First Arrival Seismic Tomography applied to 2D large

offset refraction data from the Prydz Bay Region

J oshua P. Knight
University of Sydney
FS Polarstern Expedition ANT-XXIII/9
2
nd
February-11
th
April 2007

Table of Contents

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................3
2. Tectonic Objectives .....................................................................................................3
2.1 Line AWI-20070100 targets ....................................................................................5
2.2 Line AWI-20070200 targets ....................................................................................7
3. Seismic Data Acquisition and Processing..................................................................8
3.1 Receivers..................................................................................................................8
3.2 Source......................................................................................................................9
3.3 Line AWI-20070100.................................................................................................9
3.4 Line AWI-20070200.................................................................................................9
4. Inverse and Tomography Background....................................................................10
4.1 Inverse Theory.......................................................................................................10
4.2 Tomographic Application......................................................................................11
5. FAST Theory and Methods ......................................................................................12
5.1 FAST setup ............................................................................................................13
5.2 FAST Parameters ..................................................................................................14
6. Inversion Procedure and Results .............................................................................14
6.1 Line AWI-20070100...............................................................................................15
6.2 Line AWI-20070200...............................................................................................22
7. Comparison with Forward Modelling.....................................................................25
7.1 Line AWI-20070100...............................................................................................25
7.2 Line AWI-20070200...............................................................................................28
7.3 Inverted Velocity Layer Behaviour........................................................................28
8. Tectonic Interpretation.............................................................................................32
8.1 Line AWI-20070100...............................................................................................32
8.2 Line AWI-20070200...............................................................................................32
9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................32
10. References ................................................................................................................33
11. Appendix ..................................................................................................................34
11.1 Line AWI-20070100 Coverage............................................................................34
11.2 Line AWI-20070200 Coverage............................................................................34
11.3 Line AWI-20070100 Data Quality ......................................................................35
11.4 Line AWI-20070200 Data Quality ......................................................................35
1
List of Figures

Figure 1 Bathymetry map of survey area, with seismic lines and stations plotted. ..........4
Figure 2 Overview of tectonic history of the area, from Gaina et al 2007........................5
Figure 3 Ship-track magnetic coverage of the area from Stagg et al 2004.......................6
Figure 4 Marine gravity field of the survey area. From Stagg et al 2004........................7
Figure 5 Line AWI-20070100 Background model and perturbation result from running all
19 stations........................................................................................................................17
Figure 6 Line AWI-20070100 Optimised velocity model and ray trace coverage overlayed
from 19 stations...............................................................................................................18
Figure 7 Line AWI-20070100 Travel time residuals for 19 stations, left is initial model
and right is final model....................................................................................................19
Figure 8 AWI-20070100 Perturbation results and optimised velocity model from 18
stations run. .....................................................................................................................20
Figure 9 Line AWI-20070100 Travel time residuals for 18 stations, left is initial model
and right is final model....................................................................................................21
Figure 10 Line AWI-20070200 Background model and perturbation result from running
all 15 stations...................................................................................................................22
Figure 11 Line AWI-20070200 Optimised velocity model and ray trace coverage
overlayed from 15 stations. .............................................................................................23
Figure 12 Line AWI-20070200 Travel time residuals of 15 stations, left is initial model
and right is final model....................................................................................................24
Figure 13 Line AWI-20070100 Ray trace coverage of 6 stations data, and the travel time
residuals of the initial model in the centre and of the inverted model on the right.........26
Figure 14 Line AWI-20070100 Perturbation and optimised velocity model of 6 station
data. .................................................................................................................................27
Figure 15 Line AWI-20070100 Ray trace coverage of 5 stations data, and the travel time
residuals of the initial model in the centre and of the inverted model on the right.........29
Figure 16 Line AWI-20070200 Perturbation and optimised velocity model of 5 station
data. .................................................................................................................................30
Figure 17 Station 20070213 initial forward model on left and inverted model on right.
Green dots are the observed, Red dots the modelled travel times...................................31

2
1. Introduction

Tomography is a powerful inversion procedure to develop velocity models of
a material. It is based on adjusting the velocity so that the synthetic forward
modelling matches the observed travel times for the seismic rays. In the
seismic application, it is based on observed travel times for the first arrival.

Conventional forward modelling is a time consuming process especially for a
high resolution model. An automated inversion procedure, based on an
initial model can save many hours of trial-and-error by mathematically
finding an optimum solution.

However a full inversion to sufficiently explore the parameter space is
computational limited. The FAST program (Zelt and Barton, 1998)
addresses this by assuming a correct geometry just leaving the velocity to
optimise via a Regularized Least Squares method, which assumes a degree of
smoothness in the best solution as well as accounting for inherent error in
the data.

