1887
Volume 48 Number 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

An analysis of the generalized reciprocal method (GRM), developed by Palmer for the interpretation of seismic refraction investigations, has been carried out. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the usefulness of the method for geotechnical investigations in connection with engineering projects. Practical application of the GRM is the main object of this study rather than the theoretical/mathematical aspects of the method.

The studies are partly based on the models and field examples presented by Palmer. For comparison, some other refraction interpretation methods and techniques have been employed, namely the ABC method, the ABEM correction method, the mean‐minus‐T method and Hales' method. The comparisons showed that the results, i.e. the depths and velocities determined by Palmer, are partly incorrect due to some errors and misinterpretations when analysing the data from field examples.

Due to the limitations of the GRM, some of which are mentioned here, stated by Palmer in his various publications, and other shortcomings of the method (e.g. the erasing of valuable information), the GRM must be regarded as being of limited use for detailed and accurate interpretations of refraction seismics for engineering purposes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00223.x
2001-12-24
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. DobrinM.B.1952.Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 3rd edn. McGraw‐Hill Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. EdgeA.B. & LabyT.H.1931.The Principles and Practice of Geophysical Prospecting.Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. HagedoornJ.G.1959. The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical Prospecting7, 158182.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HalesF.W.1958. An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines. Geophysical Prospecting6, 285294.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HawkinsL.V.1961. The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refractions. Geophysics6, 806819.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HeilandC.A.1940.Geophysical Exploration.Prentice‐Hall, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. JakoskyJ.J.1950.Exploration Geophysics, 2nd edn. Trija, Los Angeles, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. PakiserL.C. & BlackR.A.1957. Exploration for ancient channels with the refraction seismograph. Geophysics22, 3247.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. PalmerD.1980.The Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation.Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. PalmerD.1981. An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Geophysics46, 15081518.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PalmerD.1986. Refraction seismics; the lateral resolution of structure and seismic velocity. In: Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Section 1. Seismic Exploration (eds K.Helbig and S.Treitel ), 13. Geophysical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. PalmerD.1991. The resolution of narrow low‐velocity zones with the generalized reciprocal method. Geophysical Prospecting39, 10311060.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. PalmerD.1992. Reply to comment by R.J. Whiteley. Geophysical Prospecting40, 933935.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RedpathB.B.1973.Seismic Refraction Exploration for Engineering Site Investigations. Technical Report E‐73‐4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Livermore, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SheriffR.E.1973.Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics.Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SjögrenB.1979. Refractor velocity determination – cause and nature of some errors. Geophysical Prospecting27, 507538.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SjögrenB.1980. The law of parallelism in refraction shooting. Geophysical Prospecting28, 716743.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SjögrenB.1984.Shallow Refraction Seismics (ed. D.S.Parasnis ). Chapman & Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WhiteleyR.J.1992. Comment on ‘The resolution of narrow low‐velocity zones with the generalized reciprocal method’ by Derecke Palmer. Geophysical Prospecting40, 925931.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WoolleyW.C., MusgraveA.W., GrayH.1967. A method of in‐line refraction profiling. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting (ed. A.W.Musgrave ), pp. 267289. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WyrobekS.M.1956. Application of delay and intercept times in the interpretation of multilayer refraction time distance curves. Geophysical Prospecting4, 112130.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00223.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2000.00223.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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