J. Earth Syst. Sci.

(2021)130:44 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-01531-9 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789(
).,-volV)

A reliable velocity estimation in a complex deep-water

environment using downward continued long oAset
multi-channel seismic (MCS) data

DIBAKAR GHOSAL1,* and SATISH C SINGH2

1
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208 016, UP, India.
2
Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Jussieu, 75014 Paris, France.
*Corresponding author. e-mail: dghosal@iitk.ac.in
MS received 14 May 2020; revised 11 August 2020; accepted 28 October 2020

The estimation of a reliable velocity–depth model from towed streamer marine seismic data recorded in deep
water, especially with a complex seaCoor environment, is challenging. The determination of interval velocities
from the normal move-out (NMO) of the reCected seismic signals for shallow reCectors (\1 km below the
seaCoor) is compromised by the combination of a long wave path in the water column and the complex ray
paths due to topography, leading to small move-out differences between reCectors. Furthermore, low sediment
velocities and deep water produce refraction arrivals only at limited far oAsets that contain information about
deeper structures. Here, we present an innovative method where towed streamer seismic data are downward
continued to the seaCoor leading to the collapse of the seaCoor reCection and the emergence of refraction events
as Brst arrivals close to zero oAset, which are used to determine a high-resolution near surface velocity–depth
model using an eDcient tomographic method. These velocities are then used to perform pre-stack
depth migration. We found that the velocity–depth model derived from tomography of downward continued
towed streamer data provides a far superior pre-stack depth migrated image than those produced from
velocity–depth models derived from conventional velocity estimation techniques.
Keywords. Downward continuation; tomography; pre-stack depth migration; OBS; MCS.

1. Introduction rocks that do not produce any coherent reCections

Conventional velocity–depth model building using
normal moveout (NMO) based velocity analysis
technique has several limitations in deep water
environment like in the Gulf of Mexico (Galloway
2008) where imaging of salt diapirs is a real challenge;
and in subduction settings such as Cascadia (Yelisetti
et al. 2014), Sumatra (Singh et al. 2012) where the
seaCoor could be very rough and water depth could
vary drastically from a couple of meters to several
kilometers across the subduction front. Moreover, the
top parts of the shallow sub-seaCoor may consist of
clastics, salt diapirs or highly deformed sedimentary
and thus distort deeper reCections which make it
difBcult to determine the near surface velocity. To
overcome such difBculties, we present here an appli-
cation of the approach described in Ghosal et al.
(2012, 2014), in which downward continuation of
surface seismic data to the seaCoor is done, followed
by a travel time tomography of Brst arrivals.
We demonstrate the applicability of the method
on a long oAset dataset from the northern oAshore
Sumatra where the Indian plate is obliquely sub-
ducting at a rate of 52 mm/yr (Bgure 1) beneath the
Eurasian plate (Fitch 1972; Liu et al. 1983; Matson
and Moore 1992; Sieh and Natawidjaja 2000;
44 Page 2 of 9 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44

B
A

Figure 1. Location of seismic reCection proBle WG2 superimposed on recently acquired bathymetric data. The speciBc seismic
data used for the migrated images was from the whitened segment of WG2 as the line was shot over the eastern rise onto the
accretionary. A, B, C are positions of shot gathers from 5.5 to 12 km streamers shown in Bgure 2.

McCaffrey 2009). This region, therefore, is associ- 2. Datasets

ated with several major fault systems including
Great Sumatran fault, West Andaman fault and
Mentawai fault and have produced several dev-
astating major to great tsunamigenic earthquakes
such as 26th Dec, 2004 ‘boxing day’ earthquake
with magnitude 9.3. Despite of geological com-
plexity, these data hold extreme significance
owing to 3–5 km thick sediment-Blled trench at
4.5 km water depth and, a striking deformation
front and accretionary prism (Bgure 1) rising to 2
km water with many deep-rooted faults (Ghosal
et al. 2014).
Primarily velocity–depth models are estimated
using three different methods: the NMO based con-
ventional processing technique, travel time inversion
of ocean bottom seismometer (OBS) data, and
downward continued multi-channel seismic (MCS)
streamer data. The accuracy of velocity models
is demonstrated by performing pre-stack depth
migration.
In July–August 2006, coincident deep seismic
refraction and reCection proBles were acquired
using the French R/V Marion Dufresne and the
WesternGeco M/V Geco Searcher vessel carrying
8260 cubic inch and 10170 cubic inch airgun array
sources, respectively. The 520-km long WG2 pro-
Ble (Bgure 1) oriented *20° anticlockwise from the
trench normal on which 56 OBSs spaced at 8.1 km
were deployed and shots were Bred at 150 m
intervals. A 12-km-long streamer towed at 15 m
depth was used for the reCection survey at 50 m
shot interval, to image the deeper structure of the
megathrust (Singh et al. 2008, 2012; Ghosal et al.
2012, 2014). Another 5.5-km-long streamer was
towed at 7.5 m water depth to obtain high-resolu-
tion data to better image the near surface features.
Since the depth of the short streamer is less, the
recorded ghost energy produced a notch at 100 Hz
and thus a useful bandwidth of 20–80 Hz is easily
J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44 Page 3 of 9 44

