Geophysical Prospecting, 2015, 63, 1015–1032 doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.

12255

Characterization of seismic reflections from faults in a crystalline

environment, Schneeberg, Germany
Lena Schreiter ∗ , Felix Hloušek, Olaf Hellwig and Stefan Buske
Institute of Geophysics and Geoinformatics TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg Gustav-Zeuner-Str., 12 D-09599 Freiberg, Germany

Received October 2014, revision accepted January 2015

ABSTRACT
We present an approach for analysing seismic reflections from faults in a crystalline
hard rock environment. We analysed 3D seismic reflection data for geothermal reser-
voir characterization acquired in the Erzgebirge Region, Germany. The seismic image
derived from this data set revealed two main features: a less pronounced reflector
corresponding to a steeply dipping major fault zone Roter Kamm and a group of
pronounced reflectors attributed to the existence of conjugate mineralized faults. We
analysed these reflections in the pre-stack data to characterize the nature and origin of
reflectivity. This was done by extracting the corresponding waveforms from the raw
data and carefully pre-processing them, including amplitude correction for geometri-
cal spreading and signal-to-noise enhancement. Reflection coefficients were derived
from the pre-processed shot gathers by comparing the amplitudes of the reflected and
direct waves. Synthetic waveform modelling using the reflectivity method has been
performed for several model families consisting of one-dimensional velocity–depth
functions with varying velocities, densities, and thicknesses of the layers. A compari-
son of the modelled and observed waveforms revealed that a reflection coefficient of
0.18 for the conjugate mineralized faults can be explained by single layers with high
impedance contrast and a thickness between 30 m and 40 m, whereas the reflection
from the Roter Kamm fault zone with a reflection coefficient of −0.23 requires a
model consisting of several low-velocity layers with a total thickness of up to 100
m embedded in a high-velocity background model. These results are in accordance
with the geological interpretation of these reflectors. However, the characteristics of
these reflections vary significantly within the investigation area, both in terms of the
reflection coefficient and the waveform, which is also in agreement with the general
lateral variation of fault zone characteristics known from tectonic investigations such
as geological mapping of outcrops and fabric analysis.

Key words: Modelling, Interpretation, Reservoir geophysics, Rock physics, Seismics.

INTRODUCTION structural elements in crystalline rock units (Eaton, Milkereit,

Seismic investigations of the Earth’s crust often provide diffuse
and, in some cases, even incoherent images of structures in a
crystalline hard rock environment. This illustrates the charac-
teristic heterogeneity and small-scale distribution of reflective
∗ E-mail: lena.schreiter@student.tu-freiberg.de
and Salisbury 2003). However, sharply defined and highly re-
flective structures can be observed in several cases. Initially,
their cause seems unclear and is often associated with tectonic
fault systems or ore mineralization (Malehmir et al. 2014). In
some cases, the influence of trapped fluids is proposed as a
cause of highly pronounced reflectors (bright spots) at mid-
crustal levels (Klemperer and BIRPS Group 1987).


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 1015
1016 L. Schreiter et al.
Studies on the origin of seismic reflections in crystalline
rocks require seismic data sets with high signal-to-noise ra-
tios and efforts to preserve the true amplitudes. The task is
to identify reflectors by relating physical parameters to ge-
ological settings. Usually this is accomplished by correlating
borehole seismic measurements or laboratory measurements
of the elastic rock properties in core samples (e.g., White,
Secord, and Malinowski 2012) with images from surface seis-
mic surveys. For example, Juhlin (1990) interpreted several
reflectors in the Siljan impact structure (Sweden) with an up
to 60-m-thick dolerite intrusion in contact with granite.
In another case study, Zillmer, Müller, and Stiller (2002)
analysed a 3D seismic data set from the German Continen-
tal Deep Drilling site (KTB) in order to relate petrophysical
parameters to the observed reflectors. By using the true am-
plitudes of the seismic data set, we followed the methodology
of Zillmer et al. (2002) to derive the approximate reflection
coefficients and an internal fault zone structure. Laminated
models with strong velocity contrast and maximum fault zone
widths of 300 m produced the highest reflection coefficients
of 0.1 – 0.2. For the same study area, Harjes et al. (1997)
suggested that high reflection coefficients of 0.1 – 0.15 origi-
nate from fluid-filled fractures and cataclastic fracture zones.
In another seismic study of the crystalline crust, Trela (2003)
performed seismic modelling to evaluate strong reflections of
the PS-converted wave using zero-offset vertical seismic pro-
filing seismograms. By performing reflectivity modelling and
adjusting the frequency dependence, the best approximation
was found using a 20-m-thick low-velocity homogeneous pla-
nar layer with a Vp/Vs ratio of 2 and a P-wave velocity reduc-
tion from 6500 m/s to 4800 m/s.
Based on the aforementioned methodology, we were mo-
tivated to conduct a similar study on a high-quality 3D seis-
mic data set acquired in the Erzgebirge region within the
project Seismik im Kristallin Sachsen (SIKS). The aim of this
project was to study the feasibility of seismic exploration
methods to characterize a major fault system in crystalline
rock, which could potentially be used as a deep geothermal
reservoir.
The purpose of our work was to understand the origin of
significant reflective structures observed in the seismic image
in a systematic way with the help of different reflector models
and seismic waveform simulation. Specifically, the main
focus lies on the characterization of structures whose thickn-
ess is much smaller than the wavelength, such as tectonic
faults and vein systems, resulting in piecewise coherent
reflections and poorly imaged features. Based on this goal we
designed a 1D acoustic forward modelling workflow.

