Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T01:39:10.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A synthetic study of acoustic full waveform inversion to improve seismic modelling of firn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2023

Emma Pearce*
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Adam D. Booth
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Sebastian Rost
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Paul Sava
Affiliation:
Department of geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, USA
Tuğrul Konuk
Affiliation:
Department of geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, USA
Alex Brisbourne
Affiliation:
British Antarctica Survey, Natural Environmental Research Council, Cambridge, UK
Bryn Hubbard
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK
Ian Jones
Affiliation:
BrightSkies Geosciense, Maadi, Egypt
*
Author for correspondence: Emma Pearce, E-mail: epearce@unistra.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The density structure of firn has implications for hydrological and climate modelling and for ice shelf stability. The firn structure can be evaluated from depth models of seismic velocity, widely obtained with Herglotz-Wiechert inversion (HWI), an approach that considers the slowness of refracted seismic arrivals. However, HWI is appropriate only for steady-state firn profiles and the inversion accuracy can be compromised where firn contains ice layers. In these cases, Full Waveform Inversion (FWI) can be more successful than HWI. FWI extends HWI capabilities by considering the full seismic waveform and incorporates reflected arrivals, thus offering a more accurate estimate of a velocity profile. We show the FWI characterisation of the velocity model has an error of only 1.7% for regions (vs. 4.2% with HWI) with an ice slab (20 m thick, 40 m deep) in an otherwise steady-state firn profile.

Information

Type
Letter
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Glaciological Society
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Velocity model outputs from HWI (Red) and FWI (Blue) compared to the True model (Black). The HWI generates a velocity profile that stops increasing in velocity at the depth of the ice slab top (40 m). This velocity is then extrapolated to the base of the model. FWI produces a velocity increase at 30 m depth and a decrease at 70 m depth, indicating the ice slab's location. (b) The absolute percentage error between the inversion models for HWI (Red) and (FWI) relative to the True model. The average difference for the total depth shows FWI reduces the error by 2.5%. A maximum difference of 20% for the HWI velocity model is observed in the top 40 m.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Seismic data forward modelled from the True (Black), HWI (Red) and FWI (Blue). (a) All data with LMO applied with a velocity of 3800 m s−1. (b) Comparison of trace from an offset of 5 m, the first arrival is modelled well by both the HWI and FWI, the green panel indicates the zoomed in section of figure (d). (c) Comparison of trace from an offset of 500 m. FWI closely reproduces the true data, while HWI poorly represents the true data. (d) Zoom of the reflection at 5 m offset produced by the ice slab visible at near offsets.