(a) Distance (km) (b) Distance (km) In this study, the 5.5 km towed streamer data
0 3 5.5 0 3 6 9 12 are used to produce the pre-stack depth migrated
Swell noise
images; the three velocity–depth models are
6 derived from the 5.5 km towed streamer data, the
Refracted
Time (s)

OBS data and the longer 12.0 km towed streamer

8 data.
Refraction

10 3. Methodology
(c) (d)
5 3.1 Conventional processing of 5.5 km
streamer data
Time (s)

7 Refraction The processing of short streamer data started

removing low frequency swell noise (0–20 Hz) using
9 f-k Bltering (SheriA and Geldart 1982). The sam-
pling interval of the short streamer data is kept
(e) (f) intact as 2 ms. After the pre-processing, the data-
5 sets are sorted into common mid-point (CMP)
Time (s)

Refraction gather and supergather is formulated using eight

7 adjacent CMPs (Bgure 3a, b) in which the sem-
Multiples
9 Multiples
Figure 2. Raw shot gathers from 5.5 km (a, c and e) and 12
km (b, d and f) long streamers at locations A (a, b), B (c, d)
and C (e, f) shown in Bgures 1 and 6.
used for providing high-resolution seismic image of
the near surface. On the other hand, for the long
deeper streamer data, the ghost notch appears in
the frequency spectrum at 50 Hz and thereby the
low frequency energy essentially enclosed between
8 and 40 Hz is useful for deep seismic imaging
(Singh et al. 2012).
Figure 2 shows a comparison between the
acquired long and short streamer datasets across
the subduction front using three shot gathers A, B
and C (Bgure 1) located at 5 km (Bgure 2a and b),
12 km (Bgures 2c and d) and 23 km (Bgures 2e and
f) distances, respectively. The position of these
shot gathers (A, B, C) are marked in Bgures 1 and
6. Both the streamer datasets were aAected by the
low frequency swell noise and water bottom mul-
tiples (Bgure 2e–f). The recorded reCected phases
show clear hyperbolic trend at the trench for both
the streamer datasets, but become more compli-
cated along the updip direction (Bgure 2e–f). The
traces of refracted phases at the short streamer
data are completely missing in the study area,
whereas these arrivals are recorded in the long
streamer at *10.5–12 km (Bgure 2b) and *9–12
km oAset (Bgure 2f) across the front with decreas-
ing water depth.
blance analysis (Bgure 3d) is carried out to obtain
the root mean square (RMS) velocity–depth func-
tion, which is further converted into interval
velocity (Bgure 3d). The RMS velocity–depth
function is further used for normal move-out
(NMO) and stacking (Bgure 3c) of the CMP
gathers. The stack section is, further, migrated
using KirchhoA time migration algorithm to obtain
the image of the subsurface in which an AGC gain
with 1000 ms window length is applied to highlight
interesting subsurface details.
3.2 Advanced processing of MCS data
The advanced processing is carried out in three
steps. At Brst, we have carried out the downward
continuation of the long streamer data followed by
travel time tomography of these data and pre-stack
depth migration using the tomography derived
velocity–depth model. The details of these tech-
niques are explained in the following sections:
3.2.1 Downward continuation
Towed marine seismic data recorded over deep
water often leads to a superposition of reCection and
refraction events from near-surface structure on the
recorded shot records. Downward continuation
(DC) (Berryhill 1979; Arnulf et al. 2011; Ghosal et al.
2012, 2014) extrapolates the water-surface recorded
waveBeld to an arbitrary surface, e.g., seaCoor, so
that refraction events become the Brst arrivals
44 Page 4 of 9 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44

(a) Supergather trace no. (b) Supergather trace no. (c) Stack (d)
14 134 254 374 14 134 254 374 1 2 3 4 5
5
5 5 5

Interval
velocity
6 6 6
6

Time (s)

Time (s)
Time (s)

Time (s)

7 7 7 7

8 8 8 8

Figure 3. (a) Processed CMP supergather at location B from the subduction front, (b) NMO corrected supergather, (c) local
stack sections, (d) velocity analysis using semblance method, the interval velocity is marked in black.

Figure 4. A schematic diagram explains the eAect of downward continuation of towed streamer seismic data so that the source
and receiver positions are located on the seaCoor.

across the shot record’s oAset range and reCections and (3) getting solutions to wave equation using
arrive after their associated refractions (Bgure 4). Bnite difference method (Claerbout 1976).
The seaCoor reCection is also removed from the In the present study, we have followed the
downward continued seismic shot record, leading a second approach, i.e., the KirchhoA’s integral
survey geometry similar to land seismic survey method in which the recorded waveBeld at the
without any ground roll (Arnulf et al. 2011; Ghosal water surface is convolved with the time lagged
et al. 2012, 2014). Apart from bringing the refracted delta function and the result is summed over all the
arrival as Brst arrivals, the DC method collapses shot gathers (Harding et al. 2007). The time delays
seaCoor diAractions, thus, improving the imaging are calculated dividing the distance between the
condition (Arnulf et al. 2011). Three different ways surface positions of shots and hydrophones and
are practically used to carry out downward contin- their extrapolated positions on the seaCoor by the
uation of the recorded waveBelds that are: (1) using constant water velocity (i.e., 1480 m/s). The entire
pre-stack phase-shift method in the frequency DC process is carried out in three steps: (1) the
domain (Gazdag 1978), (2) applying KirchhoA’s receiver locations for different shots are extrapo-
integral method in the time domain (Berryhill 1979), lated vertically down to the seaCoor, (2) the
J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44
extrapolated shot gathers are sorted into common
receiver location gathers (CRL) and full folded
gathers are separated out, and (3) then the shot
locations are extrapolated to the seaCoor using the
full folded CRL gathers. Once both the shots and
receivers are extrapolated to seaCoor, we sort back
the extrapolated full folded CRL gathers into shot
gathers. If the shot intervals are more than 25 m,
the aliasing eAect may dominate the CRL gathers
and thus should be handled by interpolating the
shot intervals to either 25 or 12.5 m after the step 2.
The improvement gained in reCection and
refraction event discrimination by DC of the source
and receiver positions to the seaCoor is illustrated in
Bgure 5. Figure 5(a) shows the impact of downward
continuation on the 12.0-km long streamer shot
record located on the frontal slope at location B
(Bgure 2d) in which the source and receiver positions
Figure 5. (a) The downward continuation (DC) result of the
shot gather located at location B (Bgures 1 and 2c) after
placing the source and receiver positions on the seaCoor.
Downward continuation separates the superposition of refrac-
tion and reCection events and ensures that the refractions are
the Brst arrivals on the shot record (red) predicted and
(yellow) observed; (b) corresponding ray tracing. Ray fans
map until 3 km below seaCoor; and (c) starting misBt (blue)
and Bnal misBt (red).
Page 5 of 9 44
are extrapolated to the seaCoor. The refracted pha-
ses, which are observed at very far oAset between 9
and 12 km (Bgure 2d), are now visible at the near
oAset extending until the end of the streamer. The
direct arrivals and the eAect of the seaCoor reCec-
tions are thus superseded. The downward continued
shot records are, therefore, easier to interpret and
make velocity–depth model building through Brst
arrival tomography more accurate.
3.2.2 Travel time tomography of downward
continued 12-km long data
Travel time tomography, which provides a smooth
velocity–depth model, was carried out by inverting
refracted arrivals from every fourth downward
continued shot gathers using the algorithm devel-
oped by Van Avendonk et al. (2004). The Brst
arrivals from those shot gathers are picked
(Bgure 5a) using a semi-automatic technique,
maintaining consistency between two consecutive
shot gathers, keeping the preceding travel time
function as a guided function. The uncertainty is
calculated based on several factors, for instance, (1)
positions of shots and receivers on the water surface
contribute *2 ms, (2) bathymetry eAect con-
tributes *10 ms, (3) extrapolated positions of shots
and receivers cause *8 ms, and (4) picking uncer-
tainties include *8 ms, and thus the total uncer-
tainty calculated as 15 ms. The forward modelling
is conducted using shortest path method (Moser
1991) where the grid sizes are kept as 50 m and the
starting model is used as the pre-existing 2D
velocity–depth model obtained from travel time
tomography of OBS data (Chauhan et al. 2009;
Chauhan 2010; Singh et al. 2012). During inversion,
the misBt between the observed and predicted is
minimized using a least square approach, regularizing
the inversion scheme by a roughness matrix, con-
sisting of Brst and second order derivatives, which are
set four times higher in the vertical direction than
that of horizontal direction. Model artifacts are sup-
pressed by a proper choice of the damping constant
(Van Avendonk et al. 2004). The overall misBt is
measured by v2, which is the sum of the squared
individual travel time misBts divided by the overall
pick uncertainty. The misBt is gradually reduced
through a series of linearized inversions until the
desired Bt is achieved, typically v2 = 1, at which point
the average misBt matches the pick uncertainty. At
each iteration, velocity nodes are updated throughout
the ray covered portion of the model.
44 Page 6 of 9 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44

