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

Abstract

The wavenumber iterative modelling (WIM) method was first introduced to estimate the static corrections for 2D land profiles by performing first‐break inversion in the wavenumber domain. The WIM algorithm presents some useful advantages, of robustness, stability and flexibility. Robustness is obtained by intensive exploitation of all the available data and by application of an automatic function for mispick removal. Stability is the result of an iterative procedure that ensures convergence towards a stable and plausible solution even at the end of the profile where the problem is normally ill‐posed. Finally, flexibility is due to the possibility of solving for multilayered structures and of estimating vertical gradients of the velocity.This work extends the WIM method to three dimensions. The extension is feasible because the three‐dimensional (3D) problem can be decomposed into a number of small independent problems, one for any pair of wavenumbers , . The extension preserves the above‐mentioned advantages. The parameters of the estimated model are affected differently by noise: the analysis of the input/output noise transfer function demonstrates that the high spatial frequencies of the velocity distributions are the components that are most affected by noise; thus, the algorithm includes a gradual damping of the higher wavenumbers of the velocity parameter. Although the WIM 3D algorithm requires a larger amount of RAM compared with other standard approaches, considerable reduction in CPU run time can be achieved as every wavenumber pair can be treated as an independent linear problem.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00294.x
2008-07-07
2020-08-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. DobrinM.B.1976.Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. McGraw‐Hill Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. EdgeA.G. & 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, 158–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HagiwaraT. & OmoteS.1939. Land creep at Mt Tyausu‐Yama (Determination of slip plane by seismic prospecting). Tokyo University Earthquake Research Institute Bulletin17, 118–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HawkinsL.V.1961. The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction investigations. Geophysics26, 806–819.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HeilandC.A.1963.Geophysical Exploration. Prentice‐Hall, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. MacridesC. & DennisL.P.1992. 2D and 3D refraction statics via tomographic inversion and underrelaxation. 54th EAEG meeting, Paris, France, Expanded Abstracts, P25.
  8. NettletonL.L.1940.Geophysical Prospecting for Oil. McGraw‐Hill Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. StresauW.R., FarrelR.C., FordK.P.1992. 3D surface consistent decomposition for refraction modelling: a workstation implementation. 54th EAEG meeting, Paris, France, Expanded Abstracts, B029.
  10. TanerM.T., WagnerD.E., BaysalE., LuL.1998. A unified method for 2D and 3D refraction statics. Geophysics63, 260–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ZanziL.1996. The WIM method for refraction statics. Geophysics61, 1859–1870.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ZanziL. & CarliniA.1991. Refraction statics in the wavenumber domain. Geophysics56, 1661–1670.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00294.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00294.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