93

Chapter 5
Resolving Refractor Ambiguities With
Amplitudes
5.1 - Summary
Amplitudes are used to constrain refraction models. This study demonstrates
that the refraction time section generated through the convolution of forward and
reverse refraction traces together with a static shift, facilitates the convenient
recognition of amplitude variations related to changes in refractor wavespeed.
For large contrasts in wavespeeds between the upper layer and the refractor, the
head coefficient is approximately proportional to the ratio of the specific acoustic
impedances. Since the convolution operation effectively multiplies the
amplitudes of the forward and reverse arrivals, the convolved amplitudes are
proportional to the square of this ratio. In general, the higher the contrast in the
refractor wavespeed and/or density, the lower the amplitude. The regions
recognized in the wavespeed analysis function correlate with those determined
with amplitudes, thereby providing an additional constraint on inversion with
model-based approaches.
94
5.2 - Introduction
The inversion of seismic refraction data with model-based methods is inherently
ambiguous, and artifacts, which are geologically plausible and significant, can be
introduced by the algorithms commonly used to generate starting models. In
many cases, the minimum variance criterion of the generalized reciprocal method
(GRM) (Palmer, 1980; Palmer, 1986; Palmer, 1991) can resolve whether lateral
variations in the refractor wavespeeds are genuine, or whether they are artifacts
of the inversion algorithm. As an additional constraint, this study demonstrates
that any genuine lateral changes in refractor wavespeed should also have an
associated amplitude expression.
Amplitudes are not commonly used in seismic refraction studies, mainly because
the very large geometric spreading component dominates any variations related
to wavespeed in the refractor. For near surface investigations, the source-to-
detector distances are generally less than five or six times the dominant
wavelength. As a result, the geometric spreading can be very rapid and it is not
satisfactorily described with the commonly used reciprocal distance squared
expression. However, the multiplication of amplitudes through the convolution of
forward and reverse traces effectively compensates for geometric spreading
(Palmer, 2001). The resultant amplitudes are then described with the head
coefficient.
This study shows that the head coefficient is a function of the contrasts in
wavespeeds and/or densities between the upper layer and the refractor, and that
there are changes in the convolved amplitudes where there are genuine changes
in the wavespeed of the refractor. Since the convolution operation effectively
multiplies the amplitudes of the forward and reverse arrivals, the convolved
amplitudes are proportional to the square of the head coefficient.
95
The paper begins with a discussion of refraction amplitudes with plane horizontal
interfaces and proposes a simplification of the head coefficient for large contrasts
in wavespeeds. The paper then applies this simplification to a case history study
from southeastern Australia where the refractor model is quite complex with both
large variations in depths to and wavespeeds in the refractor.
5.3 - Amplitude and Wavespeed Relationships
The expression for the amplitude of the head wave for a thick refractor with a
plane horizontal interface has been derived by Heelan (1953) and Zvolinskii,
(Werth, 1967), who showed that:
Amplitude = K F(t) / (rL
3
)

(5.1)
where K is the head coefficient, which depends on the elastic properties of the
upper and lower layers, F(t) is the displacement potential of the incident pulse, r
is the source to detector distance, and L is the distance the wave has traveled
within the refractor.
The expression for K given by Werth (1967) is
K = 2 [
1
(1 + 2 m
2
) +
2
( - 2 m
2
)]
2
(5.2)
[
2
(1 + 2 m
2
- )
2
+
2

1
(1 + 2 m
2
)
2
]
2

where = V
P1
/ V
P2
=
1
/
2
m = (V
S1
2
/ V
P1
2
) - V
S2
2
/ V
P1
2
= (1 -
2
)

1
= (V
P1
2
/ V
S1
2
-
2
)

96

2
= (V
P1
2
/ V
S2
2
-
2
)

V
P1
= compressional wavespeed in upper medium
V
S1
= shear wavespeed in upper medium

1
= density in upper medium, and similarly for the lower medium 2.
The evaluation of K for a selected set of elastic parameters (OBrien, 1967;
Cerveny and Ravindra, 1971) shows that the amplitude decreases as the
contrast in the wavespeed between the two media increases. This result is in
keeping with the observations of field data (OBrien, 1967), and is confirmed by
the results presented in this study.
Intuitively this result seems unexpected: high wavespeeds and densities are
usually associated with more competent rocks and therefore with better energy
transmission properties. However, these results have parallels with the Zoeppritz
equations used in reflection seismology, wherein high transmission coefficients
occur with low contrasts in the specific acoustic impedance, while low
transmission coefficients occur with high contrasts.
For strong contrasts in wavespeeds, ie for 0,
K =
1
V
P1
/
2
V
P2
(5.3)
Equation 5.3 is probably valid for as large as 0.7 (Cerveny and Ravindra, 1971,
Figure 3.11), which would constitute a major proportion of shallow seismic
refraction applications. For larger values of , there is a rapid increase in
amplitude, which is given by (Cerveny and Ravindra, 1971, p139):
K 1 / (1 (V
P1
/ V
P2
)
2
)

