1887
Volume 31, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

A fundamental issue which impacts on the inversion of refraction data using method, is the large variations in the accuracies of the traveltime data. These variations are related to the wide range of signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios along the refraction spread, and in turn, are a result of the large amplitude variations caused by geometric spreading. For shallow refraction investigations, the geometrical spreading can be more rapid than the generally accepted inverse of the distance squared function.

At any particular location, a detector will be close to a source point, and the traveltime will be comparatively accurate, because the S/N ratio is high. However, for other shot records, generally in the reverse direction, the source to receiver distance will be much larger, and the accuracy will be greatly reduced. As a result, computations at each detector location are carried out with data which have large variations in accuracies. This adversely effects the quality of the processing using any inversion method.

Most approaches to the processing of seismic refraction data perceive the problem as achieving satisfactory, rather than uniform S/N ratios, and commonly, a simple gain function is applied to adjust amplitudes to a desired level. However, this does not address the issue of the large range in accuracies of the traveltime data due to the variations in S/N ratios.

This study demonstrates that, to a very good first approximation, the convolution of forward and reverse seismic traces compensates for the large variations in S/N ratios due to geometric spreading. This facilitates the use of signal enhancement techniques analogous to the common mipoint (CMP) stacking methods, which are an integral component in reflection seismology. Examples demonstrate the improvements in S/N ratios with stacking of convolved refraction data.

However, in order to achieve suitable data multiplicity or fold, as well as more efficient field methods, it is necessary to employ CMP acquisition techniques, instead of the standard static refraction spread with multiple source points which is the norm in most geotechnical and groundwater investigations. This will require substantial re-capitalization of most shallow refraction operations as very few currently employ sufficient numbers of recording channels or roll along capabilities.

© 2000 ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG00275
2000-03-01
2026-01-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG00275
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldridge, D. F., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1992, Refractor imaging using an automated wavefront reconstruction method: Geophysics 57, 378-385.
  2. Bennett, G., 1999, 3-D seismic refraction for deep exploration targets: The Leading Edge 18, 186-191.
  3. Bracewell, R., N., 1986, The Fourier transform and its applications: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  4. Donato, R. J., 1964, Amplitude of P head waves: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 36, 19-25.
  5. Hales, F. W., 1958, An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines: Geophys. Prosp. 6, 285-294.
  6. Hatherly, P. J., 1982, Wave equation modeling for the shallow seismic refraction method: Expl. Geophys. 13, 26-34.
  7. Hawkins, L. V., 1961, The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction investigations: Geophysics 26, 806-819.
  8. Hill, N. R., 1987, Downward continuation of refracted arrivals to determine shallow structure: Geophysics 52, 1188-1198.
  9. McQuillan, R., Bacon, M., and Barclay, W., 1980, An introduction to seismic interpretation: Graham & Trotman Limited.
  10. Palmer, D., 1976, An application of the time section in shallow seismic refraction studies: M Sc thesis, University of Sydney, (unpublished).
  11. Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation: Soc. Explor. Geophys.
  12. Palmer, D., 1986, Refraction seismics - the lateral resolution of structure and seismic velocity: Geophysical Press.
  13. Palmer, D., 1991, The resolution of narrow low-velocity zones with the generalized reciprocal method: Geophys. Prosp. 39, 1031-1060.
  14. Palmer, D., 1992, Is forward modelling as efficacious as minimum variance for refraction inversion?: Explor. Geophys. 23, 261-266, 521.
  15. Palmer, D., 2000, Can amplitudes resolve ambiguities in refraction inversion: Explor. Geophys. this volume.
  16. Rockwell, D. W., 1967, A general wavefront method, in A W Musgrave, Ed., Seismic Refraction Prospecting, Soc. Explor. Geophys., 363-415.
  17. Sheriff, R. E., and Geldart, L. P., 1995, Exploration Seismology: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Sjogren, B., 1979, Refractor velocity determination - cause and nature of some errors: Geophys. Prosp. 27, 507-538.
  19. Sjogren, B., 1984, Shallow refraction seismics: Chapman and Hall.
  20. Taner, M. T., Matsuoka, T., Baysal, E., Lu, L and Yilmaz, O., 1992, Imaging with refractive waves: 62nd Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. Expl. Geophys. Expanded Abstracts, 1132-1135.
  21. Thornburg, H. R., 1930,Wavefront diagrams in seismic interpretation: Bull. AAPG 14, 185-200.
  22. Walker, C., Leung, T. M., Win, M. A., and Whiteley, R. J., 1991, Engineering seismic refraction: an improved field practice and a new interpretation program, REFRACT: Explor. Geophys. 22, 423-428.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG00275
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition; amplitudes; common midpoint; convolution; generalized reciprocal method; regolith; seismic; signal-to-noise ratios; spreading; stacking

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