See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318506091

State-of-the-art remote characterization of shallow marine sediments: the

road to a fully integrated solution

Article in Near Surface Geophysics · September 2017

DOI: 10.3997/1873-0604.2017024

CITATIONS READS

30 2,634

6 authors, including:

Mark Vardy Maarten Vanneste

SAND Geophysics Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
86 PUBLICATIONS 1,388 CITATIONS 132 PUBLICATIONS 3,197 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Timothy J. Henstock Michael Clare

University of Southampton National Oceanography Centre, Southampton
218 PUBLICATIONS 4,826 CITATIONS 133 PUBLICATIONS 2,851 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ODP Leg 188 View project

Seychelles-India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Vardy on 18 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402 doi:10.3997/1873-0604.2017024

State-of-the-art remote characterization of shallow marine

sediments: the road to a fully integrated solution
Mark E. Vardy1*, Maarten Vanneste2, Timothy J. Henstock3, Michael A. Clare1,
Carl Fredrik Forsberg2 and Giuseppe Provenzano3
1
Marine Geosciences, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom
2
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 0855 Oslo, Norway
3
Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
Current methods for characterizing near-surface marine sediments rely on extensive coring/pene-
trometer testing and correlation to seismic facies. Little quantitative information is regularly derived
from geophysical data beyond qualitative inferences of sediment characteristics based on seismic
facies architecture. Even these fundamental seismostratigraphic interpretations can be difficult to
correlate with lithostratigraphic data due to inaccuracies in the time-to-depth conversion of geo-
physical data and potential loss and/or compression of high-porosity and under-consolidated sea-
floor material during direct sampling. To complicate matters further, when quantitative information
is derived from marine geophysical data, it often describes the sediments using terminology (e.g.,
acoustic impedance and seismic quality factor) that is impenetrable to geologists and engineers. In
contrast, for hydrocarbon prospecting, reservoir characterization using quantitative inversion of
geophysical data has developed enormously over the past 20 years or more. Impedance and ampli-
tude-versus-angle inversion techniques are now commonplace, whereas computationally expensive
waveform inversions are gaining traction, and there is a well-developed interface between these
geophysical and reservoir engineering fields via rock physics.
In this paper, we collate and review the different published inversion methods for high-resolution
geophysical data. Using several case study examples spanning a broad range of depositional envi-
ronments, we assess the current state of the art in remote characterization of shallow sediments from
a multidisciplinary viewpoint, encompassing geophysical, geological, and geotechnical angles. By
identifying the key parameters used to characterize the subsurface, a framework is developed
whereby geological, geotechnical, and geophysical characterizations of the subsurface can be
related in a less subjective manner. As part of this, we examine the sensitivity of commonly derived
acoustic properties (e.g., acoustic impedance and seismic quality factor) to more fundamentally
important soil properties (e.g., lithology, pore pressure, gas saturation, and undrained shear
strength), thereby facilitating better integration between geological, geotechnical, and geophysical
data for improved mapping of sediment properties. Ultimately, we present a number of ideas for
future research activities in this field.

INTRODUCTION published literature demonstrably derives more advanced proper-

Current standard practice for characterizing marine sediments in
the top-hole and foundation zones (i.e., top tens to 200 m), in
both academia and industry, relies on extensive coring/cone pen-
etrometer testing and stratigraphic correlation to seismic facies
(e.g., Stoker et al. 2009; Evans 2011; Power et al. 2011; Vanneste
et al. 2012). The derivation of quantitative information directly
from geophysical data is rare and often limited to acoustic prop-
erties primarily of interest to geophysicists (e.g., Pinson et al.
2008; Vardy et al. 2012; Vardy 2015). Only a small subset of the
*
mev@noc.ac.uk
ties, such as gas saturation (e.g., Morgan et al. 2012; Morgan,
Vanneste and Vardy 2014; Toth et al. 2014; Cevatoglu et al.
2015; Toth, Spiess and Kiell 2015; Vardy et al. 2015), that are of
broader interest to geologists and geotechnical engineers.
This limited quantitative characterization and disparate termi-
nology often leads to problems integrating geophysical data with
the results from directly sampled geological and geotechnical
data. Purely qualitative integration based on seismo- and
lithostratigraphic correlation is often difficult because, while the
geological/geotechnical data are recorded in depth below sea-
floor (SF), the geophysical data are acquired in two-way travel

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 387

19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 387 12/07/17 09:56

 388 M.E. Vardy et al.
time, and therefore, the geophysical data require time-to-depth
conversion, which depends on accurate knowledge of the seismic
velocity field. Time-to-depth conversion is challenging, as
velocities in the shallow subsurface can vary rapidly, both later-
ally and with depth. This is particularly true in geologically
complex environments such as those in previously glaciated
areas (e.g., Pinson et al. 2013). Where subsurface velocities have
been derived (or are simple enough to approximate), geological
and geophysical data have been successfully integrated to gain
insights into a variety of processes, including sediment deforma-
tion in peri- and paraglacial environments (e.g., Stoker and
Bradwell 2009) and submarine geohazards (e.g., Vardy et al.
2012; Vanneste et al. 2014). Furthermore, for imaging the stra-
tigraphy of shallow sediments, one often relies on short-offset
single-channel seismic recording systems, which do not allow
the derivation of seismic velocities in the subsurface. In contrast,
the use of multichannel streamers would alleviate this problem
on the condition that the channel spacing is sufficiently small (c.,
1 m for a typical high-resolution Boomer or Sparker source) and
the active length of the streamer is not shorter than the depth to
the deepest target.
Effectively integrating geophysical with geotechnical data is
altogether more difficult. This is made more complex by the con-
trasting strain regimes. Geophysical data are at relatively low
strains, whereas geotechnical data are at large strain (Clayton
2011). In addition, intrusive methods cause mechanical deforma-
tion, which can be very significant for high-porosity near-surface
sediments during geotechnical sampling procedures (e.g.,
Clayton, Hight and Hopper 1992; Lunne 2012; Priest et al. 2015).
This deformation inherently alters the nature of the sampled
material, introducing uncertainties on key mechanical parameters
(e.g., porosity, pore pressure, and undrained shear strength) that
are difficult to quantify. Where geophysical and geotechnical data
have been integrated, the methods either are highly qualitative
(e.g., Vanneste et al. 2015) or suffer from large uncertainties due
to imprecisely calibrated relationships between the geophysical
and geotechnical parameters (e.g., Nauroy et al. 1998).
While geophysical data alone will never be able to geologi-
cally or geotechnically characterize shallow subsurface sedi-
ments in the same manner as ground truth data acquisition, these
data are currently underused as a quantitative tool and can sig-
nificantly contribute towards deriving more robust, high-fidelity
spatial maps of sediment properties. Here we seek to outline a
procedure whereby geological, geotechnical, and geophysical
data can be more effectively integrated to produce a coherent,
detailed, and less subjective interpretation of the shallow subsur-
face. We start by summarising the fundamental principles, meth-
ods, and goals of each discipline, collating this information in an
attempt to reconcile differences in conventions and find common
ground. Based on this, a framework is derived that permits the
key parameters that quantitatively describe the geological and
geotechnical properties of the subsurface to be identified. The
sensitivity of the seismic wave field to these key geological/
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 388
geotechnical parameters is assessed using several case study
examples that span a broad range of depositional environments
(fjord basin, open slope, glacially altered, and deep water). This
aims to ascertain the limitations on what useful information can
be derived from the geophysical data. Based on the results from
these case studies, we identify a set of key challenges to be
addressed and suggest some potential pathways forward towards
a novel integrated approach for shallow marine sediment charac-
terization or geotechnical site characterization.
CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENTS
One of the major issues with taking a coherent integrated
approach to the characterization of shallow subsurface marine
sediments is the breadth and multidisciplinary nature of methods
used to describe the make-up of marine sediments. Geologists,
sedimentologists, geotechnical engineers, and geophysicists
have all contributed various, often complementary, methods for
characterizing marine sediments, spanning everything from
micro-computed tomography (CT) imaging of sedimentary grain
textures to basin-scale geophysical imaging of facies structure.
Historically, these different disciplines have often worked inde-
pendently, with little to no collaboration due to their differing
objectives and have therefore developed fundamentally different
methods based on fundamentally different philosophies and with
conflicting conventions. As of late, the focus has moved towards
a multidisciplinary integration in which the complementary
aspects of the various disciplines form the key to progress (e.g.,
Evans 2011; Vanneste et al. 2012).
In the following sections and Table 1, we attempt to briefly
summarise/outline the basic principles behind the characterization
of shallow subsurface marine sediments from three different view-
points: geologists/sedimentologists; geotechnical engineers; and
geophysicists. It is worth noting that the different disciplines
essentially rely on the same type of data; that is predominantly
geophysical data (2D and sometimes 3D seismic reflection data,
bathymetry data, and side-scan sonar or backscatter data) and 1D
in situ logs (e.g., CPTU data) or samples (or combined boreholes).
Geological/sedimentological viewpoint
Geologists and sedimentologists analyse sediments on all scales
to understand the processes (erosion, transport, deposition, and
post-depositional modification) that led to their formation. This
information underpins a wide range of applications such as
reconstructing depositional environments to understand past cli-
mates (e.g., determination of ice grounding lines; Scourse et al.
2009); determining palaeocurrent directions (e.g., Gardner,
Richardson and Cacchione 1989); quantifying the quality, lateral
continuity, and connectivity of hydrocarbon reservoirs (Mayall,
Jones and Casey 2006); assessing geohazard processes (e.g.,
landslides and debris flows; Solheim et al. 2005; L’Heureux et
al. 2012) based on quantitative interpretation of deposits, includ-
ing frequency–magnitude estimations (Masson, Wynn and
Talling 2010; Clare et al. 2014); and determining organic carbon
12/07/17 09:56
 Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 389

transport between different physiographic settings (e.g., Hilton et
al. 2011).
To achieve this, geologists and sedimentologists aim to quan-
tify the following:
• Facies: the fundamental building blocks of sedimentological
interpretation that provide the link to a physical mechanism for
transport, deposition, and/or post-depositional modification,
such as understanding energy of environment and transport or
erosion processes (e.g., bedload and suspended load; Tucker
2003; Stow 2005).
• Facies sequences and cycles: provide information about tem-
poral variations in deposition, which may be related to cli-
matic, eustatic, tectonic, or other controls.
• Lateral trends and geometry: inform our spatial and physi-
ographic interpretation about the palaeogeography, such as
what happened up-, down-, or along slope and address the
sediment’s mobility (e.g., sand waves).
• Facies associations and architectural elements: characterize
the relationships between individual facies both spatially and
temporally.
• Sequence stratigraphy and bounding surfaces: identify
cycles, geometry, and unconformities to understand major
shifts and switches in deposition (e.g., sudden influx of sedi-
ment or change in depositional regime) and erosional episodes
(e.g., sudden uplift and onset of channel incision).
• Controls, rates, and preservation: quantify the controls on
spatial and temporal variations in deposition and erosion, vari-
ation in sediment accumulation rates through time, and the
completeness of the depositional record (Sadler 1981).
• Depositional environments: enable, with the integration of
the aforementioned factors in this list, interpretation of the
environment of deposition and erosion (e.g., alluvial, fluvial,
Aeolian, and deep/shallow marine).
In order to quantify these interpretations, a large range of spe-
cific measurements/primary characteristics are made on scales
ranging from micrometres to thousands of kilometres. The sedi-
ment composition is expressed in terms of lithology, mineralogy,
and fossil content (Tucker 2003; Stow 2005). Sedimentary tex-
ture characterizes sediment in terms of sorting and grading in
grain size, grain morphology/surface texture, and the fabric.
Other key information is provided from the examination of the
thickness, geometry, and nature of bed boundaries; inclination
and orientation of bedding; and the presence or absence of sedi-
mentary structures, both on bedding surfaces and within beds.
For instance, energetic processes can create erosional surfaces
that punctuate the depositional record, ranging from flute marks
at the base of turbidites to regional unconformities (e.g., related
to glacial processes), ploughmarks caused by iceberg movement,
incision of submarine canyons and channels, and landslide head-
scars and mass-transport deposits covering scales from tens to
hundreds of metres (e.g., 1996 slide near Finneidfjord; Vardy et
al. 2012) to hundreds of kilometres (e.g., Storegga slide com-
plex; Masson et al. 2010).
The nature of the deposits coupled with their resultant geo-
morphology provides a qualitative idea on the depositional envi-
ronment and of specific processes (e.g., en masse emplacement
of deposits or ripples that indicate flow direction, current veloci-
ties, and/or flow regime). Post- or syndepositional modification
is deciphered from the nature of sediment deformation and its
interaction with the host sediment (e.g., mass-transport-related,
glaciotectonism and halokinesis, water escape during consolida-
tion, or brecciation due to mud volcanism, biogenic, and/or
chemogenic alteration).
Further to the identification of environment and depositional
processes, a temporal context is defined by dating undisturbed
sediments using biostratigraphy (microfossils and macrofossil

Table 1 Summary of geological, geotechnical, and geophysical characterization of the marine subsurface.
Geological Geotechnical Geophysical
Lithostratigraphic facies Soil units Seismostratigraphic facies
Units Thickness/Geometry Thickness/Geometry Thickness/Geometry
Lithology Lithology Impedance
Mineralogy Mineralogy Interval velocity
Fossil content Water content Bulk density
Biological alteration Index parameters Q-factor
Chemical alteration Undrained shear strength/Relative density
Boundaries Erosional features Soil type contrast (e.g., clay over sand) Impedance contrasts
Graded transitions Consistency contrast (e.g., high shear Q-contrasts
Bedforms strength over low shear strength soil) Phase reversals
Grain size contrasts
Internal Sorting direction Soil fabric Reflection character/attitude/sequence
architecture Bedding Permeability Deformation
Deformation Pore fluid Truncated reflections
Truncated beds On/off/downlap

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402

19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 389 12/07/17 09:56

 390 M.E. Vardy et al.
analysis), radiometric and isotopic methods, magnetostratigra-
phy, tephrochronology, and/or cyclostratigraphy (e.g., Bell and
Walker 2005).
In addition to the sedimentological (and geochemical) analy-
ses outlined above, the retrieved samples (in plastic liners) are
also typically scanned for physical properties using a multi-sen-
sor core logging facility. This produces a continuous very high-
resolution (sub-centimetre scale) record of P-wave velocity,
P-wave attenuation, bulk density, and magnetic susceptibility,
providing further insights into the sedimentary history at the site.
Together, these measurements permit a detailed interpretation
of the spatial and temporal evolutions in depositional environ-
ment and processes on scales that span metres to whole basins
and days to millennia (Rothwell and Rack 2006).
Geotechnical engineering approach
Geotechnical engineers aim to quantify how Earth materials (soil
and rock) behave in response to both natural (e.g., slope failures
and sediment loading/unloading) and/or anthropogenic (e.g.,
installation of foundations) processes. Example applications
include 2D/3D slope stability analysis, dynamic modelling of
landslides and impact assessment, site response analysis during
earthquakes, foundation design, and engineering ground model-
ling. However, quantifying this behaviour is difficult because
natural soils are complex, and therefore, their properties and
behaviour are hard to predict (Terzaghi 1936). This means that,
in order to understand these processes, geotechnical engineers
look to quantify the following:
• Sample-specific nature: How the geotechnical properties vary
from sample to sample, taking into account the quality of the
sample (which is affected by the sampling process).
• Soil units: Parameterise soil units based on a similar range in
geotechnical properties from the sample-by-sample testing or
in situ characterization (e.g., cone penetration testing (CPT)
with pore pressure measurements; CPTU).
• Soil profiles: Develop soil profiles that describe how a soil has
been modified post- and syndeposition through processes such
as consolidation and determine representative trends.
• Soil provinces: Lateral demarcation of areas featuring similar
geotechnical conditions into soil provinces (e.g., Campbell
1984).
• Location-specific nature: Predict the location-specific
response to loading for a specific application, e.g., foundation
installation.
• Site-wide analysis: Predict the impact of external forces act-
ing upon the soils in the survey area, for example, liquefaction
due to earthquakes/vibrations, or slope stability assessment.
• Soil-structure interaction: Assess how the soil influences the
infrastructure and vice versa.
In order to interpret or determine these soil characteristics, a
broad spectrum of measurements is made from laboratory tests on
soil samples or via in situ geotechnical tests typically accom-
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 390
plished using CPT data (with pore pressure measurements). The
particle size distribution (clay, silt, sand, and gravel) largely gov-
erns hydraulic conductivity and permeability and determines
whether the soil will behave in a drained or an undrained manner.
For cohesive soils (e.g., clays), the clay mineralogy and activity
are important (e.g., swelling) and the shear strength. For granular
soils (e.g., sands), the relative density is typically used. Routinely
measured index properties include water content, plasticity index,
liquid index, wet and dry bulk density/unit weight, particle den-
sity, void ratio, and porosity. The presence of biogenic material is
also evaluated, as organic material can have a strong influence on
the particle–particle bonding and compressibility. A variety of
strength–strain testing (e.g., triaxial testing or direct simple shear
testing, with various modes of application, like anisotropic con-
solidation under compression or extension, static, or cyclic)
reveal the strength behaviour of the soil under specific conditions
(e.g., dilative or contractive). Such tests are typically combined
with oedometer testing to evaluate the stress history of the given
sample and provide an estimate on the soil’s permeability.
Geotechnical tests are often complemented with X-ray or CT
imaging to reveal the sediment structure and fabric at the micro-
scale, e.g., grain packing and distribution, as well as morphology
and connectivity of voids. Sometimes, specific geochemical tests
are used to characterize the pore fluids, including salinity and
presence (or absence) of gas(es), hydrates, and/or hydrocarbons.
Advanced geotechnical tests are also used to calibrate the 1D in
situ test measurements (CPTU) data and obtain a sample quality
value (e.g., Lunne 2012).
Together, these measurements permit establishing a geotech-
nical soil profile and a detailed assessment of how the soil might
behave in response to future loading and/or unloading events,
and they are the fundamental basis for foundation design.
Geophysical methods
The method by which the subsurface is quantitatively character-
ized using geophysical data is broadly termed seismic inversion.
This is an immensely diverse subject but, at the most basic level,
involves applying a physical understanding of how the seismic
wavefield propagates to predict/derive subsurface conditions
based on the amplitude, phase, moveout, and frequency content
of recorded reflections. While there is a well-known long track
record of the inversion of marine geophysical data for hydrocar-
bon reservoir characterization (e.g., Mallick 2001; Bosch,
Mukerji and Gonzalez 2010; Wagner et al. 2012), there is also a
surprisingly long (if not so well-known) published record
(Table 2) of the inversion of high- and/or ultra-high-resolution
marine geophysical data (e.g., Schock, LeBlanc and Mayer
1989; Panda, LeBlanc and Schock 1994; Nauroy et al. 1998;
Pinson et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2012, 2014; Holland and
Dettmer 2013; Ker, Gonidec and Gilbert 2013; Vardy 2015;
Vardy et al. 2015). Traditionally, however, geophysicists are
interested in quantitatively characterizing the shallow subsurface
using parameters that control the propagation of the seismic
12/07/17 09:56
 Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 391

