Volume 25 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478



The seismic interpretation process generally exploits three of the following independent basic assumptions:

  • Input quantities are obtained by simplification of measured data (travel time curves).
  • 2. The geological model contains only a few parameters (for example, plane interfaces and constant interval velocities).
  • 3. Approximate transformations may be applied.

The first two are related to the simplification of the phenomena and enhance their essential features. The transformation which establishes relations between simplified data and model is required to be unique, stable, and sufficiently accurate.

Practically, the travel time curves are almost exclusively regarded as hyperbolas. We also accept this approximation.

The paper presents a simple recursive algorithm for the evaluation of the depth and dip of plane reflectors and the interval velocities.

It is a simple fact, that there exists a unique relationship between three hyperbolic parameters and a homogeneous dipping layer. Accordingly, two layers can be replaced by a single layer and the parameters of the lower boundary can be estimated when the upper one is known, initiating virtual shotpoints and geophone points (virtual surface). So, the case of multilayered media can be reduced in sequential steps to the case of a single homogeneous layer using a stripping type procedure.

Some synthetic model examples are provided to demonstrate the abilities of the algorithm.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Al‐Chalabi, M., 1974, An analysis of stacking, rms, average, and interval velocities over a horizontally layered ground, Geoph. Prosp.22, 458–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Davis, J. M., 1972, Interpretation of velocity spectra through an adaptive modeling strategy, Geophysics37, 953–962.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dix, C. H., 1955, Seismic velocities from surface measurements, Geophysics20, 68–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Everett, J. E., 1974, Obtaining interval velocities from stacking velocities when dipping horizons are included, Geoph. Prosp.22, 122–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Goltzman, F. M., 1975, Statistical theory of interpretation of geophysical spaces (in Russian), Fizika Zemlyi No1, 49–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Halfin, L. A., 1958, Information theory of interpretation of geophysical prospecting (in Russian), Dokl. AN. SSSR122, No 6.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hubral, P., 1974, Comments on “Obtaining interval velocities from stacking velocities when dipping horizons are included”, Geoph. Prosp.22, 792–793.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Levin, F. K., 1971, Apparent velocity from dipping interface reflections, Geophysics36, 510–516.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Shah, P. M., 1973, Use of wavefront curvature to relate seismic data with subsurface parameters, Geophysics38, 812–825.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Taner, M. T., Cook, E. E., and Neidell, N. S., 1970, Limitations of the reflection seismic method; lessons from computer simulations, Geophysics35, 551–573.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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