Scribd
Upload
25 views

Lab 3

Uploaded by

yared
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views

Lab 3

Uploaded by

yared
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

1

Geol 335.3

Lab 3 – Interpretation of refraction seismic data


using the PLUS-MINUS method

The data for this lab represents a shallow seismic investigation for groundwater
exploration. The problem is to find the deepest point of a buried valley that might
contain a gravel aquifer. 24 geophones were placed at 12m intervals in a fixed spread.
Four shots were fired at locations along the spread. Each shot was fired at the depth of
1m.
You may use Matlab or Excel, or do all plotting and calculations by hand.

Distance Elevation Shot A Shot b Shot C Shot D


(m) (m)
0 101.0 Shot position .068 .144 .196
12 101.0 .015 .059 .135 .187
24 100.9 .024 .051 .127 .179
36 100.9 .033 .042 .118 .170
48 100.9 .042 .034 .110 .162
60 100.8 .050 .025 .102 .153
72 100.7 .059 .015 .093 .145
84 100.6 .068 Shot position .085 .136
96 100.4 .077 .015 .076 .128
108 100.2 .086 .026 .068 .120
120 100.2 .095 .035 .060 .112
132 100.5 .104 .045 .052 .104
144 101.2 .114 .054 .045 .097
156 102.0 .124 .064 .030 .090
168 102.5 .134 .074 .015 .083
180 103.0 .144 .085 Shot position .075
192 103.3 .154 .095 .015 .068
204 103.6 .163 .104 .030 .062
216 103.9 .168 .109 .045 .053
228 104.2 .173 .114 .053 .044
240 104.5 .179 .119 .058 .035
252 104.7 .184 .124 .063 .026
264 104.8 .190 .130 .069 .015
276 105.0 .196 .137 .076 Shot position
This table is also provided in Excel format from which you can extract columns for
loading into Matlab (or even process it in Excel? This is possible but not encouraged.)
2

1) [10%] On the same sheet of paper, plot the refraction time/distance graphs and the
surface elevations.
2) [5%] Compare the near-offset (direct wave) moveouts from all four shots.
Estimate V1 from shot C. Note that in other shots, the direct-wave branches are
poorly sampled by geophones. What does this mean in terms of the thickness of
the first layer?
3) [5%] Identify the head wave travel-time segments that you will use in the plus-
minus inversion. Note the change in the moveouts from shots A and B near x =
200–220 m. Consider two ways to interpret these changes: (i) as caused by a
change in refractor dip (in which direction?), and (ii) as an emergence of another,
deeper refractor. For the moment, stay with option (i).
4) [25%] Calculate the MINUS times for all pairs of reversed head wave segments:
tMINUS = Tax – Tbx.
Tax is the time from shot A to receiver x. Use only the head wave segments that
have opposite slopes on the time/distance graphs. Plot the MINUS times vs. offset
for ALL shot pairs on the same graph and interpret the refractor velocity (V2).
The slope of the MINUS graph is 2/V2. Where does the change in velocity occur
on the profile?
5) [25%] Calculate the PLUS times for all pairs of shots. Use only the head wave
segments that have opposite slopes:
tPLUS = 0.5(Tax + Tbx – Tab).
The PLUS theory is valid for shots on the surface. If the shots are buried, travel
times are smaller than they would be if the shot were on the surface, so a
correction should be made. The correction is the DELAY time associated with
the shot depth. Therefore, the delay time associated with the shot depth (Dad, Dbd,
Dcd, Ddd) should be added to all times. In this exercise, we will use 1ms for all
shot delay times since all shot depths are 1m and all picks are rounded to the
nearest millisecond:
tPLUS = 0.5(Tax + Tbx – Tab + 0.001 s)
6) [15%] Determine the depth below the shot points to the first interface using the
following equation:
2 Z1 cos  ,
t PLUS  2Tdelay 
V1
where Z1 is the depth to the first interface, V1 is the first layer velocity at offset x,
and  is obtained through the Snell’s law. Plot your depth estimates on your
elevation plot.
7) [10%] Now return to the uncertainty of the change refractor slopes in question 3).
How would the model change if we now assume that the travel-time branches at
x > 200-220 m from shots A and B come from a deeper refractor? Can you offer
further arguments in favor or against such a model?
3

8) [5%] Rounding the times to 1ms implies a time error of t ≈ 0.5 ms. How large
depth error does this amount to? For a comparison, how much depth uncertainty
would be caused by a 0.5-ms normal-incidence reflection time error?

Turn in:
Plots and write-ups in a zipped directory.

You might also like