C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
This approach is similar to studies using conventional
amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) analysis; however, we are not
performing actual AVO analysis since it is not appropriate
for characterizing complex geology and low signal-to-noise-
ratio events. We designed model families with variations in
geometrical and petrophysical parameters of the fault sys-
tem under consideration. The modelling parameters contain
characteristics of the fault system, including the width of the
different layers, the velocity variations within the layers, and
density variations due to mineralization or possible rupture
zones. Synthetic seismograms act as a reference for the ob-
served waveforms and provide potential interpretations for
the reflection strength and other waveform characteristics. As
a result of this study, these parameters are indirectly derived
from the structure image, although the actual frequency con-
tent of the source does not allow us to determine a unique
model that explains the observations.
In this study, we describe the geological setting and the
dominant tectonic features within our hard rock environment,
followed by structural characterization based on a 3D seismic
image cube. After that, the approach for deriving reflection
coefficients is presented, which includes the analysis of the
direct wave and the fault reflections in terms of their reflection
strength and waveform characteristics. Finally, this method is
applied to the real data set, resulting in quantitative structural
models of the two different types of faults under consideration
and includes a geological interpretation.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND SEISMIC
IMAGING RESULT
Geological setting
The investigation area is located in the Western Ore Moun-
tains (see Fig. 1), situated between the cities Aue and Schnee-
berg at the intersection of two large-scale tectonic structures
(Hiller and Schuppan 2008; Wallner et al. 2009). These are the
SW–NE striking Loessnitz–Zwoenitzer syncline and the NW–
SE trending Gera–Jachymov fault system. The geology is char-
acterized by various schists (phyllites and mica schist), which
were deformed by folding during the Variscan orogeny. Later,
magmatic activities penetrated the formation with granite in-
trusions in the S and SW. The older metamorphic succession
covers the younger granite body in the central survey area.
The phyllites and mica schists are in turn covered by volcanic
and sedimentary of Rotliegendes in the northern part.
The study area represents the most exposed part of the
Gera–Jachymov fault zone in Saxon territory, whose activity

Figure 1 Geographical location and geological setting of the investigation area. SGs and receiver lines, used for our reflectivity study, are shown
in the left map, and the strike of the structure Roter Kamm is visible in the right map. The line A-A’ corresponds to the geological cross section
shown in Fig. 2.
had the greatest influence on the actual geological setting. As
a result of faulting, a latticed system of fractures is observed.
Multiple activations of the fault zone during the post-orogenic
granite intrusion lead to a complex system of dykes. During
these processes the system also experienced multi-stage hy-
drothermal mineralization (Hiller and Schuppan 2008). This
is observed at many NW–SE trending discontinuities. These
hydrothermal filled faults can be distinguished from contin-
ually occurring large structures as formations with low ex-
tension to micro fractures. They can be classified by extent,
thickness, and composition (Wallner et al. 2009).
The dominant faults have been mainly observed and
analysed in the upper 700 m–1000 m due to former mining
activities (Fig. 2). The main structure of the study area is
the Roter Kamm fault zone, which has the character of a
normal fault and documented thicknesses of up to 100 m
(Wallner et al. 2009; Hiller and Schuppan 2008). In contrast,
several other structures can be described as conjugate faults,
which are tectonically overprinted and exhibit hydrothermal
multi-stage mineralization. According to the geological sec-
tion, their dip (50◦ –70◦ SW) is opposite to that of the Roter
Kamm fault (65◦ –70◦ NE). The thickness of the conjugate
faults is determined to be at least 10 m from mining activities.
Near the granite body, a general increase is observed with
fault thicknesses varying between 40 m and 60 m (Hiller
and Schuppan 2008). In general, a network of large-scale
structures with a complex vein system dominated by two
oblique structures, the tectonic rupture zone (Roter Kamm),
and conjugate faults with mineralization complexes consti-
tute the geological and tectonic framework within the study
area.

C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
Seismic reflections from faults 1017
3D seismic survey
The project SIKS aimed to image the complex and partly
steeply dipping fault system using a high-resolution 3D Vi-
broseis seismic survey acquired in 2012 and covering an area
of about 11.5 km × 14.0 km (black rectangle in Fig. 1). The
source signal was a 12 Hz–96 Hz upsweep with a length of
12 seconds. Up to 6000 receivers recorded simultaneously for
each of the 5349 source positions. Further details of the survey
parameters and the results of applying advanced seismic imag-
ing techniques to this data set can be found in Hloušek, Hell-
wig, and Buske (2015). The main features found in the result-
ing 3D seismic image cube are a group of parallel SW-dipping
high-amplitude reflections. According to the geological data
(see Figs. 1 and 2), these reflectors presumably represent the
conjugate faults embedded in the granite body as described
above. In contrast, the Roter Kamm fault zone is in some parts
not directly visible in the 3D seismic image cube. However,
an internal offset in the image of some of the conjugate faults
can be associated with a normal fault character and indirectly
with the existence of the Roter Kamm fault (Hloušek et al.
2015). We carefully selected the subsets, the so-called shot
groups (SGs), from the unmigrated 3D seismic data set that
illuminate the Roter Kamm fault in the NW of the survey area
(Fig. 1). Consequently a direct and strongly pronounced im-
age of the Roter Kamm was obtained. The appearance of both
fault zones is illustrated in Fig. 3 for SG 58 in the SW and SG
34 in the NE of the survey area (see Fig. 1). The Roter Kamm
fault appears as a single highly reflective structure down to a
depth of approximately 3 km (Fig. 3a). Its dip (65◦ –70◦ ) fits
to the extrapolated surface trace and to the documented in-
mine observations (Hiller and Schuppan 2008). The conjugate
1018 L. Schreiter et al.

Figure 2 Geological cross section from SW to NE corresponding to line A-A’ in Fig. 1, modified after Wallner et al. (2009). The cross-section
shows the location of the granite body (red) covered by various schists (blue, green). The steeply dipping normal fault Roter Kamm represents
the main structure. Also, several conjugate faults (Bad Elster, Schwerin, etc.) are shown (mapped locations in the mine indicated in green and
extrapolated to greater depth in black).

Figure 3 Result of Kirchhoff pre-stack depth migration for subsets of the 3D data set (stacked absolute values, see Hloušek et al. (2015) for
details). (a) Single NE-dipping structure imaged by SG 34 representing the Roter Kamm fault. (b) SW dipping reflectors imaged by SG 58 (see
Fig. 1 for SG locations) associated with the conjugate faults.

faults are similarly imaged in the migration result, where the
shallower conjugate faults appear in SG 58 between depths
of 1 km and 3 km (Fig. 3b). Therefore, the conjugate faults
extend deeper in the structural image than what is shown in
the geological cross section, indicating they cross-cut the Roter
Kamm and continue into its footwall. In general, it is observed
that the reflectivity of the conjugate structures weakens with
depth, which might be related to the limited coverage and
aperture of the survey area or simply due to the decreasing
reflectivity with depth. Compared with the 3D seismic image


