Modelling strategies and model assessment for wide-angle seismic traveltime data

Strategies for modelling seismic refraction/wide-angle reflection traveltimes to obtain 2-D velocity and interface structure are presented along with methods for assessing the reliability of the results. Emphasis is placed on using inverse methods, but a discussion of arrival picking and classification, data uncertainties, traveltime reciprocity, crooked line geometry and the selection of a starting model is also applicable to trial-and-error forward modelling. The most important advantages of an inverse method are the ability to derive simpler models for the appropriate level of fit to the data, and the ability to assess the final model in terms of resolution, parameter bounds and non-uniqueness. Given the unique characteristics of each data set and the local earth structure, there is no single approach to modelling wide-angle data that is best. This paper describes the best modelling strategies according to (1) the model parametrization, (2) the inclusion of prior information, (3) the complexity of the earth structure, (4) the characteristics of the data, and (5) the utilization of coincident seismic reflection data. There are two natural end-member inversion styles: (1) a regular, fine-grid parametrization when seeking a minimum-structure model, and (2) an irregular grid, minimum-parameter model when considering certain forms of prior information. The former style represents the ‘pure’ tomography approach. The latter style is closer to automated forward modelling, and can be applied best with a parameter-selective algorithm, that is, one that allows any subset of model parameters to be selected for inversion. If there is strong lateral heterogeneity in the near-surface only, layer stripping works well. If there is complexity at all depths, all model parameters should be determined simultaneously after careful construction of a starting model that allows the appropriate rays to be traced to all pick locations. The lateral spacing of model nodes to use will depend on the type of inversion and whether detailed prior information is included, but a general guideline based on model resolution when seeking a minimum-parameter model is a model node spacing equal to the shot spacing (receiver spacing for typical marine data), except perhaps in the upper layers where about half this may be necessary; node spacing is not an issue when using smoothing constraints, provided it is small enough to resolve the earth structure of interest. Traveltimes picked from pre-stack, unmigrated or migrated coincident reflection data can be (1) used to develop the starting model, (2) inverted simultaneously with the wide-angle data, or (3) inverted after modelling the wide-angle data to constrain interfaces that ‘float’ within the velocity model. Model assessment establishes the reliability of the final model. Presenting model statistics, traveltime fits, ray diagrams and resolution kernels is useful, but can only indirectly address this issue. Direct model assessment techniques that derive alternative models that satisfactorily fit the real data are the best means of establishing the absolute bounds on model parameters and whether a particular model feature is required by the data.

[1]  Robert L. Nowack,et al.  Inversion for Crustal Structure Using Reflections From the PASSCAL Ouachita Experiment , 1990 .

[2]  D. J. White,et al.  Two-Dimensional Seismic Refraction Tomography , 1989 .

[3]  Lawrence W. Braile,et al.  Guide to the Interpretation of Crustal Refraction Profiles , 1975 .

[4]  J. Scales,et al.  Regularisation of nonlinear inverse problems: imaging the near-surface weathering layer , 1990 .

[5]  W. Mooney,et al.  Seismic refraction measurements within the Peninsular terrane, south central Alaska , 1995 .

[6]  A. Levander,et al.  Migration of wide‐aperture onshore‐offshore seismic data, central California: Seismic images of late stage subduction , 1995 .

[7]  C. Zelt.  Lateral velocity resolution from three-dimensional seismic refraction data , 1998 .

[8]  Jonathan M. Lees,et al.  Tomographic inversion for three‐dimensional velocity structure at Mount St. Helens using earthquake data , 1989 .

[9]  R. Clowes,et al.  Shallow crustal structure beneath the Juan de Fuca Ridge from 2-D seismic refraction tomography , 1990 .

[10]  R. White,et al.  Crustal structure above the Iceland mantle plume imaged by the ICEMELT refraction profile , 1998 .

[11]  W. M. Kohler,et al.  Crustal structure of the Colorado Plateau, Arizona: Application of new long‐offset seismic data analysis techniques , 1996 .

[12]  P. Barton,et al.  Exploration in the Shetland‐Faeroe Basin using densely spaced arrays of ocean‐bottom seismometers , 1998 .

[13]  A. Green,et al.  Refraction tomography over a buried waste disposal site , 1998 .

[14]  W. Lutter,et al.  Large-explosive source, wide-recording aperture, seismic profiling on the Columbia Plateau, Washington , 1994 .

[15]  C. Zelt,et al.  Study of out-of-plane effects in the inversion of refraction/wide-angle reflection traveltimes , 1998 .

[16]  A. Levander,et al.  Small‐scale heterogeneity and large‐scale velocity structure of the continental crust , 1992 .

[17]  R. Clowes,et al.  Seismic structure across the active subduction zone of western Canada , 1985 .

