1887
Volume 56, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this study we present the workflow and results of 2D frequency domain waveform tomography applied to the global‐offset seismic data acquired in central Poland along a 50‐km long profile during the GRUNDY 2003 experiment. The waveform tomography method allows full exploitation of the wide‐aperture content of these data and produces in a semi‐automatic way both the detailed P‐wave velocity model and the structural image (i.e., perturbations in respect to the starting model). Thirteen frequencies ranging from 4 to 16 Hz were inverted sequentially, gradually introducing higher wavenumbers and more details into the velocity models. Although the data were characterised by relatively large shot spacings (1.5 km), we obtained clear images both of the Mesozoic and Permian sedimentary cover. Velocity patterns indicated facies changes within the Jurassic and Zechstein strata. A high velocity layer (ca. 5500 m/s) was found near the base of Triassic (Scythian), which made the imaging of a deeper layer difficult. Nevertheless, we were able to delineate the base of the Permian (i.e., base of the Rotliegend), which was not possible to derive from conventional common‐depth‐point processing, as well as some deeper events, attributed to the Carboniferous. The sub‐Permian events formed a syn‐form which favoured our previous interpretation of a depression filled with Upper Carboniferous molasse. The validity of the waveform tomography‐derived model was confirmed by well‐log data. Forward ray‐tracing modelling and synthetic seismograms calculations provided another justification for the key structures present in the waveform tomography model.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00680.x
2008-10-06
2020-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BleibinhausF., HoleJ.A.RybergT. and FuisG.S.2007. Structure of the California Coast Ranges and San Andreas Fault at SAFOD from seismic waveform inversion and reflection imaging. Journal of Geophysical Research112, B06315. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2006JB004611.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BrendersA.J. and PrattR.G.2007a. Efficient waveform tomography for lithospheric imaging: implications for realistic, two‐dimensional acquisition geometries and low‐frequency data. Geophysical Journal International168, 152–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BrendersA.J. and PrattR.G.2007b. Full waveform tomography for lithospheric imaging: results from a blind test in a realistic crustal model. Geophysical Journal International168, 133–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ColomboD.2005. Benefits of wide‐offset seismic for commercial exploration targets and implications for data analysis. The Leading Edge24, 352–363.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CraseE., PicaA., NobleM., McDonaldJ. and TarantolaA.1990. Robust elastic non‐linear waveform inversion: Application to real data. Geophysics55, 527–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CraseE., WidemanC., NobleM. and TarantolaA.1992. Nonlinear elastic inversion of land seismic reflection data. Journal of Geophysical Research97, 4685–4705.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DadlezR.2006. The Polish Basin ‐ relationship between the crystalline, consolidated and sedimentary crust. Geological Quarterly50, 43–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DadlezR., KowalczewskiZ. and ZnoskoJ.1994. Some key problems of the pre‐Permian tectonics of Poland. Geological Quarterly38, 169–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dell'AversanaP.2005. The global offset seismic approach: advantages and limitations. First Break23, 41–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DessaJ.‐X., OpertoS., KodairaS., NakanishiA., PascalG., UhiraK. and KanedaY.2004. Deep seismic imaging of the eastern Nankai trough, Japan, from multifold ocean bottom seismometer data by combined travel time tomography and prestack depth migration. Journal of Geophysical Research109, doi:DOI: 10.1029/2003JB002689.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GaoF., LevanderA.R., PrattR.G., ZeltC.A. and FradelizioG.L.2006. Waveform tomography at a groundwater contamination site: VSP‐surface data set. Geophysics71, H1–H11.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HustedtB., OpertoS. and VirieuxJ.2004. Mixed‐grid and staggered grid finite difference methods for frequency‐domain acoustic wave modelling. Geophysical Journal International157, 1269–1296.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. JoC.‐H., ShinC. and SuhJ.H.1996. An optimal 9‐point, finite‐difference, frequency‐space, 2‐D scalar wave extrapolator. Geophysics61, 529–537.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LaillyP.1984. The seismic inverse problem as a sequence of before stack migrations: Conference on Inverse Scattering. Theory and Application, 206–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MalinowskiM., GradM., GuterchA., TakácsE., ŚliwińskiZ., AntonowiczL., IwanowskaE., KellerG.R. and HegedüsE.2007. Effective sub‐Zechstein salt imaging using low‐frequency seismics ‐ results of the GRUNDY 2003 experiment across the Variscan front in the Polish Basin. Tectonophysics439, 89–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MarfurtK.1984. Accuracy of finite‐difference and fnite‐elements modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equation. Geophysics49, 533–549.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MoraP.R.1987. Nonlinear two‐dimensional elastic inversion of multi‐offset seismic data. Geophysics52, 1211–1228.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. OpertoS.2006. Practical aspects of frequency‐domain finite‐difference modelling of seismic wave propagation. Technical report, UMR Géosciences Azur ‐ CNRS .