(a) SW Distance (km) NE (b) SW Distance (km) NE

0 6 12
12 18 24 30 0 6 12
12 18 24 30

NMO
C Subduction Front
3

B
Depth (km)

4
A Trench

6
(c) (d)
OBS tomography
3
Subduction lope
tal s
Front Fron
Depth (km)

4
Trench

6
(e) (f)
DC + tomography
3
Depth (km)

6
V(km/s)
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Figure 6. Velocity models on a 500-m grid and associated pre-stack depth migrations of the 5.5 km towed streamer data for
(a) interval velocities from the 5.5 km towed streamer data, (b) pre-stack depth migrated section using interval velocity derived
from NMO picking velocity, (c) tomographic inversion of sparse OBS data recorded at the sea-Coor, (d) pre-stack depth
migrated section using interval velocity derived from inverted OBS tomography velocity, and (e) tomographic inversion of
downward continued 12.0 km towed streamer data, and (f) pre-stack depth migrated section using interval velocity derived from
integrated technique. A, B and C indicate location of shot gathers shown in Bgure 2.

The ray tracing of this downward continued shot from NMO velocity analyses of 5.5 km streamer
gather (Bgure 5a), which is located on the frontal data, and the travel time tomography of OBS and
slope at location B (Bgure 1), is described in downward continued 12 km long streamer data.
Bgure 5(b). The shot and receivers are located on We have used the same short streamer (5.5 km)
the seaCoor after downward continuation and the data as used in the conventional processing, for
rayfans mapped the subsurface until a depth of *7 pre-stack depth migration wherein sampling
km (Bgure 5b). The travel time misBt is described interval was kept as 2 ms in order to obtain high-
in Bgure 5(c) in which the blue and red lines resolution image; in addition, preprocessing steps
demarcate the starting (*120 ms) and Bnal misBts were applied to remove swell noise attenuation
(*15 ms), respectively, between the observed and and multiples. Apart from this, we have also
the predicted travel times. applied inner trace mute on these data to eAec-
tively suppress the existing residual multiples
3.2.3 Pre-stack depth migration of 5.5 km from the near oAset. EAect of side scattering is
streamer data reduced by applying dip Bltering. Moreover, a
mild triangular anti-aliased Blter was used by
The interval velocity, which is required as the setting aperture length to 3.5 km during
input for pre-stack depth migration, was obtained migration.
J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44 Page 7 of 9 44

(a) (b) (c)

A-5 km B-12 km C- 23 km

Depth (km)

Velocity (km/s) Velocity (km/s) Velocity (km/s)

Figure 7. 1D velocity proBles at A, B and C locations. (blue) NMO derived interval velocity, (yellow) OBS tomography derived
velocity, (red) downward continuation of streamer data derived velocity.

Distance (km) (1) interval velocities calculated from the 5.5 km

0 1.5 3.0 4.5 towed streamer data using conventional NMO
0
approach (Bgure 6a), (2) tomographic inversion of
the sparse OBS data using travel time tomographic
study (Bgure 6c) adapted from Singh et al. (2012),
and (3) the travel time tomographic inversion of
2 the downward continued 12.0 km towed streamer
data obtained from this study (Bgure 6e). The
interval velocity based on 12 km streamer data was
4 similar to that of 5.5 km streamer data owing to
Depth (km)

