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

Abstract

Summary

Visual interactive ray trace (VIRT) inversion is a manual approach to refraction tomography. VIRT tomograms do not detect a major 50 m wide shear zone with a low seismic velocity at Mt Bulga. This failure is attributed to the probable use of a low resolution starting model, specifically the smooth velocity gradient wavepath eikonal traveltime (WET) tomogram, for the VIRT inversion. In this case, the low resolution of the VIRT tomogram is another demonstration of non-uniqueness.

Alternatively, a starting model has been generated with the conventional reciprocal method, in which the existence of the low velocity region is unequivocal. In this case, confirmation bias has been employed to remove any expression of the low velocity region.

VIRT tomography generates complex velocity models of the weathering from relatively small numbers of traveltimes, indicating that VIRT is overfitting those data. The extensive use of vertical interfaces across which there are large contrasts in seismic velocities is not consistent with standard models of normal weathering profiles. By contrast, VIRT generates simple velocity models in the sub-weathering from many traveltimes, indicating that VIRT is underfitting those traveltimes.

Refraction tomograms produced with WET tomography using smoothed and detailed starting models generated with the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) have smaller errors than tomograms obtained with VIRT tomography and with WET tomograms generated with VIRT starting models.

VIRT neither improves the accuracy nor the geological verisimilitude of refraction tomograms. Furthermore, VIRT is time consuming and subjective. Although technically, VIRT is efficacious, the alternatives of automatic refraction tomography are more practical, more accurate, and generate more useful tomograms. In the final analysis however, VIRT is simply outdated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041866
2010-12-01
2026-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackermann, H.D., Pankratz, L.W., and Dansereau D., 1982, A comprehensive system for interpreting seismic refraction arrival-time data using interactive computer methods: USGS Open File Report 82–1065.
  2. Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. SEG, 104p.
  3. Palmer, D., 2007. Is it time to re-engineer geotechnical seismic refraction methods? 19th ASEG Conference and Exhibition, Perth (Extended Abstract).
  4. Palmer D. 2009. Maximising the lateral resolution of nearsurface seismic refraction methods: Exploration Geophysics40, 85–90; Butsuri-Tansa62, 85–90; Mulli-Tamsa12, 85–90.
  5. Schuster, G. T., and Quintus-Bosz, A., 1993, Wavepath eikonal traveltime inversion: theory: Geophysics58, 1314-1323.
  6. Whiteley, R. J., 2004, Shallow seismic refraction interpretation with visual interactive ray trace (VIRT) modeling: Exploration Geophysics35, 116–123
  7. Whiteley, R. J., and Eccleston, P. J., 2006, Comparison of shallow seismic refraction interpretation methods for regolith mapping: Exploration Geophysics37, 285–292.
  8. Whiteley, R. J., and Leung, T. K., undated, Mt Bulga revisited: http://rayfract.com/pub/Mt_Bulga_Revisited.pdf
/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041866
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): GRM; inversion; refraction; tomography; VIRT
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