Prepared in Cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Measurement of Near-Surface Seismic 

Compressional Wave Velocities Using Refraction 

Tomography at a Proposed Construction Site on 

the Presidio of Monterey, California 

By Michael H. Powers and Bethany L. Burton 

Open-File Report 2012–1191 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Marcia McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2012 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Powers, M.H., and Burton, B.L., 2012, Measurement of near-surface seismic compressional 

wave velocities using refraction tomography at a proposed construction site on the Presidio of 

Monterey, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1191, 17 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under 

applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been disseminated by USGS. It does not 

represent and should not be construed to represent any determination or policy of the 

Department of the Interior. 

Prepared under Interagency Agreement Number W62N6M03094140.
Contents 

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Geological Background ..................................................................................................................... 1

Seismic Refraction Method ............................................................................................................... 3 

Seismic Refraction Survey ................................................................................................................ 4

Data Acquisition ............................................................................................................................ 4

Data Processing and Inversion ....................................................................................................... 7

Inversion Results ............................................................................................................................ 7

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... ..13

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................13

References Cited ........................................................................................................................... ..13

Appendix 1: Seismic Refraction Traveltime Curves ......................................................................... 14 

Figures 

1. Survey site location map with the Monterey peninsula geologic map underlaid .................... 2 

2. Aerial photograph showing the locations of the two seismic lines ......................................... 5 

3. Photos of seismic equipment deployed on Line A ................................................................. 6 

4. Photos of seismic equipment deployed on Line B .................................................................6 

5. A) P-wave velocity versus lateral and vertical position under Line A is shown in profile 

view. B) An interpretation of general material types is shown based on velocity ................................8

6. A) P-wave velocity versus lateral and vertical position under Line B is shown in profile 

view. B) An interpretation of general material types is shown based on velocity ............................... 9 

7. Rippability chart for the smallest Caterpillar machine ......................................................... .11 

8. Map showing the locations of previously mapped Quaternary faults on the Monterey 

peninsula.............................. .......................................................................................................12

ii
Conversion Factors 

Inch/Pound to SI 

Multiply By To obtain 

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) 

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) 

Mass

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 California 

State Plane zone 4 (CS83 zone 4). 

Depth below ground surface, as used in this report, refers to distance below the vertical datum. 

 

iii
Measurement of Near-Surface Seismic 

Compressional Wave Velocities Using Refraction 

Tomography at a Proposed Construction Site on 

the Presidio of Monterey, California 

By Michael H. Powers and Bethany L. Burton 

Abstract 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is determining the feasibility of constructing a 

new barracks building on the U.S. Army Presidio of Monterey in Monterey, California. 

Due to the presence of an endangered orchid in the proposed area, invasive techniques 

such as exploratory drill holes are prohibited. To aid in determining the feasibility, 

budget, and design of this building, a compressional-wave seismic refraction survey was 

proposed by the U.S. Geological Survey as an alternative means of investigating the 

depth to competent bedrock. Two sub-parallel profiles were acquired along an existing 

foot path and a fence line to minimize impacts on the endangered flora. The 

compressional-wave seismic refraction tomography data for both profiles indicate that no 

competent rock classified as non-rippable or marginally rippable exists within the top 30 

feet beneath the ground surface. 

Introduction 

A new barracks structure is being planned for construction on the Presidio of 

Monterey, located in Monterey, Calif., in woodlands between existing barracks and the 

Post Exchange (PX). Planning for excavation of the barracks foundation requires 

knowledge of the depth to what may be shallow granodioritic bedrock. However, permits 

have not been issued for invasive access with drill rigs that will harm the endangered 

flora present in the area: an orchid (piperia yadonii) that lies dormant for much of the 

year as a fragile tuber in the soft forest floor materials. To determine depth to bedrock 

and progress with the construction-planning procedures, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) designed, acquired (using a handheld hammer source), and analyzed two seismic 

refraction profiles. This report presents the results of the seismic-profile surveys across 

the existing woodlands. Because the U.S. Army Corps prefers that English units (also 

called Imperial units or foot-mile-pound units) are used instead of SI units, distances and 

weights were recorded in and are reported here in English units. 

