Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

34

Click here to load reader

description

Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D. Background to RayINVR. RAYINVR ( Zelt and Smith, 1992; Zelt , 1999) Model parameterization: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Page 1: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Background to RayINVR

Page 2: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Forward problem:• Traveltimes through velocity model computed using zero-order asymptotic ray

theory by solving the ray tracing equations numerically

Inverse problem:• Damped least-squares inversion; Can be limited to a set of model parameters

Goal:• Develop a detailed velocity model of the subsurface by applying a top-down layer-

stripping approach; Fit various seismic phases to first constrain shallow structure and then progressively construct the deeper layers

RAYINVR (Zelt and Smith, 1992; Zelt, 1999)

Model parameterization:• 2D velocity model is composed of a sequence of

layers; Each layer boundary is defined by boundary nodes connected by straight-line segments of arbitrary dip; Vertical boundaries separate each layer into trapezoidal blocks; Velocity varies linearly between velocity points located on layer boundaries;

Velocity discontinuities resulting in reflections are defined by upper and lower layer velocity points at selected boundary nodes

Page 3: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

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.

The Zelt (1999) 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.

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. [However,] if there is strong lateral heterogeneity in the near-surface only, layer stripping works well. 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.

Strategies for modelling seismic refraction/wide-angle reflection travel-times to obtain2-D velocity and interface structure

Page 4: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

With good-quality reflection data, the final section can often be presented in un-interpreted form so that the reader can assess the interpretation provided and objectively establish their own interpretation.

With wide-angle data, the primary goal is to produce a velocity model that predicts the observed travel-times. Thus, the final result of the modelling approach, the model, is fundamentally different from the result of the processing approach, since it looks nothing like the data. It is left to the modeller to establish the credibility of the model, usually through ray diagrams, overlaying the data with predicted times, comparing the observed and predicted times directly, or presenting the diagonal values of the resolution matrix.

These methods are insufficient because of the non-uniqueness of the problem; that is, none of these displays address whether particular model structure is required by the data and what range of models fit the data.

Page 5: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

A model developed by the analysis of wide-angle travel-time is only as good as the picks.

Arrivals should only be included in the modelling once they can be confidently identified. Assigning layers to refracted arrivals may unnecessarily bias the modelling process. In obvious cases it may be worthwhile to identify the refracting layer since it may help to stabilize an inversion or supply more confidence when forward modelling.

The use of fully automated picking routines is uncommon, particularly for later arrivals. An efficient approach is a semi-automated scheme whereby a few picks are made interactively, and the intervening picks are determined automatically using a cross-correlation scheme. Picks should not be interpolated to provide a uniform spatial coverage, especially when there are significant data gaps, since this will provide an incorrect sense of model resolution.

Assigning uncertainties to the arrival picks is necessary, to avoid over- or under-fitting the data. Data fitting is strongly linked with the data uncertainties. Ideally,an overall normalized χ2 travel-time misfit of 1 should be achieved [NB: but may require dense node spacings that result in poor resolution].

Page 6: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 7: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 8: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

NB: For marine case, s=receiver is fixed along line and r=shot position varies to give correct ranges for each receiver. Best fit line = great circle path. Flat earth valid for ranges < 500 km.

Page 9: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Starting Model

Page 10: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

non-minimum (prior) structure

minimum structure

non-uniform/ coarse grid

uniform/fine grid

Inversion Strategies

tomography

Ray Invr

Full inversion

Partial (top-down/ layer stripping)

inversion

Model testing

Node spacing ≈ receiver spacing (0.5 near surface)

Page 11: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 12: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

oceanic

margin

Cratonic continent

Page 13: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 14: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 15: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 16: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 17: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D
Page 18: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 19: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Page 20: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Some Examples from Dalhousie

Page 21: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Gerlings et al., 2011

Page 22: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Gerlings et al., 2011

Page 23: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Lau et al., 2006

Page 24: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Lau et al., 2006

Page 25: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Funck et al., 2004

Page 26: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Lau et al., 2006

Page 27: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Lau et al., 2006

Page 28: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

OBS

Lau et al., 2006

OBS 14

Page 29: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Wu et al., 2006

Page 30: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Wu et al., 2006

Page 31: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Wu et al., 2006

Page 32: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Wu et al., 2006

Page 33: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Refraction/reflection traveltime modeling/inversion using RAYINVR

Summary for RAYINVR Modeling

• Forces model into a limited number of discrete layers which may or may not correspond to geological boundaries – e.g. changes in velocity gradient require separate layers not necessarily related to structure.

• Modeler needs to define arrivals by layer number and type of arrival (i.e. reflection or refraction). Proceed with forward models from top to bottom using as few layers as possible.

• Inversion rarely works for entire model unless highly simplified – e.g. for continental crust with simple boundaries and only a few layers. Generally need to limit inversion to one layer at a time.

• Uncertainties in crustal velocities and boundaries are typically ± 0.1 km/s and ± 1-2 km with good control and ± 0.2-0.3 km/s and ± 5 km for poorer control.

• For marine data, works best with coincident reflection data to define upper layer geometry (i.e. sediment and basement) and compare deeper structure between reflections and velocity model.

Page 34: Seismic Refraction Layer Modelling in 2D

Funck, T., Jackson, H.R., Louden, K.E., Dehler, S.A.& Wu,Y., 2004. Crustal structure of the northern Nova Scotia rifted continental margin (Eastern Canada), J. geophys. Res., 109, B09102, doi:10.1019/2004JB003008.

Gerlings, J., Louden, K.E., & Jackson, J.R., 2011, Crustal structure of the Flemish Cap Continental Margin (Eastern Canada): An analysis of a seismic refraction profile, Geophys. J. Int., 185, 30-48.

Lau K.W.H., Louden, K.E., Funck, T., Tucholke, B.E., Holbrook, W.S., Hopper, J.R. & Larsen, H.C., 2006. Crustal structure across the Grand Banks–Newfoundland Basin Continental Margin–I. Results from a seismic refraction profile, Geophys. J. Int., 167, 127–156.

Wu, Y., Louden, K.E., Funck, T., Jackson, H.R., & Dehler, S.A., 2006. Crustal structure of the central Nova Scotia margin off Eastern Canada, Geophy. J. Int., 166, 878–906.

Zelt, C.A., 1999. Modeling strategies and model assessment for wide-angle seismic traveltime data, Geophys. J. Int., 139, 183–204.

Zelt, A.C.& Smith, R.B., 1992. Seismic travel time inversion for 2-D crustal velocity structure, Geophys. J. Int., 108, 16–34.

References