ARTICLE

On the non-uniqueness of the refraction solution

ORHAN GÜRELİ1 TURAN KAYIRAN2
Show Less
1 ARAR Oil and Gas Inc., Dumluca Sok. 19. 06530 Beysukent, Ankara, Turkey.,
2 Ankara University, Faculty of Engineering, Geophysical Department, 06100 Tandogan, Ankara, Turkey.,
JSE 2018, 27(1), 1–27;
Submitted: 9 June 2025 | Revised: 9 June 2025 | Accepted: 9 June 2025 | Published: 9 June 2025
© 2025 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Giireli, O. and Kayiran, T., 2018. On the non-uniqueness of the refraction solution. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 27: 1-27. The seismic refraction method has long been recognized as an efficient tool for obtaining information on subsurfaces. In this paper, we investigate a dipping refractor case and demonstrate that two sets of solutions exist. The determination of the static (weathering) corrections of seismic surveys is largely based on refraction; such a model may be considered to be specific and of limited interest. However, this model has, in fact, been widely utilized since the early days of seismic surveys. It is known that all relevant refraction analyses used to date yield a unique theoretical solution for the researched parameters. In our paper, through a different approach, we demonstrate that it is possible to express the solution of the refraction problem in terms of a second degree equation and according to the behavior of the discriminant to obtain two sets of solutions. Synthetic and real data examples are presented after the theoretical explanation.

Keywords
refraction
near surface modeling
first break picking
traveltimes
dipping layer
reciprocal method
seismic velocities
single-shot
References
  1. Barry, K.M., 1967. Delay time and its application to refraction profile interpretation. In:
  2. Musgrave, A.W. (Ed.), Seismic Refraction Prospecting: 348-361. SEG, Tulsa, OK.
  3. Barthelmes, A.J., 1946. Application of continuous profiling to refraction shooting.
  4. Geophysics, 11: 24-42.
  5. Chang, X., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Li. F., Chen, J., 2002. 3-D tomographic static correction.
  6. Geophysics, 67: 1275-1285.
  7. Docherty, P., 1992. Solving for the thickness and velocity of the weathering layer using
  8. 2D refraction tomography. Geophysics, 97: 1307-1318.
  9. Gardner, L.W., 1939. An areal plan of mapping subsurface structure by refraction
  10. shooting. Geophysics, 4: 247-259.
  11. Giireli, O., 2014. Determination of dips and depths of near surface layers by Radon
  12. transform. Pure Appl. Geophys., 171: 1805-1827.
  13. Hagedoorn, J.G., 1959. The Plus-Minus method of interpreting seismic refraction
  14. sections. Geophys. Prosp., 7: 158-182.
  15. Hales, F.W., 1958. An accurate graphical method for interpreting seismic refraction lines.
  16. Geophys. Prosp., 6, 285-314.
  17. Mota, L., 1954. Determination of dips and depths of geological layers by seismic
  18. refraction method. Geophysics, 19: 242-254.
  19. Shtivelman, V., 1996. Kinematic inversion of first arrivals of refracted waves - A
  20. combined approach. Geophysics, 61: 509-519.
  21. Tarrant, L.H., 1956. A rapid method of determining the form of a seismic refractor from
  22. line rofile results. Geophys. Prosp., 4: 131-139.
  23. Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P. and Sherriff, R.E., 1990. Applied Geophysics, 2' Ed.
  24. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 770 pp.
  25. Tho. H.R., 1930. Wave front diagrams in seismic interpretation. AAPG Bull., 14:
  26. 185-200.
  27. White, D.J., 1989. Two-dimensional seismic refraction tomography, Geophys. J. Internat.,
  28. 97: 223-245.
  29. Zhang, J. and Tokséz, M.N., 1998. Nonlinear refraction traveltime tomography.
  30. Geophysics, 63: 1726-1737.
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Electronic ISSN: 0963-0651 Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing