Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.

org/

GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 54, NO. 12 (DECEMBER 1989); P. 1535-1542. 7 FIGS., 1 TABLE

The seismic refraction method: A viable tool for mapping shallow targets
into the 1990s

Robert W. Lankston*

ABSTRACT

Geometrical considerations show that first arrivals

can be recorded from below hidden layers. A certain
minimum amount of data must be collected in order to
resolve lateral versus vertical subsurface changes and
thereby to determine the interpretation method. Field
procedures, therefore, are independent of the interpretation method. The optimum X Y parameter in the
generalized reciprocal method (GRM) of processing
refraction seismic data is significant as a quality control factor in refraction data interpretation. By comparison of the optimum X Y value that is recovered
through velocity analysis and time-depth function
analysis with a value for optimum X Y that is calculated
from the migrated depth section, the hidden-layer
condition can be recognized. In addition to identifying
the hidden-layer condition on the basis of first arrivals
alone, the GRM allows the hidden layers to be accommodated; and depth precisions of less than 5% are
possible.

INTRODUCTION

Several misconceptions, that actually have some basis in

fact, appear to have caused some stagnation in the evolution
and use of seismic refraction methods in shallow-target
studies during the past ten years. This paper attempts to
dispel some of these outdated misconceptions and invites the
application of state-of-the-art seismic refraction surveying
and interpretation in shallow-target studies. Most people
associate shallow targets with environmental, engineering,
or groundwater studies; but certain hydrocarbon, metals,
and industrial-minerals exploration surveys lie under the
shallow-target umbrella. In addition, the refraction method
is employed routinely to gain insight into static corrections
for deep seismic reflection studies, and refraction statics

based on currently available processing techniques may

have utility in shallow-target reflection surveying also.
Dobecki and Romig (1985) suggested that by 1990 seismic
reflection surveying would "replace refraction surveys as
the most common seismic tool for engineering and groundwater studies." In the late 1970s, before the introduction of
the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) for interpreting
seismic refraction data and while experimenting with and
promoting shallow-target seismic reflection methods, I also
made comments regarding the relatively greater promise of
reflection methods. Indeed, the reflection method offers
some capabilities that the refraction method cannot offer;
but the converse is also true. Selection of one method or the
other should depend on the subsurface information that is
needed at a particular site. Although the reflection method
may become more widely used in the next few years, the
refraction method will account for more than half of the
lineal coverage well into the 1990s.
The seismic refraction method is often presented to engineering and environmental professionals as an inexpensive
and easily implemented geophysical method, particularly in
comparison to seismic reflection methods. Although a few
commercial short courses and some symposia conducted by
professional societies (e.g., Lankston, 1988) attempt to
present the full scope of modern seismic refraction methods,
much of the information on the refraction seismic method
that is presented in the latest geophysics textbooks (e.g.,
Dobrin and Savit, 1988, or Robinson and Corub, 1988) and in
less formal media is oversimplified or falls short of showing
the true strength of today's seismic refraction method and
the real costs of its implementation. In the oversimplification, certain statements are virtually always made about
the method without appropriate qualifications; these statements have led to widely held misconceptions.
One popular misconception about refraction seismic methods is that the data-interpretation method at the disposal of
the user effectively defines the scope of the data acquisition
procedures that are employed in the field. This misconception has evolved, more or less naturally, from the sequence

Manuscript received by the Editor October 17, 1988; revised manuscript received June 19, 1989.
*Gee-Compu-Graph, Inc., P.O. Box 1848, Fayetteville, AR 72702.
0 1989 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