Geological Background 

A geologic map (fig. 1) by Clark and others (1997) shows the site location within 

Cretaceous-age (145 to 65 million years ago (Ma)) porphyritic granodiorite (unit Kgdp on 

the map). Pleistocene (2.6 Ma to 11.7 thousand years ago (ka)) marine coastal terrace 

deposits (units Qctm and Qcth) are present above and below the granodiorite outcrops. 

1
Figure 1. Survey site location map with the Monterey peninsula geologic map (Clark and others (1997)) underlaid.

Red rectangle indicates survey area shown in figure 2.

Kgdp

2
Immediately south of the site, an unnamed marine, arkosic sandstone (unit Tus), derived 

principally from granitic rocks and deposited around 15 Ma, is present. 

Because the proposed construction site is covered with a layer of soil of unknown 

thickness with no outcrops, analysis of the geologic map and nearby observations led to 

speculation about the depth to competent bedrock. A large outcrop immediately east of 

the site on the Presidio property was exposed during recent construction and shows a 

transition of marine coastal terrace deposits into weathered and increasingly more 

competent granodiorite bedrock. Construction planning requires knowledge of the 

rippability of the subsurface materials that will be encountered during foundation 

excavation, so depth to competent bedrock is an important factor. 

Rippability is a qualitative property of rock; it describes the relative ease with 

which the material can be removed using excavation equipment. There are three 

classifications: rippable (easily removed), marginal, and non-rippable (difficult to 

remove). Rippability classification is more reliably correlated with seismic 

compressional-wave (P-wave) velocities than with geological rock type (Bailey, 1975; 

MacGregor and others, 1994). For example, weathered granite may exhibit a slower Pwave velocity than competent sandstone, and in such a case, the weathered granite will be 

more easily excavated than the competent sandstone. In this regard, and for this survey, 

the measure of P-wave velocity laterally and with depth across the proposed construction 

site is of more interest than the classification type of the geological materials. The 

requested maximum depth of investigation based on the estimated foundation depth of 

the proposed buildings was approximately 30 feet (ft). 

Seismic Refraction Method 

The seismic-profiling method makes use of a seismic source and a linear array of 

geophones spaced at regular intervals across the ground surface (Beck, 1981; Reynolds, 

1997; Sharma, 1997). When a geophone is well-coupled to the earth (usually with a 

spike), it generates an output voltage that is proportional to the vibrational motion of the 

ground in response to the seismic source and other vibrational sources. Modern 

geophones are sensitive enough that, in the absence of other noise, footsteps within 50- to 

100-ft can be detected easily. A central acquisition unit simultaneously records the output 

of each of the geophones for an established amount of time and with a selected sampling 

frequency. The acquisition is started by a trigger, usually coordinated with the impact of 

the seismic source on the ground. 

The seismic source can be a person striking the ground with a sledgehammer, a 

truck-mounted and truck-powered heavy hammer impact, a controlled vibration, a 

gunshot into the ground, a buried explosive charge, or any other method to generate 

ground vibrations. A good source has the following properties: (1) its waveform signature 

recorded by the geophones must be recognizable, (2) its strength must be adequate for the 

project goals, (3) it must be transportable, repeatable, and cost-efficient, and (4) it must 

be able to consistently and accurately trigger the system. For this project, we used a 

handheld12-pound sledgehammer hitting a carefully placed steel plate for portability and 

to avoid damage to endangered flora. 

When the source imparts energy into the ground and the trigger system initiates 

measurement of all geophone responses (starting at the instant of impact), the recorded 

response of the geophones is called a “shot record.” The shot record displays ground3
motion variations with traveltime (y-axis) and distance (x-axis). With basic 

understandings of the physics of seismic-wave propagation through the earth and through 

the local geology, arrival events are recognizable on the shot record. Such events include 

the initial direct compressional wave energy radiating outward from the source as well as 

head-wave energy, which enters and leaves relatively higher-velocity layers at a critical 

angle dependent on the velocity contrast. The seismic refraction method uses the firstarrival traveltimes of the direct and head waves to gain understanding of subsurface 

velocity variations. Other arrival events such as reflected-wave energy, surface-wave 

energy, and air-wave energy are present on the shot record but not used by the refraction 

method. 