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
 Seismic reflections from faults 1019

cube by Hloušek et al. (2015), the image slice shown here The resulting fit for selected shots is presented as a solid line
(Fig. 3b) displays only two single representative structures in Fig. 4. Despite some local effects, the fitted curve explains
with a highly reflective character, which are part of the group the general amplitude decay of the first arrival with offset
of parallel NW–SE-dipping faults. These results allow us to quite well. In general, the first arrivals are affected by local
directly compare the highly reflective structures to the domi- near-surface inhomogeneities and ground coupling effects of
nant coherent onsets of reflections observed in the pre-stack the geophones, as well as energy losses when the wave travels
shot gathers. through the subsurface. To compensate for these effects, two
corrections were applied. First, in order to reduce the local
near-surface effects, the amplitudes were aligned to match the
WORKFLOW FOR ESTIMATING
theoretical amplitude decay curve with offset. Then, a scaling
REFLECTION COEFFICIENTS
factor was applied to compensate for the general amplitude
Analysis of the direct wave decay with offset. In a homogeneous medium, the energy de-
crease due to geometrical spreading of the wavefront as it
The first step in our characterization workflow is to derive
propagates away from the source can be described by the
the reflection coefficients. For that a comparison between the
reciprocal of the squared travel distance (Sheriff and Geldart
arrival of direct and reflected P-waves is performed according
1995). In an inhomogeneous medium, energy decrease may be
to Zillmer et al. (2002). In this case we call the direct wave
faster than expected and can be approximately compensated
the reference wave.
by the scaling term rx, which was applied to the amplitudes
The analysis of first arrivals has been performed for 10
of the direct wave using the exponent determined by the fit-
shots in SG 58 and 21 shots in SG 34 (green and blue boxes
ting procedure described above. Differences in the x values are
in Fig. 1), with each having up to 6000 traces along 22 and
observed within all receiver lines and are caused by local near-
23 receiver lines per shot, respectively. The distance between
surface inhomogeneities. The c-value refers to the first-arrival
geophone lines and geophone groups was about 400 m and 30
amplitude for zero offset and varies on average between 12
m, respectively. Due to local conditions (property access) the
and 16.
distribution of geophone groups was irregular in some parts.
The maximum offset was about 10 km.
The first-arrival waveforms are similar to the autocor- Analysis of the reflections from the conjugate faults
relation function of the used Vibroseis sweep signal, i.e., the and the Roter Kamm fault zone
Klauder wavelet. We determined the first-arrival amplitudes
In order to analyse the reflections from the Roter Kamm fault
by selecting the absolute amplitude maximum within a time
and the conjugate faults in more detail, we conducted a closer
window of 50 ms around the waveform. These absolute am-
inspection of the pre-stack single shot gathers within the se-
plitudes are shown in Fig. 4 for some representative SGs as a
lected SGs. No gain correction or other pre-processing steps
function of the offset r. For small offsets (r < 1.0 km), we ob-
were applied to the gathers, meaning the analysis was per-
serve a strong decay of the first-arrival amplitudes as expected.
formed on the raw data.
For intermediate offsets (r = 1.5 – 3 km) some variations are
We used the source and receiver coordinates to calculate
present, which are probably caused by local inhomogeneities
theoretical two-way travel times for all shot-receiver config-
in the weathering layer, and result in strong velocity and den-
urations relating to the potential reflectors visible in the mi-
sity changes.
gration slices (Fig. 3). For these calculations, the background
We use a power law, i.e.,
velocity was set to 6000 m/s in accordance to the velocity
A = cr−x , (1) model derived by Hloušek et al. (2015). This simple constant
velocity model is justified because of the rapid transition from
to correct for the characteristic amplitude decay with off-
the near-surface overburden to the approximately constant
set, where A is the maximum absolute amplitude of the
velocity of 6000 m/s for the granite body. The calculated two-
first-arrival waveform.
way travel times allowed easy identification of the reflections
The coefficients c and x are determined by linear poly-
from the two fault zones under consideration within the single
nomial curve fitting of the calculated amplitudes to the real
single-shot gather.
amplitudes according to
Reflections from the conjugate faults can be clearly
log(A) = c − x log(r ). (2) identified in all shots within SG 58, predominantly on six


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
1020 L. Schreiter et al.

Figure 4 Reference wave amplitudes for indicated shot locations of group no. 58 (shot no. 1430, 1431, 1433, and 1437) and 34 (shot no. 5410,
5411, 5412, and 5418) and some receiver lines (Fig. 1). Amplitudes (dots) are shown for the offsets corresponding to the observed reflections
in the seismograms. Factor x reproduces the fitted amplitude decay (solid line) by applying the used power law.

receiver lines, between two-way travel times of 1 seconds and
2 seconds. Figure 5 shows an example from shot number 1433
and receiver line number 5160, which runs in the SW–NE di-
rection almost perpendicular to the strike of the conjugate
faults. In this seismogram section several pronounced reflec-
tions can be traced as coherent signals. One can clearly iden-
tify similar first-arrival and reflected-arrival polarities. Also,
reflections from the Roter Kamm fault can be easily identi-
fied on several shots of SG 34 between two-way travel times
of 1.4 seconds and 1.8 seconds. Figure 6 shows an example
from shot number 5412 and receiver line number 5253. Al-
though the waveforms of the direct and reflected arrivals are
not as clear as in Fig. 5, it already appears that the direct
arrival and the reflected arrival have opposite polarity in the
case of the Roter Kamm reflection.
After this first visual inspection, reflection coefficients for
both fault reflectors were determined. In each case we consid-
ered only a limited number of traces that showed sufficiently
good signal quality. These traces were taken from different
offsets, mainly between 500 m and 2000 m, with the assump-
tion that they contain reflections resulting from near-normal
incidence onto the corresponding reflector. For these traces,
varying time shifts was applied so the reflection waveforms
all have the same travel time. This time shift was obtained
by cross-correlating the waveforms. Subsequently, the aligned
waveforms were stacked to obtain a representative waveform
with an increased signal-to-noise ratio.
Co-located traces to be used for stacking were selected
considering the first Fresnel zone on the reflector. The maxi-
mum spatial spread of the reflection points can be calculated,