1536

Lankston

of the mathematical development of the refraction method

that is followed in many textbooks. Nevertheless, selection
of a data-interpretation technique cannot be made until a
critical volume of data has been collected.
Other examples of oversimplifications are reflected in
statements such as "the seismic refraction method only
works where the velocity of each layer is greater than that of
the respective overlying layer" and "the seismic refraction
method requires each layer to have a minimum thickness."
The theoretical bases for statements such as these are not
hard to demonstrate, but such statements do not tell the
entire story. The boundary at which a velocity inversion
occurs or the top of a layer that is too thin to be detected
indeed is not seen in the first-arrival data; hence the origin of
the term hidden layer (Sheriff, 1984). In such cases, overlying layers are still mappable, and underlying layers may be
mappable within certain limits. The implication in the above
partially correct oversimplifications is that every subsurface
layer must be mapped. This is rarely the case in either
seismic refraction or seismic reflection studies.
The following is not meant to be an exhaustive text on
seismic refraction data acquisition or interpretation methods. By use of elementary examples, however, an attempt is
made to counter the misconceptions; i.e., to disassociate
field procedures from interpretation procedures and to encourage the use of the generalized reciprocal method (GRM)
on a routine basis, particularly because of its ability to
address the hidden-layer problem.
MULTILAYER, NONDIPPING, PLANAR REFRACTORS

Figure 1 shows a four-layer earth and a raypath that

includes critical refraction along the top of the fourth layer.
The solid-line raypath indicates the increasing velocity with
depth case. Deriving the traveltime equation for this case is
a simple matter of determining the length of each leg of the
raypath, calculating the transit time along each leg by
dividing by the appropriate velocity, and summing the times.

FIG. 1. Raypath diagrams through a four-layer earth. Rays

indicated by solid lines are through an increasing velocity
with depth case. If the second layer has a lower velocity than
the first layer, the raypath for critical refraction at the top of
layer four is indicated by the dotted line. In layer 1, the
raypaths are coincident for the two cases.

From Figure 1, each downgoing or upgoing leg of the path

(Pj) is given by

where the j subscripts indicate the layer and the other terms
are illustrated in Figure 1. The path length along the top of
the fourth layer is given by
n-l

P4= AB -

2Hj tan ijn.

(2)

j= 1

Dividing the path lengths by the respective velocities, adding

the terms, and simplifying the trigonometric terms yields the
familiar equation [e.g., Telford et al., 1976, equation (4.50)]
for the traveltime for the multilayer, nondipping, planar
refractor case:
n-1
~ A B= ABIV,

+2 2

H j cos ijnlVj,

(3)

j= 1

where the number of layers n may be any number greater

than 1. In the case illustrated in Figure 1, n equals 4.
Equation (3) defines the arrival times of rays critically
refracted along the respective boundaries. However, these
times are not necessarily first-arrival times. For a layer to be
identified in the set of first arrivals, its thickness must be
greater than a theoretical minimum. In fact, an operational
minimum thickness related to the geophone spacing in the
field exceeds the theoretical value. The theoretical and
operational limitations are easily defined on the basis of the
raypath geometries alone.
Equation (3) was derived with the assumption that the
velocity increased with depth across each boundary. The
dotted raypath in Figure 1 shows the route that the ray
travels in order to be critically refracted from the top of the
fourth layer when the velocity of the second layer is less than
the velocity of the surface layer; i.e., layer 2 is hidden. Each
of the angles ,i is still defined by Snell's law as noted in
Figure 1, and the path lengths are still defined as in equations
(I) and (2). Therefore, equation (3) can be used to define the
traveltimes for signals critically refracted along any boundary below the velocity inversion boundary; across certain
distance ranges, these arrivals are first breaks (Figure 2).
Equation (3) forms the basis for defining a method of
collecting data in the field and for the intercept time method
(ITM) of interpreting seismic refraction data. The interpretation stage of a refraction study is where the problem of
hidden layers is actually encountered. Hidden layers are not
really data acquisition problems. In the ITM, the thickness
of each layer, beginning at the surface, is determined in
sequence by expanding equation (3) for the appropriate
number of layers n, substituting the necessary parameters
for the respective layer, and solving for Hj. Because the top
of the hidden layer does not give rise to first arrivals, neither
its intercept time nor its velocity are available from the
traveltime graph. ITM interpretation, therefore, must cease
when the hidden layer is reached.
Unfortunately, the interpreter does not know that a hidden-layer problem has been encountered from the traveltime
data alone, and the interpretation may be continued inno-

1537

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Seismic Refraction Method: A Viable Tool

cently below the unknown layer. Continuing the ITM interpretation below the hidden layer yields incorrect depths. In
the velocity inversion case, depths are too great. In the
too-thin layer case, the depths are too small.
The detractors of the seismic refraction method often end
their argument at this point by noting that reflections can be
observed from both the top and the bottom of any Layer
regardless of the velocity contrasts, provided the thickness
exceeds 114 wavelength of the dominant energy (Widess,
1973). However, Palmer (1980, 1981) clearly showed that
applying the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) to the
data can yield correct depths to refractors even if the
thickness and velocity parameters of each overlying layer
are not defined; Palmer's results are reviewed later. Therefore, the geometrical aspects of refracted rays do not preclude the mapping of boundaries below the tops of hidden
layers if a suitable data interpretation technique is used to
process the data.

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Distance (It)

FIG.2. Traveltime graphs for two four-layer cases. Curve A

is from an increasing velocity with depth model. Curve B is
from a model in which a velocity inversion occurs in the
second layer.

JUSTIFYING AN INTERPRETATION METHOD

The classic textbook approach to teaching the seismic

refraction method begins by presenting the simple layercake
model of the earth, deriving the traveltime equations, and
demonstrating how the first breaks form straight-line segments that can be interpreted with the ITM. The field
operation that is suggested by this mathematical treatment is
to set out a spread of geophones and make a forward
direction shot. In the interpretation of the data, the firstarrival times are plotted on time-distance axes; straight-line
segments are fit through appropriate points to yield layer
velocities and intercept times; and depths are calculated with
the ITM equations.
This field and interpretation technique works as predicted
by the textbooks and is completely satisfactory in those
cases that satisfy the assumptions; i.e., planar and horizontal
boundaries, increasing velocity with depth, and sufficient
thickness of layers. In some circles, this approach to a
seismic refraction study is called the "simple" method. The
problem with the "simple" method arises when those who
use it connect the data acquisition and data processing
phases inextricably (Table 1). The user effectively decides in
advance of the survey that the data will be interpreted with
the ITM and collects the minimum amount of data. Even

after adding traveltime data from a reverse direction shot to

the forward direction data, the user can do no more than fit
straight lines to the traveltime data to obtain apparent
velocities and intercept times and to calculate depths and
dips using the ITM equations. The user of these simple
methods does not know from the minimal amount of data
that is collected whether the subsurface comprises several
subsurface layers or fewer layers with some lateral velocity
changes. In addition, the user does not know whether scatter
in the data is the result of operational noise or whether it is
an indication of real geology.
Those who would associate a set of field procedures with
a specific interpretation process and place these connected
techniques into a hierarchy generally place the GRM at the
most complex level and the ITM at the most basic level
(Table 1). Indeed, in order to complete an interpretation
using the GRM, a larger volume of first-arrival data must be
collected than for the ITM. However, essentially the same
volume of data must be collected in order to completely
justify the use of the ITM. The questions about lateral versus
vertical velocity changes and planar versus nonplanar
boundaries must be settled prior to adopting the ITM in any
given situation. Asserting that the earth is simply layered
and that the boundaries are planar does not make it so.

Table 1. Hierarchy of interpretation methods. Arrows indicate erroneous connection of a scope of field operations with
an interpretation method.

"Complex"

Multiple forward and reverse shots per

spread, explicit determination of reciprocal time, concatenation of
spreads to yield continuous profiles,
short geophone intervals, field plotting of time distance graphs

f-)

significant lateral velocity and depth

changes, precise migration of refractor position through use of optimum XY value, detection and accornmodation of hidden layers

+-)

Reciprocal Method of interpretation of

refractors with minor megularities
and veloaty changes

Single forward and reverse shots per

spread

+-)

ITM interpretation of refractors with

dipping, planar boundaries and no
lateral velocity changes

Single forward shot per spread

f--)

Multiple forward and reverse shots per

spread, explicit determination of redprocal time

"Simple"

