1887

Abstract

Summary

This work presents an automated method for determining subsurface reflector geometry using 3D reflection traveltime modelling on seismic data. The method leverages from observed reflections in shot gathers to estimate the dip angle and strike direction, particularly useful for hardrock data with isolated reflections. By modelling traveltimes and comparing them to the observed data, the method identifies the best-fit reflector 3D planar geometry. It utilizes a two-layer model and computes the misfit between the modelled and observed reflection traveltimes. Testing on synthetic and real data demonstrates the method’s effectiveness, especially with crooked acquisition profiles providing diverse azimuths. The automated 3D reflection traveltime modelling is helpful in many instances and can provide 3D complementary information to 2D data. The process includes estimating medium velocity, modelling arrival times for different strike-dip pairs and computing root mean square (RMS) error. The resulting RMS error map helps to evaluate result uncertainty and to define the best matching 3D geometry. This approach simplifies and improves reflector estimation compared to previous manual methods.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520263
2025-09-07
2026-02-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ayarza, P., Juhlin, C., Brown, D., Beckholmen, M., Kimbell, G., Pechnig, R., Pevzner, L., Pevzner, R., Ayala, C., Bliznetsov, M., Glushkov, A., & Rybalka, A. [2000]. Integrated geological and geophysical studies in the SG4 borehole area, Tagil Volcanic Arc, Middle Urals: Location of seismic reflectors and source of the reflectivity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 105(B9), 21333–21352. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000jb900137
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Levin, F. K. [1971]. Apparent velocity from dipping interface reflections. Geophysics, 36(3), 510–516. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440188
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Nedimović, M. R., & West, G. F. [2003]. Crooked‐line 2D seismic reflection imaging in crystalline terrains: Part 1, data processing. Geophysics, 68(1), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1543213
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Rodriguez-Tablante, J., Tryggvason, A., Malehmir, A., Juhlin, C., & Palm, H. [2007]. Cross-profile acquisition and cross-dip analysis for extracting 3D information from 2D surveys, a case study from the Western Skellefte District, northern Sweden. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 63(1), 1–12. ISSN 0926-9851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2007.03.001
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Wu, J. [1996]. Potential pitfalls of crooked‐line seismic reflection surveys. Geophysics, 61(1), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443949
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Zappalá, S., Malehmir, A., Hong, T. K., Juhlin, C., Lee, J., Papadopoulou, M., Brodic, B., Park, S., Chung, D., Kim, B., & Lee, J. [2022]. Crustal-Scale Fault Systems in the Korean Peninsula Unraveled by Reflection Seismic Data. Earth and Space Science, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EA002464
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Zappalà, S., Malehmir, A., Papadopoulou, M., & Apostolopoulos, G. [2023]. A High-Resolution Reflection Seismic Survey in the Historical Kefalonia Island, Greece. NSG2023, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202320032
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520263
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202520263
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