I will apply this method to first analyse some preliminary (no shot overlap)
models for 2 seismic profiles carried out over the continental margin north of
Prydz Bay, and then add the complete preliminary picked dataset to the
models.

2. Tectonic Objectives

The Prydz Bay area is of geological interest due to the large Lambert Rift
which extends south into the continent. Also of interest is the close
proximity of the Southern Kerguelen Plateau. The area in between the
Antarctic margin and the Elan Bank (West Kerguelen) and to the West of
Prydz Bay is called the Enderby Basin, and the narrow trough to the East of
Prydz Bay is called the Princess Elizabeth Trough (see Figure 1 and Figure 3).

The Lambert rift is an extensive intra-continental rift with associated graben.
This is also what forms the Prydz Bay basin and Lambert Glacier system
(and Amery Ice Shelf). This is a typical basin formation that has undergone
extension and crustal thinning.

The Kerguelen Plateau is a Large Igneous Province (LIP). This is a large
complex with intrusive and extrusive igneous structures. And in particular
you can expect to find intrusions around the edge of such a large elevated
feature. The large height of the plateau would also induce much thicker crust
beneath it. It is also known that continental material exists underlying some
parts of the Kerguelen plateau from previous seismic surveys, geochemical
3
evidence; such as the Ocean Drilling Program sites which are shown in
Figure 4.

A general hypothesised tectonic history for the area is shown in Figure 2.


Figure 1 Bathymetry map of survey area, with seismic lines and stations plotted.

4

Figure 2 Overview of tectonic history of the area, from Gaina et al 2007.

2.1 Line AWI-20070100 targets

Gaina et al (2007) found a significant magnetic feature of the western coast
of Prydz Bay. This is called the Mac Robertson Coast Anomaly and is
labelled MCA in Figure 3. It is hypothesised that this could be a magnetic
lineament corresponding to the continental-oceanic boundary (COB), as
outlined in the tectonic history of the area in Figure 2.
5

A primary target was to find evidence of crustal thinning and extension
which would indicate the existence of rifting in the past, which coincided
with the Lambert rift.

Notice however that there are no distinguishing gravitational anomalies in the
area which could correspond to the COB, as shown in Figure 4.


Figure 3 Ship-track magnetic coverage of the area from Stagg et al 2004.

There also could be evidence found for igneous intrusions which would be
associated with the Kerguelen LIP or the intrusive activity that is associated
with spread centres due to the upper mantle rising and decompressing.

A general question would be to find where the continental-oceanic crust
boundary is, and of what nature is it, which again it could coincide with the
6
magnetic MCA feature. Also if there is evidence for a mixture of continental
crust in the oceanic (which is what occurs in the Kerguelen Plateau); or is it
just normal oceanic crust.


Figure 4 Marine gravity field of the survey area. From Stagg et al 2004.

2.2 Line AWI-20070200 targets

The southern Kerguelen plateau is known to contain continental material, as
mentioned before in Section 2.1. How far this extends south is not known.

Seismic velocity model could provide another way to define a boundary
between the Kerguelen LIP and the oceanic crust. It could also co-incide
with previous interpretation from gravity and magnetics, or contradict them.

7
And again there is the general question of where the continental-oceanic crust
boundary is, and the nature of the oceanic crust beyond the transition.

3. Seismic Data Acquisition and Processing

Deep seismic refraction profiles were performed using Ocean Bottom
Seismometers (OBS). These have the advantage of a conventional 3 axis
broad frequency seismometer as well as a hydrophone instrument.

For the southern stations which were close to the sea ice the older Ocean
Bottom Hydrophone (OBH) system were used, to reduce the cost in the case
of losing an instrument stuck and hidden under ice.

3.1 Receivers

The OBH systems are an older system with just a hydrophone and 1 channel
data logger. They are only used for short term deployment.

The OBS systems consist of LOBSTER type instrument Long-term Ocean
Bottom Seismometer for Tsunami and Earthquake Research manufactured
by KUM, Kiel. A technician from the company assisted on-board. It
consists of a 3-axis seismograph and hydrophone with a 4 channel data
logger and acoustic Releaser system.

The system has 2 large pressure tubes one for the data logger and batteries
and the second is only for batteries for long-term deployment (up to 1 year
capable). All the instruments pressure tubes are titanium corrode-resistant
housing rated to 6000m depth and the tube frame is also titanium.

There is a 3-axis seismometer to record seismicity, and a hydrophone to
record the hydrostatic pressure changes induced by the seismic ground
motion. The seismometer is fixed to the anchor with a pressure bolt load of
5Nm. The data logger also contains a gyroscopic compass which is set to
record the inclination of the instrument a short time after deployment once it
has settled on the ocean floor. The data logger also contains a clock which is
re-synced with the GPS clock after recovery to adjust for any perturbations of
time on the on-board clock with the source which is timed to GPS.

