Near Surface Geophysics, 2020 doi: 10.1002/nsg.

12101

Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data for imaging of shallow

groundwater resources in glacial deposits, SE Sweden
Ruixue Sun∗ , Ayse Kaslilar and Christopher Juhlin
Earth Sciences Department, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala 75236, Sweden

Received November 2019, revision accepted March 2020

ABSTRACT
Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic reflection data over groundwater-bearing
glacial deposits near Heby, southeastern Sweden, improved the images of near-
surface structure at this site. Post-stack time migration and pre-stack depth migration
were tested and compared to determine the improvements on imaging an undulating
bedrock surface. The pre-stack depth migration image displays better continuity of
the dipping structures within the glacial sediments and provides a more detailed to-
pography of the bedrock reflector. First-arrival picks were used to define an initial
model for input into tomographic inversion. The tomography result then formed the
basis for building the migration velocity model. The final pre-stack depth migration
image shows a strong reflection at around 35 m elevation (about 9 m below the
surface) that can be correlated to a thin (0.2 m) hard silt layer. The upper 20 m of
overburden is interpreted to consist of clay, and the seismic images show weaker
sub-horizontal reflections within this unit, except for the strong silt reflection, con-
sistent with our modelling results. Below 20 m, sand/gravel sediments are present
and overlay the bedrock. Forward modelling based on the pre-stack depth migration
image and subsequent processing shows that pre-stack depth migration provides a
higher resolution image compared with post-stack time migration. Our study shows
that pre-stack depth migration is preferable to post-stack time migration even for the
shallow near-surface seismic data acquired at Heby, and that integrating tomography,
migration, modelling and geological information provides a better understanding of
the structure which these groundwater resources are contained in.

Key words: Groundwater, Migration, Modelling, Seismic, Tomography.

INTRODUCTION ages of structure than refraction methods (Bachrach and Nur,

1998; Baker et al., 1998), but these methods have not been
Seismic refraction methods and ground penetration tests (e.g.
used to the same extent in environmental and engineering ap-
Voyiadjis and Song, 2003; Butler, 2005; Dietrich and Leven,
plications as in the oil and gas industry. However, some early
2006) have been developed for groundwater exploration since
studies showed that the potential of these methods existed to
the 1940s (e.g. Hasselström, 1969; Haeni, 1986). The applica-
image the upper 100 m of the subsurface (e.g. Hunter et al.,
tion of seismic reflection methods for shallow hydrogeological
1984; Birkelo et al., 1987; Steeples et al., 1997; Ghose et al.,
problems started in the 1980s (e.g. Geissler, 1989; Bruno and
1998; Juhlin et al., 2000; Bradford and Sawyer, 2002). In the
Godio, 1997; Buker et al., 2000; Giustiniani et al., 2008).
last few decades, the popularity of reflection seismic meth-
Seismic reflection methods may provide higher-resolution im-
ods has increased significantly in near-surface studies (e.g.
Schmelzbach et al., 2005; Pugin et al., 2009; Sloan et al., 2010;
∗ E-mail: ruixue.sun@geo.uu.se Maries et al., 2016; Burschil et al., 2018). A key aim in many

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association 1
of Geoscientists and Engineers.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin
of these studies has been to map the top of the groundwater
table and the thickness of the groundwater-bearing sediments.
In seismic groundwater studies, the P-wave velocity in
unconsolidated sediments is significantly affected by the tran-
sition from dry to partially saturated to fully saturated con-
ditions (Bachrach and Nur, 1998). Water capillary forces in
the capillary fringe push the actual water level higher than
the water table, resulting in partial saturation. Hasselström
(1969) suggested P-wave velocities of 1200 to 1800 m/s in
water-bearing porous materials. Later, Haeni (1986) showed
that saturated glacial sediments do not have a unique veloc-
ity, but that it varies depending upon the composition of the
sediments. Velocities as low as 1000 to 1200 m/s have been
reported in some cases (Grelle and Guadagno, 2009). How-
ever, the P-wave velocity contrast between the unsaturated
and saturated zones is nearly always high.
More recently, 2D first-arrival tomography has been used
to produce P-wave velocity models of the subsurface in order
to better map lateral variations in the velocity (e.g. Bishop
et al., 1985; Lankston, 1990; Lanz et al., 1998; Morey and
Schuster, 1999; Yordkayhun, 2011; Maries et al., 2016; Liu
and Wu, 2018). It is a relatively cost-efficient and effective
method to obtain information on the uppermost layers, but,
as with standard refraction interpretations, the rays do not
penetrate very deep because of the large velocity contrast be-
tween sediment and bedrock. To increase penetration depth,
long offsets can be used, but at the cost of resolution.
An additional complicating factor in refraction analysis
can be the significant topography of the interfaces of interest,
such as the bedrock surface. If severe, the interfaces cannot be
mapped with refraction methods if the source–receiver offsets
are limited due to logistics, e.g. forests on the sides of fields.
Reflection seismic methods may then be attractive since the
normally strong elastic properties contrast between the sedi-
ments and the crystalline bedrock should be a good reflector.
One challenge in reflection seismic processing and interpreta-
tion is determination of the velocity to use for depth conver-
sion. Some velocity information is obtained from the normal
moveout corrections, but these velocities may not represent
the best velocity function to use for depth conversion (Dix,
1955; Mayne, 1962; Bradford, 2002; Bradford and Sawyer,
2002; Perz et al., 2019). This is especially the case when dip-
ping structures are present. For such situations, a better strat-
egy to improve the image may be to determine the near-surface
velocity structure from tomography and then apply pre-stack
depth migration (PSDM) using a layer-stripping approach to
update the velocity model. We test this approach to improve
the seismic image in this paper by reprocessing data from a

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
shallow high-resolution seismic reflection profile (Juhlin et al.,
2002) acquired nearly 20 years ago over groundwater-bearing
glacial deposits in the Heby area, southeastern Sweden. We
chose this data set since the data are of very high quality over
much of the profile, with usable frequencies up to 500 Hz and
clear reflections in the shot gathers. First, we apply first-arrival
tomography based on an initial model derived from the first-
arrival picks with subsequent refraction statics calculations.
Second, we compare images from PSDM and post-stack time
migration (PSTM). Lastly, we numerically model the Heby
subsurface to generate synthetic seismograms that we process
to compare seismic images from both PSDM and PSTM in
order to test the validity of PSDM on imaging and locating
the shallow reflecting interfaces better.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
Sweden is a part of the Fennoscandian Shield with mostly
Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks comprising the
basement. The most common overburden soil type is till that
was deposited through several glaciation and deglaciation pe-
riods. The Heby field site (Fig. 1a) is located in the N–S
trending Hårsbäcksdalen valley (Juhlin et al., 2002) with the
528 m long Heby 1 profile running nearly perpendicular to
the strike of the valley. The elevation of the westernmost part
of the profile is 52 m with the ground consisting of sandy till,
changing to clay east of 60 m along the profile. The elevation
of the easternmost end of the profile is 43 m.a.s.l. Three bore-
holes had been drilled along the profile that provide important
information concerning the interpretation of the seismic data
(Fig. 1b). BH1 (R0007 in Juhlin et al., 2002) consists of clay
down to 10.5 m with a hard 0.2 m thick silt layer present
at 9.5 m. Below 10.5 m, sand is present down to the final
drilled depth of 15 m. Clay is present in BH2 (S0003 in Juhlin
et al., 2002) down to 21 m with a 0.2 m thick hard silt layer at
10.1 m. Below 21 m, sand and coarse sand is present to 39.1 m.
From 39.1 to 48 m sandy and cobbley gravel are present. The
interval 48 to 59 m consists of course sand and the lowermost
metre is moraine. An even thicker sequence of clay is found
in BH3 (S0004 in Juhlin et al., 2002), extending down to
25.6 m and containing a 0.2 m thick course silt layer 10.8 m.
A 1.3 m thick silt layer is also present just below the clay in
this borehole. From 26.9 to 38 m, medium sand occurs with
sandy gravel in the interval 38 to 40.6 m. The lowermost two
metres of the borehole were drilled into crystalline basement.
The groundwater reservoir (confined aquifer) at the Heby
site is in the sand-gravel units below the clay layers. At the
time of the survey, the pressure in this reservoir corresponded
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
 Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 3

Figure 1 (a) Location of the study area from Google Earth (two maps on the right) and the geological map from the Geological Survey of
Sweden (main map) (http://apps.sgu.se/kartgenerator/maporder_en.html) with the location of the seismic profile and boreholes BH1, BH2 and
BH3 (right top corner). (b) The profile with the geological units identified in the boreholes plotted at their respective locations.


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
4 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin

Figure 2 Data acquisition geometry. (a) Elevation of sources and receivers, left side of blue arrows have 2 m shot spacing and 1 m receiver
spacing, conversely, right side of green arrows have shot spacing 4 m and receiver spacing 2 m. Shots 10, 50, 100 and 150 represent the locations
of the shot gathers shown in Fig. 3. (b) CDP fold resulting from the employed acquisition geometry.

to a water level of c. 35 m (potentiometric surface) above
sea level, corresponding to a depth of about 9 m below the
central part of the seismic profile (Müllern, 2008). The top of
the saturated zone (groundwater level) was much shallower
than 9 m as evidenced by the presence of a brook just east
of the profile and calculations that can be made from first
arrivals (Juhlin et al., 2002) giving a depth of a few metres
to the top of this zone. Therefore, the groundwater reservoir
and the surface waters are decoupled from one another by the
clay layer at this location.
along the profile given in 2(b). Considering the parameters
given in Table 1, the nominal fold varies from 24 in the west
to 12 in the east.
For illustrative purposes, we show four shot gathers (see
Fig. 2a for locations) acquired along the profile with the first
arrivals and subsurface reflections marked (Fig. 3a–d). Note
that ground is very weak in most shot gathers, especially for
those fired in the clay. This is probably due to that shear
wave velocities in the uppermost sediments are very low and
that the shots were fired at a depth of 1.4 m. Likewise, direct
shear wave arrivals are almost absent. Velocities based on the

