International Association of Seismology and 

Physics of the Earth's Interior on the Sejsmic 

Modeling of Laterally Varying Structures: 

Contributions Based on Data from the 

1978 Saudi Arabian Refraction Profile 

Proceedings of the 1980 Workshop of the International 

Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's 

Interior on the Seismic Modeling of Laterally Varying 

Structures: Contributions Based on Data from the 

1978 Saudi Arabian Refraction Profile 

Walter D. Mooney and Claus Prodehl, Editors 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 937 

1984 
Department of the Interior 

WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

International Association of Seismology and Physics of the 

Earth•s Interior. Workshop (1980 : Park City~ Utah) 

Proceedings of the 1980 Workshop of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth•s Interior 

on the seismic modeling of laterally varying structures. 

(U.S. Geological Survey Circular 937) 

Includes bibliographical references. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.4/2:937 

1. Seismology--Saudi Arabia--Congresses. 2. Seismic refraction method--Congresses. 3. Geology--Saudi Arabia--Congresses. I. Mooney, Walter D. II. Prodehl ~ Claus, 

1936- . III. Title. IV. Series: United States. 

Geological Survey. Circular 937. 

QE537.2.S33I57 1980 551.8 10953 84-600241 

Free on application to Distribution Branch, Text Produds Section, 

U.S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 
Introduction, by W. D. Mooney • 

Acknowledgments • • • • • • • • 

Contributions 

CONTENTS 

Preliminary interpretation of Saudi Arabian seismic refraction 

data, by J. Ansorge, E. Banda, S. Mueller, H. Benz, and R. B. 

Page 

1 

6 

Smith. . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . • . . . • 7 

Two-dimensional inverse kinematic problem - application to the 

Saudi Arabian refraction profile, by P. Firbas • • • • • • • 14 

Crustal structure of the Red Sea-Arabian Shield transition, by 

D. A. Forsyth, A. Green, and A. Mair • • • • • • • • • • • • 22 

A crustal section for the Arabian Shield and adjacent Red Sea 

margin derived from first-arrival data, by M. E. Gettings. • • • 24 

A seismic refraction profile across the Arabian Shield, by A. 

Ginzburg • . . • . • • • • • . . • • . • • • . 28 

A preliminary examination of the 1978 refraction profiles in 

Saudi Arabia, by P. K. H. Maguire. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 

The rifted margin of Saudi Arabia, by J. S. McClain and J. A. 

Orcutt • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 

Crustal structure of the Red Sea-Arabian Shield transition, by 

B. Milkereit and E. R. Fllih • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 43 

Saudi Arabian refraction profile, a preliminary interpretation 

for the Red Sea-Arabian Shield transition, by H. Miller • 47 

A traveltime interpretation of the 1978 seismic refraction 

profiles in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by W. D. Mooney. • 49 

Explanation of Russian models: Saudi Arabian seismic refraction 

profile, by N. I. Pavlenkova and I. P. Kosminskaya. • • • • • • • 80 

Interpretation of the data of the USGS seismic refraction profile 

across the Arabian Shield in western Saudi Arabia, Part I & II, 

by C. Prodehl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82 

A preliminary analysis of the Saudi Arabian deep seismic sounding 

data, by R.-S. Zeng, H.-S. Hu, and S.-Q. Zhang. • • • • • • 117 

One-dimensional velocity-depth functions determined for the Arabian 

Shield and the southwestern Red Sea: a comparison of models, by 

W. D. Mooney and M. E. Gettings • • • • • • • • • • • 125 

A comparison of crustal sections: Arabian Shield to the Red Sea, by 

W. D. Mooney and C. Prodehl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 140 

Reports from the data of the 1978 Saudi Arabian seismic refraction profile 154 

Appendices: 1. IASPEI workshop abstract, by S. Mueller and others. 156 

2. IASPEI-CCSS participants. • • • • 157 

3. Resolution. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 158 

iii 
FOREWORD 

This volume is a collection of contributions presented at the 1980 IASPEI 

(International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior) 

workshop of the Commission on Controlled Source Seismology (CCSS), addressing 

seismic modeling of laterally varying structures. The participants of this 

workshop described research on state-of-the-art geophysical techniques applied 

to seismic refraction data. The data were collected during 1978 under a work 

agreement between the Directorate General of Mineral Resources, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The results from this 

international cooperative effort at interpretation are presented herein. 

The participants of this workshop were asked for contributions leading to 

an understanding of the crustal structure along the Saudi Arabian seismic 

refraction profile. As no specific format was solicited from participants, 

the proceedings contain contributions of varying lengths and formats. Crustal 

model illustrations and figures comparing the contributed crustal interpretations prepared by the editors are included. 

The efforts and contributions of IASPEI participants uniquely advance 

insight into Saudi Arabian crustal structure along the 1978 profile. It is 

hoped that these workshop presentations will stimulate further work in the 

general area of seismic modeling of laterally varying structures and in the 

study of the crustal structure of the Red Sea and the Saudi Arabian Peninsula. 

On behalf of all the participants of the workshop, we would like to thank 

the editors for taking the time to prepare this volume. 

Stephan Mueller 

Irina Kosminskaya 

Co-chairmen, Commission on Controlled Source Seismology 

iv 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1980 WORKSHOP OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

OF SEISMOLOGY AND PHYSICS OF THE EARTH'S INTERIOR 

ON THE SEISMIC MODELING OF LATERALLY VARYING STRUCTURES: 

CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON DATA FROM THE 

1978 SAUDI ARABIAN REFRACTION PROFILE 

INTRODUCTION 

By W. D. Mooney 

During the past ten years significant progress has been made in the 

methods of collection and analysis of seismic refraction and reflection data. 

This progress has led to the development of new models for the structure and 

composition of the earth's crust, based on sophisticated analysis of numerous 

profiles in many areas of geologic importance. The third triennial meeting of 

the IASPEI Commission on Controlled Source Seismology convened in Park City, 

Utah, on August 11-17, 1980, to bring together seismologists and geologists to 

assess the status of controlled source techniques (including explosions, air 

guns, and vibrators) and to evaluate their usefulness for modeling seismic 

velocity structure and composition of the crust and upper mantle. Progress 

and problems in modeling two- and three-dimensional structures received 

particular attention. 

Park City was an ideal location for the conference, as examples of the 

complex structures that we are presently attempting to model can be seen in 

that area. The effects on the crust of tectonic forces were easily discernible from the air during the approach to the Salt Lake City airport, as they 

were on the ground during the field trip into the Wasatch Mountains led by R. 

B. Smith of the University of Utah. Forty-six seismologists from 11 countries 

attended the conference and a few more sent written contributions. 

Two-and-one-half days of the five-day conference were devoted to discussing interpretations of the seismic refraction data collected in Saudi Arabia 

by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1978 (Blank and others, 1979). The complete 

refraction data set had been distributed to the participants before the 

meeting, giving each seismologist (or team of seismologists) time to analyze 

the same data. Therefore, the participants were able to discuss issues of 

interpretation in more detail than is possible in traditional workshops which 

are based on diverse data sets. 

Because the known surface geology must constrain seismic interpretation, 

the session opened with a discussion of the geologic framework of Saudi Arabia 

and the southeastern Red Sea. (All participants received the U.S. Geological 

Survey's 1963 geologic map of Saudi Arabia.) H. R. Blank introduced the 

geologic problems of Saudi Arabia, and M. Q. Assad outlined the planning and 

goals of the 900-km-long refraction profile (fig. 1), after which a series of 

speakers explained their team's interpretation of the data and the methods 

they used to derive velocity-depth structures. Six participants presented 

their deep seismic reflection techniques, and five presented new theoretical 

approaches on the interpretation of explosion seismic data. Five other 

participants discussed the uniqueness and physical significance of structural 

models. These presentations led to general discussions on the principles of 

correlation and subsequent inversion techniques. 

1 
In the course of the presentations it became evident that the differences 

between the models usually resulted from differing phase correlation. The 

term "phase correlation" refers to the process of identifying, within a seismic 

record section, those arrivals that refract or reflect from the same velocity 

feature of the crust or mantle. For example, the P* phase refracts in the 

middle crust while the PmP phase reflects from the crust-mantle boundary. A 

knowledge of the expected amplitude and frequency of a particular phase, based 

on experience and theoretical considerations, facilitates its correlation 

within the record section, but the complexity of the typically observed wave 

fields leads to a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the phases. 

Given identical phase correlations, different methods of traveltime and amplitude analysis of these phases will produce nearly the same models. However, 

different phase correlations will result in markedly divergent models regardless of further analysis methods. This is seen when comparing the models of 

the Arabian Shield (fig. 2A) to those of the continent-Red Sea transition (fig. 

2B). For the most part, the teams of interpreters agreed on the phase correlation of the profiles between shotpoints 1 and 5, and the similarity of the 

resultant models reflect this agreement. However, the correlations and interpretations of the data crossing the continent-Red Sea transition were diverse 

and ultimately led to quite different models for that region (fig. 2B). 

To summarize, the CCSS workshop interpretation of the Saudi Arabian data 

showed the following: 

1. The upper crust of the shield is 21 km thick and has an average 

velocity of 6.25 km/s. In some regions there are small velocity discontinuities and low-velocity zones. 

2. The lower crust of the shield (19 km thick) is separated from the 

upper crust by a seismic discontinuity where the velocity increases by 0.3 

km/s. The average velocity of the lower crust is about 6.7 km/s. Velocities 

greater than 7.0 km/s may be present in the lowermost crust. 

3. The M-discontinuity is probably a transition zone 2-5 km thick at an 

average depth of about 40 km. The uppermost mantle velocity probably increases 

laterally from 8.0 km/s beneath the Red Sea to 8.2 km/s beneath the Arabian 

Platform. 

4. The structure of the continent-Red Sea transition remains uncertain 

with the currently available data. The range of proposed models is indicated 

in figure 2B. Improved models would result from the recommendations below. 

5. There is considerable evidence for fine structure in the upper mantle, 

including low-velocity zones and velocity discontinuities between 40 and 70 km 

depth. 

The participants of the meeting recommended the following methods for 

future seismic refraction and reflection work in areas with strongly laterally 

heterogeneous velocity structure, such as the continent-Red Sea transition in 

western Saudi Arabia: 

1. Parallel-to-structure refraction profiles are needed, in the present 

case, along the coastal plain and in the Red Sea. 

2. Perpendicular-to-structure profiles must be densely recorded and 

should include considerable data redundancy. 

3. Seismic reflection profiles would help resolve details in the areas 

of greatest structural complexity. In the present case, reflection profiles 

across the Hijaz-Asir escarpment (fig. 1) would shed light on the structure of 

this rift boundary. 

2 
REFERENCES 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R. J., Fischer, F., 

McClearn, R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of, 

Saudi Arabia--Field operations, instrumentation and initial results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey and Arabian-American Oil Company, 1963, Geologic map of 

the Arabian Peninsula: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic 

Investigations Map I-270A, scale 1:2,000,000. 

3 
16°1-------

HIJAZ- ASIR 

TECTONIC 

PROVINCE 

\ 

' \ 

' ' ... 

' ' 

SHAM MAR 

TECTONIC PROVINC 

NAJD 

TECTONIC 

PROVINCE 

0 KM 

Riyadh 

0 

200 

Figure 1. Location map of the 1978 USGS/DGMR-conducted seismic refraction 

profiJ.e across western Saudi Arabia and the southeastern Red Sea, 

interpreted by the IASPEI CCSS workshop participants, showing the 

shotpoints (SP), the profile line (heavy line), and the tectonic 

provinces. 

4 
(A) 

COMPRESSIONAL WAVE VELOCITY {KM/S) 

RED SEA - SHIELD 

TRANSITION STRUCTURE 801~----~----r---~----~----~ 

(B) 

Figure 2. A, P-wave velocity-depth structure of the Arabian Shield presented 

by workshop participants. Shaded region outlines the range of 

velocities of most models, solid line is a typical example of a 

velocity structure, and dashed line is an alternative model. 

H, Four P-wave velocity structures for the Arabian Shield-Red Sea 

transition. Data were sparse in this laterally inhomogeneous 

region, causing interpretations to differ radically. 

5 
ACKNOWLEDG~lliNTS 

The participants thank the officers of the Commission on Controlled 

Source Seismology, particularly co-chairmen S. Mueller, from EidgenBssische 

Technische Hochschule (ETH)-Zurich, Switzerland, and I. P. Kosminskaya, from 

the Institute of the Physics of the Earth, Moscow, USSR, and secretary J. 

Ansorge, also from ETH-Zurich, Switzerland, for their support and contributions to the IASPEI workshop. We also thank D. P. Hill, Menlo Park, 

California, J. A. Orcutt, La Jolla, California, and R. B. Smith, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, for the local planning and organizing of the August 1980 workshop. 

The U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission personnel, in particular 

G. E. Andreason, H. R. Blank, and D. F. Davidson, gave their continuous support 

from the planning of the seismic refraction survey across Saudi Arabia to the 

completion of the IASPEI workshop. The research presented by the IASPEI participants at the workshop significantly contributed to the understanding of the 

crustal structure of Saudi Arabia along the seismic refraction profile. 

We thank F. McKisic for arranging financial support from the Office of 

Naval Research which, together with that from the U.S. Geological Survey, made 

the IASPEI workshop possible. We thank the Directorate General of Mineral 

Resources, Saudi Arabia, for permission to use the seismic refraction data for 

this workshop. 

6 
PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATION OF SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION DATA 

By J. Ansorge 1 , E. Banda 1 , H. Benz2, S. Muelleri, and R. B. Smith 2 

rinstitute of Geophysics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology 

CH-8093, Zurich, Switzerland 

2Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

For a preliminary interpretation the following methods have been applied 

to the record sections from shotpoint 1 to shotpoint 5: 

--Correlation of first and later traveltime branches, 

--Comparisons of correlated phases with those on adjacent and reversed 

profiles, 

--Computation of traveltimes by trial and error for flat and parallel layered 

models, 

--Adjustment of models to make the best fit with observed traveltimes, 

distances, and amplitude characteristics, 

--Computation of synthetic seismogram sections for a few selected profiles. 

The individual velocity-depth models have been combined into a preliminary 

crustal cross section. 

The entire profile (shot 1 - shot 6) has been grouped into three sections 

acconiing to similar characteristics and numbers of traveltime branches. 

Northern sections: profiles 1 SW, 2 NE, 2 SW 

Central section: profiles 3 SW, 4 NE, 4 SW, 5 NE 

Southern sections: profiles 5 SW, 6 NE 

NORTHERN SECTION 

The very thin sedimentary or weathered layer near the surface has been 

ignored. Below this layer the velocity increases rapidly from 6.0 km/s to 6.2 

km/s at a depth of about 2 km. This layer can be interpreted either as a 

weathered part of the basement or a separate layer overlying a basement with a 

velocity of 6.2 km/s. A more detailed interpretation of the available seismic 

and geologic data may answer this question. The critical distance of the 

underlying refractor with a velocity of 6.4 km/s suggests the existence of a 

low-velocity layer with a thickness of about 5 km and an assumed velocity of 

5.6 km/s. Both the low-velocity layer and the underlying 6.4 km/s layer are 

depressed by about 3 km from shotpoint 1 to shotpoint 2. 

The transition to the lower crust occurs at a depth of about 27 km with a 

sharp increase in velocity from 6.4 km/s to 6.8 km/s. 

The traveltimes of Pn and PmP indicate a thinning of the crust from 40 km 

under shotpoint 1 to 37 km west of shotpoint 2. 

7 
CENTRAL SECTION 

A rather homogeneous crust characterizes the central section over a 

distance of about 500 km from shotpoint 3 to north of shotpoint 5. 

A near-surface layer with a velocity of 6.0 km/s varies in thickness from 

zero at shotpoint 5 to 3.5 km south of shotpoint 4. This layer is clearly 

separated from material with a velocity of 6.3 km/s. This separation correlates with outcrops of greenstone on profile 5 North with a velocity at the 

surface of 6.3 km/s. The crust-mantle boundary lies at about 37 km depth 

between shotpoint 3 and shotpoint 5. The mean Pn velocity north of shotpoint 5 

is 8.1 km/s. 

A velocity of 6.5 km/s between depths of 12 and 22 km in the upper crust 

under shotpoint 5 might be interpreted as a transitional feature to the Red 

Sea rift. 

SOUTHERN SECTION 

The data from profiles 5 SW and 6 NE document a highly complex and 

laterally varying crustal structure. The thickness of the young sediments 

increases from zero at shotpoint 5 to about 3 km north of shotpoint 6. The 

observations of PmP and Pn indicate a crustal thickness of about 22 km with a 

mean crustal velocity of 6.5 km/s and a Pn velocity of about 7.8 km/s. Secondary phases arriving with an apparent velocity of 8.0 to 8.1 km/s after the 

relatively early Pn of 7.8 km/s are evidence for a further differentiation in 

the uppermost mantle beneath the thin crust characteristic of the Red Sea rift. 

LATERAL VARIATION OF THE CRUSTAL STRUCTURE 

From the crustal structure deduced for each of the three sections the 

presence of significant lateral variations over the entire profile is evident. 

The main features characterizing the lateral variations are as follows: 

{1) a low-velocity layer exists under the northern section only; (2) the 

southern boundary of this section shows an abrupt offset of about 6 km in the 

lower crust, possibly related to the transition from the Arabian platform to 

the shield; (3) the transition from the shield structure to the Red Sea rift 

begins north of shotpoint 5 with the appearance of a refractor of a velocity 

of 6.5 km/s at about 12 km depth; (4) south of shotpoint 5 thickening 

sediments characterize the transition to the Red Sea rift; (5) the Pn velocity 

decreases from 8.1 to 7.8 km/s beneath the margin of the rift. 

8 
Shot 2 - North 

t = 0 + /J./6.0 

t = 0~2 + /J./6.21 

t = 0.53 + /J./6.42 

t = 3.6 + /J./6.78 

Shot 3 - North 

p t = 0.08 + !J./6.0 

s t = 0.08 + IJ./3.51 

R t = !J./ 2. 96 

VpVs = 1.71 VR/Vs = 0.84 

Shot 4 - North 

t = 0 + /:J6.0 

t 0.1 + /J./6.23 

t = 2.6 + /J./6.,75 

Shot 5 - North 

t = /J./6.33 

t = 0. 6 9 + !J./ 6 • 5 

t = 6. 4 + /J./7. 9 

CORRELATIONS 

Shot 1 - South 

t = 0 + /J./6.0 

t = 0.28 + /J./6.22 

t = 1.3 + /J./6.38 

t = 3.63 + /J./6.85 

t = 7.87 + /J./8.3 

Shot 2 - South 

t = 0 + /J./6.0 

t = 0.34 + /J./6.17 

t = 1.62 + /J./6.37 

t = 2.73 + /J./6.67 

t = 7.19 + !J./8.04 

Shot 3 - South 

t = 0. 05 + !J./ 6. 0 

t = 0.3 + IJ./6.33 

t = 2.25 + !J./6.68 

t = 6.8 + /J./8.14 

Shot 4 - South 

t = 0 + !J./ 6.0 

t = 0.37 + /J./6.33 

t = 2.63 + /J./6.78 
MODELS 

Shot 1 - South 

Depth (km) Vp(km/s) 

.oo 6.00 

3.1~ 6.00 

3.1~ 6.19 

7.00 6.25 

7.00 5.60 

11.00 5.60 

11.00 6.38 

26.80 6.38 

26.80 6.~~ 

40.50 6.85 

40.50 8.30 

45.00 8.30 

Shot 2 - North Shot 2 - South 

Depth (km) Vp(km/s) Depth (km) Vp(km/s) 

.00 6.00 .oo 6.00 

2.44 6.00 4.38 6.00 

2.44 6.18 4.38 6.14 

9.00 6.25 10.00 6.20 

9.00 5.60 10.00 5.60 

13.00 5.60 14.00 5.60 

13.00 6.42 14.00 6.37 

28.00 6.42 21.30 6.37 

28.00 6.78 21.30 6.67 

38.00 6.78 37.00 . 6.67 

38.00 8.20 37.00 8.04 

45.00 8.20 40.00 8.04 

Shot 3 - South 

Depth (km) Vp(km/s) 

.00 6.00 

2.82 6.00 

2.82 6.30 

22.16 6.36 

22.16 b.68 

35.50 6.68 

35.50 8.14 

45.00 ~.14 

10 
Shot 4 - North 

Depth (km) Vp(km/s) 

.00 

1.11 

1.11 

22.50 

22.20 

37.00 

37.00 

45.00 

6.00 

6.00 

6.20 

6.26 

6.75 

6.75 

8.14 

8.14 

Shot 5 - North 

Depth (km) Vp(km/s) 

.oo 6.31 

11.80 6.35 

11.80 6.50 

22.00 6.50 

22.00 6.80 

37.00 6.80 

37.00 7.YO 

40.00 7.90 

MODELS (continued) 

11 

Shot 4 - South 

Depth (km) Vp(km/s) 

.oo 

3.48 

3.48 

21.81 

21.tH 

37.00 

37.00 

45.00 

6.00 

6.00 

6.30 

6.36 

b.78 

6.78 

8.10 

8.10 
0 

I 

KM 

SyenfteShonkinite 

Province 

200 

I 

Figure 3. Index map of western Saudi Arabia showing the seismic refraction 

line (dashed) and shotpoints (SP). 

12 
0 

10 

1-' ~ 

w ~ 

.. 20 

J: 

1-

a.. 

LLJ 30 

a 

40 

J: 

~ SP 6 5 4 3 2 1 

0 

(f) ~ ~ ~ ~ I 7 <=___ s.o _ 

7. 8 \ 

\ 

8.1 

\ 

\ 

6.5 

6.8 

- 6.3 

----

6.75 

8.1 

0 250 500 KM 

DISTANCE, KM 

Figure 4. Cartoon cross section of the Saudi Arabian seismic refraction 

profile showing major layer velocities and prominent changes in 

crustal structure. 
TWO-DIMENSIONAL INVERSE KINEMATIC PROBLEM--APPLICATION TO THE 

SAUDI ARABIAN REFRACTION PROFILE 

By Petr Firbas 

Geofyzika Brno 

Je~n~ 29a, 612 46 Brno, Czechoslovakia 

An iterative method for solving the inverse kinematic problem for the 

two-dimensional laterally inhomogeneous medium is proposed here based on the 

linearization approach and the ray theory. Model calculation results and the 

velocity model for a part of a refraction profile across Czechoslovakia are 

presented. The computer program solving the inverse kinematic problem based 

on the above-mentioned algorithm is tentatively applied to the Saudi Arabian 

refraction profile data. Preliminary results are presented as a velocity 

contour map and verified by ray tracing. 

Nowadays the solution of the inverse seismic problem represents a high 

priority task. In carrying out a seismic survey we are nearly always concerned 

with a heterogeneous medium, and our aim is to establish these lateral inhomogeneities, no matter whether the point of our interest is the deep seismic 

soundings, seismic prospecting for engineering purposes, or prospecting for 

oil or minerals. 

The kinematic parameters (that is, the times of seismic wave propagation 

from various shot points to various geophone locations) seem to be the most 

reliable input data for solving the inverse problem. We may utilize the 

arrivals of seismic waves of various types, but it is evident that the time of 

the first arrival can be determined with the highest precision. 

It follows from our model calculations that, especially in the case of the 

laterally inhomogeneous medium without distinct seismic interface, knowledge 

of refracted wave arrivals nearly always enables us to resolve substantial 

lateral inhomogeneities. The model obtained using refraction wave arrivals 

can be improved in a few steps, in each of which the direct problem is 

repeatedly solved (computation of synthetic seismograms for laterally inhomogeneous medium (Cerveny, 1979) and ray tracing (Psencik, 1976)). At these 

iterative steps all the other information gained by profile measurements can 

be used. 

A mathematical procedure solving the above stated inverse problem has been 

proposed. The procedure is based on the linearization of the multidimensional 

inverse kinematic problem. The linearization approach was introduced by V. G. 

Romanov (Alekseev and others, 1970). The ray theory (Cerveny and others, 1977) 

has been applied for the computation of rays and refracted wave arrivals. The 

mathematical procedure proposed is an iterative one, and at each step we are 

minimizing a quadratic form so that we are forced to solve a relatively large 

system of linear equations. The perturbation part of the two-dimensional slowness function is expressed at each step in the form of a twofold series of 

polynomials being orthogonal in a rectangular area. The rectangular area was 

obtained through a transformation of an irregular area covered by rays of refracted waves. A detailed description of the mathematical procedure proposed 

will be published elsewhere. The linearization approach has already been 

successfully used to solve the inverse kinematic problem by Alekseev and 

others (1970), but with a different algorithm. 

14 
Let us first present a model example of the solution of the inverse kinematic problem for a laterally inhomogeneous medium. For that purpose a theoretical velocity model of an anticline (fig. 5) was chosen. The theoretical 

traveltime curves of the refracted waves were computed (fig. 6). 

As the input data for the algorithm proposed must be in the form of discrete points, the traveltime curves computed were sampled and the refracted 

wave arrival time values for a series of epicentral distances R were obtained 

for all shotpoints. These values are plotted in figure 7 in the form of the 

so-called "special time field." Individual discrete points derived from the 

traveltime curves are represented by means of graphic symbols. Lines in 

figure 7 connect the points corresponding to the same epicentral distances R. 

As a starting approximation, a laterally homogeneous model derived by a 

modified Wiechert-Herglotz method was used. After the first iteration the 

laterally inhomogeneous velocity distribution shown in figure 8 was obtained. 

The first-order perturbation function was expressed in the form of a twofold 

series of the Legendre polynomials. The maximum rank of the polynomials was 5 

in the x-axis direction and 3 in the z-axis direction. For an easier comparison of the theoretical and computed velocity models a contour map of relative 

deviations between these two models is presented in figure 9. (Relative deviation values are expressed in percent. The maximum relative deviation is about 

1.5 percent.) 

Although the algorithm described is still in the development stage, it has 

already been used for the computation of velocity distribution models along 

some regional profiles. As an example, a computed velocity distribution along 

the northern part of the Trans-Carpathian profile K-Ill across Czechoslovakia 

is presented in figure 10. The computed model shows an area of a relatively 

strong lateral inhomogeneity, the area where the high velocity crystalline 

basement reaches the surface, the area being surrounded on both sides by low 

velocity sediments (Beranek and others, 1979). 

The proposed mathematical procedure for solving the inverse kinematic 

problem requires a relatively dense system of traveltime curves of refracted 

waves. The more the traveltime curves cross a particular geophone location, 

the better the resulting computed velocity model and the higher the resolving 

power of the solution will be. 

In the case of the Saudi Arabian refraction profile, this condition is not 

fulfilled because refracted waves from only about two shotpoints were recorded 

at each geophone location; nevertheless, we tentatively tried to apply our 

computer program. 

In the wave fields the arrivals of the principal waves were distinguished. 

The traveltime curves were digitized on a digitizer with the sampling interval 

of 1 km. From the refracted traveltime curves, which are plotted on an unreduced scale in figure 11, the special time field (see fig. 12) was constructed. 

As input data we obtained the arrivals of 100 rays of refracted waves evenly 

distributed along the whole profile. 

From this special time field (fig. 12) we can conclude that the crust in 

the area between shotpoints 1 and 5 is relatively laterally homogeneous and 

that in the area between shotpoints 5 and 6 we can expect lower velocities in 

the upper part and a sharp rise in the velocities in greater depths. 