The anchor is rough iron frame which is attached by a single point on the
releaser hook. The releaser is a KUM QUAT Quality Control Acoustic
Release Transducer which has its own separate on-board programmable
computer system with separate clock. It can release by remote acoustic signal
unit and it includes time release function for back-up in case of failure in
acoustic communication. It also has range finder and ability to program
8
check commands when connected to the data logger via the acoustic
transmitter system.

It also is fitted with devices to assist recovery. Apart from the brightly
painted floats there is a radio transmitter which there is a directional finder
for. Also for recovery, a flashing light beacon, a flag and a rope with a buoy.

3.2 Source

The Airgun system that provided the seismic source was run off the RV
Polarstern. It was towed about 20m behind the ship on floats. It was a frame
with 8x 8.5 Litre G-Guns suspended on the frame by chains.

On the first profile it operated at 190 Bar. Up to 3 guns could fail and the 5
remaining would be sufficient to fire at this rate also. It was run off a single
main compressor system inbuilt on the ship but there also was a backup
compressor system in a cargo container.

On the second profile they also ran a 32 Litre bolt gun along with the 8 G-
Guns with a lower pressure of 140 Bar. This added a lower frequency
component to the shot for large offsets.

Both profiles used a shot timing of 1Hz providing a nominal spacing of 100m.

3.3 Line AWI-20070100

A total of 22 receivers were deployed, 3 OBH and 19 OBS with the first 3
stations being the OBH. They had a uniform spacing of 25.5km in a north-
south line of 0 bearing. Shots were fired from -48.5km before the first
(northern) receiver to +31.5km after the final (southern) receiver, to give a
total line length of 625.8km. This is plotted in Figure 1 also and in a table in
the Appendix 11.1.

However station 19 was not recovered, and stations 5 and 15 had no usable
data on any of their channels, which is also noted in the table in Appendix
11.3.

The main airgun source had to be brought to deck number of times for repairs
and during this the RV Alexander Karpinsky which was simultaneously
recording wide-angle reflection used its source of 2x40 Litre air guns at 140
Bar.

3.4 Line AWI-20070200

9
A total of 15 receivers were deployed, 2 OBH and 13 OBS. They had a
uniform spacing of 26.5km in a north-south line of 0 bearing. Shots were
fired from -20.08km before the first (northern) receiver to +6.98km after the
final (southern) receiver, to give a total line length of 398.52km. This is
plotted in Figure 1 and in a table in the Appendix 11.2.

All stations were recovered and most channels contained usable data as noted
in the table in Appendix 11.4.

4. Inverse and Tomography Background

4.1 Inverse Theory

Inversion attempts to reconstruct rock properties and their distribution (i.e.
structure) from measurements of their physical responses. This is done by
exploring the parameter space (rock properties) based on constraints from a
priori knowledge or assumptions (Wijns et al, 2003; Menke, 1984).

The conventional way to perform this in seismology is by physically running
each forward model and adjusting the input and repeating the run to produce
a geological nice or sensible result.

A simplistic computational solution to this manual optimisation is by brut
computational force, running many thousands of models with random
perturbations on the inputs. Then the best model from this large ensemble
would be selected by some function consisting of measurement criteria.

An alternative method is to take a sufficiently close enough initial guess and
run a fully automatic optimisations procedure on it. This has the advantage
that you can use an almost-direct solver method (i.e. steepest decent) to the
nearest local solution.

Often in geophysics we either assume the geometry of the rock formation, or
that the physical rock properties are known. This can significantly reduce the
non-linearity of the problem by reducing the variables.

Normally in forward modelling the a priori information about the solution is
more subtly hidden in the manual operator. But we can also add this in a
mathematically determined way when we calculate the goodness of our
solution. Information that is typically assumed in geological problems may
include - horizontal smoothness within layers; there is vertical smoothness
only within a layer, and minimum structure (or information) is desirable in
the solution model. This last constraint ensures that we are only doing a
10
minimum amount of extrapolation from the data, and keeping the models
speculation minimal.

However it is natural that there is inherent error in the data so a Least Squares
method is the ideal way to minimise the objective function. The Least
Squares also has the advantage that it can be implemented in a modification
of the standard conjugate gradient algorithm. Another advantage is that it is a
direct descent method so approximates the solution immediately. This means
it converges very quickly and at an exponential rate, so typically only a few
iterations are needed.

Another advantage for this specific application is if you have a sparse system
of linear equations, you can modify the conjugate gradient method to solve
sparse systems efficiently.

