines present appears to be in

agreement with the location of the top of bedrock as determined by the intrusive testing. The

Seislmager and SeisOpt Pro tomograms were examined as well. However, the correlation

between the beginning of the close contour lines and the top of bedrock was not as strong as

Rayfract, see Figure D-2.

4.4.4 Comparison of Z Line Tomograms to Intrusive Test Results

Along the Z line from stations 0-38.4 m, two SPT and one CPT test were performed, see

Table 4-5 for a summary of the top of bedrock depths along with P-wave velocities and Figure









C-3 in Appendix C for the tomogram. The first SPT test was performed at station 21.9 m, and

the top of bedrock was encountered at depth of approximately 7.3 m, with highly weathered

limestone encountered at 6.5 m. The P-wave velocity determined from the tomograms at the top

of the more competent limestone at 7.3 m was approximately 1300 m/s, depending on the SRT

program. A SPT and CPT test was also performed at station 35.0 m, with the heavily weathered

limestone encountered at a depth of 5.2 m, and the more competent limestone found at 6.4 m.

This test was performed near the end of the refraction line, and only Seislmager generated a

tomogram to that depth, showing a P-wave velocity of 1100 m/s.

A CPT was also performed at station 64 m with refusal at 7.8 m, see Figure C-4. The

Rayfract and Seislmager tomograms show the P-wave velocity as 1400 m/s, while the SeisOpt

model shows it as 1900 m/s. This was the largest disparity noted when comparing the P-wave

velocity at the depth of the top of bedrock between the three SRT programs across all lines, and

can probably be attributed to the fact that this depth was near the bottom of the SeisOpt model,

and appeared to be located at or near an artifact in the model.

The Z line exhibited the least amount of variability in the depth to top of bedrock, ranging

from 6.4 to 7.8 m. While this may be the line that exhibits the least depth to top of bedrock

variability, it provides an important test for the close contour interval tomograms to see if it will

hold up the along a more horizontal surface, see Figures D-3 and D-4 in Appendix D. Perhaps

the imaging of the valleys in the previous tomograms was the result of something within the

Rayfract inversion routine and merely coincidental. The close contour tomograms for the two

lines do appear to show the largest contour line concentrations pretty consistently at about the 6

to 7m depth across the Z line, which is consistent with what was found using the limited amount

of intrusive testing. However, upward curvatures of lesser contour line concentrations do exist in









the tomograms, as there is only limited intrusive test data available, it remains to be seen if they

are indicative of actual subsurface features or just an artifact of the modeling.

4.5 Geological Explanations for Variability in P-wave Velocity

The limestone bedrock (Ocala Limestone) was formed in the Upper Eocene (Scott[1991]).

The limestone itself was formed in a variety of environments, notably open marine, shallow

water, and middle shelf deposition, with a wide variety of organisms that contributed to the

formation of the limestone. The upper surface of the Ocala limestone has undergone dissolution

during a major sea level drop that occurred during the late Ogliocene and early Miocene. This

event is the precursor to the karst terrain that later developed (Randazzo [1997]).

As discussed in the previous sections the P-wave velocity of the limestone measured at the

top of a block/pinnacle structure is significantly less than the P-wave velocity measured at the

bottom of a valley. During the weathering/dissolution/ karstification that occurred, the limestone

was most susceptible to weathering was weathered from the top down, leaving behind slots and

valleys. The more competent limestone was able to withstand this weathering and is marked

today by the block and pinnacle structures, which are highly weathered but are the most

competent of the highest weathered rock. So the low P-wave velocities measured at these block

pinnacle structures, and the comparatively higher P-wave velocities measured within the valley

regions may be explained by the geologic history of the limestone.

4.6 CPT Tip Penetration and P-Wave Velocity

As previously discussed, the P-wave velocity at the depth to the top of bedrock, where

CPT refusal was met, ranged from 600 to 2000 m/s. In looking at the tomograms produced it is

also interesting to note that the CPT tip will penetrate through a high velocity particulate material

such as sand, like along the A line at station 19.8 m, but met refusal in lower velocity rock, like

at station 65.5 m. This is because P-wave velocity is related to the small-strain modulus of the









material, while CPT tip resistance is related to the strength of the material. So even though the

rock at station 65.5 m is broken and has a velocity much lower than the particulate material at

station 19.8 m, it will have a higher local tip resistance because the broken pieces are still an

intact, cemented material, and highly resistant to local CPT penetration (Hiltunen et al. [2007]).