GUM interpretation of refractors with

ITM interpretation of refractors with

non-dipping, planar boundaries
with no lateral velocity changes

Lankston

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

1538

Consequently, field and interpretation techniques cannot

be connected such that one scope of field procedures corresponds to one interpretation method. Only one set of field
procedures should be defined, and that is the one that would
provide sufficient traveltime data for resolving the complexity of the refractors. Failure to collect sufficient data in the
field leads to major uncertainties in the interpretation and
may lead to unsatisfactory interpretations. Interpretations
that do not characterize the subsurface within acceptable
limits because of insufficient data, at best, cast the seismic
refraction method in a dim light and may lead to incurring
substantial costs for resurveying or to incorrect engineering
design decisions.
FIELD PROCEDURES

Knowing, essentially unequivocally, that a change in slope

on a time-distance graph is related to a vertical change or to
a lateral change in the geology and whether or not a refractor
is planar are trivial matters if sufficient data are collected in
the field. Figure 3 shows two cases that give rise to identical
time-distance graphs. Figure 4 shows the time-distance
graphs that are obtained if one additional shot is placed at a
greater distance from the geophone spread. If the earth has
constant-velocity layers, the crossover point moves laterally
on the time-distance graph. If the change in slope is caused
by a lateral change in the geology, the crossover point occurs
at the same point laterally, but it is usually later in time. It
may be earlier in time, however, for several quite possible
reasons. One possibility is a rapidly thinning section above
the target refractor, as was the case on the leftmost spread at
the site where the data in Figure 5 were collected.
Although Figure 4 shows a case with planar refractors, the
logic holds equally for irregular refractors. In the lateralchange case, whether the change is in dip, velocity, or both
dip and velocity, the traveltime curves for the multiple shots
are "parallel" along those segments of the traveltime curve
in which arrivals from the same refractor have been observed. Good parallelism can be observed in the data in
Figure 5 for the high-velocity refractor between 250 and 500

ft (76 and 152 m) and between 850 and 1300 ft (259 and 396
m).
Routinely shooting twice into each end of the geophone
spread may not provide enough data to resolve questions of
lateral versus horizontal changes for all of the refractors.
Therefore, to monitor the sufficiency of the data, the first
breaks from each shot must be timed and plotted in the field.
Some refraction practitioners (e.g., van Overmeeren, 1987,
or Burdick and Scott, 1988) advocate the use of portable
computers in the field to aid this process; but a simple
clipboard with graph paper works adequately for field plotting when 12-channel seismographs are used for data acquisition. If the number of channels in the data acquisition
system exceeds 24, a more automated approach may be
necessary. The number of shots into the spread should not
be specified in advance. As the geology changes along a line,
the number and the spacing of shots may also need to

-S

-S
Offset Distance (x)

..

Offset

i Distance (XI

FIG.4. Traveltime graphs from short- and long-offset shots in

the two cases defined in Figure 3.

Distance (11)

Offset Distance (x)

Offset

Distanee (x)

FIG. 3. Traveltime graphs for a three-layer case with increasing velocities with depth (A) and for a two-layer case in
which a lateral velocity change exists in the refractor (B). V 2
and V2, are equal, and V 3 and V2bare equal.

FIG. 5. Forward-direction traveltime data collected in the

Columbia Basin. The high-velocity refractor is the main
target. However, an intermediate layer was detected in
arrivals at 750 and 800 ft (229 and 244 m). Additional
forward-direction shots between 325 and 825 ft (99 and 251
m) and shorter geophone intervals would have allowed the
nature of this intermediate layer to be better characterized.
The traveltimes from the long-offset shot on the leftmost
spread are earlier than the arrivals from the short-offset shot
because the surface elevation was decreasing rapidly to the
left as can be seen in Figure 7.

1539

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Seismic Refraction Method: A Viable Tool