(5.4)
In the generation of the convolution section, the amplitudes of the forward and
reverse traces are multiplied, and to a reasonable approximation, the effects of
97
dipping refractors are minimized (Palmer, 2001). Therefore, the approximation of
equation 5.3 can be applied directly, and so the convolution amplitude varies
approximately as the square of the contrast in the specific acoustic impedances
between the overburden and the refractor.
The simplified relationship between amplitudes and the specific acoustic
impedances in equation 5.3 takes no account of variations in shear wavespeeds,
attenuation or diffractions which constitute a large proportion of the refracted
signal with irregular interfaces. However, the approximation suggested in
equation 5.3, may be a practical approach to relating refraction amplitudes to
petrophysical parameters for routine applications.
5.4 - Mt Bulga Case History
Refraction data were recorded across a major sub-vertical shear zone which
occurs near the contact between Ordovician volcanics and meta-sediments at Mt
Bulga, in southeastern Australia. Figure 5.1 presents the traveltime data for five
shots from the original ensemble of nine, representing every other shot. They
indicate a three layer model consisting of a thin surface layer of friable soil with a
wavespeed of about 400 m/s, a thicker layer of weathered material with a
wavespeed of approximately 700 m/s, and a main refractor with an irregular
interface.
The traveltime data were processed or inverted using the two algorithms of the
generalized reciprocal method (GRM) (Palmer, 1980; Palmer,1986) for
computing time-depths and refractor wavespeeds.
The time-depth t
G
, were computed with equation 5.5, viz.
t
G
= (t
AY
+ t
BX
- t
AB
- XY/V
n
)/2 (5.5)
98
where A, X, G, Y, and B are colinear, A and B are source points, X and Y are
detectors and G is midway between X and Y, t
AY
is the traveltime from A to Y, t
BX
is the traveltime from B to X, t
AB
is the reciprocal time, the traveltime from the
source at A to the source at B, and V
n
is the wavespeed in the refractor. Figure
5.2 shows the time-depths computed with an XY value of 5 meters and a
reciprocal time of 147 ms, (Palmer, 1980, equation 33), and they detail the quite
irregular shape of the refractor interface.
Figure 5.1: Traveltime data for a line crossing a major shear zone at Mt Bulga.
Offset shot points are 120 m from either end. Station spacing is 5 m.
99
Figure 5.2: Time-depths computed from traveltime data with shot points at
stations 1 and 97.
The refractor wavespeeds are obtained from the reciprocal of the gradient of the
wavespeed analysis function t
V
, given by equation 5.6, viz.
t
V
= (t
AY
- t
BX
+ t
AB
)/ 2 (5.6)
d / dx t
V
= 1 / V
n
(5.7)
Figure 5.3 shows the generalized wavespeed analysis function for an XY value of
5 meters. The refractor can be separated into four main regions with
wavespeeds of 5,000 m/s, 2,200 m/s, 5,000 m/s, and 2,600 m/s. The scatter of
points about the line between stations 25 and 54 has been interpreted as errors
in picking first arrivals, rather than lateral variations in the wavespeed of the
refractor.
The time-depths presented in Figure 5.2 are converted into depths z
G
, with
equation 5.8, viz.
100
Figure 5.3: The generalized wavespeeds analysis function for a 5 meter XY
value.
z
G
= t
G
/ DCF (5.8)
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
)