The computed velocity distribution is shown in figure 13. The first-order 

perturbation function was expressed in the form of a twofold series of Legendre 

polynomials of maximum rank 5 in both x and z axes. 

15 
The computed velocity model presented has to be regarded as preliminary 

because our computer program was used for the input data without any corrections, and only the first-order perturbation function was computed. In spite 

of that, we obtained a velocity model showing in rough outline distinct lateral 

inhomogeneities down to the depth of 32 km. A large lateral inhomogeneity can 

be seen, particularly in the area between shotpoints 5 and 6. 

The character of the record sections permits us to assume the existence of 

an inner discontinuity in the crust. As the computed two-dimensional velocity 

model is represented by a smooth function, we can expect the appropriate velocity contrast to the depicted as a smooth velocity transition zone separating 

two areas of different nature in the crust. 

We attempted to verify the computed velocity model by ray tracing (Psencik, 

1976). Ray diagrams for all shotpoints were computed. An example of the ray 

diagram for shotpoint 1 is shown in figure 14. The agreement between the 

measured traveltime curves (plotted as a line) and the calculated arrivals can 

be seen in figure 15. (This picture is plotted in the reduced scale with the 

reduction velocity of 6.0 km/s.) The differences are comparatively small for 

the upper part of the crust and increase somewhat for greater depths. 

The method proposed is iterative. The results presented above represent 

only the first approximation. The resulting model gives a good picture of 

large lateral inhomogeneities, but the differences between the theoretical and 

experimental traveltimes are still relatively high in certain parts of the 

profile (see fig. 15). 

The next step is to improve the computed two-dimensional model by calculating the higher order perturbation functions. Before we do so, the relief 

and other corrections should be applied. At each step, the ray-tracing and 

synthetic seismogram calculations will be used to distinguish distinct seismic 

boundaries in the crust and to verify the model. 

No attempts have been made yet to determine the Moho geometry and the 

structure of the uppermost mantle along the profile. This will be done after 

the structure of the crust has been determined to the desired accuracy. 

Acknowledgments 

I am greatly indebted to V. Cerveny for valuable discussions and for his 

kind help during the preparation of this paper. Thanks are also due to B. 

Beranek for his encouragements, I. Psencik for his ray-tracing computer 

program, and to all coworkers for their help. The management of Geofyzika 

Brno gave permission to submit the paper to the workshop meeting. 

REFERENCES 

Alekseev, A. S., Lavrentev, M. M., Muchometov, R. G., Nersesov, I. L., 

Romanov, V. G., 1970, Method for numerical investigation of horizontal 

non-homogeneities of the Earth's mantle by seismological data: Proceedings of the X assembly of the ESC, Leningrad, 3-11 September 1968, 

Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, v. 1, p. 26-36. (In Russian, 

English abstract.) 

Beranek, B., Le~ko, B., and Mayerova, M., 1979, Interpretation of seismic 

measurements along the Trans-Carpathian profile K-Ill, in Geodynamic 

investigations in Czechoslovakia, final report: Vanek,-r., Babuska, V., 

and Plancar, J., eds., VEDA, Bratislava, p. 201-206. 

16 
Cerveny, V., 1977, Ray theoretical seismograms for laterally inhomogeneous 

structures: Journal of Geophysics, v. 46, p. 335-342. 

Cerveny, v., Molotkov, I. A., and Psencik, I., 1977, Ray method in seismology: 

Univerzita Karlova, Praha, 214 p. 

Psencik, I., 1976, Program RATLIM, rays, amplitudes, and traveltimes in 

laterally inhomogeneous media: Uppsala, unpublished report. 

17 
ai ------l~-

~ L 

~~ -----1..~ 

RNTICLINE I 

THEORETICAL VELOCITY MODEL 

V=A+ B•Z + 2•C•ARCTGlD•lX-Ell/P1 +2•f•RRCTG(G•CX-Hll/Pl 

Figure 5. Velocity contours of the theoretical model. 

8 I - . 

• e 

11:10.01:1 

P-1.01:1 

II:S.DO 

P-1.00 

fta.DO 

BH-~--r-~~--r-~~--~-r~--~-r~--~-r~--~-r~--+8 '\.oa Z.DO ILDO I.CIQ 1.01:1 IO.DO l .CIQ 1•.ao li.DO II.DO IQ.~ 

RNTICLINE !X IKHl 

SPECIAL TIME FIELD 

ANTICLINE I 

Figure 6. Theoretical traveltimes 

for the model of figure 5. 

TRAVELTIME CURVES OF THE PROFILE 

Figure 7. Special time field derived from figure 6. 

18 
~~----------------------------------------------~ 

8 

ANTICLINE I TTCSl 

C~HPUTED VEL~CITT MODEL 

NT= 5 MT= 3 

ANTICLINE TTCS1 

RELATIVE VEL~CITT DEVIATI~NS 

NT= 5 MT= 3 

Figure 8. Velocity model derived 

from inversion of traveltimes. 

Figure 9. Comparison of the 

theoretical and computed 

velocity models. 

~~-----------------------------------------------------------~ 

TRRNSCRRPATHIRN PROFILE K-Ill 

COMPUTED VELOCITY MODEL 

NT-: 6 MT= 5 19 

Figure 10. Computed velocity model 

for the Trans-Carpathian profile 

K-111. 
•• 

JDO.III a.ao !lllD.III IDD.IlO lllD.CII 

XlKHl ••• 

I 

i 

I 

a 

I 

i 

8 

It 

SRUOI RRRBIR REFRRCTI~N PR~F. TRRVELTIME CURVES OF THE·PROFlLE 

Figure 11. Traveltime curves for the Saudi Arabian profile. 

SRUDI RRRBIR SPEC 13-20.0 

·sPECIRL TIME FIELD 

Figure 12. Special time field derived from figure 11. 

20 
SAUDI RRRBIR REFRRCTION PROF. 

COHPUTED VELOCITT HODEL 

NT= 5 HT= 5 

Figure 13. Velocity model derived 

from inversion of the special time 

field (figure 12). 

SAUDI ARABIA REFRRCTI~N PR~F. SPl 

Figure 14. Ray diagram for shotpoint 1. 

.. .t .. 

XfKHl .aD 

.. 

I]D·IICI I 'f·IICI I ~·lXI .oo '~liD 

• ·-

"' 

'SD.IICI 100.1111 ISD.I:IC 100.110 

~ 

.... +-.-IICI--S!II..-.-IICI....--....... I:It~.llt 

XlKHl 

SHDT POINT 1 OUWRY) IYRH 

TRAVELTIME CURVES OF THE PROFILE 

21 

Figure 15. Comparison of observed 

and calculated traveltimes for 

shotpoint 1. 
CRUSTAL STRUCTURE OF THE RED SEA-ARABIAN SHIELD TRANSITION! 

by D. A. Forsyth, A. Green, and A. Mair 

Division of Seismology, Earth Physics Branch, 

EMR 1 Observatory Crescent, Ottawa KlA OY3, Canada 

Analysis of refraction records from (the southwestern three) shotpoints 

4, 5, and 6 of the refraction profile across Saudi Arabia shows a complex 

structure in transition from oceanic to continental crust. Modeling was 

accomplished by comparing the data with (1) traveltime curves for laterally 

homogeneous models, and (2) traveltime curves computed by ray tracing through 

models with lateral changes in velocity. 

Beneath the Farasan Bank in the eastern Red Sea a sedimentary layer with 

a velocity of about 4.1 km/s extends to a depth of 1.3 km. The model has a 

second layer with a velocity of 4.7 km/s transitional to 5.8 km/s near the 

coast. The lower crustal layer has a velocity of 7.2 km/s and extends from 8 

to 15 km beneath the Farasan Bank. Both the mid-crustal "discontinuity" and 

the Moho dip toward the continent at 2-3°. The upper mantle between shotpoints 

6 and 5 appears to have a velocity of 8.6-8.7 km/s. 

Over the western Arabian Shield the near-surface velocity is 5.8 km/s. 

The upper crustal material with a velocity of 6.2 km/s overlies 6.5 km/s 

material at a depth of about 16 km near shotpoint 5. The mid-crustal boundary 

and the Moho appear to dip northeastward at 1-2°. An upper mantle velocity 

near 8.2 km/s extends from 35 km east of shotpoint 5 to 45 km near shotpoint 6. 

The refraction data permit only a general description of the oceanic to 

continental transition. Preliminary ray tracing indicates that lower velocity 

material is required at upper mantle depths beneath shotpoint 5 to account for 

the delayed arrivals observed between 240 and 450 km from shotpoint 6. 

Following the refraction interpretation, a geological literature search 

has revealed a conceptual model by Coleman and others (1975) that is 

remarkably similar to the seismic model. 

REFERENCE 

Coleman, R. G., Fleck, R. J., Hedge, C. E., and Ghent, E. D., 1975, The volcanic rocks of southwest Saudi Arabia and the opening of the Red Sea: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Project Report 194, 60 p. 

1 Contribution of the Earth Physics Branch No. 962. 

22 
JVJU<: ""'' ...,,s• L-~----~-----L----~~--_JN 

8•6? 

50 km o "---------' 

7•0? 

24 

~----; 28 

32 

38 

40 

44 

48 

Figure 16. Interpreted crustal velocity structure (top), profile location 

(bottom left), and geologic interpretation (bottom right). 

23 
A CRUSTAL SECTION FOR THE ARABIAN SHIELD AND 

ADJACENT RED SEA MARGIN DERIVED FROM FIRST-ARRIVAL DATA 

By M. E. Gettings 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Saudi Arabian Mission 

Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

Production of a regional crustal model for the Arabian Shield and 

bordering provinces is a major objective of the Saudi Arabian Mission of the 

U.S. Geological Survey. Regional geologic, seismic refraction, gravity, and 

aeromagnetic studies form the principal data base for construction of the 

crustal model, and in order to provide a starting model for interpretation of 

regional gravity and heat flow patterns, a preliminary analysis of the results 

of the Saudi Arabian long-range seismic refraction profile was carried out. 

The objective was to produce a generalized crustal section consistent with the 

refraction data. At the time of this work the only record sections available 

were the uncorrected field data sections contained in Blank and others (197Y); 

consequently, only an elementary analysis based on first-arrival times was 

attempted. 

The procedure followed was to pick first arrivals on the record sections 

as carefully as possible and fit average, maximum, and minimum lines to the 

approximately linear segments, which were then converted to velocities with 

uncertainties. The velocities and intercept times so defined were then interpreted in terms of two homogeneous horizontally layered models extending northeast and southwest, respectively, from each shotpoint. If appropriate, sloping 

interfaces were then used to refine the interpretation between shotpoints. A 

time delay of about 0.25 s at 210 km southwest of shotpoint 3 and another delay 

of nearly 1 s about 100 km northeast of shotpoint 5 were interpreted as steplike changes in layer thicknesses. However, in most cases traveltime delays 

and advances were ignored and lines defining velocities were drawn in a leastsquares sense by inspection. Some of the clearer secondary arrivals were used 

to help constrain the lines used in the velocity determinations. In several 

cases alternate interpretations with varying numbers of layers were attempted. 

The velocity-depth models about each shotpoint were then plotted and the 

crustal section of figure 17 was produced by visual generalization of those 

features which are common between adjacent shotpoints. The models yielded 

higher crustal velocities between shotpoints 1 and 2 than shown in figure 17, 

particularly in the lower crust. However, to keep the model as simple as 

possible, a lateral discontinuity was not introduced, and the velocity variation is reflected only in the larger uncertainty of P* and a shallowing of the 

boundary between Pg and P* in this part of the profile. 

The gravity profile (fig. 17) was also used to constrain the model; 

within the uncertainties of density contrast that result from uncertainties in 

average velocities and their conversion to density values, the model fits the 

gravity data southwest of shotpoint 3. Rock compositions in the shield area 

were deduced from the models of Schmidt and others (1978) and were considered 

in the conversion of velocities to densities (see Nafe and Drake, 1968). 

In this model, the gross structure of the Arabian Shield is characterized 

by a two-layer crust with a lateral velocity discontinuity about 30 km southwest of shotpoint 3. To the northeast of this boundary, Pg is 6.12 km/s in a 

24 
layer 18 to 22 km thick, and P* is 6.55 km/s in a layer 14 to 22 km thick. 

Southwest of the discontinuity, Pg is 6.24 km/s in a layer 22 to 24 km thick, 

underlain by a 14- to 23-km-thick layer with P* equal to 6.83 km/s. Near shotpoint 5, both layers thin appreciably. The higher average values for the 

southwestern block are inferred to be due to a more mafic average crustal 

composition. 

West of shotpoint 5, the drill hole data at Mansiyah I (Gillman, 1968) 

help constrain the interpretation of the seismic refraction data for the rift 

crust. The section shown in figure 17 differs somewhat from the compilation 

of oceanic crustal velocites of Le Pichon and others (1976, p. 173; see also 

Worzel, 1974). Velocities in layer 1 (sedimentary layer) are quite high, due 

at least in part to the large proportion of halite and anhydrite (>1,500 m; 

Gillman, 1968) in the section. The layer 2 velocity of 6.1 km/s is in the 

high end of the velocity range for this layer, and the layer itself is about 

twice the average thickness for this layer. The layer 3 velocity of 6.7 km/s 

is near the mean, and this layer is also significantly thicker than average. 

Mantle velocity is average for that beneath oceanic crust, and indeed, mantle 

velocities are almost constant at the oceanic average value (within uncertainties) for the entire section including the shield area. 

Due to the preliminary nature of the record sections and the rather 

elementary interpretation procedures used, this interpretation of the seismic 

data is only tentative. No weathering corrections or allowances for delays 

due to surface lithologic variations have been made, and because large segments 

of the profile traverse areas of unconsolidated cover, particularly between 

shotpoints 5 and 6 (coastal plain) and between shotpoints 3 and 4, such corrections may be substantial. Also, no allowance has been made for topographic 

relief, which is about 2,000 m between shotpoints 4 and 5. The uncertainties 

in the depths and thicknesses of the layers are probably on the order of + 15 

percent. 

REFERENCES 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R., Fischer, F., McClearn, 

R. and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of Saudi 

Arabia, field operations, instrumentation, and initial results: U.S. 

Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p.; also, 

1979, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-1568. 

Gillman, M., 1968, Primary results of a geological and geophysical reconnaissance of the Jizan coastal plain in Saudi Arabia: American Institute of 

Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Society of Petroleum Geologists, 

Saudi Arabian Section, Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Symposium, 

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, p. 189-208. 

Le Pichon, X., Francheteau, J., and Bonnin, J., 1976, Plate Tectonics: 

Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2nd ed., 311 p. 

Nafe, J. E. and Drake, C. L., 1968, Physical properties of rocks of basaltic 

composition, in Hess, H. H. and Poldervaart, A., eds., Basalts: The 

Poldervaart treatise on rocks of basaltic composition: Interscience 

Publishers, New York, v. 2, p. 483-502. 

25 
Schmidt, D. L., Hadley, D. G., and Stoeser, D. B., 1978~ Late Proterozoic 

crustal history of the Arabian Shield, southern Najd province, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia, in Evolution and mineralization of the Arabian-Nubian 

Shield: Pergamon Press, Oxford-New York, v. 2, p. 41-58. 

Worzel, J. L., 1974, Standard oceanic and continental structure, in Burke, C. 

A. and Drake, C. L., eds., Geology of continental margins: SpringerVerlag, New York, p. 59-66. 

26 
t\) 

"' 

!! 0 

0 

Ol 

e 

>-

..J 

<[ 

:E 

0 

z 

<[ 

> -100 

t: 

> 

<[ 

a: 

(!) 

a: 

ljJ 

:;:) 

(!) 

:;:) 

0 

Ill - 200 

i 

,. 

Ill 

... 

Ill 

:E 

~ 

:z: 

IG. 

w 

0 

RED SEA RIFT 

sw 14-----HIJA Z-A81R 

6.24:!:.04 

6.83i.02 

40 

8.18 .±.08 50 

60 

70 

ARABIAN SHIELD 

I 

NAJD PROVINCE --+l4--- &HAMMAR PROVINCE ---..,.j 

6.24 i.04 

6.83t.o2 

............ .,,,.""' 

•ISH'A8 1 ::1 SA8HAH 

6.12 :!:.03 

6.~~ ±'.12 

8.1~ :t.o~ 

ARABIAN PLATFORM 

NE 

1 AL OUWA F'IFAH 

60 

70 

eo I • • • :; • • • • 1 •' a • ; • a • • r a 'u ' t • • :' ; u , u r a • u au ; u o • •; • • a a r • •' • ; • ' c a 1 r' , u; , , , • ; u, ' , ; a, ' ' ; a , ' a; • • u ; 1 • u a a 1 1 a • ; ; ; 1; 1 1 I eo 

Figure 17. 

300 350 

Simple Bouguer gravity anomaly profile and crustal section for the Arabian Shield and 

adjacent Red Sea margin deduced from long-range seismic refraction and gravity data. 
A SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE ACROSS THE ARABIAN SHIELD 

By A. Ginzburg 

Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences 

Tel Aviv University 

Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel 

In this brief attempt at interpreting the Saudi Arabian data set (Lamson 

and Leone, 1980) emphasis was put on the continental part of the profile--

shotpoints 1 to 5. 

The approach adopted was conventional. A first approximation of the 

crustal model comprising depths and velocities was derived from apparent 

velocities of the correlated phases and their intercept times. Branches used 

were Pg, Pn, P* where correlatable, and PmP in one instance. Of particular 

interest were the reversed segments between shotpoints 1-2, 3-4, and 4-5, which 

were used to establish the true velocities and depths at the shotpoints. 

Although these segments are relatively short, good Pn arrivals were recorded 

at distances of up to 250 km. The intercept-apparent velocity computations 

were checked by the use of a T(p) inversion scheme for inclined layers 

(Loewenthal, personal communication). The calculated true velocities were 

6.1-6.2 km/s for the Pg branch, 6.6 km/s for P*, and 8.1 for the Pn branch. 

These velocities and computed depths were used as an initial model in an 

iterative ray-tracing program (modified after Makris, 1977) which was used for 

the computation of the final model. 

The interpretation presented here suffers from two limitations--one 

related to data quality and the other to the computational procedure used. 

The quality of the data deteriorates rather rapidly at distances beyond 

250-300 km, and the first arrivals cannot be picked with certainty. The 

program used assumes the existence of a gradient within each layer. The 

gradients are quite gentle, and in cases of moderate heterogeneity do not 

affect the results. However, in cases of severe heterogeneity, such as 

between shotpoints 5 and 6 (fig. 23), the errors are quite large. 

In the segments shotpoints 4 to 5 (figs. 18 and 19) and 4 to 3 (fig. 20), 

a good agreement was obtained between the forward and reversed profiles. 

Between shotpoints 1 (fig. 21) and 2 (fig. 22), a good agreement was obtained 

to a shot-to-detector distance of 250 km on the shotpoint 1 record section. 

The disagreement beyond that could well be due to unclear first arrivals or 

noisy traces. The arrivals beyond 400 km show a much lower apparent velocity 

and are probably reflected arrivals from an interface within the upper mantle. 

Such a phenomenon was observed by Ginzburg and others (1979) further north in 

the Arabian Shield (along the Gulf of Elat). 

The overall model of the crust across the Arabian Shield is shown in 

figure 24. As can be seen, the crust thickens very gradually, reaching a 

maximum thickness of 41 km near shotpoint 5, and thins drastically towards the 

Red Sea where the crust beyond a narrow transition zone is oceanic. 

REFERENCES 

Ginzburg, A., Makris, J., Fuchs, K., Perathoner, B., and Prodehl, C., 1979, 

Detailed structure of the crust and upper mantle along the Jordan-Dead 

Sea rift: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 84(Bl0), p. 5605-5612. 

28 
Lamson, R. J. and Leone, L. E., 1980, Saudi Arabia seismic refraction profile 

data set, volumes 1 and 2: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 

Miscellaneous Document 17. 

Makris, J., 1977, Geophysical investigations of the Hellenides, Hamburg: 

Geophys. Einzelschriften, v. 34, p. 1-124. 

29 
(,.) 

0 

10 

8 

6 

u 

Q) 4 ~ 

<11<.0 2 

J._ 

0 

-2 

-4 

-6 

- 7 

DISTANCE (KM) 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 

0 

8-l \ ' / ,/ /I I I I I 

-

~ 16 -I ' I I 

~ 

- 24 J /I I II I 

Ia. 

w 32 -1 "' n n I I a 

40+----._ 

~-' ~ 

481 

8.1 

S.P 4 SW 

Figure 18. Shotpoint 4 SW: Seismic record section with calculated traveltimes 

(top); crustal velocity model and selected ray paths (bottom). 

l-8 

1- 16 

l24 

1- 32 

1--40 

1-48 
w 

..... 

10 1 

8 i j -· 

1" 

r 6 -

u 4 Q) 

1~: H i~n f -2, '.. ~ "" I . i 

I I il ~ I ill I! 11 j II J -4 

-6 

~7 

DISTANCE (K M) 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 250 

0 0 

·~ l ~6 '"'· 

'\;i,)i;~'-' 6 .2 \>0,~· 

~~1~t~?.'-" 

~ 16 \;~~''···· 

~ 

- 24 J \ l24 I 

1-

0.. 

w 

0 32 32 

40 40 

8.1 

48 48 

SP5 NE 

Figure 19. Shotpoint 5 NE: Seismic record section with calculated traveltimes 

(top); crustal velocity model and selected ray paths (bottom). 
w 

tv 

10 

8 

6 

~ 4 

$. 

<li<..O 2 

I 

...... 0 

-2 

-4 

-s ' " ' '" '·'II! I Ulf![~ t! ! II -7~'------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~~~ 

8 

-

~ 16 

:Y:: 

I 24 

IQ.. 

w 

0 32 

40 

48 

DISTANCE (KM) 

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 

6.2 

////" 

6.6 

8.8 

S.P. 4 NE 

Figure 20. Shotpoint 4 NE: Seismic record section with calculated traveltimes 

(top); crustal velocity model and selected ray paths (bottom). 

8 

16 

24 

32 

40 

48 
Q X X X X X X XX 

~ -2 

~ .;rtO -4 

_;__ -6 

-8 

)( )( 

-10 L-----~-----.----~----~----~r-----r-----~----.------r----~-----,------.-----~----,------r----~-----,------r------

OIST A NCE (KM) 

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 

:~ I I I I I I I } I I I 

r: / / I I 

w I 

w I I I I / I 

I I 

I I I / I I 

I I I 

I 

I I 

I 

16 I I I ~ 16 ? )/ I 

~ 

~ 

~ 24 24 

I I/ ' /)I I I 1- 32 /i/i./ 1-32 Q 

w / / / I I 0 ( / I ' I I 

40 I I I I I I 1- 40 

I I I --L__:___j_j_ 

"] 8.05 [" 56 56 

S.PI sw 

Figure 21. Shotpoint 1 SW: Arrival time picks with calculated traveltimes 

(top); crustal velocity model and selected ray paths (bottom). 
10 

8 

0 6 

Q) 

4 $ 

<lj<.D 2 I 

+-

0 

-2 

-4 

-6 

0 

0 

w 

~ 

2 

] ~ 

~ 

I 24i 

IQ_ 

w 32 0 

40 

48...1 

DISTANCE (KM) 