DATA ACQUISITION Table 1 Data acquisition parameters for the Heby 1 profile

Data were acquired in September 2000 using two 24-channel Parameter

ABEM Terraloc seismographs. To ensure the highest possible
signal quality a 50 g dynamite source was used with shot Source Dynamite
Geophone Single 60 Hz
holes being drilled with a motorized auger down to 1.4 m.
Receiver spacing 1 m/2 m
This source strategy was based on the successful imaging of Source depth 1.4 m
the bedrock interface at another site in an earlier test (Juhlin Profile length 528 m
et al., 2000). However, for the Heby 1 profile, the acquisition Number of channels 48
geometry was changed along the profile to test two different Shot spacing 2 m/4 m
Sample interval 0.1 ms
source and receiver spacings (Fig. 2a). Additional acquisition
Record length 409 ms
parameters are shown in Table 1 with the CDP fold variation


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
 Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 5

Figure 3 Examples of raw shot gathers from the dynamite source at different locations along the profile as shown in Fig. 2a. (a) Shot 10; (b)
shot 50; (c) shot 100; (d) shot 150; (e) amplitude spectra in the interval 0–80 ms from the respective shots. Blue lines mark first breaks (FB), red
curves mark the upper silt layer, purple curves represent the top of the cobbley gravel (CG) and green curves mark the bedrock reflection (BR).

first arrivals for corresponding shots are given in Table 2. On DATA PROCESSING AND RESULTS
some of these shot gathers, the silt reflection (red curve) and
In order to compare the post-stack time migration (PSTM)
bedrock (BR) reflection (green curve) can be clearly distin-
to produce pre-stack depth (PSDM) processing it was neces-
guished. Reflections from within the sedimentary section can
sary to first apply standard processing methods to the Heby
also be identified in some of the raw shot gathers. Amplitude
1 profile. To do this, a similar processing strategy as outlined
spectra from the time window 0–80 ms show a dominant fre-
in Juhlin et al. (2002) was applied to generate the stacked
quency of about 125 Hz. However, useful frequencies up to
500 Hz are present in three of the shots (shot 50, shot 100 and
shot 150), demonstrating the broadband nature of the dyna-
Table 3 PSDM and PSTM data processing flow
mite source. It is only the westernmost shot (shot 10) that has
a 200 Hz upper bound for the useful frequency range, prob- Data processing flow
ably due to the shot being fired in dry sandy till. Given the
Step Process
first-arrival velocities of 460 m/s and 6000 m/s and a crossover
distance of about 20 m, the thickness of the sandy till layer at 1 Geometry installation and trace editing
this location can be estimated to about 8 m. 2 Geometrical spreading correction
3 Trace balance: 0–100 ms
Table 2 Measured first-arrival velocities for corresponding shot 4 Refraction statics
gathers in Fig. 3 5 Spectral whitening and Bandpass filtering: 100–150–400–
600 Hz
Shot First-arrival velocity (m/s) 6 Fixed datum correction: datum = 45 m, velocity = 1600 m/s
7 NMO
10 460/6000 8 Residual statics (iterations before and after velocity analysis)
50 1388 9 PSDM and RMO (Fig. 8b)
100 1412 10 Stack
150 1382 11 PSTM and time-depth conversion (Fig. 8a)


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
6 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin
Figure 4 Velocities from refraction statics that were used as the initial model for tomography. Text boxes mark velocities at certain distances
along the profile.
section. The work flow shown in Table 3 provides a gen-
eral overview of the processing flow. PSDM and PSTM pro-
cessing steps are identical until the normal moveout (NMO)
step.
Proper migration depends heavily on a good velocity
model. This is true for both PSTM and PSDM, but especially
for PSDM. Reflection traveltime tomography can provide
subsurface velocity structure which can be used as a back-
ground or initial model for PSDM or full waveform inversion
(Li et al., 2019). We find that first arrivals provide some
immediate information on the velocities along the profile
(Fig. 3a–d). Picked arrivals were input into a refraction statics
module to produce a two-layer model (Fig. 4) which served as
the starting model for first-arrival tomography (Tryggvason
et al., 2002). Scatter plots (Fig. 5) show that this initial model
(Fig. 6a) did not match the observed data well. However,
the root mean square (RMS) misfit decreased rapidly for
Figure 5 Travel time residuals comparison between the initial model
based on the refraction statics solution and the sixth iteration of
the inversion. The blue scatter points represent the RMS from the
initial velocity and the black points represent the RMS from the sixth
iteration of the inversion.