4.2 Tomographic Application

Now we have observed measurements of the travel time for first arrivals (the
refracted P-wave arrivals). The travel time can also be calculated from
synthetic models by ray tracing techniques. We assume that ray theory can
be used instead of full wave field theory by assuming the high frequency
limit is acceptable (Nolet, 1987; Tarantola, 1987).

Hence we can produce a corresponding list or graph of time of first arrival
versus distance of shot from receiver, for the marine case where the OBS
receivers are stationary and the source moves relative to them.

Now obviously it is straight forward to manipulate the arrival times by
increasing or decreasing the velocity in the rays path for that particular shot.
We know the path the ray takes from the forward ray tracing model.

Now this is a relatively simple equation to describe travel time of a ray
through a set of medium given the distance it has to travel (d) and the
velocity in the material (v)

(1) t= v
1
/d
1
+ v
2
/d
2
+ .

Note however that the actual formulation of the ray theory works on
slowness models rather than velocity, but this is a good intuitive analogy to
the problem.

In this case we assume a given geometry, and this leaves just the rocks
properties as the free variables to adjust to optimise the forward model to the
measured response.
11

So from the forward ray tracing we have a set of linear equations of the form
(1) to solve for a fixed set of d values and a free-variable set of v and a given
set of observations t. The matrix d is often called the data kernel as it is
fixed input and a sparse matrix.

However note that the problem becomes highly non-unique and also non-
linear when you add multiple sets of observed times with overlapping layers.
And it is also due to non-linear nature of ray-tracing.

5. FAST Theory and Methods

As explained in Section 4.1 FAST uses the conjugate gradient method to
directly approximately solve the problem. Hence FAST does not explore the
parameter space directly by adjusting input parameters; instead it explores the
local minimum solution space by adjusting the regularization constraint co-
efficient. In this sense it finds a balance between the smallest perturbation
and the smoothest or flattest solution, which are measured at each step
relative to the background initial guess model (Zelt and Barton, 1998; Zelt
and Zelt, 1998).

It does this by first running one non-linear iteration, which is a conjugate
gradient method to approximate the solution. Then with this it runs the
desired number of different lambda values or total smoothness weightings
and selects the best one. It takes this and then performs another
approximation of the solution, and repeats this for multiple smoothing values.

FAST uses a number of different modules and corresponding input files. The
main programs are

FD - to calculate the travel times via the finite-difference Eikonal
solver method and RMS misfit for residual times (Vidale, 1990)
RAY to calculate the ray paths and RMS misfit again but for rays
actually traced and excluding interface layer.
INVERSE calculates slowness perturbation based on regularized
inversion.

The program procedure can be summarised as follows:

1. Set background model vel0 to initial model
2. Convert to slowness model
3. For number non-linear iterations
4. For number of lambda values to test
12
5. Run FD on initial model calculate RMS misfit against
picked times.
6. Run RAY two point tracing with FD calculated times from
(5) and save ray path (data kernel) information. Calculate
RMS misfit for rays and excluding interface (water).
7. Convert velocity to slowness model
8. Select Lambda (perturbation of value from last best model)
9. Run INVERSE with (6) , (7) and (8) inputs
10. Convert slowness model from (9) to velocity and update
inverted model
11. Reset areas with velocity constraints based on background
model.
12. Run FD based on inverted model (misfit)
13. Check to stop (convergence based on misfit)
14. Save inverted models misfit and lambda values and clear
temp logs
15. Go to (4)
16. Select best model and set to initial model
17. Go to (3)

5.1 FAST setup

The first step to using the program is to define your forward uniform grid size
and nodes, and inversion grid which can be non-uniform; and fill this out
both in the .header input as well as the FORTRAN .par files in each of the
source subdirectories, and then compile it.

You can import RAYINVR models by using the v.out generated from
running this program note it is important to define the correct grid
specifications to match your FAST forward grid in RAYINVRs f.in file.
Then you run the velocity build utility to generate an initial model (which is
labelled as vel0 for the inversion script).

You also will need to import the bathymetry interface by xyzbathjosh
which has been adjusted by me to round the input to the nearest node. This
should have the format x-position; y-position; depth.

Also you will need the observed data. This can be imported from .unc files
generated from the phase picking program ZP, and then running zp2fastjosh
another utility edited by me. Make sure to enter the correct location
information for the receiver (OBS) and grid size, as well as labelling the
outputted fd##.zp file correctly with ## being sequential ascending numbers
(from 01) in the direction of shots along the profile. You then also need to
13
run the rec_binary utility to convert the .zp ASCII files to binary format and
label these in the form fd##.pick.

5.2 FAST Parameters

Most files are well documented in the FAST manual. However the
mathematical controls on the inversion procedure I will document. Also note
that the actually running of inversion is controlled by a shell script and this
calls a number of standard input files for program control.

