GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 57, NO. 10 (OCTOBER 1992). P.
1307-1318, 12 FIGS
Solving for the thickness and velocity of the
weathering layer using 2-D refraction tomography
Paul Docherty*
ABSTRACT
The weathering layer may be the most variable of all
layers; yet in seismic processing, it is routinely taken
to be uniform either in thickness or velocity. Datuming
through an incorrect weathering model can corrupt the
stack, possibly introducing false structure into deep
reflectors. Recognizing that direct measurements of
the weathering properties may not, in practice, be
readily available, this paper investigates the feasibility
of computing the weathering model from the travel-
times of refracted first arrivals. The problem is formu-
lated in terms of the difference in arrival time at
adjacent receivers, resulting in a much sparser matrix
for inversion. Lateral variations in both the weathering
thickness and velocity are sought; however, analysis
indicates a fundamental long wavelength ambiguity in
the solution, with gradual changes in velocity trad-
ing-off with gradual changes in thickness. In most
cases, it is necessary to include a small number of
constraints to obtain the true weathering model. Any
roughnessin the solution that is not required to fit the
data is most effectively removed using a second differ-
ence smoothing technique.
INTRODUCTION
The first layer below the ground surface, known as the
weathering layer, is generally a thin layer made up of low
velocity, unconsolidated material. Lateral variations in the
thickness or velocity of the weathering layer can corrupt the
continuity of events on the stacked section and, perhaps
more seriously, can introduce apparent structure into deep
reflectors. One way to remove these effects is to datum down
to a flat surface beneath the weathering base. Before the
datuming can be carried out, however, a model of the
weathering layer must be calculated-this is the goal of
refraction tomography.
Manuscriptreceivedby the Editor May 15, 1991;revisedmanuscriptreceivedMarch 30,
*Near Surface Imaging, Inc., 2990GoldenGate Drive, Golden,CO 80403.
0 1992Societyof ExplorationGeophysicists. All rightsreserved.
1307
More conventional approaches for removing weathering
effects are the various methods of refraction statics. Two
excellent reviews of refraction statics are Farrell and Eu-
wema (1984) and Russell (1989), while tnore detailed infor-
mation is available in Musgrave (1967), Dobrin (1976), and
Palmer (1980). In general, refraction statics methods calcu-
late the traveltime through the weathering layer; their weak-
ness lies in the assumption that the velocity of the weather-
ing material has been previously determined. Although it is
possible to calculate the weathering velocity from uphole
data or the arrival times of direct waves, this information
may not always be available, at least to the extent necessary
to track the oftentimes rapid lateral variations in the weath-
ering properties. An incorrect weathering velocity leads to
an incorrect weathering thickness and, therefore, to errors in
the model between the weathering base and the datum as
well. When the datum correction is calculated, though the
traveltime through the weathering layer may be correct, the
traveltime between the weathering base and the datum will
likely be in error. To datum accurately, then, it is necessary
to use the correct near-surface model.
Hampson and Russell (1984) have used refraction tomog-
raphy to compute a multi-layer near-surface model, though
the velocity in the weathering layer was assumed to be
known. In a similar approach, Schneider and Kuo (1985)
solved for the weathering thickness, again, given the weath-
ering velocity. In the refraction tomography described in de
Amorim et al. (1987), it is the base of weathering that is held
fixed while the weathering velocity absorbs all traveltime
variations. This paper investigates the feasibility of extract-
ing both weathering thickness and velocity information
simultaneously and examines the trade-off associated with
attempting to separate the two. Recently, Olsen (1989) has
reported his results on weathering layer tomography, while
White (1989) has described diving wave tomography.
Only a simple two-layer model is chosen for the study, yet
it is sufficient to illustrate the velocity-depth ambiguity
inherent in the problem. The problem is formulated in terms
of the traveltime difference between refracted arrivals at
1992.
1308 Docherty
adjacent receivers. The subsequent system to be solved has
fewer rows, is more sparse, and is better conditioned than
would be the case were the actual observations used. Anal-
ysis using the singular value decomposition provides insight
into the velocity-depth trade-off issue and motivates a strat-
egy for the inversion. It is shown that second difference
smoothing is effective at removing unnecessary roughness
from the solution, but that damping, the more common
approach, is not. The extent to which the velocity-depth
ambiguity can be resolved is examined using a synthetic data
example. Finally, weathering model and statics are com-
puted for a real data case.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
Two layers make up the model: a laterally inhomogen-
eous weathering layer and a uniform, high speed refractor
(Figure 1). The weathering layer is divided into cells of
constant velocity. Each cell is bounded above by the obser-
vation surface and below by the refractor. Boundaries be-
