24

Chapter 2
Inversion of Shallow Seismic
Refraction Data A Review
2.1 - Summary
All methods for inverting shallow seismic refraction data require reversed and
redundant data in order to resolve wavespeeds and structure within each
refractor, and to identify the wavespeed stratification above the target refractor.
However, there are fundamental limitations in accurately determining the
wavespeed stratification from even the most complete sets of data. Not all layers
are necessarily detected in the traveltime data, because some layers are either
too thin, or the wavespeeds are less than that in the overlying layer.
Furthermore, the wavespeed stratification cannot be determined with high
precision within those layers which are detected, because the refracted rays do
not penetrate deeply enough, or because the horizontal rather than the vertical
wavespeed is measured.
The difficulties in accurately determining the inversion model indicate that as
much of the data processing as possible should be carried out in the time
domain, rather than in the depth domain. The wavespeed analysis and the time-
depth algorithms of the group of processing techniques known as the reciprocal
methods, satisfy these requirements.
25
In addition, there is another fundamental issue of non-uniqueness in determining
lateral variations in wavespeeds in the refractor. This requires the use of
refraction migration in order to accommodate the offset distance. However,
incorrect migration distances which would result from the use of incorrect
wavespeeds in the layers above the target refractor, can still generate results
which satisfy the traveltime data. This problem can be overcome with the use of
multiple migration distances with the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) and
the use of the minimum variance criterion.
The GRM is a logical advancement of pre-existing refraction inversion methods.
It combines the horizontal layer approximations of the intercept time method, the
wavespeed analysis and time-depth algorithms of the traditional reciprocal
methods, and the accommodation of the offset distance with refraction migration
of the delay time and Hales methods. The variable migration of the GRM
provides a useful approach to the treatment of undetected layers, wavespeed
reversals, variable wavespeed media, anisotropy and non-uniqueness.
2.2 - Introduction
The refraction method was the first seismic technique to be used in petroleum
exploration, and in the 1920s, it achieved spectacular success in Iran and the
Gulf Coast of the USA. Although refraction methods were soon superseded by
reflection methods, they were still commonly used in many areas where single
fold reflection methods were not effective. However, with the development of
common midpoint methods in the 1950s, the use of refraction methods in
petroleum exploration decreased even further.
Today most seismic refraction surveys are carried out to map targets in the near
surface region for geotechnical, groundwater and environmental applications,
26
and for statics corrections for seismic reflection surveys. On a line kilometre
basis, statics corrections clearly constitute the greatest use of the method.
The 1950s represent a significant period in the development of refraction
techniques. Almost all of the major issues had been identified and many
advances had been achieved in the years prior to that date. They include the
mapping of irregular refractors, complex wavespeed functions in the layers above
the target refractor, undetected layers, wavespeed reversals, anisotropy, and
refraction migration.
In the last fifty years, the development of the refraction method has been virtually
stagnant and most research has tended to focus on the various methods for
inverting traveltime data. However, in many cases, it is apparent that the models
used for inversion are not cognizant of the realities of the near surface
environment and that implausible assumptions are often made.
This study reviews the major issues associated with the inversion of seismic
refraction traveltime data, especially that acquired in the near surface
environment, where geological conditions can change rapidly. I conclude that
the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) (Palmer 1980, 1986) is a logical
evolution of the major inversion methods, which can usefully address the issues
of resolution, ambiguity and non-uniqueness.
2.3 - Field Data Requirements
The first stage of the inversion of the traveltime data is the determination of an
appropriate model. Generally, this is a qualitative stage in which an assessment
is made of the number of layers that can be recognized confidently in the
traveltime data, and in which each arrival is assigned to a particular refractor. It
requires reversed traveltime data for which there are shot points in both the
27
forward and reverse directions, in order to resolve lateral variations in depths to
and wavespeeds within each refractor. In addition, redundant data in which there
are several shot points on either side of the array of detectors, are also essential.