In l.in there are 2 parameters you need to modify to control the behaviour.
Lambda0 is obviously the initial value for Lambda which is the weighting of
the smoothness term. So if you have large distribution or a large of variance
in your data (compared to perfect values), such as due to poor quality data
making poor picks; then setting this to a much higher value is necessary.
Note that this is only used in the very first non-linear iteration.

The redfac is the co-efficient for the amount to adjust the lambda each time
in each of the lambda value testing loops. So you can think of it as a
jumping factor for trying different lambda values.

In i.in you control the actual inversion step. Alpha is the relative weighting
smallest perturbation (=1.0) to smoothest/flatness constraints (=0.0). A value
in between these is valid. This is distinct from Lambda which is another
independent coefficient of the regularization term. So the actual weighting of
the regularization term is proportional to Lambda*Alpha.

FAST allows you to vary the relative weighting of the smallest versus
smoothest/flattest constraints at each depth cell layer. It also allows you to
switch from smoothness to flatness constraints, which mathematically is
changing from the second spatial derivative to the first spatial derivative.
This is useful for areas which are not constrained well by ray coverage that
are suffering from large anomalies. These are done by switches in the arrays
florsm, smw and, spwz. You also can set the relative weighting of vertical
smoothness to horizontal by sz. Sedge is the value for constraining edges of
the model, so as not to blur or smear a perturbation across to the edge of a
model where there is no data coverage in between.

6. Inversion Procedure and Results

One disadvantage of the conjugate gradient method or least squares methods
in general, is that they are not robust. This means that they are sensitive to
outliers in the data set. Also for their convergence, they assume Gaussian
noise in the data.
14

This means that you have to be somewhat careful of the observed data you
input, especially in the case when it is actually a subjective human
interpretation of the raw data.

Hence It is good if you check the picks yourself to ensure that only the first-
arrival on any one trace has been picked, or filter out the other picks by their
codes (as I had edited zp2fast to do for my applications). Also that it has
been picked smoothly, with minimal gaps or offsets in the travel-time curve,
unless they actually exist in the data.

The method of determining best choices for smoothness was a process of trial
and error initially. Obviously there are geologically reasonable constraints
on velocities in certain zones which I used to select best smoothness values.

6.1 Line AWI-20070100

I determined best values of sz=0.2, alpha=0.9, sedge=1.0, smwz=30*1,
spwz=30*1, florsm=30*2, lambda0=500, redfac=1.5. It was run for 5
iterations at 5 lambda values each time. No velocity constraints were applied.
The initial model was obtained form the forward modelling of 6 stations as
outlined in Appendix 11.1.

It was run a uniform 1km x 1km grid for the forward model, and the
inversion grid was a 4km horizontal and 1km vertical resolution. This was
due to the large station spacing, that 4km was a reasonable coverage and a
finer grid would produce unstable fits and cause the statistical misfit to
blow-out.

The lambda value was set high due to the large amount of data or traces/picks
that is generated from marine seismics. The value should be thought of as
relative to the size of your data set or picks. Hence for such a large data set
and spatial large survey area a high value was needed to maintain reasonable
smoothness.

Figure 5 shows the initial (or background) model and the perturbation from
this after inversion. Figure 6 shows the inverted velocity model and also an
overlay of the data coverage from the 19 stations first arrivals. Figure 7
shows the travel time residual before and after running the inversion process.
Note however that the inversion procedure is not trying to achieve just the
best residual fit, but also looking for a smooth result in the velocity
perturbations. The inline distance is measured so 0km is the north and
626km is the southern end of the profile.

15
One small error in the plot is that the ray tracing overlay in Figure 6 is ray
tracing approximation actually. The actual refracted path of the ray follow
the boundary of the velocity interface which is not well defined in
tomography and it has the tendency to blur this boundary even with a
relatively high vertical resolution of 1km and sz value of 0.2. Hence the peak
of the anomalies may not correspond exactly with the rays in the vertical axis,
such as features at 100km or 300km below the crusts boundary.

I noticed that the area of the upper mantle that blows-out above 9km/s is
only covered by a single station. When I went back to look at this station
there was a shot gap in the data which must have produced the erroneous
results.

So I removed this and re-ran the model with just 18 stations, using the same
values and initial model. This resulting perturbation and velocity model is
shown in Figure 8, and residual before and after in Figure 9.

A summary of data quality and stations used is shown in the Appendix 11.1-
11.4.

You can see that in the residual there is less variation and also that it is
centred more equally on a mean of 0. This is natural as it is a Gaussian
method. You also can not that the fit is better in the middle ranges, which is
due to there being more coverage ray coverage for the middle layers than the
upper most and lowest layers.