change; and the field graph of the traveltime data readily
shows when enough data have been collected to map the
changing conditions. A lack of parallelism, such as between
600 and 800 ft (183 and 259 m) in Figure 5, indicates the need
for one or more additional forward-direction shots into the
spread that is situated between 550 and 1100 ft (168 and 335
m).
The multiple-shots-per-spread approach to data acquisition can be augmented by the generation of continuous
coverage of each target refractor as was done in collecting
the data in Figure 5. Providing continuous coverage is
accomplished by overlapping two or more geophones in
adjacent collinear spreads as suggested by Lankston and
Lankston (1986). Continuous coverage is a logical approach
to mapping "continuous" surfaces that are often the targets
in engineering and environmental surveys, e.g., the water
table and the top of the bedrock. Generating continuous
profiles through the overlapping of adjacent spread5 also
yields a method for obtaining reciprocal times without making specific shots for that purpose (Lankston and Lankston,
1986). The multiple shots per spread in both the forward and
reverse directions, continuous coverage of horizons. and
explicit determination of the reciprocal times for the various
refractors, however, do not directly identify the hidden-layer
condition.
Although no hierarchy of field techniques can exist, a
hierarchy of interpretation methods may be defined (Table
1). Each of the interpretation methods presumes certain
conditions exist in the subsurface. With the large volume of
data provided by the multiple forward- and reverse-direction
shots per spread, subsurface conditions can be defined
qualitatively. If the earth seems to satisfy the criteria necessary to apply the simple ITM, then that method may be used
with confidence to quantify the subsurface parameters. If the
qualitative interpretation of the data indicates a subsurface
that has refractors with laterally changing velocities and/or
dip, the GRM is required.
The extra time and expense associated with collecting the
necessary volume of data, including the time in the field to
prepare the preliminary traveltime graphs, may be viewed as
excessive or unnecessary when compared to the costs incurred in developing a "simple" data set. However, dataacquisition procedures that incorporate multiple shots per
spread in order to justify the interpretation method inherently provide quality control for field operations and data.

traveling rays emerge from the same point on the refractor

(Figure 6). The correct value for the XY distance is necessary for proper time-to-depth migration of the data. The
optimum XY parameter can be obtained and monitored as it
changes along a survey line through two more or less
independent methods, i.e., evaluation of the velocityanalysis function and the time-depth function as XY is
varied.
The optimum XY parameter is the feature of the GRM that
makes it so powerful and sets it apart from other interpretation schemes. Improved resolution of the subsurface is, in
general, related to improved resolution of the optimum XY
parameter; and this is limited only by the spacing between
the geophones on the surface. A consequence of the geometry defined by the optimum X Y distance is that the target
refractor needs to be planar only over a very short distance
in the vicinity of the point at which the two rays emerge from
the refractor. By contrast, the ITM requires planar refractors, nominally from the forward shotpoint to the reverse
shotpoint. The reciprocal method requires a refractor to be
planar across a distance essentially identical to the optimum
XY distance in the GRM.
Because of the simple geometry (Figure 6), the optimum
XY value for any number of layers can be determined from
n-l

XYopt = 2

ZjGtan ij,,

(4)

.j = 1

where G is the midpoint between X and Y , j designates the

layer, and n is the total number of layers. As in equation (3),
Snell's law defines each ij,. Equation (4) is Palmer's (1980)
equation (20), which is a simplification that he asserts is
satisfactory as long as the relative dip from one layer to the
next is less than 20". The actual dip of a layer, therefore,
could be greater than 20". In order to calculate the optimum
XY, only the thickness and the velocity of each layer are
needed. Relying entirely on the traveltime data, the velocities are known from the velocity-analysis stage of GRM
processing; and the layer thicknesses are determined at the
conclusion of the GRM processing sequence after the time-

MAPPING BELOW THE HIDDEN LAYER

Because the volume of data necessary to justify a simple

interpretation scheme or to make effective use of a complex
one is essentially the same, the interpreter should probably
consider using the techniques of the GRM to quantify the
interpretation regardless of the apparent complexity of the
subsurface. The GRM is readily implemented on microcomputers, and the GRM provides at least two levels of quality
control to the overall interpretation process. One of these
levels is associated with definition of the optimum XY
parameter. The optimum XY distance is defined (Palmer,
1980) as the separation between a geophone in a forwarddirection experiment and a geophone in a reverse-direction
experiment such that the forward-traveling and reverse-

FIG.6. Relationship among positions of X , Y , and G on the

surface and layer thicknesses (ZjG).

