1887
ASEG2010 - 21st Geophysical Conference
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Summary

Standard implementations of refraction tomography routinely use low resolution starting models. Tomograms obtained from these starting models can frequently fail to detect even major lateral variations in seismic velocities, such as a 50 m wide low velocity shear zone at Mt Bulga.

By contrast, the successful detection of the shear zone is unequivocal in tomograms generated with the generalized reciprocal method (GRM). Further improvements in resolution, which facilitate the definition of additional zones with moderate reductions in seismic velocity, are achieved with a novel application of the Hilbert transform to the GRM refractor velocity analysis algorithm. However, the improved resolution also requires the use of a lower average vertical seismic velocity which accommodates a velocity reversal in the weathering. The lower seismic velocity is derived with the GRM, whereas most refraction tomography programs assume vertical velocity gradients as the default.

Although all of the tomograms are consistent with the traveltime data, the resolution of each tomogram is comparable only with that of the starting model. Refraction tomography rarely, if ever, extracts additional detail which is not apparent in the starting model: it essentially smoothes unrealistic or inconsistent starting models. Therefore, it can be concluded that the major effect of refraction tomography is largely cosmetic.

A comparison of the errors of tomographic inversion does not “prove” that a given result is either “correct” or even geologically reasonable. This study proposes that the three tomograms generated with detailed GRM time and velocity models for the optimum XY value and ± half the station spacing, are a more useful measure of the uncertainties with refraction inversion. Non-uniqueness is most conveniently resolved with refraction attributes derived from the digital field data, the implementation of more expensive drilling programs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041863
2010-12-01
2026-01-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barton, R., and Barker, N., 2003, Velocity imaging by tau-p transformation of refracted traveltimes: Geophysical Prospecting51, 195-203.
  2. Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 104p.
  3. Palmer, D., 1981, An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation: Geophysics46, 1508-1518.
  4. Palmer, D., 2001a, Imaging refractors with the convolution section: Geophysics, 66, 1582-1589.
  5. Palmer, D., 2001b, Resolving refractor ambiguities with amplitudes: Geophysics, 66, 1590-1593.
  6. Palmer D. 2009a. Maximising the lateral resolution of nearsurface seismic refraction methods: Exploration Geophysics40, 85–90; Butsuri-Tansa62, 85–90; Mulli-Tamsa12, 85–90.
  7. Palmer, D., 2010, Non-uniqueness with refraction inversion – a synclinal model study: Geophysical Prospecting58, 203-218.
  8. Palmer, D., Nikrouz, R., and Spyrou, A., 2005, Statics corrections for shallow seismic refraction data: Exploration Geophysics36, 7-17.
  9. Schuster, G. T., and Quintus-Bosz, A., 1993, Wavepath eikonal traveltime inversion: theory: Geophysics58, 1314-1323.
/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041863
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attributes; GRM; inversion; non-uniqueness; refraction.
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