16

Figure 5 Line AWI-20070100 Background model and perturbation result from running all 19 stations.
17

Figure 6 Line AWI-20070100 Optimised velocity model and ray trace coverage overlayed from 19 stations.
18

Figure 7 Line AWI-20070100 Travel time residuals for 19 stations, left is initial model and right is final
model.
19

Figure 8 AWI-20070100 Perturbation results and optimised velocity model from 18 stations run.
20

Figure 9 Line AWI-20070100 Travel time residuals for 18 stations, left is initial model and right is final
model.
21
6.2 Line AWI-20070200

I used the same smoothing constraints as in Line AWI-20070100 - sz=0.2,
alpha=0.9, sedge=1.0, smwz=30*1, spwz=30*1, florsm=30*2, lambda0=500,
redfac=1.5. It was run for 5 iterations at 5 lambda values each time. No
velocity constraints were applied. The initial model was obtained form the
forward modelling of 5 stations (Figure 10). It was run a uniform 1km x 1km
grid for the forward model, and the inversion grid was a 4km horizontal and
1km vertical resolution. In this model you can see the effect of a velocity
inversion which is a strong outlier (Figure 12).


Figure 10 Line AWI-20070200 Background model and perturbation result from running all 15 stations.
22

Figure 11 Line AWI-20070200 Optimised velocity model and ray trace coverage overlayed from 15 stations.

In Figure 11 you can see the ray tracing error as occurred in Figure 6. This
time it is even more noticeable with the anomaly at 100km because it is a
large velocity anomaly and large spatially so it has been smoothed. However
as a rough guide to show poorly constrained anomalies it is still a useful tool,
such as we can see the anomaly at 350km is not well constrained and you
would need to check the data again.
23

Figure 12 Line AWI-20070200 Travel time residuals of 15 stations, left is initial model and right is final
model.
24

7. Comparison with Forward Modelling

Conventional forward modelling was also performed. This was using the
Rayinvr (ray inversion) ray tracing package (Zelt and White, 1995). This
has the ability to plot picked phases along with a synthetic computed phases
based on a velocity model.

The layered model was based on also reflection data from previous Russian
surveys on nearby parallel lines. On these you can pick the basement for the
sediment layers clearly. The gravity/magnetic data from nearby lines and
from onboard measurements can also hint to structures that would influence
the seismic model.

The fitting of the ray tracing velocity model is performed by adjusting the
geometry and velocity of the model for each station and its picked phases,
within the error or uncertainty range.

Initially you start with only a few stations with sparse spacing and fit the
model, which is only 1-dimensional velocity-depth due to no overlap in the
sparse stations ray paths.

7.1 Line AWI-20070100

I used the same initial velocity model derived from forward modelling of 6
stations as shown in Figure 5. I also used the same parameters as covered in
Section 6.1. But I ran only with the 6 stations they used to construct the
forward velocity models, as outlined in the Appendix 11.1.

The ray coverage and residual is shown in Figure 13, and the perturbation
and inverted velocity model in Figure 14. The perturbation corrections are
only small and local, and not sufficient enough to say there is any significant
difference from the initial model.
25

Figure 13 Line AWI-20070100 Ray trace coverage of 6 stations, and the travel time residuals of the initial
model in the centre and of the inverted model on the right.
26

Figure 14 Line AWI-20070100 Perturbation and optimised velocity model of 6 stations.
27

7.2 Line AWI-20070200

Again I used the same initial model based on 5 stations in Figure 10, and
parameter values as outlined in Section 6.2. But again I ran only with the 5
stations they used to construct the forward velocity models, as are noted in
the Appendix table 11.2.

The ray coverage and residual is shown in Figure 15, and the perturbation
and inverted velocity model in Figure 16.

7.3 Inverted Velocity Layer Behaviour

In Figure 16 there is a significant large scale feature which was modelled via
the inversion process, which is the large slower velocity area. As this also
appears clearly in the full 15 stations in Figure 11, this is clearly a real feature.
In this case conventional forward modelling has failed to resolve this
structure with only a single stations ray coverage of the area included. This
is the feature which corresponds to the large travel time residual line in the
initial models residual plot, and is much closer fitted in the inversion model.

For clearer illustration of this the reduced travel time curve versus offset
distance is plotted for station 213 is plotted in Figure 17, for when FAST was
run for the 5 stations as in Figures 15 and 16.

However this inversion process of (partly) minimising travel-time residuals
does not fully solve for an inverted structure. It will simply place lower
velocities in area of the rays path that are not constrained by other ray paths
to a high velocity. Also the velocity it sets this anomaly to will be arbitrary.