Seismic Refraction Survey 

Data Acquisition 

The USGS acquired two generally east-west trending seismic lines (fig. 2). Line 

A is the northern profile and is located approximately along the pedestrian pathway 

through the woodlands (fig. 3). The topography is lowest on the west end and climbs 

gradually, becoming steeper on the east end. Total topographic relief across the line is 

about 45 ft. The southern profile, Line B, is located uphill and south of the pedestrian 

pathway along the north side of the fence line that separates the woodlands of the City of 

Monterey Huckleberry Hill Nature Preserve from the Presidio (fig. 4). Much of Line B is 

located at about 550 ft elevation, with an approximately 20-ft deep valley near the middle 

of the line. The ground along Line B was thick, soft, spongy forest-floor material that was 

not good for geophone coupling or for hammer source energy propagation. As a result, 

the first-arrival time picks for Line B are constrained to more limited source-receiver 

offset distances than are achieved along Line A. 

The number of live channels multiplied by the spacing between live geophones 

(one live geophone per live channel) determines the maximum source-receiver offset, 

assuming source locations are within the geophone spread. For design purposes, we 

conservatively estimate the maximum depth of investigation for the seismic refraction 

method to be about one-fifth of the maximum source-receiver offset. The presence of 

traffic noise at the site could decrease the signal-to-noise ratio at the far offsets and limit 

the depth of investigation. The acquisition geometry was designed based on a target 

maximum depth of investigation of approximately 100 ft. In practice, the limited-strength 

hammer blows in the soft soil and the site noise restricted our first-arrival traveltime 

picks to source-receiver offsets of between 200 and 300 ft. However, the high velocity of 

the bedrock material at depth still allowed velocity imaging to a maximum depth of 

approximately 100 ft. 

Both lines were acquired with a single, fixed spread of 96 40-Hertz 

compressional-wave geophones spaced 6 ft apart (downline positions 6, 12, 18, ... , 576 

ft). Source stations were located every 24 ft between and in-line with receivers starting at 

one-half station before the first geophone (downline positions 3, 27, 51, ... , 579 ft). For 

both profiles and for each source station, four blows with the sledgehammer were 

recorded and saved independently. The shot records were then reviewed, and the best 

record for each station was selected for picking first-arrival traveltimes on each trace. 

4
100 0 100 200 300

US SURVEY FEET

NAD83 / California CS83 zone 4

2,114,800 2,115,000 2,115,200 2,115,400 2,115,600 2,115,800

5,704,800 5,705,000 5,705,200 5,705,400 5,705,600 5,705,800 5,706,000

Line A

Line B

Base from USDA National Agricultural Imagery Program, 2009

Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the survey site indicating the locations of seismic lines A and B, shown in

blue. The extents of the low velocity zone at depth shown in figures 5 and 6 are shown as yellow

rectangles on each of the lines.

5
A B

Figure 3. Photos of the seismic equipment deployed on Line A along the footpath looking A, west

and B, east.

A B

Figure 4. Photos of the seismic equipment deployed on Line B looking A, southwest and

B, east-northeast.

6
The source and receiver stations were located with a tape and surveyed with a 

handheld Garmin etrex Vista HCx global positioning system (GPS) unit (Garmin 

International, Olathe, Kans.). This unit uses satellite positioning for latitude, longitude, 

and for approximate elevation. It refines local elevation changes with a barometric 

pressure-based altimeter. Accuracy for all measurements is only good to within 2–5 

meters for this instrument. We improved this accuracy by acquiring full x, y, and z 

position data every 1 second while making multiple slow passes across each line. The 

resulting overlapping data points were mathematically fit for an approximate position and 

elevation across each profile. The relative elevation results were confirmed and then 

adjusted based on a 5-ft contour map provided by the project engineers and also based on 

detailed line descriptions of elevation changes recorded in the field. 