4.7 Comparison of the SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results

A further step that was taken in comparing the raytracing diagrams produced by the SRT

programs to the intrusive test results. Areas of relatively large contrast in P-wave velocity, like

the boundary between soil and bedrock, should show up on the raytracing diagram as a location

in which the P-waves concentrate and travel laterally along the higher velocity material. This

shows itself on the raytracing diagram as areas in which there is a concentration of propagated

rays traveling through. These areas should be indicative of changes in the P-wave velocity, type

of material, and consequently should correspond with changes noted on the intrusive testing data

logs.

4.7.1 A line 0-36.6 m SRT Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results

Rayfract was the first SRT program raytracing diagram to be examined. Rayfract outputs

its raytracing diagram, which shows the wavepaths used to generate the velocity model, as a

contour map into Surfer in which areas with greater contour values correspond to areas in which

a greater number of wavepaths travel through. The Rayfract wavepath model for refraction

survey line stations 0-36.6 m diagram was examined first at station 19.8 m, where SPT and CPT

data were available, see Figure 4.6(a). A sudden increase in number of wavepaths traveling

through was measured starting at a depth of approximately 9.0 m, the same depth at which the

top of bedrock was noted for the SPT and CPT tests. A distinctive bowl shaped feature,

characteristic of severely weathered karstic limestone with known previous sinkhole formation,









was also observed at this location. This indicates that the program has modeled a relatively

higher velocity layer at 9.0 m along which the rays travel laterally along.

The Seislmager raytracing model was examined next. Seislmager uses a simpler

raytracing method that shows the calculated straight line path from the source and the layer along

which the refracted arrivals travel laterally to the receiver for the first arrival P-waves

propagated. The Seislmager raytracing model was viewed within the program, as it did not

provide an option to save in a format in which it could be imported into Surfer. At station 19.8

m at a depth of approximately 9.1 m several rays travel laterally, which indicates that the

program has modeled a relatively higher velocity layer along which the rays travel along, see

Figure 4.6(b). This depth corresponds with the depth to the top of limestone determined via the

intrusive testing. Seislmager also showed several other areas of laterally traveling rays, making

it less visually obvious as to where the soil/bedrock interface was.

SeisOpt computes the ray paths for each source/receiver pair, and then determines the

number of times each cell in the model is crossed ("hit") by a ray path and then creates an output

file known as a "hitfile" (Optim LLC, [2004]). This hitfile was imported into Surfer and a

contour map was created to provide a visual representation of this for the A line from 0-36.6 m,

see Figure 4.6(c). A significant increase in the number of"hits" is can be observed at a depth of

approximately 9.1 m at station 19.8 m, corresponding with the depth of to the top of bedrock

determined by the intrusive testing.

4.7.2 Comparison of A Line 36.6-73.2 m Raytracing Models to Intrusive Test Results

The same procedure described in the previous section was used to compare the ray path

models to the intrusive testing data, see Figure 4.7. Three CPT penetrations were performed at

stations 39.6, 44.2, and 65.5 m, as well as one SPT boring at station 65.5 m. In the Seislmager

model at test station 39.6 m, the nearest area of laterally traveling rays to the top of bedrock









determined to be at approximately 2.2 m is at approximately 1.6 m below the surface, see Figure

4.7(b). The difference between the two may be a result of the limited ray path coverage on the

end of a refraction array. At station 44.2 m a strong refractor appears to be present at 0.2 m

based on the ray paths, corresponding with the depth to the top of limestone determined by the

CPT test. Next the ray paths were examined at station 65.5 m and a concentration of ray paths

existed at 0.3 m, the depth at which the CPT and SPT borings determined the top of limestone to

be at.