wavefield because at the heart of all seismic inversion approach- Table 2 Previously published work on quantitative geophysical
es lies a reliable forward model that predicts the observed seis- characterization of the marine near surface.
mic data. The approaches to the forward modelling of marine Reflectivity
seismic reflection data can be broadly divided into three princi-
Reflection coefficients: Chotiros (1994)
ple categories.
Bull et al. (1998)
• Reflectivity (or acoustic impedance): describes the interac-
tion between the seismic wavefield and impedance contrasts in Cevatoglu et al. (2015)
the subsurface. Most commonly, this is considered as a much Acoustic impedance: Panda et al. (1994)
simplified normal-incidence problem, limiting the seismic Sternlicht and Moustier (2003)
wavefield to P-waves alone and permitting the reflectivity to Guo et al. (2006)
be explicitly calculated as a reflection coefficient (e.g.,
Ker et al. (2013)
Chotiros 1994; Bull, Quinn and Dix 1998) or inverted as
reflectivity series using a computationally fast convolutional Zhang and Digby (2013)
approach (e.g., Panda et al. 1994; Ker et al. 2013; Vardy 2015). Vardy (2015)
For hydrocarbon applications, this has been expanded to mul- Vardy et al. (2015)
tiple incidence angles in the form of extended elastic imped- Wang and Stewart (2015)
ance or amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) inversion (e.g., Ma
Attenuation
2002), which derives S-wave and P-wave impedance. To date,
P-wave attenuation: Schock et al. (1989)
this has only been applied to shallow-section exploration data
(Sobreira et al. 2010) and is yet to be applied to high-resolu- Panda et al. (1994)
tion marine data. Stevenson et al. (2002)
• Intrinsic attenuation: model how the seismic wavefield loses Robb et al. (2006)
energy through viscous dissipation and heating at grain bounda- Pinson et al. (2008)
ries as it propagates through the subsurface. This is often calcu-
Morgan et al. (2012, 2014)
lated in terms of the seismic quality factor (Q), which is inversely
proportional to the attenuation (e.g., Stephenson et al. 2002; Vardy et al. (2012)
Pinson et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2012). Traditionally, this is Cevatoglu et al. (2015)
treated as a purely P-wave problem; however, there has been some Lei and Morgan (2015)
limited work on S-wave attenuation (e.g., Lei and Morgan 2015). S-wave attenuation: Lei and Morgan (2015)
• Full-waveform (FW): full propagation modelling to describe
Full-waveform
how fast the seismic wavefield propagates, how energy is
P-wave velocity: Gerstoft (1994)
reflected and mode converted between P- and S-waves at inter-
faces (including surface waves and refractions), and how Ohta et al. (2005)
energy is lost through attenuation. FW derives multi-parameter Ballard, Becker and Goff (2010)
subsurface models in terms of P- and S-wave velocities, P- and Pinson et al. (2013)
S-wave Q, and bulk density but comes at a significant compu- Toth et al. (2014, 2015)
tational cost (e.g., Holland and Dettmer 2013; Provenzano,
Aleardi et al. (2016)
Vardy and Henstock 2016). Often, due to the computational
expense of FW, it is simplified to only consider velocity, either S-wave velocity: Ayres and Theilen (1999)
inverting for (e.g., Gerstoft 1994; Aleardi, Tognarelli and Huws et al. (2000)
Mazzotti 2016) or explicitly deriving (e.g., Pinson et al. 2013; Bohlen et al. (2004)
Toth et al. 2014), which provides improved imaging and lim- Winsborrow, Huws and Muyzert (2005)
ited quantitative information. Allouche et al. (2010, 2011)
Socco et al. (2011)
When combined with qualitative structural interpretation of
seismic reflection profiles and/or 3D volumes (and increasingly Vanneste et al. (2011)
with seismic attributes), these methods allow the shallow sub- Drijkoningen et al. (2012)
surface to be interpreted in terms of: large-scale seismic facies Full waveform: Seong and Park (2001)
distribution; heterogeneity and coherency of bedding within Holland and Dettmer (2013)
facies; dip, azimuth, and grading of coherent bedding; as well as
Dosso et al. (2014)
structure and material contrast at both conformable and uncon-
formable bounding surfaces, but also velocity and/or attenuation Provenzano et al. (2016)
values. Provenzano et al. (2017)

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402

19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 391 12/07/17 09:56

 392 M.E. Vardy et al.
However, a major limitation with the quantitative methods
applied to the marine shallow subsurface is that S-waves or sur-
face waves are only rarely considered. Notable exceptions are the
multi-model surface wave inversion work of Socco et al. (2011)
and Vanneste et al. (2011) and some limited mode-converted
wave analysis (Bohlen et al. 2004; Allouche, Drijkoningen and
van der Neut 2010; Allouche et al. 2011; Drijkoningen et al.
2012). As S-waves are transmitted through the grain skeleton,
they provide a more direct link between the geotechnical and
geomechanical parameters than P-waves. In the marine environ-
ment, however, they are both harder to generate and more com-
plex to record (e.g., Huws, Davies and Pyrah 2000).
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
A major obstacle in the successful integration of geological,
geotechnical, and geophysical data is the sometimes-contradicto-
ry terminology employed. Geological and geotechnical engi-
neering analysis and interpretation are fundamentally comple-
mentary. They both make extensive use of isolated 1D direct
sampling measurements, and while geological analysis focuses
on understanding the depositional and environmental history of
the sediments, the geotechnical analysis seeks to predict how the
sediments may respond to future changes in the environment.
Geophysical data should be a highly useful bridge, enabling the
detailed geological and geotechnical analysis at multiple isolated
locations to be integrated into a robust, high-fidelity site-wide
interpretation or ground model. However, in order to do this,
from a geophysical perspective, it is necessary to derive param-
eters and/or an understanding that is of broader use than the
wavefield propagation according to acoustic impedance, P-wave
velocity, Q, etc.
Table 1 collates the geological, geotechnical, and geophysical
terminologies outlined in the previous section. Fundamentally,
all three disciplines seek to characterize the subsurface according
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 392
to basic stratigraphic principles, specifically to simplify the sub-
surface into a series of stratigraphic units described in terms of
their overall structure, the nature of the boundaries between
them, and their detailed internal architecture. By determining
which parameters are consistently important in defining the
nature of and boundaries between these stratigraphic units, we
can identify five fundamental parameterisations that could be
used to form the framework for an integrated interpretation:
1. Structure: Understand the structural relationship between
different stratigraphic units, including the nature and extent of
any in situ deformation (faulting, folding, and remoulding).
This is key in determining how the stratigraphic units were
deposited and have been deformed/reworked subsequent to
deposition.
2. Lithology: Variations in lithology both between and within
the stratigraphic units, particularly the ratio of cohesive to
granular material, and both horizontal and vertical sorting. It
provides critical information about the depositional environ-
ment and how a soil will behave under future loading.
3. Stress regime: Parameterise the relative volumes of pore
space and grain skeleton, identifying areas of overpressure
and degree of consolidation (relative to normal consolida-
tion). This is a useful proxy for rates of deposition, erosion,
and uplift and is critical in understanding how a soil will
behave under future loading.
4. Pore fluid: Quantify the nature of the fluid or fluids filling the
pore space and how this spatially varies, which is critical in
predicting how a soil will behave under loading.
5. Strength/stiffness: Geotechnical characterization of the sub-
surface critically requires the quantification of the strength
and stiffness of a soil unit, particularly under a shearing load.
Over the following sections, each of these parameters is consid-
ered in turn using a range of different example datasets
Figure 1 Location map of data
examples used. Data, labelled in
order of appearance, includes (A)
Windermere, UK; (B) British
Columbia, Canada; (C) California,
USA; (D) Finneidfjord, northern
Norway; (E) Solent, UK; (F)
Oban, UK; and (G) eastern Irish
Sea, UK.
12/07/17 09:57