  19. OpertoS., RavautC., ImprotaL., VirieuxJ., HerreroA. and Dell'AversanaP.2004. Quantitative imaging of complex structures from dense wide‐aperture seismic data by multiscale traveltime and waveform inversions: a case study. Geophysical Prospecting52, 625–651.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. OpertoS., VirieuxJ., DessaJ.‐X. and PascalG.2006. High‐resolution crustal seismic imaging from multifold ocean bottom seismometer data by frequency‐domain full‐waveform tomography: application to the eastern‐Nankai trough. Journal of Geophysical Research111. doi:DOI: 10.1029/2005JB003835.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PaigeC.C. and SaundersM.A.1982. LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software8, 43–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. PlessixR.‐E.2007. A Helmholtz iterative solver for 3D seismic‐imaging problems. Geophysics72, SM185–SM194.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. PodvinP. and LecomteI.1991. Finite difference computation of traveltimes in very contrasted velocity model: a masively parallel approach and its associated tools. Geophysical Journal International105, 271–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. PrattR.G.1999. Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: Theory and verification in a physical scale model. Geophysics64, 888–901.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. PrattR.G. and WorthingtonM.H.1990. Inverse theory applied to multi‐source cross‐hole tomography. Part 1: acoustic wave‐equation method. Geophysical Prospecting38, 287–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. PrattR.G., SongZ. and WarnerM.1996. Two‐dimensional velocity models from wide‐angle seismic data by wavefield inversion. Geophysical Journal International124, 323–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. PrattR.G., ShinC. and HicksG.J.1998. Gauss‐Newton and full Newton methods in frequency‐space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International133, 341–362.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. RavautC., OpertoS., ImprotaL., VirieuxJ., HerreroA. and Dell'AversanaP.2004. Multiscale imaging of complex structures from multifold wide‐aperture seismic data by frequency‐domain full‐waveform tomography: application to a thrust belt. Geophysical Journal International159, 1032–1056.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ShengJ., LeedsA., BuddensiekM. and SchusterG.T.2006. Early arrival waveform tomography on near‐surface refraction data. Geophysics71, U47–U57.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ShinC., YoonK., MarfurtK.J., ParkK., YangD., LimH.Y., ChungS. and ShinS.2001. Efficient calculation of a partial‐derivative wavefield using reciprocity for seismic imaging and inversion. Geophysics66, 1856–1863.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. ShippR.M. and SinghS.C.2002. Two‐dimensional full wavefield inversion of wide‐aperture marine seismic streamer data. Geophysical Journal International151, 325–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SirgueL. and PrattR.G.2004. Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies. Geophysics69, 231–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. ŚliwińskiZ., AntonowiczL., IwanowskaE., MalinowskiM., GradM., GuterchA., KellerR.G., TakácsE. and Working Group2006. Extent of the Variscan externides interpreted along the experimental seismic profile GRUNDY 2003. Prz. Geol.54, 45–50. (in Polish, with English summary).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SteklI. and PrattR.G.1998. Accurate viscoelastic modeling by frequency‐domain finite differences using rotated operators. Geophysics63, 1779–1794.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. TarantolaA.1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics49, 1259–1266.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. ToomeyD.R., SolomonS.C. and PurdyG.M.1994. Tomographic imaging of the shallow crustal structure of the East Pacific rise at 9°30″ N. Journal of Geophysical Research99, 135–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. WarnerM., SteklI. and UmplebyA.2007. Full waveform seismic tomography—iterative forward modelling in 3D. 69th EAGE meeting, London , UK , Expanded Abstracts, C025.
  38. WilliamsonP.1991. A guide to the limits of resolution imposed by scattering in ray tomography. Geophysics56, 202–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. WuR.‐S. and TöksozM.N.1987. Diffraction tomography and multisource holography applied to seismic imaging. Geophysics52, 11–25.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00680.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00680.x
Loading

Data & Media 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