20 

ljl/;1/ I/ I 

I 

/!11/ 1/l I 

6.08 I I I I / . ! 

(;jl/•1// I I I /I I I I I I / I . /;//! 

~~~~~~~ //././ ,//' / / 

'-' . ....., I 

I I 

8.0 

. S.P 2 sw 

Figure 22. Shotpoint 2 SW: Seismic record section with calculated traveltimes 

(top); crustal velocity model and selected ray paths (bottom). 

[ 

1-24 

32 

40 

L 48 
2 

-() 0 

Q) 

J!2, 

<J!<.O -2 

I 

~ -4 

-6 

X X )( X 

DISTANCE (KM} 

120 130 

o~~:::=:::==--_._--j" _ __.___.......___._....J-;_,.........."""'7"""-oc:::::::;!:::--~'-r-rr-O 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

8 

~ 

16 

~ 

I 

24 

~ 

a... 

w 8.1 32 

0 

40 

48 

S.P 5 sw 

3.5 

Figure 23. Shotpoint 6 NE: Arrival time picks with calculated traveltimes 

(top); crustal velocity model and selected ray paths (bottom). 

35 
(,.) 

0) 

sw 

SP6 

o I 

)<3~5 

10 -.... ........ 

20 

30 

40 

SP5 

I 

-, 6.0 

\ 

' ', 

' ' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ ' ........ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' ....... 

6.15 

...... _ 

SP4 

I 

6.15 

8.1 

SP3 

I 

6.2 

6.6 

8.1 

SP2 

I 

6. I 6.15 

8.1 

50 0 50 100 1 I I 

DISTANCE SCALE I K M 

Figure 24. Crustal section across the Arabian Shield from seismic refraction data. 

5

4. 83 0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 
A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE 1978 REFRACTION PROFILES IN SAUDI ARABIA 

By P. K. H. Maguire 

Department of Geology 

University of Leicester 

Leicester, LIE JRH, England 

A "conventional" first interpretation of the data has been carried out. 

This involved a constant velocity, horizontal layer model derived from firstarrival data, supplemented by selected points from second-arrival prograde and 

retrograde branches. Smoothed local gradients of retrograde branches were also 

determined to allow definition of the type of transition across particular 

boundaries for later analysis. 

The model type chosen presumes horizontal layers. This precludes the 

derivation of laterally heterogeneous structures unless the velocity contrasts 

across steeply dipping interfaces or transitions are large, particularly if 

the correlations used spread over large distances. In order to derive a first 

crustal section suitable for a trial-and-error ray-tracing analysis, it was 

decided to correlate arrivals over lengths comparable with possible crustal 

units, that is, on the order of 50 km, where necessary. It is probable that 

the resultant section contains more detail than is reasonable geologically, 

but it satisfies the data when analyzed using the particular geophysical model 

type chosen. As stated above, the derived section is to be used as a first 

attempt in a ray-tracing analysis, and the detail in the section is merely a 

guide to possible heterogeneities in the final model; it should not be 

considered definitive. 

Initially, it was found that variation in the section "collages" could 

cause errors of approximately 15 percent in depth and 2 percent in velocity 

measurements. T and X scale conversion factors were determined from each shot 

into each northeast and southwest section. Straight lines were then fitted 

through the first arrivals on each section. In general, the straight line 

segments were offset, with later segments delayed relative to earlier ones, 

indicating possible low-velocity layers, but occasionally the later segments 

arrived early, indicating near-surface high-velocity structures beneath the 

receivers, or upwarped or faulted refractors. In some cases it was difficult 

to decide between one slow or two higher velocity arrivals. Occasionally very 

weak high-velocity arrivals occurred in low-velocity sections, indicating possible sawtooth velocity depth profiles. The apparent velocity and intercept 

time were derived for all segments. This allowed the detailing of approximate 

velocity-depth models for all sections, excluding low-velocity layers. By 

identifying the end of the prograde and beginning of the retrograde branches 

associated with the top and bottom of low-velocity layers, and presuming the 

layer was of constant velocity, and then using geometrical ray-path theory, a 

maximum thickness and velocity of the layer can be derived. The interpretation 

used was therefore based on a "useful" combination of straight and curved ray 

path theory. In order to determine the depth of a low-velocity layer within a 

particular higher velocity layer, the maximum depth to the top of the layer 

and the average overburden velocity was derived from the data point at the end 

of the prograde branch. In general, this gave too deep a depth point for the 

derived structure, so the low-velocity layers were placed at the base of their 

surrounding higher velocity layer. In order to fit the simple horizontal layer 

37 
interpretation, early arrivals (as mentioned above) were replaced by higher 

velocity arrivals where necessary. This only proved necessary for one or two 

near-surface segments. A set of velocity-depth models, including low-velocity 

layers, has been produced for all the shotpoints. 

Two-dimensional depth points have been estimated from the distance coordinates of the various arrivals, and these were plotted in section form. These 

proved possible to contour, as in figures ~5 and 26. The cartoon excludes much 

of the fine detail, particularly in the upper crust, and is occasionally somewhat speculative, in particular beneath the region between shotpoints 6 and 5, 

but would be suitable for a first attempt at ray tracing and as a means for 

identifying arrivals from particular horizons for delay-time analyses. The 

region between shotpoints 5 and 6 is speculative because a horizontal layer 

interpretation method is used to derive a structure of marked lateral variation. The contouring and resultant cartoon in this region is possibly 

influenced by ideas on the structure beneath mid-ocean ridges. 

The other points of interest are: the proposed thickening of the crust 

just to the northeast of shotpoint 5, together with the inclusion of a highvelocity mid-crustal horizon; the thinning and exclusion of the upper crustal 

6.4 km/s layer toward shotpoint 5; the deep crustal high-velocity 7.3 km/s 

layer (which is very tentative to the northeast of shotpoint 4); the presence 

of a thin high-velocity 8.4 km/s layer beneath the Moho underlain by a lower 

velocity 8.1 km/s layer to the southwest of shotpoint 3; and finally, the 

change in the Moho from a firm boundary (derived from first arrivals only) 

between shotpoints 5 and 4, to a sawtooth transition to the northeast of 

shotpoint 4. However, it should be emphasized that all these proposals are 

derived from the simplest possible interpretation, not allowing for lateral or 

continuous vertical variation in structure. 

38 
Figure 25. Cartoon from constant-velocity horizontal-layer interpretation for 

shotpoints 6, 5, and 4. 
~ 

0 

NE 'lllll .. 

SPl 

6.2 (KM/SEC) 

SP3 

• 

6.0 

SP2 

* 

6.1 

-------------------:.: ~----

6.110 * 

6.4 6.4 

------------------------------ -------------- 6.7 6.6 

7.3 

8.o-==== -~--- 1.s 

8.1 

-----

8. 3 ===-=-= --- - 8.1 -----7.8 

-------------- 8.4 ~ 8.7 7. 3 

- - 7.8 

8.3 

- - 9.3 

9.3 

Figure 26. Cartoon from constant-velocity horizontal-layer interpretation for 

shotpoints 3, 2, and 1. 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0 

I'Tl 

-o 

-1 

::I: 

" s:: 

-
THE RIFTED MARGIN OF SAUDI ARABIA 

By James S. McClain and John A. Orcutt 

Geological Rese~rch Division 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

University of California, San Diego 

La Jolla, California, 92093 

The structure of rifted continental margins has always been of great 

scientific interest, and now, with dwindling economic oil deposits, these 

complex geological features assume practical importance as well. The 

ocean-continent transition is, by definition, laterally heterogeneous and 

likely to be extremely complicated. 

Th~ southernmost shotpoints (4, 5, and 6) in the U.S. Geological Survey 

seismic refraction profile in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia lie within a 

transition region and thus provide a testing ground for methods that treat 

wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous media. This portion of the 

profile runs from the Farasan Islands in the Red Sea across the coast line and 

the Hijaz-Asir escarpment into the Hijaz-Asir tectonic province. Because the 

southernmost shotpoint is within the margin of the Saudi sub-continent, the 

full transition region is not sampled. Furthermore, such an experiment is 

precluded by the narrowness of the purely oceanic portion of the Red Sea. 

Data from shotpoints 6 and 4 have been used to define the transition 

structure while shotpoint 5 data are used to further refine and confirm our 

resulting model. Traveltimes and amplitudes of the seismic arrivals are 

trial-and-error fitted using ray tracing in complex structures. Certainly, 

forward modeling is less satisfactory than the use of an inverse technique. 

However, present schemes are probably inadequate for this type of data. In 

such a local seismic refraction experiment the linearizing assumption that ray 

paths do not vary substantially from initial estimates is probably not valid. 

In other words, the models are not allowed to vary enough, through successive 

perturbations, to provide reliable error bounds. 

Shotpoint 6 in the Red Sea, with receivers up to 470 km inland, provides 

some of the most interesting data. The initial interpretation (Blank and 

others, 1979) proposed that a sedimentary sequence overlies oceanic mafic 

rocks. That report suggested that first arrivals from beyond 65 km are 

refracted arrivals from the uppermost mantle with an apparent velocity of 8.2 

km/s. This velocity is, of course, quite high for a "Moho" presumably 

becoming deeper beneath the continent. However, on several of these "Pn" 

arrivals the apparent velocity is low, about 7.0 km/s. Substantial lateral 

variations in the velocity structure must be present to explain the early 

arrival of these high-slowness rays. The true uppermost mantle velocity 

profile is obscured by the more complex ray paths. 

For receivers in the Hijaz-Asir tectonic province, the seismograms are 

dominated by a large-amplitude arrival with apparent velocities between 7.7 

and 8.7 km/s. Surprisingly, unlike the rapid amplitude decay of a head wave, 

the wave amplitudes persist from 180 to over 425 km. We interpret such 

continuity as evidence for large-scale lateral heterogeneity although 

immediately beneath the receivers the effects of inhomogeneities must be 

small. Furthermore, the impulsive and large, low-slowness arrivals are not 

apparent on any other portions of the profiles. In particular, shotpoint 4, 

41 
which reverses the shotpoint 6 data, shows no evidence of such an arrival. 

Large-scale heterogeneity, therefore, causes a sharp focusing of energy 

between the Farasan Islands and the Hijaz-Asir province. The high velocities 

are produced by this focusing and do not reflect a deeper sub-Moho boundary. 

The Hijaz-Asir escarpment is apparently the surface expression of an 

important boundary in the transition from ocean to continent. This is 

confirmed by preliminary analyses of shotpoint 5 data, which show a 

substantial change in crustal thickness between receivers to the southwest and 

those to the northeast (Blank and others, 1979). 

REFERENCE 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R. J., Fischer, F., 

McClearn, R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia--field operations, instrumentation and initial results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

42 
SAUDI ARABIAN REFRACTION PROFILE: 

CRUSTAL STRUCTURE OF THE RED SEA-ARABIAN SHIELD TRANSITION 

By B. Milkereit and E. R. Fluh 

Institut fUr Geophysik 

UniversiUit Kiel 

D-2300 Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany 

Analysis of the two southwesternmost shotpoints (5 and 6) of the Saudi 

Arabian refraction line (Blank and others, 1979) shows a great degree of 

lateral heterogeneity. Ocean-continent transition zones have been studied all 

over the world, always showing rather high or low apparent velocities of many 

traveltime branches and either large or small intercept times. Therefore, a 

two-dimensional ray-tracing program seems to be an appropriate method for the 

interpretation of the data set. Picking of the first arrivals for the two 

shotpoints led us to the identification of the following phases. 

Shotpoint 6 SW: 4.2 km/s 

7.1 km/s 

Shotpoint 6 NE: 4.2 km/s 

6.8 km/s 

8.9 km/s 

6.8 km/s 

8.2 km/s 

8.5 km/s 

Shotpoint 5 SW: 6.0 km/s 

8.4 km/s 

8.4 km/s 

Shotpoint 5 NE: 5.7 km/s 

6.6 km/s 

6.4 km/s 

7.7 km/s 

(Sedimentary layer) 

(Oceanic layer 3) 

(Sedimentary layer) 

(Oceanic layer 3) 

Pn 

Pn 

Pn 

Pl (upper mantle layer, 70-80 km 

depth, similar to observation from 

shotpoi.nt 1) 

Pg (between 35 to 85 km delayedsediments?) 

Pn (between 70 to 85 km delayedsediments? Velocity estimated in 

the 100-150 km range) 

Pn (later arrival, about 1 s later 

than first arrival) 

Pg 

Pg 

Pc (lower crustal boundary) 

Pn 

0-20 km 

10-30 km 

0-30 km 

20-60 km 

60-120 km 

120-160 km 

170-400 km 

300-500 km 

0-90 km 

70-150 km 

100-150 km 

0-30 km 

:w-~o km 

100-250 km 

100-250 km 

Figure 27 shows the traveltime curves and the model, described as follows. 

We started our model calculation assuming an oceanic structure beneath shotpoint 6 and a continental structure beneath shotpoint 5. To fit the rather 

low apparent velocities for Pc and Pn from shotpoint 5 to the northeast, we 

assumed a dip to the northeast in both boundaries, thus proposing a root of 

the Asir mountain range in the Hijaz Asir province. The model explains the 

6.6 km/s "Pg phase," which is very abruptly stopped at 90 km by a wedge of 

higher velocity material in the upper crust (possibly lower crustal material). 

Between 35 and 85 km southwest of shotpoint 5 we introduced a sedimentary 

43 
basin, reaching 3.5 km maximum depth overlying 6.1 km/s material (upper continental crust). This could well explain the delay of the Pg phase and the 

Pn/PmP critical point. Sediments beneath shotpoint 6 reach the same depth. We 

chose a velocity of 3.8 km/s at the top, increasing with a gradient of 0.04 

km/s/km. Slightly decreasing sediment thicknesses southwest of shotpoint 6 

fits the observed phase velocity of 7.1 km/s, which is a refracted arrival 

from the 6.7 km/s oceanic crust. 

The observed high apparent velocity of 8.9 km/s is interpreted as a Pn 

arrival, Moho depth being about 12 km, and the thinning of the sediments to 

the northeast results in a higher apparent velocity. Where the sediments are 

completely absent the velocity is about 6.8 km/s (120-160 km northeast of 

shotpoint 6). The Moho has a down-dip in this region, too. The Moho, however, 

is overlain by 6.1 km/s material in the region 50-130 km northeast of shotpoint 

6. The third and fourth phase of shotpoint 6 ( > 170 km) are explained by rays 

traveling along the continental crust-mantle boundary with an additional boundary (velocity increase of 0.2 km/s) in the upper mantle at about 75 km depth. 

This upper mantle boundary can also be seen in the record section of shotpoint 1 SW. Synthetic seismograms show a good fit to the observed amplitudes 

when a small gradient (0.006 km/s/km) is assumed beneath both boundaries. Our 

model, as presented in figure 27, still fails to explain the clear Pn arrivals 

between 200 to 280 km northeast of shotpoint 6. The apparent velocity of some 

of these Pn arrivals is low (6.8 km/s), which agrees with the record section. 

Assuming that the northeastern part of the oceanic ~oho is underlain by continental material, we matched the second Pn arrival southwest of shotpoint 5. 

The ray path then crosses this "nappe structure" and enters the oceanic Moho 

again at a greater depth, about 25 km. Here the Moho dips strongly to the 

northeast and reaches its continental depth beneath shotpoint 5. 

Later low-frequency arrivals (about 4 s after the first arrival) from 

shot-points 5 SW and 6 NE have not been taken into consideration. We believe 

these are converted waves or double-bounce arrivals. 

TECTONIC IMPLICATIONS 

The breaking up of the Red Sea Rift about 25 m.y. ago induced strong 

tectonic forces against the margin of the Saudi Arabian Shield. Our model 

structure is in agreement with a new concept about the development of continental margins (Meissner, 1981). Plume material has a tendency to intrude at 

lower continental crust levels (viscosity minimum) at the beginning of rifting. 

The nappe structure of our model can be attributed to such an intrusion. This 

is overlain by continental material and shelf sediments, here consisting mainly 

of salt. Northeast of shotpoint 5, where we found a zone of higher velocity 

material (6.65 km/s) near the surface, there seems to be a zone of strong compression. Whether or not this high-velocity material corresponds to lower 

crustal material cannot be deduced, but the velocities seem to indicate that 

it does. In this region the strongest uplift recently occurred while volcanic 

activity ceased a few million years ago. 

CRITICISM AND POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE MODEL 

The most outstanding feature of our model is the double structure of the 

oceanic Moho, interpreted as an intrusion of plume material into the continental crust at a very early stage of rifting. This structure was derived from 

the record sections mainly by picking two Pn arrivals from shotpoint 5 SW, 

44 
which were rather clear on the first distributed record sections. This phase 

is rather difficult to identify on the second data set, and we would not have 

picked it if we had worked only with those sections. The velocity of 8.0 km/s, 

however, seems to be too high. One would expect a somewhat lower velocity, 

about 7.2 km/s. Also, the thickness of the shelf sediments, 3.5 km, is too 

small; drilling results show more than 4 km. As these sediments consist mainly 

of salt, our velocity of 3.2 km/s is too low. 

If we do not take the second Pn phase of shotpoint 5 SW into consideration 

we would be able to flatten the transition from the oceanic to the continental 

Moho, and the remaining problems with the Pn phase of shotpoint 6 between 200 

and 280 km could probably be resolved. If we decrease the 8.0 km/s velocity 

of the "nappe," perhaps by stronger dips along the boundary and elongation of 

oceanic layer 3 (6.7 km/s) to greater distances toward the northeast, we might 

again be able to fit the observed apparent velocities and traveltimes. 

Increasing the sediment thickness between shotpoints 5 and 6 and choosing a 

higher velocity more adequate to salt layers should not seriously affect the 

calculation. 

REFERENCES 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R. J., Fischer, F., 

McClearn, R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia--field operations, instrumentation and initial results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

Meissner, R., 1981, The development of continental margins--A consequence of 

plumes intruding a variable viscosity tectonosphere: submitted to 

Oceanologica Acta, special issue on continental margins, p. 115-127. 

45 
-

u 

w 

(/) 

.......... 

(!) 

.......... 

<l 

I 

I-

~ 

0) 

6 " 6 

o, 

Q.._ 'oo 

Q.._ ', 0 

2l- \ I /A ' 

-......... o, 

-......... 

0 v--

ol \{{ >Q~l. ¥:::: ~ <- lo 

-~ J-- I I ~' -l-6 

-8 

I SP6 SP5 

-10 

-12 

-14 

400 500 

0 -·- 6.1 + 0.015 0 

-:E 20 

~ 

40 :r 

1-

a.. 60 w 

0 80 

100 

0 400 100 200 100 300 500 

DISTANCE (K M) 

Figure 27. Traveltimes for shotpoints 5 SE and 6 NW (top) and crustal section 

derived from these observations (bottom). Lower crustal rocks with 

a seismic velocity of 6.65 km/s occur at shallow depths between 200 

and 250 km on the distance scale. 
SAUDI ARABIAN REFRACTION PROFILE: 

A PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATION FOR THE RED SEA-ARABIAN SHIELD TRANSITION 

By H. Miller 

Institut fUr Allgemeine und Angewandte Geophysik 

Universitat Milnchen 

Munich, Federal Republic of Germany 

An attempt was made to resolve the crustal structure between shotpoints 5 

and 6 of the Saudi Arabian refraction seismic line. As is evident from the 

record sections, this part of the line has the greatest degree of lateral 

heterogeneity. The results obtained by ray tracing are of a very preliminary 

nature and only a general idea of the structure will be outlined. 

In general, we have a very rapid increase in crustal thickness from south 

to north. With an average velocity of 4.2 km/s, the top part of the crust 

from shotpoint 6 to approximately 60 km to the north may consist of sediments 

or ocean layer 2 material or both. The crust is thin, the Moho being at a 

depth of 12 km. The Moho is modeled as a sharp discontinuity, below which a 

velocity inversion must exist in order to explain the traveltimes of the very 

prominent arrivals with apparent velocities of 8.4 km/s at distances beyond 

200 km. South of shotpoint 5 the Moho is at a depth of some 27 km with a mean 

upper crustal velocity of 6.2 km/s and a mean lower crustal velocity of 6.8 

km/s. 

Little can be said at this stage about the transition between the two 

types of crust, and therefore the velocity contours of figure 28 in the region 

of the transition are not to be taken too seriously. 

North of shotpoint 5 the crust thickens further and is characterized by 

relatively high average velocities. 

47 
::E 

~ 

._.. 

~ I (X) 

~ 

~ 30t ~~/// 6.8 

8.1 

8.15 

78 

7.8 

8.5 

8.55 

DISTANCE 

Figure 28. Cartoon crustal section between shotpoints 5 and 6. 

6.01 

6.4 

6.8 

:I: 

1-

a:: 

0 

z 
A TRAVELTIME INTERPRETATION OF THE 1978 SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA 

By Walter D. Mooney 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

This report describes a traveltime analysis of the USGS/DG~ffi-conducted 

seismic refraction profile in Saudi Arabia. The analyzed data consist of 

reversing and overlapping profiles obtained from six shotpoints extending from 

the southern Red Sea nearly to the city of Riyadh on the Arabian Shield. 

Data analysis consisted of the following steps: 

1. Primary and secondary arrivals were determined from record sections 

reduced to 6.0 or 8.0 km/s. 

2. The phases were identified as either refracted or reflected waves 

based on their amplitudes and traveltime behavior. Once the apparent 

velocities and time intercepts of the main refractors were identified, the 

slope-intercept method (Steinhart and Meyer, 1961) was used to obtain a 

starting model. Reflected phases were then fit by iterative one-dimensional 

ray tracing • 

3. The one-dimensional models (velocity as a function of depth only) to 

the southwest and northeast of each shotpoint were combined to make preliminary 

two-dimensional models. The theoretical traveltimes for these models were 

compared with the observations using a modified version of a two-dimensional 

ray-tracing program (Cerveny and others, 1977). 

4. Qualitative judgments were made concerning the relative sharpness of 

the seismic discontinuities on the basis of the apparent amplitude relations 

of the various phases, and these judgments were used to vary the two-dimensional model. For example, in order to shift critical points, sharp 

boundaries were converted into transition zones. 

FLAT-LAYER, UNREVERSED MODELS 

Calculating flat-layer models is only a first step in modeling seismic 

refraction data. These models are clearly only approximations because they do 

not take into account lateral changes in velocity (such as those resulting 

from dips and faults). Therefore, while the general features of the crustal 

structure presented here are reasonably accurate, many details will be changed 

in the following section on two-dimensional modeling. 

The nomenclature of the phases identified in the data is as follows. "pg" 

refers to a phase refracted through the basement, "Pi" refracts in the middle 

crust, "PiP" reflects from the middle crustal boundary (when more than one 

such reflections are identified they are numbered PiPl and PiP2), "PmP" 

reflects from the crust-mantle boundary (variously referred to as the Moho, 

Mohorovicic discontinuity, or M-discontinuity), and "Pn" refracts through the 

upper mantle. Upper mantle phases that arrive after Pn are numbered and 

referred to as "Pl" and "P2." 

49 
Shotpoint 1 

Northeast (fig. 29): This profile is entirely within the Arabian 

Platform. The data, recorded only to about 85 km, reveal low velocities at 

the near-surface and an apparent high gradient in the uppermost basement. The 

apparent velocity of the first arrivals is about 5.9 km/s to a distance of 40 

km, and then becomes about 6.3 km/s. There is considerable scatter in first 

arrival times between 70 and 85 km. One-dimensional modeling does not 

adequately represent these features where lateral changes are known to occur. 

Southwest (fig. 30): This profile begins in the Arabian Platform and 

enters the shield 43 km southwest of the shotpoint. Data were recorded to a 

maximum of 655 km, nearly across the entire shield, with clear arrivals to as 

far as 550 km. In this discussion we consider only the data to 370 km. Low 

velocities are evident directly beneath the shotpoint, with the basement 

refractor apparently at about 1.0 km depth. Pg (basement) arrivals have been 

fit most accurately between 90 and 150 km. The arrivals between 20 and 80 km 

appear to be traveling through a medium with a higher average velocity than 

those beyond 90 km. The change to higher velocity occurs near the point at 

which the profile crosses the Al Amar-Idsas fault. Clear arrivals between 136 

and 180 km are seen intermediate in time between the Pg and PmP/Pn phases. We 

refer to these phases as PiP if we believe them to be reflections from an 

intermediate crustal boundary, and as Pi if we believe them to be refractions 

from that boundary. In order to fit the high apparent velocity of these PiP 

arrivals, we have used a continuous velocity gradient increasing from 6.15 

km/s at 1.5 km depth to 7.2 km/s at 39 km depth. A discontinuity occurs at 39 

km depth where the velocity increases to 7.6 km/s. Below 39 km, the velocity 

increases slowly, reaching 7.7 km/s at 47 km depth, the crust-mantle boundary. 

The best fitting Pn velocity is 8.15 km/s at 47 km depth. The velocity model 

is unique among the shield profiles in that it lacks a velocity discontinuity 

at about 20 km depth, which may be in part due to a lateral change in crustal 

composition that occurs 120 km southwest of shotpoint 1. 

Shotpoint 2 

Northeast (fig. 31): This profile begins in the Shammar tectonic province 

of the shield (Greenwood and others, 1977) and enters the platform at a distance of about 100 km from the shotpoint. The first arrivals in the distance 

range 0-150 km (Pg) are fit with a velocity gradient in the upper crust from 

6.2 km/s at 1 km depth to 6.5 km/s at 21 km depth. Clear intermediate arrivals 

(PiP) between 85 and 150 km are modeled as reflections from a discontinuity at 

21 km depth where the velocity increases from 6.5 to 6.85 km/s. A mantle depth 

of 38 km matches only the average arrival time of presumed mantle (PmP) arrivals but fails to match the low apparent velocity of this phase. Comparing 

the velocity model for this profile with that of shotpoint 1 SW (fig. 30), we 

note that both indicate a velocity discontinuity at about 38 km depth, but 

neither clearly indicate that this is the M-discontinuity. This raises the 

possibility that a high-velocity lower crustal layer is present between shotpoints 1 and 2. 

Southwest (fig. 32): This profile (and the next four to be discussed) 

was recorded entirely within the Arabian Shield, crossing three tectonic 

provinces and the faults that separate them. The data on this profile have 

some of the highest signal-to-noise ratios of all the data recorded during the 

project. The flat-layer model was very successful in modeling the arrival 

50 
times of both primary and secondary phases. Pg is modeled with a velocity 

gradient from 6.1 km/s at 1 km depth to 6.3 km/s at 18 km depth. This upper 

crustal velocity structure is remarkably different from those of the previous 

three profiles discussed, all of which indicate significantly higher velocities. The data from profile 1 SW, for example, have a traveltime that is 0.25 

s faster at a range of 140 km than the data from profile 2 SW. Intermediate 

crustal arrivals are modeled as reflections (PiP) from a discontinuity at 18 

km depth. 

The profile provides crucial evidence that the M-discontinuity in this 

region is not a first-order discontinuity but is transitional. The evidence 

is the critical distance for the PmP arrivals of about 150 km, the high amplitudes of the post-critical PmP arrivals, and the low amplitudes of the precritical PmP arrivals. The transition from the crust to the mantle is modeled 

as occurring between 31.5 and 41 km depth, with the velocity increasing from 

6.7 to 8.1 km/s. Clearly, comparison of synthetic seismograms with the 

true-amplitude record sections are needed to examine the validity of this 

structure~ Partly because of this profile a crust-mantle transition zone 

(specifically, a velocity gradient followed by a small velocity discontinuity 

to mantle) is a feature of the two-dimensional ray-trace models discussed 

below. Pn arrivals on this profile have been fit with a mantle velocity that 

increases from 8.1 km/s at 41 km depth to 8.2 km/s at 60 km depth. 

Shotpoint 3 

Northeast (fig. 33): This profile was recorded entirely in the Najd 

tectonic province and crosses no major mapped faults. Data were recorded to a 

distance of 56 km. They indicate a refraction velocity of 6.0-6.1 km/s with 

essentially no (about 100 m) surficial cover. The shot length of this profile 

leaves profile 2 SW essentially unreversed. 

Southwest (figs. 34 and 35): This profile extends across several important features of the shield. It begins in the Najd tectonic province, crosses 

the southwest Najd fault zone, and enters the Hijaz-Asir tectonic province. 

Within the last province it crosses the Nabitah zone (a region of ultramafic 

outcrops), the Al Qarah gneiss dome, and the Al Junaynah fault zone. 

At near ranges Pg has an apparent velocity of 6.0 km/s. This apparent 

velocity is followed at greater range (30 km) by an apparent velocity of 6.3 

km/s, which continues to 175 km. Intermediate arrivals (PiP) are clearly 

observed and are modeled by a discontinuity at 22.5 km depth from 6.45 to 6.7 

km/s. The PmP arrivals are modeled with a sharp M-discontinuity at 35 km depth 

where the velocity increases from 6.7 to 8.0 km/s. In light of the low amplitudes of the PmP reflections, however, it is unlikely that the sharp M-discontinuity is real, and a transition zone has been used in the two-dimensional 

ray-tracing model. Pn arrivals have been fit by using a positive velocity 

gradient in the upper mantle of 0.008 km/s/km. 

We have calculated an alternative model for profile 3 SW to attempt to 

explain some clear secondary arrivals that are observed at about 85 km range 

at a reduced traveltime of 0.0 s. These are modeled with a discontinuity at 

13 km depth where the velocity increases from 6.35 to 6.65 km/s (fig. 3~). 

Bringing this high velocity to shallow depth makes it difficult to fit other 

secondary arrivals that are observed between 140 and 175 km at a reduced 

traveltime of 0.5 s. These secondary PiP arrivals are important, for they 

appear to be from the boundary between the upper and lower crust. A possible 

model, as yet untested, is one with a low-velocity zone at 16-21 km depth. A 

51 
strong reflection that could fit the PiP arrivals would occur off the bottom 

of the low-velocity zone. Both PmP and Pn arrivals are adequately fit by the 

mantle depth (35.5 km) and velocity (8.0 km/s) used in this alternative model. 

Shotpoint 4 

Northeast (figs. 36 and 37): This profile starts in the Hijaz-Asir tectonic province and crosses into the Najd province; en route it crosses the Al 

Junaynah fault zone, the Al Qarah gneiss dome, and the Nabitah zone. A simple 

6.2 km/s refractor fits the data up to 40 km, but beyond this point a traveltime advance of some 0.2-0.3 s is apparent. A laterally varying model is 

required to fit these traveltimes, which are advanced because of the high-velocity Al Qarah gneiss dome. We propose two models to fit the intermediate arrivals. In the first (fig. 36) we assume that two distinct phases are present 

(PiPl and PiP2) and use two intracrustal discontinuities (at 13 and 34 km 

depth) to fit the arrivals. The Moho is modeled by a discontinuity at 42 km 

from 7.2 to 7.8 km/s. This model fits most of the data adequately, but the 

high-velocity of the lowermost crust (needed to fit the PiP2 arrivals) then 

causes the theoretical wide-angle PmP reflection to arrive early. A lowvelocity zone beneath the lower crustal discontinuity could explain this. 

Alternatively, a simpler model (fig. 37) associates the PiP2 arrivals with 

wide-angle reflections from a single discontinuity at 13 km depth. In this 

case, the lower crust has a velocity of about 6.8 km/s, and the wide-angle PmP 

phase fits the observations at 240-280 km. Amplitude modeling would be 

effective in better resolving these uncertainties in structure. 

Southwest (fig. 38): This profile crosses from the Hijaz-Asir tectonic 

province to the Red Sea. It reaches the Khamis Mushayt gneiss (about 35 km 

wide) at a distance of 130 km and the Hijaz-Asir escarpment at about 225 km. 

The Pg velocity is 6.1 km/s, and arrivals from a mid-crustal reflection (PiP) 

are evident at 100 km and beyond. These are modeled with a velocity discontinuity at 23 km, where the velocity increases from 6.6 to 7.1 km/s. It was very 

difficult to pick with certainty additional secondary arrivals on this profile 

due to the high dominant frequency throughout the seismograms. This may be 

due in part to the low seismic attenuation and large amount of scattering that 

occurs as the profile crosses the Khamis Mushayt gneiss (located at just the 

distance where secondary arrivals should be the strongest). The Pn arrivals 

were fitted with a mantle velocity of 8.15 km/s. All other phases are 

discontinuous and uncertain. 

Shotpoint 5 

Northeast (fig. 39): This profile begins just northeast of the TihamatAsir (coastal plain), extends across the Hijaz-Asir escarpment and Khamis 

Mushayt gneiss, and ends within 9 km of shotpoint 4. The Pg traveltime curve 

gives unmistakable evidence for high upper crustal velocities (about 6.45 

km/s) beginning about 50 km northeast of the shotpoint. This higher velocity 

persists as the profile passes through the Khamis Mushayt gneiss. Secondary 

arrivals (PiP) are evident at 110-175 km and have been modeled by a discontinuity at 17 km depth where the velocity increases from 6.45 to 6.75 km/s. PmP 

(mantle reflection) arrivals are clear between 120 and 150 km but are very 

difficult to correlate at larger ranges which may be because the seismic energy 

passes through a disrupted lower crust beneath the Khamis Mushayt gneiss. The 

velocity in the lower crust increases from 6.75 to 7.1 km/s between 17 and 41 

52 
km depth. The available mantle arrivals (PmP and Pn) are fit reasonably well 

with the M-discontinuity at 41 km depth and a velocity of 8.1 km/s. 

Southwest (fig. 40): This profile crosses the Tihamat-Asir and continues 

onto the Red Sea shelf, where several islands were used as recording sites. 

At the eastern edge of the Tihamat-Asir the profile crosses a dike complex 

intruded by gabbro and related rocks; this region may be considered the 

Arabian Shield-Red Sea boundary. The clearest evidence that these data were 

recorded in a region of strong lateral variation is given by the Pn velocity 

of about 9.0 km/s. Since this is an unreasonably high velocity for the 

uppermost mantle, it is obvious that either the crust is thinning toward the 

Red Sea so that the profile is shooting up-dip or that the average crustal 

velocity increases rapidly seaward. Despite this evidence that this region 

has strong lateral velocity variations, the profile was modeled with a 

flat-layer solution. Basement velocity (Pg) is the lowest observed on any 

profile in this data set, 5.85 km/s. In view of the local geology the 

basement rocks should have a velocity greater than 5.85 km/s, so we assume 

that the Pg apparent velocity is a down-dip measurement. Both the mantle 

refraction (Pn) and reflection (PmP) traveltimes indicate a much thinner crust 

(about 17.5 km) beneath the coastal plain than was observed on the shield. 

The flat-layer velocity model must include a broad transition zone from 5.9 to 

8.0 km/s occurring between 11 and 24 km depth (mid-depth is therefore 17.5 km) 

in order to fit the critical reflection point. 

Shotpoint 6 

Northwest: This profile was not modeled with a flat-layer solution. 

TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELS 

Using the results of the flat-layer modeling presented in the previous 

section, we have constructed two-dimensional velocity models for profile sets 

3-2-1, 5-4-3, and 6-5. Combining the flat-layer velocity models required 

subjective decisions about how the velocity-depth functions for neighboring 

shotpoints should be made compatible. In order to obtain the simplest model 

consistent with the data, we decided to use as few layers as possible; this 

means that strictly local features were not included in the two-dimensional 

ray trace model. 

The basic model chosen consists of an upper and lower crust, each with 

two layers, and a two-layer mantle. In the upper crust two layers are needed 

to model both the near-surface rocks (which often have velocities less than 

6.0 km/s) and the basement rocks. In the lower crust two layers are needed to 

model the region just below the mid-crustal discontinuity (about 20 km deep) 

and the crust-mantle transition zone. Two mantle layers are used for most of 

the ray-trace calculations, the first directly beneath the crust (where the Pn 

phase propagates), and the second at about 60 km depth. An additional mantle 

layer at 70 km depth was used to model the data from shotpoint 6 NE. 

Shotpoints 3-2-1 

The profile sets for shotpoints 1, 2, and 3 (figs. 41-44) cover the 

transition from the Arabian Platform to the shield and encompass the Shammar 

and Najd tectonic zones. 

53 
The Pg arrivals from shotpoint 1 SW match the calculated traveltimes quite 

closely (fig. 41), but the velocity discontinuity at 21 km depth predicts PiP 

arrivals about 0.5 s ahead of the observed arrivals. However, the depth to 

this boundary was not increased because its position provided an excellent fit 

to the PiP arrivals recorded on profile 2 NE. Therefore, there are probably 

upper crustal heterogeneities between shotpoints 1 and 2 that have not been 

resolved in the present modeling. 

The composite model fits the PmP and.Pn phases for profile 1 SW reasonably 

closely, but it predicts a PmP phase where none is visible from shotpoint 2 NE. 

In addition, the phase Pl (which is labeled Pl (theory) in fig. 41) has not 

been successfully modeled with the deep mantle reflection. These difficulties 

in modeling the lower crust between shotpoints 1 and 2 suggest that strong 

lateral heterogeneity characterizes the entire crust in this region. 

The composite model reasonably fits all arrivals from shotpoint 2 SW (fig. 

42), which is not unexpected as the model is very similar to the successful 

flat-layer solution (fig. 32). The data from shotpoint 3 NE (the reverse of 

shotpoint 2 NE) provide only Pg arrivals (fig. 43). These indicate a nearsurface velocity of about 6.0 km/s. 

The average upper crustal velocity of profile 2 SW (6.2 km/s) is significantly lower than that used to model profile 2 NE (6.35 km/s). The mid-crustal 

discontinuity occurs at 21 km depth (fig. 44). A strong velocity gradient is 

seen in the lower crust between 31 and 43 km (from 6.8 to 7.9 km/s); the velocity contrast at the M-discontinuity is only 0.2 km/s. The effect of the high 

lower crustal gradient is shown quite clearly in the ray trace of Figure 42, 

where rays are focused between 128 and 160 km on the range scale. Synthetic 

seismogram calculations are needed to assess the validity of this velocity 

gradient. 

In summary, strong lateral velocity variations are evident between shotpoints 1 and 2. To the west of shotpoint 2 is a region of refraction overlap 

(both profiles 1 SW and 2 SW extend into it), but not of refraction reversal. 

The differences in crustal structure northeast and southwest of shotpoint 2 

seem resolvable; we suggest (fig. 44) that a major crustal boundary occurs 

near the shotpoint. 

Shotpoints 5-4-3 

The profile sets for shotpoints 3, 4, and 5 (figs. 45-48) cover the 

southwestern portion of the Najd and all of the Hijaz-Asir tectonic provinces, 

crossing several major crustal features including the Nabitah zone, the Al 

Qarah gneiss dome, and the Hijaz-Asir escarpment. 

The arrivals through basement (Pg) have been reasonably well fit for the 

four profiles considered here, with the exception of the data from profile 5 

NE across the Khamis Mushayt gneiss (fig. 47). For profile 3 SW the composite 

model gives reasonably good traveltime fits for all phases except the portion 

of the PmP reflection near the critical point (labeled A on fig. 45). This 

may indicate lateral heterogeneity in the lower crust southeast of shotpoint 3. 

Traveltimes of the composite velocity model fit the Pn arrivals very 

reasonably. 

In discussing the data of shotpoint 4 NE and SW, we reemphasize an observation made previously: the seismograms on this profile have a high dominant 

frequency coda which makes phase correlation of secondary arrivals very difficult. Therefore, we gave greater weight to the traveltime models of profiles 

5 NE and 3 SW in constructing the composite model. 

54 
Even considering the difficulty in identifying secondary arrivals in the 

data from shotpoint 4, the disagreement between the picked secondary arrivals 

and those calculated for the composite model is notable and is interpreted to 

indicate anomalous crustal material beneath shotpoint 4. The composite model 

does not account for prominent secondary arrivals at about 80 km northeast of 

shotpoint 4 (labeled A in fig. 46). The observed PmP arrivals northeast of 

shotpoint 4 are about 0.4 s later than the calculated arrivals, indicating 

that the composite velocity model (fig. 48) is too fast in the lower crust 

beneath shotpoint 4. The observed Pn arrivals are also not fit by the calculated model. In profile 4 SW, the mid-crustal reflector at 22 km appears to 

fit observed PiP arrivals reasonably well. Some PmP arrivals (labeled B in 

fig. 46) are about 0.6 s later than calculated from the model, indicating, as 

in profile 4 NE, that the velocity in the lower crust is lower than indicated 

in the composite velocity model (fig. 48). 

The composite velocity model fits the data of profile 5 NE considerably 

more successfully (fig. 47). The gneiss body possibly has disrupted the 

middle crustal boundary because the predicted intermediate crustal phases Pi 

and PiP do not have observed arrival times to match. The ray-trace model fits 

the mantle reflection (PmP) and refraction (Pn) quite well, indicating that 

the average crustal velocity and thickness of the model are consistent with 

the data. 

In summary, the composite velocity model for profile sets 3, 4, and 5 is 

an adequate representation of the velocity structure near shotpoints 3 and 5, 

but some significant deviations are seen beneath shotpoint 4, including 

lower-than-average lower crustal velocities of 6.7 km/s, which amounts to a 

reduction of 0.3 km/s from the shield average of 7.0 km/s. There is also 

evidence for a 13-km-deep reflector between shotpoints 3 and 4. 

Shotpoints 6-5 

The region between shotpoints 5 and 6 spans the ocean-continent transition zone at the southwest end of the profile (figs. 49-51). Shotpoint 5 is 

about 5 km northeast of the dike swarms of the Tihamat-Asir, which are 

believed to be at the margin of the Red Sea rift. Southwest of shotpoint 5 

are the sediments of the coastal plain and Red Sea shelf, which have been 

drilled to more than 4 km depth in the offshore regions (Gillman, 1968). 

The ray-trace diagrams for shotpoint 6 NE (fig. 50) are all for traveltimes reduced by 8.0 km/s, unlike the previous figures. The pattern of 

arrivals is extremely irregular; the only certain correlations are crustal 

arrivals between 1 and 26 km and Pn arrivals between 105 and 125 km. Between 

26 and 105 km the data show a series of traveltime advances and delays that 

may in part be due to large variations in the thickness of low-velocity sediments. Between 18 and 27 km high-amplitude secondary arrivals follow the 

first arrival by 0.4 to 0.15 s. We interpret these secondary arrivals as 

mantle reflections (PmP). According to this correlation, the depth to mantle 

22 km east of shotpoint 6 is 8 km. However, if the PmP critical point at 22 

km is connected to the clear Pn arrivals at 105 km with a straight line, the 

line is approximately 1.0-1.5 s ahead of the visible first arrivals. Two 

possible explanations exist for this. The first is that the velocity varies 

strongly laterally between 26 and 105 km and large traveltime delays occur in 

that range due to the thickening of sedimentary rocks. The second is that the 

visible first arrivals are actually secondary arrivals and the mantle 

refractors are of extremely low amplitude due to irregular structure at the 

55 
crust-mantle interface. The record section indicates possible weak earlier 

arrivals between 58 and 105 km. 

Regardless of these uncertainties, an initial, relatively simple model 

was derived by connecting the 8-km crustal thickness at shotpoint 6 to the 

17.5-km crustal thickness southwest of shotpoint 5 that was determined by 

taking the midpoint of the velocity gradient derived in flat-layer modeling 

(fig. 40). We used iterative two-dimensional ray tracing to somewhat refine 

the initial model. The model fits the Pg arrivals and the mantle refractions 

(Pn) in the traveltime data of shotpoint 5 SW (fig. 49) reasonably well, but 

the mantle reflection arrivals {PmP) appear to be delayed by as much as 0.2 s. 

For shotpoint 6 NE (fig. 50), the Pg and Pn arrivals at 105-125 km are fit 

rather well by the ray-trace calculations. The detailed traveltime behavior 

ofarrivals between 25 and 100 km is not well fit, the average traveltime error 

being 0.4 s. 

In summary, the data from shotpoints 5 SW and 6 NE are interpreted to 

indicate a landward dip of the M-discontinuity of 4.6° (fig. 51). The Pn velocity is 8.0 km/s and the crustal structure consists of a 4.2 km/s layer on top 

of a thicker 6.2 km/s layer. More densely recorded data would be desirable to 

further reveal the structure in this important tectonic region. 

In the region of the Arabian Shield-Red Sea transition, the especially 

weak and diffuse arrivals between 150 and 200 km from shotpoint 6 probably 

indicate extreme structural complications. Beyond this structural transition, 

strong Pn arrivals observed beginning at about 225 km from the shotpoint appear 

to show an en echelon pattern of first and secondary arrivals, with the secondary arrivals having high amplitudes at 250 and 400 km. Western European and 

Russian seismologists, who previously conducted long-range investigations, have 

determined that these phases indicate velocity gradients or discontinuities in 

the upper mantle. We have attempted to model only two of the en echelon mantle 

phases (fig. 50), showing them as first-order discontinuities at 56 and 68 km 

deep where the velocity increases from 8.0 to 8.3 km/s and 8.3 to 8.5 km/s, 

respectively. 

It is of some interest to note in the ray trace (fig. 50) that there is 

no true Pn phase (head or diving waves traveling along the continental 

M-discontinuity). This observation raises the possibility that similar phases 

that may have been modeled in previous offshore-onshore investigations as head 

waves are, in fact, upper mantle phases. 

REFERENCES 

Cerveny, V., Molotkov, I. A., and Psencik, I., 1977, Ray method in seismology: 

Univerzita Karlova, Prague, 214 p. 

Gillman, M., 1968, Primary results of a geological and geophysical reconnaissance of the Jizan coastal plain in Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum 

Engineers AIME, Saudi Arabia Section, Second Regional Technical Symposium, 

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, March 27-29, p. 1~9-212. 

Greenwood, W. R., Anderson, R. E., Fleck, R. J., and Roberts, R. J., 1977, 

Precambrian geologic history and plate tectonic evolution of the Arabian 

Shield: U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Project Report 222, 97 p. 

Steinhart, J. S. and R. P. Meyer, 1961, Explosion studies of continental 

structure: Carnegie Institute Washington Publication 622, 409 p. 

56 
z 

~ 

z 

% 

.... 

A. 

Ill 

0 

(J 

1&1 

(I) 

z 

Ill 

z 

~ 

.J 

Ill 

> 

c 

G:: 

~ 

0 

Ill 

(J 

;::) 

0 

Ill 

G:: 

0 

0 

0 

• 

12 

... 

24 

3()" 

36 . 

42. 

48. . 

54 

60 

2 

Figure 29. 

20 40 60 80 

DISTANCE IN KM 

. 0 

SPl NE 6 

12 

18 

24 

30 

36 

42 

48 

54 

10 

4 5 6 7 8 9 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 1 NE. 

57 
u 0 1&.1 

., 

~ -I 

1&.1 

:IE -2 .... 

_, 

1&.1 

> -3 C( 

a: 

.... -4 Cl 

1&.1 

u 

:) -s Cl 

1&.1 

a: -6 

-7 

-8 

-· 0 eo 160 240 320 400 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

• SPl sw 6 

12 12 

2 18 18 ¥ 

z 24 24 

% 

.... 30 30 A. 

1&.1 

Cl 36 36 

42 42 

41 48 

54 54 

10 10 

2 4 5 • 7 • I 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 30. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 1 SW. 

58 
u 

1&1 

Vl 

! 

1&1 

:1 

... 

.J 0 1&1 

> 

c 

a:: 

... 

0 

1&1 

(.) 

~ 

0 

1&1 

a:: 

• 

12 

2 18 :Ill: 

z 24 

... 30 

CL 

1&1 

0 36 

42 

48 

54 

60 

• 

50 100 

DISTANCE 

4 5 

VELOCITY IN 

0 

e 

e e 

()~ 

., -I 

150 200 250 

IN KM 

0 

SP2 NE 6 

12 

18 

24 

30 

36 

42 

48 

54 

10 6 T 8 9 

KM/SEC 

Figure 31. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 2 NE. 

59 
2 2 

" 

0 0 

u 

... 

., .z -2 

! 

11.1 

! 

.... 

..I -4 -4 11.1 

> c 

a:: 

.... 

0 

l&i -6 u -6 ::;) 

0 

11.1 

a:: 

-· -· 

-· -9 

0 100 200 100 350 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

6 SP2 SW I 

12 12 

II II 

2 24 24 :Ill: 

z 

- 10 30 

z H .... 56 

G. 

11.1 42 2 0 

48 

54 4 

60 60 

2 4 5 6 7 8 9 

VELOCITY IN KM /SEC 

Figure 32. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 2 SW. 

60 
z 

:Ill: 

z 

% 

~ 

CL 

ILl 

Q 

u 

ILl 

(I) 

~ 

Ill 

! 

~ 

..J 

ILl 

> 

c 

cr 

~ 

c 

ILl 

u 

::;) 

c 

ILl 

cr 

0 

0 

0 . 

• 

12 

18 

24 . 

30 

36 

42 

48 . 54 • 

60 

2 

. 

... "" .. 0 C!) ... 

10 

C!) 

C!) l!l C!) - t!) 

t!) ... ... e e t!) t!) (!It!) t!) 1:1 

0 

20 30 40 50 60 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 

SP3 NE 6 

~12 

18 

2ot 

30 

36 

42 

48 

54 

60 

4 5 6 7 8 9 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 33. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 3 NE. 

61 
3 s 

2 

0 u 0 Ill 

., 

! -I ·I 

Ill -2 ! -2 ... 

..J 

-3 ILl 

> -3 c 

.:: 

... -4 -4 

c 

Ill 

u -5 -5 :;) 

c 

Ill -6 .:: -6 

-7 -7 

• -8 

-8 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

• SP3 SW 6 

12 12 

2 18 18 

:w: 

z 24 24 -

% 

... 30 30 

IL 

Ill 

c 36 36 

42 42 

48 48 

54 54 

10 60 

2 4 5 • 7 8 t 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 34. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 3 SW. 

62 
3 

2 2 

u 

... 0 0 ., 

! -I _, 

1111 

2 

~ -2 -2 ~ 

Ill 

> c -3 -3 IE 

~ 

Q -4 -4 

1111 

u 

::;) -!5 Q -5 

... 

IE 

... -6 

-7 -7 

-1 -I 

0 !50 100 1!50 200 2!50 300 3!50 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

. - SP3 SW ~6 

12 12 

2 18 - HI 

-

z 24-

L 24 

-

2: - ~ 30 -30 

A. 

"' Cl 36 - 36 \ 

42- 1-42 

. 

41 48 

!54. !54 

10 

2 

1 10 

4 !5 6 7 8 ' 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 35. Alternate flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 3 SW. 

63 
u 

1&1 

(I) 

~ 

1&1 0 ::f 0 

j.: 

..J 

1&1 

> 

C( 

a: 

~ -I -I 

0 

1&1 

u 

:::::1 

0 

Ill 

a:: -2 -2 

CD 

-3 -3 

0 60 120 180 240 300 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

• SP4 NE 6 

12 12 

2 18 18 

311: 

z 24 24 

% 

~ !() 30 

~ 

11.1 

0 36 36 

42 42 

48 48 

54 54 

60 10 

4 5 6 7 8 9 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 36. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 4 NE. 

64 
c,) 

IIJ 

(/) 

z 

IIJ 0 z 0 

1-

..J 

IIJ 

> 

c 

a:: 

1- -I -I 

0 

IIJ 

c,) 

::I 

0 

IIJ 

a:: -2 -2 

120 180 240 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

• SP4 NE 6 

12 12 

:I 18 18 

llli: 

z 24 24 

% 

1- 30 30 

D. 

IIJ 

0 36 36 

42 42 

48 48 

54 54 

60 60 

2 5 6 7 8 9 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 37. Alternate flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 4 NE. 

65 
3 3 

c.> 2 2 1&1 

"' 

~ 

1&1 

! 0 0 1-

..J 

1&1 

> _, _, C( 

It' 

1-

0 -2 -2 1&1 

u 

:l 

0 -3 -3 1&1 

a:: 

-4 -4 

-e 

0 eo 120 180 240 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 

• SP4 SW 

12 

z 18 

-

z 24 24 

-

% 

1- 30 30 

~ 

1&1 

0 36 36 

42 42 

48 48 

54 4 

60 60 

2 4 5 6 7 8 ' 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 38. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 4 SW. 

66 
0 0 u 

1&1 

Cl) 

! -I -I 1&1 

2 

;:::: 

..J 

1&1 

> -2 -2 c 

a:: 

.... 

0 

1&1 -3 u -3 ;:) 

0 

... 

a:: 

-4 -4 

-S -s 0 so 100 150 200 250 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

• SP5 NE 6 

12 12 

z 18 18 

lit! 

z 24 24 

% 

.... !0 30 

IL. 

1&1 

0 36 36 

42 42 

48 48 

54 54 

10 60 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 39. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 5 NE. 

67 
3 

2 

u 

1&1 

(I) 

~ 

1&1 

! 0 .... 

..J 

1&1 

> 

c 

G: -I 

.... 

0 

1&1 -2 u 

:I 

0 

1&1 

G: -3 

·4 

-5 

0 30 60 90 120 I !SO 

DISTANCE IN KM 

0 0 

• SP5 SW 6 

12 12 

a 18 18 

:Ill: 

z 24 24 

% 

.... 30 30 

CL. 

1&1 

0 36 36 

42 42 

48 48 

54 54 

60 

2 

10 

4 5 • 7 8 I 

VELOCITY IN KM/SEC 

Figure 40. Flat-layer model for data from shotpoint 5 SW. 

68 
2.o ( S W N E J 2.0 

o.o ~ ~ __ ... ., ~00 

0 -2.01- - I -i-2.0 

CD 

...... 

~ -4.0 

0 

I 

t-

-6.0 

m 

co _::t 0 

~::~I 50 100 150 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 

200 250 300 350 400 

~fll 450 I 

500 