(Figure 1). Where possible, the results from a range of different
seismic inversion methods are presented to outline the sensitivity
of different components of the seismic wavefield (e.g., imped-
ance, Q) to different sediment properties. This provides insights
into how the results from different seismic inversion approaches
can be combined to develop a more complete parameterisation of
the subsurface.
Structure
The use of seismic reflection data for structural imaging is widely
accepted. Figure 2 shows three examples of structural imaging at
different scales. Figure 2a illustrates spatial variation and interac-
tion of stratigraphic units on metre and decametre scales from a
glacial lake in Windermere, UK, with a sequence of glaciogenic
landforms at depth, overlain by a thick sequence of glaciolacus-
trine, in situ reworked (mass wasting), and modern lacustrine
sedimentation. Figure 2b shows a much simpler bedded stratigra-
phy from British Columbia, Canada, where pore fluids are
trapped at several stratigraphic levels (amplitude anomalies) and
the whole sequence from 380-ms two-way travel time (TWT) to
the SF is bisected vertically by a focused fluid migration pathway.
Figure 2c shows bedding characterized by fine-scale grain size
variations within a bedform sequence in California, USA.
Similar to illustrating different kinds of structure that can be
imaged using high- and ultra-high-resolution seismic reflection
data, the datasets presented in Figure 2 also demonstrate the
importance of understanding the interaction between the source
waveform and the subsurface. At the most basic level, the fre-
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 393
Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 393
Figure 2 Example seismic reflec-
tion sections from: (a)
Windermere, UK; (b) British
Columbia, Canada; and (c)
California, USA. Data from
Windermere were acquired using
a Boomer source and a short mul-
tichannel streamer and have been
pre-stack depth migrated. Data
from British Columbia were also
acquired using a Boomer source
and a short multichannel streamer
but have been pre-stack time
migrated. Data from California
were acquired using the 3D Chirp
decimetre-resolution sub-bottom
profiler and have been normal
moveout corrected and stacked
onto a 25-cm binning grid.
quency bandwidth of the waveform fundamentally controls the
detail of structure that can be quantified. Both the Windermere
and British Columbia datasets (Figure 2a and 2b) use a Boomer
source (0.5–3.0 kHz) that can resolve structure on a 20- to 50-cm
vertical scale in softer sediments, whereas the Californian dataset
(Figure 2c) was acquired using a broadband Chirp source (1.5–
13.0 kHz; Gutowski et al. 2002) that can resolve structure on the
5- to 15-cm scale. Additionally, the velocity of the subsurface
also influences the resolution, with higher velocities stretching
the wavelet and reducing the resolution. Notice the difference in
resolution between the glaciogenic landforms and the glaciola-
custrine/lacustrine stratigraphic units in the depth-imaged seis-
mic section from Windermere (Figure 2a). Furthermore, the
phase of the waveform is critically important. Airgun, Sparker,
and Boomer sources are impulsive and, therefore, are approxi-
mately minimum phase, which means that the stratigraphic
interface corresponds to the first zero-crossing, not an amplitude
peak or trough. In contrast, Chirp data are zero-phase, in which
case the stratigraphic interface does correspond to a peak or
trough in the seismic amplitude data.
In the classical work on seismic reflection response to thin
beds, Widess (1982) demonstrated the complex relationship
between two closely spaced reflective interfaces and the ampli-
tude/phase response recorded in the seismic reflection dataset. In
particular, it was demonstrated that, once the gap between the
reflective interfaces drops below the dominant wavelength (λ) of
the seismic source waveform, tuning of reflected wavelets causes
certain thin-bed thicknesses to have anomalously high and low
12/07/17 09:57
 394 M.E. Vardy et al.
amplitudes, as well as wavelet peaks, troughs, and zero-crossings
to become mislocated relative to the true reflectivity interface.
This complex interaction between the seismic waveform and the
subsurface means that, when compared against cores, boreholes,
and CPT data that sample at centimetre resolution, misinterpreta-
tion of the geophysical data at the wavelet scale can cause the
location of subsurface interfaces to mismatch by tens of centime-
tres, whereas very fine-scale structures may not be imaged at all.
Lithology
Lithology is a critical parameter for both geological and geotech-
nical applications. The grain size distribution and sorting (in both
vertical and horizontal directions) provides information about
the depositional environment, whereas differentiating between
cohesive and granular materials has major implications for the
behaviour of a soil under loading. Lithology, however, is a
parameter that traditional marine seismic reflection techniques
(i.e., using P-wave) are poorly sensitive to, as
(1)
where Vp is the P-wave velocity, K is the bulk modulus (inverse-
ly proportional to compressibility), m is the shear modulus (i.e.,
rigidity), and ρ is the bulk density.
Figure 3a and 3b plot the magnitudes of the normal incident
reflection coefficient and contrast in interval P-wave velocity for
mean grain sizes ranging from φ = 0 (c. 1.0 mm; very coarse
sand) to φ = 10 (c. 0.004 mm; clay) assuming a consistent poros-
ity. This illustrates that, while we might expect to see reflections
from subtler contrasts in grain size (a change in grain size of 1 φ
roughly equates to a reflection coefficient of 0.05), the robust
quantitative detectability of these subtler contrasts is questiona-
ble. Vardy et al. (2015) demonstrate using acoustic impedance
inversion of synthetic data that, while under excellent signal-to-
noise (S/N) conditions, it is possible to successfully invert for
reflection coefficients down to 0.025, under more realistic noise
conditions for high- and ultra-high-resolution seismic reflection
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 394
data (S/N ~ 10), a reflection coefficient of 0.05 would be
approaching the minimum that can be reliably inverted. In real-
ity, therefore, only larger contrasts in grain size associated with
sudden changes in deposition style and/or non-conformable
boundaries could be quantified with any level of confidence. The
velocity values in Figure 3b similarly suggest that it is hard to
differentiate lithologies based on velocity alone, unless large
contrasts in grain size are considered. This is best illustrated in
Figure 3c, where the interval velocities are used to calculate the
magnitude of the difference in travel time moveout for a reflec-
tion from the base of a 10-m-thick sediment layer in 40 m of
water recorded with a source–receiver offset of 50 m (i.e., offset
equal to the imaging depth). These data indicate that the differ-
ence in recorded moveout, were this layer to comprise very
coarse sand rather than clay, would be c. 1.0-ms TWT and, there-
fore, resolvable by most high- and ultra-high-resolution sources.
However, subtler differences in the grain size of this layer are
harder to resolve, with the l/2 for a typical Boomer/Sparker
waveform (c. 0.5 ms) equating to c. 4 φ.
When considering real sediments, the ability to discern subtle
changes in lithology using traditional seismic reflection tech-
niques is further complicated by changes in porosity. The major-
ity of seismic inversion techniques applied to marine near-sur-
face data consider only P-waves (see Table 2), whose propaga-
tion is controlled by bulk density and velocity, which combine
influences from the grain skeleton and the infilling pore fluid.
These bulk properties are therefore strongly influenced by small
changes in porosity, with just a 5% change in porosity, equating
to a reflection coefficient of c. 0.04 assuming no change in grain
size. Figure 4 shows example data from Finneidfjord, northern
Norway, where the derived impedance structure is the opposite
expected from the lithology, demonstrating a discrete decrease in
acoustic impedance associated with a thin sand seam. This can
be shown to correlate with excess pore pressure generated fluids
accumulating in and immediately above the sand seam, rather
than the pure lithological response of the complex interbedded
clay/sand unit (L’Heureux et al. 2012; Vardy et al. 2012; Vardy
2015).
Figure 3 Multi-panel figure illus-
trating (a) the magnitude of nor-
mal incidence reflection coeffi-
cients at an interface with a range
of difference grain size contrasts;
(b) the magnitude of the change
in interval velocity for the same
range of grain size contrasts; and
(c) the magnitude of the change
in reflector moveout at 50-m
source–receiver offset from the
base of a 10-m-thick layer of
sediment under 40 m of water.
12/07/17 09:57
 Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 395

Figure 4 Panel (a) shows an arbitrary line through a 3D Chirp seismic volume crossing two ground truth sites where long piston cores and CPT data
have been acquired. Panels (b) and (c) show the acoustic impedance and porosity measured from the Calypso 2 core (red) and predicted using the
acoustic impedance inversion (black) of Vardy (2015). Panel (d) compares these physical properties against the core lithostratigraphy, whereas panel
(e) shows trace-by-trace variation in Q calculated using the match-filtering technique of Cheng and Margrave (2012).