tween adjacent cells are vertical. The base of weathering is
described by a series of node points, joined by straight line
segments. In this study a constant refractor velocity will be
assumed.
The nodes may move up or down to accommodate
changesin the weathering thickness but their x-coordinates,
once chosen, remain fixed. The locations of the cell bound-
aries within the weathering layer are specified independently
of the node locations. Usually, I position each cell boundary
midway between two adjacent receivers, as in Figure 1, so
that the velocity in the neighborhoodof any given receiver is
constant, a feature which can be exploited when tracing the
raypaths. (A ray leaving the base of weathering at the critical
angle may be assumed to remain within a single cell and,
therefore, to travel along a straight line path on its journey
up to a source or receiver. The assumption is valid for a thin
weathering layer with a large velocity contrast at its base.)
Olsen (1989) used essentially the same parameterization for
the weathering layer.
If there are n, node points and n,, weathering velocity
cells, then the model can be described by a vector p of length
n = n7 + n,, + 1, given by
Pi = z;, i= I, ***, n;,
PIl ~ + j = “j > j= 1, *a’ ) n7,, (1)
Ptl = 7JR,
where zi is the depth of the ith node, vj is the velocity of the
jth cell, and vR is the refractor velocity.
PROBLEM FORMULATION
The problem formulation is based on the work of Holling-
shead and Slater (1979) and Bahorich et al. (1982). A
hypothetical experiment is considered in which a shot is set
off at a point A, say, located near the beginning of the line.
First arrivals from the shot are recorded at receivers all the
way to the far end of the line. Beyond the crossover distance
(Dobrin, 1976) the first arrivals are refracted waves. The
time of arrival ti of the ith refraction is assumedto be related
to the model parameters p through the nonlinear functional
r;,
?i =fifi(P)~ i= 1, -** ) MA, (2)
where mA is the total number of refracted arrivals recorded
for the shot at A. Linearizing about an initial model p. gives,
in vector notation.
t = f. + Jhp, (3)
which is the familiar equation of traveltime tomography.
Here, f, = f(po) is a vector of traveltimes through the model
po, J is the Jacobian matrix (dimension mA x n) containing
partial derivatives off, and Ap is a vector of perturbations to
the model parameters.
Rays corresponding to consecutive arrivals share a com-
mon path for much of their journey, as illustrated in Figure 2
for arrivals i - I and i. This feature of two-dimensional
(2-D) refracted rays is reflected in the structure of the matrix
I. If J is ordered such that the ith ray occupies the ith row,
then many elements appearing in one row reoccur in identi-
cal locations in the next, that is, the row vectors of J contain
many parallel components. Motivated by this observation, I
form the quantities 6ri = ti - ti_t and 6f,(p) = f;(p) -
f;_,(p), for i = 2, * a. , mA, introduce the vectors St =
(r, > St,, * * * > 6t,,,A)T, and Sf = (f,, Vi, ... , Sf,,,)‘, and
construct a new system,
St = 6fo + $‘Ap, (4)
where 6f, = 6f(po). The new Jacobian J_’contains partial
derivatives of 6f (except for its first row, which contains
partial derivatives off,) and has the same dimensions as r.
Typically, J’ is an order of magnitude more sparse than d. It
is also better conditioned since its rows are less parallel than
those of J. Conceptually, the system (4) is obtained from
equation (3) by subtracting rows corresponding to arrivals at
adjacent receivers; in practice, though, equation (4) is con-
structed directly. Figure 3 depicts the travel path required
FIG. 1. Parameterization of the weathering model. Cells of
constant velocity divide up the weathering layer. Node
points joined by straight line segments describe the weath-
ering base. A constant refractor velocity is assumed.
A i-l i
A A
\
FIG. 2. Refracted arrivals i - 1 and i due to a shot at A. The
raypaths share a common path for much of their journey.
 2-D Refraction Tomography
for the calculation of Sfi. It is made up of three legs and, as
indicated, the traveltime along one of the legs is considered
negative. I will refer to this travelpath as a “delta raypath,”
while recognizing that it is not a physical ray. Bahorich et al.
(1982) used delta raypaths in formulating the ABCD method
of refraction statics. Note that the first equation (i = 1) in (4)
represents a true arrival-the refracted arrival closest to the
shot.
The experiment described above is not standard practice
in production surveys. Typically, there are many shots, and
the spread length for each shot is less than the total length of
the line. As illustrated in Figure 4, the pair of receivers that
recorded arrivals i - 1 and i from the shot at A will record
arrivals from a number of different shots in a production
survey. Notice from the figure that the delta ray for each of
these shots is the same. Likewise, the traveltime St;, com-
puted from the data, should also be the same for each shot.
Any variation in the value of 6ti from one shot to the next is
a result either of noise in the data or of picking errors.
(Variation in 6ti does not depend, for example, on the shot
depths, which may not be known accurately, nor on the
absolute time of each shot-should one be unintentionally
early or late. Similarly, it is independent of whether peaks or
troughs are chosen for picking the data, as long as one is
consistent.)
Given a number of independent realizations of the quan-
tity 6ti, we can estimate its standard deviation (T;. Choosing