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
each iteration of the inversion and after six iterations, it had
dropped from about 0.04 s to about 0.0025 s. The resulting
tomographic velocity model is shown in Fig. 6(b). The velocity
model obtained from refraction statics (Fig. 4) indicates that
the saturated clay has a velocity on the order of 1400–1500
m/s, consistent with other observations (Haeni, 1986; Grelle
and Guadagno, 2009). For our tomographic image, we define
the 1400 m/s contour as the top of the saturated zone. Thus,
the tomographic inversion indicates the top of the saturated
zone to be at a few metres depth over much of the profile at
the time of the survey. There is a tendency for this velocity
to be reached at a greater depth in the eastern part of the
profile.
Different 1D velocity functions were used for PSTM and
its depth conversion. For migration, a velocity of 1400 m/s
was fixed down to 50 ms and then increasing linearly to
3000 m/s at 200 ms. For time-depth conversion, a function
based on the borehole lithology was used that differs some-
what from the migration velocity. The model was 1100 m/s
at 10 s, 1650 m/s at 40 ms, and 1800 m/s at 80 m. The final
PSTM depth-converted image is shown in Fig. 7(a).
For PSDM, we used for the shallower parts an initial
velocity model based on the resulting tomographic velocity
model given in Fig. 6(b). Velocities at greater time in the model
were based initially on the NMO velocities from the PSTM
processing. Different velocities were then tested to produce the
best image of the strong reflection observed between distances
of 100 and 300 m at around 0 m elevation (Fig. 7b). Then, fol-
lowing a layer-stripping approach (Al Yahya at greater time
in the model were based initially on the NMO velocities from
the PSTM processing. Different velocities were then tested
to produce the best image of the strong reflection observed
between distances of 100 and 300 m at around 0 m ele-
vation (Fig. 7b). Then, following a layer-stripping approach
(Al Yahya, 1989), the migration velocity was updated. Trial
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15

Figure 6 First-arrival tomography. (a) Ray coverage; (b) tomographic result after six iterations; (c) the same as model (b), but with contour lines
added.
velocities were tested below an elevation of 0 m to gener-
ate the best image of the undulating deeper reflection (see
bedrock reflection (BR) in Fig. 8). In order to refine the ve-
locity model, common image gathers (CIG) were subjected
to residual moveout (RMO) analysis to further flatten criti-
cal reflections. The final PSDM image (Fig. 7b) has several
enhancements compared with the PSTM image (Fig. 7a). Ar-
rows in Fig. 7 emphasize the most prominent improvements
achieved by PSDM, in comparison to the PSTM processing.
Even though the PSDM image is improved comparatively
to the PSTM image, there are still some sections within it
which are problematic. For the distances of 0–50 m, the data
quality is poor, probably due to the fact that the explosive
source with high energy was blasted in dry sandy till. Unsat-
urated and unconsolidated sediments are known to attenuate
seismic energy significantly (Jefferson et al., 1998). Between
50 and 528 m shots were blasted in or close to the top of
the saturated clay, resulting in better source–ground coupling
than in the west. However, at 420–528 m, the image becomes

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 7
poorer due to the reduced spatial sampling geometry over this
section (Fig. 2).
An overlay of the tomographic section on the PSDM im-
age (Fig. 8a) shows that the velocity contour of about 1400
m/s is very shallow, c. 2 m, along much of the profile. How-
ever, east of a distance of 400 m this contour deepens, as
mentioned earlier. The interpreted silt layer at about 9 m
depth stands out as a strong reflection in the PSDM image,
but has a tendency to deepen east of 400 m, in conjunction
with the 1400 m/s contour. This deepening in our tomogra-
phy results is consistent with the resistivity results obtained
in the same area by Ismail et al. (2011). They observed a
decrease in the resistivity values on the eastern half of the pro-
file in their inversion of electric currents flowing parallel and
perpendicular to the structural strike (transverse electric (TE)
and transverse magnetic (TM) inversion) and related this to
an increasing clay content in the region. Borehole data also
support the thickening of the clay layer in the east. Conse-
quently, the deepening of the 1400 m/s velocity contour in the
8 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin

Figure 7 (a) PSTM depth-converted image with borehole information. (b) PSDM image with borehole information. Thin horizontal red short
lines on the boreholes represent thin hard silt layers. Blue arrows show the most prominent improvements of the PSDM image over the PSTM
image.

eastern part of our profile is supported by the borehole data
and the resistivity results of Ismail et al. (2011). This suggests
that there is a real change in subsurface conditions east of
400 m. The top of the cobbley gravel (CG) and the bedrock
(BR) are also clearly delineated, with the cobbley gravel inter-
preted reflection matching well with BH2 data. Several pos-
sible faults are marked along the interpreted bedrock surface
(Fig. 8b).
Synthetic Data Test
In order to verify that produce pre-stack depth (PSDM) does
indeed improve the image of the Heby 1 profile, synthetic
data were generated based on the interpreted section and a
generalized velocity model based on the processing (Fig. 9). In
terms of the forward velocity model definition, the correlation
of borehole data with the PSDM image was used, including
clay1 and clay2 (different types of clay due to different sat-
urations). Given previous results (Juhlin et al., 2002; Ismail
et al., 2011) as a reference, the bedrock surface undulates at
a depth between 40 and 80 m along the Heby 1 profile.
For modelling purposes, a finite-difference acoustic ap-
proach (Thorbecke and Draganov, 2011) was used. A Ricker
wavelet with a maximum frequency of 800 Hz and a dom-
inant frequency of 240 Hz was used as the source function.
Spatial sampling interval along both the x and z directions was
0.25 m. Time sampling was 0.5 ms and the record length was
set to 145 ms. Following the employed real acquisition geom-
etry (Fig. 2a), the source depth was selected as 1.4 m and a
total of 134 shots along the profile were simulated with a shot
spacing of 2 m to the west and a spacing of 4 m to the east of
200 m, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Receivers were considered ver-
tical sensors on the surface and seismic waves were recorded
by 48 channels. Receiver coordinates were obtained from the
field data. Four selected synthetic shot gathers are shown in
Fig. 10(a–d) with their locations marked along the profile in
Fig. 10(e). Corresponding time-offset reflection events from
key interfaces are marked. A shot gather comparison between
the real data and the synthetic data is shown in Fig. 11. The
silt layer, modelled as only 0.25 m thick, can be seen in both
the real and synthetic data. Also, the clay2-sand reflection
is clear in both seismograms. Overall, the character of the