Hinge points or changes in slope which shift horizontally with each graph indicate
new layers, while hinge points which shift vertically indicate changes in depth or
wavespeed within the same layer. These requirements are routinely satisfied
with shallow refraction operations which employ a high density of shot points
(Walker and Win, 1997), and they are described in more detail in Palmer (1986),
Palmer (1990), and Lankston (1990).
2.4 - Undetected Layers
However, this process is only effective if there is a monotonic increase in
wavespeeds from layer to layer with increasing depth and if the thickness of each
layer is greater than a minimum value. Layers, which are thin in relation to the
thicknesses and wavespeeds of the surrounding layers, can escape detection
(Maillet and Bazerque, 1931; Soske, 1959). Furthermore, even layers which are
thick are not detected if there is a reversal in wavespeed from the layer above
(Domzalski, 1956; Knox, 1967). These are the well-known undetected layer
problems and various methods for determining maximum errors have been
described by many authors (Merrick et al, 1978; Whiteley and Greenhalgh,
1979).
2.5 - Incomplete Sampling of Each Layer
The difficulties in accurately specifying the inversion model extend to the
determination of the wavespeed within each layer. In Hagedoorn (1955),
traveltimes are computed for a simple two layer model, in which the wavespeed
28
in the upper layer varies linearly with depth. A variety of other wavespeed
functions are then fitted to the traveltime graphs with an accuracy of better than
0.5%, but nevertheless the errors in the computed depths to the refractor are
between 10% and 29%.
Hagedoorns (1955) study is of fundamental significance to the inversion of all
refraction data using any approach. It demonstrates that even in the absence of
undetected layers, the wavespeed model in the each layer and therefore its
thickness, cannot be accurately determined with the traveltimes from that layer
alone. It also demonstrates that the selection of the correct wavespeed model is
essential for accurate depth determinations.
The difficulties in accurately determining the parameters of each layer are related
to the inherent errors of extrapolation. The parameters of the wavespeed
function are computed from arrivals which rarely penetrate more than 30% of the
thickness for realistic wavespeed functions. These parameters are then
extrapolated to the remainder of the layer where each wavespeed function can
behave quite differently.
2.6 - Implications for Model-Based Methods of Inversion
Hagedoorns (1955) study is especially applicable to model-based inversion or
tomography (Zhu et al., 1992). With these methods, the parameters of a model
of the subsurface are refined by comparing the traveltimes of the model with the
field data. When the differences between the computed and field traveltimes are
a minimum, the model and parameters are taken as an accurate representation
of the wavespeeds in the subsurface.
The performance of refraction tomography has been continually improved
through more efficient inversion and forward modeling routines, (see Zhang and
29
Toksoz, 1998 for an overview of these advances). However, the choice of the
model has yet to receive widespread attention, since the role of model-based
inversion is to provide information about the unknown numerical parameters
which go into the model, not to provide the model itself (Menke, 1989, p3).
Perhaps the most common model has been the linear increase of wavespeed
with depth (Zhu et al.,1992; Stefani, 1995; Miller et al., 1998; Lanz et al., 1998),
possibly because of mathematical convenience. However, this model is of
questionable validity as most theoretical (Iida, 1939; Gassman, 1951, 1953;
Brandt, 1955; Paterson, 1956; Berry, 1959), laboratory (Birch, 1960; Wyllie et al.,
1956, 1958), and field studies (Faust, 1951, 1953; White and Sengbush, 1953;
Acheson, 1963, 1981; Hall, 1970; Hamilton, 1970, 1971; Jankowsky, 1970),
suggest a more gentle increase for clastic sediments, such as a one sixth power
of depth function.
Furthermore, the gradients obtained range from 0.342 and 2.5 m/s per metre
(Stefani, 1995), and 2.68 and 4.67 m/s per metre (Zhu et al., 1992), to as high as
40 m/s per metre (Lanz et al, 1998). These values are generally much larger
than those applicable to the compaction of clastic sediments (Dobrin, 1976), but
they are rarely justified on geological or petrophysical grounds.