high slope. In each instance, the velocity–depth

6
8 proBles across the subduction front at A, B and
10
Figure 8. Common image gather (CIG) obtained from
pre-stack depth migration of 5.5 km streamer data using
interval velocity of tomographic inversion of downward
continued 12 km long streamer data.
4. Results: Velocity model determination
and pre-stack depth images
Figure 6 (left panels) shows three velocity models
that were determined from the data recorded over
30 km segment of WG2 proBle along the slope:
model was interpolated to a 500-m grid and was
used for pre-stack depth migration of the 5.5 km
long towed streamer data and are shown in
Bgure 6(b, d and f).
A comparison among different 1D velocity–depth
C locations for these three types of velocities are
described in Bgure 7. The NMO analysis derived
interval velocity shows a smoothed step like
function, whereas the OBS tomography derived
proBles shows a very smooth increase in velocity
with depth. The high resolution downward
continued velocity proBles demarcate the
sharp change in the velocity gradients with
depth.
The velocity–depth model from the tomographic
inversion of the OBS data produced poor migrated
image (Bgure 6d), simply because the OBSs were
too far apart (*8.1 km) and their data could not
accurately characterise the velocities in the
44 Page 8 of 9
topographically complex near surface. The interval
velocities calculated from the 5.5 km streamer data
are inaccurate and produce a poorly focused depth
migrated image (Bgure 6b). Tomographic inversion
of the 12.0-km long oAset streamer data produces
the most accurate velocity–depth model. The
resulting migrated image is sharp with clear defi-
nition of reCection events and faults (Bgure 6f).
The common image gather (CIG) obtained after
the pre-stack depth migration of the short streamer
data using tomography derived velocity–depth
model of downward continued gathers is shown
in Bgure 8 in which the reCection events are
straightened justifying, further, the accuracy of the
velocity–depth model.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Present study focuses on the eAect of interval
velocity–depth model derived from three different
modelling techniques: (1) conventional NMO based
velocity analysis, (2) travel time tomography of
sparsely (8.1 km apart) deployed OBSs, and (3)
travel time tomography of downward continued
streamer data. The study area is located at a
complex geological setting, i.e., the frontal slope of
northern Sumatra subduction system, where the
water depth varies significantly from the trench to
the slope region and bathymetry is very rough.
Moreover, the sedimentary deposits are also con-
solidated updip away from the trench, further
intricating the acquired seismic data. Due to the
presence of hard and crystalline accretionary
wedge material, it is hard for seismic energy to
penetrate deeper. Since the conventional NMO
analysis is based on the approximation of Cat sur-
face or shallow dipping reCectors only, the sudden
changes of dip along the frontal slope cause severe
complicacies in carrying out velocity modelling
using this method and ends up with an erroneous
velocity–depth model, which eventually leads to
inaccurate imaging of the subsurface folded and
faulted beddings.
The OBS tomography could be a great alterna-
tive to this NMO based technique, but due to
limited number of OBSs with sparse spacing
between two consecutive OBSs, as the actual
objective of the survey was to model the nature of
the whole subducting slab (Chauhan 2010; Singh
et al. 2012) across the trench, the spatial and
temporal resolution remained in the kilometer scale
and was not eDcient to model the Bner details of
J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44
the shallow subsurface structures and eventually
lead to poor depth migrated image.
The best image of the accreted sediments below
the frontal slope is obtained using the downward
continued streamer datasets. Relatively Bne shot
and group intervals (50 and 12.5 m, respectively)
associated with a very long streamer (12 km)
accurately imaged the sedimentary column until a
depth of 3 km below the frontal slope. As the
refracted arrivals are very sensitive to the Cuctu-
ations of the Bne layers, the inversion results from
the downward continued data ultimately became
very useful for pre-stack depth migration providing
the best quality of subsurface image.
Although we have constrained our study to
pre-stack depth migration, the downward contin-
uation results can further be used for various other
perspectives. For instance, the high-resolution
velocity model derived from the downward con-
tinued data can, further, be used for full waveform
inversion (Arnulf et al. 2012). By downward con-
tinuing the surface seismic data, we can reduce the
computation time for waveform inversion signifi-
cantly. Since the rays for the Brst arrival refractions
travel horizontally, they provide information on