Hence even in this example when the velocity above the inversion is fairly
well constrained, the absolute velocity and position and shape of low velocity
structure is not known or constrained well by Tomographic modelling. You
can see this in Figure 17 where the curve is balanced between fitting the
travel times before and after the discontinuity in the curve due to the
Gaussian nature of the process that assumes continuity in the discrete data set.
It also does not completely fit the curve in the anomalous section due to the
smoothing constraints, which reduce the emphasis of minimising travel time
residuals.


28

Figure 15 Line AWI-20070100 Ray trace coverage of 5 station, and the travel time residuals of the initial
model in the centre and of the inverted model on the right.

29

Figure 16 Line AWI-20070200 Perturbation and optimised velocity model of 5 station data.
30

Figure 17 Station 20070213 initial forward model on left and inverted model on right. Green dots are the
observed, Red dots the modelled travel times.
31

8. Tectonic Interpretation

8.1 Line AWI-20070100

Using the final velocity model excluding the erroneous stations, as shown in
Figure 8, some general trends can be seen.

To the south there is thicker crust and lower velocities supporting that it is
clearly continental crust structure. There is an area of thinner crust and
higher velocities starting in the middle at ~300km and continuing north,
which could be evidence of a distinct change from lower velocity continental
crust in the south to oceanic crust in the north.

To the north the features are less continuous. However the inversion process
clearly predicts that there is a thicker area of low velocity upper crust of
~3.7m/s at ~100km inline distance. A geologic explanation for this feature is
not clear at this stage, and further investigation would be needed.

8.2 Line AWI-20070200

Looking at the optimised velocity model in Figure 11, in the north there is a
strong velocity inversion, which is a low velocity zone, bounded by a
higher velocity zone. This could be an area of continental crustal material in
the surrounding oceanic and basaltic rock.

At around 250km inline the crust has thinned and appeared to assume a
typical oceanic crust structure. This supports that there is not a direct
continuous connection between the Antarctic continental crust and the
material that underlies the Southern Kerguelen Plateau.

9. Conclusions

FAST is a useful program to look for general structures or trends in seismic
refraction data. Used with a rough forward velocity model for 2D
structures it can provide information on the trends and it is a quick way to
add more data to the current model to reveal more information.

Used in conjunction with other data or previous geological evidence it can
help reveal structures and trends which would normally take very long to
process in forward modelling.

Of course it does have its negatives of smoothing and losing the fine detail in
the seismic record that conventional modelling may be able to represent more
32
accurately, however this is a natural affect of the assumptions that go into the
mathematical formulation of the method. Also one needs to be careful of not
having too many outliers in the data input.

10. References

Gaina, C., Mller, R. D., Brown, B., Takemi, I., and Ivanov, S., (2007)
Breakup and early seafloor spreading between India and Antarctica.
Geophysical Journal International In Press.

Nolet, G., (1987) Seismic wave propagation and seismic tomography. In
Seismic Tomography, edited by G. Nolet, pp 1-24, D. Reidel, Norwell, Mass.

Menke, W., (1984) Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory.
Academic Press, London, 260 pp.

Stagg, H.M.J ., Colwell, J .B., Direen, N.G., OBrien, P.E., Brown, B.J .,
Bernardel, G., Borissova, I., Carson, L., and Close, D.B., (2004) Geological
framework of the continental margin in the region of the Australian Antarctic
Territory. Geoscience Australia Record 2004/05.

Tarantola, A., (1987) Inversion of travel times and seismic waveforms. In
Seismic Tomography, edited by G. Nolet, pp 135-157, D. Reidel, Norwell,
Mass.

Vidale, J .E., (1990) Finite-Difference calculation of traveltimes in three
dimensions. Geophysics Vol 55 pp. 521-526.

Wijns, C., Boschetti, F., and Moresi, L., (2003) Inverse Modelling in
Geology by interactive Evolutionary Computing. Journal of Structural
Geology Vol. 25 p. 1615-1621.

Zelt, C. A., and Barton, P. J ., (1998) Three-dimensional seismic refraction
tomography: A comparison of two methods applied to data form the Faeroe
Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol

Zelt, C. A., and Zelt, B. C., (1998) Study of out-of -plane effects in the
inversion of refraction/wide-angle reflection traveltimes. Tectonophysics Vol
286 pp. 209-221