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032

Figure 5 Data example for shot 1433 and receiver line 5160. The seismogram section shows a clear first arrival as well as coherent reflections
(marked by green arrows) from the conjugate faults. An automatic gain control (AGC) has been applied for display purposes.
taking the first Fresnel zone into account. For a target depth
of 2000 m and a wavelength of 125 m, this yields a diameter
of 700 m. In most cases, the spatial spread of the reflector
area was on average 300 m. This also represents the maxi-
mum offset difference within one selected seismogram section
(for stacking and extracting waveform), i.e., the distance from
the first to the last trace within one section. In order to obtain
representative waveforms, we stacked on average ten neigh-
bouring traces.
Next, the amplitude of this representative waveform was
corrected for geometrical spreading in the same way as de-
scribed above for the direct wave by using the reciprocal of
the corresponding travel distance. In this case, the travel dis-
tance was calculated as the product of velocity and travel time.
The resulting representative waveform can be considered the
near-normal-incidence reflection, which can be compared di-
rectly with the direct wave in terms of its amplitude ratio.
For that we used the stacked maximum amplitudes of the di-
rect wave within the corresponding section. This yields the
corresponding near-normal-incidence reflection coefficient.
Applying this procedure for selected conjugate reflections
lead to the amplitude ratios as a function of offset shown
in Fig. 7 for different shots and receiver lines. The resulting

C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
Seismic reflections from faults 1021
reflection coefficients vary between 0.1 and 0.3, with an aver-
age of around 0.18. This clearly represents a high value in ac-
cordance with the pronounced appearance of these conjugate
reflectors in the seismic image and with the a priori geological
interpretation as mineralized fault zones. Nevertheless, pos-
sible tuning effects must be taken into account, which must
be discussed in detail also with regard to the waveform of
the reflection. Applying the same procedure to the reflection
from the Roter Kamm fault yields an average reflection coef-
ficient of 0.23 (see Fig. 8). However, in this case, we found
a wider spread of amplitude ratios, which together with the
more complex reflection waveform, suggests that interference
effects for certain angles and offsets are present. This might
be caused by a more complex internal structure of the Roter
Kamm fault.
ANALYSIS OF THE REFLECTIONS AND
EXPLANATION OF WAVEFORMS BY
FORWARD MODELLING
Forward modelling studies are mandatory for understand-
ing not only the values of the reflection coefficients but also
the waveforms of the reflections. This includes an assessment
1022 L. Schreiter et al.
Figure 6 Data example for shot 5412 and receiver line 5253. Although the first-arrival waveform appears more complicated compared with
Fig. 5, the reflection from the Roter Kamm fault (marked by the green arrow) is pronounced and well visible. An AGC has been applied for
display purposes.
of the influence of geometrical and petrophysical parameter
variations with regard to the internal structure of the faults.
In this case, the geological situation is relatively simple be-
cause a reflecting fault is located within a nearly homoge-
neous granitic environment that has no strong velocity con-
trasts. Moreover, the ray paths between source and reflector
are almost straight; therefore, we can assume that acoustic for-
ward modelling based on a 1D model is sufficient to explain
the first-order effects on the waveforms and amplitudes. The
study is carried out for a certain wavelet with fixed wave-
form (frequency content) assuming normal incidence onto
the reflector. We explicitly exclude the elastic case, includ-
ing conversions, because the acquisition was performed with
vertical-component receivers only, and we also exclude in-
trinsic and scattering attenuation. Our applied 1D modelling
approach is based on the reflectivity method introduced by
Müller (1985). It comprises a matrix formalism that is capable
of computing the full wavefield response of an incident plane
wave with chosen source signal onto a horizontally layered
medium, including transmission losses and internal multiple
reflections.
For the first resolution tests we have chosen a Ricker
wavelet with a peak frequency of 48 Hz as a source signal. This
wavelet is well understood and resembles well the shape and

C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
the duration of the autocorrelation function of the Vibroseis
source signal (12 seconds, upsweep 12 Hz–96 Hz) in our data
set.
Resolution test using wedge model
The vertical resolution depends on the wavelength of the
source signal propagating in the subsurface with a certain
velocity. For the Ricker wavelet with 48-Hz peak frequency
and an increased velocity for an embedded fault of 6500 m/s,
the wavelength is approximately 135 m. In order to separate
two reflection events within a single seismogram, their dif-
ference in travel time has to be larger than the length of the
signal itself so that these two events do not interfere. In our
case this means that the layer must have a thickness of at least
68 m. If the layer thickness is larger, then the two separate
reflections can be easily distinguished. If the layer thickness is
smaller, then the two reflections interfere, resulting in a more
complex waveform. The amplitudes of this resulting wave-
form are influenced by this interference, causing the so-called
tuning effects.
We have tested the behaviour of seismic waves in a wedge
model that represents our fault within hard rock environment,
i.e., a layer of varying thickness (10 m–100 m) with high
 Seismic reflections from faults 1023

Figure 7 Amplitude ratios between selected conjugate fault reflections and the reference wave as a function of source–receiver offset. The
assigned reflection coefficient is the calculated average for this shot/receiver line. Crosses represent the raw amplitude ratio (calculated for
the uncorrected data) and green circles correspond to the amplitude ratio of the stacked and corrected waveforms. The dashed lines indicate the
general trend within the respective shot/receiver line.

velocity (6500 m/s) and density (3300 kg/m3 ) embedded in a
homogeneous background with velocity of 6000 m/s and den-
sity of 2600 kg/m3 . Figure 9 shows the resulting waveforms
including an analysis of their estimated peak-to-peak ampli-
tudes. The superposition and amplification of the individual
wavelets can produce reflections of considerable strength.
From the seismic response in Fig. 9 we can conclude the
following.
– The layer thickness of about 27 m produces the maximum
peak-to-peak amplitude. For this layer thickness (light blue
trace in Fig. 9, left) constructive interference leads to an


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
1024 L. Schreiter et al.

Figure 8 Amplitude ratios between the Roter Kamm reflection and the reference wave as a function of source–receiver offset. The reflection
coefficient is the calculated average for this shot/receiver line. Crosses represent the raw amplitude ratio (calculated for the uncorrected data)
and red circles correspond to the amplitude ratio of the stacked and corrected waveforms. The dashed lines indicate the general trend within
the respective shot/receiver line.

amplification (tuning), which is approximately 1.43 times
larger than the amplitude for a single interface reflection
(Amax ). This thickness is slightly smaller than the often
assumed quarter-wavelength “tuning thickness” (Kallweit
and Wood 1982). Constructive interference occurs for a har-
monic wave with frequency ω if the reflected waves from the
top and the bottom of a layer with thickness d are shifted by
half a period T, so that
vT λ
d= = ,
4 4
with the layer velocity v and the wavelength λ. In our case
the Ricker wavelet has a broad frequency band around its
peak frequency of 48 Hz, so that this formulation can only
be considered an approximation. Furthermore, transmission
and multiple reflections are also considered in the waveform
simulation, so that an exact doubling of the maximum tuning
amplitude cannot be expected.
– For a layer thickness larger than the tuning thickness, the
amplitude of the first reflection converges to the reflection
from a single interface (green wavelet in Fig. 9 left, green
level in right window). The thickness of the layer can be
directly determined from the time difference of the wavelets.
The minimum resolvable layer thickness is given by the clear
(3) separation of two reflected wavelets (approximately 68 m).
– For a layer thickness smaller than the tuning thickness, the
two reflections from the top and the bottom of the layer
interfere and cannot be distinguished from each other. The
layer itself can be detected, but its boundaries cannot be
resolved.


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
 Seismic reflections from faults 1025

Figure 9 Wedge modelling result showing the interference effects of the resulting waveform (left) and the related differences in the peak-to-peak
amplitude (blue) and two-way travel time (red) for two reflected zero-phase wavelets with opposite polarity (right). The peak-to-peak amplitude
is normalized to the amplitude for a first-order discontinuity (single interface) with the same parameter contrast (green).

These observations show that we must analyse the ob-
served waveforms of the reflections in terms of their ampli-
tudes and travel-time differences between their constituting
wavelets.
Model space and parameters
For a simple model of a single layer we can vary three vari-
ables: the velocity contrast, the density contrast, and the thick-
ness of the layer. These three variables define the model space
that has to be searched for the parameter combinations that
explain the observed amplitude and waveform of the reflec-
tion. Different combinations of these three parameters enable
the classification of model families. We first distinguish be-
tween models with a first-order discontinuity and a single
layer within a homogeneous medium, which is the so-called
lamella. Multi-layer models are considered later for a more de-
tailed analysis of the waveform. In all cases, the surrounding
medium represents a granitic environment with a P-wave ve-
locity of 6000 m/s and a density of 2600 kg/m3 (Schön 1983).
According to the geological setting, these parameters represent
a good approximation of the rock mass around the illuminated
parts of the Roter Kamm fault and the conjugate faults.
The modelling results yield a certain waveform with peak-
to-peak amplitude and corresponding reflection coefficient,
which has to be assessed by comparing it with the representa-
tive waveform obtained from the real data.
First-order discontinuity
The first model considered is a first-order discontinuity, which
is described by an interface between two homogeneous half-
spaces each with a constant velocity and density. The dimen-
sion of the model space is therefore reduced to two parame-
ters: velocity and density contrast.
For the conjugate faults we assumed an impedance in-
crease based on the previous observations (polarity), so that
the reflection coefficient is expected to be positive. Therefore,
to reproduce a reflection coefficient of 0.18, as inferred from
the data analysis, a first-order discontinuity requires one of the
following:
– velocity increase of 43% to 8600 m/s with no density
contrast;
– density increase of 44% to 3740 kg/m3 with no velocity
contrast;
– velocity and density increase each of 20% to 7200 m/s and
3120 kg/m3 , respectively.
In contrast, the description of the Roter Kamm fault as
a rupture zone implies an impedance reduction; therefore, the
modelled reflection coefficient is expected to be negative. A
reflection coefficient of −0.23 can be produced by any of the
following parameter variations:
– velocity decrease of 37% to 3760 m/s with no density
contrast;


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
1026 L. Schreiter et al.

Figure 10 Model space for a single layer embedded in a hard-rock environment with a range of values for the P-wave velocity (v2, p ), density
(ρ2 ), and layer thickness (z2 ). The model signal was a Ricker wavelet with 48 Hz. The embedded layer (index 2) has an increased impedance
I2 , compared with the homogeneous hard-rock medium (I2 > I1 = I3 , indexes 1 and 3 for the upper and lower half-spaces, respectively). Red
colours show the region of reflection coefficients (R = 0.20), which are close to the averaged observed reflection coefficient of the conjugate
faults in the real data.

– density decrease of 37% to 1640 kg/m3 with no velocity
contrast;
– velocity and density decrease each of 21% to 4750 m/s and
2060 kg/m3 , respectively.
In general, high impedance contrasts are required to gen-
erate reflections of the observed intensity. These estimates
only give a general impression of the required contrasts for a
single interface; however, the geological situation shows that
we have to deal with a relatively thin fault layer (lamella)
embedded in a mostly homogeneous granitic environment.
Lamella
The second model includes lamella and allows for the discus-
sion of constructive interference in order to generate observed
high reflection amplitudes for smaller impedance contrasts
compared with a first-order discontinuity. A lamella is a ho-
mogeneous layer with a certain thickness and a velocity and
density contrast to the surrounding two half-spaces.
For this model we have performed the corresponding
modelling calculations as described above and computed ab-
solute values of the normal incident reflection coefficients
for a range of layer velocities (6000 m/s–8000 m/s), densities
(2600 kg/m3 –3600 kg/m3 ), and thicknesses (10 m–65 m). The
largest thickness of 65 m has been chosen to ensure the su-
perposition of the reflected wavelets from the top and the
bottom of the layer. Any thickness greater than that would
allow the distinction between the two reflected wavelets (see
Fig. 9) and is not considered here for comparison with the
observed waveform in the real data. The results are shown in
Fig. 10, together with representative examples of the resulting
waveforms for a velocity of 6500 m/s for the layer, as well
as in Fig. 11 for a specific layer thickness of 30 m. The red
region in both figures represents absolute values of the re-
flection coefficient around 0.2, which is close to the averaged
reflection coefficients that we estimated from the real data for
the conjugate faults. It is clear from both figures that certain
parameter combinations within the model space can be used


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
 Seismic reflections from faults 1027

Figure 11 Part of the model space shown in Fig. 10 (green box), i.e., for a single layer embedded in a hard-rock environment with a layer
thickness of 30 m. The model signal was a Ricker wavelet with 48 Hz. The seismic traces illustrate the effects on the waveforms for a variation
of a single parameter of the embedded layer (v2, p or ρ2 ). The parameter is increased by 10% (reflection coefficient R = 0.07), and the variation
is determined for which a reflection coefficient of R = 0.2 is reached (v2, p +32% and ρ2 + 35%).