1540

Lankston

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

to-depth migration is completed. The key equation for calculating the depth is

where t, is the time-depth value for a particular forward and

reverse pair of geophones separated by the optimum XY
distance. Palmer (1980) gives the equation for evaluating t ,
from the traveltime data. As with the ITM, GRM interpretation proceeds from the surface downward, i.e., expanding
equation (5) to initially solve for Z I G, then Z2G, and so forth.
The G in Figure 6 could be any position along the
refraction survey line. In practice, a t , value is obtained for
all possible G positions along the line. Solving for Z(n-ljG
allows a cross-section of the earth showing the migrated
position of the target refractor to be generated (Figure 7). In
Figure 7, the target refractor is defined by the envelope of
tangents to the arcs. In processing stages prior to the
generation of Figure 7, the configuration of the shallower
refractor noted by the x's was defined. The layer thicknesses
(ZjG) can be measured from a cross-section such as Figure 7,
and equation (4) can be evaluated to learn if the calculated
optimum XY matches the optimum XY value that was
selected from the suites of velocity-analysis curves and
time-depth curves. The observed and calculated values
should be identical.
Of course, the values will probably not be identical
because the calculated value may be any number; and the
observed optimum XY is limited to integer multiples of the
geophone interval that was used in the field. Therefore, the
calculated and observed optimum XY values should compare
reasonably well. If they do not, the interpreter knows
immediately that one or more real layers in the subsurface
has an improperly defined thickness andlor velocity. One
possible explanation for the mismatch is that a hidden-layer
situation has been encountered.

FIG. 7. Final depth section showing arcs from which the

migrated position of the refraction is determined. The x's
indicate the depth to the top of an intermediate layer which
was determined in another phase of the interpretation. The
refractor in this case was interpreted to have two lateral
velocity changes that were probably related to layering in the
bedrock. The forward-direction data for this line are in
Figure 5.

A numerical example using the velocity inversion model in

Figure 2 illustrates the comparison process that Palmer
(1980) recommends as a routine aspect of data interpretation. Substituting the model parameters into equation (4), the
optimum XY should be 10.4 ft (3.17 m). If the "field" data
were collected with a geophone interval of 10 ft (3.05 m), the
optimum XY value that would be deduced from the velocityanalysis stage of GRM processing is 10 ft (3.05 m). The latter
value, for the purposes of this comparison, is the observed
optimum X Y value.
In processing real data, a value for t, would also be
recovered from the traveltime data. In this example, however, equation (5) is used to calculate the value oft,, which
is 15.5 ms. Because the second layer is hidden, the "field"
data (Figure 2, curve B) over this model indicate only a
three-layer case. In interpreting the depth to the top of the
third layer in the model, the interpretation process would set
n in equation (5) to 2 instead of the 3 that it should be
because neither the velocity of the second layer nor the
depth to its top is available. Equation ( 3 , therefore, reduces
to

where the quotation marks serve as a reminder that this

process does not give the true depth to the top of the third
layer. Solving for Z ~ gives
M 24.4
~ ft (7.44 m). The original
model (Figure 2) shows the depth to the top of the third layer
to be 20 ft (6.10 m). The error in the depth calculation is no
surprise. The same error would occur if the ITM were to be
applied to appropriate data from this model, but the ITM
does not allow the error to be recognized as such.
The second stage of quality control in the interpretation
process, therefore, is available through equations (4) and (5)
for optimum XY and t , , respectively. By using the interpreted depth (24.4 ft, 7.44 m), and substituting that depth
into equation (4), the optimum XY for the interpreted geologic section can be calculated. In the present model, only
VI and Vj are available for calculating
and n must be set
to 2. The calculated optimum XY (based on the "interpreted" value of Zr,18rG)
is 15.3 ft (4.66 m). Although the numerical difference between the observed optimum XY (10 ft, 3.05
m) and the calculated optimum XY (15.3 ft, 4.66 m) is small,
it is meaningful. If the real setting were as the present model,
the geophone intervals would need to be 5 ft (1.52 m) or less
in order to know that the difference between the two
optimum XY values was not a result of too large a geophone
interval. Palmer (1981) suggests three geophones per optimum XY distance. Using his criterion, a geophone spacing of
3 ft (0.91 m) would be indicated for this setting. The model in
Figure 2 represents a situation that could easily be encountered in a depth-to-water-table study. Obviously, a practical
compromise must be reached between high resolution of the
optimum XY value and field costs; fortunately, the optimum
XY value increases with depth to the target refractor.
Analysis of the optimum XY value by using the above
method is a quality-control feature of the GRM that has no
analog in other refraction interpretation schemes. As Palmer
(1980) states, "if the XY-values agree, then the depth to the
refractor will be essentially correct, even though the thicknesses and velocities of intermediate layers may be in

