1887
Volume 49 Number 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

The refraction convolution section (RCS) is a new method for imaging shallow seismic refraction data. It is a simple and efficient approach to full‐trace processing which generates a time cross‐section similar to the familiar reflection cross‐section. The RCS advances the interpretation of shallow seismic refraction data through the inclusion of time structure and amplitudes within a single presentation. The RCS is generated by the convolution of forward and reverse shot records. The convolution operation effectively adds the first‐arrival traveltimes of each pair of forward and reverse traces and produces a measure of the depth to the refracting interface in units of time which is equivalent to the time‐depth function of the generalized reciprocal method (GRM). Convolution also multiplies the amplitudes of first‐arrival signals. To a good approximation, this operation compensates for the large effects of geometrical spreading, with the result that the convolved amplitude is essentially proportional to the square of the head coefficient. The signal‐to‐noise (S/N) ratios of the RCS show much less variation than those on the original shot records. The head coefficient is approximately proportional to the ratio of the specific acoustic impedances in the upper layer and in the refractor. The convolved amplitudes or the equivalent shot amplitude products can be useful in resolving ambiguities in the determination of wave speeds. The RCS can also include a separation between each pair of forward and reverse traces in order to accommodate the offset distance in a manner similar to the spacing of the GRM. The use of finite values improves the resolution of lateral variations in both amplitudes and time‐depths. The use of amplitudes with 3D data effectively improves the spatial resolution of wave speeds by almost an order of magnitude. Amplitudes provide a measure of refractor wave speeds at each detector, whereas the analysis of traveltimes provides a measure over several detectors, commonly a minimum of six. The ratio of amplitudes obtained with different shot azimuths provides a detailed qualitative measure of azimuthal anisotropy and, in turn, of rock fabric. The RCS facilitates the stacking of refraction data in a manner similar to the common‐midpoint methods of reflection seismology. It can significantly improve S/N ratios.Most of the data processing with the RCS, as with the GRM, is carried out in the time domain, rather than in the depth domain. This is a significant advantage because the realities of undetected layers, incomplete sampling of the detected layers and inappropriate sampling in the horizontal rather than the vertical direction result in traveltime data that are neither a complete, an accurate nor a representative portrayal of the wave‐speed stratification. The RCS facilitates the advancement of shallow refraction seismology through the application of current seismic reflection acquisition, processing and interpretation technology.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00293.x
2008-07-07
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AchesonC.H.1963. Time‐depth and velocity‐depth relations in Western Canada. Geophysics28, 894–909.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AchesonC.H.1981. Time‐depth and velocity‐depth relations in sedimentary basins – a study based on current investigations in the Arctic Islands and an interpretation of experience elsewhere. Geophysics46, 707–716.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AldridgeD.F. & OldenburgD.W.1992. Refractor imaging using an automated wavefront reconstruction method. Geophysics57, 378–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BamfordD. & NunnK.R.1979. In‐situ seismic measurements of crack anisotropy in the Carboniferous limestone of north‐west England. Geophysical Prospecting27, 322–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BarkerJ.A.1991. Transport in fractured rock. In: Applied Groundwater Hydrology (eds R.A.Downing and W.B.Wilkinson ), pp. 199–216. Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BarryK.M.1967. Delay time and its application to refraction profile interpretation. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting (ed. A.W.Musgrave ), pp. 348–361. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BarthelmesA.J.1946. Application of continuous profiling to refraction shooting. Geophysics11, 24–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BennettG.1999. 3D seismic refraction for deep exploration targets. The Leading Edge18, 186–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BerryJ.E.1959. Acoustic velocity in porous media. Petroleum Transactions AIME216, 262–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. BirchF.1960. The velocity of compressional waves in rocks at 10 kilobars. Journal of Geophysical Research65, 1083–1102.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. BrandtH.1955. A study of the speed of sound in porous granular media. Journal of Applied Mechanics22, 479–486.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. BrownA.R.1996.Interpretation of Three‐Dimensional Seismic Data, 4th edn. AAPG Memoir No. 26.
