1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic ray tomography is a popular tool for reconstructing seismic velocity models from traveltime data. Here we study how the model parameterization affects the resolution and accuracy of the tomographic inversion for the near‐surface model building. In particular, we consider the weighting of the elements of the model perturbation vector based on the values of the initial velocity model. When the model parameters are defined in terms of velocities, then the tomographic‐inversion resolution is better for the shallow part but degrades for the deeper part of the model. The opposite is true when the model parameters are defined in terms of slowness values. This effect is associated with the method of forming the tomographic matrix. When linearizing the tomography problem for different model parameters, the matrix elements have different weight coefficients. This affects the inversion results and can lead to large errors. We suggest a new parameterization (in‐between the velocity and the slowness) that provides better quality of the tomographic inversion and balanced resolution between the shallow and deeper part of the model. The good performance of this new parameterization is confirmed by a series of synthetic tests and one real‐data example.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12196
2022-03-12
2022-05-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arciniega‐CeballosA., Hernandez‐QuinteroE., Cabral‐CanoE., Morett‐AlatorreL., Diaz‐MolinaO., Soler‐ArechaldeA. and Chavez‐SeguraR. (2009) Shallow geophysical survey at the archaeological site of San Miguel Tocuila, Basin of Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(6), 1199–1205.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CercatoM. and De DonnoG. (2018) Focusing on soil‐foundation heterogeneity through high‐resolution electrical and seismic tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 16(1), 67–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Di FioreV., CavuotoG., TaralloD., PunzoM. and EvangelistaL. (2016) Multichannel analysis of surface waves and down‐hole tests in the archeological “Palatine Hill” area (Rome, Italy): evaluation and influence of 2D effects on the shear wave velocity. Surveys in Geophysics, 37(3), 625–642.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. GoryainovN.N. (1992) Application of Seismoacoustic Methods in Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology. Nedra, 261 p. (in Russian)
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HagedoornJ.G. (1959) The plus-minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical prospecting, 7(2), 158–182. https://www.earthdoc.org/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1964.tb01888.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KoulakovI., StupinaT. and KoppH. (2010) Creating realistic models based on combined forward modeling and tomographic inversion of seismic profiling data. Geophysics, 75(3), B115–B136.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lanz, E. and Maurer, H. and Green, A.G. (1998) Refraction tomography over a buried waste disposal site. Geophysics, 63(4), 1414–1433.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LevequeJ.‐J., RiveraL. and WittlingerG. (1993) On the Use of the Checker‐board test to assess the resolution of tomographic inversions. Geophysical Journal International, 115(1), 313–318. https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/115/1/313/604170.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LuoY., ModrakR. and TrompJ. (2015) Strategies in adjoint tomography. Handbook of Geomathematics, 2nd edition. Springer, pp. 1943–2001.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MariesG., AhokangasE., MakinenJ., PasanenA. and MalehmirA. (2016) Interlobate esker architecture and related hydrogeological features derived from a combination of high‐resolution reflection seismic and refraction tomography, Virttaankangas, southwest Finland. Hydrogeology Journal, 25, 829–845.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. NikitinA.A., SerdyukovA.S. and DuchkovA.A. (2018) Cache‐efficient parallel eikonal solver for multicore CPUs. Computational Geosciences, 22(3), 775–787.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. NoletG. (ed.) (2012) Seismic Tomography: With Applications in Global Seismology and Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 5. Springer Science & Business Media, 385 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. NoletG. (1987) Seismic wave propagation and seismic tomography. In Seismic Tomography. Springer, pp. 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. PalmerD. (2015) Is accuracy more important than precision in near‐surface refraction seismology?. Near Surface Geophysics, 13(1), 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PaigeC. and SaundersM. (1982) LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse linear least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 8(1), 43–71. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/355984.355989.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ParkC.B., MillerR.D. and XiaJ. (1999) Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics, 64(3), 800–808. https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/1.1444590.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. RawlinsonN. and SambridgeM. (2003) Seismic traveltime tomography of the crust and lithosphere. Advances in Geophysics, 46, 81–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SchichtT., LindnerU., HecknerJ., StrobelG. and RappsilberI. (2007) Seismic tomography on the castle hill in Quedlinburg. Near Surface Geophysics, 5(5), 339–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SunR., KaslilarA. and JuhlinC. (2020) Reprocessing of high‐resolution seismic data for imaging of shallow groundwater resources in glacial deposits, SE Sweden. Near Surface Geophysics, 18(5), 545–559.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SuvorovV.D., MishenkinaZ.M., PetrickG.V., SheludkoI.F., SeleznevV.S. and SolovyovV.M. (2002) Structure of the crust in the Baikal rift zone and adjacent areas from deep seismic sounding data. Tectonophysics, 351(1‐2), 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TikhotskiiS.A., FokinI.V. and SchurD.Y. (2011) Traveltime seismic tomography with adaptive wavelet parameterization. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 47(4), 326–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. TrabiB. (2018) Comparison of Slowness vs. Velocity Perturbations in Bayesian Seismic Inversion. Leoben: Leoben University, 75 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. TongP., YangD. and HuangX. (2019) Multiple‐grid model parametrization for seismic tomography with application to the San Jacinto fault zone. Geophysical Journal International, 218(1), 200–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. YilmazÖ. (2015) Engineering Seismology with Applications to Geotechnical Engineering. SEG, 964 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. VargaL., BalázsP. and NagyA. (2015) Discrete tomographic reconstruction via adaptive weighting of gradient descents. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization, 3(2), 101–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. ZeltC.A. (2011) Traveltime tomography using controlled‐source seismic data. Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics, 1453–1473.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. ZeltC.A. and SmithR.B. (1992) Seismic traveltime inversion for 2‐D crustal velocity structure. Geophysical Journal International, 108(1), 16–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ZeltC.A., SainK., NaumenkoJ.V. and SawyerD.S. (2003) Assessment of crustal velocity models using seismic refraction and reflection tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 153(3), 609–626.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ZhaoH.A. (2005) Fast sweeping method for eikonal equations. Mathematics of Computation, 74(250), 603–627.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12196
Loading
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12196
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): data processing; near‐surface; seismic, Tomography
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error