The Rayfract wavepath model was also examined to see if the depth to the top of limestone

at the three intrusive test locations corresponded with significant increases in wavepaths. This

seemed to be visually obvious at only one of the three test locations, station 65.5 m, see Figure

4.7(a). Likewise the SeisOpt Pro model was examined and nothing was visually apparent to

indicate where the depth to the top of limestone may exist, see Figure 4.7(c). The reason for this

is most likely due to the fact that the P-wave velocity of the shallow top of bedrock material

encountered is relatively low, 600-800 m/s, and does not provide enough contrast against the

velocity of the overburden soil to show any features indicative of the soil/bedrock interface.

4.7.3 General Observations for each of the Three SRT Programs Ray Path Diagram
Comparisons to the Intrusive Test Data

The ray path diagrams were also examined for each of the three SRT programs for the four

remaining lines that intrusive test data was available for, F line station 0-36.6 m, U line station 0-

36.6 m, Z line station 0-38.4 m, and Z line station 36.6 -73.2 m, shown in Appendix E. For each

of these remaining lines, the Rayfract wavepath diagrams were able to show a significant

increase in the number of wave paths traveling through depths that corresponded with the depth

to the top of competent limestone. The SeisOpt Pro ray path diagrams showed an increase in the

number of ray paths going through cells at depths corresponding to the top of competent









limestone for all of the remaining ray path models, with the exception of F line stations 0-36.6 m.

The SeisImager ray path diagrams showed the ray paths traveling laterally for each of the 4

remaining lines at depths corresponding to the top of limestone.

Interestingly, the SeisImager ray path diagrams also showed several laterally traveling ray

paths that corresponded with changes in the overburden material in all of the models, such as

changes from sandy to clayey material. Although an area of lateral ray path travel can be found

at the depth of the top of limestone for SeisImager, many other areas of lateral ray path travel

exist at various depths of the model. The SeisImager model shows where changes in material

occur, however, the user would probably not be able to tell what that change was, i.e. the

soil/rock interface or a sand to clay layer change. Despite SeisImager not being able to show

visually easily where the soil/rock interface was, it is still able to pick up actual changes in

material type at the proper depth, giving the user more confidence in the tomograms generated of

the subsurface.

The ability of SeisImager to identify the depths of soil changes via refraction boundaries

may be a function of the simple, thin line ray tracing model it produces as opposed to Rayfract

and SeisOpt which show the number of times a ray has traveled through a cell. SeisImager does

not show the number of rays which travel through a cell in the model making it difficult to

determine where the soil/rock interface begins because this interface typically has a large P-wave

velocity contrast and consequently is an area through which a large number of rays should travel

through. So, while SeisImager may be able to show where changes in materials take place

visually, it does not clearly show where the top of limestone begins as well as Rayfract and

SeisOpt. Obviously, being able to delineate the top of bedrock is an important ability that SRT

programs must have.









Table 4-1 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive
test data for the A line


Location Intrusive Test Method


Depth to Bedrock


P-wave Velocity
from Tomograms


(m) (m/s)
A-19.8 CPT and SPT 9.0 2000
A-39.6 CPT 2.1 700
A-44.2 CPT 0.2 600
A-65.5 CPT and SPT 0.3 800


Table 4-2





Location

A-19.8
A-39.6
A-44.2
A-65.5


Comparison of depth to bedrock determined from intrusive testing and visually
inferred from close contour interval, 10 m/s, tomograms for the A line. Note: (1)
Unable to differentiate an exact depth of concentration from Rayfract tomogram
Approximate Depth to
Concentration of
Intrusive Test Intrusive Testing Contour Lines in
Method Depth to Bedrock Rayfract Tomogram
(m) (m)
CPT and SPT 9.0 8.8
CPT 2.1 N/A(1
CPT 0.2 0.3
CPT and SPT 0.3 0.2


Table 4-3 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive
test data for the F line. Note: (1) Velocity determined only from the Seislmager
tomogram.


Location Intrusive Test Method


F-3.0
F-13.7


Depth to Bedrock
(m)


SPT
SPT


P-wave Velocity
from Tomograms
(m/s)
700 (1)
800


Table 4-4 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive
test data for the U line.