The combination of the linear increase of wavespeed with depth and the high
gradients probably contributes to instability in the inversion process. The
example of the somewhat paradoxical situation of the poor determination of
wavespeeds in the refractor, despite the fact that over 90% of traveltimes are
from that layer (Lanz et al., 1998, Figure 8), is at variance with the experiences of
most seismologists using more traditional methods of refraction processing.
Furthermore, the use of linear wavespeed functions where constant wavespeed
layering is applicable can result in large gradients which in turn can result in the
ubiquitous ray path diagrams demonstrating almost complete coverage of the
30
subsurface. These diagrams are misleading when the inversion model does not
accurately represent the subsurface, because the shortcomings of extrapolation
are not properly addressed.
2.7 - Anisotropy
Another factor which affects the determination of the inversion model is
anisotropy. Seismic anisotropy, in which the wavespeed in the horizontal
direction is different from that in the vertical direction, has been recognized from
the earliest days of seismic exploration (McCollum and Snell, 1932), and
refraction examples have been described by Hagedoorn (1954) and others. The
significance of anisotropy is that the wavespeeds measured on the traveltime
graphs are horizontal components, whereas vertical components are required for
depth conversion.
2.8 - The Need to Employ Realistic Models for Refraction
Inversion
Accordingly, the determination of an appropriate inversion model from seismic
refraction traveltime data is not necessarily a straightforward task. It requires an
adequate set of reversed and redundant data, in order to assign each arrival to a
refractor. However, even with such data, there is still no guarantee that all layers
can be detected, either because of thin layers or because of wavespeed
reversals. In these cases, the traveltime data do not provide a complete model
of the layering. Furthermore, the wavespeeds in those layers which are detected
may not be accurate because of the difficulties in deriving the appropriate
wavespeed versus depth function, and because the wrong component is
obtained in the presence of seismic anisotropy. The fact that the traveltime data
31
are neither a complete, an accurate nor a representative indication of the
inversion model should be viewed as a fundamental geophysical reality which
must be accommodated in any approach to refraction inversion.
2.9 - The Large Number of Refraction Inversion Methods
In view of the many applications over the last eight decades, it is not surprising
that the refraction method is characterized by the existence of numerous
approaches for inverting the field data. Standard texts such as Musgrave (1967),
Dobrin (1976), and Sheriff and Geldart (1995), describe almost a score of
techniques which have been used at some time in the past. Each method
represents a compromise between the desire for mathematical exactness and
the realities of geophysical robustness and computational convenience.
Most of these methods have not seen regular use and are more of curiosity
value, rather than being practical inversion methods. The more commonly used
methods have been wavefront reconstruction, the intercept time, the reciprocal
method and the group which employ refraction migration, viz. the delay time.
Hales and the generalized reciprocal methods.
2.10 - Wavefront Reconstruction Methods
Perhaps the earliest techniques to be used were the wavefront reconstruction
methods (Thornburg, 1930; Rockwell, 1967; Aldridge and Oldenburg, 1992).
These methods retrace the emerging forward and reverse wavefronts down into
the subsurface. The refractor interface is located at the positions where the sum
of the forward and reverse wavefronts is equal to the reciprocal time. Wavefront
reconstruction methods are generally considered to be the most precise because
32
they make few assumptions or approximate Snells law. However, they operate
in the depth domain and therefore require a detailed and accurate knowledge of
the wavespeeds above the target refractor. As discussed above, this is probably
one of the most difficult requirements to satisfy.
2.11 - The Intercept Time Method
Another longstanding technique is the intercept time method (ITM), (Ewing et al,
1939). This method is essentially a ray tracing approach applied to a subsurface
model consisting of homogeneous layers with uniform wavespeeds separated by
plane dipping interfaces. The angle of emergence of each ray is readily
determined from the travelime graphs, and its trajectory in the subsurface is then
computed with the simple application of Snells law.
Although the ITM is mathematically precise, it is not geophysically robust.