(5.9)
or
DCF = V / cos i (5.10)
101
where V is the average wavespeed above the refractor and
sin i = V / V
n
(5.11)
Figure 5.4 shows the depth section in which the upper two layers have been
approximated with a single wavespeed using an average wavespeed
approximation (Palmer, 1980, equation 27) of 700 m/s. This approximation
effectively ignores the thin surface layer but introduces only negligible errors in
depth computations.
Figure 5.4: Edited depth section computed with the time-depths shown in Figure
5.2, using an average first layer wavespeed of 700 m/s and the four refractor
wavespeeds of 5000 m/s, 2200 m/s, 5000 m/s and 2600 m/s.
The first region is between stations 24 and 54, and has a wavespeed of 5,000
m/s and depths ranging from 15 meters to 30 meters, with an average of about
102
25 meters. This region could be further divided with the zone between stations
42 and 54 having a slightly higher wavespeed.
Figure 5.5: Convolution section generated with shot records with source points
at stations 1 and 97.
103
The second region is between stations 54 and 62. It has a wavespeed of 2,200
m/s and an average depth of over 30 meters. It corresponds with the inferred
location of the major shear zone.
The third region is between stations 62 and 67. It has a wavespeed of 5000 m/s
and depths range from 28 to 15 meters. This region is relatively narrow, and the
wavespeed is not well determined, possibly because it is associated with a major
change in depths. A re-interpretation of Figure 5.3 indicates that a lower value of
less than 4000 m/s could be assigned to this region.
The fourth region is between stations 67 and 73. It has a wavespeed of 2600
m/s and an average depth of about 15 meters.
The convolution section presented in Figure 5.5, shows the same structure as
the time-depths in Figure 5.2, and it is possible to recognize four regions with the
relative amplitudes of approximately 1, 5, 2, and 4 (Palmer, 2001; chapter 3,
Figure 3.9). These regions correspond with those determined on the basis of
refractor wavespeeds in Figure 5.3. The ratios of the wavespeeds in each region
to the average wavespeed in the overburden are 0.14, 0.32, 0.14, and 0.27. The
square of these ratios normalized to the lowest value are 1, 5.2, 1, 3.7. They are
similar to the ratios of the convolved amplitudes, except for the third region,
where a refractor wavespeed of 3540 m/s would be compatible with the observed
amplitude.
This case history provides a compelling demonstration of the correlation between
amplitudes and wavespeeds with a complex refractor exhibiting large changes in
both depth and wavespeed. Not only do major changes in wavespeed result in
marked amplitude variations, such as the contrast between the regions with
wavespeeds of 5000 m/s and 2200 m/s, but subtle changes within each region
can also be recognized. For example, the region between stations 42 and 54
104
has a slightly higher wavespeed and lower convolved amplitudes than is the case
between stations 25 and 42.
This example also demonstrates the ability of amplitudes to help resolve any
ambiguities in the determination of refractor wavespeeds. The third region of the
refractor between stations 62 and 67 is relatively narrow and has a large change
in depth. Both of these factors may affect the amplitudes and the accuracy of the
measurement of the wavespeed. A re-interpretation of the wavespeed analysis
function together with the amplitudes suggest that a lower wavespeed of
between 3540 m/s and 4000 m/s would be more appropriate for this interval.
5.5 - Conclusions
The inversion of refraction data can be ambiguous. Artifacts, such as narrow
zones with higher and lower wavespeeds can be produced where there are
changes in the depth to the refractor. In general, forward modeling does not
recognize or correct these artifacts.
The amplitudes of the refracted signals provide another means of recognizing
genuine lateral variations in wavespeed within the refractor, once the large
effects of geometric spreading are removed. This study uses the convolution of
forward and reverse seismic traces to compensate for geometrical spreading.
The refraction time section obtained in this way facilitates the correlation of
structure on the refractor interface with amplitudes, and in turn with wavespeeds
within the refractor.
The case history has large variations in depths to and wavespeeds within the
refractor and provides a searching test of the method. The regions in the
refractor recognized with the wavespeed analysis function correlate closely with
the regions recognized with the convolved amplitudes or the amplitude products.
105
Low contrasts in the wavespeeds between the refractor and the overlying layer
produce higher amplitudes than is the case with high contrasts.
This feature alone is very useful in constraining the generation of artifacts with
model-based inversion. The gross features of the interpretation model
recognizable in the convolution section should also have corresponding
expressions in the results obtained with other approaches.
For large contrasts in the wavespeeds and/or densities between the upper layer
and the refractor, the head coefficient is approximately proportional to the ratio of
the specific acoustic impedances. In turn, the amplitudes in the convolution
section are proportional to the square of this ratio because the forward and
reverse amplitudes are multiplied with convolution. This approximation is
satisfactory for three of the regions examined in the case history. Furthermore, it
supports a revision of the wavespeeds in a narrow region of the refractor to a
lower value than was initially inferred.
The convolution section is a very effective single presentation for combining the
information depicting the geometry of the refractor which is obtained with the
time-depth algorithm, and the information depicting the wavespeed in the
refractor which is usually obtained with the wavespeed analysis algorithm. It is
very rapid to generate, avoiding in particular the familiar time consuming tasks of
determining first arrival traveltimes and amplitudes. In addition, little, if any, a
priori information on upper layer or refractor wavespeeds is required, although of
course such information is essential for the generation of final depth cross
sections.
Accordingly, the convolution section is an extremely useful and convenient
presentation for inclusion in the routine processing of seismic refraction data
using any method.
106
5.6 - References
CervenY, V., and Ravindra, R., 1971, Theory of seismic head waves: University
of Toronto Press.
Heelan, P. A., 1953, On the theory of head waves: Geophysics, 18, 871-893.
OBrien, P. N. S., 1967, The use of amplitudes in seismic refraction survey, in
Musgrave, A. W., ed., Seismic refraction prospecting: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 85-118.
Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic refraction
Interpretation: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Palmer, D., 1986, Refraction seismics: the lateral resolution of structure and
seismic velocity: Geophysical Press.
Palmer, D., 1991, The resolution of narrow low-velocity zones with the
generalized reciprocal method: Geophys. Prosp., 39, 1031-1060.
Palmer, D., 2001, Imaging refractors with the convolution section: Geophysics
66, 1582-1589.
Werth, G. A., 1967, Method for calculating the amplitude of the refraction arrival,
in Musgrave, A. W., Ed., Seismic refraction prospecting: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 119-137.