to explain waveforms with similar reflection coefficients, e.g.,
the ones observed for the conjugate faults.
Assuming that the velocity and density change simulta-
neously, a reflection coefficient of 0.2 can be explained by
different rates of increase for various layer thicknesses. For
layer thicknesses smaller than the tuning thickness, the den-
sity and velocity increase would have to be approximately
30% for a 10-m layer (7800 m/s, 3350 kg/m3 ) and 20% for
a 20-m layer (7100 m/s, 3100 kg/m3 ) to explain a reflection
coefficient of 0.2. Near the tuning thickness (≈ 30 m), the
same reflection coefficient can be explained by a small in-
crease of approximately 13% (6800 m/s, 3000 kg/m3 ). If the
layer thickness exceeds the tuning thickness, this rate increases
to approximately 23% (7380 m/s, 3200 kg/m3 ).
Multi-layer models
The previous analysis has focused on the values of the reflec-
tion coefficient. In the following section, the corresponding
variation of the waveform is discussed in more detail because
a good approximation of the reflection coefficient does not
necessarily imply that a good approximation of the reflected
waveform has been obtained.
To continue the analysis from the previous section, we
first focus on the waveforms of the conjugate faults. Repre-
sentative extracted waveforms from the real data are shown
as blue traces in Fig. 12 and correspond to coherent signals
from shot 1433 on receiver line 5160 for a sequential offset
range. Note again the appearance of the reflection between
two-way travel time of 1.5 seconds and 1.6 seconds in Fig. 5
and amplitude ratios in Fig. 7.
In general, the characteristic composition for all wave-
forms related to the conjugate faults in the small to interme-
diate offset range (see left blue trace in Fig. 12) is an initial
strong negative peak from the top interface followed by a
strong positive peak from the bottom interface. The real data
waveform (left blue trace in Fig. 12, from shot 1433, line
5160, stack of seven traces 3686–3692) matches well with
the modelled waveform from the lamella layer model with a
thickness of 43 m, a velocity increase to 7400 m/s, and a den-
sity increase to 2800 kg/m3 . The reflection coefficients range
from 0.1 to 0.18 and up to 0.23 for increasing offsets. This
can be related to discontinuous thicknesses along the lateral
extent of the reflector as well as the internal structure. The
models that best describe the reflection strength are plotted
next to the extracted waveforms in Fig. 12 and are charac-
terized by a mean velocity of 7100 m/s (+/− 400 m/s), mean
density of 2830 kg/m3 (+/− 170 kg/m3 ), and mean thickness
of 38 m (+/− 5 m). These parameter values are applicable to
most of the other examples. When comparing the shape of the
waveform in each section, they sufficiently match the smallest
and middle offset ranges.
The modelled waveforms can explain most of the ob-
served traces, but as expected, not all of them, as shown in
Fig. 12 (right). Taking multi-layer models into account, we
can assume that the highly reflective part of the interface


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
1028 L. Schreiter et al.

Figure 12 Modelling result for the conjugate faults for three reflector models with a 1D velocity–depth function and the corresponding synthetic
seismogram. The model signal was a Ricker wavelet with 48 Hz. Reflection coefficients are given on the top of the boxes and are compared
with real data. The first-order discontinuity shows the parameter contrast for the mean reflection coefficient (0.18) with a velocity increase to
7200 m/s (density increase to 3120 kg/m3 ). For the lamella and the multi-layer model, the comparison was carried out with reference to the
waveform (real data, blue). The real data waveform of shot 1433, line 5160, and stack 3686 – 3692 (seven traces) matches the composite
waveform by the lamella layer model of 43 m with a velocity increase to 7400 m/s and density of 2800 kg/m3 . A multi-layer model best matches
the waveforms of shot 1433, receiver line 5160, stacked along traces 3670 – 3685 (16 traces), which is characterized by a embedded dominant
layer of 38 m thickness, a velocity increase to 6800 m/s, and density of 2700 kg/m3 as well as surrounding smaller low-velocity zones according
to a typical fracture model.

refer to a high impedance contrast caused by observed re-
flection strength. However, this reflective part could be sur-
rounded by small low-impedance fractured zones, which
slightly change the waveform phases. To reproduce the ob-
served waveforms, it is assumed that reflected waveforms from
the interfaces within the multi-layer model are superposed.
Since this effect was encountered several times in the data set,
we can infer the geological model. The highly reflective part
can be associated with granite fractures of different vertical
extent and discontinuous hydrothermal mineralization, such
as quartz dikes or carbonate-rich mineralization as implied
by geological prospecting. The adjacent zone on the top and
bottom interfaces could be characterized by brecciated struc-
tures and dislocations of the surrounding rock, followed by a
transition to the unfractured granite.
Modelling tests for the Roter Kamm fault are exemplified
in Fig. 13 and show that a single-layer model can produce the
reflection strength of most signals by an average parameter
combination of 5300 m/s (+/− 400 m/s) for the velocity,
2000 kg/m3 (+/− 300 kg/m3 ) for the density, and 33 m (+/−
6 m) for the thickness. Since the assumption of a single-layer
model relates mainly to the maximum amplitudes of the
signals, the above parameters can be used only for the highly
reflective zone of the Roter Kamm fault. This main part of
the reflection is led by a strong positive first peak followed
by a trough. In some waveforms these phases are followed by
an additional positive peak and extend with some more side
lobes, clearly distinguishable from the noise level. An analysis
of the multi-layer model yields a sufficient explanation of the
more complex waveforms, as well as a better fit of the peak-to-
peak amplitude ratios within the waveforms. This is why we
can relate the interior of the fault zone with several layers of
different parameter variations and thus different impedance,
which generates a similar reflection pattern. Of course, one
cannot expect that the waveforms can be reproduced in every
detail due to small-scale scattering effects and the underlying
simplified assumptions of the modelling approach. Finally, the
following geological model is proposed for the Roter Kamm
fault: it is represented by a stepwise 1D velocity–depth model,
where the high amplitudes originate from a low-velocity zone
and then return stepwise to the background velocity. Such a
medium is commonly used to model fault zones (Eaton et al.
2003). Another possible model is described by alternating
layers within the interior of the fault zone. This seems
plausible given what is known from the previous geological
prospecting of the near-surface area, where dislocated rocks
alternate with quartz dykes, rock veins, and clay beds.
DISCUSSION
Reflection coefficients were derived for the conjugate faults
and the Roter Kamm fault by initially comparing the


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
 Seismic reflections from faults 1029