  13. CrampinS., McGonigleR., BamfordD.1980. Estimating crack parameters from observations of P‐wave velocity anisotropy. Geophysics45, 345–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DeenT.J., GohlK., LeslieC., PappE., Wake‐DysterK.2000. Seismic refraction inversion of a palaeochannel system in the Lachlan Fold Belt, Central New South Wales. Exploration Geophysics31, 389–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DobrinM.B.1976.Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 3rd edn. McGraw‐Hill Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. DomzalskiW.1956. Some problems of shallow seismic refraction investigations. Geophysical Prospecting4, 140–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. EdgeA.G. & LabyT.H.1931.The Principles and Practice of Geophysical Prospecting. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. EwingM., WoollardG.P., VineA.C.1939. Geophysical investigations in the emerged and submerged Atlantic coastal plain. Part 3: Barnegat Bay, New Jersey section. GSA Bulletin50, 257–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. FaustL.Y.1951. Seismic velocity as a function of depth and geologic time. Geophysics16, 192–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. FaustL.Y.1953. A velocity function including lithologic variation. Geophysics18, 271–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. GardnerL.W.1939. An areal plan for mapping subsurface structure by refraction shooting. Geophysics4, 247–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. GassmanF.1951. Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophysics16, 673–685.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. GassmanF.1953. Note on Elastic waves through a packing of spheres . Geophysics18, 269.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. HagedoornJ.G.1954. A practical example of an anisotropic velocity layer. Geophysical Prospecting2, 52–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. HagedoornJ.G.1955. Templates for fitting smooth velocity functions to seismic refraction and reflection data. Geophysical Prospecting3, 325–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. HagedoornJ.G.1959. The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical Prospecting7, 158–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. HagiwaraT. & OmoteS.1939. Land creep at Mt Tyausa‐Yama (Determination of slip plane by seismic prospecting). Tokyo University Earthquake Research Institute Bulletin17, 118–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HalesF.W.1958. An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines. Geophysical Prospecting6, 285–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. HallJ.1970. The correlation of seismic velocities with formations in the southwest of Scotland. Geophysical Prospecting18, 134–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. HamiltonE.L.1970. Sound velocity and related properties of marine sediments, North Pacific. Journal of Geophysical Research75, 4423–4446.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. HamiltonE.L.1971. Elastic properties of marine sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research76, 579–604.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. HawkinsL.V.1961. The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction investigations. Geophysics26, 806–819.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. HeelanP.A.1953. On the theory of head waves. Geophysics18, 871–893.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. HeilandC.A.1963.Geophysical Exploration. Prentice Hall, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. IidaK.1939. Velocity of elastic waves in granular substances. Tokyo University Earthquake Research Institute Bulletin17, 783–807.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. JankowskyW.1970. Empirical investigation of some factors affecting elastic velocities in carbonate rocks. Geophysical Prospecting18, 103–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. KnoxW.A.1967. Multilayer near‐surface refraction computations. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting (ed. A.W.Musgrave ), pp. 197–216. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. LankstonR.W.1992. High‐resolution refraction seismic data acquisition and interpretation. In: Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics (ed. S.H.Ward ), Vol. 1, pp. 45–74. Investigations in Geophysics No. 5, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. LanzE., MaurerH., GreenA.G.1998. Refraction tomography over a buried waste disposal site. Geophysics63, 1414–1433.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. LeslieJ.M. & LawtonD.C.1999. A refraction‐seismic field study to determine the anisotropic parameters of shales. Geophysics64, 1247–1252.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MailletR. & BazerqueJ.1931. La prospection sismique du sous‐sol. Annales des Mines20, 314.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. MayneW.H.1962. Common‐reflection‐point horizontal data‐stacking techniques. Geophysics27, 927–938.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. McCollumB. & SnellF.A.1932. Asymmetry of sound velocity in stratified formations. In: Early Geophysical Papers, pp. 216–227. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. MenkeW.1989.Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory. Academic Press, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. MerrickN.P., OdinsJ.A., GreenhalghS.A.1978. A blind zone solution to the problem of hidden layers within a sequence of horizontal or dipping refractors. Geophysical Prospecting26, 703–721.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. MillerK.C., HarderS.H., AdamsD.C., O'DonnellT.1998. Integrating high‐resolution refraction data into near‐surface seismic reflection data processing and interpretation. Geophysics63, 1339–1347.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. MusgraveA.W.1967.Seismic Refraction Prospecting. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. NestvoldE.O.1992. 3D seismic: is the promise fulfilled?The Leading Edge11, 12–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. NettletonL.L.1940.Geophysical Prospecting for Oil. McGraw‐Hill Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. O'BrienP.N.S.1967. The use of amplitudes in seismic refraction survey. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting (ed. A.W.Musgrave ), pp. 85–118. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. OldenburgD.W.1984. An introduction to linear inverse theory. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing GE 22, 666.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. PalmerD.1980.The Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. PalmerD.1981. An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Geophysics46, 1508–1518.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. PalmerD.1986.Refraction Seismics: The Lateral Resolution of Structure and Seismic Velocity. Geophysical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. PalmerD.1990. The generalized reciprocal method – an integrated approach to shallow refraction seismology. Exploration Geophysics21, 33–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. PalmerD.1991. The resolution of narrow low‐velocity zones with the generalized reciprocal method. Geophysical Prospecting39, 1031–1060.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. PalmerD.1992. Is forward modelling as efficacious as minimum variance for refraction inversion?Exploration Geophysics23, 261–266, 521.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. PalmerD.2000a. Can new acquisition methods improve signal‐to‐noise ratios with seismic refraction techniques?Exploration Geophysics31, 275–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. PalmerD.2000b. The measurement of weak anisotropy with the generalized reciprocal method. Geophysics65, 1583–1591.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. PalmerD.2000c. Can amplitudes resolve ambiguities in refraction inversion?Exploration Geophysics31, 304–309.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. PalmerD.2001a. Resolving refractor ambiguities with amplitudes. Geophysics66, 1590–1593 .