one of the observed values for 6tj (the median, say) and
using it as the ith datum in the system (4), it is possible to
construct the hypothetical experiment described above. In
addition, Ui can be used to weight the ith equation. Thus, the
multiplicity of arrivals at each pair of adjacent receivers in
the production data set is replaced by a single traveltime and
a weighting factor. The first observation t , in equation (4) is
i-l i (depths and velocities) it is advisable to apply some form of
A A
FIG. 3. Delta raypath corresponding to the difference be-
tween arrivals i - 1 and i in Figure 2. Traveltime is
computed positive on two of the ray segmentsand negative
on the third.
i-1 i
A A
FIG. 4. Arrivals from a number of different shots. The delta
raypath is the same for all shots.
1309
taken as the traveltime pick closest to the beginning of the
line; its variation is not known, and this equation should be
weighted conservatively. Letting d’ = 6t - Sf, and introduc-
ing W = diag(llo;) to express the uncertainties in the
observations, equation (4) becomes
Wd’ = WJ’Ap. (5)
Surveys are often carried out using the split-spread geom-
etry. As such a survey progresses,shots are located on both
sides of any given receiver pair. Shots to the left of the
receiver pair can be used to recreate the experiment de-
scribed above; shots to the right enable the reverse experi-
ment to be formulated. In this, a shot is set off near the far
end of the line (at point B, say) while refractions are
recorded all the way back down the line to the beginning. A
delta ray corresponding to this experiment is shown in
Figure 5. If there are mB refracted arrivals for Shot B, then
mB - 1 delta ray equations and one full ray equation (for the
refraction closest to B) can be appended to the system (5).
Setting m = mA + mg, then (5) is a system of m equations
in n unknowns, where m 5 2 x (number of receivers on the
line). Had the problem been formulated in terms of the
original data set, the number of equations might have been as
great as (number of shots) x (number of traces/shot).
As it stands, the system (5) contains equations corre-
sponding to, at most, two full raypaths. In some cases I add
more full rays to the system, say one or two full rays from
each shot. An example would be when the shots do not
occupy the same locations as the receivers. In this case, rays
leaving the shot locations traverse parts of the model not
penetrated by any ray emerging at a receiver. As with I 1
above, the difficulty with using full raypaths such as these is
that the uncertainties in the observed traveltimes are not
known. Care should be taken to ensure that the picks used
are accurate.
Because of the different types of parameters involved
column scaling before attempting a’ solution of equation (5).
Following Wiggins (1972), the condition of the system can be
improved by introducing a new set of variables x given by
x = Shp, (6)
where S is a diagonal matrix to be chosen. Introducing 4 =
WJ”-’ and d = Wd’, the change of variables (6) leads to the
new linear system
A A
A +
FIG. 5. The delta raypath corresponding to a shot at point B,
which is located at the opposite end of the line to A.
1310
l$x=d. (7)
Lines and Treitel (1984) have pointed out a straightforward
choice for S that works well in practice. In this, S is chosen
such that the columns of the matrix A are all of unit length.
This choice also has the effect of placing ones down the main
diagonal of ATA. On solving equation (7) for X, the original
variables are easily obtained from
Ap = S-lx. (8)
SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION OF 4
The singular value decomposition or SVD (Lanczos, 1961;
Lines and Treitel, 1984)of the matrix A in equation (7) has an
interesting and unusual appearance. Figure 6 is a plot of the
singular values and model eigenvectors for the case of a
small synthetic example to be discussedin detail later. The
figure is typical of SVD’s I have observed in the refraction
tomography problem (using the formulation described
above). At the top of the figure are the singular values. In
this particular example there are 50 equally spaced node
points, 50 weathering cells, each cell containing a node, and
a constant velocity refractor; thus, n = 101. Plotted beneath
each singular value is the corresponding model eigenvector.
A gap has been inserted to separate the depth and velocity
components. Two features stand out from the plot. First,
there is a repeat in the frequency of the eigenvectors: the
frequency varies from high, at the large singular value end of
the spectrum, to low, at a knee in the singular value plot, and
then from high to low again. Second, and of greater concern,
is that the lowest frequency (longest wavelength) eigenvec-
tors appear at the small singular value end of the spectrum.
Components of the solution associated with the smallest
singular values are most sensitive to noise in the data; here,
those components represent trend information.
--*......,.z.,l Knee
=-....,.
s...
k..._ t
-...............“,“.“..
I ...‘.“........l.,,ll._
Model
Eigenvectors
FIG. 6. Singular values and associated model eigenvectors from a small synthetic example. Each eigenvector contains node
depth and weathering velocity components (separatedby gap in the plot), and a single refractor velocity component. To the left
of the knee, depth and weathering velocity components appear in-phase. To the right of the knee, depth-and weathering velocity