Data Processing and Inversion 

The shot records were frequency-filtered using a band-pass filter to remove 

undesirable data that can mask the desired source signal. Although the band-pass filter 

aids in the picking process by removing unwanted noise, it also leads to artificially early 

first-arrival traveltimes. It is therefore imperative to pick the first breaks (the first arrival 

of direct and head wave energy for the various layers) by comparing both the filtered and 

unfiltered data and identifying the location within the first-arrival wavelet in the filtered 

data that corresponds to the true first-arrival traveltime in the unfiltered data. The 

resultant traveltime picks were displayed as curves representing the first-arrival time 

versus source-receiver lateral position across the line of active geophones. The traveltime 

curves are presented in Appendix 1. 

The measured first-arrival traveltime data are combined with the surveyed 

positions and elevations and are input into the inversion algorithm Rayfract (Intelligent 

Resources, Inc., Canada). For this study, a starting velocity model with the correct source 

and receiver geometry was generated from one-dimensional velocity soundings based on 

the first-arrival traveltime data for each common midpoint. A common midpoint is a 

group of source-receiver pairs that have a common surface location that corresponds with 

the center location between those pairs. With this starting model and the measured data, 

the Rayfract algorithm performs an inversion following the wavepath eikonal traveltime 

(WET) method (Schuster and Quintus-Bosz, 1993), using the maximum-smoothing 

option applied during the inversion. 

In the inversion process after the first comparison of traveltime differences 

(between measured and calculated traveltimes), the model is updated and new calculated 

traveltime curves are created and compared to the data. This procedure continues for a 

fixed number of iterations until convergence is reached on a “best-fit” solution. 

Generally, a smooth solution with an approximate fit is regarded as more geologically 

realistic than a very rough solution with an exact fit, because the rough solution may be 

adding unnecessary structure to fit noise in the data. In practice, noisier data require more 

smoothing and have an overall lower fit accuracy. 

Inversion Results 

Figures 5 and 6 show our final solutions for Lines A and B, respectively, after ten 

iterations each. The root-mean-square (RMS) error for Line A is 1.74 milliseconds (ms) 

with a corresponding normalized RMS error of 2.3 percent. The normalized RMS error is 

7
Figure 5. Line A seismic compressional (P-) wave refraction inversion model results. A, P-wave velocity profile

versus lateral and vertical position, and B, an interpretation of general material types is overlaid on the

velocity model. The inverted black triangles and red stars along the top of the profiles indicate the geophone

and source locations, respectively. The unconsolidated and semi-consolidated materials may be either

weathered granodiorite or compacted marine deposits, because they may exhibit the same velocity. The

hard rock is material with velocity faster than generally found for even compacted sediment deposits, and is

most likely granodiorite. The cause of the low velocity zone at depth is unclear without additional information.

(fps, feet per second; RMS, root mean square)

Seismic

P-Wave

Interval

Velocity

(fps)

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384 432 480 528 576

Downline Distance, in feet

350

400

450

500

Elevation, in feet

350

400

450

500

Rippable

Marginal

Non-rippable

 Low

Velocity

 Zone

B

Rippable

Marginal

Non-rippable

Non-rippable

Marginal

Rippable

3000 3000

3000

5000 5000

5000

7000

7000

7000

9000

9000

9000

9000

11000

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384 432 480 528 576 350

400

450

500

Elevation, in feet

350

400

450

500

West East

A

10 iterations, RMS error: 1.74 milliseconds

8
Figure 6. Line B seismic compressional (P-) wave refraction inversion model results. A, P-wave velocity profile

versus lateral and vertical position, and B, an interpretation of general material types is overlaid on the velocity

model. The inverted black triangles and red stars along the top of the profiles indicate the geophone

and source locations, respectively. The shallowest depth to a more competent bedrock across the site is

at about 288 feet downline distance on this profile and is near 50 feet deep. The cause of the low velocity zone

at depth is unclear without additional information. (fps, feet per second; RMS, root mean square)

Seismic

P-Wave

Interval

Velocity

(fps)

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384 432 480 528 576

Downline Distance, in feet

400

450

500

550

Elevation, in feet

400

450

500

550

Rippable

Marginal

Non-rippable Low

Velocity

 Zone

Non-rippable

Marginal Marginal

Rippable

B

5000

5000

5000

7000

7000

7000

9000

9000

11000

11000

11000

0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384 432 480 528 576 400

450

500

550

Elevation, in feet

400

450

500

550

West East

A

10 iterations; RMS error: 1.34 milliseconds

9
calculated by dividing the RMS error by the maximum first-arrival traveltime of all the 

traces modeled (1,624 traces for Line A and 1,112 traces for Line B). The RMS error for 

the tenth-iteration model presented for Line B is 1.34 ms and 2.3 percent. 

