1887
Volume 1 Number 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

It is well known that pitfalls are commonly encountered in the acquisition and processing of shallow reflection data. Although they can often lead to misinterpretations, the obsession with these difficulties can generate an excessively pessimistic attitude and ultimately lead to rejecting data that contain genuine reflections. The authors revisited a data set acquired during an ultrashallow P‐wave reflection experiment conducted in December 1996 on a subsurface model characterized by one main, complex interface. The model had been purpose‐built to control acquisition and processing decisions, and to contribute to clarifying at least some of the critical aspects inherent in the ultrashallow seismic reflection method. For the experiment, the acquisition geometry was purposely designed regardless of the known characteristics of the model, considering only a target depth of less than ten metres. The data, which had been acquired with CMP techniques, were generally characterized by a poor signal‐to‐noise ratio and had been considered completely useless. Initially, inexperience in acquiring and, above all, processing ultrashallow reflection data, in conjunction with mise‐valuations, had led to disappointing failures. Velocity analysis on reflection data had proved very difficult and standard processing sequences were inadequate. However, in this case a good result was obtained by modelling the near‐surface velocity using direct‐wave traveltimes analysis and by adopting a simple but segregated processing sequence, which proved necessary due to significant velocity gradients and large relative variations of the reflector depth. Time‐to‐depth conversion afforded a more than acceptable result.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003009
2003-08-01
2020-07-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BakerG.S., SteeplesD.W., SchmeissnerC. and SpikesK.T.2000. Collecting seismic‐reflection data from depths shallower than three meters. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP 2000), pp. 1207–1214, published by EEGS.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. DeiddaG.P. and BaliaR.2001. An ultrashallow SH‐wave seismic reflection experiment on a subsurface ground model. Geophysics66, 1097–1104.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. GhoseR., NijhofV., BrouwerJ., MatsubaraY., KaidaY. and TakahashiT.1998. Shallow to very shallow, high‐resolution reflection seismic using a portable vibrator system. Geophysics63, 1295–1309.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. MillerK.C., HarderS.H., AdamsD.C. and O’DonnellJr.T.1998. Integrating high‐resolution refraction data into near‐surface seismic reflection data processing and interpretation. Geophysics63, 1339–1347.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1998. Large near‐surface velocity gradients on shallow seismic reflection data. Geophysics63, 1348–1356.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. SteeplesD.W., GreenA.G., McEvillyT.V., MillerR.D., DollW.E. and RectorJ.W.1997. A workshop examination of shallow seismic reflection surveying. The Leading Edge16, 1641–1647.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. SteeplesD.W. and MillerR.D.1998. Avoiding pitfalls in shallow seismic reflection surveys. Geophysics63, 1213–1224
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003009
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2003009
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