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

Abstract

The inversion of seismic refraction data with model-based methods is inherently ambiguous, and artefacts, which are geologically plausible and significant, can be introduced by the algorithms used to generate the starting model. In many cases, the minimum variance criterion of the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) can resolve whether lateral variations in the refractor wavespeeds are genuine, or whether they are artefacts of the inversion algorithm. As an additional constraint, this paper demonstrates that any genuine lateral changes in refractor wavespeed should also have an associated amplitude expression.

Amplitudes are not commonly used in most seismic refraction studies, mainly because the very large geometric spreading component masks any variations related to geology. The amplitude decay is usually much more rapid than the commonly assumed inverse distance squared function, which only applies after the signal has travelled several wavelengths in the refractor.

This study demonstrates that the refraction time section generated through the convolution of forward and reverse refraction traces, shows the same structure on the refracting interface, in units of time, as would be produced by the conventional reciprocal method (CRM) or the GRM. The traveltimes, which are contained within the phase spectra, are added with convolution.

The amplitude spectra are multiplied, which is sufficient both to compensate for the large geometric effects and to facilitate convenient recognition of amplitude variations related to changes in refractor wavespeed. Convolution emphasises these amplitude variations through the squaring of the head coefficients and the convenient inclusion of transmission losses. In general, the higher the refractor wavespeed and/or density, the lower the amplitude.

The results are applicable to the search for massive sulphide orebodies under electrically conductive regoliths, where other traditional exploration techniques, such as electrical and electromagnetic methods, may not be fully effective. These targets would be characterised by an increase in the thickness of the regolith and a decrease in amplitude caused by an increase in the density.

© 2000 ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG00304
2000-03-01
2026-01-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG00304
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Dobrin, M. B., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting, 3rd edition: McGraw- Hill Inc.
  2. Emerson, D. W., Editor, 1980, The geophysics of the Elura orebody, Cobar, NSW: Explor. Geophys. (Bull. Aust. Soc. Explor. Geophys.) 11, 347.
  3. Ewing, M., Woollard, G. P., and Vine, A. C., 1939, Geophysical investigations in the emerged and submerged Atlantic Coastal Plain, Part 3, Barnegat Bay, New Jersey section: Bull. GSA 50, 257-296.
  4. Hagedoorn, J. G., 1955, Templates for fitting smooth velocity functions to seismic refraction and reflection data: Geophys. Prosp. 3, 325-338.
  5. Hagedoorn, J. G., 1959, The plus-minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections: Geophys. Prosp. 7, 158-182.
  6. Hagiwara, T., and Omote, S., 1939, Land creep at Mt Tyausa-Yama (Determination of slip plane by seismic prospecting): Tokyo Univ. Earthquake Res. Inst. Bull. 17, 118-137.
  7. Hawkins, L. V., 1961, The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction investigations: Geophysics 26, 806-819.
  8. Hawkins, L. V., and Whiteley, R. J., 1980, The seismic signature of the Elura orebody: Explor. Geophys. (Bull. Aust. Soc. Explor. Geophys.) 11, 325-329.
  9. Heelan, P. A., 1953, On the theory of head waves: Geophysics 18, 871-893.
  10. MacMahon, B. K., 1980, Discussion in: The geophysics of the Elura orebody, Cobar, NSW, D. W. Emerson, editor: Explor. Geophys. (Bull. Aust. Soc. Explor. Geophys.) 11, 346.
  11. Nettleton, L. L., 1940, Geophysical prospecting for oil: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.
  12. O’Brien, P. N., 1967, The use of amplitudes in seismic refraction survey: in, Seismic refraction prospecting, A W Musgrave, editor: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 85-118.
  13. Oldenburg, D. W., 1984, An introduction to linear inverse theory: Trans IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing GE-22(6), 666.
  14. Palmer, D., 1980a, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation: Soc. Explor. Geophys.
  15. Palmer, D., 1980b, Comments on "The seismic signature of the Elura oreboby", by L. V. Hawkins and R. J. Whiteley: Explor. Geophys. (Bull. Aust. Soc. Explor. Geophys.) 11, 347.
  16. Palmer, D., 1986, Refraction seismics - the lateral resolution of structure and seismic velocity: Geophysical Press.
  17. Palmer, D., 1991, The resolution of narrow low-velocity zones with the generalized reciprocal method: Geophys. Prosp. 39, 1031-1060.
  18. Palmer, D., 1992, Is forward modelling as efficacious as minimum variance for refraction inversion?: Explor. Geophys. 23, 261-266, 521.
  19. Palmer, D., 2000, Can new acquisition methods improve signal-to-noise ratios with seismic refraction techniques: Explor. Geophys. this volume.
  20. Treitel, S. and Lines, L., 1988, Geophysical examples of inversion (with a grain of salt): The Leading Edge 7, 32-35.
  21. Werth, G. A., 1967, Method for calculating the amplitude of the refraction arrival: in, Seismic refraction prospecting, A. W. Musgrave, editor, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 119-137.
  22. Whiteley, R. J., 1990, Engineering geophysics - a geophysicist’s view: Explor. Geophys. 21, 7-16.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG00304
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Amplitudes; convolution; GRM; head coefficients; inversion; reciprocal methods; refraction; regolith; seismic; sulphides; transmission losses

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