Figure 5A shows the inversion model of Line A with the lateral and vertical 

variations in interval velocity displayed. The color velocity image without contours is 

also presented overlaid with a general interpretation of rippability (fig. 5B) based on an 

industry-standard chart (Caterpillar Inc., 2010). Figure 6 shows the same images and 

interpretations for Line B. 

The rippability chart (fig. 7) is based on the ability of Caterpillar’s smallest ripper, 

the D8R/D8T, to successfully excavate a material based on its seismic compressional 

velocity—this is therefore a conservative rippability classification. The chart shows the 

upper bounds of the rippable and marginal velocity ranges to be about 6,000 and 8,000 

feet per second (fps), respectively. The upper bounds on the velocity images are shown at 

4,800 and 6,400 fps, respectively, providing for a very conservative possibility of up to 

20-percent error in the accuracy of the velocity determinations with depth. Geophysicists 

traditionally accept a 10-percent error possibility as a rule of thumb, and the true amount 

of error will depend on all of the unique aspects of the survey. Lateral variabilities in the 

maximum depth of investigation of the velocity models are due to end-of-line effects and 

variations in the maximum source-to-receiver offset traveltime data, mostly caused by 

low signal-to-noise quality in the shot records at the far offsets. Most importantly for this 

survey, rippable material extends from the surface to a minimum of 18–20 ft depth, 

which occurs on Line B up at the fence line in the valley. On Line A, along the pedestrian 

pathway, the depth of rippable material is greater than 30 ft across the entire profile. 

Both lines show a significant thickness of marginal zone material and do not show 

a clear and distinct interface from rippable to non-rippable material. Geologically, this 

suggests a thick weathered rock zone. However, it is impossible from these data to 

determine if the geology consists of either (1) thin soil above 50 ft or more of transition 

from highly weathered to competent rock or (2) an interval of semi-consolidated marine 

terrace material below the soil, but above a thinner transition from weathered to 

competent rock. This is because weathered bedrock and semi-consolidated marine terrace 

deposits may have similar velocity. 

There is a low-velocity zone that is present on both profiles at depth between 385 

and 470 ft downline distance on Line A (fig. 5) and between 375 and 415 ft downline 

distance on Line B (fig. 6). Without additional data or information about the subsurface 

in this area, it is not possible to determine the cause of this low-velocity zone. This could 

be a buried erosional feature on the bedrock (such as a valley that becomes broader 

moving downslope), or the bedrock surface in this area may simply undulate and 

therefore extend to a depth beyond the maximum depth of investigation. The lower 

velocity may also be indicative of a more highly fractured or faulted section of bedrock. 

Faults have been identified on the Monterey peninsula, but none have been previously 

identified directly through this site. The locations of the low-velocity zones on both 

profiles suggest a feature that trends approximately north-northwest across the site (fig. 

2). Several previously identified Quaternary faults exist less than 15 ka to the southeast of 

the survey site: the Sylvan thrust and Hatton Canyon faults of the Monterey BayTularcitos fault zone, Seaside-Monterey section (fig. 8; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011). 

No evidence to date has shown that the Quaternary faults extend through this area. 

10
123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0 1 2 3 4

Topsoil

Clay

Glacial Till

Igneous Rocks

Granite

Basalt

Trap Rock

Sedimentary Rocks

Shale

Sandstone

Siltstone

Claystone

Conglomerate

Breccia

Caliche

Limestone

Metamorphic Rocks

Schist

Slate

Minerals & Ores

Coal

Iron Ore

Seismic Velocity

Meters Per Second 1000

Feet Per Second 1000

Rippable Marginal Non-rippable

Figure 7. Rippability chart displaying the correlation between seismic compressional-wave velocities,

lithologic types, and rippability classification (Caterpillar Inc., 2010). This chart is for the

Caterpillar D8R/D8T ripper performance, the smallest Caterpillar excavator available.