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Seismic Refraction Method: A Viable Tool

error." If the interpreter works from the surface downward
and if the optimum XY analysis is favorable for each layer,
the conclusion that every layer has in fact been detected is
valid. If the optimum X Y values do not agree, a hidden layer
is probably present. However, in addition to indicating that
a hidden-layer problem has been encountered, the comparison of the optimum X Y values allows the nature of the
hidden-layer problem to be exposed. The example above
shows the case in which the calculated optimum XY is
greater than the observed value, a situation which always
occurs in the velocity-inversion case. Knowing that the
hidden layer is caused by a velocity inversion, the Interpreter knows that the correct depth to the refractor is less
than that calculated.
On the other hand, if the calculated optimum XY is less
than the observed optimum X Y , the hidden layer is known to
be too thin to give to first arrivals. In this case, the calculated
depth is too small. Palmer (1980) mentions four other subsurface conditions that could cause the disagreement between the optimum X Y values, but the present two cases are
the only ones that relate to the hidden-layer problem.
In addition to its strengths in quantifying lateral changes in
depth to and velocity along refractors in non-hidden-layer
cases, the GRM's ability to indicate that a hidden layer has
been encountered and the probable nature of that hidden
layer invites its routine use in shallow-target studies. However, the GRM is also able to go beyond a qualitative
assessment of the nature of the hidden layer and to give the
correct depth to horizons below the hidden layer if good
control on the optimum X Y value for the target refractor is
available. Of course, this control is limited by the geophone
spacing used during field operations. Palmer (1980) demonstrates that an average velocity for the layers overlying the
target refractor can be calculated and that this velocity can
be used in a two-layer (n equals 2) form of equation (5) to
yield the total depth to the refractor. In geologic settings in
which the velocity contrasts between the layers are small,
depth errors of less than 5% can be expected with the
average-velocity method of determining the depths. A5 the
velocity contrasts increase, the expected error increases.
In the example in Figure 2, an average velocity of 123 1 ft/s
(375 mls) would be calculated. Expanding equation (5) for
the n = 2 case, setting V , equal to the average velocity and
V 2equal to the velocity of the target refractor (5000 ft/s, 1524
mls), and solving for ZIGgives a depth to the target refractor
of 19.7 ft (6.01 m), which represents and error of less than
2%.
SUMMARY

Through the late 1970s and early 1980s, the seismic

refraction method as applied to engineering and environmental problems was perhaps on the decline as suggested by
Dobecki and Romig (1985). Palmer (1980) noted that research and development into refraction interpretation methods had "been rather dormant for some time." ITM and
other non-GRM methods had proceeded as far as they could
because of their inability to detect and deal with the hiddenlayer problem. During the same time period, shallow-target
seismic reflection methods, both CMP and common offset,
were being developed and promoted as being superior to the