Discordant dips produce large changes in slope on the traveltime graphs and as
a result, there can be difficulties in recognizing individual layers. Furthermore,
dipping interfaces eventually intersect, thereby resulting in layers which do not
register in the traveltime graphs below a minimum thickness.
Under most circumstances, the horizontal layer approximations are of sufficient
accuracy (Palmer, 1986). These approximations are (i) the use of the law of
parallelism to obtain intercept times (Sjogren, 1980), which are a measure of the
depth to the refracting interface in units of time, (ii) the horizontal layer value of
the depth conversion factor which relates intercept times and layer thicknesses
and (iii) the harmonic mean of the forward and reverse apparent wavespeeds to
obtain a measure of the refractor wavespeeds.
33
2.12 - The Reciprocal Methods
The approximations of the ITM are identical to those which are integral to the
group of techniques known as the reciprocal methods (Hawkins, 1961). This
group had its origins in the 1930s when it was known as the method of
differences (Edge and Laby, 1931, p.339-340; Heiland, 1963, p.548-549). These
methods are also known as the ABC method in the Americas, (Nettleton, 1940;
Dobrin, 1976), Hagiwara's method in Japan, (Hagiwara and Omote, 1939), and
the plus-minus method in Europe, (Hagedoorn, 1959). There are no fundamental
mathematical differences between each of these methods, and usually the
choice of a particular version is a function of geography. Mathematically, the
reciprocal methods can be demonstrated to be simple extensions of the ITM
whereby depths and wavespeeds, which are determined at the shot points with
the ITM, are also computed at each detector position between the shot points
(Palmer, 1986).
2.13 - Data Processing in the Time Domain
The reciprocal methods employ two fundamental algorithms. The first, the
wavespeed analysis function t
V
, employs the subtraction of forward and reverse
traveltimes at each detector position. There can be other operations, such as the
addition of the reciprocal time, which is the traveltime from one shot point to the
other, and the halving of the result. However, the essential feature is the
subtraction operation, which effectively removes the effects of any variations in
the thicknesses of the layers above the refractor. The gradient of this function
with respect to distance is the reciprocal of the wavespeed in the refractor, V
n
.
t
V
= (t
forward
t
reverse
+ t
reciprocal
)/2 (2.1)
d/dx t
V
= 1 / V
n
(2.2)
34
The second algorithm employs the addition of the forward and reverse
traveltimes at each detector position, in order to obtain a measure of the depth to
the refracting interface in units of time. This function, known as the time-depth t
G
,
can also include other operations, such as the subtraction of the reciprocal time,
and the halving of the result.
t
G
= (t
forward
+ t
reverse
- t
reciprocal
)/2 (2.3)
The two algorithms of the reciprocal methods represent major advances in the
processing of shallow seismic refraction data. The processing is carried out in
the time domain and therefore it does not require an accurate knowledge of the
wavespeeds in the layers above the target refractor. Although accurate
wavespeeds are necessary for the final conversion to a depth cross-section,
nevertheless, many useful processing operations can be conveniently carried out
in the time domain prior to that step. This advantage is not shared with methods
which operate in the depth domain, such as the wavefront reconstruction
methods and tomography.
The depth z
G
, is computed from the time-depth and the wavespeeds in the
refractor and the layer(s) above with equation 4, viz.
z
G
= t
G
DCF (2.4)
where the DCF, the depth conversion factor relating the time-depth and the
depth, is given by:
DCF = V V
n
/ (V
n
2
- V
2
)

(2.5)
or
DCF = V / cos i (2.6)
where
35
sin i = V / V
n
(2.7)
and where V is the average wavespeed above the refractor.
2.14 - Accommodation of the Offset Distance with Refraction
Migration
The offset distance is the horizontal separation between the point of emergence
of the ray on the refractor interface and the point of detection at the surface. The
offset distance is implicitly accommodated in all refraction techniques which use
a depth conversion factor similar to the horizontal layer approximations of the
ITM in equation 2.5.