components are mostly out-of-phase, indicating velocity-depth trade-off. Trade-off is most apparent for the long wavelengths,
at the small singular value end of the spectrum.
Docherty
Close inspection of Figure 6 reveals another interesting
feature of the model eigenvectors. For each eigenvector to
the left of the knee, the components associated with node
depths are in-phase with the componentsrepresentingweath-
ering cell velocities. This is further illustrated in Figure 7a,
where the weathering velocity components have been plot-
ted directly on top of the node depth components for the first
10 eigenvectors. (The last eigenvector component, corre-
sponding to the refractor velocity, has been left out of this
plot.) To the right of the knee in Figure 6, some of the
eigenvectors appear in-phase also, but most are out-of-
phase. This is particularly evident near the end of the
spectrum, as illustrated in Figure 7b, where depth and
weathering velocity components for the last 10 eigenvectors
have been superimposed. Out-of-phase eigenvectors imply
velocity-refractor depth trade-off: increases (decreases) in
weathering thickness are being compensated by increases
(decreases)in weathering velocity. (A note on sign conven-
tion: here, z is measured positive upwards; thus, an increase
in node depth implies a decrease in weathering thickness,
since the observation surface is fixed. With this sign conven-
tion, velocity-depth trade-off appears in the form of out-of-
phase eigenvectors.)
The components of the eigenvectors corresponding to
depths and velocities are of similar magnitude in the figures
becauseof the scaling that has been applied. Scaling empha-
sizes that trade-off is taking place but it is not the cause of it:
the eigenvectors of an unscaled 4 matrix can be made to
look very similar to those shown simply by applying different
gains to the depth and velocity components of the plot,
reflecting the different sizes of the units. The fundamental
cause of trade-off in refraction tomography is limited ray
aperture. Because of the (usually) large difference in velocity
between the refractor and the weathering material, refracted
rays travel almost vertically through the weathering layer.
Singular
Values
;lmia = 1.2X1 Oe5
Node
Depths
Weathering
Velocities
_ Refractor
Velocity
 2-D Refraction Tomography
As a result, gradual changes in weathering velocity compen-
sated by gradual changes in weathering thickness have only
a slight effect on traveltime.
In my experience, using full raypaths as opposed to delta
rays does not alleviate the trade-off problem. In fact, I have
found the trade-off to be worse when full rays are used. This
is consistent with the full ray Jacobian being more poorly
conditioned, as mentioned earlier. A plot of the SVD when
full rays are used can be found in Scales et al. (1990).
Behavior similar to that described above has been ob-
served before in seismic processing. Wiggins et al. (1976)
encountered it in the context of residual statics. There, the
observations were reflections from beneath the weathering
layer, and traveltimes through the near-surface to a datum
were seen to trade-off with traveltimes from the datum down
to a reflector. (See their Figures 3 and 4. For the small
singular values, the sum of the source and receiver statics is
trading-off with the structure or geology term. At the large
singular values, these quantities are in-phase.) A repeat in
the eigenvector frequency was also noted, with the longest
wavelengths again being associated with the smallest singu-
lar values. Other instances of trade-off have occurred in
reflection tomography, where Bube et al. (1985) and Stork
and Clayton (1986) identified distinct groups of eigenvectors
in which velocity and reflector positions interfere, either
constructively or destructively, analogous to the behavior
described above for the refraction case.
Figure 6 also indicates that one of the standard methods
for producing a smooth solution, damping (Lines and Treitel,
1984), will not be effective in the refraction problem. This is
because damping tends to downweight contributions to the
solution from those eigenvectors at the small singular value
end of the spectrum. As pointed out above, the rough or
high-frequency eigenvectors are located at the beginning and
near the center of the spectrum, and thus will not be
eliminated from the solution by means of damping. If a
smooth solution is desired, it will be necessary to seek out
and downweight the high frequencies regardless of their
position in the spectrum.
(4
FIG. 7. Selected eigenvectors from Figure 6 with the weathering velocity components plotted on top of the depth components.
The component corresponding to the refractor velocity has not been plotted. (a) Eigenvectors l-10. Velocity and depth
components are in-phase. (b) Eigenvectors 92-101. Velocity and depth components are largely out-of-phase.
1311
THE INVERSE PROBLEM
The approach used for solving the inverse problem is
essentially that of Constable et al. (1987). Among all the
solutions that produce an acceptable fit to the data and
satisfy any constraints, the idea is to find the one that is the
smoothest or most featureless. Since the relationship be-
tween traveltimes and model parameters is nonlinear, the
inverse problem is solved using an iterative procedure. An
initial model is provided, and at each iteration, a linear
inverse problem is solved; the solution is then used to update
the model for the next iteration. At the end of each iteration,
the misfit is measured using the xZ statistic:
Here, the u;‘s are the standard deviations estimated from the
data. Assuming independently random, zero mean, Gaussian
errors in the data, the expected value of xZ is m, the number
of observations. Denoting by I/.j/ the Euclidean norm, the
objective function I minimize is
0 = + FIIPXII2 + IlAx - d/l'.
PllCxl12 (10)
where A and d are determined using the warrant model. In
this equation, p is the n x n matrix
!?:
D= D
-1’
I (11)
where D, and DZ, are tridiagonal second difference matrices
with dimensions n, x n, and try, x n,,, respectively. The
matrix QL penalizes roughness in the base of weathering (the
node depths), while p,, penalizes roughness in the weather-
ing velocities. The zero corresponds to the refractor veloc-
ity, which is constant.
(b)
1312
The matrix C in the objective function is used to express
any constraints on the solution. Here, only simple con-
straints will be implemented, in which certain parametersare
held close to their initial values (which are assumed to be
correct). To constrain the ith parameter in this way, a row is
included in C which contains all zeroes except for a one in
the ith column (Lawson and Hanson, 1974). If n, constraints
are specified, then the dimension of C is n, x IZ. In terms of
the SVD of A, the purpose of C is to raise up the small
singular values, thus reducing the long wavelength ambigu-
ity.
The multipliers p and p in equation (10) balance the
goodness of fit of the data versus the smoothness of the
solution versus the degree to which the constraints are
satisfied. In practice, it is not difficult to find a satisfactory
value for p (see the examples), and I will assume that its
value is now fixed. To find the smoothest solution, the full
nonlinear problem is solved with a series of different values
for p. For a given value of CL,the iterations are stoppedif (1)
X2 falls below m, (2) the procedure converges, that is,
changes in the model are becoming very small, (3) some
maximum number of iterations allowed has been exceeded.
The smoothest solution is obtained at the largest value of p
for which the procedure converges and, in addition, pro-
duces a X2 of m. (Choosing the mean or median value of each
delta traveltime, we might expect a better fit to the data than
X 2 = m. Even so, given a limited number of first-arrival
times from which to form the delta traveltimes, m is the
value I accept for X * .)
Minimization of equation (10) produces the linear system
11
6
1
-4
-_-
FIG. 8. Plot of the matrix @.))*(I)~ for the eigenvectors )! in Figure 6 (D is the second difference matrix). Large values,
indicated by bright colors, occur along the main diagonal at locations corresponding to the high-frequency eigenvectors.
Docherty
(ATA+ PCJ*C+ pQ*Q)x= A*d. (12)
Following Scales et al. (1990), the effects of second
difference smoothing can be made more apparent by replac-
ing A in equation (12) by its SVD and by setting l3 = 0. Then,
with A = WV*, where U and V are orthogonal matrices
__-
containing data and model eigenvectors, respectively, and n
is a diagonal matrix of singular values, solving for x gives
x = V[A2
_ _ + /.L(W)*(QV)]-‘~U*~. (13)
Multiplication by D tends to accentuate roughness. In equa-
tion (13), a rough eigenvector in the jth column of V gives
rise to a large entry in the jth member of the diagonal of
(Dy)*(DY). If the column vectors of V are approximately
sinusoidal, in addition to being orthogonal, then the columns
of Dy will be approximately orthogonal also. In this case,
(Dv *(DV) is nearly diagonal, with large entries correspond-
ing to the high-frequency sinusoids. This is illustrated in
Figure 8, which is a plot of the matrix (DWJ*(LW) for the
eigenvectors of Figure 6. The large values clustered along
the main diagonal occur at positions corresponding to the
locations of the high-frequency eigenvectors in Figure 6.
Noting the inverse in equation (13), it is clear that the effect
of second difference smoothing is to downweight contribu-
tions from the high-frequency eigenvectors; thus, smoothing
the solution. Unlike damping, second difference smoothing
does not require that the high frequencies be associatedwith
the smallest singular values.
(DV)T(W
 2-D Refraction Tomography
EXAMPLES
A synthetic example will be considered first. The true
model is shown in Figure 9a. It consists of a constant
velocity weathering layer with variable thickness. Color is
used to represent the velocity of the weathering material in
the figure; the units are in m/s. The velocity of the refractor
is given at the top of the plot. Notice that the plot has had
some vertical exaggeration applied-the changes in thick-
ness are less severe than they appear. To generate the
synthetic data, 99 receivers were spaced across the surface
at 100 m intervals and two shots were set off, one at each end
of the model, thus simulating the hypothetical experiments
described in the problem formulation. Ray tracing was used
to calculate the refracted first-arrival times at the receivers;
a total of 196 traveltimes were calculated for this example
(one receiver was located inside the crossover distance for
each shot). Random noise in the range ?8 ms was then
added to the arrival times, prior to the formation of the delta
traveltimes.
The weathering layer shown in Figure 9b, which has both
constant thickness and velocity, provided the first guess at
the solution. In the inversion, 50 node points described the
base of the weathering layer and there were 50 weathering
velocity cells. A single refractor velocity was also sought.