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
 Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 9

Figure 8 (a) Tomographic result overlain

on the PSDM image. (b) Interpretation of
the PSDM image based on the borehole in-
formation. Red, purple and green curves
represent the silt, cobbley gravel (CG) and
bedrock (BR) interfaces. Possible faults in
the bedrock surface are shown by blue lines.

synthetic data matches the real data reasonably well. Note Once the source gathers were generated, they were
that the back-scattered events starting at about 25 m offset in subjected to a similar processing flow as the field data
the synthetic data are due to changes in the surface topography (Table 3), but without any filtering. Velocity functions used
of the model at these locations. for post-stack time migration (PSTM) with depth conversion

Figure 9 Numerical model. (a) Velocity

model overlain onto the PSDM image in
Fig. 7(b) for comparison with field data.
Red, purple and green curves represent the
silt, cobbley gravel (CG) and bedrock (BR)
interfaces, respectively; (b) velocity model
with boreholes marked, velocity bars show
the velocities used in the modelling for the
corresponding rock materials. Note that
the upper 1.25 m is modelled as clay1,
the silt is modelled as being 0.25 m thick
and clay2 (1450 m/s) is present below
and above the silt layer. Bedrock surface
matches with the PSDM image interpreta-
tion.


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
10 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin

Figure 10 Four shot gathers located at the red stars in (e). (a) Shot 10, distance = 20 m; (b) shot 49, distance = 98 m; (c) shot 109, distance =
248 m; (d) shot 159, distance = 448 m. The uppermost dry sand in the western part of the profile was not included in the modelling. Introduction
of this sand layer generated seismograms that were difficult tointerpret. Therefore, shot 10 in the synthetic data differs significantly from shot
10 in the field data (Fig. 3a).

and PSDM are given in Table 4. Note that the uppermost both show relatively good agreement with the model, but the
unsaturated clay velocity is not used in the field data since undulating bedrock surface is better imaged with PSDM. The
this low velocity zone was compensated for in the refraction uppermost silt layer is also sharper and can be traced to shal-
statics. The resulting PSTM and PSDM images (Fig. 12b,c) lower levels.

Figure 11 Comparison of the shot gather at 376 m distance, (a) raw field data with refraction statics applied, (b) processed data, after refraction
statics correction and bandpass filter [100, 150, 400, and 600 Hz] (c) synthetic data. The zero offset times of clay2-silt, clay2-sand and bedrock
are about 0.015, 0.025 and 0.06 s, respectively.


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
 Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 11

Table 4 Velocity definition for field data and synthetic data. Plots in Fig. 13 are marked with Silt, cobbley gravel (CG) and bedrock (BR) depths
to compare various velocities with interpretation. Reflection coefficients for the synthetic modelling are based on the layer that the value is listed
for and the layer below

Field data

PSTM velocity profile PSDM velocity profile

Time (ms) Velocity (m/s) Time (ms) Time-depth V (m/s) Depth (m) Velocity (m/s)

0–35 1140 0–10 1100 0–8 1090

36–60 1445 11–40 1650 9–12 1400
61–108 1500 41–120 1800 13–40 1650
109–250 3000 41–120 1800

Synthetic data (Fig. 13e–h)

CIG: CDP = 225 m and CDP = 250 m

Thickness (m) Velocity (m/s) Density (kg/m3 ) Reflection coefficient (RC)

1.25 1090 1900 0.14

9 1450 1900 0.17
0.25 1700 2300 −0.17
14.75 1450 1900 0.07
20 1600 2000 0.13
35 2050 2200