Location Intrusive Test Method


Depth to Bedrock
(m)
1.8
8.2
1.5


P-wave Velocity
from Tomograms
(m/s)
700
1600
600


U-8.5
U-24.4
U-36.6


CPT
CPT and SPT
CPT









Table 4-5 P-wave velocities from tomograms at top of bedrock depths determined by intrusive
test data for the Z line.
Location Intrusive Test Method Denth to Bedrock P-wave Velocity


(m)


SPT
CPT and SPT
CPT


from Tomograms
(m/s)
1300
1100
1400


Z-21.9
Z-35
Z-64
















A-19I


10 15 20
Horizlal Distance (H
a Rayfmet



A-139


25 30 35


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance( Cr
(b Seislmager


E

S
0--


15 20
Horizontal Di stance(m
(c SeisOpt Pro


Figure 4-1 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto tomograms produced

for A line station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro.


0-





-5-
E




-10-
--


0




-E
'E--
0



-10



























-10-


40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Honrizaul Distance r(m
(a) Rayfract


A-396 A-442 A-UCS. 401

















32400
40 45 5 55 600 65 70














41860



Horizontal Distance (m





for A line station 36-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro.

41 45 50 55 61) 65 73











A-19.8
F-


5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Horizontal Distance (m)
(a) Rayfract


A-19.8


. -" '
- a 'N


15 20
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b) Seislmager


A-19.8


0




. -5




-10


5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (m)
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure 4-3 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c)
SeisOpt Pro.


0





-5
E

0.

-10





-15











A-19.8



- -


-5
E

a.

-10


5 10


-5
a.
0


15 20
Horizontal Distance (m)
(a) Rayfract
A-19.8


15 20
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b) Seislmager

A-19.8


5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (m)
(c) SeisOpt Pro
Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 50 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the A line 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c)
SeisOpt Pro.


0




5i -5




-10-
0


Figure 4-4












A-39.6 A-44.2


40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Horizontal Distance (m)
(a) Rayfract


A-39.6 A-44.2
F---'-ii -


0 -a


A-66.6


a jm


-*- ,


40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Horizontal Distance (m)

(b) Seislmager


A-39.6 A-44.2


E.
i -5


A-66.6
--At



.,'d


40 45


50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (m)
(c) SeisOpt Pro


65 70


Figure 4-5 Estimated top of bedrock from intrusive testing overlain onto 10 m/s contour interval
tomograms produced for the A line 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c)
SeisOpt Pro.


A-66.6


_5F`~;i'-~ ~
~I
._.
~R~s~:
'














300
280
260
240
220


180
h,160



100
80
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Horizontal Distance (m)
(a) Rayfract 20
(a) o






(m)








r



15







25
0 10 20 30 40

(b) Distance


230
220
210
200

100
170
160
150





Hoizotd Ditane140




(c)SeisOptPro 130


(c)
110













Figure 4-6 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 0-36.6 m. (a)
Rayfract, (b) Seismager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro.
70
60
0 2 4 6 0 10 12 14 16 10 20 22 24 26 20 30 32 34 6 50
Horizontal Distance{ni) 40
{c} Seisopt Pro 30
20
(c) o0



Figure 4-6 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 0-36.6 m. (a)

Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro.














320
L ..300
S_ ^ 280
260
240
220
200
180
.L 160





15 140

Horizontal Distance (m)

(a) Rayfract
(m)










0-15-




-20




37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72
Distance (m)

(b) Seislmager I




'I _


-5-




-10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizonsta nce (m)
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure 4-7 Raytracing diagrams from each of the three SRT programs for A line 36.6-73.2 m.
(a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c) SeisOpt Pro.









CHAPTER 5
CLOSURE

5.1 Summary of Findings

After completing the analysis of the three different Seismic Refraction Tomography SRT

programs several findings may be stated that not only to show the capabilities of SRT programs

but just as importantly their limitations. It is the hope that they will help to serve as a guide for

future seismic refraction testing conducted in similar laterally variable karstic terrain. These

findings are listed below and may be broken down into two distinct categories: findings about

the SRT programs themselves and findings between the comparisons of SRT programs and the

intrusive testing data.