The inversion was carried out using SVD. The singular
values a,rd model eigenvectors of the A matrix in this
example have already been discussed; they are the ones
plotted in Figure 6. The x2 stopping criterion was not
employed since there was not enough data to calculate the
uncertainties oi. Instead, the iterations were stopped when
the solution converged, the amount of smoothing being
chosen to produce a result as close as possible to the true
model.
In Figure 6 there is one very small singular value: Xlnin =
I .2 x 10 -‘. The next smallest singular value is approxi-
mately three orders of magnitude greater than this (its value
is not indicated on the plot). In the absence of any con-
straints and with no smoothing [p = p. = 0 in equation (lo)]
the solution is found to be severely corrupted because of
noise in the component associated with A,,,,, . If this compo-
nent is rejected from the solution, substantial long wave-
length errors occur. If, instead, the node at x = 0 is
constrained, then the solution plotted in Figure 9c is ob-
tained. To produce this result, a value of p = 1 was used, no
smoothing was applied, and the matrix C consisted of a
single row. Keeping the constraint and adding second differ-
ence smoothing, with k = 1, gives the solution in Figure 9d.
Smoothing removes the short wavelength roughness very
effectively but longer wavelength errors remain. To correct
the long wavelength errors, it is necessary to add more
constraints. Constraining all of the nodes in the regions 0 5
x 5 2000 and 6500 5 x 5 7500, which happen to be at the
correct depths in the input model, and with p = p = 1 again,
the result in Figure 9e is obtained. Finally, Figure 9f empha-
sizes that damping does not smooth the solution here. To get
this result, the same constraints as in Figure 9e were applied
but with smoothing replaced by damping.
Figure 10 shows the first-arrival time picks from a real data
set. Dynamite was the source in this survey. There were 47
shots, recorded with the split-spread geometry and with 240
1313
traces/shot. The total number of receiver stations on the line
was 506. With a station spacing of 17 m, this gives 8585 m for
the line length. In the figure, curves sloping to the left are
made up of negative offset picks, while curves sloping to the
right contain positive offset picks. (A negative offset pick is
taken from a receiver behind the corresponding shot,
whereas a positive offset pick comes from a receiver in front
of the shot.) The picks were used to calculate delta travel-
times and weighting factors. Shot A was simulated from the
positive offset picks; Shot B was simulated using the nega-
tive offset picks. A total of 929 delta traveltimes were
computed. (Some delta traveltimes were missing at locations
where no picks could be made.) A full traveltime was taken
from the shot nearest the beginning of the line and also one
from the shot nearest the end, so that the total number of
observations for this example was 931. The number of
traveltime picks was approximately one order of magnitude
greater than this.
The model input to the inversion is shown in Figure 1la.
An average thickness of 50 m, a value typical in this region,
was used for the weathering layer. The data itself provided
the first guess at the weathering velocity as follows. The line
crosses a dry riverbed between coordinates 2576 and 3434,
approximately. The humps in the topography at either side
are the riverbanks. In Figure 10, the corresponding devia-
tions in the first break picks give an estimate of the travel-
time through each riverbank. Assuming vertically traveling
waves, a rough guess can be made at the velocity of the
riverbank material; it turns out to be about 500 m/s. This
velocity was used throughout the entire layer, although a
more likely value for this region was thought to be 800 m/s.
The refractor velocity was also estimated from the pick
curves. Away from the distortions in the vicinity of the
riverbed the slopes of the first breaks indicate an approxi-
mate refractor velocity of 4000 m/s.
For the inversion, the weathering layer was divided up
into 253 velocity cells, the width of a single cell being two
station spacings, and the base of weathering was described
by 253 node points. Since a single velocity described the
refractor, the total number of unknowns was 507. No con-
straints were applied [p = 0 in equation (lo)], since no
additional information was available. However, unlike the
synthetic example discussed above, the lack of constraints
here does not result in an ill-conditioned matrix. The reason
is that the rapid changes in elevation near the riverbed cause
the velocity there to be well determined; thus, tying down
the long wavelengths. Ironically, a major cause of statics
distortions in the data actually helps solve the problem.
The inversion was run several times, the amount of second
difference smoothing [controlled by the multiplier )* in
equation (lo)] being adjusted to produce the desired value of
x2 at convergence. A value of x2 approximately equal to the
number of observations was obtained with t.r. = .7. The
output for this run is plotted in Figure 1lb. This is the most
likely model, given the uncertainties in the data, and it
indicates a large variation in weathering velocity along the
line. In general, the velocity has remained low near the
riverbed and has increased on the remainder of the line,
approaching a value more typical for the region. The inver-
sions in this example were carried out using the sparse
1314 Docherty