A further verification that PSDM is more appropriate for
this data set can be found in common image gathers (CIGs)
as shown in Fig. 13. Where the structure is most complex, at
distances of about 225–250 m, the PSDM CIGs show more
horizontal reflections and a sharper image, especially in the
field data.
For the synthetic data, the reflections also match bet-
ter in depth when the CIGs are compared with the model
(Fig. 12). Note that it is not possible to plot CIGs for the
PSTM depth-converted image since the data are migrated af-
ter stack; therefore, we show CIGs for the normal moveout
depth-converted data. These will inherently show a poorer
match if dip is present.
DISCUSSION
This study focuses on how the use of tomography and pre-
stack depth migration (PSDM) may improve imaging and the
interpretation of reflection seismic data acquired over glacial
sediments. The Heby area is of particular importance since
the deep sands and gravels are an important groundwater
reservoir. The new processing does not change the origi-
nal interpretation in Juhlin et al. (2002); however, it does
provide additional information concerning the near-surface
velocity structure and on potential faults in the basement.
Furthermore, it shows how PSDM improves the continuity of
sub-horizontal features and provides better imaging of dipping
interfaces. Velocities used for the pre-stack depth migration
were based on the first-arrival tomography and the normal
moveout velocities from the post-stack migration processing.
Potentially, the image could be further improved by using ve-
locity measurements in the boreholes, especially in BH2 below
10 ma.s.l. in the deep syncline structure (Fig. 8) where dip-
ping interfaces are present. For the shallower more horizontal
structures, borehole velocities would be useful to have, but it
is not likely the image would be improved significantly since
the velocities used in the processing were chosen to optimize
the image.
The thin silt layer at about 9 m depth has a thickness
of about 0.2 m along most of the profile. For a velocity of
1800 m/s, the tuning frequency ( 41 wavelength) for such a
layer is 1600 Hz. This is far higher than the maximum use-
ful frequency recorded. At a frequency of 450 Hz, a 0.2 m
thickness corresponds to 1/20 of the seismic wavelength. The
Heby data set provides an example of how layers much thin-
ner than the 14 wavelength resolution criteria (Widess, 1973)
can be detected. In fact, if it is assumed that it is the dominant
frequency that determines the resolution or detection limit,
then the silt layer is about 1/32 of the wavelength of the dom-
inant frequency. The reason we can map this layer at Heby is


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
12 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin
Figure 12 Synthetic images (a–c) overlain by the velocity model. (a) Image based on synthetic data after NMO, stack and depth conversion; (b)
PSTM image after depth conversion; (c) PSDM image.
probably that it is very laterally continuous with little change
in properties and that the data quality are excellent. We would
like to point out that it is important to differentiate between
resolution and detection when discussing the amplitudes of
reflected waves. Widess (1973) shows that the amplitude of
the reflected wave from a thin layer that has a thickness 1/8
of the dominant seismic wavelength is the same as for a single
interface. In principle, a layer with a thickness of 1/40 of the
seismic wavelength can be detected if ambient noise is very
low (reflection amplitude will be about 0.2 times the single
interface amplitude). For the 1/20 wavelength criteria, then
the reflection amplitude is expected to be about half of that
of a single interface. Given that the single interface reflection
coefficient is 0.17, then the thin layer reflection coefficient

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
for the silt layer should be about 0.085. Such a layer should
generate reflections that are easily detectable on high quality
data.
The potentiometric pressure in the groundwater reser-
voir (sands and gravels below 10 m elevation) was reported
as corresponding to a pressure head of 35 m at the time of the
survey. This is approximately the same elevation as the thin
silt layer. It is therefore important to differentiate between the
groundwater level and the reservoir head in the interpretation
(Sun et al., 2019). The best velocity model shows that satu-
rated clay is present already at depths of 2–3 m, consistent
with surface waters being present just east of the profile, and
implying that the surface groundwater table is at an elevation
of 42–43 m in the area. The clay layers decouple the surface
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
 Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 13

Figure 13 Common image gathers from field data (a–d) at lateral distances of 225 m and 250 m. (a) CDP = 225 m, after NMO and time-depth
conversion; (b) CDP = 250 m, after NMO and time-depth conversion; (c) CDP = 225 m, after PSDM; (d) CDP = 250 m, after PSDM. Common
image gathers from synthetic data (e–h). (e) CDP = 225 m, after NMO and time-depth conversion; (f) CDP = 250 m, after NMO and time-depth
conversion; (g) CDP = 225 m, after PSDM; (h) CDP = 250 m, after PSDM. Red arrows mark silt, clay, cobbley gravel (CG) and bedrock (BR)
following the interpretation in Fig. 8(b).

waters from the deeper reservoir. Our study is an example of
how several sources of information need to be combined to
make a proper interpretation.
Even though we see reflections that can be interpreted
as being generated at the top of the bedrock in the western
part of the profile fired in the dry sandy till (Fig. 3a), it has
not been possible to image these in the stacked sections, even
with PSDM. This may be due to the structure changing so
rapidly in the lateral direction that it is not possible to stack
signals coherently. Closer spacing between sources and re-
ceivers may be necessary in this area to image the bedrock
surface.
CONCLUSIONS
We reprocessed high-resolution shallow seismic reflection
data acquired over glacial deposits in the Heby area, south-
eastern Sweden. Our aim was to improve the seismic images
to better map groundwater-bearing structures and the top of
the bedrock. Picked first arrivals on shot gathers for refrac-
tion statics were used in first-arrival travel time tomography
to estimate the near-surface velocity model. Subsequently, the
tomographic results were used as a starting point in the pro-
cessing to produce pre-stack depth (PSDM) and post-stack
time migration (PSTM) images.
The upper 20 m of overburden is represented by clay
and silt. These layers are underlain by sand/gravel deposits
that overlie an undulating bedrock surface. Migrated sections
show three clear reflections, one at about 35 m elevation that
is interpreted to represent a thin silt layer, a deeper one at
about 10 m elevation that is interpreted as the top of the
cobbley gravel, and a deeper one corresponding to the top
of the bedrock. The depths to all three are consistent with
borehole data along the profile. The surface water table is