[18]  John A. Hole,et al.  Nonlinear high‐resolution three‐dimensional seismic travel time tomography , 1992 .

[19]  G. McMechan,et al.  Asymptotic ray theory and synthetic seismograms for laterally varying structures: theory and application to the imperial valley, California , 1980 .

[20]  Lawrence W. Braile,et al.  Seismic imaging of upper crustal structure using travel times from the PASSCAL Ouachita Experiment , 1990 .

[21]  M. Warner,et al.  COINCIDENT NORMAL-INCIDENCE AND WIDE-ANGLE REFLECTIONS FROM THE MOHO : EVIDENCE FOR CRUSTAL SEISMIC ANISOTROPY , 1996 .

[22]  Sean C. Solomon,et al.  Tomographic imaging of the shallow crustal structure of the East Pacific Rise at 9°30′N , 1994 .

[23]  G. R. Keller,et al.  Modeling the 2-D seismic velocity structure across the Kenya rift , 1994 .

[24]  A comparison of forward modeling and inversion of seismic first arrivals over the Kapuskasing Uplift , 1992 .

[25]  S. Smithson,et al.  Two‐dimensional travel time inversion for the crustal P and S wave velocity structure of the Ruby Mountains metamorphic core complex, NE Nevada , 1998 .

[26]  W. Lutter,et al.  An image of the Columbia Plateau from inversion of high-resolution seismic data , 1994 .

[27]  John N. Louie,et al.  A generalized simulated-annealing optimization for inversion of first-arrival times , 1994 .

[28]  G. Purdy.  The correction for the travel time effects of seafloor topography in the interpretation of marine seismic data , 1982 .

[29]  G. Purdy,et al.  Upper crustal velocity structure in the ROSE area of the East Pacific Rise , 1982 .

[30]  C. Zelt,et al.  Modeling wide-angle seismic data for crustal structure: Southeastern Grenville Province , 1994 .

[31]  M. Toksöz,et al.  Nonlinear refraction and reflection travel time tomography , 1998 .

[32]  L. Braile,et al.  Simultaneous Inversion of Reflection and Refraction Seismic Data and Application to Field Data From the Northern Rio Grande Rift , 1996 .

[33]  Prestack depth migration of dense wide-angle seismic data , 1998 .

[34]  A. Levander,et al.  Seismic images of crustal duplexing and continental subduction in the Brooks Range , 1997 .

[35]  A. Levander,et al.  Synthetic seismograms through synthetic Franciscan: Insights into factors affecting large‐aperture seismic data , 1997 .

[36]  J. Orcutt,et al.  Waveform inversion of seismic refraction data and applications to young Pacific crust , 1985 .

[37]  K. P. Whittall,et al.  Practical synthetic seismograms for laterally varying media calculated by asymptotic ray theory , 1984 .

[38]  Colin A. Zelt,et al.  Three‐dimensional seismic refraction tomography: A comparison of two methods applied to data from the Faeroe Basin , 1998 .

[39]  C. Zelt,et al.  Crustal structure and tectonics of the southeastern Canadian Cordillera , 1995 .

[40]  D. Sinoquet,et al.  Smooth velocity models in reflection tomography for imaging complex geological structures , 1996 .

[41]  L. Pedersen,et al.  Collisional tectonics of the Baltic Shield in the northern Gulf of Bothnia from seismic data of the BABEL project , 1995 .

[42]  Robert W. Clayton,et al.  Adaptation of Back Projection Tomography to Seismic Travel Time Problems , 1988 .

[43]  Satish C. Singh,et al.  Simultaneous velocity and interface tomography of normal-incidence and wide-aperture seismic traveltime data , 1997 .

[44]  P. Stoffa,et al.  Deep structure of the U.S. Atlantic continental margin, offshore South Carolina, from coincident ocean bottom and multichannel seismic data , 1994 .

[45]  R. Clowes,et al.  Crustal velocity structure in the eastern Insular and southernmost Coast belts, Canadian Cordillera , 1993 .

[46]  John A. Orcutt,et al.  Petrology and porosity of an oceanic crustal site: Results from wave form modeling of seismic refraction data , 1980 .

[47]  Michael Fehler,et al.  Traveltime tomography: A comparison of popular methods , 1991 .

[48]  Robert B. Smith,et al.  Seismic traveltime inversion for 2-D crustal velocity structure , 1992 .

[49]  A. Levander,et al.  Deformation in the Lower Crust of the San Andreas Fault System in Northern California , 1997 .

[50]  R. Parker,et al.  Occam's inversion; a practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data , 1987 .

[51]  R. G. Pratt,et al.  Two‐dimensional velocity models from wide‐angle seismic data by wavefield inversion , 1996 .

[52]  A. Green,et al.  A method for the inversion of refraction and reflection travel times for laterally varying velocity structures , 1986 .