~~~~ 0 0 It tt' ttt'ttt' t 1 t '<: t'<L ' t tul:: ta 't< ultt<tt'«<c'c ' ' l 4w · ' :::JO 

20 ~------.20 

' > ;;;z;: 40~ '·~c~ ~ 40 

60 60 

80 80 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 3,2 and I 

Figure 41. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 1 SW. 
...:I 

0 

0 

cD 

...... 

_. 

1&.1 

0 

I 

.... 

2.or SW 

PiP PiP~?) .., /p (missing) 

----.._ ~ NE 12.o 

. -~ .. .. , 0.0 

PJ 

-2.0 

-4.0 

-6.0 

-8.0 

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 18£~ I I I I I I I 1-JO.O 

20 F ·a ~ \ '?lsi\c: 'c: "~ iiU'VA¥,' s' ,, 1 2 0 

40r >~ > .., ft!fG.C , 40 

60 60 

80 80 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS. 3,2 and I 

Figure 42. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 2. 
"-3 

..... 

~ U) 

' .J 

1&1 

0 

I 

... 

sw NE 2.0 

Pr ... ~ - ... • 11 0.0 

-2.0 -2.0 

-4.0 

-6.0 

.. 8.0 

-I 0 .0 I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l-10.0 

0 50 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 

0 

2

J 1 1 I I I l:o 

40 40 

60 60 

80 80 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 3,2 and I 

Figure 43. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 3 ~E. 
....:J 

1.\) 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0 

6.1 

~ 

~6.3 

6.6 

~ 6.8 

6.8 

~ 

_7.9 

8.1 

~ 

~ 

8.3 

8.4 

I 

-

I 

SP3 

1~0 I 

-

I 

I 

6.1 

6.1 

-

I 

200 SP2300 

I I T I 

6.15 

6.25 

6.3 

6.6 

6.8 - - - 6.8 

7.9 

8.1 

8.3 

8.4 

I I I 

SAUDI ARABIA SH 0 T POINTS 3, 2 and I 

400 SPl 

I I _y I 

~ 

~ 

6.5 

6.8 

7/J - - 7.0 

7.4 

8.1 8.2 

~ I I 

Figure 44. Velocity-depth structure beneath shotpoints 3, 2, and 1. 

50.0 

~ 

6.2 

6.2 

-

6.5 - 6.8 

7.0 

7.0 

_, 7.4 

8.2 

-! 

-I 

8.3 

8.4 
2~! sw NE 

o.o , ... r~ 0.0 

-2.0 -2.0 0 

.,; 

...... 

_, -4.01'" 'l 1-4.0 I&J 

0 

I 

... --· - -6.0 

-8.0 

...:J -10.0t I I I ......... . L I I I I I I I I I I I I I sf I a I I tiQO w 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 

0 I I ' l I I I ~ • l I .I I ' J J I I I I I I I I 0 

20 F , \,,,, , '\, ~, ' *\', ~ , __ ., ,,~ ,, '' { ''''''' ' ' '' ' c 

t-------1 20 

401 ,, ~~~sc::::::::::::: ~ ~------------,40 

60r-t -~~~ ~ 60 

eo eo 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 5,4 and 3 

Figure 45. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 3 SW. 
"' .. 

~ 

CD 

...... 

..J 

1&.1 

0 

I 

~ 

, 

:l.O 

V~:JV :sf l I 20 

.... / , 140 

60 

801 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 80 

SAU Dl ARAB lA SHOT POINTS 5, 4 and 3 

Figure 46. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 4. 
...:I 

en 

q 

CD 

.... 

..I 

Ill 

a 

I 

... 

au eo 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 5, 4 and 3 

Figure 47. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 5 NE. 
..,:a 

0> 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

SP5 SP4 

•• I I I I It I I I I 

6.2 6.3 ,',::fj, ... , 6.3 62 6.3 6.3 

6.2 6.3 ',' ...... ~~ ...... / 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 ' .... .-.,. 

~ 

- 6.4 6-e 6.5 6.4 

ti.7 

6.8 -- -- -- 6.8 -- -- -- -- 6.8 --6.8 

7.8 

8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 

~ 

8.3 8.3 

8.4 8.4 

-

I I I I I I I I I I 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 5, 4 and 3 

Figure 48. Velocity-depth structure beneath shotpoints 5, 4, and 3. 

SP3 

• I 

6.25 

6.25 

6.4 

6.7 

6.8 

6.8 

7.8 

8.1 

8.3 

8.4 

I 

-

-

-

I 

-

0 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 
6.0 

C! 

• .... 