In addition, there are several inversion techniques which explicitly accommodate
the offset distance. These methods seek to employ the process known as
refraction migration whereby any traveltime anomalies are laterally shifted by the
offset distance so that they are positioned above their source on the refractor.
They include the delay time method (Gardner, 1939; Barthelmes, 1946; Barry,
1967), Hales method (Hales, 1958; Sjogren, 1979, 1984) and the generalized
reciprocal method (GRM) (Palmer, 1980, 1986).
These methods represent a systematic evolution of the refraction migration
concept. In the delay time method, refraction migration is applied individually to
the forward and reverse traveltime graphs, and after a series of adjustments and
corrections, an averaged delay time profile is generated. Hales method
essentially achieves the same results more readily with a graphical approach
using reversed traveltime data. In addition, the use of the reversed traveltime
data within a single operation reduces the effects of dip on the offset distance (as
well as the time-depths) to the horizontal layer value.
36
However, both of these methods ideally require an accurate knowledge of the
wavespeeds in the layers above the target refractor, in order to compute the
offset distance. This problem is addressed with the GRM through the use of a
series of offset distances (known as XY distances), and then selecting the
optimum value with a minimum variance criterion (Palmer, 1991). This is a
unique and useful feature of the GRM because under certain conditions, it can
permit the computation of the gross or average wavespeed model above the
refractor for a wide range of models using the optimum XY value. These models
include the single layer with a constant average wavespeed, two layers one of
which may be undetected, variable wavespeed media, and simple transverse
isotropy (Palmer 1981, 1992, 2000b, 2001a).
2.15 - Using Refraction Migration to Recognize Artifacts
The use of refraction migration was once an important part of refraction inversion
when the method was applied to deep targets in petroleum exploration. In those
applications, the offset distances could be hundreds or even thousands of
metres, and refraction migration was essential to ensure that any boreholes were
accurately sited with respect to the target.
However, with the restriction of refraction methods to predominantly shallow
targets in the last fifty years, the use of refraction migration has not always been
considered necessary because the offset distances are commonly only a few
metres or a few tens of metres at most. Furthermore, any improvements in the
resolution of the depths to the refractor were often quite subtle, especially with
large detector intervals, and so it was usually considered difficult to justify the
extra effort in using refraction migration.
The major benefit of using refraction migration in shallow investigations is in the
determination of wavespeeds in the refractor where they are commonly used as
37
a measure of rock strength. It is especially important to detect narrow zones with
low wavespeeds which can be representative of shear zones. However, the
wavespeed analysis function of the reciprocal methods generates narrow zones
with high and low wavespeeds, which are artifacts of inversion algorithm, where
there are changes in depth to the refracting interface.
The use of the GRM to separate genuine lateral variations in the refractor from
artifacts which are a product of the inversion algorithm is described in Palmer
(1991) and Palmer (2001b).
2.16 - Non-uniqueness in Determining Refractor Wavespeeds
The presentations of the wavespeed analysis function and the time-depths for a
range of XY or offset distances, represent families of geologically acceptable
starting models (Palmer, 2000c; 2000c) which satisfy the original traveltime data
(Palmer, 1980, p.49-52; 1986, p.106-107) to better than a millisecond. This is
simply another statement of the fundamental problem of non-uniqueness
common to all inversion processes (Oldenburg, 1984; Treitel and Lines, 1988),
but it is rarely if ever, addressed satisfactorily with refraction methods.
The problems of non-uniqueness are important to all refraction inversion
methods but especially so with model-based methods or tomography. The family
of starting models generated with the GRM can be useful for examining the
extent of the non-uniqueness problem with data obtained during routine surveys.
In many cases, the minimum variance criterion of the generalized reciprocal
method (GRM) can resolve whether lateral variations in the refractor wavespeeds
are genuine or if they are artifacts. However, this approach usually requires
good quality data and small detector intervals in relation to the depth of the
refractor. Commonly, detector intervals of less than about one quarter of the
38
target depth are recommended. In those cases where the effective application of
the GRM is not possible, the use the amplitudes (Palmer, 2001c) is proposed.
