1887
Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

The determination of seismic velocities in refractors for near-surface seismic refraction investigations is an ill-posed problem. Small variations in the computed time parameters can result in quite large lateral variations in the derived velocities, which are often artefacts of the inversion algorithms. Such artefacts are usually not recognized or corrected with forward modelling. Therefore, if refractor models are sought with model-based inversion, then starting models are required.

The usual source of artefacts in seismic velocities is irregular refractors. Under most circumstances, the variable migration of the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) is able to accommodate irregular interfaces and generate detailed starting models of the refractor. However, where the very-near-surface environment of the Earth is also irregular, the efficacy of the GRM is reduced, and weathering corrections can be necessary.

Standard methods for correcting for surface irregularities are usually not practical where the very-near-surface irregularities are of limited lateral extent. In such circumstances, the GRM smoothing statics method (SSM) is a simple and robust approach, which can facilitate more-accurate estimates of refractor velocities.

The GRM SSM generates a smoothing "statics" correction by subtracting an average of the time-depths computed with a range of XY values from the time-depths computed with a zero XY value (where the XY value is the separation between the receivers used to compute the time-depth). The time-depths to the deeper target refractors do not vary greatly with varying XY values, and therefore an average is much the same as the optimum value. However, the time-depths for the very-near-surface irregularities migrate laterally with increasing XY values and they are substantially reduced with the averaging process. As a result, the time-depth profile averaged over a range of XY values is effectively corrected for the near-surface irregularities. In addition, the time-depths computed with a zero XY value are the sum of both the near-surface effects and the time-depths to the target refractor. Therefore, their subtraction generates an approximate "statics" correction, which in turn, is subtracted from the traveltimes.

The GRM SSM is essentially a smoothing procedure, rather than a deterministic weathering correction approach, and it is most effective with near-surface irregularities of quite limited lateral extent. Model and case studies demonstrate that the GRM SSM substantially improves the reliability in determining detailed seismic velocities in irregular refractors.

© 2005 ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG05007
2005-03-01
2026-01-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG05007
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackermann, H.D., Pankratz, L.W., and Dansereau, D., 1986, Resolution of ambiguities of seismic traveltime curves: Geophysics51, 223-235.
  2. Aki, K-, and Richards, P.G., 2002, Quantitative Seismology: University Science Books.
  3. Berry, M.J., 1971, Depth uncertainties from seismic first arrival studies: Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 6464-6468.
  4. Dobrin M.B., 1976, Introduction To Geophysical Prospecting, 3rd edn: McGraw-Hill Inc.
  5. Hagedoorn, J.G., 1955, Templates for fitting smooth velocity functions to seismic refraction and reflection data: Geophysical Prospecting, 3, 325-338.
  6. Hagedoorn, J.G., 1959, The plus-minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections: Geophysical Prospecting, 7, 158-182.
  7. Hagiwara, T., and Omote, S., 1939, Land creep at Mt Tyausu-Yama (Determination of slip plane by seismic prospecting): Tokyo University Earthquake Research Institute Bulletin, 17, 118-137.
  8. Hawkins, L.V., 1961, The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction investigations: Geophysics, 26, 806-819.
  9. Healy, J.H., 1963, Crustal structure along the coast of California from seismic-refraction measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, 68, 5777-5787.
  10. Lanz, E-, Maurer, H., and Green, A.G., 1998, Refraction tomography over a buried waste disposal site: Geophysics, 63, 1414-1433.
  11. Leung, T.K., 1997, Evaluation of seismic refraction interpretation using first arrival ray tracing: in McCann, D.M., Eddleston, M., Fleming, P.J., and Reeves, G.M., (eds.), Modern geophysics in engineering geology: The Geological Society, pp391-398.
  12. Leung, T.K., 2003, Controls of traveltime data and problems of the generalized reciprocal method: Geophysics, 68, 1626-1632.
  13. Nikrouz, R., Spyrou, A., and Palmer, D., Three dimensional (3D) three component (3C) shallow seismic refraction surveys across a shear zone associated with dryland salinity: in prep.
  14. Oldenburg, D.W., 1984, An introduction to linear inverse theory: Trans IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GE-22, 666.
  15. Palmer, D., 1980, The Generalized Reciprocal Method Of Seismic Refraction Interpretation: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  16. Palmer, D., 1981, An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation: Geophysics, 46, 1508-1518.
  17. Palmer, D., 1986, Refraction Seismics: The Lateral Resolution of Structure and Seismic Velocity: Geophysical Press.
  18. Palmer, D., 1991, The resolution of narrow low-velocity zones with the generalized reciprocal method: Geophysical Prospecting, 39, 1031-1060.
  19. Palmer D., 1992, Is forward modeling as efficacious as minimum variance for refraction inversion?: Exploration Geophysics, 23, 261-266, 521.
  20. Palmer, D, 2001a, Imaging refractors with the convolution section: Geophysics, 66, 1582-1589.
  21. Palmer, D, 2001b, Resolving refractor ambiguities with amplitudes: Geophysics, 66, 1590-1593.
  22. Palmer, D, 2001c, Amplitude "statics" in shallow refraction seismology: 15th Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  23. Palmer, D., 2003, Application of amplitudes in shallow seismic refraction inversion: 16th Geophysical Conference and Exhibition, Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  24. Palmer, D., Effects of near surface irregularities on refraction amplitudes, in prep.
  25. Schuster, G.T., and Quintus-Bosz, A., 1993, Wavepath eikonal traveltime inversion: theory: Geophysics, 58, 1314-1323.
  26. Sjogren, B., 1984, Shallow refraction seismics: Chapman and Hall.
  27. Slichter, L.B., 1932, Theory of the interpretation of seismic travel-time curves in horizontal structures: Physics, 3, 273-295.
  28. Stefani, J.P, 1995, Turning-ray tomography: Geophysics, 60, 1917-1929
  29. Treitel, S., and Lines, L., 1988, Geophysical examples of inversion (with a grain of salt): The Leading Edge, 7, 32-35.
  30. Whiteley, R.J., 2004, Shallow seismic refraction interpretation with visual interactive ray trace (VIRT) modeling: Exploration Geophysics, 35, 116-123.
  31. Zhang, J. and Toksoz, M.N. 1998, Nonlinear refraction traveltime tomography: Geophysics, 63, 1726-1737.
  32. Zhu, X-, Sixta, D.P, and Andstman, B.G., 1992, Tomostatics: turning-ray tomography + static corrections: The Leading Edge, 11, 15-23.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG05007
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): artefacts; GRM; irregularities; near-surface; refraction; seismic

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