1887
Volume 39 Number 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

A

The depth to the surface of a refractor and the seismic velocity within the refractor are very often intimately related. In the shallow environment, increased thicknesses of weathering occur in areas of jointing, shearing or lithological variations, and these zones of deeper weathering can have lower subweathering refractor velocities. This association is important in geotechnical investigations and in the measurement of weathering thicknesses and sub‐weathering velocities for statics corrections for reflection seismic surveys.

Algorithms, which employ forward and reverse traveltime data and which explicitly accommodate the offset distance through the process known as refraction migration, are necessary if detailed structure on a refractor and rapid lateral variations of the seismic velocity within it are to be resolved. These requirements are satisfied with wavefront construction techniques, Hales’ method and the generalized reciprocal method (GRM).

However, these methods employ refraction migration in fundamentally different manners. Most methods compute an offset distance with an often imprecise knowledge of the seismic velocities of the overlying layers. In contrast, the GRM uses a range of offset distances from less than to greater than the optimum value, with the optimum value being selected with a minimum‐variance criterion.

The approach of the GRM is essential where there are undetected layers and where there are rapid variations in the depth to a refractor and the seismic velocity within it. In the latter situations the offset distance necessary to define the seismic velocities can differ considerably from the value required to define depths.

The efficacy of the GRM in resolving structure and seismic velocity is demonstrated with three model studies and two field examples.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1991.tb00358.x
2006-04-27
2020-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bruckl, E.1987. The interpretation of traveltime fields in refraction seismology. Geophysical Prospecting35, 973–992.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. de Amorin, W.N., Hubral, P. and Tygel, M.1987. Computing field statics with the help of seismic tomography. Geophysical Prospecting35, 907–919.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dobecki, T.L. and Romig, P.R.1985. Geotechnical and groundwater geophysics. Geophysics50, 2621–2636.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dobrin, M.B.1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 3rd edn.McGraw‐Hill Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Farrell, R.C. and Euwema, R.N.1984. Refraction statics. Proceedings of the IEEE72, 1316–1329.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hagedoorn, J.G.1955. Templates for fitting smooth velocity functions to seismic refraction and reflection data. Geophysical Prospecting3, 325–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hales, F.W.1958. An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines. Geophysical Prospecting6, 285–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hatherly, P.J.1982. Wave equation modelling for the shallow seismic refraction method. Bulletin of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists13, 26–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lankston, R.B.1989. The seismic refraction method: a viable tool for mapping shallow targets into the 1990s. Geophysics54, 1535–1542.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Palmer, D.1980. The Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Palmer, D.1981. An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Geophysics46, 1508–1518.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Palmer, D.1986. Refraction seismics; the lateral resolution of structure and seismic velocity. In: Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, section 1. Seismic Exploration. K.Helbig and S.Treitel (eds), 13, Geophysical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Robinson, E. and Clark, E.1987. A wave at a boundary: reflection, transmission/refraction and diffraction. The Leading Edge9, 38–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Rockwell, D.W.1967. A general wavefront method. In: Seismic Refraction Prospecting. A.W.Musgrave (ed.), 363–415. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Romig, P.R.1986. Introduction to special issue. Geophysics51, 221–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sjogren, B.1979. Refractor velocity determination ‐ cause and nature of some errors. Geophysical Prospecting27, 507–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Sjogren, B.1984. Shallow Refraction Seismics. Chapman and Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sheriff, R.E.1973. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Whiteley, R.J.1990. Advances in engineering seismics. 6th International Congress of the International Association of Engineering Geology, Rotterdam, Proceedings2, 813–825.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Zanzi, L.1990. Inversion of refracted arrivals: a few problems. Geophysical Prospecting38, 339–364.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1991.tb00358.x
Loading
  • 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