.J 40 .., 

a 

I 

~ 20 2.0 

....:J 

~ 

250 300 350 400 

~~~======ll20 - 40 

~ 60 

uv .1...-.-JBO 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT PO IN T S 6, 5 and 4 

Figure 49. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 5. 
8.0 ~yy NE 18.0 

6.0 •... -...~ P2 

-/~ .. - ~i - ::=:: :""!-~·~16.0 

~ 

• "'T·Vr .~ ~ ~ 14.0 ..... 

... 

Ill 

a 

I 

~ 

2.0t ~~rr ,2.0 

to..l 

CD 

80 L.____.. I 8 0 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 6, 5 and 4 

Figure SO. Two-dimensional ray trace diagram for the data from shotpoint 6 NE. 
' I I I I I I I I I 

0 SP6 100 SP5 200 !00 400 8P4 

0 1 1 1 •cc:: 1 1 ' , , ,

0 

6.3 

6.3 6.3 

10 10 

20 t- \\. 6.4 .. - -120 

6.7 

30 \;-- -6.8-

~ ~8 

co 

40 8.0 140 

!50 

8.0 8.0 

10 8.3 8.3 

TO[ 8:5 8.5 

8

·3 83 ]TO 

80 =-- I _L___ _ _l_ I __ I_ _I I --'--~ 80 

SAUDI ARABIA SHOT POINTS 6, 5 and 4 

Figure 51. Velocity-depth structure beneath shotpoints 6, 5, and 4. 
EXPLANATION OF RUSSIAN MODELS: SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

By N. I. Pavlenkova and I. P. Kosminskaya 

USSR Academy of Sciences 

Institute of the Physics of the Earth 

Moscow, USSR 

Three models were presented at the CCSS meeting, one by Krilov, Michenkin, 

Mishenkina, and Solovjeva (the Novosibirsk group), a second by Yurov, and the 

third by Pavlenkova. 

1. The Novosibirsk group used the so-called time-field method which 

employs for depth calculation the times at equal distances for all shotpoint 

data. It was thereby possible to determine more accurately the relative 

depths of velocity isolines or boundaries. Their results were represented by 

a set of points derived from refractions and reflections and by a set of 

isolines connecting these points. The model also shows average velocities 

from reflections and boundary velocities from refractions. They derived the 

uplift of the M-discontinuity beneath the Red Sea but they have not tested the 

model using traveltime calculations. 

2. Yurov employed one-dimensional models for all shotpoints. He used a 

formula for depth calculation from refractions and reflections which takes 

into account a multi-layered structure of the medium. Then all models were 

improved using an iteration process--calculation of traveltimes for velocity 

curves. The resultant models are shown in the cross section (shown in fig. 

86) as a set of one-dimensional models (velocity-depth curves). 

3. Pavlenkova solved a two-dimensional problem using the intercept time 

method for the initial model construction and then the ray-tracing method for 

improving the model. At the second stage of the interpretation a disagreement 

between the observed and calculated traveltimes was revealed for shotpoint 6. 

The model gave good agreement for the upper part of the crust and for the basement structure, but at distances of 120 km the calculated traveltimes show 

large, nearly constant delay (see fig. 52). An uplift of the M-discontinuity 

beneath the Red Sea and velocities beneath the M-discontinuity exceeding 8.0 

km/s were obtained for the model. 

The observed traveltimes have a peculiarity for shotpoint 6. At distances 

of 120 km the apparent velocities decrease and correlation of the first 

arrivals becomes difficult. At distances of about 180 km a new version of 

seismic energy comes to the surface. Calculations show that the simple model 

with uplifted mantle-velocity rocks in the Red Sea area cannot explain the 

observed pattern. A zone of decreasing velocity is needed to match the time 

delay and amplitude changes. An agreement is possible using the model with a 

low-velocity zone beneath the uplift, that is, the model with a separate 

mantle-velocity intrusion beneath the Red Sea. The form of this anomalous 

body is difficult to determine; the main conclusion from ray tracing is that a 

zone of decreasing velocity must be beneath this uplift. Considering the 

uncertainty of other seismic interpretation methods, models that have not been 

tested by the ray-trace method in two-dimensional versions cannot be 

considered as possible models. 

80 
(X) 

.... 

t,sec 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 100 

SP6 

/ 

/ 

// . 

/ 

,/ . / ••• 

200 

- observed 

• calculated for the model 

with velocity inversion 

• without it 

300 km 

Figure 52. Traveltime curve for shotpoint 6 NE showing delay at 120 km. The 

observed delay is explained by a velocity inversion in the mantle. 
INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA OF THE USGS SEISMIC REFRACTION 

PROFILE ACROSS THE ARABIAN SHIELD IN WESTERN SAUDI ARABIA 

By Claus Prodehl 

Geophysikalisches Institut 

Universitat Karlsruhe 

Hertzstrasse 16 

D-7500 Karlsruhe-21, West Germany 

ABSTRACT 

Based on the record sections distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey to 

the participants of a workshop for individual interpretation prior to the 

meeting, a preliminary traveltime interpretation assuming horizontally flat 

layering is presented (Part 1) in the form of velocity-depth functions and a 

corresponding cross section of the lithosphere to a depth of 60-80 km across 

the Arabian Shield in western Saudi Arabia. 

The crust thickens abruptly from 15 km beneath the Red Sea Rift to about 

40 km beneath the Arabian Shield. The upper crust of the western Arabian 

Shield yields relatively high-velocity material at about 10 km depth underlain 

by velocity inversions, while the upper crust of the eastern Shield is 

relatively uniform. The lower crust with a velocity of about 7 km/s is 

underlain by a transitional crust-mantle boundary. For the lower lithosphere 

beneath 40 km depth a laterally discontinuous lamellar structure may exist 

where high-velocity zones are mixed with zones of lower velocities. Beneath 

the crust-mantle boundary of the Red Sea Rift strong velocity inversions with 

velocities as low as 6.0 km/s may be encountered between 25 and 44 km depth. 

This model was prepared before the CCSS workshop. 

The model was tested (Part 2) using ray-tracing and amplitude studies and 

agreed well with observed traveltimes, except between shotpoints 5 and 6. 

Discussion of the tests reflects the discussions at the CCSS workshop. 

PART 1 

Introduction 

The data of a deep refraction profile recorded by the U.S. Geological 

Survey in February 1978 along a 1,000-km line across the Arabian Shield in 

western Saudi Arabia (fig. 53) were interpreted for the workshop meeting 

organized by the Commission on Controlled Source Seismology {CCSS) held in 

Park City, Utah, in August 1980. Details of the survey, instrumentation, and 

data preparation are described by Blank and others (1979). The data were 

prepared in the form of record sections which were distributed to all 

participants in January 1980. To guide the individual interpretations of the 

various participants, two volumes of data (Lamson and Leone, 1980) and a 

geological map (U.S. Geological Survey and the American-Arabian Oil Company, 

1963) were also distributed. 

The present report describes a traveltime interpretation based on the 

record sections distributed. The velocity-depth functions shown in figure 60 

(see Part 2) fit the traveltime data shown in figures 54-59 (see Part 2) if 

one assumes that for the individual profile the hypothesis of homogeneous flat 

82 
layering in lateral direction is fulfilled. In future steps of interpretation, amplitude studies will have to be added which may be based on the same 

restrictions, and the model derived (fig. 60) will have to be checked by raytracing methods which allow for lateral variations of depths and velocities. 

The record sections distributed are as follows: from shotpoint 1 

(Quway'iyah) to the north-northeast up to 85 km and to the south-southwest up 

to 580 km recording distance (fig. 54), from shotpoint 2 (Sabhah) to the 

north-northeast up to 220 km and to the south-southwest up to 325 km distance 

(fig. 55), from shotpoint 3 (Mish'ab) to the north-northeast up to 55 km and 

to the south-southwest up to 340 km (fig. 56), from shotpoint 4 (Bishah) to 

the north-northeast up to 285 km and to the south-southwest up to 275 km (fig. 

57), from shotpoint 5 (Ad Darb) to the north-northeast up to 250 km and to the 

south-southwest up to 135 km (fig. 58), and from shotpoint 6 (Farasan) to the 

north-northeast up to 475 km recording distance (fig. 59). All record sections 

contain "reduced" traveltimes; the reduction velocity used was 6 km/s. 

Correlation and Interpretation of Phases 

With the exception of profiles 1 NE, 1 SW, 5 SW, and 6 NE, the data 

indicate an almost complete absence of sediments, showing negative reduced 

traveltimes for the distance range of the Pg phase. The corresponding velocities of this phase, including the profiles from shotpoint 1, are relatively 

high, reaching values between 6.2 and 6.25 km/s from the northeastern shotpoints 1 and 2 and between 6.5 and 6.7 km/s on the profiles on the Arabian 

Shield from shotpoints 3, 4, and 5 at recording distances between 80 and 150 

km. For all this first-arrival data it is characteristic that the energy is 

suddenly fading out and the first arrivals beyond that distance are delayed 

considerably with respect to a hypothetical continuation of the Pg traveltime 

curve. 

This traveltime behavior can well be explained by a continuous increase 

of velocity with depth underlain by a zone of either constant or reduced 

velocity. 

With the exception of the two profiles 5 SW and 6 NE within the Red Sea 

Rift zone, on all profiles between 120 and 230 km distance a bulk of energy in 

secondary arrivals is recorded that can be correlated by two traveltime curves 

to be interpreted as reflections from zones of increased velocity gradient at 

intermediate crustal depth or at the crust-mantle boundary. On the profiles 

in the Red Sea Rift such a reflection from the crust-mantle boundary can also 

be correlated, but at much smaller distances: between 40 and 75 km. 

First arrivals in the distance range of 80-170 km on profiles 3 SW, 4 NE, 

4 SW, and 5 NE, not interpreted here, could be explained by assuming the existence of high-velocity lamellae within the upper crustal low-velocity zone. 

The velocity of the first arrivals beyond 180 km from shotpoints 1, 2, 

and 3, beyond 200 km from shotpoint 5, and to the northeast from shotpoint 5 

generally exceeds 8 km/s. On the. profiles 5 SW and 6 NE, a velocity greater 

than 8 km/s is already reached at 90 km distance. 

On a few profiles reaching distances beyond 250-300 km, namely profiles 6 

NE, 3 SW, 2 SW, and 1 SW, the Pn velocity seems to be replaced by other phases 

with increased velocities. On profiles 2 SW and 4 SW a smooth but clear 

increase in velocity is observed at about 250 km distance, on the other 

profiles such an increase is accompanied by an offset of the corresponding 

traveltime curve with respect to the Pn phase. Two branches following each 

83 
other with a more or less strong delay can be correlated to the largest 

recorded distances of 475 and 580 km, respectively. 

In this traveltime interpretation these phases are discussed tentatively 

as originating from various layers within the lower lithosphere separated from 

each other by more or less strong velocity inversions (fig. 60). 

In this context one particular phase recorded on profile 5 SW between 115 

and 132 km with a reduced traveltime of about +2.0-2.5 s has to be considered. 

This phase has been interpreted tentatively as a reflection from a very 

thick and pronounced low-velocity zone between 25 and 44 km depth beneath the 

Red Sea Rift with an average velocity of 6 km/s embedded between mantle 

material with velocities of 8.5-8.6 km/s (see fig. 60). Indications for such 

a phase at similar distance and reduced-time ranges can also be seen on the 

record section of the reversing profile 6 NE. We cannot ignore, however, the 

fact that these high-amplitude phases on profiles 5 SW and 6 NE may be 

multiple reflections from the crust-mantle boundary. 

A Model of the Lithosphere 

The model of the lithosphere based on traveltime interpretation assuming 

flat layering for each individual profile is shown in figure 60 and table 1. 

The lower part of figure 60 shows the velocity-depth functions, and the upper 

part shows the corresponding cross section. 

Based on the earlier of the two reflections recorded between 120 and 230 

km distance, as described above, a zone with a strong velocity gradient at a 

depth range varying between 20 and 35 km defines an intermediate crustal 

boundary separating upper and lower crustal material. While the upper crust 

seems to be represented by a uniform velocity of about 6.2-6.25 km/s beneath 

the Arabian Shield (profiles 1 SW, 2 NE, 2 SW), it shows velocities increasing 

from 6.0 to 6.5-6.7 km/s underlain by a zone where the velocity is reduced 

reaching values which may be as low as 6 km/s. In the lower crust the 

velocity is constant or slightly increasing. Its base is formed by a zone of 

strong velocity gradient where the velocity increases from about 7 to about 8 

km/s over a depth range of several kilometers at about 40 km depth. 

As the changes in crustal structure along the line within the Arabian 

Shield and adjacent Arabian Platform occur gradually over large distances, the 

velocity-depth functions derived on the basis of homogeneous flat layering may 

characterize the true situation rather accurately. However, this is not the 

case for the transition between the Arabian Shield and the Red Sea Rift, where 

crustal thickness changes from 40 to 15 km over a horizontal distance of a few 

tens of kilometers. The crustal models shown for profiles 5 SW and 6 NE can 

therefore be regarded only as a rough approximation. The data, on the other 

hand, are rather scarce and are biased by the fact that the profile crosses 

this complicated transition zone, so it seems doubtful that a detailed structure can be deduced at all with the data. The velocity-depth functions indicate the complications in structure. On both profiles of the reversed line 

between shotpoints 5 and 6 the velocity increases gradually from 6 to 8.2 km/s. 

However, the mantle velocity of 8.2 km/s is reached at different depths: 

at 25 km from shotpoint 5 and at 15 km from shotpoint 6. 

As already discussed, only a few data allow a penetration into the uppermost mantle as is shown tentatively by the dashed lines of the velocity-depth 

functions of some of the profiles. With the exception of profiles 2 SW and 4 

SW, a lamellar structure is indicated to exist beneath the crust-mantle 

84 
boundary where relatively thin zones of a few kilometers in thickness of 

higher and lower velocities follow each other with increasing depth. 

Beneath the Moho of the Red Sea Rift, the data indicate a strong velocity 

inversion where the velocity may be as low as 6 km/s. In general a triangular 

form for zones of reduced velocity has been assumed. If one assumes a similar 

triangular shape of the low-velocity zone of profile 5 SW between 25 and 44 km 

depth, a low value of 4 km/s has to be introduced in order to fit the observed 

data. The lower part of the velocity-depth function of profile 6 NE below 40 

km depth has to be attributed to the mantle of the Arabian Shield, as this zone 

is deduced from observations beyond 300 km distance and is directly comparable 

with the corresponding depth range deduced for profiles 3 SW and 1 SW. 

Such a lamellar structure does not seem to exist along the entire line, 

as the continuous increase of velocity with depth on profiles 2 SW and 4 SW 

indicates. However, these observations allow only a penetration ot the upper 

10-20 km of the uppermost mantle beneath the Moho. 

The cross section shown in the upper part of figure 60 summarizes the 

results. Here, lines of equal velocity are shown. The crust-mantle transition zone (rapid increase of velocity from about 7.4 to 8.2 km/s) dips rapidly 

from 15 km beneath the Red Sea Rift toward the east to about 40 km, reaching a 

maximum depth beneath the Hijaz-Asir province and rising slightly as the line 

enters the Najd province. The crust of the Hijaz-Asir province where the elevation of the Arabian Shield is highest is also characterized by rather high 

velocities at about 10 km depth and underlying velocity inversions, indicated 

by dots in the cross section. No crustal velocity inversion is found for the 

easternmost province of the Shield, the Shammar province. For the adjacent 

Arabian Platform to the east only limited information on the upper crust is 

available indicating a velocity inversion at 10-12 km depth. 

The structure of the uppermost mantle is only sketched in the cross section. The strong velocity inversion indicated by profile 5 SW is concentrated 

on the Red Sea Rift. Beneath the Arabian Shield a laterally discontinuous 

lamellar structure is indicated beneath Ad Darb, east of Bishah and east of 

Sabhah below 40 km depth. 

PART 2 

The model presented in figure 60 and table 1 was tested by ray-tracing 

and amplitude studies. Much of the following discussion is based on the 

discussions held during the CCSS workshop of 10-16 August 1980 in Park City, 

Utah. 

This. section contains table 1 and the main parts of revised record 

sections of the data (figs. 54-59), including synthetic sections for selected 

examples. 

Test of the Crustal Model by Ray Tracing 

Only a first test of the western part of the model shown in figure 60 

between shotpoints 4 and 5 as well as 5 and 6 was carried out. Although the 

model is based on a traveltime interpretation assuming horizontally flat 

layering, the agreement between traveltimes calculated for the real model of 

figure 60 and observed traveltimes is + 0.05-0.2 s for the part between 

shotpoints 4 and 5. Such a deviation can easily be adjusted by slight 

modifications of the original model. Figure 61 shows the results of a test 

85 
run for rays traversing the model of figure 60 from shotpoint 4 toward the 

southwest. The crosses indicate the traveltimes for the corresponding rays. 

For comparison some selected arrivals of the main reflected phases are shown 

as triangles. 

As was expected for the transition zone from the Arabian Shield to the 

Red Sea between shotpoints 5 and 6 the difference between observed and calculated traveltimes is up to 0.5 s; thus, the model for profiles 5 SW and 6 NE 

shown in table 1 can only be regarded as a rough first approximation. 

Amplitude Studies 

Based on the first test of ray tracing for the part between shotpoints 4 

and 5 it can be concluded that the assumption of horizontally flat layering is 

not seriously violated for the area of the Arabian Shield between shotpoints 1 

and 5. Therefore, synthetic seismograms using the reflectivity method of Fuchs 

and MUller (1971) and Kind (1976) were calculated for selected velocity-depth 

functions of table 1. As the data presented in the record sections are normalized, only the relative amplitudes can be considered. 

As shown by Cerveny and others (1977, p. 190-193), for example, the 

largest amplitudes of the reflected phase do not coincide with the critical 

distance but are usually observed at slightly greater distance from the shotpoint. For crustal investigations, the difference between critical distance 

and distance of the theoretically largest amplitudes is of the order of 10 to 

several tens of kilometers. The greater the frequency of a phase the closer 

lies its amplitude maximum to the critical point. For a 40-km-thick crust and 

a main frequency of 8 Hz, Cerveny and others (1977) computed a difference of 

about 15 km and for 4 Hz a difference of about 25 km. 

During the traveltime analysis we attempted to obtain traveltime curves 

for the reflected phases such that the critical distance was located within 

visible energy of the corresponding phase. Normally, in observed data the 

position of maximum energy cannot be located exactly, but can be assumed to be 

somewhere within the 20-30-km-wide band of well-recorded energy of the 

reflected phases near the critical point. 

As the computed synthetic record sections (figs. 54-58) show, the agreement with the observed record sections is rather good. For example, on the 

synthetic sections computed for profiles 2 SW (fig. 55) and 3 SW (fig. 56) the 

main frequency used is about 5 Hz. The corresponding maximum amplitude is 

located at about 10-15 km greater distance than the critical point. According 

to Cerveny and others (1977), this difference should decrease for the observed 

data, which show a main frequency between 10 and 15 Hz. For comparison, a 

test study was made computing synthetic seismograms with different main 

frequencies (3.4, 6.7, and 13.4 Hz) for a crustal model typical for the area 

of investigation (fig. 62). It can well be seen that, for all frequencies, 

there is not only well-recorded energy at the critical point (about 15 km away 

from the amplitude maximum), but also energy still visible at a distance range 

of 10-20 km left of the critical point, a fact that is in good agreement with 

the traveltime curves correlated for the real data (figs. 54-59). 

REFERENCES 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R. J., Fischer, F., 

McClearn, R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia--field operations, instrumentation and initial results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

86 
v v v Cerveny, V., Molotkov, I. A., and Psencik, I., 1977, Ray method in seismology: 

University Karlova, Prague, 214 p. 

Fuchs, K. and MUller, G., 1971, Computation of synthetic seismograms with the 

reflectivity method and comparison with observations: Geophysical 

Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 23, p. 417-433. 

Kind, R., 1976, Computation of reflection coefficients for layered media: 

Journal of Geophysics, v. 42, p. 191-200. 

Lamson, R. J. and Leone, L. E., 1980, Saudi Arabia seismic refraction profile 

data set, volumes 1 and 2: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 

Miscellaneous Document 17. 

U.S. Geological Survey and Arabian-American Oil Company, 1963, Geologic map of 

the Arabian Peninsula: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic 

Investigations Map I-270A, scale 1:2,000,000. 

87 
TABLE 1. Velocity-depth functions shown in figure 60 

Profile 1 NE 

depth velocity 

(km) (km/ s) 

o.o 2.50 

0.8 5.90 

6.0 6.22 

6.5 6.40 

8.0 6.54 

10.0 6.00 

12.0 6.84 

Profile 2 NE 

depth velocity 

(km) (km/s) 

0.0 6.00 

2.4 6.20 

4.0 6.25 

5.0 6.26 

18.0 6.20 

19.0 6.60 

32.0 6.59 

38.5 7.60 

39.5 7.61 

Profile 3 NE 

depth velocity 

(km) (km/s) 

0.0 5.90 

1.5 6.00 

4.0 6.10 

88 

Profile 1 SW 

depth velocity 

(km) (km/ s) 

0.0 2.50 

0.9 6.10 

1.5 6.20 

5.0 6.23 

13.0 6.24 

24.4 6.60 

26.0 6.80 

40.0 7.10 

42.0 8.20 

51.3 8. 40 

53.3 8.00 

55.3 8.41 

56.3 8.50 

60.3 8.00 

65.4 8.60 

69.4 8.30 

74.':> 8.70 

83.0 8.00 

94.0 8.80 

Profile 2 SW 

depth velocity 

(km) (km/s) 

o.o 5.80 

2.3 6.10 

7.5 6.20 

Y.O 6.21 

17.0 6.20 

20.0 6.60 

29.5 6.59 

43.0 8.20 

45.4 8.22 

54.0 8.60 

55.5 8.61 

Profile 

depth 

(km) 

o.o 

6.4 

7.0 

20.0 

23.4 

37.4 

40.7 

42.0 

46.0 

51.0 

54.0 

59.0 

3 sw 

velocity 

(km/ s) 

6.0 

6 • .)0 

6.51 

6.20 

6.80 

7.24 

8.20 

8.21 

8.00 

8.30 

8.00 

8.50 
TABLE 1 (continued) 

Profile 4 NE 

depth velocity 

(km) (km/s) 

0.0 5.90 

1.5 6.10 

1.7 6.20 

9.0 6.70 

26.0 6.20 

33.5 7.20 

40.0 7.28 

45.0 8.00 

46.4 8.01 

Profile 

depth 

(km) 

0.0 

0.2 

5.0 

5.5 

12.0 

17.3 

23.0 

26.5 

37.9 

38.8 

40.2 

5 NE 

velocity 

(km/s) 

5.30 

6.10 

6.60 

6.61 

6.20 

6.70 

6.00 

7.10 

7.15 

8.00 

8.01 

Profile 6 NE 

depth 

(km) 

0.0 

6.5 

6.6 

7.0 

14.0 

14.5 

16.0 

23.0 

42.6 

44.0 

49.0 

54.0 

56.0 

61.0 

66.0 

68.0 

velocity 

(km/ s) 

4.10 

5.50 

6.00 

6.10 

7.00 

8.40 

8.41 

6.00 

8.50 

8.51 

7.70 

8.55 

8.56 

8.10 

8.60 

8.61 

89 

Profile 4 SW 

depth velocity 

( km) (km/ s) 

o.o 6.00 

16.0 6.70 

22.0 6.20 

30.0 7.00 

39.0 7.10 

45.0 8.00 

65.0 8.90 

66.0 8.91 

Profile 5 SW 

depth 

(km) 

o.o 

0.5 

5.0 

5.5 

6.0 

24.0 

24.3 

25.0 

28.0 

28.1 

2~.0 

44.0 

45.0 

velocity 

(km/s) 

5.30 

5.85 

5.90 

6.04 

6.05 

8.33 

8.34 

6.00 

8.35 

8.50 

6.00 

6.01 

8.60 
0 

Riyadh 

• 

200km 

Figure 53. Location map of the seismic refraction profile (dashed line) across 

western Saudi Arabia and the southeastern Red Sea, showing the 

shotpoints (SP). 

90 
<0 

..... J 

I 

lll I : I 

'I' I ~~ 

1 NE l1 ! 1 

-4 

rTTT Tl rr;( I 

.\! '1 i 1·!i 1 1 I ~~ ' ( ~ ' lOC 

I ~~II 

l 111 ~~ 0 25 DISTANCE ( km) so 

Figure 54a. Record section of profile 1 NE. 
co 

L\) 

I --. 

f'.~l 

I 

' I I II I -. 175 ' .-------- • I I -- -

DISTAN:E lkml 150 .--"T -. 125 ' I ' 

Figure 54b. Record section of profile 1 SW (vr = 6 km/s). 

• 

f ~~I!: 

1-

1--2 

1-

fSW I I ,_, --. 100 

I I 

I 

l 

' I 

I 

I 

I 

• I 

~· I 

I 

-, 
. . . . . J 

c 

2 

, .. 0 2:r \ ~ en 

<0 --2 w CD 

- c. ~ c - < ~ < ) 

~~ ;,< ) c ) 4 . ~ ~ ) c c c ~..; :< ) 

~ 

- . c c c ~ 

c c 

- - ...... . ~ 

:E: 40 1 ~r. 

)I( 

.!. -4 - ~ 

~ 

60 . 1-

N 

80 _j ll- -6 - .... 

. ~ 

100 

,-4 -8 

2 4 6 8 

V I KM/S I 

350 

. . . . . I 

0 50 100 150 200. 

X I KH) 

250 300 

Figure 54c. Synthetic record section for profile 1 SW. 
(0 

~ 

275 

1SW 

Figure 54d.l. Record section of profile 1 SW (vr = 8 km/s), part 1 of 3. 
(0 

(1l 

375 

l

ilt 

~ tttt I ~Tlf•-. f il !f!" r ~ : . ,. J h-H ~ th tlifif{[tif t t~rp-U!{~ ~tFr ~l ~ ~ ~- 13;;ri~ i ~ ; 

_.3<: ~1~m""fi.~:J: -. ~.,;,.;r! -z_ :t • T I .. _f ... t~ ~ ~-i .tf$ ~~~~!ill' ~ ..: 

.,._l-1--

•1:f. - dj_i -,-,~\- - ' ~~~~il-t~7 - f- ..;- . . ]: i: f1'~ ir J ot.• ~ ~ 

- I l ' !-f1 ·) t I \ t t j·1 i t} 1 } ~ >! !{t. t~ ) 

I ~ : I ! t ! { l' ~ I Ill~~',.} ' I • I ' . ~ lJ ,. 

!l·! i: !l·~ < 

lll! i ! p: f-._~. f • I , · , -1 < 

{ i 1 I l; i II·~ I 1 l ~ < 

; I I f } ~ ·I ni f ll {l 

1SW 

350 DISTANCE (km) 325 300 

Figure 54d.2. Record section of profile 1 SW (vr = 8 km/s), part 2 of 3. 
(0 

0) 

j1{1i1* 

il11tlt 

tlf t 'l f tl\ . f 1 i o..f{~ ! :F~1~-~.f4 }-~i lfi ~ 

l~!t ~ ~ . ., « ~-'! t~ { 

i;~ ... i:t~ ~ ~~-.; ~ .... --il-'"t -i 

~t:1:T ... tUf!f 

l.f~ i'~ 1 { t li '- 1. 'I ~ ) ~ ~.} ti l" 

'!-t .. ~"~ 

t\{fli 

lflJ}i 

i1tlJ i 

475 

1 til i t -l·l 

r til 

1 t'it 

::JI;:~~ i ~ ~ ~ 

:__ Ji.·· l -~1 

~ f t 

ij t ~ i~ ! f if 

r f ~ -

l 

t { ~ 

~, 

~ 

'). 

~ 

450 

f U )~·-1 T;;/a f i lfll. ~ i J 1\ l } {i -

1 

t ~ j t t ~.. . t h .. L t !it 1 1 11- I}t r -1 ~t -tl f-! ~i\'l ~:tRf-:t'~ ~ 1'!" .. -it-J:- dt ~ 10 ·tt - j J · 1 t .tn 1 ~~J'f ~ ~ ~ \ ~ " . ~-~ §- t ~ .i" ·E.~. ., ·-I- r= ! ~ t ~ r~ -i ~ . l ~-~ ~ ! j. ~~ ~ t.~ ! t f ! ~ ! i ti1 11 i t ~ ll l 1{1 i~ d 1Jli}~ tt1-"'rr':-l-J. ~rl-1- .~ .} ,. } ~ ~ f ~ l '~ 1 I- ~ J ~ 1- ~ ~1 ;-..J.. "f f ~j~- .~ ·~ ~ t - . ~ 1 ~ <' ;.~ ~ :f } 1 ~ 1" -~ .. J i ~ ~ 

t·ti f 111 l t . i 'f1 1-tl. t 1 t 0 t ~- f f t ~~ ~ ll li ll ..J ~ ~ i } li - 425 400 

Figure 54d.3. Record section of profile 1 SW (vr = 8 km/s), part 3 of 3. 
co 

loo.J 

100 125 DISTANCE ( km) 150 

Figure SSa. Record section of profile 2 NE. 

175 

{ 

i 

(' 

~ 

.. 
<0 

(X) 

. .. ~ -~ ) i . !"~ • ' 

~ .: ~ 1-- • ~ • 

• ,. : • • • ~ ;. ;.; iP: • 

-~ > ; ~- ~ • . :::. ., ~ . .. ~ ~-~ 

~ >- • '"'J ~~ r- ~-~ 

~§. .. ·~~ ... : ~ > ~~=;-.. ~- ~ ·i';~ :)> > .. > ~~ • ~ ~ : ~~ ,.. ~.. ~ .: ~ • ,., • . ... ~ ;.:!i: :: > ~ , .. ~~. ..... .-: :, • > =~ ..::.~;.o::. '>"' .. ,. '{ •• ,. ~ , ... ..? " !. .... ~> -:-. · ... ,. """ ·,.-::! > ;- ~ .... :• •• :. ~ ;:,. s. .; • .. • ~ ..j ~ • , .;; "::~ :: ~ .. =-...; ~ . "'! ;o.. ~~ ;;. ; :>~ "7. > •;:..- '-'"->: -: ) ~- :f' ;;;; ;.., .... - :.. ~ ;;;,.!. ~!- •• c r:: ~; ~ ~ :; .: > ; c~ ~;,... ~ • .,: ;-: ~ .. ~: ... ;:":: """,. .;r 'l:r .~ > =~ ~ ... ~;: •• ? ..: ;;._ .... ~;-::; ._ oc::::-o=: s. ;c.;~~....; 'J. ~~.~.,- :~:~~~~·~ .;:2--: ~: : .. ~.: ~ "'~-=fip ~ '-> ;>. ;:.~S~~~j·: :} ... ~-=~?~ .-:;;- ~ : ~~ • ~,_.~"'>·~~ "~~ ·"i::.r:: :<~ ~;::s-. , c~ - ~ -:'"~:or. .~.;., • _,.__;:-.~ • 

.~~~~};~ ~c -· ~t~!t-~>::·"'~-,:..----~~ c;. -., r 

; = ~ '> ;~ 7 -- ~· _&.-::;.. .. --- --~---- --,-t--· --·------ '1 

-:- -i"-['-!·- ·-1- ~~-- ~-· :, I 

~ j .... -- I ! 

~ l 1 H { ~ii{ lr .. )·· .. __ ,)··,·; I 

·l -.. .. I )I . I 

.... :1· --~ I 11 " ' 

i~ 11!1 { l ! II I j' I ~-~ 

:Hr· 

liD 

225 

I 

DISTANCE (km) 150 ~ 125 r ,-----1 T 

200 115 

Figure SSb. Record section of profile 2 SW. 
. . 

2 - ~ 

0 

2SW 

2: j o \' I l en 

co --2 

co lD 

....... 

4 

. ~ 1-~ -~ !!.'; .... .. ... J > 4 , . •jo .. ;-- ~"':: " . ~ . ~ . ~- ~ .. '"""!! ~-~ . 1-

1--C,.- . .. . .. ~ 

- .,. - .... . .. X 

~ 40 _J ....... '- .!. -4 - 1-

~ 

- . ~ N::u -6 

100 -a 

4 6 8 

V lK~/SJ 

- 1-

. -

. . . . . . . 0 50 100 150 200 

X lKMJ 

250 300 350 

Figure 55c. Synthetic record section for profile 2 SW. 
100 

~ 

I 
I I I I 

2 - 1-

. 

-~ 

0 

3SW 2:m (/) 

.... --2 

0 c.o .... .......... 

1- .. _!,_ .... ~ ..... - ... - ..-::! ;-•,_ -.. .: ~ ~ ~ 

- c p. ~ '". ~-

- ~ .. ~ .. - . X 

I 

I: 40 -1 ............ ~ ...... -4 - - ~ 

- . N::u -6 

100 . -8 

- -

' . I 

4 6 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 

V lKM/SJ X ( KM J 

Figure 56b. Synthetic record section for profile 3 SW. 
.... 

0 

t\) 

T-x/6 

_. (s) 

2 

--,0 

I 

-4 

125 

l 

t 

~ 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

4INE 

150 ~-- ---' I I I I I ' ' ' DISTANCE (km) 175 200 225 

Figure 57a. Record section of profile 4 NE. 
...... 

0 

w 

.-

225 2oo DISTANCE ( km) 175 150 

Figure 57b. Record section of profile 4 SW. 
I _l I I I 

2 - -

- 0 

4 sw - 0 I I I I I I (/) 

\ --2 .... 20 j \ t CD 

0 

~ ' X 

~ 40 I 1--4 

~ ~ !!>c ( c 

-~ >c ;> ;:> ;:> ;:>< ( ~ - > < ~ < > ~ ~ <) ;> ( c ) ) ( 

- ( 

> ) ~ - < >· ( 

) c > - < 

- () ..._ 

~ 

- - -

N::u -6 

100 . -8 

- r-

-

I I I 

4 6 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 

V lKM/Sl X l KM l 

Figure 57c. Synthetic record section for profile 4 SW. 
,_, 

0 

'C1.1 

. -;.,--

125 DISTANCE (km) 150 175 200 

Figure 58a. Record section of profile 5 NE. 
I I I I 

5 NE 

2 0 I I I 

20 ~ 

~t ~ 0 

.... ~ 40 (D 0 .......... 0) 

~-2 N 60 t-

- 1-

< 

- <~ 

~ r-

~ < c < 

~ ""- > < < ) 

-~ ~- :> <;> ;> < c ) 1- c 

< c ;> < 

., < c c 

< < c < 1- c c> 

~ 1-

1-

80 ~ I ~ -4 - 1-

100 I ' ' I I 

' I I 

4- 6 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 

V lKM/Sl X lKMl 

Figure 58b. Synthetic record section for profile 5 NE. 
-----~------

107 
1-1 

0 

(X) 

T-x/6 

lsi 

2 

" " 0 " 

" " 

6NE 

-4 

0 

.. ' ........... I 

.... 

25 so DISTANCE (km) 75 100 

Figure 59a. Record section of profile 6 NE (vr 6 km/s). 
..... 

0 

co 

T-x/8 

(s) 

10 

,' 

'o 

--·--·-·--·-··-- --·--·--·---·-- --·--·---- , ____ , __ .. _ 

25 50 75 100 125 

Figure 59b.l. Record section of profile 6 NE (vr 8 km/s), part 1 of 3. 
..... 

..... 

0 

---~--·--·-- ·----·--.~-_, __ .. _ 

6NE 

100 125 DISTANCE (km) 

150 175 200 

Figure 59b.2. Record section of profile 6 NE (vr = 8 km/s), part 2 of 3. 
.... 

.... 

.... 

0 

-· 

F~ 

'. 

t 

6NE 

i 

..fO i ~ -, I ~ I -T 

225 

. 

.. 

, 

. 

250 

1 

l.:tJ 

' I 

275 

Figure 59b.3. Record section of profile 6 NE (vr 

, 

' I 

300 

--.--------,------ "T 

325 

8 km/s), part 3 of 3. 
.... 

.... 

1.\) 

RED 

100 ' 200 

5 

ARABIAN SH 

Hijaz-Asir province 1 Najd province 

a.- ' Mosh'ob 

~ 

300 1400 

4 

500 ' 600 Distance (km) 3 

Velocity (km/s) 

,,, ,,,,y 'J.~ 

80 

40 

E L D 

I 

100 

Shammor province 

~ Sobhall 

~Pl.ATF~ I NE 

l 

~= 

i40 

........ 8.4 km/s 

.·:-:·:··.·:·· .. · .. ·. 

taoo 

2 

80 

900 

·:_; 

... ::> 

t100o eo 

1 

eo 

Figure 60. Model of the lithosphere beneath the Arabian Shield in western 

Saudi Arabia. See Part 1 for explanation. 
.... 

.... 

w 

:J.O 

I • 4 

(1J -0.2 

E 

•rt-

"'0 

(1J 

u 

-6 -J .a Q) 

0::: 

-3 ... 

-5.0 

o.o 

6 + 

.IIIIIIIII'IINIIIIIII• HII 111~-tf4l:t.::f:+ :t +;-s...~~:. .. + 

* + ·~+~+ 

++ 

2'0.5 40.9 61 .4 e1 .a 102'.J 122-1 143-2' 163-6 184 .1 204 .s 

Distance (km) 

Figure 61. Traveltimes of rays (crosses) traversing the real model from shotpoint 4 to the south-southwest compared with some observed traveltimes (triangles) of the main reflected phases. 
.... 

..... 

~ 

TEST 3.4Hz· 

0 I I I I I I I 

20 

l: 40 ~ 

N 60 

80 

1 00 I I I I : I 

4 6 8 

V lKM/Sl 

...1_ 

2-

-

; om~s 

X 

I -2- ~ 

t-

-

-4-

I 

0 50 

1 

I 

I 

I 

~ I 

T 

I 

I 

...1_ _1_ 

< 

~ 

<l~~~~ <; <- ~ 

I I 

1 00 150 200 

X lKMJ 

Figure 62a. Simplified model of profile 5 NE and synthetic record section 

computed for a main frequency of 3.4 Hz. 

I 

rtrt4 rtt-

' 

250 
.... 

..... 

en 

I I I I 

TEST 6.7 Hz I 2 

0 

20 -1 

~ 40 j 

N 60 

80 ~ 

100 I 

4 

v 

I I -

- -~ 

-~ 

L r- ~ 0 

l f (D 

......... 

>;'- 2 

t--

-~ .. - .. . ~- .. -~ .. .. 

.. :1 

- .. : 

-

-

I ~ -4 -

I I I I 

I I 

6 8 0 50 1 00 150 200 

(KM/Sl X (KMl 

Figure 62b.l. Synthetic record sections computed for the main frequency of 

6.7 Hz. 

I 

-

-

-

._ . 

. ._ 

r-

~ 

I 

250 
.... 

.... 

CJ) 

TEST 13.,Hz 

0 I 

20 

I: 40 ~ 

-

N 60 

80 i 

100 I 

4 

I 2 

~ 0 

lD 

........... 

~-2 

1--

I ~ -4 

' ' 

6 8 0 50 100 150 200 

V (KM/Sl X (KMl 

Figure 62b.2. Synthetic record sections computed for the main frequency of 

13.4 Hz. 

250 
·A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE SAUDI ARABIAN DEEP SEISMIC SOUNDING DATA 

By Zeng Rong-sheng, Hu Hong-siang, and Zhang Shao-quan 

Institute of Geophysics 

State Seismological Bureau of China 

Beijing, China 

CORRELATION OF PHASES AND TRAVELTI}lli CURVES 

We have analyzed the data from shotpoints 1-4; the typical 

curve is shown in figure 63. P1 is the refracted wave from the 

basement, showing an increase in velocity from 6.0 to 6.3 km/s. 

stop at a distance of about 140 km from shotpoint 3. 

traveltime 

crystalline 

P

1 

seems to 

Two reflections, P; and P~, can be identified in later arrivals in the 

record sections from nearly all the shotpoints. Other reflections may appear 

at varying distances, but they cannot be correlated with confidence. 

At a distance greater than 180 km, three phases, P~, Pm, and Pn, can be 

distinguished. The first arrival, Pn, with a velocity of 8.1 km/s, can be 

traced to at least 500 km from shotpoint 3. P~ has a velocity of 7.2-7.6 

km/s; it intersects Pn at a distance of 180 km from the shotpoint. As shown 

below, P~ is related to a boundary just a few kilometers above the ordinary 

Moho discontinuity; this is important in understanding the physical properties 

of the Moho discontinuity. 

Pm is especially clear in the record sections from shotpoint 1 at a 

distance of 250-350 km from the shotpoint. It originates from a boundary in 

the upper mantle. 

At a distance less than 50 km from the shotpoint, the transverse S wave 

(corresponding to P1 ) and the Rayleigh waves of the superficial layer are very 

prominent. 

THE SEDIMENTARY LAYER 

Since there are no available data on the sedimentary layer, we tried to 

derive its velocity from the dispersion of the Rayleigh waves. Both the group 

and phase velocities are calculated by digital processing methods. The results 

for the group velocities of the Rayleigh waves are shown in table 1 and a 

typical group velocity curve is shown in figure 64. The parameters of the 

overburden layer at different shotpoints have been calculated by an inversion 

program. The thickness of the overburden layer is only about 200 m, with a 

corresponding P-wave velocity of 5.2 km/s, assuming that the corresponding 

P-wave velocity of the subterranean layer is 6.0 km/s. The result of the phase 

velocities is similar to that of the group velocities. 

The intercept time of P1 is about 0.4 s. Assuming that the velocity of 

the sedimentary layer is 5.2 km/s, the thickness of the sedimentary layer is 

about 1-2 km. Therefore, the Rayleigh waves are traveling in a guided layer 

much shallower than the sedimentary layer. 

117 
Table 1. Parameters of the overburden layer obtained from 

group velocities of Rayleigh wave dispersion. 

Shotpoint Distance Thickness Shear wave Compressional 

velocity wave velocity 

(km) (km) (km/s) (km/s) 

2 (SW) 21-39 0.22 3.07 5.31 

3 (SW) 12.7-39 0.25 3.04 5.26 

4 (SW) 9-27 0.33 2.99 5.17 

THE UPPER CRUST 

The velocity of P1 appears to increase linearly from 6.0 km/s just 

below the crystalline basement boundary to 6.3 km/s at a depth where a 

velocity inversion may occur. The latter depth corresponds to the deepest 

points of the ray returning to the surface 140 km from the shotpoints and can 

be calcu- lated by using the Herglotz-Wiechert method (results shown in table 

2). The depth of the velocity inversion tends to vary from 7 km at shotpoint 

1 to 14 km at shotpoint 3. 

Table 2. Depth of deepest penetration of P1 • 

Shotpoint 

1 (NE) 

2 (NE) 

2 (SW) 

3 (SW) 

Depth 

6.6 km 

10.9 km 

9.2 km 

14.7 km 

DEEP REFLECTIONS AND REFRACTIONS 

Two strong reflections, Pi and P:, can usually be identified in later 

arrivals. The parameters corresponding to P; and P: at different shotpoints 

were calculated by inverting their traveltimes (results shown in table 3). It 

is interesting that the thickness between P: and P; decreases from 18 km at 

shotpoint 1 to 12 km at shotpoints 2 and 3, while the thickness between P; and 

P1 increases from 12 km at shotpoint 1 to about 20 km at shotpoints 2 and 3. 

Pi, Pm, and Pn are considered to be refractions from three different 

boundaries in the crust and upper mantle. Their synthetic seismograms were 

calculated'(fig. 65) and two possible models of the structure of these phases 

are compared, one with constant interval velocities, and the other with 

velocity gradients above the Pn boundary. The model with constant interval 

velocities between Pi and Pn produces stronger reflections at longer receiving 

distance intervals, in agreement with actual observations. 

Pn is the ordinary refraction from the Moho discontinuity. The depth of 

Pi is always a few kilometers less than that of the Pn refractor. It is more 

118 
likely, therefore, that P; is an ordinary reflection corresponding to the 

shallower boundary P.Q, than a diving wave in the medium just above the Pn 

boundary. 

Table 3. Parameters from the reflections P0 and Po • 

3 4 

Shotpoint l(SW) Shot point 2(NE) Shot point 2(SW) Shotpoint 3(SW) 

v(km/s) h(km) v(km/s) h(km) v(km/s) h(km) v(km/s) h(km) 

pl 5.30 1.76 5.30 1.11 5.30 0.71 5.30 0.93 

P3-Pl 6.23 12.38 6.40 22.18 6.21 18.62 6.36 20.27 

P4-Pi 6.65 18.27 (5.36) (4.05) 6.63 12.65 6.60 11.95 

Eh 32.5 Eh = 27.3 Eh 31. 9S Eh 33.15 

RELIEF OF THE DEEP STRUCTURE 

The relief on the boundaries corresponding to P3 and P4 are obtained 

by using the "common depth method" of reflection (fig. 66). The Moho boundary 

relief is obtained by using the Pn traveltimes, and a uniform velocity model 

has been adopted. A preliminary model of the Pn boundary relief is obtained by 

using the tp and t 0 method as proposed by Soviet geophysicists. Traveltimes 

are then calculated by the ray-tracing method. Successive modifications of the 

model are derived until an ideal fit of the calculated values with the observed 

values of the traveltimes has been obtained (fig. 67). 

119 
..... 

1\) 

0 

~ T - ll I 6 ( sec) 

5 

50 

SHOT POINT 3 ___. SW 

~ co 

--......._ 100 ~150 -

5 

300 -t>A ( km) 

Ot I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7"Rt ~ I I I I I I JO 

pl ............._ ----

-51- " --......... ~ ,-5 

Figure 63. Typical traveltime curve for the seismic refraction profiles. 
V (km/sec) 

3.00 

2. 9 6 

2. 9 I 

2. 8 7 

2.83 

2. 79 

2. 75 

2. 71 

2. 68 

2.64 

2. 6 I ..... 

~ 2.57 ..... 2.54 

2. 5 I 

2.48 

2.45 

2. 42 

2.39 

2.36 

2. 33 

2. 30 

2. 28 

0.116 0.135 0.162 

Group velocity 

/ 

0.203 0.270 0.406 0.608 T (sec) 

/ 

/ 

Figure 64. Dispersion of the Rayleigh waves. 
._. 

1:\.) 

1:\.) 

~l.,··~·.:: .·. ---. r~ t'---

·--

i~~-r 

