Non‐uniqueness with refraction inversion – the Mt Bulga shear zone

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe tau‐p inversion algorithm is widely employed to generate starting models with many computer programs that implement refraction tomography. However, this algorithm can frequently fail to detect even major lateral variations in seismic velocities, such as a 50 m wide shear zone, which is the subject of this study.By contrast, the shear zone is successfully defined with the inversion algorithms of the generalized reciprocal method. The shear zone is confirmed with a 2D analysis of the head wave amplitudes, a spectral analysis of the refraction convolution section and with numerous closely spaced orthogonal seismic profiles recorded for a later 3D refraction investigation.Further improvements in resolution, which facilitate the recognition of additional zones with moderate reductions in seismic velocity, are achieved with a novel application of the Hilbert transform to the refractor velocity analysis algorithm. However, the improved resolution also requires the use of a lower average vertical seismic velocity, which accommodates a velocity reversal in the weathering. The lower seismic velocity is derived with the generalized reciprocal method, whereas most refraction tomography programs assume vertical velocity gradients as the default.Although all of the tomograms are consistent with the traveltime data, the resolution of each tomogram is comparable only with that of the starting model. Therefore, it is essential to employ inversion algorithms that can generate detailed starting models, where detailed lateral resolution is the objective.Non‐uniqueness can often be readily resolved with head wave amplitudes, attribute processing of the refraction convolution section and additional seismic traverses, prior to the acquisition of any borehole data. It is concluded that, unless specific measures are taken to address non‐uniqueness, the production of a single refraction tomogram that fits the traveltime data to sufficient accuracy does not necessarily demonstrate that the result is either correct, or even the most probable.