1887
Volume 38 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

A

The aim of refracted arrivals inversion is the computation of near‐surface information, i.e. first‐layer thicknesses and refractor velocities, in order to estimate the initial static corrections for the seismic data. The present trend is moving towards totally automatic inversion techniques, which start by picking the first breaks and end by aligning the seismic traces at the datum plane.

Accuracy and computational time savings are necessary requirements. These are not straightforward, because accuracy means noise immunity, which implies the processing of large amounts of data to take advantage of redundancy; moreover, owing to the non‐linearity of the problem, accuracy also means high‐order modelling and, as a consequence, complex algorithms for making the inversion.

The available methods are considered here with respect to the expected accuracy, i.e. to the model they assume. It is shown that the inversion of the refracted arrivals with a linear model leads to an ill‐conditioned problem with the result that complete separation between the weathering thickness and the refractor velocity is not possible. This ambiguity is carefully analysed both in the spatial domain and in the wavenumber domain. An error analysis is then conducted with respect to the models and to the survey configurations that are used.

Tests on synthetic data sets validate the theories and also give an idea of the magnitude of the error. This is largely dependent on the structure; here quantitative analysis is extended up to second derivative effects, whereas up to now seismic literature has only dealt with first derivatives. The topographical conditions which render the traditional techniques incorrect are investigated and predicted by the error equations.

Improved solutions, based on more accurate models, are then considered: the advantages of the Generalized Reciprocal Method are demonstrated by applying the results of the error analysis to it, and the accuracy of the non‐linear methods is discussed with respect to the interpolation technique which they adopt. Finally, a two‐step procedure, consisting of a linear model inversion followed by a local non‐linear correction, is suggested as a good compromise between accuracy and computational speed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01850.x
2006-04-27
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Dobrin, M.B.1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, 3rd edn. McGraw‐Hill Book Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Farrell, R.C. and Euwema, R.N. 1984. Refraction statics. Proceedings of the IEEE72, 1316–1329.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Gardner, L.1939. An areal plan of mapping subsurface structure by refraction shooting. Geophysics4, 247–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gardner, L.1967. Refraction seismograph profile interpretation. Seismic refraction prospecting, A. W.Musgrave (ed.), 338–347. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hagedoorn, J.G.1959. The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical Prospecting7, 158–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hill, N.R.1985. Downward continuation of refracted arrivals to determine shallow complex structure. 55th SEG meeting, Washington DC , Expanded Abstracts, 292–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Jones, G.M. and Jovanovich, D.B.1985. A ray inversion method for refraction analysis. Geophysics50, 1701–1720.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Palmer, D.1980. The Generalized Reciprocal Method of Seismic Refraction Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Palmer, D.1981. An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction interpretation. Geophysics46, 1508–1518.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Palmer, D.1986. Refraction seismics. Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, section I. Seismic exploration, K.Helbig and S.Treitel (eds), Vol. 13, 55–73. Geophysical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Rogers, A. W.1979. Determination of static corrections. Developments in Geophysical Exploration Methods, A. A.Fitch (ed.), Vol. 1, 1–36. Applied Science Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Sheriff, R.E.1984. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics, 2nd edn. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Taner, M.T., Koehler, F. and Alhilali, K.A.1974. Estimation and corrections of near‐surface anomalies. Geophysics39, 441–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Thornburgh, H.R.1930. Wavefront diagrams in seismic interpretation. AAPG Bulletin14, 185–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Wiggins, R.A., Larner, K.L. and Wisecup, R.D.1976. Residual statics analysis as a general linear inverse problem. Geophysics41, 922–938.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Zanzi, L. and Carlini, A.1987. Refraction statics in the wavenumber domain. 57th SEG meeting, New Orleans , Expanded Abstracts, 262–265.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01850.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