    [Google Scholar]
  62. PalmerD.2001b. Imaging refractors with the convolution section. Geophysics66, 1582–1589 .
    [Google Scholar]
  63. PatersonN.R.1956. Seismic wave propagation in porous granular media. Geophysics21, 691–714.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. RockwellD.W.1967. A general wavefront method. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting (ed. A.W.Musgrave ), pp. 363–415. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. SheriffR.E. & GeldartL.P.1995.Exploration Seismology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. SjögrenB.1979. Refractor velocity determination – cause and nature of some errors. Geophysical Prospecting27, 507–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. SjögrenB.1980. The law of parallelism in refraction shooting. Geophysical Prospecting28, 716–743.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. SjögrenB.1984.Shallow Refraction Seismics. Chapman & Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. SoskeJ.L.1959. The blind zone problem in engineering geophysics. Geophysics24, 359–365.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. StefaniJ.P.1995. Turning‐ray tomography. Geophysics60, 1917–1929.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. ThomsenL.1995. Elastic anisotropy due to aligned cracks in porous rock. Geophysical Prospecting43, 805–829.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. ThornburgH.R.1930. Wavefront diagrams in seismic interpretation. AAPG Bulletin14, 185–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. TreitelS. & LinesL.1988. Geophysical examples of inversion (with a grain of salt). The Leading Edge7, 32–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. WalkerC.S. & WinM.A.1997. A new standard in the practice of engineering seismic refraction. In: Modern Geophysics in Engineering Geology (eds D.M.McCann , M.Eddleston , P.J.Fleming and G.M.Reeves ), pp. 391–398. The Geological Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. WeimerP. & DavisT.L.1996.Applications of 3D Seismic Data to Exploration and Production. Geophysical Developments Series No. 5, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. WerthG.A.1967. Method for calculating the amplitude of the refraction arrival. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting (ed. A.W.Musgrave ), pp. 119–137. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. WhiteJ.E. & SengbushR.L.1953. Velocity measurements in near surface formations. Geophysics18, 54–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. WhiteleyR.J. & GreenhalghS.A.1979. Velocity inversion and the shallow seismic refraction method. Geoexploration17, 125–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. WyllieW.R., GregoryA.R., GardnerL.W.1956. Elastic wave velocities in heterogeneous and porous media. Geophysics21, 41–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. WyllieW.R., GregoryA.R., GardnerL.W.1958. An experimental investigation affecting elastic wave velocities in porous media. Geophysics23, 459–493.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. YilmazO.1988.Seismic Data Processing. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. ZeltC.A.1998. Lateral velocity resolution from 3D seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International135, 1101–1112.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. ZeltC.A. & BartonP.J.1998. 3D seismic refraction tomography: a comparison of two methods applied to data from the Faeroe Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research103, 7187–7210.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. ZhangJ. & ToksözM.N.1998. Nonlinear refraction traveltime tomography. Geophysics63, 1726–1737.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. ZhuX., SixtaD.P., AndstmanB.G.1992. Tomostatics: turning‐ray tomography + static corrections. The Leading Edge11, 15–23.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00293.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00293.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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