Various Approaches to Forward and Inverse Wide-Angle Seismic Modelling Tested on Data from DOBRE-4 Experiment

Abstract

The interpretation of seismic refraction and wide angle reflection data usually involves the creation of a velocity model based on an inverse or forward modelling of the travel times of crustal and mantle phases using the ray theory approach. The modelling codes differ in terms of model parameterization, data used for modelling, regularization of the result, etc. It is helpful to know the capabilities, advantages and limitations of the code used compared to others.This work compares some popular 2D seismic modelling codes using the dataset collected along the seismic wide-angle profile DOBRE-4, where quite peculiar/uncommon reflected phases were observed in the wavefield.The ~505 km long profile was realized in southern Ukraine in 2009, using 13 shot points and 230 recording stations. Double PMP phases with a different reduced time (7.5–11 s) and a different apparent velocity, intersecting each other, are observed in the seismic wavefield. This is the most striking feature of the data. They are interpreted as reflections from strongly dipping Moho segments with an opposite dip. Two steps were used for the modelling. In the previous work by Starostenko et al. (2013), the trial-and-error forward model based on refracted and reflected phases (SEIS83 code) was published. The interesting feature is the high-amplitude (8–17 km) variability of the Moho depth in the form of downward and upward bends. This model is compared with results from other seismic inversion methods: the first arrivals tomography package FAST based on first arrivals; the JIVE3D code, which can also use later refracted arrivals and reflections; and the forward and inversion code RAYINVR using both refracted and reflected phases. Modelling with all the codes tested showed substantial variability of the Moho depth along the DOBRE-4 profile. However, SEIS83 and RAYINVR packages seem to give the most coincident results.