C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
14 R. Sun, A. Kaslilar and C. Juhlin
at an elevation of about 42–43 m along the profile based on
analysis of first breaks and surface water observations.
We observe that PSDM improves the seismic image, es-
pecially reflections from the silt layer and from dipping struc-
tures. These reflections became more prominent and continu-
ous with PSDM. Synthetic model tests provide support for
that PSDM is a meaningful alternative and that it is fea-
sible to apply it on the shallow aquifer structure in Heby.
High-resolution seismic reflection data and PSDM can con-
tribute to reliable and accurate imaging of groundwater re-
sources. A comprehensive link of tomography, PSDM and
seismic modelling is capable of improving images and in-
terpretations of reflection seismic data acquired over glacial
sediments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We sincerely thank the editors and the reviewers João Car-
valho and Raymond Durrheim for their constructive com-
ments. RS thanks CSC (China Scholarship Council) for finan-
cial support. Data acquisition was funded by the Geological
Survey of Sweden (SGU). Research data are not shared.
ORCID
Ruixue Sun https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5359-7985
REFERENCES
Al Yahya, K.M. (1989) Velocity analysis by iterative profile migra-
tion. Geophysics, 54, 718–729.
Bachrach, R. and Nur, A. (1998) High-resolution shallow-seismic
experiments in sand, Part 1: Water table, fluid flow, and saturation.
Geophysics, 63(4), 1225–1233.
Baker, G.S., Steeple D.W. and Drake M. (1998) Muting the noise
cone in near-surface reflection data: an example from southeastern
Kansas. Geophysics, 63, 1332–1338.
Birkelo, B.A., Steeples, D.W., Miller, R.D. and Sophocleous, M.A.
(1987) Seismic-reflection study of a shallow aquifer during a pump-
ing test. Ground Water, 25, 703–709.
Bishop, T., Bube, P., Cutler, R., Langan, R., Love, P., Resnick, J.,
Shuey, R., Spindler, D. and Wyld, H. (1985) Tomographic determi-
nation of velocity and depth in laterally varying media. Geophysics,
50(6), 903–923.
Bradford, J.H. (2002) Depth characterization of shallow aquifers with
seismic reflection, Part I, The failure of NMO velocity analysis and
quantitative error prediction. Geophysics, 67, 89–97.
Bradford, J.H. and Sawyer, D.S. (2002) Depth characterization
of shallow aquifers with seismic reflection – Part II: Pre-
stack depth migration and field examples. Geophysics, 67, 98–
109.

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
Bruno, P.P.G. and Godio, A. (1997) Environmental risk assessment of
a shallow aquifer in Piana Campana (Italy): a field comparison be-
tween seismic refraction and reflection methods. European Journal
of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 2, 61–76.
Buker, F., Green, A. and Horstmeyer, H. (1998) Shallow 3-D seis-
mic reflection survey: data acquisition and preliminary processing
strategies. Geophysics, 63, 1434–1450.
Buker, F., Green, A.G. and Horstmeyer, H. (2000) 3-D high-
resolution reflection seismic imaging of unconsolidated glacial and
glaciolacustrine sediments. Geophysics, 65(1), 18–34.
Burschil, T., Buness, H., Tanner, D.C., Wielandt-Schuster, U., Ell-
wanger, D. and Gabriel, G. (2018) High-resolution reflection seis-
mics reveal the structure and the evolution of the Quaternary
glacial Tannwald basin. Near Surface Geophysics, 16(6), 593–
610.
Butler, J.J. Jr. (2005) Hydrogeological methods for estimation of
spatial variations in hydraulic conductivity. In: Singh, V.P. (Ed.)
Hydrogeopyhsics (Water Science and Technology Library 50).
Springer, pp. 23–58.
Dietrich, P. and Leven, C. (2006). Direct push technologies. In: Kirsch,
R., Groundwater Geophysics a Tool for Hydrogeology, 1st edition.
Berlin: Springer, pp. 321–337.
Dix, C.H. (1955) Seismic velocities from surface measurements. Geo-
physics, 20, 68–86.
Geissler, P.E. (1989) Seismic profiling for groundwater studies in Vic-
toria, Australia. Geophysics, 54, 31–37.
Ghose, R., Nijhof, V., Brouwer, J., Matubara, Y., Kaida, Y. and Taka-
hashi, T. (1998). Shallow to very shallow, high-resolution reflection
seismic using a portable vibrator system. Geophysics, 63(4), 1295–
1309.
Giustiniani, M., Accaino, F., Picotti, S. and Tinivella, U. (2008) Char-
acterization of the shallow aquifers by high-resolution seismic data.
Geophysical Prospecting, 56, 655–666.
Grelle, G. and Guadagno, F.M. (2009) Seismic refraction methodol-
ogy for groundwater level determination: “water seismic index”.
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 68, 301–320.
Hasselström, B. (1969) Water prospecting and rock-investigation by
the seismic refraction method. Geoexploration, 7(2), 113–132.
Haeni, F.P. (1986) Application of seismic refraction methods in
groundwater modelling studies in New England. Geophysics, 51(2),
236–249.
Hunter, J.A., Pullan, S.E., Burns, R.A., Gagne, R.M. and Good,
R.S. (1984) Shallow seismic reflection mapping of the overburden
bedrock interface with the engineering seismograph—some simple
techniques. Geophysics, 49, 1381–1385.
Ismail, N., Schwarz, G. and Pedersen, L. (2011) Investigation of
groundwater resources using controlled-source radio magnetotel-
lurics (CSRMT) in glacial deposits in Heby, Sweden. Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 73(1), 74–83.
Jefferson, R., Steeples, D., Black, R. and Carr, T. (1998) Effects of
soil-moisture content on shallow-seismic data. Geophysics, 63(4),
1357–1362.
Juhlin C., Palm H., Müllern C.F. and Wållberg B. (2000) High-
resolution reflection seismics applied to detection of groundwater
resources in glacial deposits, Sweden. Geophysical Research Let-
ters, 27, 1575–1578.
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15