Zelt, C. A., and White, D. J ., (1995) Crustal Structure and tectonics of the
southeastern Canadian Cordillera. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 100
No B12 pp. 24,255-24,273
33
11. Appendix
11.1 Line AWI-20070100 Coverage
Longitude Latitude Inline Distance Depth
Start 72.8031 -60.9403 0 4.090
122 72.7212 -61.3741 48.5434 4.172
121 72.7203 -61.6883 83.5572 4.138
120 72.7213 -61.9174 109.0832 4.094
119 72.7194 -62.1459 134.5544 4.045
118 72.7202 -62.3749 160.0727 4.072
117 72.7194 -62.6017 185.3504 4.004
116 72.7183 -62.8330 211.1286 4.009
115 72.7202 -63.0580 236.2131 3.973
114 72.7202 -63.2931 262.4091 3.966
113 72.7186 -63.5225 287.9819 3.893
112 72.7223 -63.7480 313.1231 3.830
111 72.7178 -63.9797 338.9566 3.761
110 72.7190 -64.2086 364.4738 3.685
109 72.7213 -64.4372 389.9592 3.582
108 72.7196 -64.6680 415.6885 3.614
107 72.7185 -64.8962 441.1322 3.529
106 72.7133 -65.1247 466.6077 3.411
105 72.7184 -65.3519 491.9389 3.057
104 72.7207 -65.5784 517.1901 3.023
103 72.7180 -65.8176 543.8619 2.923
102 72.7133 -66.0392 568.5707 2.802
101 72.7170 -66.2702 594.3319 2.505
End 72.7247 -66.5525 625.8177 1.885
RED =Not Recovered/no data usable
GREEN =Used in forward modelling to make initial model for FAST

11.2 Line AWI-20070200 Coverage
Longitude Latitude Inline Distance Depth
Start 82.8342 -61.7494 0 2.375
215 82.8333 -61.9296 20.0820 2.445
214 82.8339 -62.1650 46.3164 2.257
213 82.8321 -62.4056 73.1315 2.386
212 82.8324 -62.6427 99.5572 2.302
211 82.8338 -62.8804 126.0507 2.423
210 82.8334 -63.1185 152.5898 2.552
209 82.8334 -63.3553 178.9848 2.646
208 82.8352 -63.5928 205.4588 3.065
207 82.8331 -63.8346 232.4130 3.713
206 82.8357 -64.0731 259.0002 3.712
205 82.8342 -64.3106 285.4768 3.667
204 82.8338 -64.5471 311.8429 3.593
203 82.8314 -64.7851 338.3770 3.409
202 82.8335 -65.0227 364.8674 3.340
201 82.8336 -65.2620 391.5483 3.150
End 82.8295 -65.3248 398.5281 3.079
34
11.3 Line AWI-20070100 Data Quality
Note: All have time shift of RV Karpinksy shots.
Maximum offset/km (left/right) Station
H X Y Z
Remarks
101 -10/9* - - - OBH, weak signal
102 -19/17* - - - OBH
103 -22/28* - - - OBH
104 -7/20* -7/35 -7/30 -7/15
105 - - - - No first arrival data
106 -32/10 -33/10 -30/10 -34/10*
107 -30/24* -30/23 -32/20 -3/29*
108 -40/33* -30/34 -45/43 -34/32
109 -33/38* - - - No data on X,Y,Z-channel
110 -38/29* -10/10 -13/10 -35/23*
111 -47/50* -17/19 0/0 -7/13 Only direct wave on Y-channel
112 -60/43 -57/42 -60/48 -51/44*
113 -35/48* - -13/15 -13/15 No data on X-channel
114 -13/56 -13/14 -13/30 -15/58*
115 - - - - No first arrival data
116 -23/0 - 24/0 -37/0* Right side of first arrival not visible, no
data X-channel
117 -50/26 -53/26 -52/26 -53/26*
118 - -27/27 -27/50 -27/25* No data on H-channel, shot gap between
-66 km to -56 km
119 - - - - lost
120 -70/22* -5/12 -20/30 -25/35 Shot gap 10.7 to 20.5 km
121 -29/11 -30/30 -28/35* -31/24 Shot gap 10.7 to 20.5 km
122 - -18/15 -25/35 -52/30* No data on H-channel
*picked
11.4 Line AWI-20070200 Data Quality
*picked
Maximum offset/km (left/right) Station
H X Y Z
Remarks
201 -32/0* - - - OBH
202 -43/30* - - - OBH
203 -27/33*
204 -21/38* -15/15 -20/36 -15/30
205 -44/23* -15/15 -45/23 -45/15
206 -15/35* -15/20 -10/25 -15/15
207 -35/55 -15/10 -35/55 -35/55*
208 -65/75* -65/75 -60/80 -70/70
209 -65/75* -80/85 -80/75 -70/83
210 -60/60* - - -55/60 X: no data , Y: only direct wave
211 -80/80* -75/75 -80/80 -80/80
212 -34/28 -20/25 -8/15 -35/33*
213 -18/70* -19/29 -16/15 -30/35
214 -30/24 -30/23 -23/20 -35/35*
215 -13/40 -13/25 -13/30 -13/60* -13 limit of shots
35