5.1.1 Summary of Findings from the SRT Programs

* Despite each of the programs using completely different methods to develop their final P-
wave velocity models, for the most part, they each produced models showing the same gross
features of the subsurface, particularly in the upper portion.

* P-wave velocities at the top of bedrock depth at an intrusive test location were close across
the tomograms from the three SRT programs, often only varying by only 100 m/s.

* The best tomogram cannot be chosen from each SRT program solely based on lowest error
between the measured and calculated travel time curves. The model must be examined
carefully to make sure it does not contain any artifacts and that features modeled make sense
knowing the geological history of the site.

* Review of the ray path diagrams for each of the SRT programs is essential after a tomogram
is produced to ensure that there is adequate ray coverage throughout the model.

* SeisImager tended to produce tomograms of the greatest depth, sometimes with several
meters between a single ray traveling at the bottom of the model to the next set of rays
traveling above it. These large regions in which no rays travel through should be viewed with
extreme caution as the program has simply interpolated the tomogram in that region.

* SeisOpt Pro tended to produce the shallowest tomograms, with oval and pinnacle shaped
artifacts often produced in the lower portion of the tomogram. This was often, but not
always, the result of that area of the subsurface lacking ray path coverage.









* SeisOpt Pro, although systematic, required the most amount of user interaction and number
of runs to ensure that the best final tomogram was produced, making it the most time
intensive of the three SRT programs evaluated.

* Generally, Rayfract required the least amount of user interaction and number of runs to
produce the best final tomogram. Which, for this particular study, when compared to the
performance of the other two programs gave the author slight preference towards its use.

5.1.2 Summary of Findings from the Comparison of the SRT Programs to the Intrusive
Testing Data

* Each of the three SRT programs were able to show the gross features of the subsurface, such
as valleys or pinnacles in the top of limestone that were found through the intrusive testing.

* Due to the geologic history of the limestone formation and subsequent weathering processes
the top of bedrock depth cannot be determined from the tomograms by simply tracing a
single P-wave velocity, as top of bedrock P-wave velocities range from 600 to 2000 m/s.

* CPT penetrations would meet refusal in limestone that had a P-wave velocity of only 600 m/s
but would push through particulate material, sands, with a P-wave velocity of 1500 m/s. The
limestone has been severely weathered and fractured, however enough cementation remains
to give the material enough strength to resist local CPT penetration.

* P-wave velocities for the top of bedrock at the pinnacle features were significantly less than
at the bottom of a valley. This makes sense, and can be explained for by knowing the
geologic history of the site and weathering processes that have and continue to take place at
the site.

* The combination of a relatively small increase in P-wave velocity at the soil/bedrock
interface and range of top of limestone P-wave velocity from 600 to 2000 m/s makes it nearly
impossible for the user to delineate the top of limestone by visual inspection of the tomogram
produced using typical contour intervals of 100 m/s.

* Using a close contour interval of 10 m/s for the Rayfract, and to a lesser extent the
Seislmager and SeisOpt Pro, the tomograms were found to show that areas of extremely
close contour intervals matched up to the variable top of bedrock depth determined by
intrusive testing. While the increase in P-wave velocity at the soil/rock interface is not
dramatic as it would be if the rock were unweathered, a small enough increase still exists so
that the top of limestone surface can be delineated through visual inspection of this close
contour interval tomogram.

* Reviewing ray path diagrams is not only essential to ensure that the tomogram produced has
adequate coverage but often can be used to determine top of bedrock depths by looking for
areas of sudden increases in laterally traveling rays. These areas are indicators that a sudden,
relatively large change in P-wave velocity has occurred, like the soil/bedrock interface.









5.2 Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study the tomograms produced by each of the SRT programs

tested were able to image the gross features of the subsurface. They were also found to be similar

to one another when evaluated visually as well as quantitatively. Most importantly, after

comparing the tomograms to the intrusive testing data it was shown that they were able to show

the gross subsurface features and provide accurate subsurface imaging of the top of bedrock

location on a site containing laterally-variable top of bedrock elevations and sinkhole potential.

These findings collectively show the potential of SRT programs to accurately image the

subsurface of sites with laterally variable karstic bedrock conditions.

