1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 37, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 37 Number 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRaCT

Multiple coverage reflection seismic data provide an important source of information concerning the subsurface. However, due to the stacking and migration techniques used in the processing, the first arrivals are muted and details about the upper part of the sections are generally lost.

This paper describes a computerized method for the inverse modelling of laterally varying velocities and shallow depths which are not sufficiently resolved in the reflection seismic processing. The method minimizes, in a least‐squares manner, the difference between the observed first arrivals, picked from the reflection traces, and a set of synthetic traveltimes, calculated by ray tracing in a cell model. An initial model, e.g. from knowledge or the application of a conventional interpretation method, is refined iteratively until no further essential improvement can be achieved. Traditional first‐arrival inversion methods cannot, in general, provide such flexible modelling. The technique is successfully tested on synthetic data as well as on first arrivals picked automatically from the records of a reflection seismic survey in North Jutland, Denmark.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02217.x
2006-04-27
2024-04-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02217.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barry, K. M.1967. Delay time and its application to refraction profile interpretation. Seismic Refracting Prospecting, Musgrave (ed.), 348–361. SEG, Tulsa .
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Coppens, F.1985. First arrival picking on common offset trace collections for automatic estimation of static corrections. Geophysical Prospecting33, 1212–1231.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dampney, C. N. G. and Whiteley, R. J.1980. Velocity determination and error analysis for the seismic refraction method. Geophysical Prospecting28, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. de Amorim, W. N., Hubral, P. and Tygel, M.1987. Computing field statics with the help of seismic tomography. Geophysical Prospecting35, 907–919.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hagedoorn, J. G.1959. The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical Prospecting7, 158–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson, D. D.1979. The use of a priori data to resolve nonuniqueness in line inversion. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society57, 137–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lines, L. R. and Treitel, S.1984. Tutorial: A review of least‐squares inversion and its application to geophysical problems. Geophysical Prospecting32, 159–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Neumann, G.1981. Determination of lateral inhomogeneities in reflection seismics by inversion of traveltime residuals. Geophysical Prospecting29, 161–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Palmer, D.1980. The Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation, K. B. S.Burke (ed.).SEG, Tulsa .
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Scheidegger, A. E. and Willmore, P. L.1957. The use of a least squares method for the interpretation of data from seismic surveys. Geophysics22, (1), 922.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Sjögren, B.1984. Shallow Refraction Seismics, D. S.Parasnis (ed.). Chapman and Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1989.tb02217.x
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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