~~~-t~ ~ ·=---

.... 

., 

liS 

~ 

:..--;:--- I 

i -

UJ111 __ ····-··· . . . . . - . . 

~ 

. . . :;~.c 

.THEDRE TICAL SE I SMDGRRM .AA. r 23, t980 

~ ~--- • ;>·- :a. c :::>Cc ::a.:::: ~ 

,. 

......... -.- : :_ e"' - .!' ~ ,__.- -- ~-~ 

. ~ ~--

> ( 

;> c ~ ~ >--- ,. .> ~ .::> ...----" 

~ ;:_-~,, "' ~ ----~ 

i l 

- ~--. 

-~---- ----~----1--· -- -·--

-- - --- -. . 

Figure 65. Synthetic seismograms for two different models. 

-_.,,..,.., -r ~·<·M 

.-1 - .. ,..., 
SP3 SP2 SPl 

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 

IO·t ro ~ 

201 

Ro v'\ po~-

::::w:::: 

3 .... Po~-~ 3 " +20 

3 

..... I 30t 

0 

1.\) Po p40~~ 

p4 /''<-.\~ t30 

(A) t- r-IJ-.·: 4 

Cl.. -~-

w 

401 

..---.......-.---- ~ ,.,..., ---...... p 

n 

0 +40 

Figure 66. Relief of the P;, P;, and Pn boundaries. 
SW NE 

o-r-----

1 

(.) -5 

LLJ 

en 

-900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 ./_ I I I I I I I 

! :',:J --~- :·::::~ ~~=~~~:~:ry model I '* l ~<< --- Modified model 

-20 

~ SP6 SP5 SP4 SP3 SP2 SPl 

~ 0 

- 10 

:E f ~', _ -- - - Preliminary model 

~ 20 ~ ~ v = 6.3 km/sec --- Modified model 

::1: 

~ 

~ ~, ----- ll.l 

0 401 - v = 

I I 

-900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 

DISTANCE {KM) 

Figure 67. Relief of the Pn boundary obtained by the ray-tracing method. 
ONE-DIMENSIONAL VELOCITY-DEPTH FUNCTIONS DETERMINED FOR 

THE ARABIAN SHIELD AND THE SOUTHWESTERN RED SEA: 

A COMPARISON OF MODELS 

By W. D. Mooney, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, and 

M. E. Gettings, U.S. Geological Survey, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

INTRODUCTION 

The use of the Saudi Arabian seismic refraction data (Blank and others, 

1979; Healy and others, 1982) at the IASPEI Commission on Controlled Source 

Seismology Workshop resulted in as many as 14 interpretations of the 

velocity-depth structure along the profile. The bases for these individual 

interpretations forms the bulk of this workshop volume. We here compare and 

discuss these interpretations in order to identify the common aspects as well 

as those aspects with a significant diversity of interpretation. we expect 

that future analyses of these data will help resolve the structure in those 

portions of the crust and upper mantle with the greatest diversity of 

interpretation. 

SHOTPOINTS 1 AND 2 

We begin our comparison of the various crustal models presented at the 

CCSS workshop by considering those between shotpoints 1 and 2 (fig. 68). We 

have generalized the features of the original models in quoting average thicknesses and velocities. The models are generally in excellent agreement. The 

crust is shown as 40 + 2 km thick with an upper crust about 20 km thick and an 

average velocity of about 6.15 km/s, and a lower crust also about 20 km thick 

and an average velocity of about 6.6 km/s. Many models do not show homogeneous crustal layers, but rather velocity gradients, discontinuities,and 

low-velocity zones. We also note that calculation of an "average" velocity of 

6.15 km/s loses any physical significance in a crust composed of velocity 

layers of, say, 6.45 and 5.85 km/s; the average velocity actually does not 

exist anywhere in the model. Two of the models show low-velocity zones in the 

upper crust, although model 2 indicates only a slight velocity reduction (0.1 

km/s) as compared with that of model 1, which indicates a significant velocity 

reduction (0.6 km/s). Within the upper crust there is considerable scatter in 

the details of the structures. Models 4, 5, and 12 have a one-layer upper 

crust, models 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, and 11 have two or more layers, and models 13 

and 14 show the entire crust as being characterized by velocity gradients 

rather than layers. Likewise, in the lower crust the models range from a 

single layer to multiple layers to gradient models. The crust-mantle boundary 

is modeled as a first-order discontinuity in all but one of the models, where 

it is spread out over several kilometers (model 13). Only models 11, 13, and 

14 show velocities in the lowermost crust greater than 7.0 km/s (model 2 did 

not reach the crust-mantle boundary). Model 13 shows considerable structure 

below the crust-mantle boundary, with successive regions of high and low 

velocity. 

The source of the differences in the various interpretations shown in the 

crustal sections may be confusing. In the course of the presentations at the 

cess meeting, it became evident that the main source of differences in the 

125 
final models is the phase correlation of the data. As discussed in the introduction to the volume, the term "phase correlation" refers to the process of 

identifying, within a seismic record section, those arrivals which refract or 

reflect from the same feature of the crustal or mantle velocity structure. For 

example, the Pi phase refracts along the top of the lower crust, while the PmP 

phase reflects from the M-discontinuity. Knowledge of the expected amplitude 

and frequency of a particular phase, on the basis of experience and theoretical 

considerations, facilitates its correlation in the record section, but the complexity of the typically observed wave field leads to some subjectivity in the 

interpretation of the phases. Examples of phase correlations are given in the 

contribution by C. Prodehl (this volume). Different methods of traveltime and 

amplitude analysis of given identical phase correlations will produce nearly 

the same result. Conversely, different correlations will result in markedly 

divergent models. A comparison of models 5 and 6 (fig. 68) provides an example 

of a difference in interpretation resulting directly from a difference in phase 

correlation. The phase correlation of model 6 includes the identification of 

arrivals reflecting from a boundary within the upper crust at a depth of 12.5 

km. Model 5 is not derived from this phase correlation. Both models 5 and 6 

are apparently based on nearly the same phase correlation of mid-crustal and 

crust-mantle phases (arrivals returning from depths of about 20 and about 39 

km, respectively). For this reason the depths and velocities of those portions 

of models 5 and 6 agree reasonably well. However, even these correlations must 

have been somewhat different because, for example, model 6 has both a higher 

average velocity of the entire crust and a thinner crust. These two factors 

imply that the phase correlations of the arrivals from the mantle were earlier 

in time than those of model 5. Examination of the record sections (see contribution by C. Prodehl) reveals how relatively small (+0.2 s) differences in 

phase correlation can arise, particularly when emergent secondary arrivals are 

being interpreted. 

Another reason for differences in the interpretations is that most of them 

were prepared specifically for the cess workshop and are not final interpretations prepared after exhaustive trial-and-error modeling or direct inversion. 

Some interpretations show the simplest possible model consistent with the data, 

while others are based on the most detailed model permitted by the data. 

Therefore, the compiled sections should be considered with the informal nature 

of the workshop in mind. 

Velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoints have been estimated by extrapolating the more reliable determinations made between shotpoints. The 

composite figure of the velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 1 (fig. 69) 

gives an estimate of the range of models permitted by the data. In this 

figure, the crust appears to be characterized by a simple crust from 0 to 15 

km depth with an average velocity of 6.15 km/s, underlain by a zone of 

considerable scatter in estimated velocity between 15 and 20 km depth, and a 

simple crust from 20 to 40 km depth with an average velocity of 6.6 km/s. The 

crust-mantle boundary appears to be marked by a large velocity discontinuity 

in all but one model. The upper mantle velocity is 8.2 + 0.1 km/s. 

The comparison of the velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 2 (fig. 

70) is of particular interest because long-range data were collected from shotpoint 1 southwest of shotpoint 2 that define both the crustal and upper mantle 

structure beneath the shotpoint. The average upper crustal velocity is 6.25 

km/s, 0.1 km/s higher than that at shotpoint 1. Most interpretations of the 

mid-crustal boundary are clustered around 20 km depth, and the average lower 

crustal velocity is 6.6 km/s, the same as for shotpoint 1. The average depth 

126 
to the M-discontinuity is 2 km shallower than the average interpretation at 

shotpoint 1, and there is somewhat more scatter in the interpreted depths. 

There is considerable scatter in the estimated sub-Moho velocity, averaging 

8.1 km/s. Between 40 and 50 km depth, there is general agreement for either 

an upper mantle velocity gradient or velocity discontinuities. Two of the 

three models that continue below 50 km show velocity discontinuities between 

60 and 70 km depth. 

SHOTPOINTS 3, 4, AND 5 

Farther southwest along the profile, the comparison of velocity-depth 

functions beneath shotpoint 3 (fig. 71) shows a pattern virtually identical to 

that for shotpoint 2. Average crustal velocities and thicknesses are nearly 

identical to those beneath shotpoint 2 and the scatter in interpretations is 

similar in magnitude. There appears to be general agreement in a velocity 

increase in the upper mantle between 40 and 60 km depth, either gradually or 

discontinuously. Two models also show velocity discontinuities at 70 km depth, 

the latter interpretation based on the long-range data from shotpoints 1 and 6. 