a) RelmctQ vebacity - 4ooo

m/S
I 450
1400
1350
W Rehoctwvelocay- 5ooO.

1300
1250
1200
1150 z
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
c) Mroclor~- 3ss7

d) RClrOCtQ
velocity - 4008.

m/s
1450
1400
1350
I 300
I250
1200
1150
I100
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
750

~~
600
550
500

FIG. 9. Synthetic example. Vertical scale measures elevations, horizontal scale distance, both in meters. Color indicates
weathering velocity in m/s. The refractor velocity is given at the top of each plot. (a) True model used to generate synthetic first
arrivals. The weathering velocity is constant at 1000 m/s. Random noise in the range 28 ms was added to the arrival times. (b)
Initial model input to inversion. The weathering velocity is 500 m/s. (c) Result of the inversion when only the node at x = 0
is constrained and no smoothing is applied. (d) Result obtained with the same constraint as in (c) but with second difference
smoothing added. (e) Inversion result using more node depth constraints and with second difference smoothing. (f) Same
constraints as in (e), but with smoothing replaced by damping.
 2-D Refraction Tomography 1315

conjugate gradient method of Scales (1987). The cost of a
single run was a few minutes on an IBM 3090.
Statics calculated using the model in Figure 11b produced
the stacked section shown in Figure 12a. For comparison,
Figure 12b is the stack obtained using statics from a more
conv_entional,delay time method, which assumed a con-
stant velocity in the weathering layer. The letter R in the
figures indicates the location of the riverbed. The continuity
of the reflectors through the zone of weak data beneath the
riverbed appears better in the stack obtained from the
tomography statics. Also, there is a difference in structure
between the two sections. By accounting for the lower
velocity riverbed material, the tomographic approach has
produced more of a structural high at that location.

CONCLUSIONS
Distance (m)
0 2000 4000 6000 6000
The limited aperture provided by refracted raypaths is the
causeof a fundamental long wavelength ambiguity in the 2-D
refraction tomography problem. Gradual increases (decreas-
es) in weathering velocity accompanied by gradual increases
(decreases)in weathering thickness have little effect on the
observations; this velocity-depth trade-off shows up clearly
in the singular value decomposition. In general, it is neces-
sary to add a small number of constraints to obtain the
0.6 correct weathering model. An exception, for which no
constraints may be required, is the case of rapidly varying
topography.
The use of delta rays in formulating the problem results in
FIG. 10. First-arrival time picks from a split-spreaddynamite
survey. The line crossesa dry riverbed in the neighborhood a smaller, sparser matrix for inversion. Finally, second
of coordinate 3808; distortions in curves are due to river- difference smoothing, but not damping, leads to smooth
banks. solutions.

a) v2 - 4000.