Lithological characterization of the subsurface is most robust-
ly achieved using either S-waves and/or Q to complement the
common P-wave measurements. Both S-wave and Q properties
are primarily sensitive to the grain skeleton rather than the skel-
eton/pore space ratio:
(2)
where Vs is the S-wave velocity and m is the shear modulus
(rigidity).
S-waves have long been known to have an increased sensi-
tivity to lithology (as well as pore pressure conditions) over
P-waves (e.g., Ayres and Theilen 1999), but quantifying S-wave
structure in the marine setting is difficult, relying on either
using complex and often unwieldy source/receiver geometries
(e.g., Vanneste et al. 2011) or estimating mode-conversion
through AVO effects as part of an FW inversion (e.g.,
Provenzano, Vardy and Henstock 2017). Q-factor, in contrast,
can be estimated using several different techniques (e.g.,
Schock et al. 1989; Stevenson, McCann and Runciman 2002;
Pinson et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2012) and has been shown
empirically to have a strongly bi-modal relationship with grain
size, in essence, differentiating between cohesive and granular
materials (Pinson et al. 2008; Vardy et al. 2012). However,
accurately quantifying Q is difficult. It can only be reliably
calculated as a property between discrete reflections (with a
minimum travel-time difference to make the attenuation resolv-
able) and often demonstrating significant trace-to-trace varia-
tion due to non-white contamination of the spectrum due to
noise and/or thin-bed tuning. Figure 4e shows Q-estimates
made for the seismic section in Figure 4a using the match-fil-
tering method of Cheng and Margrave (2012). Broadly, these
results agree with the lithology, identifying the thin bed at c.
69-ms TWT as having a significantly higher Q (>300) and
therefore implying it is clay rich (Pinson 2010).
Stress regime
The stress regime is geologically useful in understanding how
rapidly a stratigraphic unit was buried and if it has been subse-
quently uplifted or exposed (e.g., by scouring or faulting),
whereas, geotechnically, it provides insights into the stability and
in situ strength of the soils. Traditionally, the stress regime
within a fully saturated soil is considered as a balance between
the compressive loading force of the soil skeleton and the expan-
sive force of the incompressible pore water (Terzaghi 1925):
(3)
where s is the total stress (lithological loading), u is the pore
pressure, and s’ is the effective stress.
A by-product of the integrated relationship between P-wave
velocities and the pore space is a sensitivity to the modern in situ
stress regime. Figure 5a shows a section of multichannel Boomer
seismic reflection data from Solent, UK. Velocity analysis of
these data identifies a very high-velocity (c. 1900 m/s) surface
layer consistent with a laterally extensive stratigraphic unit with
a chaotic internal architecture, underlain by a sequence of dip-
ping beds with medium-to-high velocities (1700–1750 m/s) for
such shallowly buried sediments. Empirical relationships
between P-wave velocity and lithology (e.g., Hamilton and
Bachman 1982; Richardson and Briggs 1993) would suggest the
surface layer consists of gravels, whereas the dipping beds con-

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402

19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 395 12/07/17 09:57

 396 M.E. Vardy et al.
sist of coarse sands. While a coincident borehole confirms the
chaotic surface layer as being modern alluvial gravels, the dip-
ping beds are over-consolidated Tertiary siltstones and mud-
stones (Figure 5b). Estimation of Q from the seismic reflection
data derives a bulk value of 147 for the dipping beds, which is
consistent with the silt and clay lithology (i.e., cohesive; Pinson
et al. 2008) and therefore demonstrates the usefulness of com-
bining velocity and attenuation analysis for identifying over-
consolidated stratigraphic units.
With the application of more advanced inversion strategies
that derive porosity and density information, the in situ stress
regime can be quantitatively estimated. If it is assumed that the
stress regime is dominated by vertical loading, then the vertical
component of the total (sv) and effective (s’v) stresses can be
calculated by integrating the densities:
(4)
(5)
where g is the gravitational loading and ρg is the grain density.
Vardy et al. (2015) demonstrated the application of this tech-
nique to the Finneidfjord dataset shown in Figure 4. The top
10 m of subsurface was characterized as being under-consolidat-
ed (probably due to a combination of rapid deposition and high
clay content; therefore, low permeability), with a concentrated
thin bed of excess pore pressure associated with the complex
clay/sand bed at c. 3.5-m depth (Fig 4). This demonstrated good
agreement with local CPT data. In Figure 5c, we apply the same
technique to the Solent data, identifying the over-consolidated
nature (i.e., pore pressure less than hydrostatic) of the dipping
siltstone and mudstone layers. Alternatively, similar results can
be obtained using burial models constrained by the seismic data
(e.g., Marin-Moreno, Minshull and Edwards 2013).
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 396
Figure 5 Panel (a) shows a sec-
tion of Boomer multichannel data
from Solent, UK, overlain with
the interval velocity model used
to perform pre-stack depth imag-
ing and the location of a rotary
borehole. Panel (b) shows the
lithological log for the top 15 m
of the borehole, identifying a
gravel layer at the seabed, overly-
ing a sequence of interbedded
siltstones and mudstones, with
occasional shelly layers. Panel (c)
shows the vertical component of
the pore pressure estimated using
the same methodology as Vardy
et al. (2015).
Pore fluids
Quantitatively differentiating between different pore fluids (and
their in situ pressure) is critical to a wide range of geological and
geotechnical applications, such as mapping methane hydrates,
foundation design, drilling hazard assessment (shallow water
flows or shallow gas accumulations), organic carbon cycling/
burial, and anthropogenic carbon sequestration. Shallow gas, in
particular, is hugely important, and therefore quantifying the in
situ gas saturation has received a significant amount of research
interest using a variety of different techniques, including vertical
seismic profiling (e.g., Holbrook et al. 1996), P-wave seismic
reflection coefficients (e.g., Cevatoglu et al. 2015) and interval
velocities (e.g., Leighton and Robb 2008; Toth et al. 2014, 2015;
Vardy et al. 2015), P-wave attenuation measurements (e.g.,
Morgan et al. 2012, 2014; Cevatoglu et al. 2015), P- and S-wave
attenuations (e.g., Lei and Morgan 2015), changes in Poisson’s
ratio from FW inversion (Provenzano et al. 2016), and a variety
of downhole logging tools (e.g., Lu and McMechan 2002; Lee
2004).
Figure 6 shows two examples of these techniques. Figure 6a
and 6b shows a Chirp seismic reflection section from the latter
stages of a time-lapse controlled CO2 release experiment
(Blackford et al. 2014; Cevatoglu et al. 2015; Lichtschlag et al.
2015) where the vertical migration of CO2 injected into the bot-
tom of the soft sediments can be traced. Polarity reversals, high-
amplitude reflections, and attenuation anomalies (amplitude
loss, blanking, and frequency distortion) can be observed at a
variety of stratigraphic levels, including at the SF. These can be
quantified using reflection coefficients calculated for the SF and
reflector H2, as well as Q between the SF and H2 (Figure 5b;
Cevatoglu et al. 2015). Figure 6c shows a section of pre-stack
time-migrated Sparker multichannel data from Finneidfjord,
Norway, overlain by gas saturation estimates derived from
inverted interval velocity changes using the Wood’s equation
12/07/17 09:57
 Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 397

(Leighton and Robb 2008; Vardy et al. 2015), whereas Figure 6d
shows Poisson’s ratio curves for inside and outside the gas front
derived using an FW inversion (Provenzano et al. 2016). The
Poisson’s ratio change is a particularly intuitive gas indicator as
the decrease from 0.485 to 0.470 (which is significant) reflects
the increased sensitivity of P-waves to small gas saturations
through increased compressibility.
The limitation of all of these techniques is that they initially
quantify the gas in terms of the acoustic and/or elastic signature,
which requires relating to a gas saturation using a rock physical
model. There are a large number of published rock physical
models for gassy sediments (e.g., Hamilton 1972; White 1975;
Mavko and Nur 1979; Winkler and Nur 1979; Carcione and
Picotti 2006; Rossi et al. 2007), many of which require a large
number of parameters (e.g., porosity, permeability, grain bulk
and shear moduli, grain density, temperature, and pressure) that
cannot be easily constrained. This is particularly true at the fre-
quencies used for high- and ultra-high-resolution seismic reflec-
tion profiling (broadly, 0.4–20.0 kHz), where the seismic wave-
lengths (3.750–0.075 m at 1500 m/s) are approaching the same
scale as the gas inclusions and therefore the topology and distri-
bution of the inclusions become important (e.g., Hart and
Hamilton 1993; Mathys et al. 2005). Bubble resonance, for
example, can lead to a significant underestimate of the gas satu-
ration due to a reduction in the apparent velocity change of the
gassy sediments (e.g., Toth et al. 2015). However, if geophysical
measurements can be made across a broad-enough bandwidth,
this frequency-dependent response can be highly diagnostic
(Marin-Moreno, Sahoo and Best 2017).
Strength and stiffness
While the strength and/or stiffness of a soil can be geologically
interesting in understanding the depositional history of a strati-
graphic unit (such as levels of ice loading), for geotechnical
applications, it is a fundamental component to a huge range of
applications, from foundation design to predicting trenching
resistance during cable/pipeline laying. When more advanced
inversion techniques are used and S-wave velocity is derived,
this offers a direct dependence on various basic geotechnical
strength/stiffness parameters (e.g., undrained shear strength and
plasticity index) through the shear modulus. Although there are
no published soil mechanical relationships, there are numerous
empirically derived relationships based on terrestrial studies
(e.g., L’Heureux and Long 2016) and some with marine sedi-
ments (Ayres and Theilen 1999).
However, as previously discussed, S-wave measurements of
the marine near-surface data are rare (see Table 2). Even when
an acquisition geometry/method is used whereby S-wave veloc-
ities can be derived, the uncertainties compared to P-wave
velocities are often very high (Provenzano et al. 2017).

Figure 6 Panel (a) shows a single-channel Chirp profile from a time-lapse-monitored and controlled CO2 release experiment study in Oban, UK, where
a range of gas accumulation and migration features can be observed. Red circle indicates the location of gas injection. Panel (b) shows reflection coef-
ficients calculated for the SF and reflection H2. Panel (c) shows a section of pre-stack time-migrated Boomer multichannel data from Finneidfjord,
Norway, overlain by gas saturation estimates made using inverted interval velocities and Wood’s equation. Panel (d) compares Poisson’s ratio estimates
made inside (red) and outside (black) the gas front using FW inversion (after, Provenzano et al. 2016).

© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402

19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 397 12/07/17 09:57

 398 M.E. Vardy et al.
While P-wave properties such as P-wave velocity and imped-
ance can be expected to demonstrate some relationship to the
soil strength/stiffness, it will be a much more complex one that
is both site-specific and, in all likelihood, facies-specific.
Nauroy et al. (1998) attempted to derive such a relationship by
cross-plotting P-wave velocity and impedance with CPT tip
resistance (qt). These results show a lot of scatter (probably a
reflection of facies dependence) but do demonstrate enough of
a relationship between the geophysical and geotechnical param-
eters to warrant continued interest.
Figure 7 cross-plots a range of geophysical parameters
against qt using single-channel Boomer data from Walney, UK.
To produce the cross-plots, seismic trace data coincident with a
CPT test location (Figure 7a) have been inverted for acoustic
impedance using the genetic algorithm inversion of Vardy (2015)
and the resulting impedance model used to derive a high-resolu-
tion interval velocity model to convert all the geophysical data
(impedance and trace amplitudes) from travel time to depth
below SF. Figure 7b plots the acoustic impedance (colour coded
by seismic facies) against qt. These results demonstrate enough
coherency to support a relationship between soil strength/stiff-
ness and acoustic impedance, but that this can be different for
different stratigraphic units (notably, facies 5 is markedly dis-
tinct): and the change in the acoustic properties of the soils
between difference facies is much less pronounced than the
changes in qt, with significantly less facies segregation on the
Y-axis of Figure 7b compared to the X-axis (notably, facies 3).
Any mechanism to derive a relationship between the P-wave
response and geotechnical measurements (such as qt) therefore
needs to be capable of handling a complex multi-parameter
dependence on acoustic property, facies, and geolocation.
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 398
Figure 7 Panel (a) shows a short
section of single-channel Boomer
seismic reflection data from
Walney, UK, that intersects a CPT
location. Panel (b) cross-plots the
CPT measured tip resistance (qt)
against the acoustic impedance
inverted using the Vardy (2015)
algorithm. Panels (c) and (d) com-
pare the CPT measured qt against
qt values predicted using an ANN.
Figures 7c and 7d present the results from using an artificial
neural network (ANN) to perform multi-attribute regression and
predict CPT measurements from a range of geophysical inputs.
Figure 7c cross-plots the measured qt versus the qt predicted by
the ANN, showing strong clustering of the data around the 1:1
line of perfect fit. Figure 7d compares the measured qt (red line)
and predicted qt for the CPT profile location indicated on Figure
7a. Broadly, these data demonstrate an excellent agreement in
both metre- and sub-metre-scale structures and therefore present
one possible solution for deriving soil strength/stiffness informa-
tion from P-wave seismic reflection data.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In reviewing the published literature regarding quantitative char-
acterization of the marine shallow subsurface, we have demon-
strated that a large range of different techniques have success-
fully been applied to derive various parameters, including imped-
ance, velocity, Q, bulk density, and Poisson’s ratio. By collating
specific examples from a range of different sites in different
environments and acquired using different sources and source/
receiver arrays, we have explored the practical limitations of
what can and cannot be derived from high- and ultra-high-reso-
lution geophysical data in terms of five key subsurface parame-
terisations.
• Lithological characterization of the shallow subsurface is dif-
ficult using seismic reflection data, which commonly only
records the P-wave response. Where Q-estimation can be per-
formed, it is possible to broadly distinguish between granular
and cohesive materials, but more detailed lithological informa-
tion can only reliably be derived using the S-wave response of
the sediments.
12/07/17 09:57

