In this study, we compared a model of bedrock depth derived from a high resolution seismic dataset to a very extensive set of geotechnical bedrock depth estimations. The results of both methods are in very good agreement on the larger scale, but also show considerable differences in some locations. These differences are usually attributed to errors in the refraction model since it has generally a lower accuracy and is affected by unresolved near-surface velocity variations. However, we found several locations where the data consistently indicate that the geotechnical sounding yielded significantly too shallow bedrock estimations. Therefore, we argue that both methods should be evaluated carefully and — wherever possible — should be combined to a comprehensive dataset. Since geotechnical investigations are one-dimensional and seismic measurements are areal, they provide complementing information that can be used to reduce errors.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Green, R.
    [1974] The seismic refraction method – a review. Geoexploration, 12, 259–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Stephens, M.B., Bergman, T., Isaksson, H. and Petersson, J.
    [2008] Bedrock geology Forsmark. Modelling stage 2.3. Description of the bedrock geological map at the ground surface. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co.), Report No. R-08-128.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Svenska Geotekniska Föreningen (SGF)
    Svenska Geotekniska Föreningen (SGF) [2013] Geoteknisk fälthandbok. Version 1.0. Swedish Geotechnical Society, SFG Rapport 1:2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Woodward, D.J.
    [1991] Inversion of Seismic Refraction Data. DSIR Geology and Geophysics, New Zealand, Technical Report No. 114.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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