One of the models shows a pronounced low-velocity zone between 60 and 70 km 

depth. 

No comparison of crustal columns has been made for the region between 

shotpoints 2 and 3 because there is no refraction reversal (shotpoint 3 was 

recorded only 75 km to the northeast). The crustal columns between shotpoints 

3 and 4 (fig. 72) show considerable scatter in the interpretation of layer 

thickness (for example, models 5 and 6, and 13 and 14), although some models 

are in extremely close agreement (for example, models 10, 11, and 12). 

Average crustal thickness is 40 km. The upper crust is generally agreed to be 

22 + 2 km thick with a 6.3 km/s average velocity. The lower crust has a 

velocity of 6.7 + 0.13 km/s in eight cases and a velocity greater than 7.0 

km/s below the 6~7 km/s material in three cases. The velocity of the uppermost mantle is 8.1 + 0.1 km/s, and one or more upper mantle discontinuities 

are found in four of the 11 interpretations. It seems likely that much of the 

scatter in the interpretations of crustal thickness is due to the high 

dominant frequency (about 10 Hz) of the seismograms recorded from these 

shotpoints. The record sections from this part of the profile show unusually 

high amplitudes, presumably due to a high average Q (low seismic attenuation) 

in the upper crustal rocks. This has made phase correlation of the data 

particularly difficult. Bandpass filtering of the data would probably improve 

its usefulness. 

The comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 4 (fig. 73) 

reveals a general consensus of an average velocity of 6.3 km/s and an upper 

crustal thickness of 22 km, as well as good agreement on the 6.7 km/s average 

velocity between 20 and 30 km depth. In the lower crust the models indicate 

that either the velocity continues at 6.7 km/s with depth, or the velocity 

increases rapidly with depth, reaching 7.6-7.8 km/s just above the M-discontinuity. Upper mantle velocity structure has been identified in several models, 

the velocity generally increasing with depth in either a smooth gradient or a 

series of high and low velocities. An upper mantle discontinuity is observed 

in at least two models at both 55 and 72 km depth. 

The comparison of crustal columns between shotpoints 4 and 5 (fig. 74) 

shows a smaller scatter in crustal thickness, 40 + 2 km, than was obtained 

between shotpoints 3 and 4. There is considerable disagreement as to whether 

there is an upper crustal boundary at about 15 km depth. Seven models show a 

127 
discontinuity at about that depth and five models do not. Seven models 

identify a discontinuity at about 22 km depth and four do not. Three models 

show discontinuities at both depths, and several models show changes in 

velocity gradient at those depths. 

The lower crust is modeled with a nearly uniform velocity of 6.7 + 0.15 

km/s in seven models, and with velocities greater than 7.0 km/s in the-lowermost crust in four models. Five models show velocity gradients or discontinuities in the upper mantle or both, based largely on the long-range data from 

shotpoint 6. 

SHOTPOINTS 5 AND 6 

Before discussing the comparison of the velocity-depth interpretations 

between shotpoints 5 and 6, it is appropriate to refer to a geologic map of 

the region where these profiles were recorded (fig. 75). For logistical 

reasons, records were obtained only on the coastal plain and on islands in the 

Red Sea, resulting in the largest interstation spacing in the region of 

strongest lateral heterogeneity (the ocean-continent transition). This factor 

should be considered when comparing the models. 

Shotpoint 5 is located approximately 5 km east of the point at which 

Precambrian rocks meet the Tertiary mafic dikes of the Tihamat-Asir (coastal 

plain), marking the shield-Red Sea boundary. Considering its proximity to this 

important crustal boundary, it is most appropriate to discuss in terms of twodimensional models. 

In comparing the crustal columns between shotpoints 5 and 6 (fig. 76), all 

interpretations, except model 2, show a thin crust, 14 km thick being average. 

There is a wide scatter of values of upper crustal velocity; all but one model 

show velocities less than 6.7 km/s above 10 km depth. Below 10 km depth, four 

models show velocities above 7.0 km/s while others reach theM-discontinuity 

with no lower crustal velocities above 7.0 km/s. The upper mantle velocity 

shows considerable scatter, with values between 8.0 and 8.65 km/s. Five models 

show low-velocity zones in the upper mantle above 40 km depth and nine models 

show some upper mantle structure, either a low-velocity zone(s) or a velocity 

discontinuity. 

The comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 6 (fig. 77) 

reveals a general agreement between models that the crust is as thin as oceanic 

crust, about 12 km. The velocity structure is very difficult to resolve in the 

crust itself, based on the available data. The consensus is that it increases 

rapidly from 4.5 to 6.7-6.8 km/s over the 12-km depth to Moho, a structure also 

typical of oceanic crust. 

The interpretations of the upper mantle structure from shotpoint 6 NE show 

considerable scatter. It should be noted that for the long-range data from 

shotpoint 6 the ray paths do not bottom beneath the Red Sea, but rather beneath 

the continent (see fig. 49). Notable aspects of the interpreted velocity 

structure are an uppermost mantle velocity of 8.0 km/s, a low-velocity zone 

(6.0-6.7 km/s) between 18 and 35 km depth, an increase in velocity to 8.2 km/s 

at 35 km depth, and a velocity increase to 8.45 km/s at about 68 km depth. 

This complicated velocity structure in the upper mantle may be a direct consequence of the mantle convection process that is evidently operating near the 

Red Sea. 

128 
SUM}UlRY 

We summarize this discussion of the CCSS interpretation of the Saudi 

Arabian data: 

1. The 21-km-thick upper crust of the shield has an average velocity of 

6.25 km/s. In some regions there are small velocity discontinuities and lowvelocity zones. 

2. The 19-km-thick lower crust of the shield is separated from the upper 

crust by a seismic discontinuity at which the velocity increases by 0.2-0.4 

km/s. The average velocity of the lower crust is about 6.7 km/s. Velocities 

greater than 7.0 km/s may be present in the lowermost crust. 

3. The M-discontinuity is probably a transition zone 2-5 km thick and 

occurs at an average depth of about 40 km. The uppermost mantle velocity is 

8.0-8.2 km/s, and there is evidence that this velocity increases laterally 

from 8.0 km/s beneath the Red Sea to 8.2 km/s beneath the Arabian Platform. 

4. There is considerable evidence for fine structure in the upper mantle, 

including low-velocity zones and velocity discontinuities between 40 and 70 km 

depth. 

5. The detailed structure of the crust and upper mantle is difficult to 

resolve between shotpoints 5 and 6, the Arabian Shield-Red Sea transition 

zone. Models derived from the available data show a change in crustal 

thickness from 12 km in the Red Sea to 40 km on the shield, and considerable 

upper mantle structure. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

A general consensus was reached at the cess meeting on recommendations for 

future seismic refraction and reflection work in areas of strong heterogeneous 

structure, such as the continent-Red Sea transition in western Saudi Arabia: 

1. Parallel-to-structure refraction profiles are needed in regions of 

complex structure, such as along the coastal plain and in the Red Sea. 

2. Perpendicular-to-structure profiles must be densely recorded and 

should include considerable data redundancy. 

3. Critically placed seismic reflection profiles would help resolve 

details in the areas of greatest structural complexity. In the present case, 

reflection profiles crossing the Hijaz-Asir escarpment would help in 

understanding the structure across this rift boundary. 

REFERENCES 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. c., Lamson, R. J., Fischer, F., 

McClearn, R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia--field operations, instrumentation and initial results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

Healy, J. H., Mooney, W. D., Blank, H. R., Gettings, M. E., Kohler, W. M., 

Lamson, R. J., and Leone, L., 1982, Saudi Arabian seismic deep-refraction 

profile, final project report: U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian 

Mission and Directorate General of Mineral Resources Open-File Report 

USGS-OF-02-37, 370 p., 9 plates. 

129 
.... 

w 

0 

SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

COMPARISON OF CRUSTAL MODELS 

BETWEEN SP 1 & SP2 (70 km NE of SP2) 

MODEL NO. l 14 

0 

10 

20 

-:E 30 ~ 

-

::I: 40 ..,_ I 8.1 

0.. 

lJJ 50 

0 

60 

70 

80 

Figure 68. 

I I 

I I 

6.12 I I 6.1 I 

6.15 I I 

L I I -, I 6.4 1 

I I J 

1----1 I 

I I I 

6.55 I I I 

I 6 6 I 6. 6 I 

I · I I 

I I I 

I I 1 I • 8.15 1 r 7.9 

8.1 

I 6.1 I 

I I 

I I 

I I I 6.35 1 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I ~ 

I 

I 

I 6.65 I 

I 

I 

I I I 

7.9 

I~ 1---1 I- 6.0 --i .~ 6.0 I 6.2 

I I I I I I 6.2 I I i6.1 

I 6.3 I I I I 

I I I I I 

I I I I I 

I l 6·

5 I 6.3 r 6 ·

4 -:-6.3 

I I 6

"

8 1"7sl I 

I 6. 5 I 1- --t I 

I L1.0-J 6 8 I 68 _j I I I · r· I 

I I 1 t-7.0--1 7.6 I ~ ~- ~ 8.1-8.2 L-- 7.4 ~ 8.o ~=== =I r 

l-8.0-t 

8.2 1 t"-8.2-1 

I I 

L-8.4 I 

1·7.·8· .... ::1 I . :.·:·~·~ 

1-8.45-l t· ..... •I 

f 7.8 : ·:. ·::l13 CONT. 

r-8.5 ----

~·······-~J 8.55 

11: ~ ~·:::;: ~ l ::·:: :-:-::.:: , .. ····"'"l-80 

r8.55 

l.::·:·:-::::1 8.65 

Comparison of crustal models between shotpoints 1 and 2. Velocities are in kilometers per second. Velocity discontinuities are 

indicated by solid lines with velocities above and below the line; 

isovelocity lines are indicated by velocities on the lines (for 

example, model 13). Moho is the thick solid line. Low-velocity 

zones are stippled. Key: 1 - Ansorge and others; 2 - Firbas; 3 -

Forsyth and others; 4 - Gettings; 5 - Ginzburg; 6 - Maguire; 7 -

McClain and Orcutt; 8 - Milkereit and Flub; 9 - Miller; 10 -

Mishenkin and others; 11 - Mooney; 12 - Pavlenkova and Yurov; 13 -

Prodehl: 14 - Zeng. 
SPI 

VELOCITY km/s 

4,0 5.0 6-0 7. 0 e.o 9.0 

0 

10 

20 

- 30 

e 

~ 

- 40 

~ 50 .... 

'L GO 

I.LI 

0 70 

Figure 69. Comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 1. Average velocity section was obtained by inspection. 

131 
SP 2 

VELOCITY k'm/S 

4.0 5.0 a.o AVERAGE 

0 6J 

- 10 6.25 

20 

30 6.60 

-E 40 .¥ 

-

~ 

8.10 

~ 

a.. 60 

liJ 

0 70 

8.4 

so 

Figure 70. Comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 2. Average velocity section was obtained by inspection. 

132 
% 

1-

Q. 

lLI 

0 

10 

50 

60 

70 

80 

SP3 

VELOCITY km/s 

4.0 

6.25 

6.65 

8.15 

8.4 

Figure 71. Comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 3. Average velocity section was obtained by inspection. 

133 
.... 

w 

~ 

SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

COMPARISON OF CRUSTAL MODELS 

BETWEEN SP3 & SP4 ( 105 km NE of SP4) 

MODEL NO. l 

I 

2 3 4 14 

:& 

~ 

2: 

~ 

Q. 

"" 0 

0 I ~" I I -. .. ., I I I I I 

6.1 I 

6.15 I I 

10.., .,_, i i 1 v.----. 1 I I I I I I 

I 6~ I 

I I 

20J::t~''-J I I I I 

I I I I 6.5-; I I I I I 6.6---i I 6.83 I I 6.6 I 

30 6.75 l ! I I 6.6 ~ I I I I 

i i 8.15 i 40fl I I i "~ I I I ~8.1- I I I 8.1 I 8.3 I 

I I I I 8.1 I 

50 ! ! I I I I 

L__l 

I 8.7 I 

60 -t i i i i u r:·· ·:. 7.8·:.1 ·····~ 

l;::.·: .".\" ~ 

70-l i i i i t:;·:-:·::."-:~ 

~ 0 

I 

80 . I 9.3 I 

I 6.1 I 

I 6.3 I 

I I 

I 6.35 I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

1 6.45 1 

1 6.65 1 

I i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 1 6.95 

l 8.15 I 

I 8.1 . 

~ 

6.0 

6.2 

I 6.4 I 

t":-: 6. 6-:-:1 I""···· ""J ~-6~4~ 

~····:.:::~ 6.2 I j I 6.6 I 

r ---, 6.4 I 6.3 I 

1-- I I 

1 6·

7 I L 6.6...J 

6.6 ........ 6.8~ 6.6 I 6. 8 I 

6.0 

I I I 7·0 I 

I I I I I 

I I 7. 8 I I I 

I 8.15 I 8.2 I 8.0 I 8.0 I 

I I ;.:-~ i 8.2 I 

l:-:-:8.2yt 

E:::t8 oZ.U .:! • . ·::1 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I 8.25 I 

I I 1 8.35 I 

I I 

1 8.351 

I 8.5 I 

I I 

I I 

,8.4~ 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

Figure 72. Comparison of crustal models between shotpoints 3 and 4. Symbols 

same as in figure 68. 
SP 4 

VELOCITY km/s 

4.0 AVERAGE 

0 -6.15• 

10 6.30 

20 

6.70 

30 

- 7.35 E 

"" 40 

- e.1 o 

%: 50 

tQ. 

liJ 8.4 

Q 70 

80 

Figure 73. Comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 4. Average velocity section was obtained by inspection. 

135 
.... 

w 

0) 

SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

COMPARISON OF CRUSTAL MODELS 

BETWEEN SP4 & SP5 ( 135 km NE of SP5) 

MODEL NO. 1 

0~ 6.33 

10 

20 

-

~ 

:.: 30 

:J: 40 ~ 

Q. 

l&J 50 0 

60 

70 

80 

6 I I . 3 6. 2 16.24t.o41 6.15 1 I I 6.35 I 

!- I I I 

1 6.4 I I I I I I I I 6.40 I 

I I I 6.5 I I 6.65 I 

I I I 

I I I 

I 6.83 1 I I I 6.6 I 

I I I 

I 8.18 ,.,_ .... 

1 8.1 

8.4 

8.3 

8.5 

I 6.2 I 

I 6.3 I 

6.2 1-----"1 

I I 

I I small dip I I 

-.::.:.:..J I . I I f.62 LVZI 

I 6 4 I 6.4 ~·:·:.:·:·:·1 I . I ::::::;:::1 

6.6 I 6.7 I 6.6 ii·s.6~ I I I I 

t--6.8--t r 1.0-; 

I I I I I 

I I I I ..J. 

I I 7.

8

j8.1-8.2 

1 

I 

~ ~ 

8.0 I 

8.0 t----1 L8.4~ 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 8.3 I I 

I I 

I I I 

1 8.5 I I 

I I I 

I I I 

14 

Figure 74. Comparison of crustal models between shotpoints 4 and 5. Symbols 

same as in figure 68. 
30° 70° 

45° 

\ 

\ 

\ Riyadh \ 

' 0 

' ' ' 

SHAM MAR 

TECTONIC PROVINC " '\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I 

I 

NAJD I 

I 

TECTONIC I 

PROVINCE I 

I 

I 

' I " I 

IQ 

1-.J 

HIJAZ- ASIR ,.., 

TECTONIC ~ 

PROVINCE 

KM 200 

Figure 75. Location map of the 1978 seismic refraction profile across western 

Saudi Arabia and the southeastern Red Sea showing the shotpoints 

(SP), the profile line (heavy line), and the tectonic provinces. 

137 
SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

COMPARISON OF CRUSTAL MODELS 

BETWEEN SP5 & SP6 (70 km NE of SP6) 

3 4 _ 5 6 . 7 B g . 10 . Jl 12 13 

E:'::5.5~ --8 I 4.5 I 14.3 6.0-~ 5.0 I 3.2 ~ q,o r---1 ··- I ...... ..., . 

~ ~ 5. 1 I I I- ~ 6.2 I 6.0 1 J 1 4.8 I 

6

_

0 

! 

t:::: ::::::1 I 612 I I I 6.0 I I 64-6.7 I 6 2 I I 6.6 I 

14 

SP6 t-6.3.-L__I . I I _. I I I . I 6.2 I 6.8 I 

t- ---r-1 6.7 I 6.6 16.5 6.r: 6.5 l 8.l I 6.6-' 6.4 i 8.1 I 

t- -1 7.2 I . . ~ --I 8.0.. ....... ~ a 

2 

I I 

r ::J 1 1 8.1 1 8.2l-1.o 1 F·;:~·~ .. ·:·1 8.2 a.o 1:::: 

6

.·

6

.::1 a.2 1 

C:7.0=:t 813 1 1 80 1 I 1· ·· ·· · .1 I.····· -~-~8~2~. ----1 t::::: ~ I · · ··.·:·.···1 1·.~·::.·:·1··.: · ·:I t::: =I 8.65 I I I I.~; :··:·:. 1 l·::--::·:::1

:·. .o:·~ t: ===I I I ·.. I 1:·.:: · ... 1 1

: :·.· ::·:3

::·.: • •• ~ 1 :=1 1 I ·.·.1 I 1:::.:-::.J :::·.:-::.1::.:;:::~ t- ...-.4W E 1 16.4 .. 31 I 1.-.·::._;-1 1

·.:7.2":.,:·.·:·:-::1 1 ;w ..... ::l I :=:~·;La. 2J-8·

1--i::·7.a::;l a4 F:.:. =~ :·=::.1 

1 Noz 1.01 1 ... ·:=1 1 1 1 t: 84·~ LV VZj I I · · :·:·:1 1 I I 84 I 6.7 I 

:;:·1 I I ~ I 

::.:.1 1 I I 845 I ... ·.1 I I I I . ::I I I I I 

II II 1 8.0 8.3 I 

t- -1 I 

I 8~ I I R3 

I I I I I 

I I ~r-8-5-41 

I I I · I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

Figure 76. Comparison of crustal models between shotpoints 5 and 6. Symbols 

same as in figure 68. 
s p 6 

V E L 0 C I T Y k m/s 

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 

7.5 

- 40 e 

.K 8.20 

-

X 

~ 

Cl. 

1&.1 8.45 

0 

Figure 77. Comparison of velocity-depth functions beneath shotpoint 6. Average velocity section was obtained by inspection. 

139 
A COMPARISON OF CRUSTAL SECTIONS: 

ARABIAN SHIELD TO THE RED SEA 

By Walter D. Mooney, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, and 

Claus Prodehl, University of Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany 

INTRODUCTION 

The use of the Saudi Arabian seismic refraction data (Blank and others, 

1979; Healy and others, 1982) at the IASPEI Commission on Controlled Source 

Seismology workshop made possible the compilation of ten complete crustal 

sections from the Red Sea across the Arabian Shield to the Arabian Platform. 

These sections (figs. 78-87) are presented on the same vertical and horizontal 

scale to facilitate a discussion of lateral variations in structure which were not evident in 

the previous figures of this workshop volume. The sections vary in detail from 

presenting only the general outline of the structure to more complete presentations of the crust and upper mantle. 

We make no comparison of layer thicknesses and velocities, nor do we discuss the different methods of interpretation; the interested reader should 

refer to the previous section (Mooney and Gettings) for the former and to the 

individual contributions for the latter. The crustal sections presented here 

are as given at the workshop in August 1980. They may differ in detail with 

the revised contributions included in this volume or with the latest work of 

the investigators. In any case, the sections indicate the variation in 

possible interpretations. 

Ansorge, Banda, Benz, Mueller, and Smith 

The model of Ansorge and others (fig. 78) features a crust about 22 km 

thick at the eastern Red Sea and a mantle velocity of 7.8 km/s. These authors 

indicate the possibility of an upper mantle discontinuity at about 37 km 

beneath the Red Sea. Within the shield, their model consists of a three-layer 

crust that is locally perturbed by an extra high or low-velocity layer. 

Between shotpoints 4 and 5 they show a 6.5 km/s layer in the midcrust. The 

crust then consists of the basic three-layer model in the distance range 340 

to 740 km from shotpoint 6, with an upper mantle velocity of 8.1 km/s. From 

740 to 960 km, (mainly between shotpoints 1 and 2), the crust takes on an 

entirely different character; there are five layers, including a low-velocity 

zone. This change in interpreted structure may indicate a fundamental change 

in crustal composition and tectonic history for that portion of the profile. 

Gettings 

Gettings' model (fig. 79) describes the crustal structure in terms of a 

simple model, with statistical uncertainties assigned to the layer velocities. 

The Red Sea crust is modeled with three layers with velocities of 4.5, 6.12, 

and 6.7 km/s and a total thickness of 18 km. The mantle velocity is about 8.1 

km/s. Between 140 and 370 km the shield crust thickens to 42 km, then thins 

to about 36 km toward the platform. The continental crust may be divided into 

two types in Gettings' model. From 140 to 600 km it consists of two layers 

with velocities of 6.24 and 6.83 km/s, while from 600 to 975 km it consists of 

two layers with velocities of 6.12 and 6.55 km/s. This lateral change in 

velocity structure implies an important change in crustal composition. 

140 
Ginzburg 

Ginzburg's model (fig. 80) also describes the crustal structure in terms 

of a simple model. The Red Sea is modeled with a 12-km-thick crust with a 

westward-thickening sedimentary wedge. The crust thickens rapidly from 12 to 

36 km between 80 and 140 km, which centers the Red Sea-shield transition 35 km 

west of shotpoint 5. Between 150 and 750 km the continental crust is modeled 

with two layers with velocities of 6.15 and 6.6 km/s. A possibly important 

lateral change occurs west of shotpoint 4 where the intracrustal and crustmantle boundaries shallow abruptly by about 5 km. The crust is then rather 

homogeneous from shotpoint 4 to shotpoint 1. Thus, this model indicates three 

main crustal blocks: the Red Sea, shotpoint 5 to shotpoint 4, and shot point 

4 to shotpoint 1. 

Kosminskaya 

The model presented by Kosminskaya (fig. 81) reveals several strong 

lateral variations. This model includes several features also seen in the 

models of Mishenkin, Mishenkina, and Solovjeva (fig. 84), and of Pavlenkova 

and Yurov (fig. 86). The essential features beneath the Red Sea are a 13-kmthick crustal layer which is underlain by normal mantle of 8.1 km/s velocity. 

The mantle layer extends to 17 km depth and is underlain by an 18-km-thick 

low-velocity zone (6.6-7.2 km/s). At about 35 km beneath the Red Sea the 

velocity discontinuously increases to 8.4 km/s and an additional mantle 

reflector is indicated at 47 km depth. The crust of the shield is composed of 

three layers with velocities of 6.0, 6.2-6.3, and 6.5-6.6 km/s. The largest 

lateral changes are the gradual thinning of the crust northeast of shotpoint 4 

and the thickening of the 6.0 km/s layer northeast of shotpoint 3. 

Maguire 

Maguire's model (fig. 82) is characterized by strong lateral and vertical 

heterogeneities, including some within the upper mantle. The crust in the Red 

Sea is about 11 km thick near shotpoint 6, and the mantle velocity is 8.2 

km/s. There is a low-velocity layer (6.4 km/s) centered at 30 km depth 

beneath shotpoint 6. The continental crust has three basic layers with 

velocities of 6.0-6.2, 6.4, and 6.6-6.7 km/s. This layered structure is 

significantly disrupted by higher and lower velocities in the region northeast 

of shotpoint 5 and beneath the escarpment, and a smaller high-velocity lens is 

depicted in the lower crust at 480 km. The velocity directly beneath the 

crust-mantle boundary decreases systematically from 8.2 km/s beneath the Red 

Sea to 7.9 km/s at the northeast end of the cross section. The upper mantle 

is shown with high- and low-velocity laminations ranging from 7.3 to 9.3 

km/s. The laminations presumably correspond to zones of partial melt 

separated by eclogite or other high-velocity materials. 

Milkereit and Flub 

Milkereit and Fllih presented a velocity cross section (fig. 83) derived 

from two-dimensional ray tracing. Their layer velocities are given as the 

velocity at the top of a boundary and the velocity gradient in km/s/km. The 

crust in the Red Sea is 13 km thick near shotpoint 6 and has a 6.6 km/s lower 

crustal layer. This layer extends only about 40 km to the northeast of 

141 
shotpoint 6 and is replaced by a 6.1 km/s velocity layer. Mantle velocity is 

8.0 km/s beneath the Red Sea. An 8.1 km/s mantle layer underlies the entire 

profile and increases in depth from 62 km at the southwest end to 80 km at a 

point about midway along the profile (600 km from shotpoint 6). There are 

three main crustal layers with velocities of 6.1, 6.35, and 6.65 km/s and 

positive velocity gradients. There are several important lateral changes in 

the continental crustal structure. The 6.65 km/s layer, which has a regional 

depth of about 23 km in the shield, rises to as shallow as 2 km below sea 

level in the region northeast of shotpoint 5. Several changes in crustal 

structure occur between 300 and 410 km from shotpoint 6; the mantle becomes 

nearly flat northeast of 300 km, the 6.65 km/s layer deepens abruptly at 350 

km, and the 6.1 km/s layer begins to thicken at 300 km and again at 410 km. 

These changes result in a different average crustal structure in the southwest 

end of the shield as compared with the central and northeast portions of the 

shield (400 to 910 km). This crustal section, like several others, shows a 

lateral change in structure 30 km southeast of shotpoint 2. Here, the lateral 

change is restricted to the upper crust and consists of a northeastward 

thinning of the 6.1 km/s layer. 

Mishenkin, Mishenkina, and Solovjeva 

The velocity cross section of Mishenkin, Mishenkina, and Solovjeva (fig. 

84) describes the structure with as few layers as possible. The crust in the 

Red Sea is 15 km thick and the upper mantle velocity is 8.2 km/s. Although 

the authors have not modeled the upper mantle in detail, they in~icate that 

there is a region in the upper mantle with an average velocity (v) of 6.7 

km/s. The continental crust is described in three layers with velocities of 

6.0, 6.2, and 6.6 km/~, and the mantle velocity is 8.1-8.2 km/s. There is 

some indication of lateral discontinuities in the crust near shotpoints 4 and 

2, and a lower crustal low-velocity zone is implied by the 6.2 km/s average 

velocity at 38 km depth at 540 km. 

Mooney 

The velocity section presented by Mooney (fig. 85) was derived by· 

two-dimensional ray tracing. The crust beneath the Red Sea is shown as 

thickening toward the shield, increasing from 9 km at shotpoint 6 to 18 km 

near shotpoint 5. The Red Sea crust has three layers, the thickest with an 

average velocity of 6.2 km/s; the upper mantle velocity is 8.0 km/s. Unlike 

many other interpretations, there is no upper mantle low-velocity zone beneath 

the Red Sea. The ocean-continent transition occurs over a relatively short 

distance, about 25 km. The continental crust is modeled with three layers, 

all with positive gradients. The near-surface velocity varies from 6.1 to 6.3 

km/s; the upper crustal layer (22 km thick) is laterally continuous and has an 

average velocity of 6.3-6.4 km/s. The lower crust thickens to the northeast 

and consists of a layer with two distinct gradients; the first is a low 

gradient from 6.7-6.8 km/s, and the second is from 6.8-7.8 km/s, both 

occurring over about 9 km in depth. The only major discontinuity within the 

crust itself is beneath shotpoint 2 where a strong lateral velocity 

discontinuity appears. One of the vertical velocity discontinuities in the 

upper mantle is laterally continuous. 