Juhlin, C., Palm, H., Müllern, C.F. and Wållberg, B. (2002) Imaging of
groundwater resources in glacial deposits using high-resolution re-
flection seismic, Sweden. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 51, 107–
120.
Lankston, R.W. (1990) High-resolution refraction seismic data ac-
quisition and interpretation. In: Ward, S.H. (Ed.) Geotechnical and
Environmental Geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
pp. 45–74.
Lanz, E., Maurer, H. and Green, A.G. (1998) Refraction tomography
over a buried waste disposal site. Geophysics, 63, 1414–1433.
Li, Z., Min, D.-J., Hwang, J. and Oh, J.-W. (2019) Ray-based reflec-
tion traveltime tomography using approximate stationary points.
Near Surface Geophysics, 17(5), 463–477.
Liu, Y. and Wu, Z. (2018) Evaluation of traveltime tomography in es-
timating near-surface velocity inversion. Near Surface Geophysics,
17(1), 85–97.
Maries, G., Ahokangas, E., Mäkinen, J., Pasanen, A. and Malehmir,
A. (2016) Interlobate esker architecture and related hydrogeo-
logical features derived from a combination of high-resolution
reflection seismic and refraction tomography, Virttaankangas,
southwest Finland. Hydrogeology Journal, 25, 829–845.
Mayne, W.H. (1962) Common reflecting point horizontal data stack-
ing techniques. Geophysics, 27, 927–938.
Morey, D. and G.T. Schuster. (1999) Paleoseismicity of the Oquirrh
fault, Utah from shallow seismic 2008, tomography. Geophysical
Journal International, 138, 25–35.
Müllern, C.F. (2008) Description to the map Groundwater bodies in
Heby municipality. Technical Report SGU 1652–8336: Geological
Survey of Sweden, Uppsala, Sweden.
Perz, M., Bruins, C. and Heim, J. (2019) Shallow land PSDM ve-
locity model building for unconventional plays. SEG International
Exposition and 89th Annual Meeting, pp. 4952–4956.

C 2020 The Authors. Near Surface Geophysics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association
of Geoscientists and Engineers., Near Surface Geophysics, 1–15
Reprocessing of high-resolution seismic data 15
Pugin, A., Pullan, S., Hunter, J. and Oldenborger, G. (2009) Hydro-
geological prospecting using P-and S-wave landstreamer seismic
reflection methods. Near Surface Geophysics, 7, 315–327.
Schmelzbach, C., Green, A.G. and Horstmeyer, H. (2005) Ultra-
shallow seismic reflection imaging in a region characterized by high
source-generated noise. Near Surface Geophysics, 3, 33–46.
Sloan, D.S., Tsoflias, G.P. and Steeples, D.W. (2010) Ultra-shallow
seismic imaging of the top of the saturated zone. Geophysical Re-
search Letters, 37(7), L07405.
Steeples, D.W., Green, A.G., McEvilly, T.V., Miller, R.D., Doll,
W.E. and Rector, J.W. (1997) A workshop examination of shal-
low seismic reflection surveying. The Leading Edge, 16(11), 1641–
1647.
Sun, R., Kaslilar, A. and Juhlin, C. (2019) Seismic imaging of shallow
groundwater resources in glacial deposits. Sweden. Near Surface
Geoscience Conference & Exhibition 2019, 8–12 September 2019,
The Hague, Netherlands.
Thorbecke, J. and Draganov, D. (2011) Finite-difference modelling
experiments for seismic interferometry. Geophysics, 76(6), H1–
H18.
Tryggvason, A., Rögnvaldsson, S. and Flovenz, O. (2002) Three-
dimensional imaging of the P- and S-wave velocity structure and
earthquake locations beneath Southwest Iceland. Geophysical Jour-
nal International, 151, 848–866.
Voyiadjis, G.Z. and Song, C.R. (2003) Determination of hydraulic
conductivity using piezocone penetration test. International Journal
of Geomechanics, 3, 217–224.
Widess, M.B. (1973) How thin is a thin bed? Geophysics, 38, 1176–
1180.
Yordkayhun, S. (2011) Detecting near-surface objects with seis-
mic traveltime tomography: experimentation at a test site. Songk-
lanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 33(4), 477–485.