2.17 - Fundamental Requirements for Refraction Inversion
In summary, the performance of all methods for inverting shallow seismic
refraction data depends upon the quality of the field data, and the applicability of
the inversion model to the geological realities. Good quality redundant data are
essential for resolving many basic ambiguities. However, there are fundamental
limitations in accurately determining the wavespeed stratification from even the
most complete sets of data. Not all layers are necessarily detected in the
traveltime data, because some layers are either too thin, or the wavespeeds are
less than that in the overlying layer. Furthermore, the wavespeed stratification
cannot be determined with high precision within those layers which are detected,
because the refracted rays do not penetrate deeply enough, or because the
horizontal rather than the vertical wavespeed is measured.
The difficulties in accurately determining the inversion model indicate that as
much of the data processing as possible should be carried out in the time
domain, rather than in the depth domain. The wavespeed analysis and the time-
depth algorithms of the group of processing techniques known as the reciprocal
methods, satisfy these requirements.
In addition, there is another fundamental issue of non-uniqueness in determining
lateral variations in wavespeeds in the refractor. This requires the use of
refraction migration in order to accommodate the offset distance. However,
incorrect migration distances which would result from the use of incorrect
wavespeeds in the layers above the target refractor, can still generate results
which satisfy the traveltime data. This problem can be overcome with the use of
39
multiple migration distances with the GRM and the use of the minimum variance
criterion.
References
Acheson, C. H., 1963, Time-depth and velocity-depth relations in Western
Canada: Geophysics, 28, 894-909.
Acheson, C. H., 1981, Time-depth and velocity-depth relations in sedimentary
basins - a study based on current investigations in the Arctic Islands and an
interpretation of experience elsewhere: Geophysics, 46, 707-716.
Aldridge, D. F., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1992, Refractor imaging using an
automated wavefront reconstruction method: Geophysics 57, 378-385.
Bamford, D., and Nunn, K. R., 1979, In-situ seismic measurements of crack
anisotropy in the Carboniferous limestone of North-west England: Geophys.
Prosp., 27, 322-338.
Barker, J. A., 1991, Transport in fractured rock, in Downing, R. A., and Wilkinson,
W. B., eds., Applied groundwater hydrology: Clarendon Press, 199-216.
Barthelmes, A. J., 1946, Application of continuous profiling to refraction shooting:
Geophysics 11, 24-42.
Barry, K. M., 1967, Delay time and its application to refraction profile
interpretation: in Seismic refraction prospecting, A. W. Musgrave, ed., Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, p. 348-361.
40
Berry, J. E., 1959, Acoustic velocity in porous media: Petroleum Trans. AIME,
216, 262-270.
Birch, F., 1960, The velocity of compressional waves in rocks at 10 kilobars: J.
Geophys. Res., 65, 1083-1102.
Brandt, H., 1955, A study of the speed of sound in porous granular media: J.
Appl. Mech., 22, 479-486
Crampin, S., McGonigle, R., and Bamford, D., 1980, Estimating crack
parameters from observations of P-wave velocity anisotropy: Geophysics 45,
345-360.
Dobrin, M. B., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting, 3rd edition:
McGraw-Hill Inc.
Domzalski, W., 1956, Some problems of shallow seismic refraction
investigations: Geophysical Prospecting 4, 140-166.
Edge, A. G., and Laby, T. H., 1931, The principles and practice of geophysical
prospecting: Cambridge University Press.
Ewing, M., Woollard, G. P., and Vine, A. C., 1939, Geophysical investigations in
the emerged and submerged Atlantic coastal plain, Part 3, Barnegat Bay, New
Jersey section: GSA Bulletin 50, 257-296.
Faust, L. Y., 1951, Seismic velocity as a function of depth and geologic time:
Geophysics, 16, 192-206.
Faust, L. Y., 1953, A velocity function including lithologic variation: Geophysics,
18, 271-288.
41
Gardner, L. W., 1939, An areal plan for mapping subsurface structure by
refraction shooting: Geophysics 4, 247-259.