142 
Pavlenkova and Yurov 

The velocity cross section of Pavlenkova and Yurov (fig. 86) describes the 

crust in relatively simple terms. The crust of the Red Sea is 13 km thick and 

includes a 5-km-thick layer with an average velocity of 6.7 km/s. The 8.1 km/s 

mantle is underlain at 18 km depth by a layer with a velocity of 6.6-7.2 km/s, 

which constitutes an upper mantle low-velocity zone. However, it is also possible to consider this layer as a continuation of the continental lower crust, 

with a mantle sill injected above it from the Red Sea axis. Mantle velocities 

(8.4 km/s) are attained once again at 35 km depth. 

The continental crust is described in two layers with average velocities 

of 6.25 and 6.9 km/s, although two of the three velocity depth profiles (at 

620 and 800 km) indicate some variations from this simple structure. Mantle 

velocity decreases from 8.2 km/s at 200 km to 8.0 km/s beneath the platform. 

Prodehl 

The crustal section of Prodehl (fig. 87), described by isovelocity lines, 

depicts the crust and upper mantle as vertically and laterally inhomogeneous. 

The crust is as thin as 15 km in the Red Sea and thickens to 45 km over a distance of 280 km. The upper mantle beneath the Red Sea contains a large lowvelocity zone (stippled, ~6.0 km/s) underlain by an 8.4 km/s upper mantle 

layer. There are several important lateral changes in the structure within 

the continental crust. Between shotpoints 5 and 4 the 6.6 km/s isovelocity 

contour rises to a depth of as little as 6 km (compare the model of Milkereit 

and FlUh, fig. 83). In this region there is also an elongate low-velocity 

zone (from 120 to 450 km) centered at about 15 km depth. The velocity in the 

lower crust gradually increases to mantle velocity. A second low-velocity 

zone is depicted in the upper crust between shotpoints 4 and 3, below which 

the velocity gradually increases to mantle values. Another lateral change in 

the crust occurs at 880 km (60 km northeast of shotpoint 2). Here the 6.4 and 

6.6 km/s velocity contours begin to rise from about 20 km depth to about 10 

km. Northeast of shotpoint 1 the basement increases in depth and a lowvelocity zone appears in the upper crust. 

The upper mantle structure for this cross section includes a low-velocity 

zone beneath shotpoint 4. Alternating high- and low-velocity layers are shown 

in the upper mantle (50-80 km), but no details can be derived from the available data for lateral variations below the 8.4 km/s contour. 

REFERENCES 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R. J., Fischer, F., 

McClearn, R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of 

Saudi Arabia--field operations, instrumentation and initial results: 

U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

Healy, J. H., Mooney, W. D., Blank, H. R., Gettings, M. E., Kohler, W. M., 

Lamson, R. J., and Leone, L., 1982, Saudi Arabian seismic deep-refraction 

profile, final project report: U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian 

Mission and Directorate General of Mineral Resources Open-File Report 

USGS-OF-02-37, 370 p., 9 plates. 

143 
::1 

1-1 " ~ .... 

~ :z: 

1-

A. 

w 

Cl 

DISTANCE ( K M) 

150 200 250 :500 350 400 450 500 11110 sao 650 700 7110 1100 8110 900 9110 1000 1050 

RED SEA RIFT ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

sw 1+----HIJA£-A&IA 

I 

NAJP PROVINCE_____.:.---- 8HAMMAR PROVINCE NE 

-h AD DA/tll U;-:,1/_;;:~:.::t~~·:\L:;:,.~(,: !&. 

PROVINCE ----o!-o~--

4 eliNAH 

J ~i~~,'~"" 

3 MISH'Ae I 2 UeHAH 1 AL OUWAf'IVAH 

J l :..r~'!'-\il-m:i:~~: ~- '" ·~'{Y_;;':'"i:_ --~T;.!i_~ 

.L__ -··· ~ 2000 

0 .JL 

6.~~ 

10 

6.5 20 

6.8 30· 

7.'8' ' 

40 8.1 

so· 

60 

70 

80 -

0 110 100 1~0 

Figure 78. 

6.~ 

6.~ 6.~ 

-

6.5 

-

6.8 6.75 6.75 

8.1 8.1 8.1 

200 2~0 300 3110 400 4BO 1100 11110 600 

ANSORGE, BANDA:tBENZ, MUELLER,•SMITH 

6.~ 

-----------~~fi.6s 

6.4 

... ..,, 

. ~ 

6.8 

- 8./ 

650 700 7110 BOO ado 900 9110 

(Zurich ;'Salt Lalce City) 

Crustal section of Ansorge, Banda, Benz, Mueller, and Smith. 

1000 

l-lo 

20 

30 

40 

l-110 

l-60 

70 

I I 80 

10110 
DISTANCE ( K M) 

I qo., I ,

1

qo, I I •

1

}50. I •

2

?0 , I ~. I I ,SfC!' I ~' I 4f'! I ,4f0 I I .Sf~ I 

5f0 t ,lfC! I I .•ro p~' ,1~ 'flO I 8

?

0

• I .er: I I .•r. I I ~. I •

10.'f RED SEA RIFT A R A B I A N S H I E L 0 ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

SW 1• "1 J A z- • •• R , R o v • N c E 1 NAJo PRoveNcE~~ &HAMMAR PRoveNcE NE 

fJ jii'AaA$AN AD DA•• 5 ,f aiSHAH 1 3 IIISH"A• I 2 SAaHAH 1 J AL OUWA W'"IYAH 

2000,1 1 ,.L&:~·~;:$i:~~\%:£~i!i;\~Wi?;"i;aia«·iltiWAAY*MM*4' 1 .- LA%. >t,¥h§W¥tM· !.«·WMiMitHtRt: ·nt,w&•· t·=J 2000 

6.24 :t.04 

6.83:!:'.02 

8.18:t.08 

~~-­

..,.,.,."""' 

6.12 ±.03 

6.!15 ±'.12 

8.15 ±.05 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

10 

70 

1 1 b 1 1 2Ao 1 ~ci 1 1 1 ~ 1

4 bc, · 4 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 150 1000 1050 

GETTINGS (Jiddah) 

Figure 79. Crustal section of Gettings. 
DISTANCE ( K M) 

450 500 550 100 150 700 750 otOO 100 950- 1000 1050 

ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

NAJD PROVINCE~:...,___ &HAMMAR PROVINCE NE 

c 

.,. - - ...... ,_,, 3 IIISH'Aa I 2 SA.HAH ' 1 AL OUWA Y'H''AH 1_ 5 , _L.£j-_:: -«;:;:L;;,::;,-~-:, -'2~:.,:i?fi<~f:ii'EJ~.,;~ ¥;. -4N-9«mMn& -- -·- ! ._,- :-- i .•. i§' ··: t·t4ffi'll;x•;y.;;.." .. *"-l''-a -;;;;A-~- ,/_,,m12000 

1-15 1-11 •.. I, 15 ___,../1 

I 10 10 

20 20 2 ..• lO: ·-· ... 50 :so 

:z: 40 .... 

~ 

... 50 

0) 

,_, •.. 40 

50 

,_, 

c 

10 10 

70 70 

80 -

0 80 

900 -,50 50 100 150 200 2!10 500 550 400 4!10 500 550 600 650 700 750 BOO 850 ·.ooo · · io'ao 

GINZBURG (Tel Aviv) 

Figure 80. Crustal section of Ginzburg. 
.... 

~ 

e..3 

DISTANCE ( K M) 

0 110 2110 300 3110 400 4110 1100 11110 100 8110 700 7110 dOO 8110 900 9110 1000 10.110 

ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

1+----HI.IAZ·AIIR PROVINCE----..-- NAJD PROVINCE ~r---- IHAMMAA PROVINCE NE 

_ v •••""" 3 •ISH'U 2 JAaHAH ~ 1 -*U?,:;g;.()N~f.;;&:,~tr~.;~ ,, HMiUJ!W!ll!!l;f ;; _!~:~ ~ __ ~ _ ·:~·· ., ,,~! ~ l; ~~= •md.oo ._. , 

1 AL QUWA r•lrAH 

6 3 10 

6 2 6.2 

------------------- -------- ~-oo- 20 

30 6.5 

81-82 40 

110 

80 

70 

I I I I I I I u I I I I I 0 I l I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I 'I I 'I I I I I iiI ' I I I I I I I I i I I I' I I i I I 80 3110 400 4110 !1110 600 8110 

Figure 81. 

300 !100 

KOSioiiNSKAYA ( lofOICOW J 

Crustal section of Kosminskaya. 

boundary depth estimates. 

700 7!10 800 8110 100 1110 1000 1050 

Small circles indicate individual 
DISTANCE ( K M) 

1 . qo. . .•f . ... 'fO . ... 2f0 .. ~r ... . !f'! ~ •• 4fK: .. 4fO . ,&f~ .. 5P0 .. . er . •r. ... 7P'? ?~ ~ .. 8?

0 

•••• '?! .. T ... ·~ ... 10., 

ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

1 .. Ls1;;t2~*;i;£:;.;;~;t;.\;;i£.fia<tta·&1N¥•t+• · .,,,,. ' . .t:~::i ·i ·6tJWB*di\ilt4¥Ul~wm¥-J*. . .. t:ooo 6.2 

6.7 

6.0 6.1 6.1 

6.4 --------------------- 6.4 -

---- 7.3 

S.7 

----7. 8 

---

6.6 

-7.3 

8.3 

---9.3 

8.4 

6.6 

10 

20 

30 

40 

110 

10 

70 

300 toO a eo I II b I Li II "IJI II "3~0 14bo 14'o"ll I I I""L""I""'""'""II iillllllllliilllljl8o 500 5110 600 1&0 700 750 800 8110 1000 IOiiO 

MAGUIRE C Leicester) 

Figure 82. Crustal and upper mantle section of Maguire. 
DISTANCE ( K M) 

It .qo .. . •qo .... •ro .... z?o .. ~r .... ~ . . '~ .~ ,4j'O .. DfO spo .. er>, ·~. 7pc?,,7f0 dflO •e ... 'f<!,,,'fO,,,,•qoP ... tO,~ 

RED SEA RIFT ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

sw 1+----HI.IAZ-AIIft PROVINCE---~-- NAJD PROVINCE~:+---- IHAMMAR PROVINCE NE 

fJ ,AifAIAII AD DAita 6 • • aiSHAH • 3 MISH'Ae I 2 IAaHAH 

~L. ~~-(h::~;¥¥j2@J,:iYfifJU~!:!W7¥"MMM•w; .;.- !,. :.> '· · .. ·it' s·:·K··thl:··L":•t"ffihit-'"'·'#ktitjMlt.@!"J.twfo 0 , 51:::;:> f I+O.OI5 I.I•O.Oif --

10 10 1.&11+0.005 1.55>0.005 

20 20 :::E 

.... "' 

- so tfll. 30 8.85•0.005 8.85 +0.005 

<0 :z: 40 7.1 +.001 40 ... 

A. 

Ill 50 !10 Ill 7.1+.0CHI 7.1 •O.OCHI 1.1 •o.oos 

10 60 

1.1 •. 001 

70 70 

8.1+0.001 

10 0 !10 300 3!10 'tUU 6!10 100 750 800 8!10 900 !ii!IO 1000 1050 

MILKEREIT 1 FLUH 

Figure 83. Crustal and upper mantle section of Milkereit and Fluh. 
DISTANCE ( K M) 

itt f, t t ,•yo, It ,•r. It ,

2?0 t I ,2f3 t t elf<: ~r. t 4fC? e"r DpO ,

11P0 t t 1?0 It 8r: t t e

7fl': t ,1\K! ere: t •e I I~ It 'TOt I ,•ff. t 

10rac: 

RED SEA RIFT ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

r I HI-' A Z- A I I II P R 0 VINCE I NA"D "IOVINCE -----+}4--- aHAIUIAR PAOVINCE 

• FAaAaA• AD DAa8 5 ;J 811HAH I 3 •I&H"Aa I 2 IA.HAH.. 1 Al QUWA Y"IPAH l • _U~fi>i\ti.<;.~·~ :,.::::;.,;;; =.~JI!l!!Wiiltea · ti'UWlJiN!M!M!!!IIf§MLWW, ! A I ~- 4.11~ ----(0 1.1 

~~ ~~ 

sw NE 

10 10 

•• 1.2 

~ 11• 8.2 •• 1.2 

8.2 ',, 20 

..... , 

--~ 8.8 i•8.11 ---i•l.2 

JO 

t-40 ... 1.7 

8.1· 8.2 8.1·8.2 

110 

80 

70 

I I c:o I&O .&;; z~ I i 'zlo s:,J I I ~ u

4 bo I I u

4 ' 0 I i!~O I ~50 I &6o I I ~l<: I I c

71,c; I i 1~ I I I do:l I I :.:0 I I i.bci i i 'tki i I a.;o:, I I ~Jo! 10 

MISHENKIH, MISHEHKINA, SOLOVJEVA (NovosiiHrdJ 

Figure 84. Crustal section of Mishenkin, Mishenkina, and Solovjeva. 
..... 

(T.I 

..... 

DISTANCE ( K M) 

i !f ,•qo. e e ,•r. t e ,

2?0 1 1 ~rl t 1 ,!f'! r~ t 4fX? 4pO r ,Dpt! e ,

5PC: t 1 ,'f' p: ~~ r P~ ,7~ e • .sr: t: ,

8f0, e I s'r! r I~·~ r ,

1

c:of', e ,to,~ 

RED SEA RIFT ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

sw ----Ht.fAZ -A SIR NA .. D PROVINCE---+~ IHAMMAR PROVINCE NE 8 ,AaAaAM AD DA•• 5 • ~ • • ISHAII • 3 •laH'A• I 2 aA.HAH J Al QUWAr'U'AH 

2000,1 ~j;.<;;;;: ~.:~J 1

~ 

;:.''!<,. 4ttf:i~:$i.ttR:Ut¢:hM'4W·M4it+•r· " ' L..:;, 1 •. , • ·4*tili··t8f I {··'i"§*P:*I'!·::A·wa +• f;oo ., ?; u f.l t.z &.3 1.21 1.1 1.15 

... 1.28 . .. 1.11 

41•c••tl••''l 1.8 .. 1.7 ( , •• ,, •• , •• , J 1.7 8.7 

--¥.----a--------H----- / ............ ,, 7.1 

~ 7.8 •.. 8.2 .. , 1.1 

diKOftfiftllfl 8.0 8.0 

8:3 ··' ;IJ•c••fl•uH ... 8.3 

8.8 ... 

1.8 

1.1 

_7.Q.. 

7.0 

!:..! 

... 

10 

20 

50 

40 

110 

410 

10 

l111 I I I I II Ill 111111 I II I I I I I I 111111111 illllliiiiiill illliliiiilliiiiiiiiO 

500 550 400 410 1100 5110 600 700 7110 800 850 1100 1110 1000 IOiiO 

MOONEY (Menlo Parll) 

Figure 85. Crustal and upper mantle section of Mooney. 
..... 

O'l 

1:\) 

:I 

:z: 

.... 

.... 

.. 

Q 

DISTANCE ( K M) 

1 . . r;o, .. . •qo. . . •r ... . 

2

r , . 2r' . .. . 3f3 ~ • , 4f<! .•po .. &f0 .. er~ .. . sr, ... ·~ .. . P~ . .

7f0 tJPO .. Bf0 

• ... ~ .. . 9f0 .. .1qo::-, .. 10,~ 

ARABIAN SHIELD ARABIAN PLATFORM 

NE 

1 Al QUWA>'IYAH I 

2000 

... ·r· I 0 

I SW 1· HI J A %-A 8 I tl P R 0 YIN C E I MAJO PROVINCE----+:+-- &HAMMAR PROVINCE 

I , ... ,. ... , Ao 0 ••• 6 4 ••sHAH 1 3 •••w•• 1 2 aAaHAH 

2000,1 u;~,·;~.;;;, ::; i.:):e;s5;c~\.~·~;;;f,!t;);;.HmJ&~:W:Nt·VMh%Wlf4%flijilifj· · J : :;:.: : t ·&"·'!-§ iri#f j.t.t,Y,YH&iM'Itt¥111 ~· #>-.wf 

7 -\-- • 71 -· 

10 10 

20 20 

... 

ao ~~ I ... so 

40 40 

110 50 

110 110 

70 70 

80 900 · · ·a5o · ·.ooo · · ioso 80 0 110 100 150 200 :0 liDO liiiO 400 4110 500 5110 600 650 700 750 800 1150 

PAVLENKOVA, YUROV I Moscow) 

Figure 86. Crustal and upper mantle section of Pavlenkova and Yurov. 
..... 

en 

(A) 

:::E 

" 

:1: 

... 

... 

"' Q 

DISTANCE ( K M) 

1 . . qo. . .•qo . ... •r .... 2?0 • ~. , •• ~ • ~ , 4f>': . . •r .. ,&f~ .

5?0 •• • sr .. '?'! .. . P~ .. .T?~ .. ~ .. .aro .... ~ .. . er ... ,•<JO:> ... 10.'1 REO SEA RIFT A R A B I A N S H I E L 0 ARABIAN PLATFORM 

I 

sw j+----HIJAZ-AIIR NA.ID PROVINCE----+:+----- IHAMMAR PROVINCE NE 

fl FA.AIAII 

200Cl 

~ 

• - .:? ..•. ::. : .. ', : . :,·,'· ,.. .: :" : . .· ···~--. 3 IIISH"A8 

1 

2 SAaHAH • f AL OUWAV"IYAH 

~ ~~;,;t""·~;~,~~Jtt'll!'?li&+cmfltW~!',, " ~,~·+ 10 10 

20 20 

ao 30 

40 40 

110 !10 

60 8.5 ......... . 

8.0 ......... . 

8.5 

~.~·.~·.~:~~ 8.0 60 

8.5 

70 

6~ 

0 110 

I I .L I _f I I l I I I I I I I I I I i I [_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ./:i;:.::::t/:.: Joo 'JO ''''''''''''''''''fao 

70 

.o ~ 1110 400 4110 1100 5110 600 6110 700 7110 900 9110 1000 10110 

PRODEHL (Karlsruhe} 

Figure 87. Crustal and upper mantle section of Prodehl. 
REPORTS FROM THE DATA OF THE 1978 SAUDI ARABIAN SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE 

[Published or in press as of November 1983] 

Blank, H. R., Healy, J. H., Roller, J. C., Lamson, R., Fischer, F., McClearn, 

R., and Allen, S., 1979, Seismic refraction profile, Kingdom of Saudi 

Arabia, field operations, instrumentation, and initial results: U.S. 

Geological Survey Saudi Arabian Mission Project Report 259, 49 p. 

Gettings, M. E., 1981, A heat flow profile across the Arabian Shield and Red 

Sea (abs.): EOS, American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 62, no. 17, 

p. 407. 

Gettings, M. E., 1982, Heat flow measurements at the 1978 Saudi Arabia deepseismic refraction line shot points II. Discussion and interpretation: 

Saudi Arabian Deputy Ministry for Mineral Resources Open-File Report 

USGS-OF-02-40, 40 p. 

Gettings, M. E., Blank, H. R., Mooney, W. D., and Healy, J. H., 1983, Crustal 

structure of southwestern Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Deputy Ministry 

for Mineral Resources Open-File Report USGS-OF-03-59, 51 p. 

Gettings, M. E. and Showail, A., 1982, Heat flow measurements at the 197~ 

Saudi Arabia deep-seismic refraction line, Part I. Results of the 

measurements: Saudi Arabian Deputy Ministry for Mineral Resources OpenFile Report USGS-OF-02-39, 98 p. 

Healy, J. H., Mooney, W. D., Blank, H. R., Gettings, M. E., Kohler, W. M., 

Lamson, R. J., and Leone, L., 1982, Saudi Arabian seismic deep-refraction 

profile, final project report: U.S. Geological Survey Saudi Arabian 

Mission and Directorate General of Mineral Resources Open-File Report 

USGS-OF-02-37, 370 p., 9 plates. 

Kohler, W. M., Lamson, R. J., and Healy, J. R., 1980, A study of P-wave 

attenuation in the Arabian Shield using spectral ratios (abs.): EOS, 

American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 60, no. 46, p. 881. 

Lamson, R. J. and Blank, H. R., 1978, USGS/DGMR Geophysical Investigations 

in Saudi Arabia: Seismic refraction profile--status report no. 2, 

15 January 1978. 

Lamson, R. J., Blank, H. R., Mooney, W. D., and Healy, J. H., 1979, Seismic 

refraction observations across the oceanic-continental rift zone, southwest Saudi Arabia (abs.): EOS, American Geophysical Union Transactions, 

v. 60, no. 46, p. 954. 

Lamson, R. J. and Leone, L. E., 1980, Saudi Arabia seismic refraction profile 

data set, volumes 1 and 2: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 

Miscellaneous Document 17. 

Merghelani, H. M. and Gallanthine, S. K., 1980, Microearthquakes in the 

Tihamat-Asir region of Saudi Arabia: Bulletin of the Seismological 

Society of America, v. 70, no. 6, p. 2291-2293. 

154 
Mooney, W. D., 1980, IASPEI workshop--seismic modeling of laterally varying 

structures (Arabian Shield to the Red Sea): EOS, American Geophysical 

Union Transactions, v. 61, p. 19. 

Mooney, W. D., Gettings, M. E., Blank, H. R., and Healy, J. H., 1983, Saudi 

Arabian seismic-refraction profile: A traveltime interpretation of 

crustal and upper mantle structure: Tectonophysics, in press. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1976, USGS/DG~ffi Geophysical Investigations in Saudi 

Arabia: Seismic refraction profile--status report no. 1: U.S. 

Geological Survey Mission, internal report, 19 p., 6 figs. 

155 
APPENDIX 1 

IASPEI WORKSHOP ABSTRACT 

[Presented at the July 1981 IASPEI meeting, London, Ontario, Canada] 

Commission on Controlled Source Seismology, Reporters: 

S. Mueller, Zurich; W. D. Mooney, Menlo Park; C. Prodehl, Karlsruhe; R. 

B. Smith, Salt Lake City; D. P. Hill, Menlo Park; J. A. Orcutt, La Jolla; 

J. Ansorge, Zurich 

The third triennial meeting of the IASPEI Commission on Controlled Source 

Seismology was convened in Park City, Utah, from August 11 to 17, 1980, to 

explore an~ assess the progress of controlled source techniques and to evaluate 

its significance in terms of current models of the seismic velocity structure 

and composition of the crust and upper mantle. 

Two and one half days of the five-day conference were used to discuss 

different interpretations of the seismic refraction data collected in Saudi 

Arabia by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1Y78. The format of this portion of 

the meeting was unlike most other scientific workshops. The complete refraction data set had been distributed to the participants well in advance of the 

meeting, giving time to thoughtfully analyze the same data. The use of a 

common data base allowed for a kind of in-depth examination of issues of interpretation that is not possible in traditional workshops which are based on 

diverse data sets. 

In the course of the different presentations it became evident that the 

main source of differences in the final models is the phase correlation of the 

data. The term "phase correlation" refers to the process of identifying, 

within a seismic record section, those arrivals that refract or reflect from 

the same feature (or portion) of the crustal or mantle velocity structure. 

Given identical phase correlations, different methods of traveltime and amplitude analysis of these phases will produce nearly the same result. Conversely, 

different correlations will result in markedly divergent models. These points 

can be appreciated from the comparison of the models of the Arabian Shield to 

those of the transition from the Red Sea to the Arabian subcontinent. A few 

highlights on the interpretation are summarized below. 

1. The upper crust (21 km thick) of the shield has a near-surface velocity of 6.1 km/s and, in most regions, a positive velocity gradient of 0.01-

0.02 km/s/km. Low-velocity zones may be present in some regions. 

2. The lower crust (19 km thick) of the shield is separated from the 

upper crust by a seismic discontinuity or smooth transition of 0.2-0.4 km/s. 

The average velocity of the lower crust is about 6.7 km/s. 

3. The M-discontinuity is probably a transition zone 2-5 km thick and 

occurs at a nearly constant depth of about 40 km. The velocity of the 

uppermost mantle is 0.8-8.1 km/s, and there is evidence for fine structure 

within the lithosphere. 

4. The structure of the Red Sea-continent transition remains uncertain 

with the currently available data. 

156 
APPENDIX 2 

IASPEI-CCSS PARTICIPANTS 

G. E. Andreasen, Reston, Virginia 

J. Ansorge, Zurich, Switzerland 

M. Qusai Assad, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

E. Banda, Zurich, Switzerland 

H. Benz, Salt Lake City, Utah 

M. J. Berry, Ottawa, Canada 

H. R. Blank, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

L. W. Braile, West Lafayette, Indiana 

S. Clawson, Salt Lake City, Utah 

N. Deichmann, Zurich, Switzerland 

E. R. FlUh, Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany 

L. N. Frazer, Honolulu, Hawaii 

J. D. Garmany, Seattle, Washington 

M. E. Gettings, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

S. K. Ghosh, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

A. Ginzburg, Tel Aviv, Israel 

R. E. Hanson, Falls Church, Virginia 

J. H. Healy, Menlo Park, California 

D. P. Hill, Menlo Park, California 

S. Kaufman, Ithaca, New York 

I. P. Kosminskaya, Moscow, USSR 

L. E. Leone, Menlo Park, California 

P. K. H. Maguire, Leicester, England 

J. S. McClain, La Jolla, California 

T. V. McEvilly, Berkeley, California 

F. McKisic, Washington, D.C. 

H. M. Merghelani, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

B. Milkereit, Kiel, Federal Republic of Germany 

H. Miller, Munich, Federal Republic of Germany 

T. A. MOkhtar, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 

W. D. Mooney, Menlo Park, California 

St. Mueller, Zurich, Switzerland 

K. H. Olsen, Los Alamos, New Mexico 

J. A. Orcutt, La Jolla, California 

N. I. Pavlenkova, Moscow, USSR 

R. A. Phinney, Princeton, New Jersey 

K. Posgay, Budapest, Hungary 

K. Priestley, Dunedin, New Zealand 

c. Prodehl, Karlsruhe, Federal Republic of Germany 

R. B. Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah 

S. B. Smithson, Laramie, Wyoming 

R. A. Stephen, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

R. M. Stewart, Reston, Virginia 

R. W. Ward, Richardson, Texas 

G. Zandt, Salt Lake City, Utah 

R.-s. Zeng, Beijing, China 

157 
APPENDIX 3 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SEISMOLOGY 

AND PHYSICS OF THE EARTH'S INTERIOR 

COMMISSION ON CONTROLLED SOURGE SEISMOLOGY 

Resolution 1 

The International Association of Seismology and 

Physics of the Earth's Interior, 

Recognizing the substantial progress made in the past 

decade in determining crustal and upper mantle structure 

through the application of "Controlled Source Seismology," 

and 

Noting that the results obtained indicate considerable 

heterogeneity in structure, 

Urges that, in detailed regional studies of the crust 

and upper mantle, refraction and reflection methods be 

used, when possible, in combination, supplemented by observations from deep sources ~herever available. 

Canberra (Australia) 

12 December 1979 

158 

GPO 787-042/10005