1887

Abstract

Summary

First arrival traveltime tomography is a widely used technique dedicated for velocity model-building. One of the important aspects of tomographic methods is the validation of the results by the uncertainty analysis. Among different factors controlling seismic traveltime inversion, the starting model is one of the most critical. It is worth to mention that the effect of the starting model for the final inversion result can be quantitatively estimated for example using Monte Carlo approach. Important factor that controls traveltime inversion is the traveltime picking precision. In this work we focus on the importance of the traveltime picking precision and its quantitative effect on the final result of the inversion. We perform our uncertainty analysis using real 2D land seismic data. We analyse the influence of both: starting model and the picking uncertainty. Performed tests show that tomographic uncertainty analysis should as well account for the rays coverage to provide meaningful results. Moreover, according to the other studies errors of manually picked traveltimes prevail an asymmetric distribution. From a number of test observations we conclude that it is more likely to pick earlier rather than later arrival times. Therefore we also test how these characteristics affects the final inversion result.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802559
2018-09-09
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Hobro, J. W. D. and Singh, S.
    [1999] Joint interface and velocity estimation in three dimensions (JIVE3D), LITHOS science report, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Korenaga, J., Holgrook, W.S., Kent, G.M., Kelemen, P.B., Detrick, R.S., Larsen, H.C., Hopper, J.R., Dahl-Jensen, T.
    [2000] Crustal structure of the southeast Greenland margin from joint refraction and reflection seismic tomography, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 21591–21614.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. MajdanskiM.
    [2013] The uncertainty in layered models from wide-angle seismic data, Geophysics, 78(3), WB31–WB36.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. MajdanskiM. and PolkowskiM.
    [2014] The Uncertainty of 2D Models Along Wide 1Angle Seismic Profiles, Pure and Applied Geophysics, DOI 10.1007/s00024‑014‑0840‑9.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-014-0840-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. MeléndezA., KorenagaJ., SallarèsV., MiniussiA., RaneroC.R
    [2015] TOMO3D: 3-D joint refraction and reflection traveltime tomography parallel code for active-source seismic data—synthetic test, Geophysical J. Int, 203 (1), 158–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. NoletG.
    [2008] A breviary of Seismic Tomography, Princeton University, New Jersey.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wehling-BenatelliS., KuperkochL. and FriederichW.
    [2016] Automatic derivation of phase-onset time uncertainties, EGU General Assembly 2016 (Abstract).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. RawlinsonN., FichtnerA., SambridgeM., YoungM. K.
    [2014] Chapter One - Seismic Tomography and the Assessment of Uncertainty, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 55, 1–76, DOI 10.1016/bs.agph.2014.08.001.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agph.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. WhiteD.J.
    [1989] Two-dimensional seismic refraction tomography, Geophysical Journal International, 97, 223–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. WhiteG.H.
    [2008] Basics of Estimating Measurement Uncertainty, Clin Biochem Rev., 29 (1), S53–S60.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ZeltC., BartonP.J.
    [1998] 3D seismic refraction tomography: A comparison of two methods applied to data from the Faeroe Basin, Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, 7187–7210.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802559
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802559
Loading

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