As part of a complete subsurface evaluation traditional intrusive geotechnical exploration

techniques may be employed more efficiently at locations of interest, when selected from the

tomograms produced by the SRT programs, helping to characterize features that would

ordinarily be missed if intrusive testing were performed at locations chosen blindly. However,

seismic refraction testing cannot be used in place of traditional intrusive methods, as it does not

provide physical recovery of the soil sample that is necessary to describe the subsurface.

Therefore, seismic refraction tomography should be used in conjunction with traditional intrusive

testing techniques in order to characterize a subsurface more completely and efficiently.

5.3 Research Recommendations

In order to help validate using the close contour interval method to delineate the top of

bedrock, additional intrusive testing is necessary to determine if the top of bedrock encountered

at other locations corresponds with what would be expected from the tomograms produced.

Laboratory testing of the limestone collected during the rock coring to learn more about the

material properties would also probably help in explaining the reason for the wide range of P-

wave velocities encountered throughout the site. Also these findings only apply to this site,









additional testing needs to be performed on similar types of sites to build a database and to

confirm these findings.













APPENDIX A
P-WAVE VELOCITY TOMOGRAMS


5 10 15 20
Horizontal Distance(m)

(a) Rayfract


25 30 35


-. II


0 5 10 15 20
Horirortal Distan(e (m
(b) Seislmager


25 30 35


15 20 25
H on rtaid Dlisire tin
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-i P-wave tomograms, F line, station 0
SeisOpt Pro.


36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c)


4110*
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000

600
400
200

























I I I I I I I
40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Horizontal [,islaince(rn)

(a) Rayfract


-~ C-


-15-


40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Horiiontal Distance(m)

(b) Seis Imager


I I I 1 I TI
40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Horiiortal Dis~tnce (m)
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-2 P-wave tomograms, F line, station 36.6 73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and
(c) SeisOpt Pro.


5000

46,""(
4400
4200
4000

3600
3400
3200
3000

2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200


























-15-


. .... .... .


15 20 25 30 35
Horizonta Distanl e m)
(a) Rayfract


(b) Seislmager


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal D i stance (m)

(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-3 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 0-36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c)
SeisOpt Pro.





























40 45 5 55 6 85 70
Honiizcr Distance (m)

(a) Rayfract


40 45 55 00 85 70
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b) Seislmager


6--

E







o-







C-6




i--


40 45 D 55 60 65 70
Horizontal Distane(nm)
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-4 P-wave tomograms, K line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and
(c) SeisOpt Pro.


-12(KI
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1000
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200




























-1....- . ..-... .. ... ...-




-20


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal P ilTan l.r n
(a) Ray lacl









S26GOP
800
3500
3400





-10 2400
2200
--- 2000.
_.. ... -.......... -- 18..00

-15 .1 1 41 1600
1200

80 0
0 5 1 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (m) 600
(b) SeisImager 4GG
S1 2-100







-10



0 5 10 1:5 20 25 30 35
Horirontal Distance(rT4
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-5 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 0 36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seismager, and (c)
SeisOpt Pro.




























40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Horizontal [ilsan.e (trn)

(a} Rayfract


-:7rhr
__- .


40 45


I I I
50 55 60
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b) Seislmager


65 70


Horizontal Distanoe(rnr
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-6 P-wave tomograms, P line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and
(c) SeisOpt Pro.


-10-


0




-5









-15.




- i1






























0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal [i5lanri-e(ln
(a) Rayfract


E
r
a





-15


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b) Seislmager


..I I II
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Hocrizotal Distance mr1
Ic) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-7 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 0
SeisOpt Pro.


36.6 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and (c)


1 1.11.1
4000
3800
3600
3400
32 00
30-00
280-0
260-0
240-0
22 00
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
80 0
60 0
400
200


























-15-


40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Horizontal :'israni.e(r T
(a) Rayfract


55 60
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b) Seislmager


40 45 50


55 60 65 70


Hon zortal Di stance e(
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-8 P-wave tomograms, U line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and
(c) SeisOpt Pro.



