Figure 13 Modelling result for the Roter Kamm fault showing three reflector models with a 1D velocity–depth model (solid black step function),
the resulting synthetic waveform (black, solid), and the observed waveform (blue) of two different shots (5411 and 5417) on two different lines
(5253 and 5106), stacked along 11 traces (4103 – 4113) and 20 traces (1124 – 1143), respectively. The model signal was a Ricker wavelet with
48 Hz. The composite waveforms (left side) can be explained by a gradient model with a velocity decrease to 5100 m/s, a density decrease to
2480 kg/m3 , and a total thickness of 59 m. A second example can be modelled by alternating low- and high-velocity zones with a maximum
velocity drop to 5500 m/s, density of 2280 kg/m3 , and total thickness of 113 m. Reflection coefficients are given on the top of the boxes and
are compared with real data observations.

reflections with the first arrivals (direct wave). The reflection
coefficients were estimated by calculating the amplitude ratio
of the first arrivals and the reflections. The incident wave on
the reflector was approximated by the direct wave since we
assumed almost straight ray paths in a nearly homogeneous
granitic environment with no significantly different rock units.
Therefore, we also assumed that the correction term for com-
pensating energy losses due to spherical divergence is valid for
both the direct wave and the reflection. Given the actual wave-
length of our source signal, intrinsic attenuation and scattering
attenuation are considered to be small in our rather consoli-
dated granitic environment.
The reflector model of a first-order discontinuity repre-
sents an initial assumption for the impedance contrast, causing
a mean reflection coefficient observed in subsets of +0.18 for
the conjugate faults and −0.23 for the Roter Kamm fault.
In addition, some attenuation effects in the almost homo-
geneous and consolidated granitic environment can affect the
derived approximate reflection coefficients and should be dis-
cussed. We observed that the reflection waveforms are similar
to the auto-correlation function of the Vibroseis source signal
and do not show a significant coda caused by multiple scatter-
ing. For this reason, we assumed that scattering attenuation
does not play a major role in our case and does not have such
a significant impact on our reflection coefficients. However,
intrinsic attenuation may have an impact. It can be described
by the seismic quality factor Q, which quantifies the loss of
energy per wave cycle. In our forward modelling approach,
no intrinsic attenuation was taken into account, which means
that the quality factor was set implicitly to Q = ∞. In or-
der to consider attenuation, we could assume a representative
quality factor of Q = 500 that corresponds to a mainly ho-
mogeneous granitic environment (Zillmer et al. 2002). The
amplitude of the signal A(x) can then be written as (Mavko,
Mukerji, and Dvorkin 2009):
 
−π 2x
A(x) = A0 e Q λ
, (4)
where A0 is the amplitude of the source signal, x is the length
of the travel path, and λ denotes the wavelength. For a travel
path of about 2000 m and a dominant wavelength of 125 m,
the amplitude decreases to approximately 82% of the source
signal amplitude. In our case, with reflection coefficients for
the conjugated faults of +0.22 and the Roter Kamm fault of
−0.28, by calculating the reflection coefficients for the case
of Q = ∞, we are underestimating the amplitudes by ap-
proximately 22%. This result is similar to estimates given
by Zillmer et al. (2002), where the reflection coefficients for
the SE1 reflector are increased by 35% when using a qual-
ity factor of Q = 500 compared with the case of Q = ∞. In
that sense, our calculated reflection coefficients are realistic
but slightly underestimated because the intrinsic attenuation
has not been considered. However, for a more quantitative


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
1030 L. Schreiter et al.

Figure 14 Geological model derived by combined interpretation. The colour scale ranges from high-velocity zones (yellow) over a granitic
environment (red, approximately 6000 m/s) to low-velocity zones (blue). The conjugate faults may be represented by a mineralized fault and
surrounding low-velocity zones due to local tectonic dislocations. The Roter Kamm fault may be represented by alternating low and intermediate
velocity layers, which emphasizes a typical fault zone model with a dominant rupture zone.

analysis of this effect, the spatial distribution of attenuation
above the reflectors, e.g., derived by attenuation tomography,
would be required. This is the subject of further investigations.
The comparison of synthetic waveforms with observed
reflections implies that the reflective structures can be ex-
plained by the reflector models consisting of a single thin
layer, with thicknesses smaller than the wavelength, and em-
bedded in a granitic background medium. Based on the ana-
lysis of matching maximum amplitudes and the waveforms,
the highly reflective parts of the Roter Kamm fault and the
conjugate faults have thicknesses ranging from 30 m to 40 m.
The differences between these structures are revealed in the
polarity analysis, which is an essential tool in distinguishing
low- and high-velocity zones (Juhlin, Lindgren, and Collini
1991), and furthermore on interference effects, which provide
the potential to declare composite waveforms.
We selected the best fitting models so that the density and
velocity change with similar rates, which is a simplified but
plausible assumption. Furthermore, the tradeoff mainly be-
tween velocity and thickness indicates that a clear determina-
tion of a parameter contrast is not possible, and the mentioned
values only represent a trend. Additionally, focusing on repro-
ducing the waveforms and not only their absolute maximum
amplitude, multi-layer models provide sufficient explanations
of reflectivity of the Roter Kamm and conjugate fault system
because the superposition of the reflected signatures on several
interfaces are comparable to the observed waveforms.
The reflections of the conjugate faults could originate
from fracture zones healed by mineralizations, which causes
higher impedance with a velocity increases of 18% (7100 m/s)
and density increases of 9% (2830 kg/m3 ). Furthermore con-
sidering the local tectonic situation, it is possible that the sur-
rounding breccia structures could impact the lower impedance
contrast. The strongest reflective structure of the Roter Kamm
fault could be associated with a low-velocity fault zone, where
different low-impedance layers might be present.
Multi-layer models show that a total thickness of fault
zone of up to approximately 100 m is possible. The gradient
models, as are typical for fault zones (Eaton et al. 2003) and
which fit the Roter Kamm fault reflector best, also include
alternating sequences of high and low impedance. The fault
is represented by a strong lateral variation of composition
and reflection strength and an average velocity decrease of
12% (5300 m/s) and density decrease of 23% (2000 kg/m3 ).
Figure 14 represents a schematic illustration of the combined
interpretation of these findings.
Although the survey geometry illuminates the dipping
faults in large areas, it is possible that the reflectivity of
the Roter Kamm fault changes locally and that most of its
parts within the investigation area cannot generate such high