Ilvr
965 t
930
895
860
825
790
755
720 X
685 W v2 - 4070.
650
615
580
545
510
475
440
405
370
335
300

FIG. 11. (a) Fist guessat the weathering model for the picks in Figure 10. The model has a constant weathering velocity equal
to 508 m/s and an average weathering thickness of 50 m. (b) Tomographic solution for the weathering model indicating higher
velocity material away from the riverbed.
1316 Docherty

Distance (km)
0 R 4 8

FIG. 12. (a) Stacked section obtained using tomography statics computed from the model in Figure 1lb. (b) Stacked section
obtained using statics calculated by a delay time method that assumed a constant velocity for the weathering layer. R marks
the location of the riverbed in each section.
 2-D Refraction Tomography 1317

b) Distance (km)
0 R 4 8

FIG. 12. continued.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

This work was carried out at the Amoco Research Center
in Tulsa, during the period 1987-89. I would like to thank
Adam Gersztenkorn, Freeman Gilbert, Sam Gray, Ken
Kelly, Larry Lines, John Scales, Sven Treitel, and Don
Wagner for many stimulating discussions on inversion; and
Mike Bahorich, Doug Haun, Marty Williams for help with
refraction statics. The comments of Mike Powers, Terry
Watt, and two anonymous reviewers were very much appre-
ciated.
Bahorich, M. S., Coruh, C., Robinson, E. S., and Costain, J. K.,
1982, Static corrections on the southeastern Piedmont of the
United States: Geophysics, 47, 1540-1549.
Bube, K. P., Jovanovich, D. B., Langan, R. T., Resnick, J. R.,
Shuey, R. T., and Spindler, D. A., 1985, Well-determined and
poorly determinedfeatures in seismicreflection tomography:Part
II: 55th Ann. Intemat. Mtg., Sot. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 608-610.
Constable, S. C.? Parker, R. L., and Constable, C. G., 1987,
Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth
models from electromagnetic sounding data: Geophysics, 52,
289-300.
1318 Docherty
de Amorim, W. N., Hubral, P., and Tygel, M., 1987, Computing
field statics with the help of seismic tomography: Geophys.
Prosp.,35, 907-919.
Dobrin, M., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting: Mc-
Graw-Hill Book Co.
Farrell, R. C., and Euwema, R. N., 1984, Refraction statics: Proc.
IEEE, 72, 1316-1329.
Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1984, First-break interpretation
using generalized linear inversion: J. Can. Sot. Expl. Geophys.,
20, 40-54.
Hollingshead, G. W., and Slater, R. R., 1979, A novel method of
deriving weathering statics from first-arrival refractions: Pre-
sented at the 49th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Sot. Expl. Geophys.
Lanczos, C., 1961, Linear differential operators: D. Van Nostrand
co.
Lawson, C. L., and Hanson, R. J.. 1974, Solving least squares
problems: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lines, L. R., and Treite!, S., 1984, Tutorial: A review of least-
squares inversion and tts application to geophysical problems:
Geophys. Prosp., 32, 159-186.
Musgrave, A. W., 1967, Seismic refraction prospecting: Sot. Expl.
Geophys.
Olsen, K. B., 1989, A stable and flexible procedure for the inverse
modeling of seismic first arrivals: Geophys. Prosp., 37, 455465.
Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic
refraction interpretation: Sot. Expl. Geophys.
Russell. B. H., 1989, Statics corrections-A tutorial: Can. Sot.
Expl. Geophys. Recorder, 16-30.
Scales, J. A., 1987, Tomographic inversion via the conjugate gradi-
ent method: Geophysics, 52, 179-185.
Scales, .I. A., Docherty, P., and Gersztenkorn, A., 1990, Regular-
ization of nonlinear inverse problems: Imaging the near-surface
weathering layer: Inverse Problems, 6, 115-131.
Schneider, W. A., and Shih-Yen Kuo, 1985, Refraction modeling for
static corrections: 55th Ann. Internal. Mtg., Sot. Expl. Geophys.,
Expanded Abstracts, 295-299.
Stork, C., and Clayton, R. W., 1986, Analysis of the resolution
between ambiguous velocity and reflector nosition for traveltime
tomography: 36th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Sot. Expl. Geophys.,
expanded Abstracts. 545-550.
White, D. J., 1989, Two-dimensional seismic refraction tomogra-
phy: Geophys. J., 97, 223-245.
Wiggins, R. A., 1972, The general linear inverse problem: Implica-
tion of surface waves and free oscillations for earth structure:
Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 10, 251-285.
Wiggins, R. A., Larner, K. L., and Wisecup, R. D., 1976, Residual
statics analysis as a general linear inverse problem: Geophysics
41, 922-938.