5 10I I I I I I3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35


0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (m)
(b} Seislmager



0




- -5- -
o -- _" _--- [--_-_-- -h .. .=


1 5 20
Hour zontal Di stance (rT
(c) SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-9 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 0 38.4 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) Seislmager, and (c)
SeisOpt Pro.


Horizontal [p l ane trin)
(a) Rayfract

























-15-


40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Horizontal :s lan ce (rn)
(a) Rayfract


Horizontal Distance {mn)
(b) Seislmager


Horizntal Distance(rTi
(c} SeisOpt Pro


Figure A-10 P-wave tomograms, Z line, station 36.6-73.2 m. (a) Rayfract, (b) SeisImager, and
(c) SeisOpt Pro.









APPENDIX B
INTRUSIVE TESTING FIELD DATA


Figure B- Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 19.8 m
Figure B-1 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 19.8 m






















SC: With lenses of sand





SAND: White and tan sand







LIMESTONE: RUN 1: 29.5'-
31'
Tan limestone, fossils
throughout, core broken
at top of run
Core ground at and ot run
LIMESTONE: RUN 2: 31'-
36'
Light tan limestone
31'-33.25' fossils
throughout


FigureB- Continued
Figure B-1 Continued


20


25-


30-


1


I



:I: j
'~'~'i"



I j






: j j


: I




















33.25'-36' fine grained

LIMESTONE: RUN 3: 36'-
41'
Light tan limestone, fine
grained, fossils
throughout
38.1'-38.6' weathered zone


END OF HOLE 41'


aAf --NP N Of
NF WFLORIDA


Figure B-1 Continued


35--


40-













Newberry Retention Pond Geophysical Ground Proving Site (SPT, ROCK LOG)
Begin SPT Water Table Top of Rock EOH
Boring Number: A-120 Significant Depths feete)
1 s15.5 7.5 36
Rock Data
Depth (feet) Lithology SPT Recovery RQD (%)
0 15s 100o0 100
0 -
SANDY CLAY: gray and orange















SAND: orange and tan with trace clay







I I I I I I

7.W59.8' highly fractured zone





H LIMESTONE: RUN 2: 11 '-1' 4
Light tan to white limestone, f














numerous with depth













Light tan to ws limestone
3--f ...N...""""i "OF
"" -'" -'-' I i i i ,




.i i II i
LIMESONE:RIIII7.51'1-












10-I-I I I I I



LIMESTONE: RUN 2: 1t'-16'
Light tan to white limestone, fossils more
numerous with depth

'PHOTOGRAPH bottom of Run 2o highly









LIMESTONE: RUN 3: 11'-21' II I I I Ii II Ii I

Light tan to white limestone fssilIIIoIe
I I I I I I I I
l e s~i~~ ~
PHTGRP bttm f Ru 2- igh


Figure B-2 Intrusive testing data from A Line, station 36.6 m




















I










I


16'-16.3' limestone core
16.3'-17.3' CAVITY
17.3'-18' limestone core
18'-18.4' ground core, large fossils
18.4' 20.25' limestone core
20.25'-21' ground core, very soft
No recovery or RQD computed because of
cavity
LIMESTONE: RUN 4: 21'-26'
Light tan limestone, fossils throughout
21'-22.4' lost core (driller comment "soft")
23.3'-25.5' vertical fracture, stained,
fossils throughout (PHOTOGRAPH)


LIMESTONE: RUN 5: 26'-31'
Light tan limestone, fossils throughout
26'-27'2 lost core at top of run
27.2'-28,3' near vertical fracture, slightly
stained, soft


I LIMESTONE: RUN 6: 31'-36'
Light tan to while limestone, fine grained,
fossils throughout
32.4'-36' vertical fracture, stained
throughout, core broken from drilling







Figure B-2 Continued


Newberry Retention Pond Geophysical Ground Proving Site (SPT, ROCK LOG)
Begin SPT Water Table Top of Rock EOH
Boring Number: A-120 Significant Depths (feet)
1 s15.5 7.5 36
Rock Data
Depth (feet) Lithology SPT Recovery RQD ()
0 I 0o 100 0 100


20 -


25-


30--


i i i i


.ccr~.

I I