• P-wave seismic reflection data, however, demonstrate high
sensitivity to variations in porosity, making both qualitative
(using velocity and Q) and/or quantitative (using bulk density
and porosity) analysis of the in situ stress regime possible.
• Numerous examples have shown that seismic reflection data
are highly sensitive to the nature of the pore fluids and will
demonstrate noticeably anomalous amplitude responses even
in the presence of small quantities of free gas. A number of
different inversion schemes (velocity, Q, and FW) have been
used to derive estimates for the in situ gas saturation, produc-
ing sensible numbers. However, due to a lack of reliable
ground truth, it is difficult to comment on the accuracy of these
methods beyond their self-consistency.
• Several methods have been shown that offer the potential for
deriving geotechnical strength/stiffness parameters such as
plasticity and undrained shear strength. Where S-wave data
can be derived, there are existing empirical relationships,
whereas it has been shown that computationally advanced
multi-attribute regression techniques can be used to predict
CPT measurements based on P-wave velocity information on
a site- and facies-specific basis.
Based on these results, we identify four research questions/ave-
nues critical to developing a better integration between geologi-
cal, geotechnical, and geophysical site characterizations.
i. Soil mechanical models: Currently, the derivation of subsur-
face parameters from marine geophysical data involves a
two-stage process inversion of the geophysical data in terms
of seismic wavefield properties (e.g., impedance, velocity,
density, and Q), followed by the calculation of more useful
sediment properties (e.g., lithology, effective stress, and und-
rained shear strength), often using empirically derived rela-
tionships. Fundamentally, there is a limit as to how far
empirical relationships, be they globally or site specifically
derived, can be trusted to be reliable, and there is therefore a
need to develop a better physical understanding of the rela-
tionships between a range of seismic wavefield and sediment
properties. This is particularly true for quantifying gas satura-
tion, where better calibrated soil mechanical models would
significantly aid application.
ii. Single-stage inversion: The development of improved soil
mechanical models could also offer the possibility of reduc-
ing the current two-stage inversion process to a single inver-
sion explicitly cast in terms of the most useful sediment
properties (e.g., lithology, effective stress, and undrained
shear strength). Holland and Dettmer (2013) demonstrate the
potential of this approach using the current Biot and viscous
grain shearing models, but there is still significant scope for
improvement.
iii. Property envelopes: Historically, the majority of quantitative
geophysical characterization of the marine shallow subsur-
face has been on either explicitly calculating (e.g., Q and/or
reflection coefficients) or inverting for (e.g., impedance) the
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 399
Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 399
specific, “true” value of a property. Realistically, due to the
complexity of the problems being solved (often being severe-
ly under-parameterised) and the significant noise contamina-
tion of high- and ultra-high-resolution geophysical data, it
will perhaps never be possible to derive the “true” in situ
value for the desired property. It is therefore more pragmatic
to develop and apply a more thorough parameter sensitivity
analysis to quantify realistic errors/confidence limits on
derived parameters, which is also precisely the kind of sub-
surface parameterisation of most use to geologists and geo-
technical engineers.
iv. S-wave characterization: S-waves offer a more direct route
into quantifying both the lithology and also the fundamental
geotechnical properties such as undrained shear strength.
However, the challenges in reliably generating and recording
S-waves in the shallow marine environment mean they are
currently underused and therefore offer significant potential
for improvement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Kerry Campbell, Ranajit Ghose and an
anonymous reviewer for their useful comments, which greatly
improved the quality of the manuscript. The field data presented
was processed using a combination of Landmark’s ProMAX
software and Seismic Unix, while the inversion results used
custom-written algorithms. Clare was supported by the NERC
Environmental Risks to Infrastructure Innovation Programme
(NE/N012798/1).
REFERENCES
Aleardi M., Tognarelli A. and Mazzotti A. 2016. Characterisation of shal-
low marine sediments using high-resolution velocity analysis and
genetic algorithm-driven 1D elastic full-waveform inversion. Near
Surface Geophysics 14(5), 449–460.
Allouche N., Drijkoningen G.G. and van der Neut J. 2010. Methodology
for dense spatial sampling of multicomponent recording of converted
waves in shallow marine environments. Geophysics 75(6), WB29–
WB37.
Allouche N., Drijkoningen G.G., Versteeg R. and Ghose R. 2011.
Converted waves in a shallow marine environment: experimental and
modeling studies, Geophysics, 76(1), P.T1-T11.
Ayres A. and Theilen F. 1999. Relationship between P- and S-wave
velocities and geological properties of near-surface sediments of the
continental slope of the Barents Sea. Geophysical Prospecting 47,
431–441.
Ballard M., Becker K.M. and Goff J.A. 2010. Geoacoustic inversion for
the New Jersey shelf: 3D sediment model. IEEE Journal of Oceanic
Engineering 35(1), 28–42.
Bell M. and Walker M.J. 2005. Late Quaternary Environmental Change:
Physical and Human Perspectives. Pearson Education.
Blackford J., Stahl H., Bull J.M., Berges B.J.P., Cevatoglu M., Lichtschlag
A. et al. 2014. Detection and impacts of leakage from sub-seafloor
deep geological carbon dioxide storage. Nature Climate Change 4,
1011–1016.
Bohlen T., Kugler S., Klein G. and Theilen F. 2004. 1.5D inversion of
lateral variation of Scholte-wave dispersion. Geophysics 69(2), 330–
344.
12/07/17 09:57
 400 M.E. Vardy et al.
Bosch M., Mukerji T. and Gonzalez E. 2010. Seismic inversion for res-
ervoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics:
a review. Geophysics 75, A165–A176.
Bull J.M., Quinn R. and Dix J.K. 1998. Reflection coefficient calculation
from marine high resolution seismic reflection (Chirp) data and appli-
cation to an archaeological case study. Marine Geophysical Researches
20, 1–11.
Campbell K.J. 1984. Predicting offshore soil conditions. Proceedings -
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC Paper 4692, pp.
391–398.
Carcione J.M. and Picotti S. 2006. P-wave seismic attenuation by slow-
wave diffusion: effects of inhomogeneous rock properties. Geophysics
71, O1–O8.
Cevatoglu M., Bull J.M., Vardy M.E., Gernon T.M., Wright I.C. and
Long D. 2015. Gas migration pathways, controlling mechanisms and
changes in acoustic properties observed in a controlled sub-seabed
CO2 release experiment. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 38, 26–43.
Cheng P. and Margrave G.F. 2012. A match-filter method for Q-estimation.
2012 SEG annual meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
Chotiros N.P. 1994. Reflection and reverberation in normal incidence
echo-sounding. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
96(5), 2921–2929.
Clare M.A., Talling P.J., Challenor P., Malgesini G. and Hunt J. 2014.
Distal turbidites reveal a common distribution for large (>0.1 km3)
submarine landslide recurrence. Geology 42(3), 263.
Clayton C. 2011. Stiffness at small strain: research and practice.
Géotechnique 61(1), 5–37.
Clayton C.R.I., Hight D.W. and Hopper R.J. 1992. Progressive destruc-
turing of Bothkennar clay: implications for sampling and reconsolida-
tion procedures. Géotechnique 42(2), 219–239.
Dosso S.E., Dettmer J., Steininger G. and Holland C.W. 2014. Efficient
trans-dimensional Bayesian inversion for geoacoustic profile estima-
tion. Inverse Problems 30.
Drijkoningen G.G., el Allouche N., Thorbecke J. and Bada G. 2012.
Nongeometrically converted shear waves in marine streamer data.
Geophysics 77(6), P45–P56.
Evans T. 2011. A systematic approach to offshore engineering for multi-
ple-project developments in geohazardous areas. In: Frontiers in
Offshore Geotechnics II (ed D. White), pp. 3–32. CRC Press.
Gardner W.D., Richardson M.J. and Cacchione D.A. 1989.
Sedimentological effects of strong southward flow in the Straits of
Florida. Marine Geology 86, 155–180.
Gerstoft P. 1994. Inversion of seismoacoustic data using genetic algo-
rithms and a posteriori probability distributions. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 95(2), 770–782.
Guo Y.-G., Li F.-H., Liu J.-J. and Li Z.-L. 2006. Time-domain geoacous-
tic inversion based on normal incidence reflection from layered sedi-
ment. Chinese Physics Letters 23(9), 2483–2486.
Gutowski M., Bull J., Henstock T., Dix J., Hogarth P., Leighton T. et al.
2002. Chirp sub-bottom profiler source signature design and field test-
ing. Marine Geophysical Researches 23, 481–492.
Hamilton E.L. 1972. Compressional-wave attenuation in marine sedi-
ments. Geophysics 37, 620–646.
Hamilton E.L. and Bachman R.T. 1982. Sound velocity and related prop-
erties of marine sediments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 72, 1891–1904.
Hart B.S. and Hamilton T.S. 1993. High resolution acoustic mapping of
shallow gas in unconsolidated sediments beneath the Strait of Georgia,
British Columbia. Geo-Marine Letters 13, 49–55.
Hilton R.G., Galy A., Hovius N., Horng M.J. and Chen H. 2011. Efficient
transport of fossil organic carbon to the ocean by steep mountain rivers:
an orogenic carbon sequestration mechanism. Geology 39(1), 71–74.
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 400
Holbrook W.S., Hoskins H., Wood W.T., Stephen R.A. and Lizarralde D.
1996. Methane hydrate and free gas on the Blake Ridge from vertical
seismic profiling. Science 273, 1840–1843.
Holland C. and Dettmer J. 2013. In situ sediment dispersion estimates in
the presence of discrete layers and gradients. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 133, 50–63.
Huws D.G., Davies A.M. and Pyrah J.R. 2000. A nondestructive tech-
nique for predicting the in situ void ratio for marine sediments. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology 18(4), 333–346.
Ker S., Gonidec Y.L. and Gilbert D. 2013. Multiresolution seismic
data fusion with a generalized wavelet-based method to derive sub-
seabed acoustic properties. Geophysical Journal International 195,
1370.
L’Heureux J.-S. and Long M. 2016. Correlations between shear wave
velocity and geotechnical parameters in Norwegian clays. In:
Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Reykjavik,
Iceland.
L’Heureux J.-S., Longva O., Steiner A., Hansen L., Vardy M., Vanneste
M. et al. 2012. Identification of weak layers and their role for the
stability of slopes at Finneidfjord, northern Norway. In: Submarine
Mass Movements and Their Consequences, Advances in Natural and
Technological Hazards Research, Vol. 31, pp. 321–330. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer.
Lee M.W. 2004. Elastic velocities of partially gas-saturated unconsoli-
dated sediments. Marine and Petroleum Geology 21, 641–650.
Lei X. and Morgan E.C. 2015. Characterization of gas-charged sedi-
ments from joint inversion of Qp and Qs. Proceedings of the SEG
Annual Meeting, 2765–2770.
Leighton T. and Robb G. 2008. Preliminary mapping of void fractions
and sound speeds in gassy marine sediments from subbottom profiles.
JASA Express Letters 124(5), EL313–EL320.
Lichtschlag A., James R.H., Stahl H. and Connelly D. 2015. Effect of a
controlled sub-seabed release of CO2 on the biogeochemistry of shal-
low marine sediments, their pore waters, and the overlying water col-
umn. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 38, 80–92.
Lunne T. 2012. The Fourth James K. Mitchell Lecture: The CPT in off-
shore soil investigations - a historic perspective. Geomechanics and
Geoengineering 7(2), 75–101.
Lu S.M. and McMechan G.A. 2002. Estimation of gas hydrate and free
gas saturation, concentration, and distribution from seismic data.
Geophysics 67, 582–593.
Ma X.-Q. 2002. Simultaneous inversion of prestack seismic data for rock
properties using simulated annealing. Geophysics 67(6), 1877–1885.
Mallick S. 2001. Prestack waveform inversion using a genetic algorithm
- The present and the future. CSEG Recorder 26(6), 78–84.
Marin-Moreno H., Minshull T.A. and Edwards R.A. 2013. Inverse mod-
elling and seismic data constraints on overpressure generation by
disequilibrium compaction and aquathermal pressuring: application to
the Eastern Black Sea Basin. Geophysical Journal International 194,
814–833.
Marin-Moreno H., Sahoo S.K. and Best A.J. 2017. Theoretical modelling
insights into elastic wave attenuation mechanisms in marine sediments
with pore-filling methane hydrate. Journal Geophysical Research,
Solid Earth, 122, 1835–1847, doi:10.1002/2016JB013577.
Masson D.G., Wynn R.B. and Talling P.J. 2010. Large landslides on pas-
sive continental margins: processes, hypotheses and outstanding ques-
tions. In: Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences, pp.
153–165. Springer Netherlands.
Mathys M., Thiessen O., Theilen F. and Schmidt M. 2005. Seismic char-
acterisation of gas-rich near surface sediments in the Arkona Basin,
Baltic Sea. Marine Geophysical Researches 26, 207–224.
Mavko G.M. and Nur A. 1979. Wave attenuation in partially saturated
rocks. Geophysics 44, 161–178.
12/07/17 09:57