11
EXPLANATION

Hatton Canyon fault Sylvan thrust fault

Figure 8. Terrain map showing the locations of previously mapped Quaternary faults on the Monterey

peninsula (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011) in the area surrounding the seismic survey site. The seismic

survey site is indicated by the red rectangle. Contour interval is 100 feet.

12
Additional data from trenching, boreholes, LiDAR, or geophysics are necessary to better 

understand this low-velocity zone. 

Conclusions 

The seismic refraction tomography models along two sub-parallel profiles 

acquired at the Presidio of Monterey site indicate that rippable material extends to at least 

30 ft depth under the pedestrian pathway corridor (Line A), and to a minimum of 18–20 

ft depth under the fence line (Line B). The models show a transition to increasingly more 

consolidated material with depth. Non-rippable rock is present at depth across the profiles 

except within a narrow zone just east of the center of Line B and across a broader zone on 

the east side of Line A. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the field assistance of John Jackson of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, and of Christine Houts, USGS 

volunteer. Lorrie Madison, biologist, and Will Meyer, Presidio of Monterey project 

manager, provided much-appreciated help with field logistics. We acknowledge and 

thank Curtis Payton, Lewis Hunter, and Randy Born at the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 

Sacramento District, for their help in making this survey possible. 

References Cited 

Bailey, A.D., 1975, Rock types and seismic velocity versus rippability, in Proceedings of 

the 26th Annual Highway Geology Symposium, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, August 13–15, 

1975, p. 135–142. 

Beck, A.E., 1981, Physical principles of exploration methods: New York, Wiley, 234 p. 

Caterpillar Inc., 2010, Caterpillar performance handbook (40th ed): Caterpillar, Inc., 

Peoria, Ill., 1, 442 p. 

Clark, J.C., Dupre, W.R., and Rosenberg, L.I., 1997, Geologic map of the Monterey and 

Seaside 7.5-minute quadrangles, Monterey County, California—A digital database: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97–30. 

MacGregor, F., Fell, R., Mostyn, G.R., Hocking, G., and McNally, G., 1994, The 

estimation of rock rippability: Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, v. 27, p. 

123–144. 

Reynolds, J.M., 1997, An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics: Wiley, 

NY, 796 p. 

Rosenberg, L.I., and Clark, J.C., 1994, Quaternary faulting of the greater Monterey area, 

California: Technical report to U.S. Geological Survey, under Contract 1434-94-G2443, 27 p., scale 1:24,000. 

13
Schuster, G.T., and Quintus-Bosz, A., 1993, Wavepath eikonal traveltime inversion—

Theory: Geophysics, v. 58, p. 1314–1323. 

Sharma, P.V., 1997, Environmental and engineering geophysics: Cambridge, United 

Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 475 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, California quaternary faults: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Geologic Hazards Science Center, accessed online November 2011, at 

http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/ca/California.php.

14
Appendix 1: Seismic Refraction Traveltime Curves

For all seismic data acquired on lines A and B, the refraction tomography P-wave 

velocity models are created from first-arrival traveltime picks made for every shot record. 

The picks are displayed as traveltime curves. The downline distance at which each curve 

converges to zero time represents the shot location. The slope of the curve represents 

apparent velocity of the energy arrival. Depth to a higher-velocity layer is related to the 

time at which the curves show a change in slope. 

In this appendix, all picked traveltime curves are shown for both lines. The 

horizontal axis in the plots represents downline distance, in feet. Geophone spacing is 6 ft 

for both lines, with the first geophone at 6 ft downline distance. The curves are plotted 

from west to east. 

Accurate picks from clean data show a degree of “parallelism” with adjacent 

closely-spaced curves changing only slightly. Large changes in the shape of an individual 

curve unrelated to the trend of adjacent curves generally indicate noisy data and less 

accurate traveltime picks. 

The black, dashed lines are sections where first-arrival traveltimes were not 

picked. For an individual shot, the curve also does not extend across the entire spread 

because of a low signal-to-noise ratio that prevented clear picks of traveltimes at far 

offsets. The curves are variously colored for display purposes only that do not have a 

particular significance. 

15
Figure A1. First-arrival traveltime curves for Line A.

16
Figure A2. First-arrival traveltime curves for Line B.

17