Gassman, F., 1951, Elastic waves through a packing of spheres: Geophysics,
16, 673-685.
Gassman, F., 1953, Note on Elastic waves through a packing of spheres:
Geophysics, 16, 269.
Gunn, P., ed, 1997, Thematic issue: airborne magnetic and radiometric surveys,
AGSO Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 17(2), 1-216.
Hagedoorn, J. G., 1954, A practical example of an anisotropic velocity layer:
Geophysical Prospecting 2, 52-60.
Hagedoorn, J. G., 1955, Templates for fitting smooth velocity functions to seismic
refraction and reflection data: Geophysical Prospecting 3, 325-338.
Hagedoorn, J. G., 1959, The plus-minus method of interpreting seismic refraction
sections: Geophys. Prosp., 7, 158-182.
Hagiwara, T., and Omote, S., 1939, Land creep at Mt Tyausa-Yama
(Determination of slip plane by seismic prospecting): Tokyo Univ. Earthquake
Res. Inst. Bull., 17, 118-137.
Hales, F. W., 1958, An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic
refraction lines: Geophys. Prosp., 6, 285-294.
Hall, J., 1970, The correlation of seismic velocities with formations in the
southwest of Scotland: Geophys. Prosp., 18, 134-156.
42
Hamilton, E. L., 1970, Sound velocity and related properties of marine sediments,
North Pacific: J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4423-4446.
Hamilton, E. L., 1971, Elastic properties of marine sediments: J. Geophys. Res.,
76, 579-604.
Hawkins, L. V., 1961, The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic refraction
investigations: Geophysics, 26, 806-819.
Heiland, C. A., 1963, Geophysical exploration; Prentice Hall.
Iida, K., 1939, Velocity of elastic waves in granular substances: Tokyo Univ.
Earthquake Res. Inst. Bull., 17, 783-897.
Jankowsky, W., 1970, Empirical investigation of some factors affecting elastic
velocities in carbonate rocks: Geophys. Prosp., 18 103-118.
Knox, W. A., 1967, Multilayer near-surface refraction computations: in Seismic
refraction prospecting, A. W. Musgrave, ed., Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, p. 197-216.
Lankston, R. W., 1990, High-resolution refraction seismic data acquisition and
interpretation: in Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, S. H. Ward, ed.,
Investigations in geophysics no. 5, vol. 1, 45-74, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.
Lanz, E., Maurer H., and Green, A. G., 1998, Refraction tomography over a
buried waste disposal site: Geophysics, 63, 1414-1433.
43
Maillet, R., and Bazerque, J., 1931, La prospection sismique du sous-sol:
Annales des Mines 20, 314
Mayne, W. H., 1962, Common-reflection-point horizontal data-stacking
techniques: Geophysics, 27, 927-938.
McCollum, B., and Snell, F. A., 1932, Asymmetry of sound velocity in stratified
formations: in Early geophysical papers, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Tulsa, 216-227.
Menke, W., 1989, Geophysical data analysis: discrete inverse theory: Academic
Press, Inc.
Merrick, N. P., Odins, J. A., and Greenhalgh, S. A., 1978, A blind zone solution to
the problem of hidden layers within a sequence of horizontal or dipping
refractors: Geophysical Prospecting 26, 703-721.
Miller, K. C., Harder, S. H., and Adams, D. C., and O'Donnell, T., 1998,
Integrating high-resolution refraction data into near-surface seismic reflection
data processing and interpretation: Geophysics 63, 1339-1347.
Musgrave, A. W., 1967, Seismic refraction prospecting: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, Tulsa.
Nestvold, E. O., 1992, 3-D seismic: is the promise fulfilled?: The Leading Edge,
11, 12-19.
Nettleton, L. L., 1940, Geophysical prospecting for oil: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
44
Oldenburg, D. W., 1984, An introduction to linear inverse theory: Trans IEEE
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, GE-22(6), 666.
Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction
interpretation: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Palmer, D., 1981, An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method of seismic
refraction interpretation: Geophysics 46, 1508-1518.
Palmer, D., 1986, Refraction seismics: the lateral resolution of structure and
seismic velocity: Geophysical Press.
Palmer, D, 1990, The generalized reciprocal method an integrated approach to
shallow refraction seismology: Exploration Geophysics 21, 33-44.
Palmer, D., 1991, The resolution of narrow low-velocity zones with the
generalized reciprocal method: Geophysical Prospecting 39, 1031-1060.
Palmer, D., 1992, Is forward modelling as efficacious as minimum variance for
refraction inversion?: Exploration Geophysics 23, 261-266, 521.
Palmer, D, 2000a, Can new acquisition methods improve signal-to-noise ratios
with seismic refraction techniques?: Exploration Geophysics, 31, 275-300.
Palmer, D., 2000b, The measurement of weak anisotropy with the generalized
reciprocal method: Geophysics, 65, 1583-1591.
Palmer, D., 2000c, Can amplitudes resolve ambiguities in refraction inversion?:
Exploration Geophysics 31, 304-309.
Palmer, D., 2000d, Starting models for refraction inversion: submitted.
45
Palmer, D., 2001a, Model determination for refraction inversion: submitted.
Palmer, D, 2001b, Comments on A brief study of the generalized reciprocal
method and some of the limitations of the method by Bengt Sjgren,
Geophysical. Prospecting, submitted.
Palmer, D, 2001c, Resolving refractor ambiguities with amplitudes, Geophysics
66, 1590-1593.
Paterson, N. R., 1956, Seismic wave propagation in porous granular media:
Geophysics, 21, 691-714.
Rockwell, D. W., 1967, A general wavefront method, in Musgrave, A .W., Ed.,
Seismic Refraction Prospecting: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 363-415.
Sheriff, R. E., and Geldart, L. P., 1995, Exploration Seismology, 2
nd
edition:
Cambridge University Press.
Sjogren, B., 1979, Refractor velocity determination - cause and nature of some
errors: Geophys. Prosp., 27, 507-538.
Sjogren, B., 1980, The law of parallelism in refraction shooting: Geophysical
Prospecting 28, 716-743.
Sjogren, B., 1984, Shallow refraction seismics: Chapman and Hall.
Soske, J. L., 1959, The blind zone problem in engineering geophysics:
Geophysics 24, 359-365.
Stefani, J. P., 1995, Turning-ray tomography: Geophysics 60, 1917-1929.
46
Thornburg, H. R., 1930, Wavefront diagrams in seismic interpretation: AAPG
Bulletin, 14, 185-200.
Treitel, S., and Lines, L., 1988, Geophysical examples of inversion (with a grain
of salt): The Leading Edge 7, 32-35.
Walker, C. S., and Win, M. A., 1997, A new standard in the practice of
engineering seismic refraction, in McCann, D. M., Eddleston, M., Fleming, P. J.,
and Reeves, G. M., eds., Modern geophysics in engineering geology: The
Geological Society, 391-398.
Whiteley, R. J., and Greenhalgh, S. A., 1979, Velocity inversion and the shallow
seismic refraction method: Geoexploration 17, 125-141.
White, J. E., and Sengbush, R. L.,, 1953, Velocity measurements in near surface
formations: Geophysics, 18, 54-69.
Wyllie, W. R., Gregory, A. R.,and Gardner, L. W., 1956, Elastic wave velocities in
heterogeneous and porous media: Geophysics, 21, 41-70.
Wyllie, W. R., Gregory, A. R.,and Gardner, L. W., 1958, An experimental
investigation affecting elastic wave velocities in porous media: Geophysics, 23,
459-593.
Zhang, J., and Toksoz, M. N., 1998, Nonlinear refraction traveltime tomography:
Geophysics 63, 1726-1737.
Zhu, X., Sixta, D. P., and Andstman, B. G., 1992, Tomostatics: turning-ray
tomography + static corrections: The Leading Edge 11, 15-23.