Mayall M., Jones E. and Casey M. 2006. Turbidite channel reservoirs—
Key elements in facies prediction and effective development. Marine
and Petroleum Geology 23(8), 821–841.
Morgan E., Vanneste M., Lecomte I., Baise L., Longva O. and McAdoo
B. 2012. Estimation of free gas saturation from seismic reflection
surveys by the genetic algorithm inversion of a P-wave attenuation
model. Geophysics 77(4), R175–R187.
Morgan E., Vanneste M. and Vardy M.E. 2014. Characterisation of the
slope destabilizing effects of gas charged sediments via seismic
surveys. Offshore Technology Conference, 14OTC-P-963-OTC.
Nauroy J.-F., Dubois J.-C., Colliat J.-L., Kervadec J.-P. and Meunier J.
1998. The GEOSIS Method for Integrating VHR Seismic and
Geotechnical Data in Offshore Site Investigations. Offshore Site
Investigation and Foundation Behaviour - New Frontiers:
Proceedings of an International Conference, pp. 175–198.
Ohta K., Okabe K., Morishita I., Ozaki S. and Frisk G.V. 2005.
Inversion for seabed geoacoustic properties in shallow water experi-
ments. Acoustical Science and Technology 26(4), 326–337.
Panda S., LeBlanc L. and Schock S. 1994. Sediment classification
based on impedance and attenuation estimation. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 96(5), 3022–3035.
Pinson L. 2010. Derivation of acoustic and physical properties from
high-resolution seismic reflection data. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Southampton, UK.
Pinson L., Henstock T., Dix J. and Bull J. 2008. Estimating quality fac-
tor and mean grain size of sediments from high-resolution marine
seismic data. Geophysics 73(4), G19–G28.
Pinson L., Vardy M., Dix J., Henstock T., Bull J. and Maclachlan S.
2013. Deglacial history of glacial lake Windermere, UK: implica-
tions for the central British and Irish Ice Sheet. Journal of
Quaternary Science 28(1), 83–94.
Power P., Clare M., Rushton D. and Rattley M. 2011. Reducing geo-
risks for offshore developments. In: Geotechnical Safety and Risk
(eds N. Vogt, B. Schuppener, D. Straub and G. Bräu), pp. 217–224:
3rd International Symposium on Geotechnical Risk and Safety.
Bundesanstalt fur Wasserbau.
Priest J., Druce M., Roberts J., Schultheiss P., Nakatsuka Y. and Suzuki
K. 2015. PCATS Triaxial: a new geotechnical apparatus for charac-
terizing pressure cores from the Nankai Trough, Japan. Marine and
Petroleum Geology 66(2), 460– 470.
Provenzano G., Vardy M.E. and Henstock T.J. 2016. Pre-stack wave-
form inversion of VHF marine seismic reflection data – A case study
in Norway. Near Surface Geoscience 2016 – Second Applied
Shallow Marine Geophysics Conference.
Provenzano G., Vardy M.E. and Henstock T.J. 2017. Pre-stack full
waveform inversion of ultra-high-frequency marine seismic reflec-
tion data. Geophysical Journal International 209, 1593–1611..
Richardson M.D. and Briggs K.B. 1993. On the use of acoustic imped-
ance values to determine sediment properties. Proceedings of the
Institute of Acoustics 15(2), 15–24.
Robb G.B.N., Best A.I., Dix J.K., Bull J.M., Leighton T.G. and White
P.R. 2006. The frequency dependence of compressional wave veloc-
ity and attenuation coefficient of intertidal marine sediments. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(5), 2526–
2537.
Rossi G., Gei D., Böhm G., Madrussani G. and Carcione J.M. 2007.
Attenuation tomography: an application to gas-hydrate and free-gas
detection. Geophysical Prospecting 55, 655–669.
Rothwell R.G. and Rack F.R. 2006. New techniques in sediment core
analysis: an introduction. Geological Society of London Special
Publications 267(1), 1–29.
Sadler P.M. 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness
of stratigraphic sections. The Journal of Geology 569–584.
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 401
Remote characterization of shallow marine sediments 401
Schock S., LeBlanc L. and Mayer L. 1989. Chirp subbottom profiler for
quantitative sediment analysis. Geophysics 54(4), 445–450.
Scourse J.D., Haapaniemi A.I., Colmenero-Hidalgo E., Peck V.L., Hall
I.R., Austin W.E. et al. 2009. Growth, dynamics and deglaciation of
the last British-Irish ice sheet: the deep-sea ice-rafted detritus record.
Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 3066–3084.
Seong W. and Park C. 2001. Geoacoustic inversion via genetic algorithm
and its application to manganese sediment identification. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology 19(1), 37–51.
Sobreira J.F.F., Lipski M., Carvalho L.A. and Marquez E. 2010.
Geotechnical characterization based on seismic data approaches
applied in Campos Basin, southeastern Brazilian Margin. The Leading
Edge 29(7), 842–846.
Socco V.L., Boiero D., Maraschini M., Vanneste M., Madshus C.,
Westerdahl H. et al. 2011. On the use of the Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute’s prototype seabed-coupled shear wave vibrator for shallow
soil characterization –II. Joint inversion of multimodal Love and
Scholte waves. Geophysical Journal International 185,
237–252.
Solheim A., Bryn P., Sejrup H.P. and Berg K. 2005. Ormen Lange—an
integrated study for the safe development of a deep-water gas field
within the Storegga Slide Complex, NE Atlantic continental margin;
executive summary. Marine and Petroleum Geology 22, 1–9.
Sternlicht D.D. and de Moustier C.P. 2003. Remote sensing of sediment
characteristics by optimized echo-envelope matching. The Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America 114(5), 2727–2743.
Stevenson I., McCann C. and Runciman P. 2002. An attenuation-based
sediment classification technique using Chirp sub-bottom profiler data
and laboratory acoustic analysis. Marine Geophysical Researches 23,
277–298.
Stoker M., Bradwell T., Howe J., Wilkinson I. and McIntyre K. 2009.
Lateglacial ice-cap dynamics in NW Scotland: evidence from the
fjords of the Summer Isles region. Quaternary Science Reviews 28,
3161–3184.
Stoker M. and Bradwell T. 2009. Neotectonic deformation in a Scottish
fjord, Loch Broom, NW Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology 45(2),
107–116.
Stow D.A. 2005. Sedimentary Rocks in the Field: A Color Guide. Gulf
Professional Publishing.
Terzaghi K. 1925. Principles of soil mechanics. Engineering News-
Record 95, 19–27.
Terzaghi K. 1936. Simple tests determine hydrostatic uplift. Engineering
News-Record 116(25), 872–875.
Toth Z., Spiess V., Mogollon J.M. and Jensen J.B. 2014. Estimating the
free gas content in Baltic Sea sediments using compressional wave
velocity from marine seismic data. Journal of Geophysics: Solid
Earth.
Toth Z., Spiess V. and Kiell H. 2015. Frequency dependence in seismoa-
coustic imaging of shallow free gas due to gas bubble resonance.
Journal of Geophysics: Solid Earth.
Tucker M.E. 2003. Sedimentary Rocks in the Field. John Wiley & Sons.
Vanneste M., Madshus C., Socco V.L., Maraschini M., Sparrevik H.,
Westerdahl K. et al. 2011. On the use of the Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute’s prototype seabed-coupled shear wave vibrator for shal-
low soil characterization –I. Acquisition and processing of multi-
modal surface waves. Geophysical Journal International 185,
221–236.
Vanneste M., L’Heureux J.-S., Brendryen J., Baeten N., Larberg J., Vardy
M. et al. 2012. Assessing offshore geohazards: a multi-disciplinary
research initiative to understand shallow landslides and their dynamics
in coastal and deepwater environments, Norway. In: Submarine Mass
Movements and Their Consequences, Advances in Natural and
Technological Hazards Research, Vol. 31 (eds Y. Yamada, K.
12/07/17 09:57
 402 M.E. Vardy et al.
Kawamura, K. Ikehara, Y. Ogawa, R. Urgeles, D. Mosher et al.), pp.
29–41. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Vanneste M., Sultan N., Garziglia S., Forsberg C.F. and L’Heureux J.-S.
2014. Seafloor instabilities and sediment deformation processes: The
need for integrated, multi-disciplinary investigations, Marine Geology
352, p. 183–214.
Vanneste M., Forsberg C., Knudsen S., Kvalstad T., L’Heureux J.-S.,
Lunne T. et al. 2015. Integration of very high-resolution seismic and
CPTU data from a coastal area affected by shallow landsliding–the
Finneidfjord natural laboratory. Proceedings of the Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC-TC-P-686.
Vardy M. 2015. Deriving shallow-water sediment properties using post-
stack acoustic impedance inversion. Near Surface Geophysics 13(2),
143–154.
Vardy M., L’Heureux J.-S., Vanneste M., Longva O., Steiner A., Forsberg
C. et al. 2012. Multidisciplinary investigation of a shallow near-shore
landslide, Finneidfjord, Norway. Near Surface Geophysics 10, 267–277.
Vardy M., Vanneste M., Henstock T., Morgan E. and Pinson L. 2015. Can
high-resolution marine geophysical data be inverted for soil proper-
ties? Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 37(1), 149–156.
www.earthdoc.org Over 63,000 papers are now available online!
EDC17 V2H.indd 3
© 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2017, 15, 387-402
19693-NSG17 August BOOK.indb 402
View publication stats
Wagner C., Gonzalez A., Agarwal V., Koesoemadinata A., Ng D., Trares
S. et al. 2012. Quantitative application of poststack acoustic imped-
ance inversion to subsalt reservoir development. The Leading Edge
31(5), 528– 537.
Wang J. and Stewart R. 2015. Inferring marine sediment type using Chirp
sonar data: Atlantis field, Gulf of Mexico. Proceedings of the SEG
Annual Meeting, 2385–2390.
White J. 1975. Computed seismic speeds and attenuation in rocks with
partial gas saturation. Geophysics 40, 224–232.
Widess M.B. 1982. Quantifying the resolving power of seismic systems.
Geophysics 47(8), 1160–1173.
Winkler K. and Nur A. 1979. Pore fluids and seismic attenuation in
rocks. Geophysical Research Letters 6, 1–4.
Winsborrow G., Huws D.G. and Muyzert E. 2005. The estimation of
shear-wave statics using in situ measurements in marine near-surface
sediments. Geophysical Prospecting 53, 557–577.
Zhang A. and Digby A. 2013. Analysis of amplitude, reflection strength,
and acoustic impedance of AUV sub-bottom profiles with application
to deepwater near-surface sediments. Proceedings of the Annual
Offshore Technology Conference OTC-23978.
Knowledge
empowers
you
12/07/17 09:54
12/07/17 09:57