Comparison of surface-wave techniques to estimate S- and P-wave velocity models from active seismic data
<p>The acquisition of seismic exploration data in remote locations presents several logistical and economic criticalities. The irregular distribution of sources and/or receivers facilitates seismic acquisition operations in these areas. A convenient approach is to deploy nodal receivers on a r...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | Solid Earth |
| Online Access: | https://se.copernicus.org/articles/15/367/2024/se-15-367-2024.pdf |
| Summary: | <p>The acquisition of seismic exploration data in remote locations presents several logistical and economic criticalities. The irregular distribution of sources and/or receivers facilitates seismic acquisition operations in these areas. A convenient approach is to deploy nodal receivers on a regular grid and to use sources only in accessible locations, creating an irregular source–receiver layout. It is essential to evaluate, adapt, and verify processing workflows, specifically for near-surface velocity model estimation using surface-wave analysis, when working with these types of datasets. In this study, we applied three surface-wave techniques (i.e., wavelength–depth (W/D) method, laterally constrained inversion (LCI), and surface-wave tomography (SWT)) to a large-scale 3D dataset obtained from a hard-rock site using the irregular source–receiver acquisition method. The methods were fine-tuned for the data obtained from hard-rock sites, which typically exhibit a low signal-to-noise ratio. The wavelength–depth method is a data transformation method that is based on a relationship between skin depth and surface-wave wavelength and provides both S- and P-wave velocity (<span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>s</sub></span> and <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>p</sub></span>) models. We used Poisson's ratios estimated through the wavelength–depth method to constrain the laterally constrained inversion and surface-wave tomography and to retrieve both <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>s</sub></span> and <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>p</sub></span> also from these methods. The pseudo-3D <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>s</sub></span> and <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>p</sub></span> models were obtained down to 140 <span class="inline-formula">m</span> depth over an area of approximately 900 <span class="inline-formula">×</span> 1500 <span class="inline-formula">m</span><span class="inline-formula"><sup>2</sup></span>. The estimated models from the methods matched the geological information available for the site. A difference of less than 6 % was observed between the estimated <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>s</sub></span> models from the three methods, whereas this value was 7.1 % for the retrieved <span class="inline-formula"><i>V</i><sub>p</sub></span> models. The methods were critically compared in terms of resolution and efficiency, which provides valuable insights into the potential of surface-wave analysis for estimating near-surface models at hard-rock sites.</p> |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1869-9510 1869-9529 |