1541

refraction method because of the then-believed limitations

imposed by hidden layers in refraction surveying. In development of shallow reflection methods, relatively expensive
field techniques, data processing, and hardware were
adopted in order to obtain resolution of the near-surface
targets. Among these initially exotic techniques were highcaliber firearm sources, very high natural-frequency geophones, short geophone spacings, and high-pass analog
filtering with cutoffs well above 100 Hz.
Modern refraction methods also require certain procedures in the field that, initially, might be viewed as exotic. In
order to obtain the volume of data necessary to justify a
simple interpretation technique or to use a technique like the
GRM, high-energy and high-frequency sources and short
geophone spacings are also necessary. Analogous to the
roll-along shooting that is common in reflection work, multiple shots per spread are critical in refraction surveying.
Though digital recording and storage of data are used by
some refraction practitioners, good quality paper records are
suitable for much refraction work. The analog to the required recording of data on a digital medium during reflection surveying is field plotting of first-arrival times. As with
reflection work, continuous profiling is desirable; but some
problems may be addressed adequately with noncontinuous
coverage.
Once the necessary volume of data is in hand, the interpretation method can be specified. Of the variety of interpretation methods available, the GRM readily provides
internal quality control, which is based only on the traveltime data and which allows the hidden-layer problem to be
identified. Moreover, if the resolution of XY is high enough
(i.e., the geophones were closely spaced in the field) the
average-velocity method of determining the depth to the
target refractor can be used. In certain settings, the error in
the depth determinations for boundaries below hidden layers
can be less than 5%.
The often heard and only partially correct statements
regarding hidden layers have cast a dim light on refraction
methods in recent years. Data acquisition and data processing techniques that allow detailed mapping of two or three
discrete subsurface refractors routinely, and perhaps more
refractors in suitable circumstances, are available for immediate implementation. These methods can be employed less
expensively than shallow-target CMP reflection seismic
methods, and they can be employed successfully by persons
with less training and experience in field operations, data
processing, and interpretation. Seismic refraction methods
can probably be employed less expensively than common
offset seismic reflection methods. However, even if the costs
were comparable, for a target such as the bedrock surface
with dips as great as 20" overlain by alluvium or glacial till,
the seismic refraction method with GRM processing provides much more quantitative information on the velocity of
overlying materials, gives precise velocity(ies) of the bedrock, and, most importantly, yields a properly migrated
depth section.
Rather than competing with the shallow target CMP
reflection method, the refraction method with GRM processing may actually complement it. When geophone intervals
are a meter or less, well-constrained velocity analyses of
reflections at depths of 30 m or more are difficult. The

Downloaded 03/02/15 to 189.217.146.141. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

1542

Lankston

volume of data inherent in roll-along shooting coupled with a

few long offset shots, if necessary, would allow GRM
interpretations to constrain velocities and, hence, depths to
various reflectors.
Therefore, the refraction seismic method with multiple
shots per spread, closely spaced geophones, continuouscoverage profiling, and plotting of traveltime curves in the
field followed by GRM processing, including analysis of the
optimum XY for each target refractor, allows complex refractor geometries, even those below hidden layers, to be
mapped. The newer seismographs that offer instantaneous
floating point recording and 48 channels in portable packages
and the laptop-type microcomputers will facilitate the field
procedures recommended herein. Incorporating these systems and techniques in refraction seismic surveying and data
processing will guarantee refraction methods a prominent
place in engineering and environmmental geophysics, easily
competing with reflection seismic methods for many years to
come, and will preclude the refraction method from holding
a place in shallow-target geophysics that has only historical
significance.

REFERENCES
Burdick, R. G., and Scott, J. H., 1988, Interpreting seismic refraction data on a microcomputer: COGS-letter, May, 14-15.
Dobecki, T. L., and Romig, P. R., 1985, Geotechnical and groundwater geophysics: Geophysics, 50, 2621-2636.
Dobrin, M. B., and Savit, C. H., 1988, Introduction to geophysical
prospecting: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Lankston. R. W.. 1988. High resolution refraction seismic methods:
Proc. of the symp. on t6e Application of Geophys. to Engr. and
Envr. Problems, 349-387.
Lankston. R. W.. and Lankston. M. M.. 1986. Obtaining multilaver
reciprocal times through phantoming: Geophysics, 51: 4 5 4 9 . .
Palmer, D., 1980, The generalized reciprocal method of seismic
refraction interpretation: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
-1981, An introduction to the generalized reciprocal method
of seismic refraction interpretation: Geophysics, 46, 1508-1518.
Robinson, E. S., and Coruh, C., 1988, Basic exploration geophysics: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sheriff, R. E., 1984, Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., Sheriff, R. E., and Keys, D. A.,
1976, Applied Geophysics: Cambridge Univ. Press.
van Overmeeren, R. A,, 1987, The plus-minus method for rapid field
processing by portable computer of seismic refraction data in
multilayer groundwater studies: First Break, 5, no. 3, 83-94.
Widess, W. B., 1973, How thin is a thin bed: Geophysics, 38,
1176-1180.