horizontal velocity whereas reCection data provide
information on vertical velocity.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to J Martin, A Harding, N Bangs,
A Chauhan, H Carton and N D Hananto for their
support during this study. We are grateful to
Western Geco for carrying out the survey for us.
Author statement
Dibakar Ghosal contributed in writing, generating
Bgures and editing. Satish Singh contributed in
providing datasets and supervising the project.
References
Arnulf A F, Singh S C, Harding A J, Kent G M and Crawford
W 2011 Strong seismic heterogeneity in layer 2A near
hydrothermal vents at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge; Geophys.
Res. Lett. 38 L13320.
Arnulf A F, Harding A J, Singh S C, Kent G M and Crawford
W 2012 Fine-scale velocity structure of layer 2A from full
waveform inversion of downward continued seismic reCec-
tion data in the Lucky strike volcano, Mid Atlantic Ridge;
Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 8.
J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:44
Berryhill J R 1979 Wave equation datuming; Geophysics 44
1329–1344.
Chauhan A P S, Singh S C, Hananto N D, Carton H,
Klingelhoefer F, Dessa J, Permana H, White N J and
Graindorge D 2009 Seismic imaging of forearc backthrusts
at northern Sumatra subduction zone; Geophys. J. Int. 179
1772–1780.
Chauhan A J 2010 Structure of the Northern Sumatra subduc-
tion megathrust using seismic reCection and refraction data,
PhD Thesis, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris.
Claerbout J 1976 Fundamentals of Geophysical Data Process-
ing, http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/prof/.
Galloway W E 2008 Depositional evolution of the Gulf of
Mexico sedimentary basin; In: The Sedimentary Basins of
the United States and Canada, Sedimentary Basins of the
World (ed.) Hsu K J, Elsevier, The Netherlands 5 505–549.
Gazdag J 1978 Wave equation migration with the phase shift
method; Geophysics 43 1342–1351.
Ghosal D, Singh S C, Chauhan A P S and Hananto N 2012
New insights on the oAshore extension of the Great
Sumatran fault, NW Sumatra, from marine geophysical
studies; Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, https://doi.org/
10.1029/2012GC004122.
Ghosal D, Singh S C and Martin J 2014 Shallow subsurface
morphtectonics of the NW oAshore northern Sumatra
subduction system using an integrated seismic imaging
technique; J. Geophys. Res. 198 1818–1831, https://doi.
org/10.1093/gji/ggu182.
Fitch T J 1972 Plate convergence, transcurrent faults, and
initial deformation adjacent to southeast Asia and the
western PaciBc; J. Geophys. Res. 77 4432–4460, https://
doi.org/10.1029/JB077i023p04432.
Harding A J, Kent G, Blackman D K, Singh S C and Cannales
J-P 2007 A new method for MCS refraction data analysis
of the uppermost section at a Mid-Atlantic Ridge core
complex; EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 88(52), Fall
Meet. Suppl., Abstract S12A-03.
Corresponding editor: ARKOPROVO BISWAS
Page 9 of 9 44
Liu C S, Curray J R and McDonald J M 1983 New constraints
on the tectonic evolution of the eastern Indian Ocean; Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 65 331–342.
McCaffrey R 2009 The tectonic framework of the Sumatra
subduction zone; Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37
345–366, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.
100212.
Matson R and Moore G F 1992 Structural controls on forearc
basin subsidence in the central Sumatra forearc basin; Geol.
Geophys. Cont. Margins, AAPG Memoir 53 157–181.
Moser T J 1991 Shortest path calculation of seismic rays;
Geophysics 56 59–67.
SheriA R E and Geldart L P 1982 Exploration seismology;
volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 253p.
Sieh K and Natawidjaja D 2000 Neotectonic of the Sumatran
fault Indonesia; J. Geophys. Res. 105 28,295–28,326,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JB900120.
Singh S C, Carton H, Tapponnier P, Hananto N, Chauhan A P
S, Hartoyo D, Bayly M, Moeljopranoto S, Bunting T,
Christie P, Lubis H and Martin J 2008 Seismic evidence for
broken oceanic crust in the 2004 Sumatra earthquake
epicentral region; Nat. Geosci. 1 771–781.
Singh S C, Chauhan A P S, Calvert A J, Hananto N D,
Ghosal D, Rai A and Carton H 2012 Seismic evidence of
bending and unbending of subducting oceanic crust and
the presence of mantle megathrust in the 2004 Great
Sumatra earthquake rupture zone; Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
321–322 166–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.01.
012.
Van Avendonk H J A, Shillington D, Holbrook W S and
Hornbach M 2004 Inferring crustal structure in the Aleu-
tian island arc from a sparse wide-angle seismic data set;
Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 5(8) 1527–2087.
Yelisetti S, Spense G D and Riedel M 2014 Role of gas hydrate
in slope failure of frontal ridge of northern Cascadia margin;
Geophys. J. Int. 199(1) 441–458, https://doi.org/10.1093/
gji/ggu254.