C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032

reflection amplitudes as exemplified by this subset. As Zillmer
et al. (2002) discussed, the relation of reflection strength for
the low-velocity zone at the KTB, we must also assume that
less reflective parts for the Roter Kamm fault exist and that we
have determined the impedance that represents the strongest
possible parameter contrast. In general, the assumption of
extrapolating the derived fault zone parameters to greater
depth along the same structure is of course limited.
Our study is a first step in deriving rock-physical
parameters from seismic data within the project SIKS and
shows that fault zones and mineralized fractures in granite
environments are distinguishable by high-resolution 3D
surface seismic data. Describing the structures in more detail
and characterizing more features observed in the 3D seismic
image cube indicate that further seismic investigations, such
as borehole logs and vertical seismic profiling data, are
necessary for correlating petrophysical parameters. One step
in analysing the influence of rock veins and their filling
could be performed using shear wave analysis and anisotropy
investigations. Finally, the relationship between reflectivity
and the observed seismicity in the mine should be considered.
Since velocity reduction is not the only indicator for increased
micro fracturing, determination of Poisson ratios may indicate
if there are fluids within micro fractures (Trela 2003). The
derivation of rock-physical parameters should be supported
by borehole logs and laboratory studies on cores. This is nec-
essary to evaluate the inferred impedance values and to study
the influences of lithological, structural, and micro fracture
variations. Finally, an additional near-surface seismic survey
may give an answer in classifying parameters due to their
lateral variation in comparison with the geological section
and makes extrapolations for deeper regions more applicable.
CONCLUSIONS
Reflection coefficients of the strongest continuous reflections
within an almost homogeneous granitic environment are on
average +0.18 for the conjugated faults and -0.23 for the
Roter Kamm fault. The analysed reflections satisfied our crite-
ria relating to near-normal incident, coherence, signal-to-noise
ratio, and spatial spread of the reflection point. Nevertheless,
many weaker reflections are present, and it is possible that
some reflection amplitudes are below the noise level. Litho-
logical explanations for the analysed faults comprise compo-
sitional layering with velocity contrasts of about 6000 m/s to
7100 m/s for the conjugate fault scenario and a velocity de-
crease from 6000 m/s to 5300 m/s for the Roter Kamm fault.
In both cases, the velocity contrast is combined with density

C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
Seismic reflections from faults 1031
changes in the same order. Such high reflection strength re-
quires constructive interference of the single reflections. How-
ever, reflection strength and waveforms vary within the inves-
tigation area, which is in accordance with lateral variation
of the fault characteristics. The evidence for our results comes
from a 3D high-resolution Vibroseis survey and tectonic inves-
tigations. The results quantitatively support the idea that the
conjugate faults represent fractures healed by hydrothermal
mineralization and have thicknesses smaller than the wave-
length used, ranging between 30 m and 40 m. The reflective
part of the Roter Kamm fault can reach a thickness up to 100
m and can be associated with a rupture zone, which is possibly
the result of a normal fault.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the German Federal Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) for funding the
project SIKS (FKZ 0325363B) and Catherine Alexandrakis
for language editing.
REFERENCES
Eaton D.W., Milkereit B. and Salisbury M.H. 2003. Hardrock
Seismic Exploration. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN
9781560801146.
Harjes H.-P., Bram K., Dürbaum H.-J., Gebrande H., Hirschmann G.,
Janik H. et al. 1997. Origin and nature of crustal reflections: Re-
sults from integrated seismic measurements at the KTB superdeep
drilling site. Journal of Geophysical Research 102(18), 267–
288.
Hiller A. and Schuppan W. 2008. Bergbau in Sachsen - Geologie
und Uranbergbau im Revier Schlema-Alberoda, Bd. 14. Sächsiches
Landesamt für Umwelt Landwirtschaft und Geologie (LfUG). ISBN
3981142136.
Hloušek F., Hellwig O. and Buske S. 2015. Three-dimensional fo-
cused seismic imaging for geothermal exploration in crystalline rock
(Schneeberg, Germany), Geophysical Prospecting 63(4), 999–1014.
Juhlin C. 1990. Interpretation of the reflections in the Siljan Ring area
based on results from the Gravberg-1 borehole. In: Seismic Probing
of Continents and their Margins (eds J.H. Leven, D.M. Finlayson,
C. Wright, J.C. Dooley and B.L.N. Kennett). Tectonophysics 173,
345–360.
Juhlin C., Lindgren J. and Collini B. 1991. Interpretation of seis-
mic reflections and borehole data from Precambrian rocks in
the Dala Sandstone area, central Sweden, First Break 9, 24–
36.
Kallweit R.S. and Wood L.C. 1982. The limits of resolution of zero –
phase wavelets. Geophysics 47(7), 1035–1046.
Klemperer S.L. and the BIRPS Group 1987. Reflectivity of the crys-
talline crust: hypotheses and tests. Geophysical Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society 89, 217–222.
1032 L. Schreiter et al.
Malehmir A., Koivisto E., Manzi M., Cheraghi S., Durrheim
R. J., Bellefleur G. et al. 2014. A review of reflection seismic inves-
tigations in three major metallogenic regions: The Kevitsa Ni–Cu–
PGE district (Finland), Witwatersrand goldfields (South Africa),
and the Bathurst Mining Camp (Canada). Ore Geology Reviews
56, 423–441.
Mavko G., Mukerji T. and Dvorkin J. 2009. The Rock Physics Hand-
book: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. ISBN 9780521861366.
Müller G. 1985. The reflectivity method: a tutorial. Journal of Geo-
physics 58, 153–174.
Schön J. 1983. Petrophysik. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Sheriff R.E. and Geldart L.P. 1995. Exploration Seismology. Cam-
bridge University Press. ISBN 0521462827.

C 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1015–1032
Trela C. 2003. Seismische Untersuchungen der kristallinen Kruste
an der KTB-Lokation. PhD thesis, Christian-Albrechts-University,
Kiel, Germany.
Wallner O., Hiller A., Frenzel M. and Frommhold R. 2009. De-
taillierte geowissenschaftliche Datenaufbereitung im Vorzugsge-
biet Aue-Schwarzenberg im Rahmen des Tiefengeothermieprojektes
Sachsen. Internal Report.
White D.J., Secord D. and Malinowski M. 2012. 3D seismic imaging
of volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in the Flin Flon mining
camp, Canada: Part 1–Seismic results. Geophysics 77(5), WC47–
WC58.
Zillmer M., Müller G. and Stiller M. 2002. Seismic reflections from
crystalline crust below the Continental Deep Drilling Site KTB:
Modeling and inference on the reflector properties. Journal of Geo-
physical Research 107(B9), ESE 2-1–ESE 2-15.