1887
Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Abstract

Near‐surface seismic refraction tomography is a powerful tool for imaging shallow subsurface structures, yet conventional approaches often fail to resolve sharp velocity contrasts at geological interfaces due to inherent smoothness constraints. We present a hybrid methodology that combines Hagedoorn's Plus–Minus (±) method with refraction tomography, constructing geologically plausible 2D starting models with predefined interfaces to overcome these limitations. Validation through synthetic benchmarks and field applications—performed with identical iteration counts and inversion parameters for fair comparison—demonstrates consistent superiority in scenarios involving abrupt velocity transitions (permafrost boundaries, water tables and bedrock interfaces). Synthetic tests show that although conventional tomography fails to recover plausible models for interfaces with significant topography, the hybrid approach accurately resolves both interface geometries and velocity distributions. Field applications confirm these advantages. In a hydrological survey, the method delineated horizontal water tables at 5.2 ± 1.0 m depth versus smooth, non‐physical solutions from conventional tomography. In Alpine permafrost zones, it resolved extreme lateral velocity contrasts (such as 2.1–5.3 km/s at 20 m depth) while maintaining inversion stability. This work establishes a practical and robust workflow for generating geologically constrained starting models directly from refraction data, significantly advancing the resolution of sharp interfaces in near‐surface seismic tomography for both academic and industrial applications.

© 2026 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2026 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70041
2026-03-09
2026-04-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70041
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Azwin, I. N., Saad, R. & Nordiana, M. (2013) Applying the seismic refraction tomography for site characterization. APCBEE Procedia, 5, 227–231.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergman, B., Tryggvason, A. & Juhlin, C. (2006) Seismic tomography studies of cover thickness and near‐surface bedrock velocities. Geophysics, 71(6), U77–U84.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Butchibabu, B., Jha, P. C., Sandeep, N. & Sivaram, Y. V. (2023) Seismic refraction tomography using underwater and land based seismic data for evaluation of foundation of civil structures. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 210, 104934.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cai, W., Dou, L., Cao, A., Gong, S. & Li, Z. (2014) Application of seismic velocity tomography in underground coal mines: a case study of Yima mining area, Henan, China. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 109, 140–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, X., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Li, F. & Chen, J. (2002) 3‐D tomographic static correction. Geophysics, 67(4), 1275–1285.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, T., Wang, X. & Mukerji, T. (2015) In situ identification of high vertical stress areas in an underground coal mine panel using seismic refraction tomography. International Journal of Coal Geology, 149, 55–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Grelle, G. & Guadagno, F. M. (2009) Seismic refraction methodology for groundwater level determination: “Water seismic index”. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 68(3), 301–320.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hagedoorn, J. G. (1959) The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical Prospecting, 7(2), 158–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Imani, P., Abd El‐Raouf, A. & Tian, G. (2021) Landslide investigation using Seismic Refraction Tomography method: a review. Annals of Geophysics, 64(6), SE657.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. J.Korenaga, W. S.Holbrook, G. M.Kent, P. B.Kelemen, R. S.Detrick, H.‐C.Larsen et al. (2000) Crustal structure of the southeast Greenland margin from joint refraction and reflection seismic tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 105(B9), 21591–21614.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Koulakov, I., Stupina, T. & Kopp, H. (2010) Creating realistic models based on combined forward modeling and tomographic inversion of seismic profiling data, Geophysics, 75(3), B115–B136. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3427637
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Koulakov, I. (2025) Data and programme codes to reproduce the results of modelling with a joint utilization of the PlusMinus method and the PROFIT code for refracted seismic tomography, Zenodo. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15877392.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Koulakov, I., Kopp, H. & Stupina, T. (2011) Finding a realistic velocity distribution based on iterating forward modeling and tomographic inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 186, 349–358. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2011.05034.x
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, H., Zhou, H. W., Liu, W., Li, P. & Zou, Z. (2010). Tomographic velocity model building of the near surface with velocity‐inversion interfaces: a test using the Yilmaz model. Geophysics, 75(6), U39–U47.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Maril, J.‐L. & Mendes, M. (2012) High resolution 3D near surface imaging of fracture corridors and cavities by combining plus‐minus method and refraction tomography. Near Surface Geophysics, 10(3), 185–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Meléndez, A., Korenaga, J., Sallarès, V., Miniussi, A. & Ranero, C. R. (2015) TOMO3D: 3‐D joint refraction and reflection traveltime tomography parallel code for active‐source seismic data—synthetic test. Geophysical Journal International, 203(1), 158–174.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Nolet, G. (1987) Seismic wave propagation and seismic tomography. In Seismic tomography: with applications in global seismology and exploration geophysics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Paige, C. C. & Saunders, M. A. (1982) LSQR: an algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 8(1), 43–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Rønning, J. S., Tassis, G., Wisén, R. & Toresson, B. (2021) Tomographic inversion of synthetic refraction seismic data. Quality of inversion using various off‐end shots, fracture zones depth, fracture zone velocity, soil thickness and hidden layer thickness. Norges geologiske undersøkelse. NGU‐Rapport (2020.044). Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2990452
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Sheehan, J. R., Doll, W. E. & Mandell, W. A. (2005) An evaluation of methods and available software for seismic refraction tomography analysis. Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics, 10(1), 21–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Tassis, G. A., Rønning, J. S. & Rohdewald, S. (2018) Refraction seismic modeling and inversion for the detection of fracture zones in bedrock. In Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2018. Society of Exploration Geophysicists and Environment and Engineering Geophysical Society.
  22. Um, J. & Thurber, C. (1987) A fast algorithm for two‐point seismic ray tracing. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77(3), 972–986.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. White, D. J. (1989). Two‐dimensional seismic refraction tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 97(2), 223–245.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Whiteley, J. S., Chambers, J. E., Uhlemann, S., Boyd, J., Cimpoiasu, M. O., Holmes, J. L., et al. (2020) Landslide monitoring using seismic refraction tomography–The importance of incorporating topographic variations. Engineering Geology, 268, 105525.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang, J., Ten Brink, U. S. & Toksöz, M. N. (1998) Nonlinear refraction and reflection travel time tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 103(B12), 29743–29757.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhu, X., Sixta, D. P. & Angstman, B. G. (1992) Tomostatics: turning‐ray tomography+ static corrections. The Leading Edge, 11(12), 15–23.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70041
Loading
A hybrid workflow combining the Plus–Minus method and tomography to resolve sharp interfaces in near‐surface seismic refraction
Near Surface Geophysics 24, 187 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.70041
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70041
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.70041
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): inverse modelling; near‐surface geophysics; permafrost; Plus–Minus method; seismic refraction tomography; water table

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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